Evan Grant on Milton Bradley
by Adam J. Morris on Nov 11, 2009 12:11 PM CST
146 comments
Evan Grant has a lengthy blog post up that discusses the Rangers' potential interest in re-acquiring Milton Bradley, but that also discusses in depth some of the risks involved.
The final issue Grant raises, though, is one that I've been thinking about, and I wanted to speak to:
4. Entitlement: Manager Ron Washington has taken "the Era of Entitlement is over," as his official motto. It means nothing is given, all is earned when it comes to playing time and overall treatment. It's a very noble point of view. But for it to work, the players must feel like management isn't enabling players to feel entitled. And the extra attention, cajoling, defending and excuse-making for Bradley qualifies as special treatment. The Rangers got rid of Sidney Ponson and Vicente Padilla because, despite solid performances, they were considered bad teammates. The pervading thought in the clubhouse is that despite the players strongest efforts to welcome and embrace Bradley, he ultimately was a bad teammate. If you want to send the message that the club is about a certain standard, re-acquiring Bradley would send exactly the wrong message. And it would be wrong for Ron Washington to believe that he was able to "handle" Bradley. Ultimately, it was Bradley who used the Rangers and Washington, taking advantage of the club's eagerness to make him feel comfortable and playing whenever he wanted to.
I agree with Grant here. And while I would like to see Milton Bradley back here, at the right price, I would also want him back here with the understanding that what happened in 2008, in terms of him dictating when he's going to play and when he isn't, won't happen again.
About 15 years ago, there was a lot of friction with the Rangers because Julio Franco and Jose Canseco were pretty much day to day for half the season, and got to make the call themselves about when they'd be in the lineup and when they weren't. No one ever had any idea who was going to be in the lineup or if they were going to declare themselves "fit," and finally, Kevin Kennedy (I believe it was) had to simply say, either you are playing every day or you are going on the d.l. Canseco decided to play, Franco had surgery, and life went on.
I'd like Bradley here as the regular DH, and I say that knowing that you are probably only getting 120-130 games from him. But I also want him here with the understanding that he's not going to dictate when he feels like playing and when he doesn't, and he's not going to rest the weekend before the All Star Game so he can feel good enough to play in the All Star Game.
Either he's healthy, or he's not. If he's banged up and needs an occasional day off, that's one thing...but if he's going to be out three days in a row, he can go to the d.l. and Justin Smoak or Max Ramirez or Brandon Boggs can come up and take his roster spot. If he's going to play 4 games out of 8, he is going to the d.l., rather than hold the team and the lineup hostage.
And if Bradley understands that, will accept that and not complain about that, then yes, he can come on board. The risk you run is that he says he's going to be on board, and then when it is mid-June and he's not feeling like playing every day, but he's decided it is a point of pride not to go on the d.l., are you going to have issues?
If you could bring in Bradley as your every day DH, have Garrett Atkins on a one year deal as a 4C guy (assuming Clint Hurdle thinks he can get him back on track) so you've got an option at third base if something happens to Michael Young and a righty bat to spell Chris Davis at first base against some lefties, and then Taylor Teagarden, Omar Vizquel, and David Murphy rounding out the bench, I'd feel okay about that.
But there has to be the understanding that there isn't a separate set of rules for Milton Bradley.
0 recs |
146 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
As far as how it relates to Bradley, it’s a tough call. But I just wanted to say, I really like that motto from Washington. It’s exactly the message I’d want guys like Young and Kinsler to consider if they’re going to continue to be team leaders.
by Brett Perryman on Nov 11, 2009 12:17 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Agree with this.
Milton as much as I love him on the field, his off the field shit shouldn’t be given a pass.
What do you guys think of Boggs? I think he can be a better hitter than Murphy if he is given a chance.
"Stats are like a woman in a fine little bikini. You can see a lot, but you can't see everything." -Dirk A. Tron
by coolaid on Nov 11, 2009 12:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm in the minority
But I love Brandon Bartholemew Boggs and think he’s Murphy’s platoon BFF and it sucks donkey taint that his shoulders were wrecked, because he absolutely should have a spot on this 25 and absolutely could help this team.
Look at the comments under Jeff Wilson's blog post on dallasnews.com. What a bunch of rocket scientists.- Keith Law
by Keynes on Nov 11, 2009 12:50 PM CST via mobile up reply actions 2 recs
2010
Tastes like a sputtering rehab season for BB. Get well soon.
by shroomer on Nov 11, 2009 1:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Afear'd of that as well
I still wanna text Byrd and tell him how awesome Chicago is and how cool it is playing in front of vines and they have great hot dogs and don’t fucking sign here anyway please, just in case.
Look at the comments under Jeff Wilson's blog post on dallasnews.com. What a bunch of rocket scientists.- Keith Law
by Keynes on Nov 11, 2009 3:25 PM CST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
I think Boggs/Murphy
would be a very nice LF platoon
"More than likely JW never played sports above the youth level. It amazes me that he seems to have no concept on the common reactions of an adult athlete or their normal interactions between each other." - laxonto
by Michael Cave on Nov 11, 2009 12:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If you really like that motto
you wouldn’t want Bradley here.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
"Ranger players, especially veterans, weren’t surprised that Daniels couldn’t find a deal"
by Josey Wales on Nov 11, 2009 10:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
I love what Milton Bradley does on the field, but I am very weary of what he does off it. I think at some point you have to sit back and wonder why a guy changes teams basically every year. Plus, if he does hit mid-June and start pulling that crap, you have wasted one of your biggest off-season bullets on a guy who wants to do his own thing. It is risky at best. People who think clubhouse chemistry is overrated have spent very little time in a clubhouse in my opinion…
"calmer than you are dude" Walter (Big Lebowski)
Hello Win Column!!!
by Arlington Stadium Legend on Nov 11, 2009 12:21 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
No
I’m not insulting people’s knowledge of the game based on their playing experience, I just don’t agree with people who say clubhouse chemistry is overrated. If no one in the clubhouse can stand a certain person, it’s eventually going to show through. Ponson and Padilla being great examples.
"calmer than you are dude" Walter (Big Lebowski)
Hello Win Column!!!
by Arlington Stadium Legend on Nov 11, 2009 12:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I definitely agree
but that type of interaction isn’t exclusive to a clubhouse.
People who say the chemistry is overrated should probably step back and look their own lives to see the problems with a bad teammate. It happens everywhere.
by kevinkinsler on Nov 11, 2009 12:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It's the people in the clubhouse, the players,
who should be policing this. If the other players feel like Bradley is slacking they need to call him out on it. And Washington needs to make him feel responsible to his teammates.
