Rangers going all in....

[Brock Beauchamp]

11 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

You'd rather they pocket the money? These guys will be very good for years. I'm not sure it will work, but they are trying.

No, I don't get buying *two* shortstops on multi-year deals at the same time, neither of which is particularly good at actually playing shortstop, which means in 2-4 years from now, the Rangers are going to have some really awkward decisions to make in the field.

Their entire strategy seems to be "spend the money" without a lot of foresight into planning how and where to spend said money for sustained success. The Rangers are a big market but they're not the Yankees or Dodgers; they can't just decide to eat $100m in contracts at once.

If you look at the Padres, all their moves made sense, even if they were a bit over the top. The Rangers feel as if someone gave a drunk person a black card and set them loose on eBay at 3am.

[wsnydes]

26 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

No, I don't get buying *two* shortstops on multi-year deals at the same time, neither of which is particularly good at actually playing shortstop, which means in 2-4 years from now, the Rangers are going to have some really awkward decisions to make in the field.

Their entire strategy seems to be "spend the money" without a lot of foresight into planning how and where to spend said money for sustained success. The Rangers are a big market but they're not the Yankees or Dodgers; they can't just decide to eat $100m in contracts at once.

If you look at the Padres, all their moves made sense, even if they were a bit over the top. The Rangers feel as if someone gave a drunk person a black card and set them loose on eBay at 3am.

The Rangers offseason philosophy reminds me of the money spending version of the Twins draft philosophy of drafting hit tool players and trying to figure out where they'll actually play later.

[Otto von Ballpark]

10 hours ago, lecroy24fan said:

Sure but also Jung has only played a season and a half or pro ball.

Jung turns 24 in February. The Rangers started him at AA in that "first" full season of pro ball, then advanced him to AAA after just 43 games. And he excelled at both levels, with good underlying peripherals. Doesn't seem like the kind of guy you ask to repeat AAA for an additional half-season or longer.

So if other teams value Kiner-Falefa in trade as a starting shortstop this offseason, the Rangers should cash that in for a different asset (pitcher? catcher? outfielder?). They can use a guy like Asdrubal Cabrera as the 3B placeholder if they have to delay Jung's service time clock a couple weeks at the beginning of the season.

[farmerguychris]

Lets be honest - we're all just jealous wishing the Twins made these moves aren't we?  That would be fun!  Great time to be a Rangers fan I bet.

[Otto von Ballpark]

On 11/29/2021 at 6:31 PM, chpettit19 said:

They're not the yanks or dodgers. They aren't going to blow past the luxury tax. This feels a lot like the Arod deal when they went and got him then had to trade him 3 years later after they won 73, 72, and 71 games. Or maybe the Angels with Trout, Hamilton, and Pujols is a better, more recent example.

The first A-Rod deal was actually great -- he performed incredibly, and inflation proved the contract quite reasonable. Those Rangers even had some other quality players, but just did a poor job of completing those rosters, and panicked in dealing A-Rod to the Yankees as they did.

For the Angels, their payroll was already pretty high when they signed Pujols and Hamilton as 32 year old corner players. (Technically Hamilton still played some CF at age 31 but not particularly well.)

The current Rangers? Payroll was low, so they still have a lot of room even after these deals. The 10 year deal is going to the 27 year old shortstop Seager. Semien is 31 but just won a gold glove *and* silver slugger at second base. Both deals, and Gray's, aren't far from the MLBTR estimates. The Rangers top 10 prospects per Fangraphs are all FV 45 or greater with ETAs of 2021-2023.

There is certainly risk involved here, but I give the Rangers some credit for not assuming they have to bottom out a few more seasons before they can act. Assuming the Astros lose Correa, that division isn't too daunting.

[Sousy]

On 11/29/2021 at 5:56 PM, bean5302 said:

Maybe Bally Sports has figured out how to get their broadcasts out further than a couple miles from Minneapolis, too? You know, since all of Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa and parts of Wisconsin are all in the Twins' blackout area.

If you're in Iowa, though, there is only a small sliver of the state that can actually get BSN outside of DirecTV satellite services. I live in an area that is blacked out, but my only options are:

* Go through the rigamarole of signing up for a satellite (not streaming!) service just for BSN, mounting a satellite dish, etc., etc. to deal with the additional headache of finding a way to get channels the Mrs. is interested in that are not on DirecTV.

