A couple of Jon Daniels things
First of all, I meant to mention this if no one else did and I don't see it at least as a diary, but Daniels was on with the 9-12 show on 103.3 yesterday, and one thing in particular jumped out to me that I really liked hearing him say, because it once again showed that he's honest about what he has and isn't kidding himself or others. Floyd asked him a question about whether his offense would really be that great this year and whether the pitching could be the best they've had, and he mentioned that while the offense has been pretty good the last few years, it hasn't been anything great since the late 90's. It's been maybe a little above average (and he wasn't even taking park considerations into account becuase he used total runs as evidence) while the pitching has typtically been below average.
He said that what he expects from this team is a somewhat above average pitching staff and an average offense. While that's not earth shattering, I think it answers some questions in terms of their expectations for guys, their approach over the winter, and how much they're kidding themselves about the offense, both this year and in recent ones.
Along those lines but in a totally different vein, I was thinking about Rupe and trying to convince myself that he could be a decent 5th starter right away. I haven't convinced myself yet, and I thought about Daniels' repeated statement that they really didn't want to have two first time starters in the lineup as part of their reasoning for considering Cruz a frontrunner for a job but stacking several guys between Botts and one. And he even mentioned the fact that Kinsler and Laird are somewhat unproven. I think that using Kinsler as any sort of reasoning to keep a young guy out of the lineup is a cop-out, so I'm not even going to consider him. And to be completely honest, I think he's probably sugar-coating an answer that if he were completely candid would be that they just don't think that Botts is that good.
Laird has about a year's worth of experience, but it doesn't seem likely that he's going to be a well below average catcher at this point. Meanwhile, I think most agree that Tejeda is a question mark, although someone most of us are hopeful about. McCarthy might be roughly equivalent to Laird in terms of experience and likelihood of doing a decent job, and Tejeda may be roughly comparable to Cruz, although maybe a little more likely to establish himself.
What I'm getting at is that he is not comfortable with more than one unproven guy out of nine in the lineup, but he is comfortable with Tejeda and, say, Rupe, or two-fifths of his rotation being unproven, or let's say questionable. Since we all seem to accept Tejeda as a #4 and someone like Rupe or Loe as #5 (I mean I haven't seen really anyone complain about that), does that say something about all of our attitudes toward the commitment you have to make to have a successful rotation? In other words, would people who are used to following teams who pitch well have expected something more like three veteran guys, McCarthy as a four (at least in terms of experience, probably the third vet would be behind him in the rotation) and Tejeda at five, with guys like Rupe and Loe nice insurance policies but not guys who they'd ever expect in an opening day rotation, given their current history?
Are our expectations out of whack because of all of the poor pitching and shallow rotations we've witnessed over the years?
0 recs |
17 comments
Comments
Disagree
It's ok, especially if you're the Rangers, to put some projectability guys in the rotation. Definitely so if they're Brandon McCarthy (or even Rob Tejeda). In the end, JD's right: the current five will probably come out above average.
Hitting talent is easier to come by. You can be more unforgiving of the projectability guys.
So Daniels makes sense to me. Kinsler turned in a nice year, but he could absolutely go the way of Blalock...he's that young and inexperienced. Laird, too. And Nelson Cruz is totally green. Did JD even mention Wilk and Lofton?
Botts has a better chance of succeeding with more protection than that.
(Strictly speaking, Botts is my absolute favorite Ranger, and I want to see him succeed...I'm torn).
by hightowersmith on Feb 16, 2007 8:07 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
Also, this was initially a diary, otherwise I wouldn't have connected the two thoughts, so Daniels' comments in the first part weren't really connected with my comments on the young players. So please don't draw too many connections in the comments, like I wasn't questioning his statement that the pitching should be above average, for example.
Anyway, the only issue I'd take with what you said is in this comment:
It's ok, especially if you're the Rangers, to put some projectability guys in the rotation. Definitely so if they're Brandon McCarthy (or even Rob Tejeda).