If I were Young or Kinsler I’d be calling Bradley and getting an explanation for his comments about slacking off in ‘08. And I’d be clear that they will welcome him back with open arms and forget those insulting remarks if he promises to be less selfish.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Nov 11, 2009 1:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well
as long as he promises because words speak louder than actions…Wait that doesn’t sound right, I think I got that backwards…
"calmer than you are dude" Walter (Big Lebowski)
Hello Win Column!!!
by Arlington Stadium Legend on Nov 11, 2009 2:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Fine, but
if he has a frank conversation and says those words, then it’s much easier for the same people to come back to him when he screws up and say hey, you said this and that, how about it? Much more accountability than if he never has that conversation.
He is prideful and selfish. If you can get him to agree to it, than he might take it as a point of pride to be a good teammate just to prove everyone wrong.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Nov 11, 2009 3:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No Bradley
in 2010.
"...like some Russian priest fresh off a bottle of potato vodka and a box of cigars." -t ball
by rangerdanger on Nov 11, 2009 12:35 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
For me...
It is for his bullshit attitude and lack of reliability
also, what are we going to have to give up to acquire him…
Fuck Mike Estabrook
by Horns130 on Nov 11, 2009 2:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Two bags of used practice balls
and about 4 million over two years would be my bet.
What do voluntary mean?
by JKolar on Nov 11, 2009 2:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Two bags of used practice balls
I’m not sure the org can afford to give that up…
by Anonymous New Guy on Nov 11, 2009 3:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
then find me somebody that can do what he does
even if it IS for 120 games only
"Hang-Dai, Wu...Hang-Fu$&ing-Dai"
by Walter Sobchak on Nov 11, 2009 3:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I've yet to see...
someone who’s against Board Game coming back come up with another comparable option.
And please don’t say Adam Dunn. The guy would be a good fit but would cost much more in terms of prospects and salary.
Hopefully we can all agree this offense needs another high OB% / quality bat. I’m open to other suggestions.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
by slc ranger on Nov 11, 2009 7:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Nick Johnson
Is basically Bradley without the crazy.
"It's kind of a new stat that's in vogue" - Joe Buck on OPS
"...he wasn’t a good hitter, just a good middle of the order bat that hit a lot of homers." - NYTXFAN on Mark McGwire
by lonestarJon on Nov 11, 2009 7:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
And without the power potential
What do voluntary mean?
by JKolar on Nov 11, 2009 8:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
the power potential?
Nick Johnson has just as much power as Bradley. They both only have 1 year where they hit more than 20 HRs.
A baseball game is simply a nervous breakdown divided into nine innings.
by NothinG on Nov 12, 2009 9:38 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I just don't know
Johnson has zero power now, or at least pretty close to it. I mean you realize that at this point Borbon has more power than Johnson.
I’m trying to figure out where you put him into the lineup. I’m guessing its gotta be 5th or later. Its tempting to put him someplace like 2, but it would be nice to have someone who has somewhere around average speed there.
What do voluntary mean?
by JKolar on Nov 12, 2009 11:44 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Disagree...
I think Bradley is better than Johnson, perhaps not by much though, and will cost less in terms of salary.
And Johnson is just as likely to miss games as Board Game is.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
by slc ranger on Nov 11, 2009 8:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Johnson vs. Milton
Johnson has a .371 career wOBA and 849 career OPS to Milton’s .357 and 821. He actually walks a good amount more more than Bradley does – and Bradley walks a lot. 17.6 career BB% for Johnson to Milton’s still extremely good 13.8%. Johnson is the better hitter, and not just by a tiny bit.
Now, health might be the area where Bradley has an advantage, but then again who knows – they both have gimpy legs and back problems.
Johnson does apparently have a fucking Taylor Swift song as his walkup music however, so he just lost infinity points in the manliness department. Maybe that puts Milton ahead of him after all.
"It's kind of a new stat that's in vogue" - Joe Buck on OPS
"...he wasn’t a good hitter, just a good middle of the order bat that hit a lot of homers." - NYTXFAN on Mark McGwire
by lonestarJon on Nov 11, 2009 8:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Not bad...
I didn’t realize Johnson walked that much. You’ve sold me a little on him, although I still don’t think he’s the better hitter of the two. I like the fact that Bradley is a switch hitter and I think he has a little more pop than Nick as well.
Now just convince him to sign with the Rangers on a one or two year deal at 5 mil per and we’re good.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
by slc ranger on Nov 11, 2009 8:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Bradley being a switch hitter
Is interesting because he has a .497 career SLG% batting right-handed, vs. a Johnson-esque .431 as a lefty.
So yeah, Bradley’s got more pop overall, but it’s mainly coming from his #‘s against LHP’s – which, you could argue, means he only really has more pop about half the time at best. And Johnson actually holds the advantage in career #‘s against RHP’s – .266/.394/.450 to Bradley’s .266/.365/.431.
Maybe that’s reading a little too much into platoon splits, but the fact that Johnson is better against righties and Bradley’s advantage in power seems to be limited to batting right-handed again makes me think Johnson is the better hitter.
"It's kind of a new stat that's in vogue" - Joe Buck on OPS
"...he wasn’t a good hitter, just a good middle of the order bat that hit a lot of homers." - NYTXFAN on Mark McGwire
by lonestarJon on Nov 11, 2009 9:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Given the apparent weakness versus LHP
Isn’t that a tilt in Bradley’s favor?
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang (1844-1912) also -
"Telephone, n. An invention of the devil which abrogates some of the advantages of making a disagreeable person keep his distance."
~Ambrose Bierce
by Ed Coffin on Nov 11, 2009 11:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Doesn't make him the better hitter
But it could make him more suited to our needs.
Then again, Nick Johnson has a career .292/.426/.405 line against lefties. No power, but holy on base percentage, batman.
"It's kind of a new stat that's in vogue" - Joe Buck on OPS
"...he wasn’t a good hitter, just a good middle of the order bat that hit a lot of homers." - NYTXFAN on Mark McGwire
by lonestarJon on Nov 11, 2009 11:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Wait a minute
I read the wrong box on BR. Damn my dyslexic tendencies.
His career line against LHP is .292/.424/.438. I thought that SLG I posted above was a bit low.
"It's kind of a new stat that's in vogue" - Joe Buck on OPS
"...he wasn’t a good hitter, just a good middle of the order bat that hit a lot of homers." - NYTXFAN on Mark McGwire
by lonestarJon on Nov 11, 2009 11:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The question I have
is does talking about Johnson’s career numbers have much bearing now? It really looks like he’s lost the power he once had and is now basically just an OBP player.
