Rangers Offer Arb To Byrd and Pudge

by Kinslerhomer on Dec 1, 2009 5:00 PM CST

Sure hope Pudge declines. 4 1st rounders would be sweet.

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Tweet Comment 22 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Would be sweet if new ownership is in place, at least

by Brett Perryman on Dec 1, 2009 5:10 PM CST reply actions

Ownership didn't cheap out this year

Purke was just insane and wanted money like it was 2005 again.

Besides everything should be in place by June of next year, surely.

by Hull Fan on Dec 1, 2009 5:12 PM CST up reply actions

+1

but I’m still mad about Blash.

"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 Dec 1, 2009 5:13 PM CST up reply actions

Did we not offer him something decent?

I don’t remember his exact story? He hit for crap in the Cape league or something similar and wanted way more money than was really reasonable. Is that not correct? Like I said my memory is kinda fuzzy on him.

by Hull Fan on Dec 1, 2009 5:15 PM CST up reply actions

I don't know

I just remember that BA liked him alot.

"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 Dec 1, 2009 5:18 PM CST up reply actions

Whether you want to blame it on poor strategy or cheapness, the Rangers were the team that failed to sign its #1 and signed fewer of its picks than almost anyone (the Pirates signed two fewer but gave out some much larger over-slot deals…and are the Pirates). And I haven’t seen it added up, but I assume that they were in the mix for least money spent on the draft, despite having a supplemental first and not losing any picks as comp. They went over slot on a few guys, but we’re talking the 250k-450k range.

by Brett Perryman on Dec 1, 2009 5:22 PM CST up reply actions

They spent some money past the tenth round

but here’s BA’s total for top ten rounds. 71% was the worst by ten percent, and only six other teams were under 100.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/draft/?cat=11

Team Picks Signed Bonus Total Slot Total Slot Spent
Nationals 11 10 $10,869,500 $8,211,400 132%
Mariners 12 12 $10,636,600 $7,674,700 139%
Tigers 10 9 $8,857,100 $4,143,900 214%
Padres 10 10 $8,735,500 $5,230,200 167%
Diamondbacks 15 15 $8,548,700 $8,131,600 132%
Pirates 11 11 $8,081,900 $5,701,500 142%
Rockies 12 12 $7,663,300 $5,826,000 132%
Angels 14 13 $6,386,900 $6,621,600 96%
Athletics 9 8 $6,035,900 $3,183,600 190%
Brewers 13 13 $6,005,900 $5,172,600 116%
Giants 10 10 $5,813,500 $4,583,100 127%
Red Sox 10 9 $5,711,400 $2,985,600 191%
Royals 9 9 $5,600,000 $3,256,500 172%
Reds 11 11 $5,182,900 $5,035,800 103%
Orioles 10 9 $5,147,200 $4,783,800 108%
Yankees 9 8 $4,760,000 $2,685,000 177%
Cardinals 10 10 $4,508,500 $3,398,700 133%
Twins 11 10 $4,223,100 $3,998,100 106%
White Sox 12 10 $3,892,100 $4,658,700 84%
Indians 10 10 $3,853,000 $3,644,400 106%
Dodgers 11 11 $3,714,600 $3,582,300 104%
Braves 9 8 $3,714,500 $3,756,900 99%
Blue Jays 12 9 $3,675,700 $4,536,300 81%
Marlins 10 10 $3,544,800 $3,453,600 103%
Astros 11 11 $3,426,800 $3,585,000 96%
Rays 10 7 $3,285,000 $2,916,300 113%
Cubs 10 10 $3,254,700 $2,792,100 117%
Rangers 11 8 $3,161,700 $4,483,200 71%
Phillies 9 9 $2,755,000 $1,876,800 147%
Mets 9 7 $1,864,300 $1,926,300 97%
Average 11 10 $5,430,337 $4,394,520 124%

by Brett Perryman on Dec 1, 2009 5:27 PM CST up reply actions

Not signing Blash and Lemke

Really made their draft look bad (along with Purke of course)

"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 Dec 1, 2009 5:34 PM CST up reply actions

I don't want to sound like a Hicks apologist but

how much money did they spend on LA free agents? If money went there rather than draft picks it’s not a loss. (I’m not saying that’s what happened but speculating.)

