3-1
by Adam J. Morris on Apr 10, 2009 3:13 PM CDT
Email
PrintWell, that sucked.
231 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
That was horrendous. Absolutely terrible. No bats, no pitching.
Madrigal came out and sucked it up. Rupe came out and sucked it up. Where did our offense go? Where was the defense? Jet-lag, guys?
In memory of Nick Adenhart.
Offense got shut down
by a good pitcher. It happens sometimes.
"The idea that the Rangers are going to be a solid contender for a number of years is a fantasy." - Adam J. Morris
So in looking at the play-by-play log...
looks like Mad Dog finally made it in. He had a great first inning, and did well for the first two outs of the second.
Now… was he one of the guys that was supposed to be able to go two innings? I thought he and Guardado were supposed to be one-inning guys, with CJ the eighth-inning setup guy and Fx2 the closer. That makes Rupe, Feldman and Jennings the multi-inning guys, right?
Madrigal
I haven’t seen anything suggesting the Rangers expect him to be a one inning pitcher.
"A good start would be not giving up 900 runs again." -Jon Daniels
by Randy Richardson on Apr 10, 2009 3:19 PM CDT up reply actions
Madrigal
right now, he should be a zero inning pitcher. But you know what, we’ll do the same thing with Strop this year. We’ll call him up before he’s ready. This org has a very weak grasp on how to handle pitchers.
What is this, Horseville? Because I'm surrounded by naysayers.
Sometimes your hand is forced
I think this team will do well enough if one of Eyre or Nippert can give us something.
OTOH...
If he’d just gone out for the one inning, got the three outs and was replaced to start the seventh, thus having 1 IP with a 0.00 ERA and zero walks… what would we be saying then?
i can't imagine
anyone having a worse Good Friday.
in all seriousness, that was horrible. There are at least four guys on this team who should not be members of teams seriously committed to winning.
What is this, Horseville? Because I'm surrounded by naysayers.
no doubt
we have two to three arms on this current roster who are simply not major league quality, but we have at least that many guys in the minors who can come up and plug holes.
Chris Davis should probably sit a game out to try to get his shit straight, because he has cost us more outs so far this year than he has had ABs.
What is this, Horseville? Because I'm surrounded by naysayers.
I bet Doug Mathis could have given us what Benson did today
"My mother always taught me that if the only thing you have to say is,
‘(Expletive) Dave Samson,’ then don’t say anything at all.
So I’m not going to say anything at all.
Is my mother the greatest or what?"
- Mariners GM Bill Bavasi, after signing Ichiro to a $90 million contract
Benson
Could have been a decent start if the defense had made some plays behind him. He didn’t have good control of his breaking ball, but really only made that one awful pitch to Cabrera.
"A good start would be not giving up 900 runs again." -Jon Daniels
by Randy Richardson on Apr 10, 2009 3:17 PM CDT reply actions
Benson
was far from the problem today. One of the collateral problems with passing out good pitchers to the rest of the teams in our league, beyond us not having them, is that we occasionally have to face them.
What is this, Horseville? Because I'm surrounded by naysayers.
What happened
to the patient approach of this team last year. Do we need someone like Bradley just for this whole thing to go?
thats what happens
when you beat the hell out of a team for three straight days. you see a pitcher with legitimate stuff, and you forget the approach you need.
What is this, Horseville? Because I'm surrounded by naysayers.
Even in the start vs. Carmona
our guys watched a lot of pitches, but we swung as some genuinely awful stuff from Gallaragga
I've read that he has a very deceptive delivery.
Probably fooled some guys, and when they got so far down they got all discombobulated.
by Black Francis on Apr 10, 2009 6:00 PM CDT up reply actions
probably so
i was getting frustrated that they kept offering at the low and away pitch to righties and low and inside pitch to the lefties. galaragga got every hitter w/that pitch
go here to view my blog: http://dirtfromd.blogspot.com
by studcrackers on Apr 10, 2009 3:23 PM CDT up reply actions
i think you guys aren't giving Galarraga enough credit
he was filthy today. he would be by far the best pitcher on our staff. that pitch just falls right out of the zone. I will be very pleased if one of Feliz or Holland manages to pitch as well as Galarraga this year, but I doubt it will happen.
What is this, Horseville? Because I'm surrounded by naysayers.
It also didn't help that the zone was huge today
At least I saw the ump call it huge both ways so I couldn’t complain that much.
?
the pitch Laird blooped into LF?
"A good start would be not giving up 900 runs again." -Jon Daniels
by Randy Richardson on Apr 10, 2009 3:21 PM CDT up reply actions
He fell apart in the fifth though
he didn’t look terrible til then.
"The idea that the Rangers are going to be a solid contender for a number of years is a fantasy." - Adam J. Morris
do you mean the fourth?
that was also the inning that Cruz misjudged the flyball – a different inning if he makes that play.
"A good start would be not giving up 900 runs again." -Jon Daniels
by Randy Richardson on Apr 10, 2009 3:23 PM CDT up reply actions
It was also a smoke pitch
to young that inning, a couple of just foul pitches to granderson. We can play this “WELL, if we had 100% defensive efficiency” game all day, but the fact is that good pitchers frequently pitches around defensive errors, and that Benson showed nothing today.
x
Benson showed nothing today
OK
"A good start would be not giving up 900 runs again." -Jon Daniels
by Randy Richardson on Apr 10, 2009 3:28 PM CDT up reply actions
89 mph FB
loopy breaking stuff, inconsistent change up, come and go control.
How is that different than say – Doug Mathis?
x
His first start in two years, threw 101 pitches, 2/3’s of which were strikes. Just thought he showed more than the line suggests.
"A good start would be not giving up 900 runs again." -Jon Daniels
by Randy Richardson on Apr 10, 2009 3:33 PM CDT up reply actions
Strike throwing is fine
but everything put into play was hit pretty hard, and he showed very little ability to miss bats.
Strike throwing is one part of pitching, guys have to have a way to miss bats or be able to keep the ball on the ground. Benson KIND OF showed the ability to do the first against a very aggressive Tigers lineup that helped him out more than a few times.
What exactly did he show that made you feel confident in him?
x
everything put into play was hit pretty hard
that’s simply not true.
I thought he had a decent outing, definitely couldn’t control his breaking stuff. I’m interested to see his first few starts and how this progresses. It’s one outing, I didn’t suggest that I have confiedence in him – he’s clearly a wildcard.
"A good start would be not giving up 900 runs again." -Jon Daniels
by Randy Richardson on Apr 10, 2009 3:41 PM CDT up reply actions
Even in the first 2 innings
a pretty good lineout by Polanco and a couple of groundballs. After one trip through the lineup, it seemed like everyone was hitting him hard.
