Texas Rangers 2021 - 2022 Offseason Thread

[Uncle Siggy]

Yea. They want me to establish a login.
My conjecture though is yes something of an established revenue stream based upon new revenues for past and present players are what is desired

Theoretically it may seem a shame to old players who established the game and furthered profits not to.benefit from it

The good companies these days provide pension for employees i their old age and in times of trouble. Just an opinion

So did it let you read it or not??? (I didn't have to do a logon)

I can always copy/paste if necessary...

 

[Kelleyman]

So did it let you read it or not??? (I didn't have to do a logon)

I can always copy/paste if necessary...

No I was not able. I was directed to a log on and sign up for 5 free articles

 

[scotsman1948]

a major of fans in a MLBTradeRumors poll don't agree

Will the 2022 MLB season start on time?
No, it will start between April 15 and April 30. 24.5%

No, it won't start until sometime in May. 24%

No, it will start between April 1 and April 15. 19.44%

Yes, it'll start on March 31 as scheduled. 16.47%

At this rate, I don't think we'll have a 2022 season at all. 7.55%

No, it won't start until sometime in June. 5.78%

No, it won't start until after the All-Star break. 2.26%

 

[saddles]

Time for Tony Clark, MLB to do right by the former players excluded from pension benefits

We are still a year away from when the baseball owners and players’ union commence negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement (which expires after the 2021 season), and there are …

www.nydailynews.com

This article is about pensions, but it is two years old. What I meant, is that during these present negotiations, I have not heard the subject brought up. They could still discuss it, but apparently the other issues are getting all the press.

 

[donaldson79]

Should the Rangers pursue Olson? Why not let Nat Lowe stay there, at a MUCH lower contract, and pursue upgrades elsewhere with this money?

I like Olson, but at what cost? when we have needs on the mound, and a perfectly acceptable 1st baseman now. Or is Lowe not considered acceptable over the next 2/3/4 years?

 

[donaldson79]

Admittedly, I am out of the 'baseball loop' somewhat these days. But let me ask, where do the Rangers draft this season? And the only reason I ask is due to the attached, which ranks the top players available in the upcoming draft.

I thought it very interesting to see a Jones (son of Andruw), and a younger Jung right there in the highest of picks.

MLB draft prospects 2022: Ranking top 50 players in the class, with Termarr Johnson at No. 1

These are the names to know as college and high school baseball seasons get started

www.cbssports.com

 

[Uncle Siggy]

Should the Rangers pursue Olson? Why not let Nat Lowe stay there, at a MUCH lower contract, and pursue upgrades elsewhere with this money?

I like Olson, but at what cost? when we have needs on the mound, and a perfectly acceptable 1st baseman now. Or is Lowe not considered acceptable over the next 2/3/4 years?

Some folks are hung up on the old adage that says your corners (1B, 3B, RF, LF) are supposed to be your big bats. The way I see it is if a big bat is not needed at that position then why worry about it if other people in other positions are supplying the big bats. Heck a lot of folks loved Mitch Morleand and he never drove in over 85 runs, Lowe drove in 72 in basically his first full year and there are rumors that he needs a new zipcode already.

I say since we "bought" big bats in Semien and Seager give the kid another year or two with the new hitting coaches and see if he progresses before making a leap to a "supposedly" better player...

 

[Kelleyman]

Should the Rangers pursue Olson? Why not let Nat Lowe stay there, at a MUCH lower contract, and pursue upgrades elsewhere with this money?

I like Olson, but at what cost? when we have needs on the mound, and a perfectly acceptable 1st baseman now. Or is Lowe not considered acceptable over the next 2/3/4 years?

Two years of Olsen with mostly unproven pitching makes no sense. Press being press

 

[Uncle Siggy]

This article is about pensions, but it is two years old. What I meant, is that during these present negotiations, I have not heard the subject brought up. They could still discuss it, but apparently the other issues are getting all the press.

