The Officially Official Off Season Thread (2016)

[donaldson79]

I don't even really even like coffee, but I trust people who know their stuff and they say it's generic and palatable, but not worth the hype. They are like the Blue Jays! Sexy pick to win it all but don't get the job done when it counts. That was a lame attempt to bring it back to baseball

ha ha ha.......Appreciated that one.

 

[scotsman1948]

Potential and $6 gets ya terrific cup of coffee at StarBucks.

Exactly all the potential in the world does not guarantee that you will make it on the big stage

 

[scotsman1948]

I think that is one way we are different though. You are referring to all players. I think you have to take it on a case by case basis. Guys like Profar and Gallo and even Brinson and Mazara are completely different that the potential shown by the vast majority of those who flamed out. You can't lump in guys like Ian Kinsler, Hank Blalock, Warren Morris, and Kelly Dransfeldt all together. Kinsler and Blalock showed much more potential in the minors by the time they had been through the system. There are a lot of Kelly Dransfeldt types, but very few Jurickson Profar types.

You are assuming that Profar and the others you mentioned will translate their potential into a sure thing at the major league level without any way of proving it. The proof can only be shown when they get on the major league playing field until then it is only potential

 

[DT LUNA]

You are assuming that Profar and the others you mentioned will translate their potential into a sure thing at the major league level without any way of proving it. The proof can only be shown when they get on the major league playing field until then it is only potential

Exactly. No guarantees.

 

[Kelleyman]

You are assuming that Profar and the others you mentioned will translate their potential into a sure thing at the major league level without any way of proving it. The proof can only be shown when they get on the major league playing field until then it is only potential[/QUOTE


this is the truest statement re prospects. Trout was brought up twice. No prospect is a sure thing and Trout was not but we do covet the high pick to roll the dice on young talent that might develop.

 

[saddles]

You are assuming that Profar and the others you mentioned will translate their potential into a sure thing at the major league level without any way of proving it. The proof can only be shown when they get on the major league playing field until then it is only potential

No, I am certainly not doing that. What a ridiculous thing to say. Did you not even read my statements?

There are no sure things. Even guys who have good rookie seasons are not sure things. Trading for a pitcher like Lee or Hamels isn't a sure thing either. Signing a free agent isn't a sure thing either. There are no sure things in baseball. None.

 

[saddles]

Exactly. No guarantees.

But no one used the terms "sure things" and "guarantees" until you two guys just did.

 

[True Rangers Fan]

There are no sure things. Even guys who have good rookie seasons are not sure things. Trading for a pitcher like Lee or Hamels isn't a sure thing either. Signing a free agent isn't a sure thing either. There are no sure things in baseball. None.

Baseball is a lot like blackjack that way. Reminds me of the time I was at the Bellagio and had two Aces. Dealer showing a 5. Doubled down on both - pulled a 2 and a 3. Dealer flips over a face card and then pulls a 4. Boom.

Potential means nothing. Results mean everything.

 

[scotsman1948]

But no one used the terms "sure things" and "guarantees" until you two guys just did.

sorry you didn't use those exact terms but your statements implied it. "There are a lot of Kelly Dransfeldt types, but very few Jurickson Profar types." kind of implies that you see him as a sure thing and guaranteed without saying it. until Profar gets to the majors, stays and produces he is nothing but a prospect with potential

 

[scotsman1948]

okay serious question: Rangers need a solid right-hand bat in their lineup but the only position that doesn't appear to have someone filling it is Left Field (not really ready to count on Hamilton). so do we pursue Justin Upton (forecast to get a 7 year, $147M contract) or someone else do we do nothing?

 

[romeo212000]

okay serious question: Rangers need a solid right-hand bat in their lineup but the only position that doesn't appear to have someone filling it is Left Field (not really ready to count on Hamilton). so do we pursue Justin Upton (forecast to get a 7 year, $147M contract) or someone else do we do nothing?

I proposed the same question because you have to take Brinson and Mazara into account and the likelihood that they'll be ready to step in by 2017. Then you've got a log jam at the COF spots with Choo and upton. Granted, if both Brinson and Mazara pan out you could play Brinson in CF and look to trade DDJ (Which I'm not tossing him in the scrap heap), but you still have the corner spots jammed up, and then there's Gallo and his role in this team to consider. We might be better off looking for someone like Byrd to fill in short term instead.

 

[True Rangers Fan]

okay serious question: Rangers need a solid right-hand bat in their lineup but the only position that doesn't appear to have someone filling it is Left Field (not really ready to count on Hamilton). so do we pursue Justin Upton (forecast to get a 7 year, $147M contract) or someone else do we do nothing?

Not at that price.

 

[donaldson79]

I still believe the team moves Moreland, and until this happens, I'm gonna take a wait and see approach to see what he brings back.

Also, I'm not completely punting on Rua either. A Rua/Hamilton in LF wouldn't be one of the worst things which could happen.

 

[saddles]

sorry you didn't use those exact terms but your statements implied it. "There are a lot of Kelly Dransfeldt types, but very few Jurickson Profar types." kind of implies that you see him as a sure thing and guaranteed without saying it. until Profar gets to the majors, stays and produces he is nothing but a prospect with potential

No it doesn't at all. You merely assumed it meant that for some odd reason.

 

[saddles]

Baseball is a lot like blackjack that way. Reminds me of the time I was at the Bellagio and had two Aces. Dealer showing a 5. Doubled down on both - pulled a 2 and a 3. Dealer flips over a face card and then pulls a 4. Boom.

Potential means nothing. Results mean everything.

It means nothing to you. It does mean something to those making personnel decisions. That is why they decided to bring up Elvis when they did. That is why they decided to bring up Kinsler when they did and that is why they decided to trade Kinsler when they did. It was all based on potential. At some point you have to take a chance on the potential or else trade all of your prospects for guys who have already proven something and get what we got back in the 70s and a few other times.

There is not room in a team's budget for only proven players.

 

[saddles]

Brinson and Profar are both 1 for 3 so far in today's game. Brinson with a triple and Profar with a double.

 

[True Rangers Fan]

It means nothing to you. It does mean something to those making personnel decisions. That is why they decided to bring up Elvis when they did. That is why they decided to bring up Kinsler when they did and that is why they decided to trade Kinsler when they did. It was all based on potential. At some point you have to take a chance on the potential or else trade all of your prospects for guys who have already proven something and get what we got back in the 70s and a few other times.

Yes. No one here is arguing that. What people are saying is that "realized potential" and "gauged potential" are two very distinct and separate concepts.

 

[saddles]

Yes. No one here is arguing that. What people are saying is that "realized potential" and "gauged potential" are two very distinct and separate concepts.

No one is arguing that those are the same. I am just saying you can't wait for the potential to be realized before making decisions. At some point you have to let them prove it or trade them. Sometimes you are going to give a guy a chance and he is going to fail. Sometimes you are going to trade a guy and he is going to succeed after he is traded and given more opportunity.

 

[Kelleyman]

I love this prospect Profar, haha

 

[scotsman1948]

No one is arguing that those are the same. I am just saying you can't wait for the potential to be realized before making decisions. At some point you have to let them prove it or trade them. Sometimes you are going to give a guy a chance and he is going to fail. Sometimes you are going to trade a guy and he is going to succeed after he is traded and given more opportunity.

and you can't make decisions based solely on POSSIBLE potential without hamstring your team. you have to know when hold them and you have know when to fold them. you build a team and when it is time you integrate your prospects in but you don't hamstring the team to force a position for them.