Like I said, I think you need to have 3 skills to be a good pitcher, and I saw maybe 1/2 of that from Benson. The more we “experiment” with mediocre pitchers like Benson the worse this team will be.
yeah, I meant the fourth.
"The idea that the Rangers are going to be a solid contender for a number of years is a fantasy." - Adam J. Morris
i cant recall
seeing a bigger meatball then the one he served up on a platter to cabrera. i remember once last year josh and tom were talking about how on the tracker you rarely see a pitch right down the middle but benson did it.
id say the pitch that killed benson though was that granderson ball that he just golfed out to right that kept carrying and carrying. not to mention nelly misplayed it, wind IMO was a factor early in the game
go here to view my blog: http://dirtfromd.blogspot.com
by studcrackers on Apr 10, 2009 3:22 PM CDT up reply actions
Really didn't matter anyway.
Galarraga was owning their faces anyway. There wasn’t a single Rangers pitcher that was winning that one.
"The idea that the Rangers are going to be a solid contender for a number of years is a fantasy." - Adam J. Morris
The grand slam to cabrera
Was literally the worst pitch i’ve seen so far this year.
Just win tomorrow.
the preceding post was a great success.
Humm
the Brewers and the Twins use the same sideline reporter.
That’s a sign of the economic times, I guess.
Rangers problems pretty much handled my the conversation I had with my grandmohter.
Grandmother: I just don’t understand how they can be so good the first three games, and then be so bad, it just does not make sense.
me: You have to understand grandmother, we have the worst pitching staff in all of baseball.
Grandmother: ok but if they were so bad, why didnt they go out and get new pitchers after last year?
Me: ……Good fuckin question G-ma. Talk to ya tomorrow.
Benson
Benson was a bad signing, he should just be dropped now.
When John Ehrlichman, the President's counsel and assistant, asked Nixon why he kept Agnew on the ticket in the 1972 election, Nixon replied that "No assassin in his right mind would kill me."[
It doesn't take a knowledgeable baseball fan
To see the Rangers problems.
by SaltyGoesYard on Apr 10, 2009 3:42 PM CDT up reply actions
The point of the post was
If my grandmother can figure out the Rangers problems.
Why can’t the front office?
by SaltyGoesYard on Apr 10, 2009 3:44 PM CDT up reply actions
"The Rangers just do not play well in Detroit."
Right on par with the G-ma Snark.
by SaltyGoesYard on Apr 10, 2009 3:47 PM CDT up reply actions
That offhand comment
did not claim to “pretty much handle” the Rangers’ problems. It was what it was: an offhand comment on a GDT, typed as I shook my head sadly at another blowout Rangers’ loss in Motor City.
They tried to get Sheets and he failed the physical.
Everyone else would have been throwing a hell of a lot of money at someone not that much better than Benson, who was had for cheap. Unless you think anyone was going to match the Yankees’ offer for Sabathia, who as it turns out had a pretty awful first start, as bad or worse than Benson’s start today. At least Benson got a strikeout today.
Yah I know
I’m not one of the crowd that thinks we can just open up the wallet and find 5 starters. I understand how it works.
I would rather just go with someone who had a future, instead of continuing to waste away with these spares who will never amount to nothing.
I would of like a bit of money spent on the bullpen though, or at least let some Triple A pitchers get a try.
by SaltyGoesYard on Apr 10, 2009 4:02 PM CDT up reply actions
you say fuck
to your grandma? i dont think i could do that
go here to view my blog: http://dirtfromd.blogspot.com
by studcrackers on Apr 10, 2009 3:56 PM CDT up reply actions
Ok Benson fell apart after 3 innings but...
Did anyone else think he could be serviceable after seeing him work the first 3? Michael Young failed him on a possible double play and then Cruz misread that ball. Could have been scoreless. I thought he looked pretty confident and didn’t nibble too much and also minus the Cabrera missle, I thought he did a good job of keeping the ball down.
I’ll agree that’s a pretty optimistic view but he didn’t look like some of the guys we’ve thrown out there from the trash heap.
much?
Not enough.
Half the staff we have right now should be gone, tomorrow. Disagree?
by SaltyGoesYard on Apr 10, 2009 3:42 PM CDT up reply actions
problem is
Who replaces them? They wouldn’t be much better.
Elvis Andrus - 2009 AL Rookie of the Year
It's a REALLY small sample size....
But what will the majority of posters do if Andruw Jones turns out a better signing than Benson?
R
I actually don't think anyone would be surprised
I think there was more yelling about Jones because it looked like he would take away some young OF’s playing time for a long time… the Benson thing was right at the end, and he was replacing someone many here think is a spare anyway.
Well
SOME people were saying there was an extremely small chance that Jones would be useful.
And when it was pointed out about Benson, it seemed like it was denied or that there’s a better chance Benson would be good.
Not only that, but Jones HAD been at least a league average (if not better) defensive CF last year. Benson hasn’t been in a major league game for 2 years.
Plus which “young OF’s” are you talking about? Cruz? 28. Murphy? 27. Byrd? 31.
Borbon? Could stand to be in AAA more.
Basically, I’d like to see some people eat crow. Specifically, those who don’t seem to understand risk analysis.
R
Oh, I forgot about another young OF
Boggs? 26, and was rushed last year. Could stand some AAA seasoning.
R
"Young OFs"
How many years of MLB service time are we talking for each of them? Jones has more than a decade of MLB time, right? Also, all of the other OFs played better defense than Jones this spring.
But also, part of the yelling about Jones wasn’t so much to do with Jones himself. It’s to do with a mistrust of Ron Washington. I think most would agree that Jones could be useful as a right-handed bench guy, but people are afraid Washington will start him a lot because he’s a veteran. Meanwhile, whether Feldman is in the rotation or bullpen, he’ll still get plenty of playing time, and we’ve got enough room in the bullpen that there seem to be a few spares in there anyway, even with Feldman there. Meanwhile, Benson can only suck once every five days instead of every day in the starting lineup like Andruw could.
"Young OFs"
Cruz – 1 year and 82 days
Murphy – 1 year and 87 days
Byrd – 5 years and 45 days
Boggs – 153 days
That still doesn’t mean they’re young. And the reason of playing young prospects (and by prospects we really mean prospects) is
a) to know whether they fit into future plans as a starter
b) to gauge their ability because of the lack of sample size
Which doesn’t really fit with any of the above except for Cruz and maybe Boggs (though I don’t even know if he’s shown he’s shown he’s AAA material let alone MLB starter material).
