tOfficially Official 2016 Spring training thread

[romeo212000]

One way they could make up for losing the draft pick is if Desmond does rebound but other canidates prove ready for LF as well. Then they could trade Desmond at the deadline and possibly get a return comparable to the draft pick they are giving up.

I'm sure they're thinking of this exactly.

 

[RevSader]

If he doesn't rebound substantially I don't think they will risk giving him a QO in November.

I think the move is based on them gambling that Desmond does rebound to look like the player he was a few years back. I just don't know if that is a good gamble to take.

One year contracts should be a good motivator. Can he be worse than other LFs Texas ran out there? We will find out...

 

[saddles]

Kinsler in LF would've been a waste. His power numbers have continued to plummet. And like you said, we'd probably see no Odor if he'd stayed.

Unless out of respect for him they promised him that they wouldn't yo yo him back and forth. His .770 OPS would have looked pretty good in the lineup last year. Only 11 HRs, but still 35 doubles and 7 triples.

 

[saddles]

Rangers’ pitching prospect content to harness 100-mph power

 

[saddles]

 

[Nightcrawler]

First spring training game this week! Who is excited? I know they are not usually on tv, but it's fun to read the write ups of each game until opening day.

 

[WastinSomeTime]

Profile: As of this writing, Desmond is team-less and a key suitor just went out and nabbed Alexei Ramirez. Meanwhile, the former National sits at home wondering what could've been had he accepted the seven-year, $107 million dollar offer the Nationals gave him in the fall of 2014. Instead, he bet on himself to have another big year and cash in even more. Maybe the pressure of passing up that offer and needing to perform got to him. It's tough to prove, but he himself alluded to as much in the aftermath of what turned out to be a disaster for the team at large, not just Desmond. Despite the struggles, he was steadfastly regarded as the consummate teammate and leader. Plus, for as bad as it all was, he did still rebound and post a second half that was right in line with his 2013-14, with his .777 OPS from mid-July on actually topping the .764 he posted in those two seasons combined. The added swing-and-miss over the last two seasons (28%) leaves his batting average at risk, but he still had the fourth-best isolated slugging percentage at shortstop. At 30, he may be done with the 20+ stolen base seasons (he had four straight in 2011-14), but he should be good for at least a repeat of last year's 13. The hype is gone and there aren't too many landing spots that would greatly boost his value in the draft market, so all of sudden he looks like a bargain at a tough position to fill. He has played 154 games in all but one season, too. (Paul Sporer)

The Quick Opinion: The allure of Desmond was that he was a shortstop coming off of three straight 20-20 seasons headed into his walk year on a fantastic team. Two of his first three months were nightmares (including a vomit-inducing .463 OPS in June) which tanked his season and covered the fact that he actually rebounded quite nicely in the second half (.777 OPS with a 28 homer/18 stolen base full-season pace).

I think he rebounds ok

Good post on his 2nd half. One thing to consider is that you never know how playing a completely new position can affect offensive performance. I know we all had the same thoughts that Saddles posted earlier in that we have 2 former IFers playing CF and LF and Choo in RF. So I am sure we are going to blow our tops a few times with that defense.

 

[saddles]

Thoughts on the Rangers signing Ian Desmond

So I've been trying to wrap my brain around this. The first question is, if the Rangers were willing to give Ian Desmond $8 million and give up the #19 pick to do so, why wouldn't they sign Austin Jackson, who can play center field and wouldn't cost a pick?


Well, as far as the draft pick goes, I'm not sure if forfeiting the draft pick wasn't looked upon as necessarily a bad thing for the Rangers. The bonus pool for the #19 pick last year was $2.273 million. Figure around $2.35 million this year for the #19 pick...if the Rangers have budgetary constraints (and by all accounts, they do), then this move effectively saves them that amount, meaning the net cost of adding Desmond ends up being about $5.65M. Given that Jackson supposedly rejected about that amount from the Angels, that would seem to help answer the "why didn't they just sign Jackson?" question...

Ruggiano, meanwhile, probably still is starting against lefthanded pitchers...however, you have to think that will likely be at first base, rather than left field. When Ruggiano was signed, the Rangers said they wanted him to work at first base so he could be a platoon option there, and with Desmond presumably playing left field every day, Ruggiano seems more likely to get his ABs at first base, with Mitch Moreland sitting against lefties...

