*****Official Texas Rangers 2021 Season Thread*****
269,630 Views |
3491 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by DeangeloVickers
Angels have 4th oldest stadium in MLB. The three older ones are iconic mainstays - Fenway, Wrigley and Dodger - Anaheim is just another cookie cutter multi use, even though a lot of upgrades have been done in recent years.
Have no idea what their TV deal is like, but they are a clear second fiddle in that town.
Have no idea what their TV deal is like, but they are a clear second fiddle in that town.
The Angels have always pretty much been a poorly run franchise. As much as we complain about the Rangers, the Angels have been pretty mediocre in one of the largest markets imaginable.
rbtexan said:
The Angels have always pretty much been a poorly run franchise. As much as we complain about the Rangers, the Angels have been pretty mediocre in one of the largest markets imaginable.
They've been mediocre all while spending a ton of money as well.
Angels have struggled to put together a cohesive pitching staff for awhile, have some of the best hitters and defenders in the game, and most of their top prospects play in the field.
I'm just speculating, but seems that they went after college pitchers in hopes that they can find some MLB ready pitchers within the next 2, maybe 3 years.
I'm just speculating, but seems that they went after college pitchers in hopes that they can find some MLB ready pitchers within the next 2, maybe 3 years.
It's hard to put together a staff when you shell out cash for a free agent that quits baseball to race go karts or whatever CJ did.
They have a World Series and we don't tho.
So what?Grapesoda2525 said:
They have a World Series and we don't tho.
DallasAg 94 said:Wow. That is BOLD._lefraud_ said:
Angels drafted 20 pitchers...BOLD
19 College P
8 of which are 4th Yr Sr. Based on CV19, not sure they are all out of College eligibility.
1 HS P
Any speculation on strategy? Plenty of minor league hitters? Resolute to sign FA hitters and focus on developing P? Plan to limit #/scope/cost of players to manage if a CBA lock-out?
Signed college pitchers presumably would continue to throw with their college team.
Would a lockout affect the minor leagues as well? I haven't been following it really, but I was assuming that it would only impact the MLB players (or maybe just players on the 40)? Thought minor leagues would keep on keepin' on. At least I seem to recall years back there being a strike (or lockout?) where the minors were still playing while the
DallasAg 94 said:
An unusual draft, with only 20 players selected.
Rangers took:
SS (2)
P (12)
OF (2)
C (3)
DH (1) <- Just kidding, he is an OF from UoO.
and yes, I LOL'd at that one.
wbt5845 said:So what?Grapesoda2525 said:
They have a World Series and we don't tho.
It's not everything, but yeah it's relevant. 1 title > 0 titles. But that doesn't take away from the overall "meh" of an organization that they are.
What will be interesting drafting that many college pitchers is how you put everyone to work at once with the newly scaled down minor league system
FWIW...
I heard an interview with a couple of MLB execs (I'm sorry, don't remember exactly where & don't recall their names, one was a scout and the other was a front office type) discussing the trade deadline.
Both of them said pretty much the same thing, which was that most fans are probably going to be disappointed in the return their teams get if they trade players away. Gallo was brought up, and they felt like the Rangers would be looking at probably getting 1 top 100 type prospect, a prospect who probably would be in the 100-175 range, and then either a "project" type prospect, or a spare part-type MLB player, maybe someone recovering from (you guessed it) Tommy John surgery or some other injury.
Basically they said that teams have transitioned away from trading away a lot of prospects for established players, especially players at the end, or near the end, of their current contracts. Someone then made a joke to the effect of "then there's always the Yankees, you never know what they'll do".
I'm just the messenger here, but I thought this was worth mentioning. To unfortunately quote our dipsh*t former AD, we might need to manage expectations.
I heard an interview with a couple of MLB execs (I'm sorry, don't remember exactly where & don't recall their names, one was a scout and the other was a front office type) discussing the trade deadline.
Both of them said pretty much the same thing, which was that most fans are probably going to be disappointed in the return their teams get if they trade players away. Gallo was brought up, and they felt like the Rangers would be looking at probably getting 1 top 100 type prospect, a prospect who probably would be in the 100-175 range, and then either a "project" type prospect, or a spare part-type MLB player, maybe someone recovering from (you guessed it) Tommy John surgery or some other injury.
Basically they said that teams have transitioned away from trading away a lot of prospects for established players, especially players at the end, or near the end, of their current contracts. Someone then made a joke to the effect of "then there's always the Yankees, you never know what they'll do".