I know but since it was brought up I figured folks would enjoy seeing what may be being discussed even though it wasn't getting any press...

 

[Uncle Siggy]

No I was not able. I was directed to a log on and sign up for 5 free articles

Here you go.....​

We are still a year away from when the baseball owners and players’ union commence negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement (which expires after the 2021 season), and there are a number of festering economic issues that will need to get resolved. Unfortunately, there is one issue which has been brewing since 1980, directly affects over 600 former players and does not ever get addressed.


We’re talking about the Major League Baseball pension plan. More specifically, we’re talking about the fast diminishing number of aging former players whose careers ended prior to 1980 and who went 31 years without getting a single cent from the game. These players are still receiving a pittance of what they should be getting were it not for being frozen out of a revised pension deal brokered by the Players Association that year, which changed the vesting eligibility from four years of service time to 43 days.

It remains a major financial windfall for thousands of players, but it was not retroactive. Thus, those pre-1980 players with at least 43 days of service time in the big leagues were left in the lurch by the union, even though many of them sacrificed their salaries during various labor stoppages to help pave the way for the enormous economic gains and benefits enjoyed by today’s players. Finally, in 2011, this great injustice was partly remedied by then-Players Association executive director Michael Weiner and commissioner Bud Selig. The pre-1980 players were still not added to the pension plan but were awarded payments of $625 (before taxes) per quarter for every 43 days of service time they had, up to four years. It was a nice gesture on the part of Weiner and Selig who, undoubtedly also realized it could hardly make up for all those lost years in which the pre-1980 players got bupkis.

Former MLB Commissioner Bud Selig, l, and former Players Association Executive Director Michael Weiner at a press conference in 2011 to announce the new five year labor agreement between the MLB and the MLBPA.

In addition, because those pre-1980 players were not vested in the pension plan, their new payments could also not be passed on to their spouses, and they also remained ineligible to buy into the players’ medical plan.

To put this in perspective, had these players not been excluded from the new pension agreement in 1980, those with a minimum of 43 days of service time would be getting a lifetime pension of $3,589 at age 62 today, a pension that can be passed on to their spouses when they die — as opposed to $625 per quarter that cannot be passed on. In all the subsequent collective bargaining agreements between the owners and the union, the pension is constantly being tweaked, with more monies usually going to the players.

The problem is, because they’re not vested, the union has no obligation to do anything for pre-1980 players — and so they don’t — even though it currently has some $3.5 billion in the pension fund. Presently the monies for the pre-1980’s players comes out of the Competitive Balance Tax and as one MLB insider told me, “[Players Association Executive Director] Tony Clark isn’t gonna have any appetite for siphoning money from his rank and file. That’s why he won’t even talk to these old players.”
David Clyde, one of the affected pre-1980 players, was among the group who met with Weiner in 2011, and even though he, personally, is financially secure, he’s been an outspoken leader in trying to get baseball to do the right thing here.

“We’re not looking for any retroactive pay,” said Clyde, 64. “I’m making $625 per quarter and I’m very grateful for every penny I have. But a lot of other guys are really struggling, and still others, who can afford it, would like to be able to buy into the players’ health plan, which essentially covers everything.

“Basically, we’re just asking to treat us like you would if we played today. We’d like to be able to pass on the payments we get to our spouses. I know the general public probably don’t know who most of us are, other than former ballplayers who must be millionaires. The fact is, most of us had to work winter jobs to make ends meet in those days. I know the union is under no legal obligation to talk to us, but don’t they have a moral obligation to take care of their past… players who went on strike and gave up their paychecks so today’s players could be making the millions they are?”

Clyde, a onetime Texas high school pitching phenom, was the No. 1 overall pick in the 1973 draft by the Texas Rangers. Because he was brutally misused by the Rangers — whose owner at the time, Bob Short, insisted on keeping him on the major league roster right out of high school in order to hype attendance — he developed shoulder problems, went back to the minors and had his career cut short in 1979, just 37 days shy of being eligible for the pension plan.