Murphy is a platoon/good 4th OF who might be ok as a 3rd OF.
Byrd is likely to be gone after this year.
So, the only concerns there are that Washington didn’t learn anything from the Sosa experience AND Jones bombs AND he’s taking time from Cruz (IMO).
That’s too many ands to be worrying about IMO for the worst case scenario.
R
Jones
DID hit a lot better than Murphy (yes, extremely small sample size).
The point isn’t that Benson was worse than other options we have (and I don’t think that’s necessarily the case).
The point is that Jones could potentially be an effective player/trade chip on our team.
And I’ll take that possibility for a NRI (whether it’s Jones or Benson or Vizquel).
R
Neither of them
seem to be taking playing time away from deserving players, at the moment.
"The idea that the Rangers are going to be a solid contender for a number of years is a fantasy." - Adam J. Morris
We have basically the same pitching staff
did anyone really expect things to be better this season with all the same people pitching, i do think the offense will be even better (though today sucked) the defense may get better late in the year, but early it will be super ugly, they may finish about 500 unless some how they find some pitching, same thing we say every year., let’s hope today was due to jet lag and cold temps.
Holy hell!! We are all jumping guns like we are the worst team in the majors after one loss.
Granted, it was a damn ugly loss but it was just one loss. Our bats hit a bad day, which is going to happen, our defense was terrible, which will probably happen more than we would like this year, and our pitching, all of them, were out matched today. But again, its one day. Many people are picking the Indians to win that division and people say that have a pretty good staff. And we took them to town and also kept their fairly decent lineup in check. Its one loss. I think everyone in baseball has one now. Calm down you freaking babies!!
Elvis has "shook up" Arlington!!
"It's only one loss"
but in 3 of 4 games the Rangers have had problems with thier pitching and/or defense. What were thier problems last year?
Elvis Andrus - 2009 AL Rookie of the Year
Positives from today
Maybe Madrigal can give us one inning.
Elvis Andrus’s ears are pussies.
Chris Davis has to start hitting eventually.
Nelson Cruz is powerful.
Ian Kinsler is human (not so much a positive, but I was worrying what kind of trouble we’d get in with Selig if they found out Kinsler is actually a robot manufactured to be the greatest 2B ever)
Am I forgetting any?
Jay Zygmunt, now that you have fired yourself, please have yourself hired by Seattle. Thanks.
what in the fuck are you talking about?
how are any of those positives? i love optimism as much as the next guy, but the only positive from today is that it only counts as one loss.
What is this, Horseville? Because I'm surrounded by naysayers.
Well Cruz staying hot is a positive
hes got to be that guy for this offense to keep the tea above 500 for any amount of time.
Everything else sucked.
the preceding post was a great success.
agreed, oh and one more
The more Benson sucks early, the quicker he goes away. That is good. Sorry, Anna fans.
Jay Zygmunt, now that you have fired yourself, please have yourself hired by Seattle. Thanks.
by 3k on Apr 10, 2009 4:02 PM CDT up reply actions
In my defense-
Warner – I didn’t think he could give us an out, let alone an inning. If he can at least go 10 pitches before exploding (as he did today), I’ll be happy, because 10>0.
Andrus – Uh, no real defense. I was just surprised at the ear warmers.
Davis – The slump will end with a bang, and I’m glad it wasn’t today. A beasticon HR would have been useless; I’m hoping it comes when it makes a difference.
Cruz – My only concern with Nellie was consistency. We all knew he had it in him, he just has to produce more often, and he’s done that so far this season.
Ian Kinsler – I’ll stand on the explanation above.
Jay Zygmunt, now that you have fired yourself, please have yourself hired by Seattle. Thanks.
by 3k on Apr 10, 2009 4:01 PM CDT up reply actions
elvis wasnt the only one wearing ear warmers
"I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it." - Mitch Hedberg
He wasn't?
He was the only one I noticed; who else was?
Jay Zygmunt, now that you have fired yourself, please have yourself hired by Seattle. Thanks.
by 3k on Apr 10, 2009 4:04 PM CDT up reply actions
He was?!
I can’t believe i missed that one. Fair enough.
Jay Zygmunt, now that you have fired yourself, please have yourself hired by Seattle. Thanks.
by 3k on Apr 10, 2009 4:07 PM CDT up reply actions
hamilton had them
on to begin with as well…
Support your local Scott Feldman
"Josh Hamilton doesn't act like he is Josh Hamilton. He acts like a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy named Josh Hamilton."
the thing that kills me
is that the club misevaluated Young and Danks and Volquez, but at least those moves were somewhat justifiable. Young would have been a decent starter here, and certainly had more value than Eaton, but obviously Petco helps him out. Danks learned a new pitch and became a much better pitcher, whereas McCarthy has battled injuries. Okay, that sucks but it’s understandable. Volquez was dismissed as a guy with a MOTR ceiling. Again, grossly mis-evaluated, but at least we got Hamilton out of it. But with Galarraga, we actually decided last year that there were 40 guys on our roster who held more value than him. 40 guys on a team that won 79 games and sported a 5.37 ERA. And Galarraga hasn’t been taught a new pitch that has made him a different pitcher. We just looked at him and said, “Nope, Kameron Loe and Luis Mendoza clearly have a better big league future than you.”
I am not saying we are a bad team. I am not saying we don’t currently have a bevy of talent in our org. And yes, we are still sitting at 3-1. But I still have very real and very legitimate worries that this team has no fucking clue when it comes to evaluating a pitching prospect. And with so many in the pipeline, we will have to make some critical decisions on many of them in the near future. Do we have the correct people to make those decisions in place? Or is our front office the Buck Showalter of FOs, get a team on the verge, and then turn it over to someone who can take the next step.
What is this, Horseville? Because I'm surrounded by naysayers.
On Galarraga
I didn’t agree with the decision to let him go at the time. And it is clearly a mistake in hindsight, although I still don’t think Galarraga is, or will be, anything special.
However, I think the thought process on Galarraga was, here’s a guy who is coming off an okay year in AA, who won’t be ready to contribute in the majors at the start of 2008, and who will be out of options after the season. We can cut bait with him now, or we can hold onto him and, most likely, end up having to drop him the next offseason.
I don’t think that the thought process, itself, was that irrational.
by Adam J. Morris on Apr 10, 2009 4:01 PM CDT up reply actions
Didn't he have an unsustainable BABIP last year too?
So the luckier he got, the worse it made it look for the Rangers.
the pitcher we saw today
looked much improved, and much more legit, than the guy we saw last year. Like Danks, he seems to have the proper personality to let him learn from his mistakes and grow in his confidence.