I'm just the messenger here, but I thought this was worth mentioning. To unfortunately quote our dipsh*t former AD, we might need to manage expectations.
I disagree with the last part of your post, for this reason: if the Rangers are getting the feel from either player (or both) that re-signing them is going to be an uphill battle at best, it's better to go ahead and trade them away for whatever you can get. Better to get some sort of return than nothing.
We're basically in agreement, all I'm saying is that we aren't going to get some sort of transformative return for either one of them. We're not going to get that "wow" factor in a trade IMO.
On a related note, I think the most likely player to be traded, possibly first, is Kennedy. In his case, I expect we will get virtually nothing, I can't believe any team is going to give up much for a 36 year old relief pitcher.
We're basically in agreement, all I'm saying is that we aren't going to get some sort of transformative return for either one of them. We're not going to get that "wow" factor in a trade IMO.
On a related note, I think the most likely player to be traded, possibly first, is Kennedy. In his case, I expect we will get virtually nothing, I can't believe any team is going to give up much for a 36 year old relief pitcher.
So you think Daniels is going to trade someone simply to "manage expectations" of the fanbase?
I always wonder if there's people out there that after reading Engel article after Engel article might actually start believing the nonsense... I guess there are.
I always wonder if there's people out there that after reading Engel article after Engel article might actually start believing the nonsense... I guess there are.
Here's a cheat sheet for you:
If we're making bad trades / FA signings / drafts - it's on JD.
If we're not spending enough - it's on the owners.
Ignoring ownership. we're about 2 years back from where we should be in a rebuild -- and I think that is mainly to do with Beltre not wanting to play on a 100 loss team his final year(s).
If we're making bad trades / FA signings / drafts - it's on JD.
If we're not spending enough - it's on the owners.
Ignoring ownership. we're about 2 years back from where we should be in a rebuild -- and I think that is mainly to do with Beltre not wanting to play on a 100 loss team his final year(s).
Didn't we have a ton of dead money that we needed to get rid of after we pretty much quit competing in 2016 or 2017? I forget the year.
I remember we were paying guys who weren't contributing anything to the active team like fielder, A rod, and the like. Heck even getting rid of Choo's overpaid contract was a big deal. We got rid of Elvis and the big stinks contract.
I just wonder when they will start spending again or maybe they are prepping to sell?
I remember we were paying guys who weren't contributing anything to the active team like fielder, A rod, and the like. Heck even getting rid of Choo's overpaid contract was a big deal. We got rid of Elvis and the big stinks contract.
I just wonder when they will start spending again or maybe they are prepping to sell?
Quote:
When you consider the $28M or so committed for 2022 and the $0 commitment for 2023... I've just never seen a team that had $0 committed for a season 2yrs away.
Why would you consider $0 committed for 2023 to be a bad thing on a team doing a full rebuild?
The whole idea is that the powder is dry when your youth blossom and you can go out and sign the big free agents.
Having a couple of big $$$ signings right now just means you're wasting the first few years of their contract. That's kind of the entire issue with Gallo - unless you can extend him soon throughout our competitive window (2023-2026+), then it's silly not to trade him because ultimately you're going to be getting production in 2021 and 2022 that maybe makes a 70 win team a 75 win team and then paying him in free agency if you want to keep him.
So the longer this goes on, I believe they are positioning to sell. And hey - I don't blame them. This club has probably had a negative cash flow for many years now. In pro sports, you typically don't really cash in until you sell.
DllasAg94 keeps pointing out how few guys are under contract in the future - I think that's by design. JD has been ordered to stay away from the possibility of dead money, which we are thankfully almost clear of (Odor and Andrus being the last of it).
This trade deadline will be telling. If we let guys go for a song bu July 31, then I gotta think those guys wanna punch.
DllasAg94 keeps pointing out how few guys are under contract in the future - I think that's by design. JD has been ordered to stay away from the possibility of dead money, which we are thankfully almost clear of (Odor and Andrus being the last of it).
This trade deadline will be telling. If we let guys go for a song bu July 31, then I gotta think those guys wanna punch.
DallasAg 94 said:That means you don't have any players on the team from which you plan to build. That means you have 25 roster spots to fill. You have 1 year to figure it out IF you plan to compete in 2023. The idea of a FULL rebuild to replace all 25/26 roster spots is a failure of a GM.Proposition Joe said:Quote:
When you consider the $28M or so committed for 2022 and the $0 commitment for 2023... I've just never seen a team that had $0 committed for a season 2yrs away.
