More photos » Chris Pizzello - AP

4 months ago: Texas Rangers' Marlon Byrd throws his helmet after striking out with two runners on to end the sixth inning of a baseball game against the Los Angeles Angels in Anaheim, Calif., Monday, Sept. 28, 2009. (AP Photo/Chris Pizzello)

Browse more photos »

So yesterday, we talked about what Marlon Byrd has done for the Rangers the past three years, and concluded he's been a pretty good player.  The Rangers have gotten much more than their money's worth from Byrd.

And now, Byrd is going to be a free agent after the season, with what appears to be his one (and likely only) chance to cash in with a big, guaranteed, multi-year deal that will set him up for life.

Should the Rangers be the ones to do it?  Or should they thank him for his time and efforts, and wish him well with his new team?

The consensus from the folks who cover the Rangers is that they need to keep Byrd.  Jamey Newberg has mentioned in our podcasts that the Rangers need to bring Byrd back.  Anthony Andro says that the Rangers need to give him a three year deal, if that's what it takes.  Evan Grant has been vocal about the Rangers needing to bring Byrd back. 

But what does that mean?

First of all, I think we need to be realistic about what it is going to take to keep Marlon Byrd in Texas.  I've seen several people say, "We need to bring him back on a one year deal," but I don't think there's any way Byrd signs a one year deal with the Rangers.  Byrd is 32, he's coming off three solid seasons in a row, and he's in the best place he's ever been to command a multi-year deal.

If the Rangers could bring him back on a one-year contract, we wouldn't be having this discussion.  But that's not realistic...it is going to take a three year deal to bag Byrd.

Given the economic situation and the cratering of the market last offseason, it is harder to predict than in the past what Byrd will end up getting on the open market, but my guess is it will be somewhere around $20 million.

If the Rangers sign Byrd to a 3 year, $20 million deal, they are pretty much done for the offseason.  They owe Kevin Millwood $12 million for 2010, Michael Young $16 million for 2010, and Ian Kinsler $4 million for 2010.  Even if they backload the deal so Byrd only makes, say, $5 million in 2010, you've got $37 million committed to those four players.  Add in the money still due to Frank Catalanotto and Vicente Padilla for their 2010 option buyouts, and C.J. Wilson and Frankie Francisco's arbitration cases, and you're getting close to $50 million for six players before you do anything else.

So adding Byrd means no Ben Sheets, no Bobby Abreu, no trades for any player making above the minimum.  Basically, you're talking about bringing this year's team back intact, with no additions.

And what are you getting for 3 years, $20 million from Byrd?  Well, as we discussed yesterday, Byrd was below-average defensively in center this year, above-average defensively in center the year before.  If we split the difference and say he's average defensively in center, and combine that with him hitting about like an average centerfielder this year, you are getting an average major league centerfieler for your money.

But a couple of things to keep in mind...first, Byrd just turned 32.  You are getting his age 32-33-34 seasons if you sign him to three years.  He's not going to be improving during that span.  PECOTA pegs him for about a .260 EQA over the three year period, which is a little below average for a CF, and quite a bit below average for a COF.

Defense?  Ron Washington seems to like Byrd's defense in centerfield.  Of course, Washington liked Ben Broussard, as well.  The reality is that Byrd's 2009 defense in center is probably more indicative of what he's going to do going forward than his 2008 defense, because...well, he's getting older, and that's what players do when they get into their 30s.  They decline. 

The Rangers have indicated that they are committed to having a strong defense in the outfield, and particularly in centerfield...that's why they traded for Josh Hamilton, that's why they drafted Julio Borbon, that's why they liked David Paisano and why Craig Gentry is on the 40 man roster. 

But Byrd doesn't project to be a plus defensive centerfielder -- or, realistically, even an average to above-average defensive centerfielder -- for the next three years.  So what are you going to do?

The easy answer seems to be to plug Julio Borbon into center next year, put Nelson Cruz in right field, let Josh Hamilton and David Murphy and Brandon Boggs split time in left field (with Hamilton getting the bulk of his ABs at DH), and let Byrd go, right?  Clearly, that's a good defensive outfield.

Well, according to Jim Reeves, the Rangers don't think so:

One of the more disappointing discoveries is that manager Ron Washington seems to have absolutely no confidence in rookie Julio Borbon’s defense, which is why we had seen the rookie in center field for only one inning of one game going into this weekend’s final homestand.

Remember, Borbon was once thought to be the guy who would allow the Rangers to move Josh Hamilton out of center, in order to save wear and tear on his body. Now, Borbon seems destined for left field, at best.

Meanwhile, we have also come to realize what a liability Nelson Cruz is in right field as he regularly takes poor angles and routes to fly balls and butchers many others.

I don't agree with Nelson Cruz being a liability in right field, but the manager apparently perceives him to be a liability out there.  And if the manager doesn't trust Borbon in center, all the sudden, the need to bring Marlon Byrd back increases, because you are left with only Josh Hamilton and Craig Gentry as options in center field, right?