Would I have liked them to sign a few more guys? Absolutely. Was this draft a failure if they miss on some? There’s almost too many bodies in this system so taking a year to step back and allow the natural weed out process and trade some quantity for quality like the Danny G trade will help. Worry if the trend continues but I’ll trust this scouting department and hope that the money is there next go around.

Scheppers and the late guy Strong signing took the sting out of Purke and Lemke and Blash.

by Hull Fan on Dec 1, 2009 5:57 PM CST up reply actions

Yeah, they did spend there

though it still represents an overall drop from previous I have to think, and they had budgeted to spend a good deal more internationally than they did spend as well, because of Guillermo Pimentel, etc.

by Brett Perryman on Dec 1, 2009 6:52 PM CST up reply actions

glad to see they offered Pudge

i would be okay if he left and we got the pick, and I’d be okay if he stuck around and we had a solid catcher in the mix.

What is this, Horseville? Because I'm surrounded by naysayers.

by clark on Dec 1, 2009 5:11 PM CST reply actions

ITA

on that. I’m hoping he declines but regardless that’s a good move by the Rangers. Byrd seems like a lock to turn this down right?

by Hull Fan on Dec 1, 2009 5:16 PM CST up reply actions

You would think but if he doesnt then its a good sign for just one year.

I think everyones major problem with Byrd isnt him next year or the money he would get in arb for next year, its year 2 and 3 at 5-8 mil a piece when he most likely will be declining fast.

Elvis has "shook up" Arlington!!

by thad728 on Dec 1, 2009 5:21 PM CST up reply actions

If Pudge resigns

does TT go to OKC or get traded?

|Space for Rent|

by RangerMad on Dec 1, 2009 6:04 PM CST reply actions

is Salty 100% healthy?

if so, I don’t know – there’s no way they keep 3 pure catchers on this team, but I could see them DHing Pudge most of the time and keeping all 3 if we don’t make any significant moves

"Hang-Dai, Wu...Hang-Fu$&ing-Dai"

by Walter Sobchak on Dec 1, 2009 6:14 PM CST up reply actions

That would be terrible

Because Pudge can’t hit anymore.

I failed my LSB ethics test.

"It's kind of a new stat that's in vogue" - Joe Buck on OPS

by LSJ on Dec 1, 2009 7:07 PM CST up reply actions

Pudge may not be what we WANT or even NEED

but he’s better than what we HAD there, and he’s still a better offensive catcher than Salty and Teabags

"Hang-Dai, Wu...Hang-Fu$&ing-Dai"

by Walter Sobchak on Dec 1, 2009 7:54 PM CST up reply actions

No. He's really not.

Last year:

Pudge: .287 wOBA
Salty: .287 wOBA
Tea: .281 wOBA

They all suck, but Pudge will be in his age 38 season next year. He’s every bit as shitty as the other two offensively, only he doesn’t posses the upside or the likelyhood to improve Salty and Tea do.

I failed my LSB ethics test.

"It's kind of a new stat that's in vogue" - Joe Buck on OPS

by LSJ on Dec 1, 2009 8:00 PM CST up reply actions

+1

A baseball game is simply a nervous breakdown divided into nine innings.

by NothinG on Dec 1, 2009 9:32 PM CST up reply actions

oh fine, hit me with stats...

that’s real fair. what am I gonna do now, say I like Pudge better, and that he is my favorite Ranger of all time, and that he won an MVP back when (maybe) he was roiding?

great.

"Hang-Dai, Wu...Hang-Fu$&ing-Dai"

by Walter Sobchak on Dec 2, 2009 12:16 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs