Want lots of Rangers news this morning? Well, you're out of luck.
Behind the paywall, Evan Grant asks if the Rangers can keep their team together going forward.
Matt Mosley talks about all the suitors after C.J. Wilson (although this article is a couple of days old), which includes this:
Apparently some teams may have a short memory when it comes to Wilson's postseason struggles, although the Rangers won't be in that camp.
I've said this before, but the idea that C.J. Wilson can't pitch well in the postseason, or that his postseason performance should materially impact what teams are willing to pay him, is asinine, and I'm coming to think it is more a reflection of what some in the media think of him, rather than what other teams think. C.J. rubs some in the media the wrong way. If C.J. were popular and well-liked by the media, the postseason stuff would be dismissed. Because he's a whipping boy for some in the media (along with a vocal minority of fans), that is focused upon.
Put another way...C.J. has a 4.82 ERA in 52.1 innings, which some are acting like is this great evidence he can't pitch in big situations, can't handle the postseason.
Josh Hamilton has a .234/.303/.438 line in the postseason. Does anyone really think the media is going to be constantly referencing that next offseason, when he's a free agent?
Michael Young has a .241/.266/.380 line in the postseason. Does it surprise anyone that C.J.'s struggles in the postseason have been magnified by the media, while Young's have been ignored?*
* When I bring this up on Twitter, the inevitable response is, so you think Texas should give him 6 years, $120 million? Of course I don't. But it isn't because of his postseason performance.
Also...remember when we had to pay Cliff Lee more than he was really worth because he's so great in the postseason? He's 0-3 with a 7.16 ERA in his last three postseason starts.