What is this, Horseville? Because I'm surrounded by naysayers.
Funny how we get rid of them for not being ready
Then the team that picks um up we make fun of them for letting them get a start right away.
….then they dominate.
by SaltyGoesYard on Apr 10, 2009 4:05 PM CDT up reply actions
These pitchers
once again we get to the real question about the mid-00’s Texas Rangers:
1> have they been unable to recognize good talent in young pitchers in the high minors?
or
2> can they not take good talented pitchers in the high minors to the next level?
Either way it has a problem. Its just hard to say which it is (and hopefully it isn’t both). Galarraga and Young seem like cases of #1. Danks #2. (Volquez doesn’t count, since that trade wasn’t made blindly, the team knew what they were doing)
Also we need someone to step up
Be it JD, Nolan, or whoever.
To get some balls, and not be afraid of letting young guys play, and stop feeling the need to fill the roster with these spare rejected projects we try and get every year.
by SaltyGoesYard on Apr 10, 2009 4:10 PM CDT up reply actions
Young
What is interesting about him is that the identified him, and seemingly rushed him along. I remember thinking, “why in the world are they so in love with Chris Young?” the spring before he had his breakout season.
by Adam J. Morris on Apr 10, 2009 4:11 PM CDT up reply actions
Yeah, he's a weird case
I think the Rangers thought that they had a guy like you are imagining Galarraga to be. Someone who comes in, has stuff unique enough to do well for a year or two, and then makes a good trade piece before he gets figured out.
I think they thought that they were trading high, and that they’d turned Uggie Urbina and Einar Diaz into Adam Eaton and Aki Otsuka.
Good point
about Young.
Also, the problem wasn’t with trading Young.
The problem was what you were getting back in return.
Young would likely have significantly worse numbers at TBiA, and would not help the Rangers as much as a team like the Padres or Dodgers or A’s (where flyballs seem to become more outs instead of HRs with regularity).
But getting a year’s worth of a below average starter and a 34 year old reliever isn’t worth a pitcher who will be putting up #1-#2 starter like numbers.
R
And the ability to stay healthy
I think that happens with a lot of teams. Guys like Chris Carpenter went from nothing to what they are now on new teams. Bobby Jenks was a waiver claim, R
Yeah
There was really nothing Galarraga showed in his time in the Texas organization that suggested he’d be this effective. He was the 38th or 39th best man on the 40-man when the team got rid of him – he just happened to find something once he was taken.
It happens. Hard to hang it on JD.
A lot of people hang it on him, though
Even though it’s hard to know he’d be one of the few that doesn’t learn how to play “The Great Game” until he gets to “The Show.”
but he was a legit pitching prospect
the year we traded for him. but he had pitched too many innings the year before and it affected him throughout ’06. He showed a lot of improvement in ’07, especially the latter part. Still, he was an effective two pitch pitcher, so you would think the org would at least decide he could be a viable help to our bullpen down the road.
What is this, Horseville? Because I'm surrounded by naysayers.
That year
Luis Mendoza and Armando Gallaragga both showed great stuff when it came to 2nd half springs. We kept Mendoza cause he was a groundballer. It’s just bad luck. A lot of bad luck and it sucks, but it happens.
yep
our FO is just consistently unlucky. just like Benson and Madrigal are consistently unlucky on the mound. and nick cage is consistently unlucky with movies.
What is this, Horseville? Because I'm surrounded by naysayers.
I think you'll find
that Chris Young was a misevaluation of a pitcher’s talent, John Danks was a misevaluation of this team’s standing and Armando Gallaragga is just awful luck.
Yeah
As a team, you can only have so many guys like Galarraga, Mendoza, Gabbard, etc who are on the cusp of AAA/MLB. If you think you have any chance of competing, you can’t afford more than one or two in your rotation. It’d be nice to just keep them all around until the ones destined to find anything actually find it. But that just isn’t how things work.
The skill is letting go of the right ones, but that is luck as much as anything else.
I think we kept Mendoza...
…because he was younger and had three options remaining, versus Galarraga’s 1 option.
by Adam J. Morris on Apr 10, 2009 4:11 PM CDT up reply actions
but this is what i'm getting at, Adam
you can sit here and make rational points in every single case, but at some point it becomes a trend, and no matter what logic you apply, at the end of the day JD has let 4 pitchers go via trade who are more effective than any pitcher he has brought in. Maybe Feliz can change that dubious fact, but that remains to be seen.
What is this, Horseville? Because I'm surrounded by naysayers.
And I will say that trying to find trends
so early is a dubious thing to do. Bill Beane gave up Jeremy Bonderman and Ted Lilly for nothing, does that make him just awful when it comes to drafting young pitchers? Sometimes, you can’t look for trends where they don’t exist.
WHAT?
By that point, Billy Beane had a pretty established track record. everyone misses on occasion. he point i am making is that JD has not yet hit on a pitcher. he has missed on at least 4 notable occasions. comparing the net result of all of JD’s moves to the net result of all of Billy Beane’s moves will only result in embarrassment and heartache.
What is this, Horseville? Because I'm surrounded by naysayers.
Answer the point
I think when you try to draw trends with only the results in mind, stupid conclusions are reached.
I still want to hear how you think we misevaluated Volquez or Young (or Danks, who clearly wasn’t ready in 2007, for that matter).
if we didn't misevaluate them
then we GROSSLY misevaluated their returns. a small market team only gives up six cheap years of a MOTR starter for one year of an ace, and only when they think they are ready to make that jump. eaton was no ace, and that jump was never close to happening. the team thought they were trading a MOTR starter for an ace with McCarthy. As it turns out, they should have kept the home grown lefty with a better mental approach to the game (we’ll leave his frail physique out of this). The Volquez deal, again, is justifiable, but ONLY because Hamilton turned out to be a legit superstar. And Galarraga they flat out missed on. All varying degrees of misses, but all misses just the same.
What is this, Horseville? Because I'm surrounded by naysayers.
Right, no one is arguing the misses
what we’re arguing about is whether or not this is a trend.
And yes, I think the misevaluation is more on the fact that we got guys like Eaton in return, and that Brandon McCarthy just hasn’t been healthy. That happens.
i'll reply here
to the remainder of your replies. i think you make very valid points, especially above when you detail the different ways we misevaluated. you are obviously okay with JD as a talent evaluator, and yes, he did “win” the Teixeira trade. I will cut him a lot more slack when JUST ONE of his pitching acquisitions comes in and delivers on the level that Galarraga pitched at last year for Detroit. When Harrison, or Feliz, or Gabbard, or anyone else, is able to do that, I will let it go.
