Another Comparison:Rangers Pitching

[maybenxtyr]

9 minutes ago, Philip said:

It’s irrelevant, but I find it incredibly annoying that they managed to get the citizens of Arlington to buy them a new stadium when they had a perfectly good one two hundred yards away.

 

I agree with you. I don't believe tax payers should be subsidizing a multi billion dollar entity... but that's as you said, "irrelevant".

[HowAboutThat]

21 minutes ago, maybenxtyr said:

I agree with you. I don't believe tax payers should be subsidizing a multi billion dollar entity... but that's as you said, "irrelevant".

I meant that it was irrelevant to my original post. I think the dumbest thing imaginable for taxpayers is to willingly subsidize billionaire team owners for no reason other than the threat that they would move.

[maybenxtyr]

4 minutes ago, Philip said:

I meant that it was irrelevant to my original post. I think the dumbest thing imaginable for taxpayers is to willingly subsidize billionaire team owners for no reason other than the threat that they would move.

Right. I didn't want to get close to political views and what not. 

[wildbillhiccup]

In general I think the Rangers have been going about building / managing their team the wrong way for quite awhile. I guess it's good to see them sort of go all in, because they typically dip their toe halfway in the water, but there are A LOT of question marks surrounding all of those pitchers. I do think the trade for Kluber was a good move though. I don't expect any long term effects from his injury. 

[HowAboutThat]

9 minutes ago, wildbillhiccup said:

In general I think the Rangers have been going about building / managing their team the wrong way for quite awhile. I guess it's good to see them sort of go all in, because they typically dip their toe halfway in the water, but there are A LOT of question marks surrounding all of those pitchers. I do think the trade for Kluber was a good move though. I don't expect any long term effects from his injury. 

The point of my original post was that it’s a very expensive gamble, and everybody in the rotation is on the Darkside of their aging curve. Because they haven’t been wise with roster management they are forced to make an expensive and risky series of decisions. And even with an excellent rotation, they have vast holes almost everywhere on the field.

Even if it is successful, it is doubtful that this is a World Series winning team, and with their recent success, anything less than an ALCS series would probably be considered a failure. 

So the Rangers management has risked a whole lot of money to field an incomplete team.

And thank God we have moved away from that.

[Frobby]

16 minutes ago, Philip said:

The point of my original post was that it’s a very expensive gamble, and everybody in the rotation is on the Darkside of their aging curve. Because they haven’t been wise with roster management they are forced to make an expensive and risky series of decisions. And even with an excellent rotation, they have vast holes almost everywhere on the field.

Even if it is successful, it is doubtful that this is a World Series winning team, and with their recent success, anything less than an ALCS series would probably be considered a failure. 

So the Rangers management has risked a whole lot of money to field an incomplete team.

And thank God we have moved away from that.

I already said this, but I don’t really agree.   The Rangers had nothing beyond the first two slots in their rotation last year, and they don’t have any decent major league-ready pitching.     Yet, they won 78 games last year.  Under the circumstances, finding some solid veterans on commitments of 1-2 years makes a lot of sense.    The only other options are (1) to not improve the pitching and consign themselves to being bad, or (2) go find higher-end free agents who will command larger, longer term commitments.    

I suppose you could compare the 2019 Rangers (78 wins) to the 2017 Orioles (75 wins) and argue that they are merely postponing their inevitable collapse, and should just fold their tent now.     But honestly I think they’re more analogous to the 2015 Orioles (81 wins) and that they could have a playoff shot in 2020, and if not, still have time to trade away their better players and rebuild without getting into desperate shape like the 2018 O’s.
 

[wildbillhiccup]

3 hours ago, Philip said:

The point of my original post was that it’s a very expensive gamble, and everybody in the rotation is on the Darkside of their aging curve. Because they haven’t been wise with roster management they are forced to make an expensive and risky series of decisions. And even with an excellent rotation, they have vast holes almost everywhere on the field.

Even if it is successful, it is doubtful that this is a World Series winning team, and with their recent success, anything less than an ALCS series would probably be considered a failure. 

So the Rangers management has risked a whole lot of money to field an incomplete team.

And thank God we have moved away from that.