* Use MLB.tv and a VPN on a computer / FireStick (current solution).

* Pirate.

I wonder how much of that is true throughout the Twins blackout territory.

[Theodore Tollefson]

Adding my take into this topic. I don't think the Rangers will compete even with these signings. Gray may improve escaping Coors Field for 16 starts a year, but he is no means a top of the rotation starter.

Seager and Semien are the only two all star hitters the Rangers have. Garcia has to prove his second half slump was only that, and Calhoun is on the decline. 

I do not believe the Rangers will compete in 2022, I just think the Mariners young core is too better and Houston may still be a threat even with key pieces of their core departing. 

Still, that won't stop Jon Daniels from being a big spender like he was a decade ago. 

[bean5302]

10 minutes ago, Sousy said:

If you're in Iowa, though, there is only a small sliver of the state that can actually get BSN outside of DirecTV satellite services. I live in an area that is blacked out, but my only options are:

* Go through the rigamarole of signing up for a satellite (not streaming!) service just for BSN, mounting a satellite dish, etc., etc. to deal with the additional headache of finding a way to get channels the Mrs. is interested in that are not on DirecTV.

* Use MLB.tv and a VPN on a computer / FireStick (current solution).

* Pirate.

I wonder how much of that is true throughout the Twins blackout territory.

I don't know the networks and affiliates for Twins baseball in Iowa. I'm just talking about blackout areas because somebody suggested expanding the metro hundreds of miles in Texas as proof Arlington is way bigger than MSP.

[Otto von Ballpark]

5 minutes ago, Sousy said:

I wonder how much of that is true throughout the Twins blackout territory.

Iowa is unique in that regard. Pretty much everywhere else in Twins blackout territory, you can get BSN on the monthly "DirecTV Stream" (formerly AT&T TV) streaming package (and formerly other streaming providers too) -- no need for cable or satellite contracts.

You can still get it through DirecTV Stream in Iowa in the northwest part of the state, on or above a rough line from Mason City through Webster City and Carroll all the way to Onawa on the western border (zip code search).

Actually, just before the Sinclair/Bally nonsense, I think Hulu Live TV carried the Twins across the entire state of Iowa, along with the networks of several other teams (for no additional cost to the consumer). Maybe if Sinclair/Bally goes bankrupt, we can get back to that.

[Otto von Ballpark]

34 minutes ago, Theo Tollefson said:

I do not believe the Rangers will compete in 2022

You're probably right, just because the Rangers 2021 baseline is so low.

But "compete" doesn't have to be a binary thing. I think they are just looking to be significantly more competitive/interesting in 2022 and going forward. After a few seasons of bottoming out and selling assets already, I think that's a fair goal.

[Sousy]

22 minutes ago, Otto von Ballpark said:

You can still get it through DirecTV Stream in Iowa in the northwest part of the state, on or above a rough line from Mason City through Webster City and Carroll all the way to Onawa on the western border (zip code search).

 

The Mason City - Clear Lake market also has BSN offered as part of basic cable packages through Mediacom (at least).  In the Des Moines metro (home to both the Iowa Wild and the Iowa Wolves - minor league affiliates of major league Minnesota teams) we get Marquee (Cubs) and Bally Sports MIdwest, so we get all the Cubs / Cardinals (occasionally Royals) games.  

Nothing else, though.

[chpettit19]

30 minutes ago, Otto von Ballpark said:

The first A-Rod deal was actually great -- he performed incredibly, and inflation proved the contract quite reasonable. Those Rangers even had some other quality players, but just did a poor job of completing those rosters, and panicked in dealing A-Rod to the Yankees as they did.

For the Angels, their payroll was already pretty high when they signed Pujols and Hamilton as 32 year old corner players. (Technically Hamilton still played some CF at age 31 but not particularly well.)

The current Rangers? Payroll was low, so they still have a lot of room even after these deals. The 10 year deal is going to the 27 year old shortstop Seager. Semien is 31 but just won a gold glove *and* silver slugger at second base. Both deals, and Gray's, aren't far from the MLBTR estimates. The Rangers top 10 prospects per Fangraphs are all FV 45 or greater with ETAs of 2021-2023.

There is certainly risk involved here, but I give the Rangers some credit for not assuming they have to bottom out a few more seasons before they can act. Assuming the Astros lose Correa, that division isn't too daunting.