What is this, Horseville? Because I'm surrounded by naysayers.
Volquez
I’m not sure how we misevaluated him at this point. A lot of walks, great stuff – wasn’t that the scouting report for him?
The nonsense with Gallaragga is more of an inability to not fall in love with ST stats. That’s why it’s dangerous when awful players like Jennings sign as an NRI – they tend to make this team if they have even decent Spring – and we can’t seem to come to terms with the fact that some players just straight up stink and that leads to 40 man roster crunches.
I think Gallaragga developed, which is good on him – but this happens with teams sometimes. Nelson cruz developed last year too. The key to guys like that is being able to keep them on the 40 man – and you don’t do that by keep adding NRIs like Benson and giving them rotation spots.
any single example
can be explained away. Young, Danks, Volquez, Galarraga, they all can be explained. but at some point you have to call a trend a trend. and the apologists here have to realize that there is something wrong with our evaluation process that allows us to be so consistently “unlucky”.
What is this, Horseville? Because I'm surrounded by naysayers.
why are you including Volquez?
They traded a guy they knew could be a very good player for another guy who could be a very good player. Where’s the misevaluation there?
"A good start would be not giving up 900 runs again." -Jon Daniels
by Randy Richardson on Apr 10, 2009 4:12 PM CDT up reply actions
because they didnt make the trade to tie
they made it to win. JD thought he was trading a struggling pitching prospect with a ceiling as a middle of the rotation guy for a guy who could ultimately become a star. As it turns out, he was half right, but don’t let the half that is right conceal the half that is wrong.
What is this, Horseville? Because I'm surrounded by naysayers.
From a PR and business point of view
the Hamilton-Volquez trade was a big win. Josh Hamilton put a face on this franchise that it desperately needed this decade.
From a baseball point of view, it was still a very smart decision and the right move. The team’s OF was a disaster, as bad as its pitching. High ceiling OFs tend to be more reliable bets than comparably high ceiling SPs.
Bullshit
Edinson Volquez is a MOTR guy because his command still sucks. He is what he thought he was.
if he is a MOTR guy
then we could use a lot more guys like him around here. that is a trade that i would make again, but it doesnt change the fact that we misevaluated Volquez. If JD really thought Volquez would go out and have a season like he did last year, there is no way he would still make that trade because Hamilton was no certainty either.
What is this, Horseville? Because I'm surrounded by naysayers.
How did we misevaluate Volquez?
Didn’t we pretty much claim that he was a guy who had Great stuff but inconsistent control? Isn’t that what he is right now?
That to me screams a MOTR guy, we can differ about the semantics of what he is, but are you honestly going to tell me that Edinson Volquez is not what we thought he was? – A guy with great stuff but mediocre control?
That's what I remember the Rangers (and others) concluding:
Volquez had a frontline starter ceiling, but only if he could gain consistent control and command. Otherwise, a middle-of-the-rotation guy.
there was definitely a quote
right after the trade, when JD was asked to justify why he traded away pitching for hitting, in which he stated that he felt we traded a guy who could ultimately be a MOTR starter for a guy who could be a star and solve our CF problem for years to come. Some of that is typical GM bullshit to justify a move, but I really doubt we would have made that move if we knew how good EV would be, and how quickly he would get there.
What is this, Horseville? Because I'm surrounded by naysayers.
i said above
“that is a trade that i would make again”
What is this, Horseville? Because I'm surrounded by naysayers.
Do you think that Cincy equally underestimated Hamilton?
I guess I’m having trouble seeing your rationale for being critical of JD in a trade that you wouldn’t undo. It’d be one thing if JD had said “I’d rather trade Volquez than, say, CJ Wilson” and that is why Volquez got dealt. But Cincy was well set on receiving Volquez in return. Seems like Texas knew what they were giving up and what they were getting. Not all trades have to be a blowout like the Teixeira deal to be a smart move.
crap
i am not being clear. we have taken my original statement that JD and his staff struggle to evaluate pitchers and made it an argument about this one deal. this one deal, in a vacuum, turned out fine.
What is this, Horseville? Because I'm surrounded by naysayers.
You are beginning your analysis with only the losses
What about the Teixeira deal returning Harrison and Feliz? Both have turned out to be better than generally expected at the time (Harrison looks like at least a decent back-of-the rotation guy and Feliz has top-of rotation potential).
He traded Juan Dominguez for Koronka and Rheinecker. That was a Galarraga-type move that was a correct analysis.
He acquired Padilla for Ricardo Rodriguez, cutting bait on another AAAA type guy who never amounted to anything.
Basically, JD has been VERY active on the trade market, and has several big wins, and several big losses. You can’t just look at the losses and say you see a trend.
Or even things like Bryan Corey for Mendoza
part of it is misevaluation, but part of it was just stupid luck.
I dunno
If he’s talking about evaluating pitching PROSPECTS so much as evaluating/developing those prospects to major league pitchers….
Of course, I could be mis-interpreting what he’s saying.
Harrison and Feliz are both prospects and neither have developed as a major league quality starter (though they’re closer).
Dominguez, I would not say is a win so much as a wash. Koronka and Rheinecker didn’t do much for us either.
Ric Rod was a correct evaluation, and a good trade, but I don’t recall many people (aside from Adam :p) who really liked Ric Rod.
The key in trades is avoiding SEVERAL big loss. And you have to look at the context of the trades (was the loss for that last piece on a playoff contending team? Or was it going for contending when realistically you only had a 10% shot of making the playoffs?).
For example, I can’t really think of several big loss that Beane has had. He’s had some minor losses, and aside from Hudson (in which a key piece, Meyer, got injured), hasn’t had a big loss.
R
The Bonderman trade
where he gave up Carlos Pena and Bonderman for Lilly really is Beane’s AGon/Young deal. Bonderman is very comparable to Young – both have been good, but with warts. AGon is much better than Pena, but similar, both hadn’t been with the organization long, both were questionmarks.
Kielty for Lilly
I’ll give you.
That was likely more a mis-evaluation of KIELTY than Lilly. Lilly provided Toronto pretty much what you expected (though maybe slightly better than Beane did) from what he had.
Bonderman actually GOT the A’s Lilly, so I’m not quite sure how it can be the Bonderman trade was a big loss when Kielty for Lilly was also a big loss. Granted Pena was tossed in, but you could consider that more Pena for Griffin and Arnold since Beane was not high on Pena at all at the time.
