Sunday a.m. things

by Adam J. Morris on Jan 4, 2009 9:14 AM CST Comment 51 comments

Another slow news day.

Jim Reeves has his general notes column today, that includes several Rangers items. John Blake is listening to demo tapes, searching for Victor Rojas's replacement, and Nolan Ryan and Eric Nadel are expected to have input as well. Reeves also says Derrick Turnbow will be a big test for Mike Maddux, and discusses Jamey Newberg's top 72 prospect list as well.

And Tim Cowlishaw's top 12 performers for 2008 includes two Rangers and two Ranger prospects.

That's about it.

0 recs | Comment 51 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Newberg

I’m glad to see Newberg get some recognition in the mainstream press for all the good work he is doing.

by Excel Hearts Choi on Jan 4, 2009 9:38 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

I know Cowlishaw mentioned it

but as talented as Ribeiro is, Brad Richards is the Stars most consistently good center. I think he should have been 12.

Gerald Laird: One Man, 5 Scoops.

by Maximilian on Jan 4, 2009 12:36 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

You're right

but I think he gave it to Ribeiro for last season/playoffs, when Ribeiro was definitely better than Richards.

by Brett Perryman on Jan 4, 2009 1:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

not a hockey fan

thus all I can say is I was really surprised when I read “in the playoffs” in that article.. all I had heard was what a disaster they were.

the preceding post was a great success.

by DSheppard on Jan 4, 2009 4:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

the stars?

a ‘disaster’ last year?

Stability is key, and JD is a Beast.
Jindal - 2012

by Longhorn on Jan 4, 2009 5:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Huh

The phrase I was referring to:

“After a great playoff run, Turco had an awful start. But his 6-1-1 record since Dec. 12 means the Stars are on their way to the playoffs again.”

Thats talking about this year right? Although looking at the standing they are in last in their division.
Im confused.

the preceding post was a great success.

by DSheppard on Jan 4, 2009 6:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

2008, yes

Stars had a good year and went deep in the playoffs.

Stability is key, and JD is a Beast.
Jindal - 2012

by Longhorn on Jan 4, 2009 6:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

rather Im mistaken about something or not

i never intended to suggest they were bad last year. i watched several of the playoff games.

the preceding post was a great success.

by DSheppard on Jan 4, 2009 6:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The Stars were a disaster in the playoffs

Who did you hear that from?

I think the Stars have gotten the furthest in the playoffs of any of the four big Dallas sporting teams in the past 2 and a half years…

by jonthefon on Jan 4, 2009 5:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe you're thinking of the earlier part of the season

They fired their GM while they were around .500 early in the season, but they went to game six of the conference finals (that’s two playoff series wins). Would the Rangers’ season be considered a disaster if they lost the ALCS in six games?

by Brett Perryman on Jan 4, 2009 5:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I know Cowlishaw is MSM...

but Andrus over Holland?

by joshed on Jan 4, 2009 1:17 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Or Davis or Feliz, or..

the preceding post was a great success.

by DSheppard on Jan 4, 2009 4:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

He mentions Feliz in the same snip as Andrus

by Adam J. Morris on Jan 4, 2009 5:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Catchers

Does this Josh Bard signing trouble anyone? He ain’t much.

by 3Bagger on Jan 4, 2009 3:23 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

No

Miami bound...

by boomer1 on Jan 4, 2009 3:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Watching this Hot Stove show...

..and Jon Heyman says that Texas is “in the mix” for Manny, “looking to trade” Michael Young and are “targeting” Ben Sheets and Eric Gagne.

Not sure how much stock to put into this, but it is out there.

by Schrute Farms on Jan 4, 2009 6:06 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

i hope we trade MY

i know its a hoop dream but i really hope it happens

by Smoakin in the Boys Room on Jan 4, 2009 6:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Hayman also predicted that we would sign K-Rod.

by Kinslerhomer on Jan 4, 2009 6:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Hayman need some straw with that?

