Allow Me To Rant

[dmc0015]

The Rangers just crapped the bed, and they certainly don't sound like they are willing to clean it up anytime soon.

This offseason has become nothing but a huge giveup, after it sure looked like they were serious last year when they went after Beltre after Lee bolted. So we are to believe that Joe Nathan (a rebuilt closer) taking over for Nefti and Nefti taking over for CJ is going to be an upgrade for a team that lost two consecutive WS?

The Rangers have let the best starting pitcher on the market who was seriously considering signing with them walk for not one, but TWO STRAIGHT YEARS!!!!!!!!! And the difference both times has been their unwillingness to give that pitcher one...ONE MORE YEAR on the end of the contract.

At what point do you get over the fear and commit to winning long term? This wreaks of Tom Hicks thinking. "Well we gave it a shot, but he just wanted a little more money." BULL***T!!!!!

The new owners want to talk about doing what it takes to stay competitive, but they sure as hell aren't doing S**T about it!!!! The Angels just took a comanding hold of this division, and yet I hear talk that the Rangers aren't going to do anything on Darvish or Fielder. Oh, and now the Angels are going to try to get Bailey after signing Hawkins last night.

What a joke...

 

[Lukawren24]

The Rangers just crapped the bed, and they certainly don't sound like they are willing to clean it up anytime soon.

This offseason has become nothing but a huge giveup, after it sure looked like they were serious last year when they went after Beltre after Lee bolted. So we are to believe that Joe Nathan (a rebuilt closer) taking over for Nefti and Nefti taking over for CJ is going to be an upgrade for a team that lost two consecutive WS?

The Rangers have let the best starting pitcher on the market who was seriously considering signing with them walk for not one, but TWO STRAIGHT YEARS!!!!!!!!! And the difference both times has been their unwillingness to give that pitcher one...ONE MORE YEAR on the end of the contract.

At what point do you get over the fear and commit to winning long term? This wreaks of Tom Hicks thinking. "Well we gave it a shot, but he just wanted a little more money." BULL***T!!!!!

The new owners want to talk about doing what it takes to stay competitive, but they sure as hell aren't doing S**T about it!!!! The Angels just took a comanding hold of this division, and yet I hear talk that the Rangers aren't going to do anything on Darvish or Fielder. Oh, and now the Angels are going to try to get Bailey after signing Hawkins last night.

What a joke...

No kidding man. Evidently Nolans way of trying to make money is by saving money, which every one learns in economics 101 that that is not possible. Pitiful effort

 

[fordman84]

I know you are ranting to get it off your chest, but Lee wanted TWO extra years over what Philly was offering. He wanted a 7 year deal with us as opposed to his 5 year with PHL...if I remember correctly.

 

[jta4437]

*yawn*

 

[Windingmywatch]

CJ is just not that good to have a rant over having him gone. There is far better ammo still in the can.

 

[Al Falfa]

The Rangers just crapped the bed, and they certainly don't sound like they are willing to clean it up anytime soon.

This offseason has become nothing but a huge giveup, after it sure looked like they were serious last year when they went after Beltre after Lee bolted. So we are to believe that Joe Nathan (a rebuilt closer) taking over for Nefti and Nefti taking over for CJ is going to be an upgrade for a team that lost two consecutive WS?

The Rangers have let the best starting pitcher on the market who was seriously considering signing with them walk for not one, but TWO STRAIGHT YEARS!!!!!!!!! And the difference both times has been their unwillingness to give that pitcher one...ONE MORE YEAR on the end of the contract.

At what point do you get over the fear and commit to winning long term? This wreaks of Tom Hicks thinking. "Well we gave it a shot, but he just wanted a little more money." BULL***T!!!!!

The new owners want to talk about doing what it takes to stay competitive, but they sure as hell aren't doing S**T about it!!!! The Angels just took a comanding hold of this division, and yet I hear talk that the Rangers aren't going to do anything on Darvish or Fielder. Oh, and now the Angels are going to try to get Bailey after signing Hawkins last night.

What a joke...

There is a good article in the Dallas Morning news today about Rangers spending and their desire to adhere to the plan that got them to two WS. You and Scotsman should read it.

 

[romeo212000]

Here's my guess. Offense is obviously not lacking with this team so they may have fugured getting in on the Pujols/fielder sweepstakes wasnt that necessary. They may still do something with fielder, but we'll see.