BTW, Bonderman has never lived up to the hype (ERA+ of 77, 91, 93, 112, 91, 104).
He’s been significantly worse than Chris Young has.
R
Ric Rod for Padilla
is by far the best trade he has made, or at least the biggest win, in terms of how much it has helped the big league club. we gave up a nobody and we got back a legit big league pitcher who we have paid, on average, around 10M/year. But Galarraga more than erases that move.
when the other “wins” we are talking about cite Koronka and Mendoza as the bounties, then it has truly been a miserable run.
What is this, Horseville? Because I'm surrounded by naysayers.
At this point
I think we can agree that you’re evaluating trades in a different way than anyone else here. It is what it is, then.
Earlier, you said this:
“I will cut him a lot more slack when JUST ONE of his pitching acquisitions comes in and delivers on the level that Galarraga pitched at last year for Detroit. When Harrison, or Feliz, or Gabbard, or anyone else, is able to do that, I will let it go.”
So he properly evaluated Ricardo Rodriguez and got Padilla in return, who has been probably our best starter the past few years. Would you consider Padilla to have contributed to the big league club on the level that Galarraga pitched for Detroit?
Dominguez
I’m not really counting him as a “win” – just a situation very similar to Galarraga when the guy JD let go ended up amounting to nothing, just as JD had expected.
That is, of course, unless Miles’ guy in the DR comes through with Dominguez’s glorious return
Could, or would?
Seems like there’s a difference between evaluating a guy’s ceiling as middle-of-the-rotation starter and not believing he’s going to realize his frontline-starter potential with your ballclub.
As a side-note
If Daniels’ believed Hamilton would solve the Rangers’ centerfield problems for years to come, that strikes me as a mis-evaluation.
Even at the time of the trade
I feel as if I remember analysts noting that Hamilton would be a good defensive rightfielder, but not a long-term answer in center. (And not just because of Hamilton’s durability.)
Daniel Cabrera
is a guy with great stuff and mediocre control. Volquez is a guy with great stuff and great results, and it is only because he occasionally walks a few too many guys that keeps him from being a viable ace.
What is this, Horseville? Because I'm surrounded by naysayers.
Edinson Volquez
is a guy who had a BB% greater than 10% every year stretching back to 2005, regardless of level.
Fun fact – that’s about .5% better than Daniel Cabrera. Edinson Volquez is a guy with better stuff than daniel cabrera cause he has a changeup. That’s the difference between the two – not better command.
again
we are arguing over semantics, but look at the results. the bottom line is that if JD knew that Volquez would pitch as well as he did last year, or if he even thought he could, there is no way he would have made that deal.
What is this, Horseville? Because I'm surrounded by naysayers.
No way
I think without Hamilton, this team is way worse than it is right now.
One year of results is a dumb way of evaluating things. James Baldwin was the next Pedro Martinez once, but we’ll see. I think sometimes justifications are not just apologists, and actions are justified not by results, but by intentions.
I still don’t see how they misevaluated Danks, Volquez or Young, but we’ll see.
For that matter
isn’t it the same thing with Chris Young? Guy gives up too many HRs, guy doesn’t stay healthy. That’s what he is.
Is there a link
to something stating that the Rangers felt Volquez’s ceiling was as a middle of the rotation starter? I’m not remembering that evaluation, but maybe I missed it.
Because that's not the case at all.
According to Krivsky, when Cincy originally asked for Volquez, JD sent an assload of counters not involving Volquez. It wasn’t until Krivsky said Volquez or nothing that the Rangers caved and based the trade around him.
i am not saying
we pushed him out the door with a bow on his head.
What is this, Horseville? Because I'm surrounded by naysayers.
x
JD thought he was trading a struggling pitching prospect with a ceiling as a middle of the rotation guy for a guy who could ultimately become a star.
That’s not correct. Most people in baseball thought that Volquez’s ceiling was as a top of the rotation starter and that’s why the Rangers got one of the top players in baseball in return for him.
"A good start would be not giving up 900 runs again." -Jon Daniels
by Randy Richardson on Apr 10, 2009 4:18 PM CDT up reply actions
they didnt get one of the top players in baseball for him
at least not at the time. they got a guy who certainly looked like he had a lot of physical talent, but who was injury prone and who put up Rick Ankiel like numbers in a hitter friendly ballpark. both parties traded a guy who took a serious step forward the next year.
What is this, Horseville? Because I'm surrounded by naysayers.
So what's your problem with the trade?
Because both guys took a forward that year?
Not everyone takes that great step forward, there are plenty of players who hasn’t that JD has traded.
I think
clark’s problem is that
1) the Rangers pitching is still pretty bad
2) ace quality starting pitching is harder to find and keep
My own additional issue is:
3) that Hamilton is no longer defensively average in CF.
Though that’s somewhat mitigated by my belief that Volquez still has a way to achieve ace quality.
R
my problem
is not, and has never been, with the Hamilton trade. It is with the net result of all of JD’s deals, and the fact that the pitchers we acquire are consistently less effective than the ones we give up. If everyone here is willing to explain that away as “unlucky” that is fine.
What is this, Horseville? Because I'm surrounded by naysayers.
Man
No one is saying that no mistakes were made, what everyone is saying is that the misevalutation was not necessarily made about the true talent levels of the players given up, but the true talent levels of the guys back or their ultimate durability.
Part of it is misevaluation with guys like Eaton, some of it is stupidly bad luck like McCarthy, and some is just stupid 40 man management and stupidly bad luck like Galaragga. But all those things are forgivable in the end.
I'd also argue (hopefully)
that some of the misevaluation involved in the early deals was associated with a wrongheaded “[we can] win now” mentality that the front office seems to have recognized as mistaken.
okay, i give up
if everyone is fine with this same group of people sorting through all of the current talent in our minor leagues, then i can’t argue you away from that. i just have a feeling we will either see holland and feliz succeed elsewhere or fail here.
What is this, Horseville? Because I'm surrounded by naysayers.
Holland or Feliz
won’t be traded away in a Danks-like deal, much less face a Galarraga release scenario.
They are both far higher profile, higher regarded pitchers than anyone in this organization has been in a long time. They may fail here, or they may succeed here, but JD isn’t going to trade them away only to be shocked at their success elsewhere because that is just what he does.
so because of their profile
JD will all of a sudden start making better decisions?
What is this, Horseville? Because I'm surrounded by naysayers.
I think the fact
that he knows what he’s gotta do to keep his job means he won’t make guys like Holland and Feliz available.
Have to agree
Hamilton was looked on as a top player in kind of the same way that Volquez was thought of as a #1 starting pitcher.
