clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Friday morning things

Nice win yesterday, solid performance from Adam Eaton, although still too little, too late, I'm afraid...

Gil LeBreton disagrees, though, saying that the Rangers can still win a very mediocre A.L. West. And while I agree with LeBreton that Texas is just as good as Anaheim and Oakland, if not better -- they have the best run differential in the division -- I don't think it matters at this point, given that the Rangers are five games out.

Jan Hubbard compares the Rangers to the Detroit Tigers, with the Tigers apparently being this year's "franchise the Rangers should model themselves after." However, Hubbard has one point that I vehemently disagree with:

The depressing part is that the Tigers symbolize the folly of thinking that even one more huge trade at the trading deadline could have perhaps propelled the Rangers to some sort of postseason magic.

Yes, the Rangers could still win the AL West, but then what?

Detroit is 76-38. The Rangers are contending for the American League West title with a 58-58 record.

If they were in the same division, Texas would be 19 games out of first place.

Which is usually not a good jumping off point to a championship.

The implication seems to be that, even if the Rangers won the division, it would be for naught, because they'd just get rolled over by the Tigers in the playoffs.

However, as I've said before, I don't think that it is that simple. I don't think that Detroit would be that much of a favorite over the Rangers in the ALDS. And I think it is just wrong to suggest that making moves for this season is pointless because the Rangers can't succeed in the postseason even if they got there.

Over in the Dallas Morning News, Mike Heika has a piece on "dead money" and how it affects teams, with, of course, the Rangers playing a major part in the article.