That means their focus would be on pitching and this was a weak FA class for pitching. Next year will be much better and they're probably figuring if they're going to give out a big contract for a pitcher they would rather wait a year till there's better pitchers on the market. No need to dole out top prospects necessarily either. They already got themselves a true closer in Nathan and I don't think they're done anyways.

 

[fordman84]

Here's my guess. Offense is obviously not lacking with this team so they may have fugured getting in on the Pujols/fielder sweepstakes wasnt that necessary. They may still do something with fielder, but we'll see.

That means their focus would be on pitching and this was a weak FA class for pitching. Next year will be much better and they're probably figuring if they're going to give out a big contract for a pitcher they would rather wait a year till there's better pitchers on the market. No need to dole out top prospects necessarily either. They already got themselves a true closer in Nathan and I don't think they're done anyways.

With the big name FA's next year, this year will have an active trade deadline as well. Keep the powder dry for a run at trades.

 

[Al Falfa]

Here's my guess. Offense is obviously not lacking with this team so they may have fugured getting in on the Pujols/fielder sweepstakes wasnt that necessary. They may still do something with fielder, but we'll see.

That means their focus would be on pitching and this was a weak FA class for pitching. Next year will be much better and they're probably figuring if they're going to give out a big contract for a pitcher they would rather wait a year till there's better pitchers on the market. No need to dole out top prospects necessarily either. They already got themselves a true closer in Nathan and I don't think they're done anyways.

True. As much as we here about the new owners and their deep pockets there is also just as much talk of spending guideines and sticking to the plan so it's really hard to get a read on them. I mean how many people knew that they were paying Greenberg 30 million this year? It's not like these guys are sitting on a pile of cash and watching the world go by. There is still debt to pay down.

And it's not just us that LAA is trying to get ahead of. They have been playing second fiddle to the Dodgers since day one and the big spending splash is directed at stealing some of their thunder while they are down. It may be tough for a year or two as the Angels skate, but the contract(s) will come back and bite them in the ass for a lot longer than the success they will have because of them. They always do.

 

[scotsman1948]

There is a good article in the Dallas Morning news today about Rangers spending and their desire to adhere to the plan that got them to two WS. You and Scotsman should read it.

how does keeping a cog that was instrumental in getting the team to 2 WS constitute wavering from that plan? i was quite clear in my belief that a 5 year, 72.5 to 75M offer would have kept CJ and would not caused them to waver from their plan.

 

[scotsman1948]

Here's my guess. Offense is obviously not lacking with this team so they may have fugured getting in on the Pujols/fielder sweepstakes wasnt that necessary. They may still do something with fielder, but we'll see.

That means their focus would be on pitching and this was a weak FA class for pitching. Next year will be much better and they're probably figuring if they're going to give out a big contract for a pitcher they would rather wait a year till there's better pitchers on the market. No need to dole out top prospects necessarily either. They already got themselves a true closer in Nathan and I don't think they're done anyways.

you are probably correct about their view on the free agent pitching coming available next off-season but i hate to see the team take a step back this season and i can't help but believe that without the addition of another starter this season we will struggle to reach the playoffs with the present batch of starters. Offensively we have no real need to do anything but find a utility infielder to replace Blanco and maybe a CF to replace Chavez.

 

[Ginger]

True. As much as we here about the new owners and their deep pockets there is also just as much talk of spending guideines and sticking to the plan so it's really hard to get a read on them. I mean how many people knew that they were paying Greenberg 30 million this year? It's not like these guys are sitting on a pile of cash and watching the world go by. There is still debt to pay down.

And it's not just us that LAA is trying to get ahead of. They have been playing second fiddle to the Dodgers since day one and the big spending splash is directed at stealing some of their thunder while they are down. It may be tough for a year or two as the Angels skate, but the contract(s) will come back and bite them in the ass for a lot longer than the success they will have because of them. They always do.

I thought they gave Greenberg a check when they fired him/bought him out. I guess that was wrong. I have read that the Rangers still have one of the worst debt/revenue ratios in MLB though I am also quite certain that their owners could pay that sucker off at any time. These aren't leveraged fake billionaires. These guys are legit.