Miami bound...

by boomer1 on Jan 4, 2009 6:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Eric Gagne???

God, I hope not… (ditto for Manny of course)

Did Jon Daniels downsize your old position at Dunking Donuts?

by lonestarJon on Jan 4, 2009 6:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Why no on Manny?

by LiamP on Jan 4, 2009 8:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Sideshow Manny

Is just the type of player who could steer us away from “the plan”. Oh hit home runs, and put butts in the seats sure, but those extra butts in the seats could pressure the front office into trying to make another Eaton or McCarthy-like move to try and win what’s always perceived as, yet never seems to be a weak AL West.

Did Jon Daniels downsize your old position at Dunking Donuts?

by lonestarJon on Jan 4, 2009 8:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Id be more worried with Sheets messing with "the plan" than Manny

Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.

by bigsteve on Jan 4, 2009 9:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

A top of the rotation starter...

…messes with the plan to upgrade the pitching? That is the plan isn’t it?

by Schrute Farms on Jan 4, 2009 9:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

No

Sheets, without trading one of the other veterans, takes a spot away from the young guys that are supposed to be the ones anchoring us in the future. Manny at DH, which would mean Hank is traded, wouldn’t be blocking any young guys that are supposed to be here for the future

Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.

by bigsteve on Jan 4, 2009 10:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

eh...

To me, that’s not really a reason to avoid signing a top of the rotation starter. Over the course of a year, things happen to allow the young guys to step in (injuries, etc). Last year, the team had 3 veterans to start the year and guys like Tommy Hunter ended up getting a handful of starts. Maybe it’s just me, but you can’t really have enough pitching, especially the quality of Ben Sheets who would far surpass any of the current starters on the depth chart.

by Schrute Farms on Jan 4, 2009 10:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Just my personal preference

But I would rather have designated slots for these guys in the majors rather than just spot starts due to injuries. I don’t think those do hardly any good for young guys. Now injuries that take a guy out for 6 weeks or so is different but if you are banking on those type of injuries to open up spots in the rotation then you are in serious trouble to begin with

Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.

by bigsteve on Jan 4, 2009 10:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think it's that you nessacarily bank on those injuries happening,

but it is sort of the nature of the sport. I think it’s pretty rare to find any major league team to go the year without any starting pitcher missing a substantial amount of time (less than 6 weeks or so).

And while we’re on the subject, I think Sheets is young enough to be able to anchor a rotation for a number of years so long as he can stay healthy. A Feliz, Holland, Sheets top 3 would make me very happy.

by Schrute Farms on Jan 4, 2009 10:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Thats why you have depth

You have guys like Hurley, harrison, hunetr, etc who would be your depth and who you would feel comfortable giving a start or two to in the event of injury. My problem is people saying that “there will be plenty of starts to go around when the inevitable injury hits”. Thats not the way you should be getting your young guys acclimated IMO. If these are guys who you expect to be long term answers for you then you need to devote ample time for them to develop. My philosophy is have rotation slots open for them. My ideal scenario would be sign Sheets and dump one of the veterans. Start with Sheets, veteran, McCarthy, Feldman, Harrison/Hurley. The other guy starts in AAA. We look to have plenty of guys down in AAA who can spot start if a guy has to be scratched and if a guy goes down for a DL stint Hurley/harrison can step in and make a couple starts. If a guy goes down to a more serious injury they can step in and get alot of time. If we see ourselves at trade deadline time not in the race we can trade the veteran and open up a spot for a young guy. I just have a real hard time when people expect injuries to give young guys their chance.

Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.

by bigsteve on Jan 5, 2009 8:12 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

There will be ample time

You will have some spot start opportunities, but you will have long-term injuries that will give them a dedicated time to prove themselves one way or another.

Your plan is how we saw Hunter be forced up last year. I would like to do everything possible to avoid having to force someone like Feliz or Holland up when they aren’t ready and that means having as many options as possible for the rotation.

