He made **** trades that didn't address the needs of the team. And went over the CBT.
*****Official Texas Rangers 2025 2026 Offseason Thread*****
62,341 Views |
752 Replies |
Last: 8 hrs ago by CowtownAg06
So this means, instead of 2025 being the reset year, 2026 will be the reset year. Prepare for mediocrity.
Double Talkin' Jive...
Quote:
He made **** trades that didn't address the needs of the team. And went over the CBT.
This. 1000%.
Murakami got two years $34 million from the White Sox. His market was Antarctic cold lol.
His whiff rate might make Joey Gallo look like Luis Arraez.
So CY did a trade that sent three pitching prospects for a rental pitcher that barely pushed the team over the CBT limit, missed the playoffs and then that pitcher is back to the team he was traded from.
Yeah, that's baseball malpractice. Davis cannot be pleased. I am betting he's in a months long state of pissed offness right now.
Yeah, that's baseball malpractice. Davis cannot be pleased. I am betting he's in a months long state of pissed offness right now.
This is ridiculous. Heads should roll over this.
There sure is alot of whataboutism going on. Most of us were very excited about " going for it" when those trades were made. Those of you that are crying about them now, please quote your disappointment posts from the season thread unedited.
Danny Vermin said:
There sure is alot of whataboutism going on. Most of us were very excited about " going for it" when those trades were made. Those of you that are crying about them now, please quote your disappointment posts from the season thread unedited.
Many of us were disappointed that we didn't go get hitting. I was stumping for Steven Kwan. Our pitching was already one of the best in MLB while our offense was abysmal.
Maton, Merrill, and Coulombe were ok but weren't great additions. As a matter of fact, post trade performance was not as good as pre trade performance.
Double Talkin' Jive...
While true, the consensus around here was happiness they were doing something because we were playing pretty good at the time and the division was in reach. I remember the disappointment of not getting a bat but also we thought a bolstered bullpen and another starter would get us to the playoffs.
Danny Vermin said:
There sure is alot of whataboutism going on. Most of us were very excited about " going for it" when those trades were made. Those of you that are crying about them now, please quote your disappointment posts from the season thread unedited.
If you insist...
fc2112 said:
What pisses me off the most is that we did not hold firm under the cap. At least if we'd done that, we could now say "well, we can be players on the free agent market next season".
And several here professed that winning teams don't let the tax deter them from trying to win and we should be all in for 2025.
Now - we cannot dive into the free agent market for 2026. Those calling for busting the cap this year got their way and have now sentenced all of us to several seasons of rebuilding.
Thanks a lot.
BTW - you're right that many keyboard warrior's around here were pumped on July 31 at the moves.
$100k of that was likely sent to Eovaldi for his AllStar bonus.
It would have been nice to have reset the CBT.
I don't see this as a rebuild. Could we have gone out to get some FAs? Probably. Looks like we'll piece together a team and look internally for help.
Could be another playoff miss in 2026, but 2027 should be solid. SP should keep us in it... need Carter, Seager et al, to show up healthy and ready.
It would have been nice to have reset the CBT.
I don't see this as a rebuild. Could we have gone out to get some FAs? Probably. Looks like we'll piece together a team and look internally for help.
Could be another playoff miss in 2026, but 2027 should be solid. SP should keep us in it... need Carter, Seager et al, to show up healthy and ready.
Here's mine. Page 268 of the season thread if you want to fact check me
Quote:
Sh*t trade - too much for a mid 30s rental
Quote:
That was our #5, #9 and #13 prospects. Too damn much for a 35 year old rental, when starting pitching wasn't our biggest need.
so the Rangers arent ready to financially compete now because of $190,000????
alvtimes said:
so the Rangers arent ready to financially compete now because of $190,000????
Say you don't understand the CBT without saying you don't understand the CBT.
Because it's been three years in a row, anything above the CBT threshold in 2026 gets taxed at 50%. And then there are surcharges for how far over you are as well.
So, now that it's been three years in a row for the Rangers, let's look at an example. Let's say the Rangers want to sign Kyle Tucker. He is expected to be $40 MM a year player.
But he won't cost the Rangers $40 MM. He'll actually cost more like $70 MM per year when the CBT and surcharges are applied. If the Rangers had saved $190,000 this year, he'd cost $40 MM.
Does it reset next offseason if we stay under the CBT in 2026?
MASAXET said:
Does it reset next offseason if we stay under the CBT in 2026?
IF we stay underneath. Which now we absolutely must. Which means no significant free agent signings this off season.
Quote:
Say you don't understand the CBT without saying you don't understand the CBT.