I think it really comes down to how much do you have to pay of Bradley’s salary vs what contract you would have to give Johnson. Looking at it closer it really seems like they are likely to put up similar numbers on OPS next year. Though I would say that Bradley has more upside, and the worst case on both of them is about the same.
What do voluntary mean?
by JKolar on Nov 12, 2009 11:37 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
And also
What the Cubs ask for in return for paying Bradley’s salary.
"It's kind of a new stat that's in vogue" - Joe Buck on OPS
"...he wasn’t a good hitter, just a good middle of the order bat that hit a lot of homers." - NYTXFAN on Mark McGwire
by lonestarJon on Nov 12, 2009 6:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
if you think Bradley's got an injury history
Nick Johnson wrote a few of the books…
"Hang-Dai, Wu...Hang-Fu$&ing-Dai"
by Walter Sobchak on Nov 12, 2009 10:02 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm inclined to believe Hurdle's going to help the team
with or without Bradley. the question is, can we not maximize the potential by getting BOTH
"Hang-Dai, Wu...Hang-Fu$&ing-Dai"
by Walter Sobchak on Nov 12, 2009 10:02 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think this is a question of leadership
It is all fine and dandy for it to be Washington’s motto; but the real issue is whether he’ll enforce it. I just can’t fathom why Bradley not wanting to go on the DL in 2008 is only Bradley’s fault. He was obviously injured. The team didn’t have to put up with his ego and pride; they have the power to do what they need to do.
A leader doesn’t say “I can lead this group, just give me people who are easy to lead.” A real leader (be it Wash, Young, JD, whoever) can take the very talented, very challenging, players like Bradley and put them in their place. Find the right balance between coddling their egos and bossing them around. As Grant says, Washington failed at finding this balance with Bradley in 2008. And lets be honest, this isn’t a knock on Wash, pretty much everyone else has failed with Bradley as well. But maybe Wash has grown up in the last year; I think it is evident that Young has and that will help as well.
However, if the Cubs are paying 80% of his salary, the downside risk is pretty low – if Bradley can’t be corralled, then release him and you’re out a prospect or two and a few million. But the upside is huge. I still say take the chance.
Go Rice Owls!
by JBImaknee on Nov 11, 2009 12:37 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
just say no to team-destroying douchers...
No Milton!
"The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic" - Charles Darwin, you know who he is...
by 8legs2fangs on Nov 11, 2009 12:40 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Adam, you are exactly correct. ...
The problem with Bradley is not just his attitude. It’s that he won’t play enough games at a high enough level to justify putting up with his attitude. I tried to explain that to Cubs fans, and they acted as Cubs fans always do. It’s amazing how much wishful thinking we’re capable of.
Where is Mick Kelleher when we need him?
by 3744nsheffield on Nov 11, 2009 12:40 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Not play enough games?
So? If you can get Bradley for $2.5 million/year, then who cares if he plays only 100 games? As long as he’s able to be DLed the rest of the time, so what? 100 games from Bradley at $2.5 million is far, far, far better than 150 games from Marlon Byrd at any price, much less the $8 million or so he’s going to get.
The issue, as Adam puts it well, is one of who the boss is. As long as the Rangers don’t put up with Bradley’s antics; behave like a firm parent and all that; he’ll work out.
Also of note, they’d be trading for Bradley as their DH, not an OF as he was in the NL. It is reasonable to expect he won’t be as banged up if he’s playing the field only once or twice a week
Go Rice Owls!
by JBImaknee on Nov 11, 2009 12:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Assuming
Bradley can handle being treated that way. You don’t know if it will work out fine. What if he goes off the deep end when he doesn’t get his way. Than you are faced with 2 choices. Back down and let him run the show or take a hard line and release him etc. Now you’ve either lost the respect of the other 24 guys or you’ve wasted your once chance to make an offensive upgrade this winter
"calmer than you are dude" Walter (Big Lebowski)
Hello Win Column!!!
by Arlington Stadium Legend on Nov 11, 2009 12:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If he goes off the deep end
then we lose. You cut him, we’re out a DH and a bit of money. (Bradley’s career would also be through, if that matters at all) It is a risk. But so is signing Nick Johnson, who is just as likely to get injured in spring training and not play all year as a Bradley breakdown. Then we’re out 2-3 times as much money. Of course, there is Adam Dunn, who will cost 4 times as much as Bradley and multiple high end prospects. That is the cost of reliability, if you’re ready to pay for it.
You can’t be risk averse when you’re in Texas’s position. You either cross your fingers and hope your guys all develop at the high end of expectations, or you take risks. You take the smartest risks possible, highest potential return for the lowest cost.
Go Rice Owls!
by JBImaknee on Nov 11, 2009 1:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Bradley is rumored that we would be on the hook for 5M per year
Nick Johnson probably gets 7M if he’s lucky and you don’t have to give up prospects.
You would, also be committed to Bradley for 2 years. Paying Dunn ultimately would cost more prospects, but I think he can be had without giving up any of our top prospects. If the Nationals would want Smoak/Holland/Feliz/Perez etc etc then I walk away and laugh. 1 year of Dunn at DH is worth more than Bradley – way more, but not a potential Ace more.
Of course, this teams financial issues right now with the ownership in flux have been well documented, but if we are able to get a player like Dunn, I don’t pass it up.
A baseball game is simply a nervous breakdown divided into nine innings.
by NothinG on Nov 11, 2009 1:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't disagree with being risk averse
I am responding to your statement of as long as they don’t put up with his antics and treat him like a firm parent, he’ll work out. I don’t believe you can say that with 100% certainty. Plus, there is the possibility that Bradley completely wrecks this year’s club and drags a few of the younger guys with him.
"calmer than you are dude" Walter (Big Lebowski)
Hello Win Column!!!
by Arlington Stadium Legend on Nov 11, 2009 2:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
name me one young player that Bradley
has dragged down in his long, troubled career
Go Rice Owls!
by JBImaknee on Nov 11, 2009 2:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I have no idea what this post means
Go Rice Owls!
by JBImaknee on Nov 11, 2009 2:42 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I think its a Milton Bradley board game joke
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
"I am one of the biggest Texas Ranger fans out there but I'm also one of the smartest. Deal with it."
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Nov 11, 2009 2:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Correct
Let’s also remember that Milton rushed himself back from injury in ’08 and (probably) demanded to get some playing time in the field to show his versatility and pump up his value.
