quote:

---

quote:

---

The Rangers were in discussions to trade for Fernando Rodney. They're on the market for a reliever so don't fret.

---

If you've followed the Rangers, Texas is "in discussions" on just about everyone that is available.

Yet the Marlins landed him with one upper-tier prospect that wouldn't even have cracked the Rangers Top 10.

Sure seems to me that if the Rangers were serious about adding a plus reliever that they could have easily outbid Miami.

But, as mentioned before, if they are looking to add a reliever it is not going to be a guy that requires top prospect(s), which is why you're not going to see any significant (read: guy slotted to take the ball with a 3 run lead or less late in the game) bullpen arm added unless one of Diekman/Dyson/Tolleson/Bush/Kela/Barnette go to the DL.

But I bet you'll be able to find more quotes where the Rangers were "in discussions".

But hey, we're 3.5 weeks away from the deadline and we obviously have the prospect firepower. Let's see what plus bullpen arm we add...

---

Of course we are in discussions on every piece looking to be traded. Two reasons. We have some of the most coveted players and we are deep enough to let some go. Teams be like, "Wonder what the Rangers might offer up?!" Second, to drive the price up. If teams know the Rangers are in kicking the tires, they might give up a little more and move a little more quickly.

I know Sox only 2 games out and got Shields, but there were rumors that if they dropped out, Sale could be moved. It's extremely doubtful.

Every team wants the Rangers involved in the discussion


Kind of interesting to look over the list JN just sent out. Some painful memories on there, but worth noting how few prospects every really pan out

What's your email AP?

jchance @ texasrangers . com

It was mentioned the Rangers were kicking the tires on Ervin Santana.

Do Not Want. Even for a PTBNL.

2016 (33): 15 GS, 84.0 IP, 4.50 ERA, 1.405 WHIP

He is still owed $13.5M (2017), $13.5M (2018) & $14.0M (2019-buyout/options apply)

If I'm looking at spending an extra $13-15M in '17, '18 and '19, add it to whatever you can to sign Desmond. Or add it to what Darvish may ask for.

At 33, he is not headed in the right direction.

Even straight up for Holland, I wouldn't do it. I think there is still hope for Holland. #HopeForHolland

Opinions?!

Jose LeClerc called up

Not interested at $13.5m/year, but if the Twins are willing to pick up some of that I would much prefer Santana getting starts over Chi Chi or Nick Martinez.

Back end rotation guys aren't sexy, but you realize that a guy just able to give your team a chance to win every 5th game is pretty valuable when you're getting 6+ ERA performances with your current options.

quote:

---

Jose LeClerc called up

---

And Yohander Mendez being called up to AAA for a spot start.

I'm guessing Chi Chi is being demoted to AAA, as a result of LeClerc getting the call.

Mendez will fill in at AAA and then Chi Chi take the spot.

All that meaning Roth remains and could get the next GS, instead of Chi Chi?!

At this point, I am willing to give Chi Chi another shot, but we just cannot go with Martinez anymore. We gift wrapped that first inning for him and he just could not stop being terrible. Gotta send him back down and find basically literally anyone else.

quote:

---

Not interested at $13.5m/year, but if the Twins are willing to pick up some of that I would much prefer Santana getting starts over Chi Chi or Nick Martinez.

Back end rotation guys aren't sexy, but you realize that a guy just able to give your team a chance to win every 5th game is pretty valuable when you're getting 6+ ERA performances with your current options.

---

I know they aren't sexy... but they also don't make $13.5M/yr.

My point about Holland would be a swap of about $3M and move from having options for the next 2 years, to committed. But even at the pro-rated $3M difference for 2016, I don't know he is the best option.

Better than Chi Chi or Nick? I don't know.

I was hoping to see something from Chi Chi in his last GS, but seems to have gotten hung out to dry, and with LeClerc getting the call, I think Chi Chi goes down.

Nick has 4 GS, but 2 of those were against the best hitting team in the AL. You get those two games 9-10 days apart, and I'm not sure I don't want to see another GS. He is scheduled for Saturday, just before the ASB. Then, you take a breather. He faces the Twins, which IMO, if he is fantastic, doesn't tell you as much as you'd like. If he is terrible... message sent.

If Mendez has success at Round Rock in his spot start, maybe I'm looking at Lohse at the MLB level, give Mendez another GS at AAA, and go from there.

Either Martinez is going down or Roth is DFA.

quote:

---

I know they aren't sexy... but they also don't make $13.5M/yr.

