The draft pick and Juan Cruz

what are the odds that a 2nd rd pick has as much/more value to the rangers than cruz would over the next 2 years?

bring up the Rangers history of 2nd round picks?

if anyone can remember the article/source, I would greatly appreciate it — I think it was on THT sometime back, but I could be off.

Anyway, the piece in question took a look at value added by traditional closer roles, and signing a reliever considered to be well above average and then relegating that reliever to a late-inning role. This sort of reliever use limits WPA, and devalues a pitcher who would otherwise be more useful in 7th or 8th inning roles and tight situations.

I recall that the article had a quote from Billy Beane saying he was aware that this devalued a pitcher from a sabermetric standpoint, considering that you’ll lose an extra one or two games (at most) a year by using a non-traditional closer in that role, but that the money spent was well worth it because losing a game in the 8th or 9th innings leaves the fanbase with a very bad taste in its mouth.

I think this goes right along with that line of thinking — even if Cruz were a marginal upgrade from CJ (and I think most of us agree that he’s a bit more than a marginal upgrade), then it would be worthwhile for us from a fan perspective to not have to deal with these god awful late-inning losses as often. I’m totally with Adam on this point.

And if so, where Colton Cain out of Waxahachie HS might fit?

and there is no argument that can me made for the loss of a draft pick. In all likelihood, Cruz would have netted us a comparable draft pick after two years, if not a possible first rounder.

I don’t think there was any reason for not signing him

Over his career, Cruz has posted Win Shares of 7, -1, 5, 6 and 6. That means Cruz will probably add about 2 wins to the team. If Adam’s prediction is correct that the Rangers will win 83 games, 85 games won’t be much of an improvement. Or, I should say, 85 wins probably did not look all that good before some many injuries started affecting AL West pitchers on other teams.

I have to wonder why all this outrage about Cruz now. Clark has been on the Cruz bandwagon for quite some time now, and maybe others as well. I don’t think Cruz will make much of a difference in the standings by the end of the year. There might be fewer games like the one on Sunday, but no reliever is immune from the occasional bad outing. I just don’t see Cruz as the solution for this team.

I always thought that the Rangers were really trying for 2010 and beyond, and that any success the team had this season is an added bonus. I guess this is why I am not worked up about not signing Cruz. Washington made plenty of mistakes managing the bullpen, which irks me the most.

Wouldn’t using the best players available at #59 be more accurate? Davis, Teagarden, Kinsler, CJ all taken round 3 or later. And that’s just Ranger players, I’m sure there are other examples of the talent availble at pick #59.

I agree that they should of signed Cruz, but the pick has some value. A long shot for sure, but better than the names listed.

Using just the 59th pick to support a rant would seem to be pretty self-serving and narrow-minded. Just a quick glimpse of players drafted in the 60th thru 65th rounds has surfaced several recognizeable names, such as:

Dustin Pedroia, Eddie Murray, Steve Garvey, Fred Lynn, Ryan Ludwick, Andre Ethier, Ken Holtzman, Hunter Pence, Bruce McCann, Randy Winn, Manny Delcarmen, Joe Magrane, Darren Oliver, Zane Smith, Rawly Eastwick, Tim Crabtree, Brad Fullmer, Jeff Weaver and many more.

To more accurately gauge the value of a 2nd round pick, Ian Kinsler (17th round), Michael Young (5th round) and Chris Davis (also 5th round) would have still been on the board.

a great measure of a pick. If pick 59 is a dud but picks 58 and 60 where perennial All-stars that means giving up 59 in the future is OK?

What about Tony Gwynn, Jason Giambi or Rick Aguilera with the 58th pick or Johnathan Broxton or Ryan Ludwig or Steve Garvey or Fed Lynn with the 60th pick?

The real question is 2 years of Juan Cruz worth the possible value of whatever a guy in this spot of the draft will bring for 6 years.

Cruz is currently a Type A free agent. You can’t say where he’ll be in 3 years since only the past two seasons count toward Type status, but one a money-whipped 1-year deal, you can almost count on him retaining his Type A status. That would result in Money + 2009 #2 for Cruz + 2010 sup + (2010 #1 or 2010 #2). Not a bad deal at all.

A two year deal risks his status falling, but even if he drops to a Type B, that’s Money + 2009 #2 for Cruz + 2010 sup.

A three year deal makes it even riskier but at that point, you’ve locked the pitcher up for 3 years and the draft pick becomes far less important.

I’m guessing that Cruz wanted more money than the Rangers were willing to pay him, and that’s all there is to it. I just don’t see how the draft pick could be considered justification for not signing Cruz.

your own strawman argument with “I just don’t see how the draft pick could be considered justification for not signing Cruz.”