Agreed, it's much closer the old Orioles approach and they're definitely playing Russian roulette with their future. The only saving grace is that none of those contracts are super long term. Of all those deals I think they'll end up regretting giving Gibson three years the most. He's an extremely hittable pitcher. 

[wildbillhiccup]

3 hours ago, Frobby said:

I already said this, but I don’t really agree.   The Rangers had nothing beyond the first two slots in their rotation last year, and they don’t have any decent major league-ready pitching.     Yet, they won 78 games last year.  Under the circumstances, finding some solid veterans on commitments of 1-2 years makes a lot of sense.    The only other options are (1) to not improve the pitching and consign themselves to being bad, or (2) go find higher-end free agents who will command larger, longer term commitments.    

I suppose you could compare the 2019 Rangers (78 wins) to the 2017 Orioles (75 wins) and argue that they are merely postponing their inevitable collapse, and should just fold their tent now.     But honestly I think they’re more analogous to the 2015 Orioles (81 wins) and that they could have a playoff shot in 2020, and if not, still have time to trade away their better players and rebuild without getting into desperate shape like the 2018 O’s.
 

My issues are more with the pitchers they chose to invest in than the spending. I'm fine with the Kluber trade though I think it's a smart gamble. Given Gibson three years...not so much. They're also playing with fire with Lynn and Minor who seem destined for regression. 

[Scalious]

Don't see what they are doing that is harming their longterm outlook. They haven't been pawning off any useful prospects to build this. They are not hamstringing themselves long term deals to vets. They are just trying to build a competitive team for present.

Gibson's Salary is front loaded.  If this attempt to compete flops, they have a bunch of proven pitchers on short term deals to flip for prospects. Their situation is fluid.  The trade deadline market is a pitchers market

 

Edited December 17, 2019 by Scalious

[HowAboutThat]

6 hours ago, Frobby said:

I already said this, but I don’t really agree.   The Rangers had nothing beyond the first two slots in their rotation last year, and they don’t have any decent major league-ready pitching.     Yet, they won 78 games last year.  Under the circumstances, finding some solid veterans on commitments of 1-2 years makes a lot of sense.    The only other options are (1) to not improve the pitching and consign themselves to being bad, or (2) go find higher-end free agents who will command larger, longer term commitments.    

I suppose you could compare the 2019 Rangers (78 wins) to the 2017 Orioles (75 wins) and argue that they are merely postponing their inevitable collapse, and should just fold their tent now.     But honestly I think they’re more analogous to the 2015 Orioles (81 wins) and that they could have a playoff shot in 2020, and if not, still have time to trade away their better players and rebuild without getting into desperate shape like the 2018 O’s.
 

I don’t necessarily disagree but I think the 2WC is a silly goal. The teams who give up a lot to remain in 2WC contention are shooting themselves in the foot. And if the Rangers aren’t in contention it will be because their pitching didn’t pan out and it will therefore not be worth much.

My point is that what they’ve done  is expensive but isn’t enough to be successful and I’m glad we’re not doing the same.

[sportsfan8703]

6 hours ago, Scalious said:

Don't see what they are doing that is harming their longterm outlook. They haven't been pawning off any useful prospects to build this. They are not hamstringing themselves long term deals to vets. They are just trying to build a competitive team for present.

Gibson's Salary is front loaded.  If this attempt to compete flops, they have a bunch of proven pitchers on short term deals to flip for prospects. Their situation is fluid.  The trade deadline market is a pitchers market

 

Yeah I don’t see what Texas has to do with the O’s.  Present or future. I like what Texas is doing. $10 million is basically a small commitment now to FA SP. The deals are relatively short. 

After looking at that staff, my initial thoughts is that Cobb would fit right in if he could pull a Cashner and make himself tradeable. 

[Frobby]

8 hours ago, Philip said:

I don’t necessarily disagree but I think the 2WC is a silly goal. The teams who give up a lot to remain in 2WC contention are shooting themselves in the foot. And if the Rangers aren’t in contention it will be because their pitching didn’t pan out and it will therefore not be worth much.

My point is that what they’ve done  is expensive but isn’t enough to be successful and I’m glad we’re not doing the same.