By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw

by Gdawg on Jan 5, 2009 1:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

If you are expecting the amount of injuries you are talking about

Then you are putting together a bad roster. Its one thing for freak injuries or guys with healthy pasts to get injured unexpectedly. But to put together a roster expecting enough injuries to allow a dozen or so pitchers to get significant time in the rotation is putting together a terrible roster.

Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.

by bigsteve on Jan 5, 2009 2:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Why a dozen?

I think that no matter how well of a rotation you put together, you can always expect at least one extra guy make at 15 starts or so due to injuries or ineffectiveness. Given the current rotation, either we got it right the first time (which I doubt) or you’re going to need at least few extra arms to take on a large amount of arms. And given the Rangers history, the 6th-9th rotation candidates aren’t going to be good bets to hold down those needed starts.

By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw

by Gdawg on Jan 5, 2009 7:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Rotations

If you want to be succesful you don’t plan for injuries. You expect your guys to make every start and if you have to you have depth but don’t count on using it. I looked real quickly at 6 teams who made the playoffs last year (Boston, LAA, Tampa, Philly, LAD, and Mil). The most any of those used for 5 or more starts was 8. 4 of them only had 6 guys with 5 or more starts.

Like I said if you are expecting injuries you are putting together a bad roster. You have depth which is good but you don’t count on that depth to make such a significant amount of starts.

Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.

by bigsteve on Jan 5, 2009 8:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

If you don't plan for injuries

you’re going to be really disappointed and pissed off by June at the latest.

And you are really just proving my point. If you have a rotation in ST that stays pretty near perfectly healthy throughout the year, you are likely ending up in the playoffs. For a team that hasn’t made the playoffs in 9 years, I’d consider that a pretty huge victory even if it comes at the “cost” of not fully developing one of the younger starters next year.

And on a side-note though not one that matters too much in this discussion, LAA was expecting something out of Escobar last year. He wasn’t able to make a single start.

By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw

by Gdawg on Jan 5, 2009 9:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The beginning of this discussion was about the long term plan

If we sign Sheets and keep 3 veterans it will take a spot away from a young guy for next year. That long term plan has been put in place for the last 18 months or so. Build from within and instead of going for a “win now” approach to things try and build a solid, talented base of good young players who you have control of for several years and keep resupplying them with more talented prospects that you draft or sign. Signing the occasional veteran is fine but not if it blocks one of those young guys from being capable of contributing to the club. Our timeline for this plan coming to fruition has been 2010 for about the last year or so. 2009 has been viewed as a building year to build toward 2010 when we aren’t going for one and done we look to be going toward a sustained success which will ultimately end in multiple division titles and hopefully a world series title.

Signing Sheets is the perfect veteran to supplement those young guys IF that doesn’t take away an opportunity for young guys to succeed. Keeping both Millwood and Padilla along with Sheets would do just that. Take away an opportunity for a young guy to succeed. If they stay healthy then there is a good chance both are back in 2010. Not only because they would be under contract but after a good season like 2009 the pressure would be on to sustain the success. I want to be sustaining with the young guys not constantly trying to find veterans to sustain. Thats what we’ve been working toward for the last 18 months acquiring guys like Feliz, Andrus, Max, etc. Those players should be the ones to allow us to sustain that success.

We obviously have different views on this. I don’t think it would be good to keep both veterans if we sign Sheets. Im all for signing Sheets don’t get me wrong, but one of those vets better be leaving as Sheets is walking in the door. I’ve been waiting just as long as everone else to see us back in the playoffs. If waiting one more season means I get to look forward to potentially a decade of being right in the hunt then I am fine waiting. Because I would take that decade of competitiveness over one year of playoffs. But maybe thats just me

Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.

by bigsteve on Jan 5, 2009 10:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Its not a win-now approach

Its a win within the next 3 years approach. Look at their 5 year plan. Year 1 was 2007. Year 2 was 2008. Now is the time when they should start looking like a playoff contender and Sheets would be a huge boost to that. And he will be here in 2010 too. What pitcher do you want to get in the offseason before 2010 that will be helpful for the team in their playoff run that year?