My point about Holland would be a swap of about $3M and move from having options for the next 2 years, to committed. But even at the pro-rated $3M difference for 2016, I don't know he is the best option.

Better than Chi Chi or Nick? I don't know.

---

I'm not interested in swapping Holland for Santana, but there has been nothing to show that Chi Chi or Nick are more likely to give you a quality outing than Santana.

quote:

---

If you've followed the Rangers, Texas is "in discussions" on just about everyone that is available.

Yet the Marlins landed him with one upper-tier prospect that wouldn't even have cracked the Rangers Top 10.

Sure seems to me that if the Rangers were serious about adding a plus reliever that they could have easily outbid Miami.

---

Geeze. It was in the news because everyone knows the Rangers need help and everyone knows the Rangers are looking around. Can you cite where the Rangers have been in discussions for a middle infielder? An outfielder? A third baseman? Probably not, they're not trying to limit Adrian Beltre's innings.

Rodney is a right-hander. Its been opined here and in the media that the Rangers much prefer and need a left-hander.

At least get your story straight. It changes every time. Are you now telling us the price for a "plus" arm isn't the kind of elite prospect you were claiming it'd take?

What a strange fight to take up the banner for...

quote:

---

quote:

---

If you've followed the Rangers, Texas is "in discussions" on just about everyone that is available.

Yet the Marlins landed him with one upper-tier prospect that wouldn't even have cracked the Rangers Top 10.

Sure seems to me that if the Rangers were serious about adding a plus reliever that they could have easily outbid Miami.

---

Geeze. It was in the news because everyone knows the Rangers need help and everyone knows the Rangers are looking around. Can you cite where the Rangers have been in discussions for a middle infielder? An outfielder? A third baseman? Probably not, they're not trying to limit Adrian Beltre's innings.

Rodney is a right-hander. Its been opined here and in the media that the Rangers much prefer and need a left-hander.

At least get your story straight. It changes every time. Are you now telling us the price for a "plus" arm isn't the kind of elite prospect you were claiming it'd take?

What a strange fight to take up the banner for...

---

Where has my story changed? I said 2 weeks ago that you aren't going to see the Rangers trade for a plus reliever because the cost to acquire one will be too high for the return of tweaking a B+ roster of relievers into an A, especially in a situation where the roster is already heavy on plus relievers.

Your confusion exists because guys like TxAggie2001 -- who attempts to argue with any poster under the sun with an army of 17,000 edits per post -- takes a comment like that and tweaks it into the poster saying "Rangers don't need any bullpen help", and argues against that.

Stating that Rangers were in "discussions" about Fernando Rodney doesn't change my point. If Florida was willing to give him up for a token amount then sure Texas would love to have him -- my guess is so would a bunch of other teams too.

But if Texas didn't get him, and Texas has far more farm talent than San Diego, then it's safe to say they weren't willing to part with what it would take to get him... which goes back to my point -- Texas isn't going to give up a top prospect for a *seventh* plus bullpen arm.

You brought up Dyson last year as an example of how they could, but completely glossed over that when Texas traded for Dyson last year they were sitting with three plus relievers (four if you count the recently acquire Diekman).

They currently have six, with a seventh on his way back.

While a team would love 8 "plus" relievers, they aren't going to trade a top prospect for one, especially when their most glaring need right now is starting pitching.

So, yeah, you might see them move a couple of middling prospects for a questionable reliever and he may turn out to be a diamond, but as far as seeing them trade for a known plus reliever, it is not going to happen unless one of their 7 go to the DL.

quote:

---

Your confusion exists because guys like TxAggie2001 -- who attempts to argue with any poster under the sun with an army of 17,000 edits per post -- takes a comment like that and tweaks it into the poster saying "Rangers don't need any bullpen help", and argues against that.

---

Dude...

And I've never accused you of thinking the bullpen is perfect.


Edited just for you. Twice.

quote:

---

Either Martinez is going down or Roth is DFA.

---

Roth DFA'd

quote:

---

You brought up Dyson last year as an example of how they could, but completely glossed over that when Texas traded for Dyson last year they were sitting with three plus relievers (four if you count the recently acquire Diekman).

---

I said that to get you off the notion that its bullpen or rotation. Not to compare the quality of the bullpens.

Its not bullpen or rotation.

The grand irony of this whole thing that now has you worked up in such a tizzy is that it started with your twisting words around about the above...

Hell, you had this same argument a few days ago because you kept telling folks they were wrong for wanting to trade away a top prospect even though everyone repeatedly tells you they weren't saying trade away a top prospect.

I'll ask again, you don't read very well, do you?

