I think that is around 23-24

Well that's freaking brutal..... Jung wasn't going to start but I'd figured we'd see him at some point. Hope the rehab goes well

Trying to piece-meal together a team to get you to 82 wins is the reason we're 3 years away from contending instead of just 1.

If you're going through chalking up "winnable losses" and "should be wins", then you need to do it for the rest of the league as well. It's akin to the people who say during football season "if Play X or Play Y went differently, we'd have won 10 games!". If a team could change one or two plays, then every team would have more wins.

I don't think any of us particularly like the "go big or go cheap" approach of roster management, but with salaries the way they are unless you are willing to spend $200m then the Astros approach is unfortunately how you build a contender.

Not to go doomsday over a foot injury, but between a completely lost 2020 and now this, I'm worried about how much Jung's development is being negatively impacted. This has been a lot of time not playing baseball at a critical time in a young guy's career

You're giving a lot of reasons as to why you are upset that a really bad team isn't going to be just "kinda bad".

Which means you don't really get the point - spending $100m, $100m and $100m to be a 75 win team isn't what makes sense in the current baseball climate. It's the reason why our "meh" 2018/2019/2020 still has us needing another couple of years to compete. You go full blown rebuild in 2018 and we'd be right on the cusp this year. It make more sense to spend $50m, $50m $50m and then when the young pieces are in place, spend $250m. Reference the Padres. It's similar to how in the NBA it took many franchises a long time to realize having one superstar and building a team of key pieces around him (like the 2011 Mavs) doesn't have a high likelihood of success - you go multi-superstar and cheap on the rest.

Much like your "well if you take these games we SHOULD have won, and add these games we COULD have won, then we're a playoff team!" analysis, you have a problem with dumping a whole lot of statistics but not really knowing how to apply them in a legitimate manner.

In your eyes not having a decent closer on this team is going to cost us 15 games.

In reality based on the last 100 years of baseball statistics, that is an absolutely ridiculous statement.

This isn't basketball or even the NFL where you have to truly tank badly to find talent in the draft. Competent organizations find talent and develop it. The Rangers have sucked at drafting for most of Daniels time here, and what they did with the 2020 draft looks like a travesty.

seems like a crappy payroll with TV contract at $75-$80 mill

No one is arguing that our drafting is underwhelming -- we thrived because we concentrated on the international market for so long and when new rules took the value out of that we have struggled to shift.

That being said, even if you are an average drafting team, when you have a playoff caliber team 5 out of 7 years, you are going to wind up trading a lot of your assets to try and win it all. When you're moving your trade chips in 2012-2016, it's going to cause your farm to be rather barren in 2017-2020, especially if you aren't a great drafting team and you miss on a "can't miss" prospect (Profar).

But that doesn't change the overall strategy of when it's a time to spend and when it's a time to tank. If you are a 75 win team on paper and you've got a 95 win team in the division, spending money in free agency doesn't make a whole lot of sense because you're wasting the first few years (with the last few years typically a waste in many contracts as it is).

Things would look a lot different if we didn't make those trades, but I still think Daniels and company left a lot to be desired during several drafts. Way too many boom or bust high school players

DallasAg 94 said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

No one is arguing that our drafting is underwhelming -- we thrived because we concentrated on the international market for so long and when new rules took the value out of that we have struggled to shift.

That being said, even if you are an average drafting team, when you have a playoff caliber team 5 out of 7 years, you are going to wind up trading a lot of your assets to try and win it all. When you're moving your trade chips in 2012-2016, it's going to cause your farm to be rather barren in 2017-2020, especially if you aren't a great drafting team and you miss on a "can't miss" prospect (Profar).

But that doesn't change the overall strategy of when it's a time to spend and when it's a time to tank. If you are a 75 win team on paper and you've got a 95 win team in the division, spending money in free agency doesn't make a whole lot of sense because you're wasting the first few years (with the last few years typically a waste in many contracts as it is).

---

Profar wasn't drafted, he was one of those Int'l signing you mentioned. Singed in July 2009.

Last year he went .278/7HRs in 56 Games. 1st of his 3 year deal with **drumroll** those high spending Padres. Preller strikes.

If you draft below average... and you won't spend on FAs... you will never be a .500 team. If you are a below average team... there will always be a team in your division that projects to 95 Ws.

It is about Organizational talent. And we don't have enough. And we are not bringing enough into the organization. Recovering TJs is not the way to build a rotation.

---

So you acknowledge we haven't drafted well enough to have the current farm ready to thrive... so you want to spend on FAs so you can be a 0.500 team?

The time to spend in FA is when you have drafted (or traded) well enough that the young guys are ready to step in and you can piece in some big name talent around them -- reference Tatis + Machado.

