Cedric on the block

[LookinUp]

2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Times are different now.  The younger fan is bored with the game and would rather like a post on IG than watch baseball.  They absolutely have to be considering the fans.

You don’t need to do dumb things but you do need to try and win.

Will fans come back?  Maybe..I think it’s definitely possible simply because it will be the thing to do, not because they are real fans.

That being said, I don’t think it’s the slam dunk it used to be because the game itself isn’t good right now and the entertainment options keep growing by the day.

I just don't think there are that many fans that they'll lose over the next couple of years that haven't already taken a hiatus.

In any future baseball environment, it's best to be competitive over the long run. That's how you cultivate a fanbase. I'm sure Rangers fans are all excited right now. I think they're spending hundreds of millions and probably being silly. Still, at least that FA approach doesn't rob them of whatever prospects they have, so there's that.

[Sports Guy]

Just now, LookinUp said:

I just don't think there are that many fans that they'll lose over the next couple of years that haven't already taken a hiatus.

In any future baseball environment, it's best to be competitive over the long run. That's how you cultivate a fanbase. I'm sure Rangers fans are all excited right now. I think they're spending hundreds of millions and probably being silly. Still, at least that FA approach doesn't rob them of whatever prospects they have, so there's that.

What damage does the team cause by spending money in free agency right now?  
 

What damage have the Rangers caused?

[LookinUp]

13 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

What damage does the team cause by spending money in free agency right now?  
 

What damage have the Rangers caused?

I just laid out 3 scenarios where spending money now is defensible and, while silly, I pointed out that at least what Texas is doing is not robbing them of whatever minor league assets they have. It's adding to them. 

But you're acknowledging reality and still being mad about it. The brothers seem to want to prepare this team for sale. I know we're all speculating, but if that's the case it's a flat out hard no on big spending. It's not about strategy. It's not about the team at all. It's about the balance sheet and totally defensible. 

I'd argue it's also defensible even if they're not preparing for sale. Maximizing resources means spending them when the team's ready to compete. That's exactly what Elias said last week. You disagree with that strategy, but it's a defensible strategy for sure.

[Roll Tide]

40 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

Not sure I agree with this. There are all kinds of defensible free agent strategies for this team right now:

1. Go all in. Go big. Try to win this year and next. (have to squint really hard to defend this)

2. Find guys who can be around for 4-5 years.

3. Stay out of it and bank money in the future.

What is less defensible would be:

1. Pay a lot for ok stop gaps that probably won't be around when it matters.

2. Stay out of it and pocket any savings. 

They could make a couple smart additions in free agency. Iglesias reminds me of the right player-right price guy. 

[sportsfan8703]

58 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

They could make a couple smart additions in free agency. Iglesias reminds me of the right player-right price guy. 

Iglesias doesn’t look like a good option anymore. I’d rather roll with Mateo to start the year with Martin and Fox being options. Grenier could get a look in the 2nd half. 
 

We’re at the point now where every guy we sign to an MLB deal means we have to DFA someone off the 40 man. It would be justifiable to DFA someone for a vet innings eater SP, but not for Iglesias. We already know we have to chop two guys off the 40 man on OD for a whatever 2 catchers we roll with. 

[Roll Tide]

2 minutes ago, sportsfan8703 said:

Iglesias doesn’t look like a good option anymore. I’d rather roll with Mateo to start the year with Martin and Fox being options. Grenier could get a look in the 2nd half. 
 

We’re at the point now where every guy we sign to an MLB deal means we have to DFA someone off the 40 man. It would be justifiable to DFA someone for a vet innings eater SP, but not for Iglesias. We already know we have to chop two guys off the 40 man on OD for a whatever 2 catchers we roll with. 

I was using him as an example of the right kind of signing that we did a few years ago. I’m not suggesting that we bring him back.

[LookinUp]

16 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

I was using him as an example of the right kind of signing that we did a few years ago. I’m not suggesting that we bring him back.

Yeah. Sign with the intent to trade *might* also be a worthwhile reason to spend. Kind of hard to pull off though.

[owknows]

I find it mildly amusing that some of the same people demanding spending on free agents because "win now"... are the same people suggesting that it would be OK to trade Mullins in hopes of "win later".

 

(best Seinfeld voice) Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, owknows said:

I find it mildly amusing that some of the same people demanding spending on free agents because "win now"... are the same people suggesting that it would be OK to trade Mullins in hopes of "win later".

 

(best Seinfeld voice) Not that there's anything wrong with that.

This is understandable since you aren’t actually reading what people are saying or proposing.  
 

[owknows]

Just now, Sports Guy said:

This is understandable since you aren’t actually reading what people are saying or proposing.  
 

Ah...  you're just misunderstood.  I see.

[Sports Guy]

12 minutes ago, owknows said:

Ah...  you're just misunderstood.  I see.

No, you are just clueless.  

[owknows]

Just now, Sports Guy said:

No, you are just clueless.  

You sure are an angry fella.

Maybe a little more dietary fiber.....

[panick]

2 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

Because if they sell now, the money goes to Peter and when he dies, the inheritance taxes have to get paid and that will be a lot of money.

If they wait until he dies and then, assuming his will leaves the team to the kids, they can sell and not worry about paying that tax.

Why would the sons not have to pay the inheritance tax? It is my understanding that only spouse to spouse inheritance is tax-free.

[Sports Guy]

4 minutes ago, owknows said:

You sure are an angry fella.

Maybe a little more dietary fiber.....

Nah..just a low tolerance for stupid people.

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, panick said:

Why would the sons not have to pay the inheritance tax? It is my understanding that only spouse to spouse inheritance is tax-free.

My understanding is upon death, the inheritance (ie the assets) itself is taxed.

I know someone who has checked into this and is moving to Florida because of it. (They don’t have the tax there)