is that this wouldn’t have (only) been an “improve-now” deal for the Rangers; it would’ve also helped the team in 2010 and 2011. As those are the years in which the team’s frequently predicted to start competing, the Rangers “inability” to sign Cruz raises questions about the (almost-as-frequent) prediction that Hicks will open his wallet when the Rangers are on the cusp of contention.

Seems as if this would’ve been a good opportunity for Texas to lock a piece into place at a time when the market for free agents is as close to anything resembling reasonable as it’s likely to get…

(Speaking of reasonable ~ Adam, “imminently” doesn’t mean what you think it means…)

That’s understandable, though…you can’t really expect Tom Hicks to try to compete financially with big-market, deep-pocketed teams like Kansas City.

my thoughts to a T.

how can the texas rangers compete with the large market, history of winning royals! its impossible, we can only hope that one day our owner is willing to open up his pockets like david glass…

:)

I am still of the belief, though it does take some faith still since they don’t just knock you over with their talent like TB did a year or two ago, that the Royals are going to pitch well in the near future, and given some of their positional talent that they will finally be a competitive team for a little while.

Cynical AJM.

This team is not one decent reliever from being a contender. Realistically, the Rangers have probably a 5% chance of making the playoffs this year (this wreaks of an 81 win club, with admittedly high variance in expected wins). Cruz makes that maybe 1% higher. Pass.

As for the Hicks bashing, sure, its easy to look at anyone who signs elsewhere that we could use and blame Hicks for being cheap. But the economics of whether the Rangers should spend several million for a guy who won’t chance the playoff potential by much is a little more complex than you are making it out to be.

There is an opportunity cost of paying more money for players now. Basically, money spent now means that the team has that much less to spend on in July or next winter. I’d rather the Rangers save that $2 million now, and if either a> the Rangers are competitive on July 31, they’ll have that $2 million line available to trade for someone or b> sign someone for the 2010 season when a +1 or +2 win acquisition actually could increase playoff probability by more than the 1% that Cruz would right now.

The only argument I could see in investing that money now is if you believe that player cost will go up enough in the next 6 months to offset the essentially sunk cost of Cruz in 2009.

that some disgruntled Ranger fan has not yet laid a well-deserved beating on the Hick.

The Cruz contract seems high for this market that is being driven further and further down. Although, compared to the Farnsworth deal, it’s an absolute steal. I don’t really understand what Dayton Moore is trying to accomplish this offseason. Their hitters still suck at getting on base – they had a .320 team OBP last year and acquired Mike Jacobs (career OBP of .318) and Coco Crisp (career OBP of .331).

There should be plenty of internal options for the bullpen soon enough. No worries.

I have a feeling this is a guy who is going downhill and won’t ever sniff the success hes had the last couple years. The thing that makes me think that is his walks. He went from a 4.47 BB’9 pitcher in 2006 to a 4.72 BB/9 in 2007 and then last year he jumped to a 5.40 BB/9. Doing that in the NL makes me very weary. I think hes a nice player but with the way bullpen guys go theres just as good a chance over the contract he regresses significantly as there is he continues being a good pitcher.

how many of the NRIs signed are worth one Juan Cruz. I mean they weren’t free were they?