And my issue is only that you're not really addressing what I'm commenting on, and that's the fifth spot. Obviously McCarthy is a good guy to put in the rotation and obviously Tejeda has done enough to get a shot. No one, or at least almost no one, would question that. The question is if, given that these guys are fairly unproven to begin with, do you really want to dedicate another spot basically to a complete flyer on a Rupe/Chen (the top two vote getters in Adam's recent poll)? Should the priority possibly have been to go get another viable guy for that other spot? If we had a guy like Hurley ready, it would be different. But considering what the 3/4 spots look like, are Rupe & co. good enough bargains not to go the extra mile and bring in someone more solid to give you five legit starters?
I'm not trying to create controversy here, and I'm not really even making a conclusion. It just seems like, based on numbers and how important a stable rotation is, maybe everyone connected to the Rangers might want to take a little more care in assuring a quality, deep rotation. Again, the numbers we've seen recently about average ERAs in each spot indicate that the manner in which teams like the A's and Tigers have swept by teams like the Rangers in recent years is in starting pitching depth more than anything else.
One more comment on that, and that's that maybe since there aren't as many #5 starts, especially early in the season a lot of times, the Rangers, and we in our reaction, don't view the #5 spot as worthy of the same sort of concern that we'd give the first four. And I mean maybe we all do so correctly, I don't know.
by Brett Perryman on Feb 16, 2007 9:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
5th Spot ??
I don't think there is a "need to" or "should have" at this point. Yeah it would be great to pick up a good and reliable starter, but to this point it isn't happening. I sort of feel you've got what you've got, use it well.
by Ed Coffin on Feb 16, 2007 9:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think
Maybe all the stars will align and we will have a nice staff this year, but realistically we will take our lumps. I can handle lumps as long as there is hope on the other side of those tough times.
The offense I think is going to surprise some people. I know we have a TON of questions:
Botts?
Laird?
Cruz?
Wilkerson?
Lofton even?
Blalock?
I don't think Blalock can be bad, but he does have the capability to be real good. Laird I don't think can be horrible, but has the capability to be a top 1/3 catcher. Cruz is a wild card at this point, but I think the guy can be Menchish. Wilkerson is another huge wild card, but even with one arm he was better than some we have run through here. Maybe with a good couple of wings he can be a productive dude. Lofton will probably decline, but if it isn't a tragic fall we should be ok. Kinsler I think will improve slightly, but even if he can hold where he is at it isn't bad at all.
Young, Teixeira, Cat - we know what we have.
I just think this offense is going to be different then what we are used to. Some guys scatting around the bases and playing baseball rather than sitting on the bag waiting for the big fly.
I think this team will contend to the end, and win or lose, will give us a LOT of hope for the years to come. I like it.
by Mike Simonek on Feb 16, 2007 8:17 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
a lot of hope
by ab03 on Feb 16, 2007 8:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well
How is the offense "kind of old", though?
Hank, Tex, Kinsler, Laird, Cruz and Botts are all young.
Young, Wilk and Cat middle aged (in baseball years).
Pretty much only Lofton and Sosa are old.
Unless I'm missing something.
by thedirkatron on Feb 16, 2007 9:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
well
by ab03 on Feb 16, 2007 10:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Tejeda
I would almost like to see them trade some of the excess bullpen for a guy like Lieber just because having 3 starters who really don't even have a full year under there belts as starters seems a bit of a risk to me.
by DJCahill on Feb 17, 2007 12:40 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Lieber...
by RangerMoto on Feb 17, 2007 12:48 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Lieber's back.
I think he's finally back to his old self.
Ditto DJC.
by subsidiarity on Feb 17, 2007 1:24 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Lieber
by t ball on Feb 17, 2007 7:04 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm holding you to that, Lieber-hater...
by Brian Thomas on Feb 17, 2007 9:27 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
My guess is
by DJCahill on Feb 17, 2007 10:28 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
So...
by RangerMoto on Feb 17, 2007 1:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
botts
But i'd like him to atleast have a legit chance to prove or disprove that
by rentz on Feb 17, 2007 6:59 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Rudy...
I also think RJ is the driving force behind the Sosa signing.
So if I'm correct on those two counts, I think that we would be better off if Rudy just worked with the hitters that he is provided, and provide less input to the front office.
by tricer on Feb 17, 2007 9:37 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

by 