Well, maybe.  You've also got Brandon Boggs, who was credited with being an energy guy last season, and who Jon Daniels said at Newberg Night can play center field, but who has had shoulder issues all season in 2009 and thus has been out of the mix.

But do the Rangers really want to go into 2010, expecting to be a playoff contender, with Brandon Boggs as their starting centerfielder? 

I don't think it is a terrible idea, personally...it seems to me that, if you don't think Borbon is ready to play centerfield in 2010, you send him to AAA and let him play center everyday until you deem him ready, and let him come up then, rather than sticking him in left field to start the 2010 season, as some have suggested.

That lets you go with a Boggs/Hamilton combo in center, Cruz in right, Murphy in left.  You still probably want a righty 4C guy who can spell Chris Davis and David Murphy against lefties, but it seems like that grouping would be viable until you decide Borbon and Justin Smoak are ready to come up (and Smoak, you have to figure, will be up sometime in 2010, sooner probably rather than later).

Of course, rolling with Marlon Byrd in center to start the 2010 season, at least until Borbon is ready, is probably preferable.  Byrd is a perfect stop-gap option out there until Borbon moves into centerfield.

But Byrd isn't available as a one-year stop-gap.  He's a three-year option, or he's gone.

And if he's going to be here for three years, what do you do with him over that time?  Do you plan on him playing center through 2012?  In that case, Julio Borbon needs to be dealt this offseason, to a team looking for a speedy centerfielder/leadoff type (and there are only about two dozen teams looking for someone like that).

Do you let him fill in at center until Borbon is ready, then move him to a COF slot?  If so, you probably are looking to move Cruz this offseason, with Hamilton going to right field to start the season, but in that case, by dealing Cruz, you are moving the Rangers best outfielder this season, one of their two or three best positional players, and their best righthanded bat.  For a team that is too lefty-oriented and needs offense, dealing Cruz opens up a pretty big hole.

Still, it wouldn't surprise me to see it happen...Cruz clearly doesn't have the trust of the manager, and the organization, for whatever reason, doesn't appear to have much faith in him.  If the team doesn't see him as a valuable contributor on a playoff contender, then they should move him now, when his value is probably at its highest.  I suspect there will be teams out there that are interested in Cruz, and that would give up value to get him.

The problem is, of course, what are you trying to get in exchange?  Prospects?  For a team that is looking to make the playoffs in 2010, trading one of their best players for prospects is counter-productive.  A bat?  Why would a team trade a bat for another bat?  Pitching?  The rotation already has a bunch of guys vying for spots, and it seems silly to deal Cruz for a bullpen arm.

At one point I thought trading Cruz was something to team should do, that the Rangers should package him with a prospect or two and maybe a young major league arm to try to target a TORP.  And maybe that's what will happen.

But that was before Josh Hamilton and Chris Davis tanked, before the catchers decided not to hit, and before the weak offense derailed the Rangers 2009 playoffs hopes.  That was before I realized the Rangers need more offense, and aren't really in a position to deal bats away.

In any case...if you sign Byrd to a multi-year deal, you seem to be counting on him as a starter for the next three years.  But with Borbon, Hamilton, Murphy, and Cruz all around, plus Davis and Smoak and potentially Max Ramirez in the mix at DH, you are spending big dollars to bring back a guy to fill roles that guys in-house can fill for a lot less money.

As I said yesterday, part of the point of having a strong farm system is so you don't have to pay free agent dollars on the Marlon Byrds of the world.

The counter to that is, well, he's a great clubhouse leader.  He's huge in the clubhouse, and the Rangers can't let him go.

And I have no reason to dispute that.  But even with Byrd, and Michael Young, and Eddie Guardado, and Kevin Millwood, and the other great clubhouse leaders, this team played stupid ball an awful lot this year.  When the Rangers needed a strong homestand to stay in the playoff race, the offense spit the bit and the team went 2-7.  It showed resiliency, but it also showed a tendency to press, to make dumb decisions, and to take a poor approach to the plate.

And Byrd is at the forefront when it comes to poor approach.  Marlon Byrd's swing percentage is barely outside of the top 10 in the majors.  He sees less pitches per plate appearance than almost anyone else in baseball.  When we talk about the Rangers going up and hacking at everything and refusing to work the count, Marlon Byrd is the poster child for that approach.

So it seems contradictory to say that the Rangers, on the one hand, have to improve their approach and have to have better at bats, and then turn around and say that Marlon Byrd -- one of the worst culprits -- has to be back in a Ranger uniform next season.

It also comes down to this...Marlon Byrd, over the next three years, is likely a guy who is a 4th outfielder on a championship contender.  A very good 4th outfielder...but as a centerfielder, he's likely a defensive liability, and as a COF, he's not good enough with the bat to be an every day player. 

And the question you have to ask is, do the Rangers want to commit 3 years, $20 million to a guy who, you expect, is going to be your starting centerfielder for some or all of 2010, and then will go into a 4th outfielder role?

If this team had a $100 million payroll, I'd be fine with that.

For a team with a $60-70 million payroll, it simply isn't feasible.