They both had the potential to get there. But there were a lot of potential mines on the way to glory.
R
OK,
but a couple of us have asked about your assertion that JD thought Volquez’s ceiling was as a middle of the rotation starter. You have nothing to validate your claim – you should stop saying it.
"A good start would be not giving up 900 runs again." -Jon Daniels
by Randy Richardson on Apr 10, 2009 4:45 PM CDT up reply actions
well i looked
and i can’t find it, so consider it revoked. i believe he made the comment on the radio (making it harder to find online), and it was right after the deal was made. I am surprised more people don’t remember it because much was made about it around this time last year.
What is this, Horseville? Because I'm surrounded by naysayers.
I think I remember something to the effect
of the Rangers feeling Volquez wasn’t going to reach his potential with the ballclub, if at all. I think the jury is still out on the latter, but I’m not sure the former wasn’t a decent evaluation, given Volquez’s history with the Rangers. That’s not a compliment to the organization as it stood, but it also doesn’t imply that Daniels misevaluated Volquez’s ceiling…
Those four
I don’t think you can take a look at mistakes and call them the same thing. Yeah, talent misevaluation happen, but really they were different type of errors.
The first three was misevaluation more of where the team stood, but really – wasn’t the call about Chris Young and gang correct?
Young was tabbed a guy who was fragile and lacked an out pitch – and that’s what he is. Danks was a guy who learn quickly after struggling and that’s what he is. Volquez was a guy with a lot of stuff and poor control and that’s what he is.
I think Galaragga was just a case of a guy developing beyond our ability to forecast it. It’s like the same thing with Nelson Cruz or Bobby Jenks or Joey Devine or Cliff Lee or a million other players who just happen to develop beyond his projections.
Did anyone really think that Galaragga would develop like that? And if they did, why was Detroit, one of the last teams in the league that was eligible for a waiver claim claim him?
Chris Young
As stated before. The problem wasn’t with the evaluation of Young.
The problem was the evaluation of what we got back.
I agree with most analysis of Galarraga on here. I don’t think he’s as good as he was today.
R
My problem with the Young trade
was that the team gave up Adrian Gonzalez. He’s the real disaster piece in that deal, not Young. Young was a LAIE, traded for a more established, ultimately less healthy LAIE with only one year on his deal left.
Gonzalez is one of the top 30 players in the game, and everyone would know had he stayed in Texas. But do you hear anyone lambasting JD because of that? No – because he’s done pretty well in seeing good hitters out there. Cruz for Coco. Bradley. Hamilton
Agreed
About Gonzalez.
But IMO, that was more insult and more injury to the injury.
Even if Young was a LAIE (and the numbers seem to belie that, ERA+ of 107,108 to that time), Eaton was a inury-prone WORSE LAIE who you only have for 1 year….. (ERA+ of 103, 93, 69, 97, 84, 90)
It was just a royal screw-up in every which way.
Heck, I even hated adding in Sledge (though he didn’t amount to anything) for Killian.
R
According to UZR...
Gonzalez was well down the list of first basemen defensively. Offensively, he was good against righties but helpless against lefties. He was an All-star only because of the lack of another candidate on the Padres. Davis has far more upside that does Gonzalez and Smoak would totally smoke him.
NRIs
are not inherently bad by themselves.
In fact, in general, they’re quite good.
If you have a problem with the Rangers’ management of NRIs, then you have a problem with the Rangers’ management, NOT the NRIs…..
R
Yeah
I see it the same way. NRIs can be useful, and they are frankly a necessity to have in ST if you end up in a situation like Oakland did this spring. Imagine if Millwood and Padilla got injured in March and we were forced to bring Holland and Feliz into the rotation, like the A’s did. People would be calling for JD’s head for not having a Jennings or Benson in camp for that contingency.
Maybe JD is a little too eager to go with guys out of ST, because he’s had luck with reclamation projects before (Bradley, Gagne, Lofton)
Possible
After all, he has been rewarded pretty well with the NRIs.
But that’s the point of why NRIs are good. You can hit the home runs there. Or doubles, singles.
The issue is knowing when to cut line with them, which is probably NOT a trivial skill to learn.
R
yeah
Its easy to say “Hey, Jennings looks like the type of guy who is primed for a great comeback” without thinking of the roster ramifications of keeping him on board. And if Jennings had been healthy and effective, and Galarraga pulled a Juan Dominguez or Ricardo Rodriguez and faded away after JD traded them away, no one would remember.
Yup
It’s not easy. And it IS easy to Monday (Tuesday?)-morning quarterback.
But on the whole, I think I’ve come around to NRIs on the whole being quite good. (Even though, I still think Botts got a raw deal).
The only downside is the inability to cut line with an underperforming player. But that CAN be done.
R
my main problem with the team handling nri's
is they seem to get a leg up in competitions over younger guys who the team could break in.
and our manager in the past has shown a willingness to go with the not that good veteran who is trying to scrape by and make the team over a younger possibly more deserving player. (see matt kata)
"I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it." - Mitch Hedberg
Galarraga
It’s unfortunate how it’s worked out from the Rangers perspective. I would just say this: he was DFA’d – basically all teams in MLB were thus made aware that he was available and Michael Hernandez was the best offer they got – so a lot of other teams missed on the evaluation also.
"A good start would be not giving up 900 runs again." -Jon Daniels
by Randy Richardson on Apr 10, 2009 4:07 PM CDT up reply actions
OT:
Thanks for those who helped me with the my top ten list.
In case you want to read it, here it is: the Top Ten Dallas Sports Teams Ever.
Seeking a new signature...
First things first
THANKYOU for starting at 10 and working backwards.
So many of these damn top ten lists I see online ruin it by posting number 1 first. You always wanna work backwards from 10.
Secondly I know you said “best teams” but my personal opinion is a team that wins a title will always rank over one that does not.
by SaltyGoesYard on Apr 10, 2009 4:15 PM CDT up reply actions
That's a fair point.
And I toyed with that idea, but I just couldn’t bring myself to put the ’75 Cowboys over the 05-06 Mavs.
But you certainly have a point.
Seeking a new signature...
combined?
Big over.
Jay Zygmunt, now that you have fired yourself, please have yourself hired by Seattle. Thanks.
by 3k on Apr 10, 2009 4:22 PM CDT up reply actions
Keep in mind they only have 158 games left.
by SaltyGoesYard on Apr 10, 2009 4:23 PM CDT up reply actions
Oh damn
I thought they had more
Jay Zygmunt, now that you have fired yourself, please have yourself hired by Seattle. Thanks.
by 3k on Apr 10, 2009 4:24 PM CDT up reply actions
Just saying
They both look a bit sluggish.