And then keep in mind we're still talking about a team that got swept 3-0 in the NLDS, with only one of the games even being close.

Do we need to draft better? Yes. Do we need to develop better? Yes.

Do we need to spend a lot of money in free agency in years where we're projected to win 75 games? Absolutely not.

Quote:

---

Combined, they make $59M. Add to the $87M we have commited and we are at $146M. Keep Lance Lynn at $9M, we are still only at $155M.

Mookie Betts and Machado make Gallo and Odor much better hitters.

---

I love when you make posts that are so obviously based around a MLB The Show video game trade/contract system.

Yes, combined Machado and Betts make $59M.

So all the Rangers had to do was pay $59M and they could have had Machado and Betts on the roster next year... Damn, what fools!

Oh yeah, the player still has to choose to play for you (lets see, LA and the Dodgers, San Diego and the Padres, or... Arlington and the Rangers!).

Oh yeah, and there's that other aspect... That they are on 10 and 12 year deals respectively.

But even then, do all of that and and based on WAR, in the shortened season we would have added 6 wins, taking us to 28-32... Meaning in a season where 8 teams from each league make the playoffs... we still would have missed it.

Even in your fantasy video game world, waiting until you have the supporting cast of young players ready to contribute before money-whipping in free agency still makes more sense.

Jose Leclerc has an elbow injury and is "expected to miss significant time"

DallasAg 94 said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

DallasAg 94 said:

---

Profar wasn't drafted, he was one of those Int'l signing you mentioned. Singed in July 2009.

Last year he went .278/7HRs in 56 Games. 1st of his 3 year deal with **drumroll** those high spending Padres. Preller strikes.

If you draft below average... and you won't spend on FAs... you will never be a .500 team. If you are a below average team... there will always be a team in your division that projects to 95 Ws.

It is about Organizational talent. And we don't have enough. And we are not bringing enough into the organization. Recovering TJs is not the way to build a rotation.

---

So you acknowledge we haven't drafted well enough to have the current farm ready to thrive... so you want to spend on FAs so you can be a 0.500 team?

The time to spend in FA is when you have drafted (or traded) well enough that the young guys are ready to step in and you can piece in some big name talent around them -- reference Tatis + Machado.

And then keep in mind we're still talking about a team that got swept 3-0 in the NLDS, with only one of the games even being close.

Do we need to draft better? Yes. Do we need to develop better? Yes.

Do we need to spend a lot of money in free agency in years where we're projected to win 75 games? Absolutely not.

---

You spend on FAs to fill the holes and gaps you have from not drafting/developing players.

If you want to win ... spending on FAs is the financial penalty you pay to compensate for not drafting/developing.

I don't disagree that spending $165M this year may not get you a WS. My issue isn't this year alone.

Let's look at the Padres.
Traded James Shields for Tatis (3B) in June 2016

Traded for Wil Myers (RF) in 2014, but signed him Jan 2017 to a 6yr/$83M deal.

1B Hosmer - Signed Feb 2018 = 8yr/$144M

They finished 2018 at 66-96.

The Padres signed Machado (3B) in Feb 2019. 10yr/$300M.

Tatis was in AA in 2018, and he went .286/16HR. He started 2019 in AA.

In 2019, the Padres went 70-92.


Nov 2018, traded for Trent Grisham (2B) and Zach Davies (SP)
Dec 2019, traded for Jurickson Profar (LF). Resigned him in Jan 2021.

The Padres by acquisition type:
Via Traded :
Wil Myers (RF) in 2014. Signed 6yr/$83M
Tatis (SS) in June 2016. Signed 14yr/$340M
Paddack (SP) in June '16
Trent Grisham (CF) in Nov '19
Zach Davies (SP) in Nov '19
Jurickson Profar (LF) in Dec '19
Cronenworth (2B) in Dec '19
Clevinger (SP) in Aug '20

Via FA:
Hosmer (1B) in Feb '18 (8yr/$144M)
Garrett Richards (SP) in Dec '18 (2yr/$15M)
Machado (3B) in Feb '19 (10yr/$300M)
Pomeranz (CL) in Nov '19 (4yr/$34M)

Via Int'l:
Lamet (SP) in '14?

Via Draft:
Nothing

That is their roster and HOW they got the team they have.