I think you just did with this:
Quote:
But he won't cost the Rangers $40 MM. He'll actually cost more like $70 MM per year when the CBT and surcharges are applied. If the Rangers had saved $190,000 this year, he'd cost $40 MM.
I posted a dozen or so pages back when the trades were being talked that the CBT wasn't going to impact any trades we did or didn't make, no one seemed to believe it then.
We had a $241MM payroll last year, with an overage of $190,483 (which the tax on that is a rounding error at worst).
The cap for 2026 is $244MM. We've already shed $11MM with the Semien trade. Garcia and Heim have been let go as planned. So we're at ~$180MM per Cots. Lets say we spend $20MM shoring up various spots pushing us to $200MM and then we want to go sign that $40MM Kyle Tucker -- we're still under the threshold.
But lets say we instead sign $40MM worth of players shoring up various spots (which would be super aggressive) and then go sign Kyle Tucker at $40MM. It would push us to $260MM -- $16MM over.
Instead of getting taxed $3.2MM on that overage, we're instead getting taxed $8MM.
Or a difference of $4.8MM... Not a rounding error, but something that can be likely be massaged with deferred contract adjustments.
Maybe you could make the case we wouldn't have flipped Semien if we were under the threshold, but that certainly doesn't seem like it's related in the least. Garcia and Heim not being resigned was on most of our bingo cards.
So, again, the CBT does not truly impact what the team's plans are. This idea that a "reset" was going to put us in prime position to really go for it this year is message board armchair GM jabber, nothing more.
Right now, it looks like our budget is significantly under the CBT line for next year. I'm not sure the reset would have mattered with what Ray said we could spend. It's frustrating, but seems like one of the following must be true:
1.) Davis got the WS and now wants cash flow.
2.) Davis committed to a long-term vision when we singed Seager, Semien, DeGrom, and Eovaldi and now has balked.
3.) The Bally/Victory + deal has been a huge disappointment and we are getting revenue like a mid-market team.
Either way, don't let the CBT distract you from what looks like a major shift in how we want to spend.
1.) Davis got the WS and now wants cash flow.
2.) Davis committed to a long-term vision when we singed Seager, Semien, DeGrom, and Eovaldi and now has balked.
3.) The Bally/Victory + deal has been a huge disappointment and we are getting revenue like a mid-market team.
Either way, don't let the CBT distract you from what looks like a major shift in how we want to spend.
I agree with most of that (most notably that are strategy is our strategy and not really CBT related, it's merely a scapegoat if needed for the fanbase).
But I don't necessarily think we've seen firm proof that Davis pulling back significantly yet. Semien is 35 and has put up a 0.237 and 0.230 BA the last two years (in the leadoff spot for the bulk of that) and just put up his worst full season WAR since 2017. I'm not sure Nimmo is a downgrade.
Garcia and Heim weren't let go because of $$$, they were let go because of production.
It would take a couple of years of being significantly under CBT for me to truly blame Davis for our struggles. We were #8 in total payroll in 2024, #7 in 2025...
But I don't necessarily think we've seen firm proof that Davis pulling back significantly yet. Semien is 35 and has put up a 0.237 and 0.230 BA the last two years (in the leadoff spot for the bulk of that) and just put up his worst full season WAR since 2017. I'm not sure Nimmo is a downgrade.
Garcia and Heim weren't let go because of $$$, they were let go because of production.
It would take a couple of years of being significantly under CBT for me to truly blame Davis for our struggles. We were #8 in total payroll in 2024, #7 in 2025...
Reset CBT or not, feeling in media is that Ray Davis will not spend big this off season one way or the other.
The Bally/Victory + deal has been a huge disappointment and we are getting revenue like a mid-market team.
Do you know this for certain? No revenues from the RSN for 2025 have been publicly disclosed.
Do you know this for certain? No revenues from the RSN for 2025 have been publicly disclosed.
I don't. I'm taking guessing as to why we are going to drop tier or 2 in payroll for next year. I agree with the others that say the CBT is just noise.
fc2112 said:alvtimes said:
so the Rangers arent ready to financially compete now because of $190,000????
Say you don't understand the CBT without saying you don't understand the CBT.
Because it's been three years in a row, anything above the CBT threshold in 2026 gets taxed at 50%. And then there are surcharges for how far over you are as well.
So, now that it's been three years in a row for the Rangers, let's look at an example. Let's say the Rangers want to sign Kyle Tucker. He is expected to be $40 MM a year player.
But he won't cost the Rangers $40 MM. He'll actually cost more like $70 MM per year when the CBT and surcharges are applied. If the Rangers had saved $190,000 this year, he'd cost $40 MM.