 

[Ginger]

how does keeping a cog that was instrumental in getting the team to 2 WS constitute wavering from that plan? i was quite clear in my belief that a 5 year, 72.5 to 75M offer would have kept CJ and would not caused them to waver from their plan.

I've got no clue as to what their thinking is; however, it would be a shame to lock CJ down to that contract if you believe that Perez, Ramirez, and Feliz all will be as good if not better in a very short time. Not to mention Ogando, Holland and Harrison. Plus CJ doesn't have the velocity he used to have and that is a lot of cash to dole out to a pitcher.

What I am inclined to believe is true is that the Rangers simply did not have the money to pay that contract. I believe they wanted him back and all that jazz but when it came to simple economics and where their roster is they just couldn't pull the trigger. Will it bite them in the butt? Probably, but they still have a dynamic team and are still loaded down with upper echelon prospects which are chiefly pitching prospects. Not a bad position to be in.

 

[fordman84]

I've got no clue as to what their thinking is; however, it would be a shame to lock CJ down to that contract if you believe that Perez, Ramirez, and Feliz all will be as good if not better in a very short time. Not to mention Ogando, Holland and Harrison. Plus CJ doesn't have the velocity he used to have and that is a lot of cash to dole out to a pitcher.

What I am inclined to believe is true is that the Rangers simply did not have the money to pay that contract. I believe they wanted him back and all that jazz but when it came to simple economics and where their roster is they just couldn't pull the trigger. Will it bite them in the butt? Probably, but they still have a dynamic team and are still loaded down with upper echelon prospects which are chiefly pitching prospects. Not a bad position to be in.

My opinion is that they had the cash to pay him, heck we have a massive TV deal just like LAA. I think they didn't want him around for 5 years. I think Nolan and JD have a plan in place, and a 37 year old guy gumming that up wasn't wanted. They wanted to have him here for 4 years as the young guys develop and then move him on. That one extra year was the problem, and as far as we know he might have expected an option 6th year or something.

I just didn't get the sense that the FO really liked what CJ had to offer and knew they didn't want to stroke his ego for a full 5 more years as guys that the FO thinks will be better are trying to move up.

 

[scotsman1948]

I've got no clue as to what their thinking is; however, it would be a shame to lock CJ down to that contract if you believe that Perez, Ramirez, and Feliz all will be as good if not better in a very short time. Not to mention Ogando, Holland and Harrison. Plus CJ doesn't have the velocity he used to have and that is a lot of cash to dole out to a pitcher.

What I am inclined to believe is true is that the Rangers simply did not have the money to pay that contract. I believe they wanted him back and all that jazz but when it came to simple economics and where their roster is they just couldn't pull the trigger. Will it bite them in the butt? Probably, but they still have a dynamic team and are still loaded down with upper echelon prospects which are chiefly pitching prospects. Not a bad position to be in.

i can find no flaw in your assessment, so all i can say is well stated

 

[Al Falfa]

I thought they gave Greenberg a check when they fired him/bought him out. I guess that was wrong. I have read that the Rangers still have one of the worst debt/revenue ratios in MLB though I am also quite certain that their owners could pay that sucker off at any time. These aren't leveraged fake billionaires. These guys are legit.

I'm sure if push came to shove they could pay it off, but the key word is liquidity. Not all of their wealth is in cash and it may not benefit them financially to pay it off.
I would be interested to know how much of an impact the sold out playoff and World Series games had on club revenues this year. In other words, where it went.

 

[Al Falfa]

how does keeping a cog that was instrumental in getting the team to 2 WS constitute wavering from that plan? i was quite clear in my belief that a 5 year, 72.5 to 75M offer would have kept CJ and would not caused them to waver from their plan.

Because CJ wasn't part of the plan.

 

[scotsman1948]

Because CJ wasn't part of the plan.

actually he was. they were willing to go 4 years on him so he must have been

 

[fordman84]

actually he was. they were willing to go 4 years on him so he must have been

If you are part of the plan, they do what they need to keep you. If you "could work" in the plan, then they try to keep you but not too hard.


Parts of the plan are pursued like Beltre.

 

[scotsman1948]

If you are part of the plan, they do what they need to keep you. If you "could work" in the plan, then they try to keep you but not too hard.


Parts of the plan are pursued like Beltre.

according to JD, they looked at CJ as being a part of the plan but felt that 4 years was the most they could go without adversely affecting the plan 5 years down the road.