Irony abounds.

How does your story change? Every time you post. The bullpen is fine, its roster mismanagement...these guys are overused but there isn't roster space...why are they carrying 3 catchers on the roster?!...there is roster space but not enough innings...good relievers cost elite prospects...Rodney wasn't even that expensive...the bullpen could use help...

There is this desperation to be the smartest man in the room with creative insight yet you keep getting caught with your pants down.

I'm not going to guarantee to you the Rangers add a god bullpen arm just like I'm not going to guarantee to you they add a good rotation piece, but shutting down the idea of adding a bullpen arm would be criminal given the current state of affairs.

quote:

---

They currently have six, with a seventh on his way back.

---

And hell, yesterday it was five quality relievers with a 6th on his way back.

Who is this mystery 6th quality reliever, by the way? Don't say Cesar Ramos.

When your first 3 plus relievers are being worked like they never have before, #4 was rocky as hell to start the year and hasn't really been trusted since, #5 had never pitched in the majors, and #6 has been on the DL all season (which he leaked oil late last year due to overwork, hmmm, wonder if that's a risk for our first 3), nabbing a quality BP arm makes sense. It also happens to look as if there will be no shortsge of relief opportunities around here for a while.

And it wont take a top prospect. Nor has anyone said they should give a top prospect.

quote:

---

quote:

---

You brought up Dyson last year as an example of how they could, but completely glossed over that when Texas traded for Dyson last year they were sitting with three plus relievers (four if you count the recently acquire Diekman).

---

I said that to get you off the notion that its bullpen or rotation. Not to compare the quality of the bullpens.

Its not bullpen or rotation.

The grand irony of this whole thing that now has you worked up in such a tizzy is that it started with your twisting words around about the above...

Hell, you had this same argument a few days ago because you kept telling folks they were wrong for wanting to trade away a top prospect even though everyone repeatedly tells you they weren't saying trade away a top prospect.

I'll ask again, you don't read very well, do you?

Irony abounds.

---

Responding with an actual explanation of the likely thought process of the front office rather than useless quips like "you don't read very well, do you?" isn't getting worked up in a tizzy.

"Oh crap, you responded with facts and logic -- you must really be worked up!"

You are the one that brought up the Dyson example and I've pointed out how it's a poor example as the needs for Texas at the time were completely different.

There's really not another way to explain the logic of the situation:

1) A proven 'plus' reliever (sub-3.00 AL ERA or sub-2.70 or so NL ERA over a decent amount of innings) is going to command a top prospect.

2) So if you are not willing to give up a top prospect, you're looking at a guy sporting around a 3.50 or worse ERA over a decent amount of innings.

3) You currently have a bullpen with 4 guys sporting a 2.81 ERA or better. Another guy who has looked great his last 8 or so outings (Tolleson), and another guy who looked great last year and in his first rehab start (Kela).


So either A) you trade a top prospect for a bullpen arm that likely only slight improves your pen in high leverage situations (as it's going to bump one of the above guys to a low leverage spot) or B) you trade a non-top-prospect for a middle of the road arm that helps shore things up a bit but isn't really going to change who you roll with in high leverage situations.


Option A is horrible use of resources and something a good front office isn't going to do. So you are left with B and what i've been saying for weeks now -- if you are trading for bullpen help it's gonna be a guy that is pitching when you're down 6-4 and isn't going to make a whole lot of difference unless he comes in and pitches way above his head and forces himself unexpectedly into a high leverage role.

So maybe you think one of our guys is about to head to the DL or is going to absolutely tank the next 3 weeks .. but barring that, logic dictates that Texas is not going to have 7 high leverage arms in their bullpen so thinking Texas is going to pick up a plus reliever by the deadline is going to leave you disappointed.

quote:

---

How does your story change? Every time you post. The bullpen is fine, its roster mismanagement...these guys are overused but there isn't roster space...why are they carrying 3 catchers on the roster?!...there is roster space but not enough innings...good relievers cost elite prospects...Rodney wasn't even that expensive...the bullpen could use help...

There is this desperation to be the smartest man in the room with creative insight yet you keep getting caught with your pants down.

I'm not going to guarantee to you the Rangers add a god bullpen arm just like I'm not going to guarantee to you they add a good rotation piece, but shutting down the idea of adding a bullpen arm would be criminal given the current state of affairs.

quote:

---

They currently have six, with a seventh on his way back.

---

And hell, yesterday it was five quality relievers with a 6th on his way back.

Who is this mystery 6th quality reliever, by the way? Don't say Cesar Ramos.