I think the goal of every team is to win the World Series.   But do we buy into the notion that every team that doesn’t have a decent shot to win the WS in a particular year should spend no money that year to improve the team, and shouldn’t try to make the playoffs if they are within reach?     I don’t think so; it depends on what works best in the medium to long term given a team’s specific situation.   I’m totally on board with what the Orioles are doing, but mainly because there are no other good options given their particular situation.    I’m not sure Texas is in that boat.      I’ll readily confess that I don’t know enough about the Rangers to have a strong view on their medium to long term future.   

[HowAboutThat]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

I think the goal of every team is to win the World Series.   But do we buy into the notion that every team that doesn’t have a decent shot to win the WS in a particular year should spend no money that year to improve the team, and shouldn’t try to make the playoffs if they are within reach?     I don’t think so; it depends on what works best in the medium to long term given a team’s specific situation.   I’m totally on board with what the Orioles are doing, but mainly because there are no other good options given their particular situation.    I’m not sure Texas is in that boat.      I’ll readily confess that I don’t know enough about the Rangers to have a strong view on their medium to long term future.   

I followed the Rangers regularly because of course they were my first team and I live in North Texas. I think the 2WC is not a bad consolation prize for a good team that falters down the stretch.

 But the whole purpose of the 2WC is to create a goal that will stimulate mediocre teams to make extra effort, and I think that it is easy to jeopardize your future for the sake of that spot, which is a false victory.

in answer to your other question, whether a team that doesn’t have a realistic shot to win the World Series should spend money to improve the team, well Elias is answering that question for us quite definitely.

Yes, I realize that we are in a pretty unique situation, but the answer to your question is that a team that is on the Fringe should not spend excessively, and risk jeopardizing the next season.

The whole point of my question is that the Rangers appear to be doing piecework. The Reds, the Padres, seem to constantly be doing the same, spending a lot of money here and ignoring there. I don’t think it’s going to work, and I’m glad we have left those days behind.

[Frobby]

12 minutes ago, Philip said:

I followed the Rangers regularly because of course they were my first team and I live in North Texas. I think the 2WC is not a bad consolation prize for a good team that falters down the stretch.

 But the whole purpose of the 2WC is to create a goal that will stimulate mediocre teams to make extra effort, and I think that it is easy to jeopardize your future for the sake of that spot, which is a false victory.

in answer to your other question, whether a team that doesn’t have a realistic shot to win the World Series should spend money to improve the team, well Elias is answering that question for us quite definitely.

Yes, I realize that we are in a pretty unique situation, but the answer to your question is that a team that is on the Fringe should not spend excessively, and risk jeopardizing the next season.

The whole point of my question is that the Rangers appear to be doing piecework. The Reds, the Padres, seem to constantly be doing the same, spending a lot of money here and ignoring there. I don’t think it’s going to work, and I’m glad we have left those days behind.

I don’t know that the Rangers are spending excessively.   Their 2019 payroll was down about $100 mm from 2017, per BB-ref.    Whether they are spending money on other things, I don’t know.    If I’m not mistaken, they’ve had a heavy presence in Latin America for a long time, so they don’t have the same problem there that the Orioles did.   As to things like analytics, scouts, and minor league infrastructure, I have no idea.    

[sportsfan8703]

20 minutes ago, Philip said:

I followed the Rangers regularly because of course they were my first team and I live in North Texas. I think the 2WC is not a bad consolation prize for a good team that falters down the stretch.

 But the whole purpose of the 2WC is to create a goal that will stimulate mediocre teams to make extra effort, and I think that it is easy to jeopardize your future for the sake of that spot, which is a false victory.

in answer to your other question, whether a team that doesn’t have a realistic shot to win the World Series should spend money to improve the team, well Elias is answering that question for us quite definitely.

Yes, I realize that we are in a pretty unique situation, but the answer to your question is that a team that is on the Fringe should not spend excessively, and risk jeopardizing the next season.

The whole point of my question is that the Rangers appear to be doing piecework. The Reds, the Padres, seem to constantly be doing the same, spending a lot of money here and ignoring there. I don’t think it’s going to work, and I’m glad we have left those days behind.

I like what Texas is doing.  It seems like a'lot of the teams in the AL are trying to "compete" except for the O's, Tigers, and Royals.  With the Jays and Mariners at TBD.