Josh much less so.
by SaltyGoesYard on Apr 10, 2009 4:24 PM CDT up reply actions
I love this
Just because the first loss of the season came against Galarraga the sky has fallen. Not falling. Fallen.
Remember Red, hope is a good thing. Maybe the best of things. And no good thing ever dies.
I know
And it’s been a good discussion. But all it takes is one loss to bring out the “JD sucks” chants and “the Rangers always trade away goo pitching” bit.
The Young trade sucked yet I understood the rationale but still disagreed. EV-Hammy was just fine. Danks/McCarthy, again I understood the reason and I even agreed with it.
Galarraga was a different situation. If it was a poor job of scouting and analysis, then that’s a problem. Perhaps no one really could have predicted his improvements. But if the Rangers threw up their hands and said “gotta get someone off the 40 and he only has one option” then that’s the worst answer. But I can’t really say that Galarraga was as horrible of a mistake as it seems now. No one can point to any statistical evidence to predict his success now. You win some you lose some.
Remember Red, hope is a good thing. Maybe the best of things. And no good thing ever dies.
We Ranger fans only know how to analyze losing
Since it is the only thing we know. So we’re thriving after this loss. We were without words with a 3-0 start.
We were?
I remember a hell of a lot of yakking.
Jay Zygmunt, now that you have fired yourself, please have yourself hired by Seattle. Thanks.
by 3k on Apr 10, 2009 4:53 PM CDT up reply actions
They better pull that shiz out for tomorrow's game. Red wristbands or something.
In memory of Nick Adenhart.
One of the gusy I work with,
said they didn’t bring anything red, because they couldn’t bring all the blue cold weather stuff, plus extra red cold weather stuff. So I bet it’s blue all the time.
There are three things in my life which I really love: God, my family, and baseball. The only problem – once baseball season starts, I change the order around a bit. ~Al Gallagher, 1971
get a red sharpie.
Win tomorrows game. let millwood carry us sunday. get out of there 5-1 that would be amazing.
I'm just goofin' new boot goofin'
Man, I totally forgot this was a day game
Now I’m glad I did. Jesus.
Don’t worry bigsteve, Scott Feldman will be back in the rotation sooner than you think.
Hello Win Column - no two-tone helmets have been included in our redesign.
Trades and shit.
I can’t get into that melee above.
The Young trade was bad for the reasons Requiem listed. They didn’t get enough back. That’s a problem.
Volquez I do think was valued by the organization but not by its fans; I remember some of you saming some harsh ass things about him a couple years ago when he finished out his last season as a call up. And I think you’re underestimated how highly Hamilton was still thought of around baseball.
Danks. Another bad trade. I wish they’d stop pitching for guys who are injured. That said, if McCarthy weren’t injured I think he’d be pretty good, whereas if Danks didn’t move on and learn a cutter he’d probably be just a good relief pitcher right now and not a #3 starter on a good team.
Galaragga. I think it was a bone-headed move and I hated to see it. There was no way of knowing he’d put up the kind of numbers he put up last year, though, and today’s start notwithstanding I’m not all that sure he’s as good as a lot of people are thinking. But still, nothing was gotten in return.
But if you look at the deals to acquire Padilla, get rid of Teixeira, and the Milwaukee deal, I think you have to say that Daniels has had his good trades and bad trades.
Where he and the rest of the organization has excelled is compiling a bunch of great prospects who ARE going to make their team better. Quite simply, there are so damn many of them that a few are going to pan out and become big time players.
I don’t think big league team is going to win when Millwood and Padilla are your two ‘best’ starting pitchers. The pen is not looking very strong. But I like what’s coming and I really, really like what they’ve done with the rest of the team on the field. For years I said they needed to get some players who could play the damn outfield. Now you have a whole bunch of guys who can both run and throw out there. Fun to watch. And the infield is getting better. What’s more is most of them can fucking hit, too.
Anyway, if you guys are this upset about ONE game, then holy shit. I’d hate to think if you were Tribe fans. Look what your crappily led team just did to that team, which is a bona fide contender.
Detroit can hit. It shouldn’t be surprise for a team that’s not all that great to go on the road and get lit up by a good hitting team that’s playing at home.
My advice would be to set your expectations low. After the first three games I saw so much elation around here I thought I might puke. They just don’t have the pitching to be a winning team. If they do end up with more than 81 wins then it’s going to be because a lot of things went very right. Anyway, losing teams have games like today’s, and they have them pretty often.
But, seriously, get off of Daniels’ case at least a little. He’s a young GM and yeah he’s made some mistakes but look at what has become of the farm since he’s been here. Withhold judgment for a while, you know?
one thing
“My advice would be to set your expectations low. After the first three games I saw so much elation around here I thought I might puke?”
Really? If you can’t get emotionally invested where an opening sweep gets you excited, what do you get out of watching?
the preceding post was a great success.
Well
I’m excited because it seems like certain pieces are falling into place.
Hopefully, Nellie keeps this up throughout the season and we’ll have two corner outfielders in place for 2010.
Elvis keeps proving me wrong and shows he’s ready to hit in the majors, and we’ve solidified our infield defense.
Millwood fulfills the innings requirement and is a solid starter for the 2010 season.
Season sweep leading to the playoffs? Well, it’s a long shot, in my mind (though with the A’s and Angels dealing with injuries, who knows?).
R
I did get excited
…but not deluded. I’m not saying you’re deluded but there are those who are.
What do I get out of watching? I love baseball. I like the Rangers and what they’re doing, in general (like I said above). I enjoyed the sweep immensely, and think if they can get off to a real hot start (play well over .500 for all of April), they seem like they’re the type of team who may be able to feed off of that and take things farther than I anticipated. So that would be great, but I don’t look for it to happen. They simply do not have the pitching yet.
As long as they avoid a repeat of last year (they started 5-4 before mayhem ensued) in which they are failing miserably at literally every facet of the game, this will be a fun year. They’ve made progress in some areas but as of right now are static or even worse with the pitching. Yet at the same time we’re going to see some guys come up this season who are part of the future. And I love to watch that.
by Black Francis on Apr 11, 2009 12:35 AM CDT up reply actions
on the plus side
it appears as if the Angels are snakebit this year after being somewhat lucky with health and other things the last few years. I don’t think it will take much more than 500 ball to win this. I’d be unsurprised to see the division won with 85 games or so.
"The idea that the Rangers are going to be a solid contender for a number of years is a fantasy." - Adam J. Morris
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