I give them a lot of credit for not bottoming out for more seasons. I'm not saying they shouldn't have signed the deals. In fact I've said it's good for baseball that they signed these deals. I just don't think it makes them competitors. My point is exactly that incomplete rosters fail even with big time FA signings. Padres "win" the offseason all the time and they still aren't making the playoffs because, before recently, their rosters didn't fit. This Rangers roster doesn't feel like it fits.

The point I'm making with ARod, Pujols, Hamilton, etc. is that it takes far more than signing a couple big name guys to turn a 100 loss team into a contender. This feels like spending to spend. Their top position prospect is a 3B. Seager has a few years left at SS, but he's moving to 3B. Semien has a couple years left at 2B and he's likely going to be below average defensively. Gray's a really nice #3, maybe #2, but they have no other arms. Garcia had a really nice year last year, but he's 28 and we'll see how sustainable that is.

I like that they didn't wait for all the other pieces to be in place before trying to find an expensive FA to fit specific holes. I just don't think these signings make them a drastically better team as I don't think the pieces fit well over the next few years even. I like that they signed guys and are done tanking, apparently. I'm just saying I don't think these specific signings were the best use of half a billion dollars.

[Mike Sixel]

5 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

No, I don't get buying *two* shortstops on multi-year deals at the same time, neither of which is particularly good at actually playing shortstop, which means in 2-4 years from now, the Rangers are going to have some really awkward decisions to make in the field.

Their entire strategy seems to be "spend the money" without a lot of foresight into planning how and where to spend said money for sustained success. The Rangers are a big market but they're not the Yankees or Dodgers; they can't just decide to eat $100m in contracts at once.

If you look at the Padres, all their moves made sense, even if they were a bit over the top. The Rangers feel as if someone gave a drunk person a black card and set them loose on eBay at 3am.

Ah, I misread your post. I thought it was about timing, not who they signed. If I was them, I'd have signed only 1 SS....

[Trov]

On 11/29/2021 at 5:41 PM, bean5302 said:

Considering every single team in the Twins' division, even those in much smaller markets than the twin cities have debuted larger season payrolls than the Twins, I'm not sure I agree with you.

If Kansas City can afford a $141MM opening day payroll when they're all in, I just don't see the problem. Kansas City's stadium is old, it's not downtown, the local market is 1/2 the size of Minneapolis and they were traditionally a team who didn't play well.

The Texas Rangers play in Arlington. Population, 400k. 99sq/mi. Density 4.1k per square mile. Now, Dallas and Fort Worth are 20mi and 15mi away, respectively which would add about 2.0 million people.

The Twins play in Minneapolis. Population 420k. 57sq/mi. Density 6.0k per square mile. St.Paul, Population 311k adds 56sq/mi. Density 6.0k per square mile. Effectively, together, 731k, 113sq/mi. Density 6.0k per square mile. The twin cities metro 3.6MM people in 1,000 square miles. DFW is 7.6MM, but in an area nearly 10x larger at 9,200 square miles. 

Bottom line, the Pohlads are cheap and choose not to compete at a level many other teams in their income bracket choose.

Your comparison of TC and KC is flawed.  The reason I say that is you are neglecting the fact that KC only has two major sports there, baseball and football.  That means there is less sports entertainment money to be spread around, not just fan consumers, but money spend on advertising and the likes.  So they may have smaller population, but unlike in TC that have every major sports covered, KC lacks a basketball team and hockey team.  Also, where did you get a number of 141 million for KC? Last year their payroll was 86 mil, Twins was 118 mil.  

In terms of Rangers, that is a better comparison as both have similar populations and same amount of sports.  Rangers do regularly have higher payroll than Twins, except for last year it was lower.  However, we do not know the books of either team.  It is possible the Rangers have smaller margins or they may make more from media deals.  We also do not know the local ratings for Rangers games are compared to Twins.  To simply compare the population and say the Twins spending should be on par is simply taking too little data. 

Now your point is Twins are not a small market, and they are not, they are a mid-market, and they spend near league average each year. I think some fans think we spend much less than we actually do compared to other teams.  We are constantly near league average each year.  Could they spend more, most likely, but just because you can does not mean you should.  Sometimes teams are better with younger cheaper players than over paid vets. 