If I trade for him, it’s strictly as a DH so his sorrymotherfuckingass doesn’t have to run too much
by oc on Nov 11, 2009 12:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If
it was as easy as just treating Bradley like a firm parent and not putting up with his antics like you say above, how come none of the other 62 organizations he has played for have figured that out and done it. At some point you have to say Milton is the problem and not the handling of Milton etc. Same thing as with T.O. If you sign him, no matter what, he’s going to make some plays, call out your QB, and piss people off. Bottom line
"calmer than you are dude" Walter (Big Lebowski)
Hello Win Column!!!
by Arlington Stadium Legend on Nov 11, 2009 1:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I keep telling myself, 'been there, done that'
by oc on Nov 11, 2009 1:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't see how MB is as disruptive as TO, but whatever.
by LiamP on Nov 11, 2009 1:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Here's the thing
When he was here, it was all ‘Risk Brother No. 9’ and the first guy at home-plate to jump on the pile
He leaves and it’s all…‘The guy is a MENACE’
by oc on Nov 11, 2009 1:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Except noone used the word menace.
Menace is pretty strong verbiage for a guy who did what a lot other guys in their contract years do. The problem is that, as always, MB has no idea how to deal with the media and blurted it out. Aside from that, most everything you read talks about how he was a great teammate.
by LiamP on Nov 11, 2009 1:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not necessarily comparing their levels of disruption
as much as I’m comparing the thought process of we can handle this guy when others couldn’t. Even Parcells got sucked into it and couldn’t make it work. Bradley is going to do his own thing, period. If you think you can handle him, you are dead wrong.
"calmer than you are dude" Walter (Big Lebowski)
Hello Win Column!!!
by Arlington Stadium Legend on Nov 11, 2009 1:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
This is the correct response.
"Nothing we do here has a point" - Czar Morris
by Chase Irwin on Nov 11, 2009 2:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
sorry
but I’d take 120 games of MB last year and make the playoffs vs. 0 games from him and missing it, like we did.
"Hang-Dai, Wu...Hang-Fu$&ing-Dai"
by Walter Sobchak on Nov 11, 2009 3:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think there's one bottom line to the argument.
Last year, the team had “great” chemistry, but the fact is that the 2009 Rangers failed to make the playoffs even with that great chemistry. The Rangers need that one extra pop in their lineup to make things click, and if it’s from Milton Bradley, then so be it. You don’t get to the World Series by having team chemistry alone.
"Clearly, the season is over. Fire Daniels, fire Washington, fire Maddux, burn down TBIA." - AJM
by aggierangerfan00 on Nov 11, 2009 12:45 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
I agree with this completely. Chemistry has always been at the top of the list of the forever-discussed Ecksteinian-style intantigible attributes.
Why is it that we are so concerned with chemistry? Is it because the Rangers margin for error is so much smaller than the high payroll teams? Is it because the Rangers do not have the resources to sustain success, therefore having to capitalize on the accumulation of talent because it is likely to quickly disappear?
I personally would rather worry about acquiring talented baseball players with tangible qualities we are missing.
by Heebs on Nov 11, 2009 1:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It's because
when for 6 months you spend more time with these guys than your family, you better not have a rotten apple in the bunch who everyone hates.
"calmer than you are dude" Walter (Big Lebowski)
Hello Win Column!!!
by Arlington Stadium Legend on Nov 11, 2009 1:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
To re-define my question
I understand why the concept of chemistry comes up.
I just wonder why the Rangers specifically are so concerned. Is it a bigger risk for them than anyone else? Is it the same risk as every other team?
People in this thread have compared MB to TO. The problem with this is that teams with TO typically win. They might not have won superbowls but they won a heck of a lot of games. Chemistry alone didn’t get TO fired. If they expected him to go 1,200 and 12 this year they never would have let him go.
Similarly, I think if the Rangers had a crystal ball that said Bradley would replicate 2008 they would probably take Bradley in a second. I cannot believe that performance doens’t trump all and the “chemistry” issue isn’t a minor player that can unhinge a split decision.
by Heebs on Nov 11, 2009 2:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Bradley is not going to replicate 2008 thats the problem
It amazes me how so many people seem to think that by simply getting the guy back here hes gonna duplicate his career best season. Its not gonna happen. Its much more likely he drops down to around his career averages which takes alot of the desire away from getting him. If Bradley is coming in here with his attitude issues and only putting up a 280/375/450 line I don’t want him. Thats probably what you are going to get from him.
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 Nov 12, 2009 8:32 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
For the record
I don’t believe Bradley will revert to 2008 form. I believe he’ll bounce back from his embarrasing 2009, but I don’t think he’ll lead the league in OPS again (or even come close). I’ll even say I’d rather not have Bradley here. I’d rather hire a rental until Smoak comes up and take our chances with Chris Davis coming around.
by Heebs on Nov 12, 2009 8:54 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It amazes me
that you think everyone assumes Bradley is going to put up a 1.000 OPS here in 2010. Even in a disappointing 2009 campaign he had a walk rate over 14% and a .378 OBA. That will help the lineup.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Nov 12, 2009 10:08 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Help...yes
I am not arguing that it won’t help. Its an improvement over what we had this past season at DH.
But too many people think adding Milton Bradley is the cure-all for this team. That magically we are going to bounce back and score 900 runs just by adding him to the lineup. If we added the 320/436/550 Milton Bradley…yeah that would help a ton. But adding a 280/375/450 Milton Bradley is not going to make enough of a difference by itself.
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 Nov 12, 2009 10:27 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think you're exaggerating
what the comments about Bradley here imply. No one thinks he – or anyone else, for that matter – is a cure all. Everyone understands the warts that come along with his plate discipline. There is no player by himself that is going to make “enough difference”.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Nov 12, 2009 11:09 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I may be exaggerating some
But not much. So many people talk like bringing Bradley back also brings back his 2008 numbers. If that were the case then sure pay whatever it takes. But I have a real strong feeling if we did bring Bradley back he would probably go for about 280/375/450 while playing 100 games or so and if the other players put up numbers like they did in 2009 it would be a very similar season. Then god forbid he have one of his blowups or we traded anything at all of value for him people would be bitching up a storm because we didn’t improve.
The 2010 Texas Rangers will depend a whole lot more on how much Hamilton and Davis bounce back along with how consistent Kinsler is rather than if we get a Milton Bradley or Nick Johnson
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 Nov 12, 2009 11:53 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I've never said...
that bringing Bradley back will bring back his 2008 numbers. In fact, I’ve yet to see anyone suggest that. I would expect Board Game to put up somewhere around a .280 / .380 / .460 line over about 120 – 130 games. That alone won’t fix this lineup.
You’re right, Hamilton and Davis have to improve on this years performance as well. However getting a guy like Board Game for the middle of this lineup would help that imo. His OBP% alone would be a huge thing for this lineup next season.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
by slc ranger on Nov 12, 2009 12:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Show me one person that has said bringing him back
means that we get his 2008 numbers. I and many other people have used his 2008 as part of a the past few years when Bradley has put up great numbers, but no one has said that they expect him to be his 2008 self when coming back here.
And I still fail to see why you want to go into next season betting on Hamilton, Davis, and Kinsler. Wouldn’t it be smarter to hope for the best from those guys and go after other good players to try and help the team’s chances of having an improved offense next season?
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
"I am one of the biggest Texas Ranger fans out there but I'm also one of the smartest. Deal with it."
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Nov 12, 2009 12:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
People have implied about his numbers for next season if brought back
And when I have said what my expectations are (280/375/450) people have questioned why so low. Yes Bradley had another quality year like 2008 but it was 5 years prior. Since then he had put up decent numbers and been injured quite a bit.
Also when ive mentioned the fact that its more on how much Hamilton and Davis bounce back, just like you did, people question why im pinning all my hopes on them. Its because thats what is the biggest key to this team. We don’t have the money to bring in the type of player that will make a huge impact regardless of what others do. We can bring in guys that will be improvements over the past but not the significant improvements necessary to make up for the drop of 200 runs from 08-09. Thats gonna come from within. From the guys who had awful years last year improving.
I have no problem bringing back Bradley for the right price and under the right conditions. But I feel that if Hamilton and Davis bounce back they will do it regardless of if Bradley is here or not.
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 Nov 12, 2009 12:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
We have the money to do so
Bradley would cost very little in terms of salary, plus there is still the possibility of a new owner coming in soon and opening up his pockets a bit.
And I don’t think Bradley being here means squat for Hamilton and Davis. They’ll do what they’ll do regardless of if Bradley’s in the lineup or not. I do think that adding Bradley could add 20 runs to our offensive production though and would go a long way to making up for Hamilton/Davis having another disappointing season.
Remember, this team was close to the playoffs this year. There’s a lot of young talent here which we can look at to improve or at least not decline. I don’t think Bradley adds 200 runs to this offense, but he does add to this offense and he fills 2 of the team’s major holes for next season: A high OBP bat that can work the count and a DH that can hit.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
"I am one of the biggest Texas Ranger fans out there but I'm also one of the smartest. Deal with it."
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Nov 12, 2009 12:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
first of all
.280/.375/.450 was one of the best lines from our hitters last year.
Second, Bradley’s line from 2005 to 2008 was about a .300/.390/.500. Reverting to pre-2009 form would be that, then – would it not?
"Hang-Dai, Wu...Hang-Fu$&ing-Dai"
by Walter Sobchak on Nov 12, 2009 10:10 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That 05-08 includes his career 2008 season
05, 06, and 07 he was a 288/372/484 hitter who AVERAGED 77 games a year
So no I don’t think with him getting older expecting him to put up a 280/375/450 line is out of line.
Like ive said he will help and be an improvement but he alone is not going to fix this offense.
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 Nov 12, 2009 10:38 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
For 1-2 million a year
I’d take that line. Of course his two most recent seasons are over 120 games.
So you’re saying that a 825 OPS player for probably 100+ games isn’t something you would take for 1 to 2 million per year.
What do voluntary mean?
by JKolar on Nov 12, 2009 11:49 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes I would take him for that price
But I am setting my expectations for how much he affects this team very low.
How much Hamilton and Davis bounce back and how consistent Kinsler is will go alot further to determining how good the 2010 Texas Rangers are over whether we have Milton Bradley or Nick Johnson in the lineup.
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 Nov 12, 2009 11:55 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes that is very true.
Considering both of them have the potential to be much better players than either Johnson or Bradley are probably capable of being.
Though between the two players I think Bradley actually fits the teams needs a little better and is likely to be a bit cheaper.
What do voluntary mean?
by JKolar on Nov 12, 2009 11:57 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
see but my theory
was that Bradley’s approach to the plate and threat in that lineup were what allowed Hamilton to break out so big in 2008. and allowed Kinsler to refrain from pressing as much as he did in 2009. and with a fully healthy Mike Young like last year, vs. the 2008 version, can you imagine that offense?
"Hang-Dai, Wu...Hang-Fu$&ing-Dai"
by Walter Sobchak on Nov 12, 2009 12:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
OK see I don't buy that theory
I don’t believe that just because one guy left the lineup all of a sudden everyone forgot hwo to hit the baseball and started hacking away. The Cubs team OBP dropped from 354 to 332 after adding Bradley so its not like its guaranteed he makes everyone better.
I think we got Bradley at the perfect time under the perfect conditions. He was coming off a serious knee injury that wasn’t entirely his fault. he wanted to prove he could still play and play at a high level and cash in on it. We had a lineup with several really good offensive players so he could drive in runs and put up the stats to get that payday.
Bringing him back now, while an improvement over what we had, is not under the perfect storm of circumstances and I don’t believe he will come close to the production he had previously here
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 Nov 12, 2009 12:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That is a safe bet
Not too many players put up seasons with around 1.000 ops.
But Bradley doesn’t have to be the perfect storm to be useful. Being better than the combo of Blalock/Jones at DH I still don’t think would be that hard or that much to ask of Bradley.
Yes I know the OPS numbers for both of them were on the same order as what Bradley’s midline would be, but I still swear they both got those numbers in an uneven way that could be better reached. The 370 OBP with the lower slugging % would probably produce a better middle of the order bat than either of them produced.
So its all about the dollar risk to me. IF someone told me that by taking all of Bradley’s contract we would be guranteed to be like 2008 I’d do it in a second, as would everyone in here. If the real world is still in force I just think that the 2-3 million, max, that we would likely pay is worth the risk.
What do voluntary mean?
by JKolar on Nov 12, 2009 12:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
bullshit
he’ll want to prove himself even more after the Cubs debacle
"Hang-Dai, Wu...Hang-Fu$&ing-Dai"
by Walter Sobchak on Nov 12, 2009 3:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
So we completely exclude his 08
and look at his 05-07 numbers only. That .856 OPS which is OBP heavy would do wonders for this team. This Rangers offense was worth 24 runs above average last season. Here is Bradley’s wRAA from 05-09:
2005 — 9.7
2006 — 10.1
2007 -15.2 39.8
2008 -
2009 — 6.6
The DH position for the Rangers last season was worth about a couple of runs above average last season. So assuming Bradley is only worth 7-10 runs above average next season, you’re still seeing a gain in about half a win. But, playing DH also gives you a much better chance of seeing Bradley playing 120 games or so instead of 70 which would add at least 4-5 runs to those 05-07 totals. And of course, when trading for Bradley, you do consider the possibility that he can do much better than just his 05-07 numbers. If that’s the case, then Bradley alone could give this team 20+ runs more than they got from their DH this past season. And whoever you want to DH right now would still be around to fill in for Bradley when he’s out and assuming that you think our current DH option is better than replacement level, next season’s DH production is going to be even better.