Its true, I dont understand the CBT…..what I do believe is last season the Rangers were aiming to be under the tax threshold to reset…… now they missed by $190,000 so the reset doesnt happen. What did i mess up this time????
It's not the 190k that's keeping them from financially competing. If we'd been under it, we'd still be going cheap this offseason.
If the threshold wasn't a big deal, CY should have done something else last year to try and win. It was super obvious we needed a bat
ryanhnc10 said:
If the threshold wasn't a big deal, CY should have done something else last year to try and win. It was super obvious we needed a bat
I think it's silly to think we didn't go after a bat -- but other teams needed bats too, and you have to compete with their offers. It's not just $$$ you're throwing around, it's prospects.
I think they looked at what asking price was for true difference makers and decided the July production (750 OPS) signaled the lineup had shaken off the first half funk. August production backed that up with 770 OPS.
We were 2 back on September 13th, then came the 8 game streak that knocked us out of contention... We scored 2.75 runs a game over that stretch. Woof.
But guess what? We also gave up 5 runs a game over that stretch.
In the critical stretch, but offense and defense faltered. Deadline to September 12th we went from 5.5 back to 2 back.
That's fine, but that's not the point of my post. It was moronic to just barely go over the threshold, regardless of our strategy. Either go big or do nothing and stay under. They did something in the middle, which makes no sense looking at it retroactively
ryanhnc10 said:
That's fine, but that's not the point of my post. It was moronic to just barely go over the threshold, regardless of our strategy. Either go big or do nothing and stay under. They did something in the middle, which makes no sense looking at it retroactively
I really should have hit on that 16 instead of staying because the guy next to me was dealt a 5. Damn!
And yes, I know that's not apples to apples, that's just the thought that entered my head reading your statement
It was way more obvious that we needed a bat than your example. Surprised you are taking that stance considering how much you **** on the team during the season
Surprised the sarcasm went over your head. Oh well
Hindsight is 20/20. At the trade deadline the move made sense, and as another pointed out we were 2 GB of the wildcard at one point. It's hard to argue AT THE POINT TIME that it was bad move because everything indicated we could/would make the postseason.
Of course it's easy to **** on it now that we missed the postseason.
And no I didn't **** on the TEAM, I **** on players who vastly underperformed for two years, and now those players are no longer part of the team
Of course it's easy to **** on it now that we missed the postseason.
And no I didn't **** on the TEAM, I **** on players who vastly underperformed for two years, and now those players are no longer part of the team
I was also an advocate for finding a bat at the deadline. There were certainly opportunities, and clearly those did not materialize
I think this entire board wanted a bat. We don't know what CY passed on or what he was just out bid.
ryanhnc10 said:
That's fine, but that's not the point of my post. It was moronic to just barely go over the threshold, regardless of our strategy. Either go big or do nothing and stay under. They did something in the middle, which makes no sense looking at it retroactively
Eh, it was something that guys like Evan Grant latched onto for eyeballs, not something that's all that significant.
As has already been laid out, how much we went over the threshold doesn't really impact things that much in regards to total payroll. You go after whatever you think is worth going after.
If we're under $244MM next year (likely), then going $190K over or $7MM over didn't make a difference at all.
If we're over $244MM next year -- say $260MM -- then you're paying $3.2MM if you stayed under last year (made no moves) or you're paying $8MM if you went over last year (by any amount).
Now, 4.8MM isn't nothing, but considering it's only that high if we go well over the CBT by a significant chunk next year... which by all accounts was highly unlikely... it doesn't really matter. Like I said back in July - if teams are in the hunt they are going to make additions they deem worth making, not try and dance around the CBT tax. If the owner is wanting the team to stay under the tax threshold in a year where his team is in playoff contention, it stands to reason he isn't suddenly going to break the bank over the threshold the next year starting at 0 wins.
Featured Stories
See All
Ten season-defining moments along Texas A&M's championship run
by Richard Zane
5:44
2d ago
3.5k
The Film Room: Miami 10, Texas A&M 3
by Stephen McGee
6:00
2d ago
4.7k
Defense in Review feat. Sean Porter: Miami 10, Texas A&M 3
by Billy Liucci
5:21
2d ago
1.6k
LB Blitz: Miami 10, Texas A&M 3
by Sean Porter
Three Things: Top Christmas movies, portal reminders & more
by Jason Howell
The Asset 07
Last 5 star (composite) to play like a 5 star at A&M?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
195
Windy City Ag
Last 5 star (composite) to play like a 5 star at A&M?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
67
AgPrognosticator
I asked ChatGPT to turn Concepcion into a Rockwell
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
54