The Padres acquisition timeline:

Wil Myers (RF) in 2014. Signed 6yr/$83M
Lamet (SP) in '14?
Tatis (SS) in June 2016. Signed 14yr/$340M
Paddack (SP) in June '16

Hosmer (1B) in Feb '18 (8yr/$144M)
Garrett Richards (SP) in Dec '18 (2yr/$15M)
Machado (3B) in Feb '19 (10yr/$300M)
Pomeranz (CL) in Nov '19 (4yr/$34M)
Trent Grisham (CF) in Nov '19
Zach Davies (SP) in Nov '19
Jurickson Profar (LF) in Dec '19
Cronenworth (2B) in Dec '19
Clevinger (SP) in Aug '20

NONE of their talent was homegrown via the June draft. 9 players acquired 18 months.

YES... let's do that.

This Forum was abuzz hoping we'd get Machado and/or Mookie Betts.

Combined, they make $59M. Add to the $87M we have commited and we are at $146M. Keep Lance Lynn at $9M, we are still only at $155M.

Mookie Betts and Machado make Gallo and Odor much better hitters.

---

Like the analysis. Can you include which players they traded and where those players fell on the Top 100 list? Got to have the farm talent to be able to trade for caliber players

DallasAg 94 said:

---

I love how in your world... you make a baseless comment with no supporting validation, and when confronted with the facts you move on to another baseless assumption.

Like the time you tried to imply the Padres had this huge foundation of talent, and only went after Machado because he fit nicely into the talent pool already there.

Then, when presented with how the Padres were built... you go with, "Machado chose San Diego over Arlington 'cause... duh... who wouldn't."

Well, the Rangers never made a run.

Quote:

---

The Rangers, meanwhile, held to their word and never became involved on Machado, an elite player who is entering his prime years, even as he lingered on the market. GM Jon Daniels said that he spoke with Machado's agent, Dan Lozano, but only because Lozano represents Willie Calhoun and Matt Davidson.

Daniels would check to see if Machado's market had dropped, and it hadn't. That would have been the only way the Rangers would have been involved, and that appears to be their tack with Harper.

---

Shopping the retail market with discount offers. The term "lingered" generally means the player/agent is past the time they wanted a deal done.

Yes... 10 & 12 years deals. Players we'd have around for 10+ years.

You know who doesn't like playing for the LAD adn SDP... guys making $300M+. At 9% state income tax... Sure, Texas would play games in LAA and Oakland... maybe some interleague at SDP and LAD... And then you will rebuttal that playing 100 G in California as a Padres isn't as big a deal as playing 19 G in California as a Rangers... blah blah blah...

Fact is... we were never in the conversation. Knowing we were headed to a new ballpark... JD never made an offer.

---

We should have signed Machado for 10 years because we're heading to a new ballpark? That's the exact line of thinking I DON'T want my franchise to have. "The timing isn't right, and we've got no real supporting cast but hey lets give Machado a 10 year deal because we need to get people excited about the new ballpark!".

And now the state income tax horse that's been beaten to death for decades? Just because lazy local sports-writers dangle that as a reason some stud may choose to play in Texas doesn't mean it's every really been a real factor... I mean, we've been hearing this since at least the Randy Johnson free agency almost a quarter-century ago!

Have their been major draft mistakes and major mis-steps with this front office? Yes.

Does the timing suck to move into a new ballpark and not really have a good team? Yes.

But that doesn't mean it makes sense to be a big spender in the free agent market when you don't have any of the young pieces to complement it. You know what what creates? 85 win seasons and pushing a true rebuild back yet another year.

This team was a contender over a 7 years span. It should have rebuilt after the 2017 season but didn't in order to keep Beltre around and happy. 2018 was more or less a wasted year, and in 2019 we finally started what needed to be done but then got tempted by a Minor/Lynn combo and opening a new park so held onto our assets and added a lotto ticket with Kluber. It failed.

We've finally ripped the band-aid off and stopped this half-measure 85-win "but hey we're competing!" crap. It means this year will suck, and next year too. But at least we're finally on the right rebuilding page.

What is incredible is that trading prospects for veterans didn't really hurt their eventual trajectory because almost none of those young guys ended up doing dick in the league. You can't say "well, if we still had this guy or that guy" because they almost all sucked

The taxes-are-higher-in-California argument doesn't pass muster. Athletes pay taxes based on where their money is earned (thanks, Michael Jordan).

Absolutely BRUTAL injury luck as of late, good god

You're right. I stopped reading and did miss that.

I'd still like to see the stats of pro athletes that leave California vs. those that go there voluntarily. I suspect the real-world rsultd wouldn't support the tax-benefit predictions.

My hope is that these owners are trying to position the team to sell. New stadium, low payroll, little to no dead money. Team is positioned perfectly for sale.

I say this because the owners showed no hesitation for the first 8 years of ownership to pay money to win. Kind of a head scratcher to me as to why they suddenly would go low payroll at this point, especially when opening a new park.