You aren’t guaranteeing yourself the playoffs in 2010 if you are betting on Hurley, Harrison, Feldman, and McCarthy to lead the way that year. What happens if 3 of those guys flop next season and Millwood and Padilla pitch as they did these past 2 years? You’re not looking at a team contending for anything in 2010 and now you’re hoping for 2011. Betting it all on a few young guys isn’t going to lead you anywhere but the same place we’ve been the past few years.

The best thing for the Rangers is to get a pitching logjam whether thats with all veterans, all young pitchers, or a mixture of both. You can never have enough pitching.

By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw

by Gdawg on Jan 5, 2009 11:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Naw

Manny has his own personal circus that follows him around (I think ESPN has an embedded reporter inside his hair). Sheets is just an elite-caliber starter with an injury history. As far as public impact goes, I think Sheets would be more of a huge morale boost (which we can use) rather than the stigma to “win now” that a superstar player like Manny carries with him.

Did Jon Daniels downsize your old position at Dunking Donuts?

by lonestarJon on Jan 4, 2009 10:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Thats not my point

Manny at DH, assuming Hank is traded to make room for Manny at DH, doesn’t block any young guys at that position and helps the club offensively.

Sheets at SP, assuming we keep both the veterans, would be taking a spot away from a young pitcher who could help us for many years to come and force us to make “win now” moves not only this season but next offseason as well which would go against the plan

Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.

by bigsteve on Jan 4, 2009 10:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Well, see

I don’t see us keeping both Millwood and Padz if we get Sheets.

Did Jon Daniels downsize your old position at Dunking Donuts?

by lonestarJon on Jan 4, 2009 10:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree..

..but even it if they stay, they’re both possibly gone after the year anyway.

by Schrute Farms on Jan 4, 2009 10:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

It seems hard to believe that there will be a better chance to acquire players next year

than there is right now. there are some useful guys out there seemingly not getting a lot of interest.

please please sign sheets.
I wouldn’t hate gagne, its not like hes going to be commanding 10 million. As long as you don’t promise him the closer role.

And theres no realistic scenario in which the rangers getting manny would be smart and hicks wouldn’t spend the money anyway, but theoretically Manny for 2 years if he agreed to DH if it came after signing sheets… I’d get excited about 2009.

the preceding post was a great success.

by DSheppard on Jan 4, 2009 6:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed on all counts

Although I am a bit worried about Sheets shoulder and his ability to stay healthy. Of course, I would still rather have 160-170 innings from Sheets than 190-200 innings from Padilla or Millwood.

by Schrute Farms on Jan 4, 2009 9:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Article about managers and IBBs

Link

According to this guy, Washington was one of the best managers in baseball last year to not call bad intentional walks.

By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw

by Gdawg on Jan 4, 2009 6:43 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

After reading that,

I wasn’t able to form any opinion at all. Without defining “definitely not smart” IBB, the whole piece is meaningless. Also, I would imagine you would need more than one year of IBB data to be able to extract anything meaningful.

by Randy Richardson on Jan 4, 2009 9:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Well

He goes through his thought process there. The problem is that it pretty much uses data and analysis from Tango’s “The Book”. In the comments section, the author says he’ll try to do a write-up on it to explain better. Basically from what it looks like, a not smart IBB is one where you are walking a hitter without the next hitter being significantly worse than him. It like walking Hamilton to get to Byrd.

By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw

by Gdawg on Jan 4, 2009 10:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

well yeah thats what i thought

what id like to know is how much those totals vary from year to year, i.e. whether there is any skill in avoiding the issuance of bad IBBs or if it is just bad luck or if it is just a function of the manager’s overall IBB issuance rate…really rate stats would be more helpful than counting ones cus it would allow us to gauge what percentage of a manager’s IBBs were dumb and which were ‘maybe smart’

by Smoakin in the Boys Room on Jan 4, 2009 10:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs