Darvish, Harry, Lee,and Dutch not Douche would be fun. Baseball weiner standing at attention....

Kristen "We need to clear some room on the 40-man before the Rule V"

Actually they don't, and in fact have room to spare. Last I saw, they only had 38 players on their 40-man.

@ERIC

If you're just gonna base Hollands performance on one game then I give you that. But yes that was an impressive game he pitched but I would give the ball to Haren (if healthy) before I would handed to Derek.

@kristen

I get you point on his performance at RBIA, but do you realize that last year was Haren's 1st year since 2005 that the he pitched below 220 innings? Holland hasn't even cracked 200 even when healthy! Which speaks volumes.
As far as Darvish's contract you can base your opinion or run a ballclub with the thinking that "how in the world is my #3 pitcher is going to make more that my #1" there are a lot of factors that go on. So you mean just because Harrison outpitched Darvish last year he should get paid more this year? There are a lot of variables to take into account when ir comes to contracts.

Can't* not can

@ NC 17

But you still didn't address why we should go after him if the even-more-starting-pitching-desperate Cubs declined to deal for him at the last minute because of his injury issue. Again, if they did their due diligence on him and decided to pass afterwards, why should we be interested? Don't you think the pitching-starved CHIC passing on him raises some red flags?

Haren is 32. Maybe, just maybe, at that age his injury issue is just the beginning of a trend and his inability to pitch 200+ IP is also just the beginning of a trend so again, why should we risk shelling out $24 mil for 2 years for an older pitcher with an injury issue? IMHO, common sense would dictate you offer him at most a 1-year show-me-your-healthy-deal with a team option for a 2nd year, that's it. That's what we did with Rich Harden - a 1-year-with-team-option-for-a-2nd low-risk, high-reward deal. Why unnecessarily increase the risk by giving Haren another guaranteed year? We'd be bidding against ourselves. Plus I don't think Haren is a TORP anymore for the reasons I've stated so there's that in the first place.

Again, this is what pitching-desperate and/or small-market teams like PIT and KC etc. do, not playoff-quality teams who are a TORP away from getting over the hump. The former are the types of teams that go after reclamation projects/injury-risks. We're not like that anymore. We're not the Rangers from 5-6 years ago. We're not that desperate for starting pitching anymore. We can afford to be more selective and we have the money and prospects with which to use to go after someone better.

And I was using the Darvish contract to put things in perspective. Is an older pitcher coming off injury somehow more valuable than a healthy mid-20's TORP? Don't think so. Anyways, to wrap things up, in this case with an older pitcher coming off injury, it's better to be safe than sorry and pass on the guy, especially when he have better options. I don't see any team offering him a guaranteed 2-year deal, even LAA if they don't re-sign Greinke. For the money he's asking for, the risk is just too great. If I'm wrong, I'll eat my shorts.

s/b "...especially when WE have better options..."

@ David

We still need to add a C, an OF'er, a starting pitcher, and a reliever or three though. On the other hand, at least a couple of AAA or AA-prospects who are on the 40-man will be dealt so that'll clear some spots.

Kristen ""We need to clear some room on the 40-man before the Rule V""

Yes they might EVENTUALLY need room to add some pieces to the roster. But there's no need right now, nothing needing to be done before next week's Rule 5 draft.

The Rangers refused to pay Lee $25M per year when he was 32 years old. Why would they now trade multiple high-quality players for the privilege of paying the same money to a 34 year old Cliff Lee?