Series Thread: Rangers Travel to Oakland for Three Games August 7-9

[saddles]

Yeah was hoping he would be AAA starter they might rise up. Wonder if the velo let them to think he was a better guy for the pen.
So yeah IMO it was a mistake
Would have rather traded someone else

I think their whole philosophy on how to build a pitching staff is questionable. At least, I think it is when it comes to long term success.

 

[True Rangers Fan]

Lol the sarcasm runs deep here methinks

To me it was just a mistake. Still waiting for a guy like Antoine Kelly to come up

Alot of bullpen meltdowns we are starting to flush out

 

[saddles]

Wonder if the velo let them to think he was a better guy for the pen.

I think the openings in the pen led them to think that way. Actually, I think the plan all along was to populate the pen with guys like Dunning, Otto, and Ragans.

 

[scotsman1948]

My point is that Ragans should have been given the chance to prove himself as a starter here. If that had been the case, we would have traded someone else besides him for Chapman. He will most likely be a better starter than Dunning and we would have never considered trading Dunning for Chapman.

It isn't the trade as much as the philosophy that they have concerning young starting pitchers in general and Ragans in particular.

Maybe they should have traded them Eovaldi

 

[armadillooutlaw]

I think the openings in the pen led them to think that way. Actually, I think the plan all along was to populate the pen with guys like Dunning, Otto, and Ragans.

I think so, too. The fact that they made little to no effort to bring back Moore is a good indicator that was their plan.
A risky bet that proved foolish once it became clear that Otto and Ragans aren't good as relievers.

 

[True Rangers Fan]

I think so, too. The fact that they made little to no effort to bring back Moore is a good indicator that was their plan.
A risky bet that proved foolish once it became clear that Otto and Ragans aren't good as relievers.

Well they tried Otto as a starter and he wasn't great at that either.

 

[scotsman1948]

I think so, too. The fact that they made little to no effort to bring back Moore is a good indicator that was their plan.
A risky bet that proved foolish once it became clear that Otto and Ragans aren't good as relievers.

I don’t have a clue what their plans were but I think they finally saw the need and guys who were never going to be anything but #4 or #5 starters and we have more of that than we need we’re looked at as trade materials for what was needed.

I guess we should have just hung on to every prospect because they might be good someday.

 

[WastinSomeTime]

Unfortunately they had someone we needed and Ragans was part of the cost. Sometimes you have to sacrifice someone you liked to get a Chapman

I am not sure they even "liked" him that much.

 

[saddles]

Maybe they should have traded them Eovaldi

Why?

 

[scotsman1948]

I am not sure they even "liked" him that much.

I don’t think it had anything to do with whether they “liked or disliked” him. I think they were looking for an actual good reliever and they knew that to get quality you have to sometimes have to give up equal quality in return.
Hated giving them the kid but we got something good in return. Figure it is going to happen again this offseason because we’re going to have needs and we’re going to have to trade some of our quality prospects to get them. Plus we have at least 10 prospects that we either trade or put them on the 40 or lose a couple of them during the Rule 5

 

[scotsman1948]

Why?

We would have held on to Ragans

 

[saddles]

I am not sure they even "liked" him that much.

Yes, for some odd reason they decided he wasn't that good after they set him up to be no good in that role.

 

[scotsman1948]

Well they tried Otto as a starter and he wasn't great at that either.

True but maybe if we had rolled him out there for 2 or 3 or 4 seasons he might have turned out to be a good #5

 

[scotsman1948]

Yes, for some odd reason they decided he wasn't that good after they set him up to be no good in that role.

Are you sure that’s what they were thinking?

 

[saddles]

We would have held on to Ragans

There are dozens of other options. Why focus on Eovaldi? That is odd, to say the least.

Also, why do you refuse to comment on what we are actually addressing? What I brought up to begin with was how they used Ragans this year.

You seem to be spoiling for an argument about the trade, but the trade was not what the conversation centered on.

 

[saddles]

Are you sure that’s what they were thinking?

Are you sure you are thinking about anything here other than being argumentative?

 

[scotsman1948]

There are dozens of other options. Why focus on Eovaldi? That is odd, to say the least.

Also, why do you refuse to comment on what we are actually addressing. What I brought up to begin with was how they used Ragans this year.

You seem to be spoiling for argument about the trade, but the trade was not what the conversation centered on.

Okay they made decisions about the starting pitching after last season they opted to bring in deGrom, Eovaldi etc, put the QO on Perez and that gave them a rotation of deGrom, Eovaldi, Perez, Heaney &Gray and that didn’t leave room for either Dunning or Ragans. Even after deGrom went down they decided that they would bring up Dunning. Personally I would have put Ragans and Bradford in AAA but they hadn’t addressed the BP and they decided both would stay in the pen.
And then they opted to try to carry on the season by trading for Scherzer and Montgomery instead of chucking the season and shifting Ragans and Bradford to the rotation

 

[scotsman1948]

Are you sure you are thinking about anything here other than being argumentative?

I don’t think they dislike him I think they looked at their bounty of good prospects and made a decision based on that.

 

[scotsman1948]

There are dozens of other options. Why focus on Eovaldi? That is odd, to say the least.

Also, why do you refuse to comment on what we are actually addressing? What I brought up to begin with was how they used Ragans this year.

You seem to be spoiling for an argument about the trade, but the trade was not what the conversation centered on.

Eovaldi was a slip. Yes they could have offered others for Chapman but sometimes quantity won’t swing the deal. I think KC made it clear of what they wanted back and the FO made the decision that as much as they didn’t want to give Ragans it was either him or no deal

 

[jaar01]

Trading Ragans was a mistake. Never giving him SP opportunities was another example of how we mismanage pitching prospects in the organization. He will likely slot in as a #3 or #4 in KC long term.
Let me know when Leiter and Rocker are ready to roll in the bigs. Not holding my breath.