I'm still not all that fired up about this deal. I don't like giving up the #19 pick in the draft, the summer after you traded away five prospects to land Cole Hamels. Yes, you can re-coup a compensatory pick next year by offering Desmond the qualifying offer, but that pick is going to be more like #30 than #19, and that assumes Desmond plays well enough to get a QO (and that he rejects it)...

 

[saddles]

Do you guys agree with Adam Morris on the batting order?

 

[True Rangers Fan]

Do you guys agree with Adam Morris on the batting order?

Well, it's a R/L alternation throughout. If you're going to do that, that's the lineup I'd go with.

 

[True Rangers Fan]

 

[donaldson79]

Since Hamilton is basically here for free this season, they may decide to just rest/rehab Hamilton for as long as it takes, and see if he can somehow help us after the AS break. Perhaps later.

If he doesn't come around this season, we cut him and move on for 2017.

 

[jta4437]

Well, it's a R/L alternation throughout. If you're going to do that, that's the lineup I'd go with.

Only point of contention really is the #5 spot, but based on handedness and performace, Desmond makes the most sense there

Career wise, the #5 spot is where Desmond has been the best (last year seems to be, hopefully, an aberration

 

[saddles]

 

[saddles]

 

[saddles]

 

[True Rangers Fan]

ummm, Team Wood might be a little stacked there, Banny.

 

[True Rangers Fan]

You know, I read stories about other teams like the Marlins, and it makes me really grateful the Rangers are such a well-led organization.

 

[jta4437]

Thoughts on the Rangers signing Ian Desmond

So I've been trying to wrap my brain around this. The first question is, if the Rangers were willing to give Ian Desmond $8 million and give up the #19 pick to do so, why wouldn't they sign Austin Jackson, who can play center field and wouldn't cost a pick?


Well, as far as the draft pick goes, I'm not sure if forfeiting the draft pick wasn't looked upon as necessarily a bad thing for the Rangers. The bonus pool for the #19 pick last year was $2.273 million. Figure around $2.35 million this year for the #19 pick...if the Rangers have budgetary constraints (and by all accounts, they do), then this move effectively saves them that amount, meaning the net cost of adding Desmond ends up being about $5.65M. Given that Jackson supposedly rejected about that amount from the Angels, that would seem to help answer the "why didn't they just sign Jackson?" question...

Ruggiano, meanwhile, probably still is starting against lefthanded pitchers...however, you have to think that will likely be at first base, rather than left field. When Ruggiano was signed, the Rangers said they wanted him to work at first base so he could be a platoon option there, and with Desmond presumably playing left field every day, Ruggiano seems more likely to get his ABs at first base, with Mitch Moreland sitting against lefties...

I'm still not all that fired up about this deal. I don't like giving up the #19 pick in the draft, the summer after you traded away five prospects to land Cole Hamels. Yes, you can re-coup a compensatory pick next year by offering Desmond the qualifying offer, but that pick is going to be more like #30 than #19, and that assumes Desmond plays well enough to get a QO (and that he rejects it)...

I think factoring the price of the 19th pick, as the justification for Desmond over Jackson, is trying to read something into nothing

They probably felt that Desmond had a better chance to be a better offensive player than Jackson in LF, simple as that when it came to choosing between the two,

You don't have to be excited about the move, I'm still on the fence myself, but I think the price of the 19th pick + Jackson vs the price of Desmond minus the price of the 19th pick had absolutely nothing to do with it

 

[saddles]

I think factoring the price of the 19th pick, as the justification for Desmond over Jackson, is trying to read something into nothing

They probably felt that Desmond had a better chance to be a better offensive player than Jackson in LF, simple as that when it came to choosing between the two,

You don't have to be excited about the move, I'm still on the fence myself, but I think the price of the 19th pick + Jackson vs the price of Desmond minus the price of the 19th pick had absolutely nothing to do with it

Do you think you feel that way because it is impossible at this time to figure out who they could have taken with that pick and what that player will become or do you think you feel that way because you believe that generally the 19th pick doesn't pan out?