[Trov]

5 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

No, I don't get buying *two* shortstops on multi-year deals at the same time, neither of which is particularly good at actually playing shortstop, which means in 2-4 years from now, the Rangers are going to have some really awkward decisions to make in the field.

Their entire strategy seems to be "spend the money" without a lot of foresight into planning how and where to spend said money for sustained success. The Rangers are a big market but they're not the Yankees or Dodgers; they can't just decide to eat $100m in contracts at once.

If you look at the Padres, all their moves made sense, even if they were a bit over the top. The Rangers feel as if someone gave a drunk person a black card and set them loose on eBay at 3am.

They did not sign to SS they signed a SS and 2b.  Semian played 2b last year, and most likely will stay there moving forward. Seager has been considered below average on defense, but his offense is elite.  Most likely he will have to move off of SS in next few years, but Rangers will deal with that when they have to.  Until then they feel they will have top offense.  I agree the two signings seem odd.  I also feel in about 3 years they will regret what they did, unless they get a ship in that time. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

21 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

Ah, I misread your post. I thought it was about timing, not who they signed. If I was them, I'd have signed only 1 SS....

It has a little to do with timing, too, as the Rangers won 60 games. They need +30 wins YoY to make the postseason, which is close to impossible.

But more than that, it’s the way they spent their money. Buying a couple of high profile guys is great but even 5-7 players cannot compete in MLB. They would have been better off buying two high profile guys and then several lesser guys to round out what is a really bad roster. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

40 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

I give them a lot of credit for not bottoming out for more seasons. I'm not saying they shouldn't have signed the deals. In fact I've said it's good for baseball that they signed these deals. I just don't think it makes them competitors.

I agree, they are not likely competitors for 2022 -- that should just be a universal truth, given their low 2021 baseline.

But I think they could be significantly improved. And I just don't know that there was any better way to spend this money, or any real advantage to wait to spend it.

[Otto von Ballpark]

5 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

They would have been better off buying two high profile guys and then several lesser guys to round out what is a really bad roster. 

Doesn't Gray suggest they are in process of doing this? I don't think they are necessarily done for this winter, and of course they have to room to add next offseason too.

i don't think they are realistically expecting 90 wins right away in 2022. Maybe 80? Then further round out the roster next offseason, based on how players developed in 2022?

[Brock Beauchamp]

21 minutes ago, Otto von Ballpark said:

Doesn't Gray suggest they are in process of doing this? I don't think they are necessarily done for this winter, and of course they have to room to add next offseason too.

i don't think they are realistically expecting 90 wins right away in 2022. Maybe 80? Then further round out the roster next offseason, based on how players developed in 2022?

That’s where things can go sideways, though. Two years from now, Semien will be 33. And if it takes three years, then Semien is 34…

Totaly get and support the Seaver signing and some lower profile stuff, I just don’t get trying to do everything at once and show-horning multiple shortstops into the same off-season. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

4 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

That’s where things can go sideways, though. Two years from now, Semien will be 33. And if it takes three years, then Semien is 34…

Totaly get and support the Seaver signing and some lower profile stuff, I just don’t get trying to do everything at once and show-horning multiple shortstops into the same off-season. 

Normally, I'd be with you on the multiple shortstop thing, but Semien just won a legit gold glove at second base, and it's kind of a big FA class for shortstops.

I just try to imagine how I'd feel if I was a Rangers fan. Sure, I'd be nervous, but I'd also be excited. And I don't think I'd be upset (or apathetic, as I would have been the last few years). Still work left to do, of course.

[TheLeviathan]

I guess I see this as exactly the kind of logic I was applying to the thread in the Twins forum: you don't have to make FA signings for the upcoming year alone.  I'm with Otto: this is a team that has a boatload of expendable money who is making a long-term investment.  It would be short-sighted to view these deals only in light of what they bring to 2022.  

The Rangers must feel good about Leiter, Jung, and their ability to keep adding to their pitching staff.  I can see the logic of it.  It may not prove prudent, but that may depend on how they continue to add.

[nicksaviking]

8 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Their entire strategy seems to be "spend the money" without a lot of foresight into planning how and where to spend said money for sustained success. 

Sorry I meant to get to this comment sooner but I was blocked by the mountain of Amazon boxes my wife keeps piling by the front door.

Anyway, what is the MLBPA's policy on returning products you change your mind on? We somehow ended up with TWO new lawn mowers, but my wife thankfully returned one of them.