Why would you consider $0 committed for 2023 to be a bad thing on a team doing a full rebuild?
I don't think you really understand how a rebuild works.
You've got a bunch of young guys on your roster, many playing their first year in the bigs.
Why on earth would you already be locking these players up through 2013 and beyond after an 80 game sample size?
The majority of our starting lineup is under team control through at least 2013. We are in a position to decide if we want them here longer, but there's zero reason to be inking that decision NOW.
If you aren't competing until at least 2013, what is the point in signing a guy long term in 2021? So that you waste the first third or half of his contract?
I mean, you can argue how we got here and what mistakes were made - but to somehow argue that not having any long-term money on the books during the first year or two of a full rebuild is a BAD thing is silly.
So I guess I'm confused... You want us with payroll commitments in 2023, you just don't necessarily want the guys we have on the roster to be the ones we make commitments to?
Ok... I don't actually disagree with you that it's not like this roster is knocking your socks off with potential, but what exactly would you propose the money spending solution would be? Extending a lot of multi-year payroll right now to NEW guys that will be here in 2023 and beyond? We can't go out and just sign a bunch of 16 year olds (anymore)... And I don't think we can talk to players currently under contract and get them to sign on for 2023.
You've got a lot of valid complaints, but somehow complaining that this team has no money officially earmarked for the 2023 roster makes little sense. If you're not going to realistically have a competitor on the field until 2023, and you don't have can't miss studs currently on the roster that you need to lock down before their value skyrockets, then having no money earmarked for 2023 is a good thing -- you're not tied to any one that isn't producing, and you've got a ton of money to spend on the pieces you wind up needing.
Again, that's not to say that ownership WILL do that or that they'll make the right decisions - but "OH NOES WE ARE SO PATHETIC WE HAVEN'T SHACKLED OURSELVES TO ANY FUTURE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS YET" is a silly stance.
Ok... I don't actually disagree with you that it's not like this roster is knocking your socks off with potential, but what exactly would you propose the money spending solution would be? Extending a lot of multi-year payroll right now to NEW guys that will be here in 2023 and beyond? We can't go out and just sign a bunch of 16 year olds (anymore)... And I don't think we can talk to players currently under contract and get them to sign on for 2023.
You've got a lot of valid complaints, but somehow complaining that this team has no money officially earmarked for the 2023 roster makes little sense. If you're not going to realistically have a competitor on the field until 2023, and you don't have can't miss studs currently on the roster that you need to lock down before their value skyrockets, then having no money earmarked for 2023 is a good thing -- you're not tied to any one that isn't producing, and you've got a ton of money to spend on the pieces you wind up needing.
Again, that's not to say that ownership WILL do that or that they'll make the right decisions - but "OH NOES WE ARE SO PATHETIC WE HAVEN'T SHACKLED OURSELVES TO ANY FUTURE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS YET" is a silly stance.
Quote:
And if you are thinking Leiter, Crouse, Ragans, Winn, et al, are your anchors of the future... you are really looking at 2025... maybe 2026. Which means there are really no players on the 25/26 that you see contributing in the future.
I'm sorry, but your timeline for these players is completely, utterly wrong.
Winn is tearing it up in AA, and is likely going to be promoted to AAA soon. So you're saying he's going to spend the next 3 years in the minors? Ain't gonna happen. Winn is a legit rotation option for late 22, and for sure in '23. Same thing applies to Leiter, he'll probably spend this season in high A, next year split between AA & AAA with plans for him in the rotation in '23. Ragans & Crouse may be slightly behind that, but not by much.
If we follow your timeline, a lot of these guys will be gone....Rule 5's or traded. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in the projections for those players you mentioned that suggests they won't be MLB ready for 3 or 4 more years. Sorry, but you're just wrong here.
2030 is our year!!
So you would rather sign some free agents now that will be on the tail end of their deals by the time we are competitive just so we can shows some money on the books for 2023?
Money on the books doesnt help a team not competing for 2 years.
Money on the books doesnt help a team not competing for 2 years.
Featured Stories
See All
25:40
5h ago
4.3k
Math is fundamental in Wednesday's high-profile A&M-Ole Miss contest
by Olin Buchanan
29:14
2h ago
930
28:10
3h ago
573
Pick 'Em & Rip 'Em sponsored by PrizePicks: Week 21
by Matthew Dawson
MarcAg
Elko set to add JMU's Lyle Hemphill to Texas A&M's defensive staff
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
67
justin0957
Elko set to add JMU's Lyle Hemphill to Texas A&M's defensive staff
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
61