“When they did that original agreement in 1980, there were about 1,100 of us who were shut out,” said Clyde. “Now it’s down to a little more than 600. I guess they’re content with just waiting for us all to die.” And this does not include the 200 pre-1980 players who get no money from the 2011 agreement because they didn’t have 43 days on the active roster — the most notable being 1963 Dodger outfielder Roy Gleason, a Purple Heart winner who was introduced at Dodger Stadium before Game 2 of the 2017 World Series.
Michael Weiner recognized the injustice. And according to a couple of former player reps from the ‘70s, Marvin Miller, the original Players Association executive director, told them his one big regret was not going back and including the pre-1980 players in the pension plan.

How about you, Tony Clark?

 

[True Rangers Fan]

Here we go with another Top 30 Prospects list. This one is mine.

1. Jung
2. Leiter
3. Winn
4. Vanasco
5. Smith
6. Foscue
7. Harris
8. White
9. Duran
10. Roby
11. Crim
12. Huff
13. Carter
14. Alexy
15. Wendzel
16. Kent
17. Bradford
18. Weems
19. Englert
20. Ragans
21. Hauver
22. Morrobel
23. Zavala
24. Acker
25. Lee, C
26. Acuna
27. Gutierrez, Anthony
28. Henriquez
29. Otto
30. Seise

This seems highly suspect

 

[True Rangers Fan]

Admittedly, I am out of the 'baseball loop' somewhat these days. But let me ask, where do the Rangers draft this season? And the only reason I ask is due to the attached, which ranks the top players available in the upcoming draft.

I thought it very interesting to see a Jones (son of Andruw), and a younger Jung right there in the highest of picks.

MLB draft prospects 2022: Ranking top 50 players in the class, with Termarr Johnson at No. 1

These are the names to know as college and high school baseball seasons get started

www.cbssports.com

we have the third pick this year

 

[saddles]

This seems highly suspect

I thought it would.

 

[saddles]

Admittedly, I am out of the 'baseball loop' somewhat these days. But let me ask, where do the Rangers draft this season? And the only reason I ask is due to the attached, which ranks the top players available in the upcoming draft.

I thought it very interesting to see a Jones (son of Andruw), and a younger Jung right there in the highest of picks.

MLB draft prospects 2022: Ranking top 50 players in the class, with Termarr Johnson at No. 1

These are the names to know as college and high school baseball seasons get started

www.cbssports.com

That is the first time I have seen DeLauter that high. He is my personal favorite right now. The top 3 in a lot of mocks have some version of Jones, Termarr, and Green.

 

[scotsman1948]

Should the Rangers pursue Olson? Why not let Nat Lowe stay there, at a MUCH lower contract, and pursue upgrades elsewhere with this money?

I like Olson, but at what cost? when we have needs on the mound, and a perfectly acceptable 1st baseman now. Or is Lowe not considered acceptable over the next 2/3/4 years?

i'd say no we don't need Olson. like you i think our main need right now is pitching. depending on who you talk to on this board, Lowe is either more than adequate or the worse player on the team

 

[Kelleyman]

Thanks @Uncle Siggy

This is what should be fought for. Ir was a shame what was done to Clyde and unless a business was developed they were put out in the cold.
Really there are some advocates needed but they may just die out unless something is done this session

I really have not heard anything in the news recent but thought this should be in play

 

[DTC]

Odds of us signing Castellanos to a 5/$125?

 

[Uncle Siggy]

Odds of us signing Castellanos to a 5/$125?

I don't think very good considering they kicked the tires on him before and declined and he's stated that he wants a 7 or 8 year contract...

 

[scotsman1948]

Odds of us signing Castellanos to a 5/$125?

zero and none

 

[jta4437]

Odds of us signing Castellanos to a 5/$125?

Hopefully 0%