For that few million dollars a season risk plus whatever we give up in prospects (likely blocked in our system), I love taking this chance.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
"I am one of the biggest Texas Ranger fans out there but I'm also one of the smartest. Deal with it."
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Nov 12, 2009 12:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
As far as prospects
I’m almost imagining a potential bullpen catcher and a high A utility infielder.
The Cubs killed any trade value that Bradley had when they suspended him for the last month of the season. I can’t imagine that they will bring him back next year in any way shape or form. If they are wanting someone to eat some of the contract I also suspect they are likely needing to move sooner rather than later, as DH slots will likely start getting filled up in FA pretty fast.
What do voluntary mean?
by JKolar on Nov 12, 2009 12:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
We'd probably have to give up one of the somewhat disappointing AA arms
like Beavan or Poveda who are still young and can definitely improve their value next season but could also be further exposed. Maybe add in Bianucci or Paisano, a couple of intriguing players. I think the deal will involve players we’re familiar with and a top 10-12 prospect, but no elite talents and guys that would probably be blocked in the long run anyways.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
"I am one of the biggest Texas Ranger fans out there but I'm also one of the smartest. Deal with it."
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Nov 12, 2009 1:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I would actually be surprised if it took that much
I really think that the die is cast. The Cubs have to move Bradley. I really don’t think they get a B level prospect back for him.
Why would any team trade something of value for him? I really think that if no one takes him by probably Feb then he is likely cut straight out prior to camp. I’ll bet the bidding comes down to who is willing to pick up the largest chunk of his cost, not who is offering the best mid tier prospects.
If the cost is somethingl ike Beaven and Paisano then I think you have to pass. Thats too much to give up for someone that the Cubs have basically tossed on the trash bin. If they hadn’t killed his trade value by deactivating him for 2+ weeks then I would agree that it would be a rather reasonable assessment of probable return.
What do voluntary mean?
by JKolar on Nov 12, 2009 1:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
you have to give up SOMETHING
to get them to eat that salary
"Hang-Dai, Wu...Hang-Fu$&ing-Dai"
by Walter Sobchak on Nov 12, 2009 3:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Not true
I think sooner or later they just cut him. If they cut him they eat all the salary guranteed, well other than maybe a tiny amount that another team pays him for the next two years.
So its about how much can they save, not what can we get for him. I bet if you take 1-2 million per year of that salary back then you probably don’t have to give up a piece with value.
We aren’t talking about someone that the Cubs have any desire to keep. You are not talking about a highly productive and happy player for them. You are talking about someone they decided the team would be better off without for the last 2-3 weeks of the season.
What do voluntary mean?
by JKolar on Nov 12, 2009 3:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
To guarantee yourself you get him...yes you would have to give up something
The Cubs are gonna eat most, if not all the salary regardless. If you wait for them to cut him then you are up against the other 31 teams for his services with each team knowing all they have to pay is the minimum because he already gets his money.
If you give up something you take the other teams out of play.
Now with Bradley alot of teams won’t touch him even for the minimum. But also some teams that were hesitant or said no way for the price hes currently making, those teams may get back in on him for the price he will command once he gets cut.
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 Nov 12, 2009 3:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The thing is you do have to give up something
more money. IF you wait till he hits FA you probably get him for one year for less money then you would be paying to get him from the Cubs now. That means your actually paying to get him, you’re just not doing it with prospects. Its more like one of the old school cash transactions.
The Cubs get to keep a few extra million that they wouldn’t otherwise, that’s their prize. Hey maybe I’m wrong, but I doubt you will see a prospect of any significance headed to the Cubs to comeplete a deal for Bradley, it just doesn’t make sense for any team to do that.
What do voluntary mean?
by JKolar on Nov 12, 2009 4:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Im not completely excluding his 2008
You said
Bradley’s line from 2005 to 2008 was about a .300/.390/.500
I acknowledged the 2008 when I said this
That 05-08 includes his career 2008 season
05, 06, and 07 he was a 288/372/484 hitter who AVERAGED 77 games a year
Which is why I predict if brought in for 2010 he will put up a line of 280/375/450
In fact, if you want to take away his best and worst season of the last 5 thats what you are left with so I don’t see why my prediction puzzles so many people. Im not saying he is going to be Andruw Jones or Hank Blalock. Im just not gonna set my expectation so high based on one season where I believe all the ingredients were perfect for him to have a great season. I don’t believe those ingredients are in place for 2010 so my expectations are dampened
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 Nov 12, 2009 1:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
well he put up those huge numbers in Texas for a reason
he was in a very nice ballpark in a very nice lineup. and none of that has changed. and I’m sorry, but I just don’t buy Milton Bradley getting that contract and saying, “Screw it – I’m going to suck from here on out.” He may be a bit of a difficult one to manage, but he’s got pride…
"Hang-Dai, Wu...Hang-Fu$&ing-Dai"
by Walter Sobchak on Nov 12, 2009 3:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The Ballpark is not the hitters haven you make it out to be
Its pretty neutral over the last several years actually.
And im sorry but yes Milton Bradley does strike me as the type of guy that now that he has a guaranteed contract will slack off some. He will complain about nagging injuries more. He will speak his mind more, which with him causes problems.
I think we were lucky to get him when we got him but I don’t believe if brought back things will be the same. I think he would put up nice numbers. Nowhere close to 2008 numbers but around his career averages. But I also think he would cause a stir in the clubhouse and/or media at least once a year if here. I believe he would miss games because he is sore or something (basically he could play if he wanted to but he won’t want to).
And for 1-2 million a year I am fine dealing with that. But once you get up to 4 or 5 mil per year then it becomes a questionable call IMO.
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Nov 12, 2009 3:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
that's where we differ
"Hang-Dai, Wu...Hang-Fu$&ing-Dai"
by Walter Sobchak on Nov 12, 2009 4:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
At some point
You just have to say there’s too many ‘ifs’.
… if the prospect cost is ight
… if the Cubs pick up at least half of his deal
… if he’s healthy
… if he’ll accept a DL assignment if he’s not right
… if he’s not declining
… if the team accepts him
… if Wash’s lunch doesn’t digest correctly
The problem is, I don’t know where that line is with MB. No idea at all.
Can we just have a cheap DH with good splits that can OBP at least 360 with league average (for a DH) slugging and will be able to play 140 games?
Look at the comments under Jeff Wilson's blog post on dallasnews.com. What a bunch of rocket scientists.- Keith Law
by Keynes on Nov 11, 2009 12:45 PM CST via mobile reply actions 0 recs
Not really.