---

Already posted a TLDR to your other misguided post but you are correct (and I corrected above), I meant to say five with a sixth on the way.

quote:

---

And it wont take a top prospect. Nor has anyone said they should give a top prospect.

---

Do you think we'll be able to land a proven reliever with a sub 2.80/3.00 ERA without giving up a top 10-15 prospect?

quote:

---

quote:

---

And it wont take a top prospect. Nor has anyone said they should give a top prospect.

---

Do you think we'll be able to land a proven reliever with a sub 2.80/3.00 ERA without giving up a top 10-15 prospect?

---

And just to expand that.

We need:
1 SP - That will cost us 3 Top 10 Prospects.
1 SP - That will cost us 1 Top 10 Prospects
1 LH-RP - Valued based on return.

re: trading for a reliever or a starter

I'll take one starter who is not Nick Martinez or Chi Chi Gonzalez, and for sure one but also maybe two releivers who are not Nick Martinez or Chi Chi Gonzalez

quote:

---

Odorizzi





IHIOGA

---

Don't worry, I read every word of your post...

1) I tossed in the quip because when folks don't seem to be listening, what else is one to do to get them to listen? You're not devoid of quips, yourself, my friend.

2) You keep repeating not facts. Irony continues to abound. Here are some more facts, although most were already posted, you just don't read well or "didn't read, TL;DR."

3) How many times do folks have to say they're not looking to trade a top prospect?

An arm with a 3.50-ish ERA over a lot of innings? I'd be very pleased with that. That's basically what the Rangers got with Sam Dyson last year. 3.68 ERA over 44 innings with Miami. Now Dyson is a "plus reliever" who you're saying makes other good relievers redundant and "inconsequential."

The Rangers gave up a minor league reliever you never knew existed and a failed catching prospect, Tomas Telis.

And I think what a lot of us are saying is you can do a lot to improve the bullpen without going through top prospects. Diekman was a bit of a throw-in on a trade, he's also one of your now "plus" bullpen arms.

And because he's the hot topic, Fernando Rodney has finished with an ERA of 3.38 or lower but once in the last 3 seasons and has a 0.85 ERA this season and we saw what it took to get him.

3) Of the 4 guys with a 2.81 ERA or better, only one is a left-hander and the guy you're getting back, Keone Kela is a right-hander. This has already been said, but perhaps it was "TL;DR."

And part of the problem is the huge drop-off after those guys. Its already been said that you'll need 7 or 8 guys in the playoffs and the Rangers have 6 guys if everything goes perfect. That's a huge gamble.

[4) Here's a check for going after a really good bullpen arm. The Rangers may have 4 guys at 2.81 or better, but they have 0 guys better than 2.70. They lack that truly dominant arm that the best bullpens are anchored with.]

quote:

---

Odorizzi





IHIOGA

---

For?

If we were to make a trade for a SP, we'd need a spot on the 40.

If Roth were DFA'ed, he is removed from the 40. Could they not have optioned him?

I'm guessing maybe the DFA'ed him to make room.

It made no sense to bring him up, if he were only getting a cup of coffee. Now, he did go 3.2 IP and was a safety for the thin pitching.

If you have a trade in hand, and you are not including a person on the 40, then Roth is likely your guy to open a spot.

Time to start speculating?!

AA-SP and AA-OF both not on the 40?! Add another low-level player?

Odorizzi set to start tonight for Tampa. 6:10pm Central game time.

Less than 2 hours.

They face LAAA.

quote:

---

3) How many times do folks have to say they're not looking to trade a top prospect?

---

Folks don't want to trade a top prospect but want an upgrade over what we have.

It's akin to saying I want a cleanup-type 30HR kinda guy at the trade deadline but I don't want to give up anything good for him.

You can want it all you want, but it's not realistic.

quote:

---

An arm with a 3.50-ish ERA over a lot of innings? I'd be very pleased with that. That's basically what the Rangers got with Sam Dyson last year. 3.68 ERA over 44 innings with Miami. Now Dyson is a "plus reliever" who you're saying makes other good relievers redundant and "inconsequential."

---

Exactly. Sam Dyson was sporting a 3.68 ERA over 44 innings (3.87 career) and arm makeup questions with Miami. He came over to Texas and has put up a 2.03 ERA... Just a little bit of difference there in what the Rangers traded for and what they got, which is why I mentioned "unless he comes in and pitches way above his head and forces himself unexpectedly into a high leverage role." -- but maybe that was the part you TLDR'd.

quote:

---

And because he's the hot topic, Fernando Rodney has finished with an ERA of 3.38 or lower but once in the last 3 seasons and has a 0.85 ERA this season and we saw what it took to get him.