… if the prospect cost is ight
The Cubs are in no position to ask for anything substantial.
… if the Cubs pick up at least half of his deal
From all indications, they kinda have to.
… if he’s healthy
He’ll be playing DH and if he’s cheap enough, who gives a shit.
… if he’ll accept a DL assignment if he’s not right
This one’s on the Rangers.
… if he’s not declining
Unfair to postulate that based on one terrible year in Chicago where there were multiple factors that could’ve contributed to his (comparative) lack of production.. He’ll still get on base regardless.
… if the team accepts him
Don’t care. FOTF has already said he’d like him back. If anyone else feels differently, they’ll eventually fall in line.
by LiamP on Nov 11, 2009 1:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Just because they’re not in position to ask for a good prospect or two, and just because they’re not in position to pick up a good portion of his deal, doesn’t mean they won’t. They’e still ‘ifs’ at this point. They’re still conditions that really need to be met for the deal to work.
I get what you’re saying, and I agree with you on most of them- what I’m saying is there’s a lot of things the deal could turn on, and regadless of whether you think they’re not applicable or minor, the case exists that they are there.
And at some point you bleed to death from a bunch of tiny cuts. My question is how many of those actually draw blood, and how much blood does this have to lose? answer may be a lot, answer might be not very much at all.
Look at the comments under Jeff Wilson's blog post on dallasnews.com. What a bunch of rocket scientists.- Keith Law
by Keynes on Nov 11, 2009 3:21 PM CST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
small cuts
I was once bitten by so many mosquitoes I needed a blood transfusion. Just thought I’d let you know.
by Black Francis on Nov 11, 2009 3:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Like Keith Richards
Only with mosquitos
Look at the comments under Jeff Wilson's blog post on dallasnews.com. What a bunch of rocket scientists.- Keith Law
by Keynes on Nov 11, 2009 4:35 PM CST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
shit itched, man
Probably felt a lot like Keith Richards does on a long airplane right. He and I have a lot in common, come to think of it.
by Black Francis on Nov 11, 2009 5:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Its really no different than any deal
The difference here is that the risk is much less than with most other deals we could make to improve the offense. If the cost is right in terms of dollars and prospects, then the deal is made. That’s the only thing that could prevent this deal from being made. Clearly, the Rangers don’t think he is going to decline any more if they are talking about bringing him back. He DHd here the last time he was here so that’s a non-issue. The DL assignment and having the team accept him are also non-issues IMO. I think Wash and the players will make sure that Bradley isn’t a problem. If he is, then you release him. Its going to cost about the same as releasing Padilla did.
Risk/Reward, just like any other deal. I understand why this is more of a bigger thing than with other potential deals, but I think its more overblown than an actual issue with Bradley.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
"I am one of the biggest Texas Ranger fans out there but I'm also one of the smartest. Deal with it."
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Nov 11, 2009 4:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
the problem
bradley will make all those assurances and they are all completely hollow. you’ll never be able to trust him at his word and if there is any sort of push back, you know it will end with us eating his salary and releasing or trading him (maybe).
so – no.
by ab03 on Nov 11, 2009 1:21 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
What's a 4C guy?
I thought maybe four corners, 1B, 3B, LF, RF? But I don’t think Atkins can play the outfield, can he?
by Randy Richardson on Nov 11, 2009 1:31 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
4C
That’s exactly what it is.
Atkins has only played 3 games in the outfield in his career (all in 2004) so I don’t know if he’s just a corner infield guy, or could learn to be a 4C.
"I cannot believe how fucking off base I was about Tiny E before this season. The Kid is great and is going to become a star."
- Wails
by RCCook on Nov 11, 2009 1:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
thanks,
I’d rather not see him getting outfield playing time.
by Randy Richardson on Nov 11, 2009 1:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Mariners resign Griffey for 2010
I’m ok with that. Let them put that .220 in the heart of the lineup.
A baseball game is simply a nervous breakdown divided into nine innings.
by NothinG on Nov 11, 2009 1:34 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I'd be willing to bet that this is more about marketing than it is about performance
I’d be willing to bet they have several cheaper alternatives in the system that could put up similar performance in addition to development time.
by Heebs on Nov 11, 2009 1:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That's good for us
"I was going to say, 'You’re gay for Elvis.' But then I realized that I, too, am gay for Elvis." ~Adam J. Morris.
by Kinslerhomer on Nov 11, 2009 1:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Griffey
Griffey, 2008: 260/347/405
Sammy Sosa, 2007: 252/311/468
Both at age 38.
So I guess Jack Z is a front-office dumbass too…
"I cannot believe how fucking off base I was about Tiny E before this season. The Kid is great and is going to become a star."
- Wails
by RCCook on Nov 11, 2009 1:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
At least we didn't re-sign Sosa
"It's kind of a new stat that's in vogue" - Joe Buck on OPS
"...he wasn’t a good hitter, just a good middle of the order bat that hit a lot of homers." - NYTXFAN on Mark McGwire
by lonestarJon on Nov 11, 2009 6:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Griffey > Sosa
Griffey is a significant revenue source for the M’s and can hit righty’s pretty well.
Sosa could hit lefties, which number fewer than righties, and was a decent draw — but not nearly to the level that Griffey is for the Ms.
by Trickman on Nov 11, 2009 10:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I’ve wondered if the Rangers brass is wondering if they can kick-start Hammy by bringing back his buddy. Batman and Robin.
by shroomer on Nov 11, 2009 1:36 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I had the idea that Hammy would miss MB last year
and I’m not saying I was right about it, maybe it wasn’t his protection/production in the lineup, but SOMETHING sure as shit took the grin off of Hamilton’s swing
"Hang-Dai, Wu...Hang-Fu$&ing-Dai"
by Walter Sobchak on Nov 11, 2009 3:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, they'd need Wonder Woman back too
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
"I am one of the biggest Texas Ranger fans out there but I'm also one of the smartest. Deal with it."
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Nov 11, 2009 4:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
heh
"I was going to say, 'You’re gay for Elvis.' But then I realized that I, too, am gay for Elvis." ~Adam J. Morris.
by Kinslerhomer on Nov 11, 2009 1:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
all boarding, the Scheppers line now departing for greatness
A baseball game is simply a nervous breakdown divided into nine innings.
by NothinG on Nov 11, 2009 1:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You know
I think they swapped the order of the “rec” and “flag” buttons on the comments, and it’s really fucking confusing.
"It's kind of a new stat that's in vogue" - Joe Buck on OPS
"...he wasn’t a good hitter, just a good middle of the order bat that hit a lot of homers." - NYTXFAN on Mark McGwire
by lonestarJon on Nov 11, 2009 6:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
'Path to the Pros' slideshow of Nellie Cruz
A baseball game is simply a nervous breakdown divided into nine innings.
by NothinG on Nov 11, 2009 2:19 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
O'Belle sure uses every last twitch in that body during his swing.
Every picture that comes up it looks like he’s smacking the crap out of the ball.
I’d be interested to see what the HitFX tool says about the ball’s speed off his bat. That is some serious torque.
"Nothing we do here has a point" - Czar Morris
by Chase Irwin on Nov 11, 2009 2:35 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Who is your backup CF? Hamilton?
If you could bring in Bradley as your every day DH, have Garrett Atkins on a one year deal as a 4C guy (assuming Clint Hurdle thinks he can get him back on track) so you’ve got an option at third base if something happens to Michael Young and a righty bat to spell Chris Davis at first base against some lefties, and then Taylor Teagarden, Omar Vizquel, and David Murphy rounding out the bench, I’d feel okay about that.
by cstorm15 on Nov 11, 2009 3:02 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I think he’s assuming Borbon is the starting CF, and Hamilton is starting on one of the corners, backing up CF.
by aggiecurt05 on Nov 11, 2009 3:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
And if its an absolute emergency
Murphy came up as a CF and could fill in there.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
"I am one of the biggest Texas Ranger fans out there but I'm also one of the smartest. Deal with it."
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Nov 11, 2009 4:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
or Boggs, or Golson, or Gentry
"Hang-Dai, Wu...Hang-Fu$&ing-Dai"
by Walter Sobchak on Nov 12, 2009 10:12 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure that's realistic
Indications are that the team wants Hamilton to permanently move to a corner position, and I don’t think Borbon is going to start 150 games next season.
It’s a shame that Murphy isn’t right handed and a good defensive outfielder. He really serves no purpose on this team other than to step into a platoon role against righties.
I’m concerned that Atkins will be our offensive “upgrade” this offseason, and we’ll go into next year with a Murphy/Atkins platoon at DH and Jerry Hairston Jr. backing up in CF.
by cstorm15 on Nov 11, 2009 4:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Milton Bradley=Albert Belle Lite
What if Bradley’s production and sorta good behavior during his Ranger stop is the abberration season in his career??? Chances are good you get the other version—malcontent with terrible injury history…
by backwoods on Nov 11, 2009 3:30 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I don't want the Rangers to bring Bradley back
…but holy shit man, the guy is no Albert Belle. That guy was a real asshole.
by Black Francis on Nov 11, 2009 5:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
he was also a really, really, really good baseball player
Go Rice Owls!
by JBImaknee on Nov 11, 2009 6:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No question about that.
If he hadn’t been half-psycho maybe he could have been even better.
by Black Francis on Nov 11, 2009 6:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If Young had to miss just 3 days you wouldn't want him going ot the DL
by Mike E on Nov 11, 2009 4:26 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Very good points.
There are, at this juncture, other options so we shouldn’t be going out and making Bradley feel like we absolutely need him again (although the truth is we do in one fashion) and giving him that kind of power. If we bring him back it should be on our terms and he’ll need to know that.
Otherwise, I’d be just as happy, maybe more happy, with Nick Johnson (whom we need to start going after ASAP, IMO).
Truth is though, I want to know how the F the players developed this “sense of entitlement” in the first place. The team pays them, they play for the team, not the other way around. While old Buck was an overbearing blustering fool, he at least seemed to keep the players in line in that sense. Just based on Kinsler’s tunnel vision on the 30/30 mark last year, the problems with Padilla and even Rudy’s complaints that the hitters just weren’t willing to work with him, I wonder if the clubhouse hasn’t gotten too “loose” over the past few years, and now Wash is having to take the steps to correct that.
If that’s the case, bravo to him for waking up and (hopefully) standing up to his players for once.
"It's kind of a new stat that's in vogue" - Joe Buck on OPS
"...he wasn’t a good hitter, just a good middle of the order bat that hit a lot of homers." - NYTXFAN on Mark McGwire
by lonestarJon on Nov 11, 2009 6:39 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
For those of you worried...
about how many games Board Game would actually play in, go ahead and take a look at how many games Nick Johnson has missed in his career due to injuries.
I’d worry more about him being able to play everyday more than Bradley.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
by slc ranger on Nov 11, 2009 7:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The DH is a wonderful thing.
"It's kind of a new stat that's in vogue" - Joe Buck on OPS
"...he wasn’t a good hitter, just a good middle of the order bat that hit a lot of homers." - NYTXFAN on Mark McGwire
by lonestarJon on Nov 11, 2009 8:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You still have to run, slide, etc
Without looking what their respective injuries have been I would guess that they are mostly ones that occur while running bases or doing something you have to do as DH as well. A 1B isn’t going to be crashing into walls and stuff. Pulled groins, hamstrings, knees, ankles are all injuries that can occur just as easily on the basepaths as in the field.
The only time I think DH can truly save and prevent injuries is if the injuries are to a guys arm or shoulders where he doesn’t have to throw the ball
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 Nov 12, 2009 8:40 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm going on record to say...
..that if the Rangers sign MB it will be a bleeping disaster.
I really don’t feel the need to back up my statement.
"Sometimes you just want to sit back and watch somebody throw 100." - Jeff Passan on Neftali Feliz
by Ryin A on Nov 11, 2009 10:43 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I think the potential is there
and I think the Rangers realize that and thus will only take him on if the Cubs eat most of the money. That way it doesn’t hurt too much to cut him loose if his wheels come off.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Nov 11, 2009 11:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
And maybe
he gets through the first half solidly before flipping out, buying the Rangers time to evaluate Smoak, Max, trade options, etc.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Nov 11, 2009 11:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
man, that's a great point...
..but what we’re paying him better be < 5mm….my ceiling is at 3k.
"Sometimes you just want to sit back and watch somebody throw 100." - Jeff Passan on Neftali Feliz
by Ryin A on Nov 11, 2009 11:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
*obviously 3mm
"Sometimes you just want to sit back and watch somebody throw 100." - Jeff Passan on Neftali Feliz
by Ryin A on Nov 11, 2009 11:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I was about to say, I think the player's union would have something to say about throwing down 3 dense
Look at the comments under Jeff Wilson's blog post on dallasnews.com. What a bunch of rocket scientists.- Keith Law
by Keynes on Nov 11, 2009 11:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
3 dense
I like it
"Hang-Dai, Wu...Hang-Fu$&ing-Dai"
by Walter Sobchak on Nov 12, 2009 10:14 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm guessing
it would be something like 1-2 million a year. AT least I would imagine that is the top end of it.
What do voluntary mean?
by JKolar on Nov 12, 2009 11:50 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