---

He was bad in 2015.
He was good in 2014.
He was meh in 2013.
He was great in 2012.
He was bad the 5 years before that.


The Marlins got him for what they did because it's very questionable how good he actually is.

He's now given up as many earned runs in 3 innings for Miami as he did in the previous 28+ for San Diego.

quote:

---

And part of the problem is the huge drop-off after those guys. Its already been said that you'll need 7 or 8 guys in the playoffs and the Rangers have 6 guys if everything goes perfect. That's a huge gamble.

---

Kansas City Royals postseason relievers with a sub 3.60 regular season ERA last year: 4

New York Mets postseason relievers with a sub 3.60 regular season ERA last year: 5

Those two teams seemed to do OK last year without 7 or 8 proven relievers in the bullpen. \_()_/

I'm bored...

I'll throw this offer out there:

14th. Rk prospect. Ryan Cordell (24-AA-OF): .277, 15 HR, 7 SB
25th. Rk prospect. Connor Sadzeck (24-AA-RHP): 14 GS, 3.27 ERA, 1.06 WHIP, 88.0 IP, 79 SO, 27 BB
+ Someone from High Desert

quote:

---

Folks don't want to trade a top prospect but want an upgrade over what we have.

It's akin to saying I want a cleanup-type 30HR kinda guy at the trade deadline but I don't want to give up anything good for him.

You can want it all you want, but it's not realistic.

---

There's the dissonance. You're off key from the start.

Its not about finding a closer better than Sam Dyson. Its about improving the bullpen. Adding depth. Adding security. Adding a left-hander you hope. Maybe even adding some quality. Building on the musical references; you like classical music? A bullpen in the playoffs is like an orchestra on Saturday evening. The back row gets off and the whole thing comes burning down even if you've got Yo-Yo Ma in your first chair cello.

The Rangers have 4 healthy guys who have pitched a full season before with any success. They have a 5th guy who was just got out of prison and has been streaky. All 5 guys have actually been streaky this season.

They may have a 6th, a guy who has been injured most of the year, pitched poorly before he was injured, and was good last year but was also streaky.

And then its musical chairs, black pit, and utterly incapable of getting outs. Its almost unlike any bullpen in the major leagues. That's a problem. It also puts strain on the good relievers, forcing them into more innings. It takes the team out of any game in which the starter has a problem. And even Cole Hamels is capable of having problems.

But I digress that even the "plus arms" have shown some cracks. Bush has been getting hit more. Barnette has allowed more base-runners.

And the lack of left-handers has already become evident.

quote:

---

He was meh in 2013.

---

3.38 ERA with a 1.335 WHIP, 11.1 K/9, 7.2 H/9.

If that's "meh", then all I want for Christmas is the Rangers to trade for a "meh" reliever.

Barnette's WHIP is 1.336 for comparison.

quote:

---

Kansas City Royals postseason relievers with a sub 3.60 regular season ERA last year: 4

New York Mets postseason relievers with a sub 3.60 regular season ERA last year: 5

Those two teams seemed to do OK last year without 7 or 8 proven relievers in the bullpen. \_()_/

---

I'm a Royals guy, and the Royals had 6 guys who had a relief ERA at or below 3.18 in the regular season who made relief appearances in the post-season. The full compliment last year of who came from the bullpen in the post-season:

0.94 ERA, 0.787 WHIP, 67.1 innings
2.13 ERA, 0.963 WHIP, 63.1 innings
2.51 ERA, 1.047 WHIP, 14.1 innings (Part Time SP: Total 4.01 ERA, 1.269 WHIP, 58.1 innings)
2.59 ERA, 0.945 WHIP, 24.1 innings (Part Time SP: Total 3.06 ERA, 1.086 WHIP, 123.1 innings)
2.71 ERA, 1.120 WHIP, 69.2 innings
3.18 ERA, 1.155 WHIP, 62.1 innings
3.73 ERA, 1.283 WHIP, 50.2 innings


4.08 ERA, 1.390 WHIP, 136.2 innings (SP who made relief appearance in ALDS)


You think the Rangers match up with that? Tony Barnette's aforementioned WHIP is higher than everyone save the last guy.

Other relief pitchers the Royals had during the regular season that weren't on the playoff roster:

1.54 ERA, 1.671 WHIP, 23.1 innings
2.96 ERA, 1.192 WHIP, 24.1 innings