Per MLBtraderumors:

"There's a growing sense among Dodgers personnel that Greinke will end up with the Rangers, tweets Scott Miller of CBS Sports. They feel that if Greinke really wanted to pitch for them, he'd have signed by now."

I'm not saying this is going to happen or anything, but this has been my general belief all along. No matter how much money the Rangers bid on Greinke, the Dodgers could match it, and exceed it, by as much as they wanted to. That's just the fact of the matter.

I've rather enjoyed how cerebral Greinke is about all this. Lots of reports I've read have talked about how invested he is in knowing each team's farm system, because, after all, those are going to be the guys backing him up defensively and scoring runs for him. If this is more than simply an issue of money, the troika of Mike Maddux, Greg Maddux and Nolan Ryan, as well as hands down the best farm system of any team Greinke is looking at, should direct him straight to the Rangers.

I think it's funny that, when Greinke was traded to the Angels back in July, this all seemed like it was part of some master plan. The interest from Jon Daniels proved to be feigned, offering a weak grouping of prospects. I recall Scooby and I, whether it was in the forum or on the board, and we were joking about how funny it would be if the Angels gave up three of their better prospects from a weak farm system, and the Rangers ended up signing Greinke anyway.

I'm not overconfident about this or anything, because it's not the truth until it actually happens. But seriously, I am starting to believe we're going to get Greinke, trade Andrus for Upton, and have the lineup I've been hoping for all along.

It feels great to be a Rangers fan.

Players take the money 97.9 of the time. As they should so until he signs I see very little reason to think he would take less money to pitch in a hitters park that is in north Texas where the summers are nasty hot. Also include that while California has state taxes it's still on the pacific coast and a great place to live if money is not an issue.

Good stuff Eric. I still hope we don't give up Andrus, I've read it with/without, but our roster would look good. I saw some reports saying we may sign Swisher if we Upton too since they'd be the same price of Hamilton combined. What do you think?

Good stuff Eric. I still hope we don't give up Andrus, I've read it with/without, but our roster would look good. I saw some reports saying we may sign Swisher if we Upton too since they'd be the same price of Hamilton combined. What do you think?

Aggie E - I don't think taxes are ever an issue in deciding where a player goes (or very rarely anyway). Mainly because you don't pay taxes based on where you live, but where you do your work. So, 81 games of the year a California baseball player will pay California taxes. The other 81 games of the year he pays the taxes based on the state that he played the game in.

I keep seeing this argument come up so I'll keep refuting.

And - BTHO OU and #heismanziel

Aggie E - I don't think taxes are ever an issue in deciding where a player goes (or very rarely anyway). Mainly because you don't pay taxes based on where you live, but where you do your work. So, 81 games of the year a California baseball player will pay California taxes. The other 81 games of the year he pays the taxes based on the state that he played the game in.

I keep seeing this argument come up so I'll keep refuting.

And - BTHO OU and #heismanziel

I love it.

I like Swisher, too 1B/LF/RF versatility and Profar/Swisher would give you 2 switch hitters.

I love it.

I like Swisher, too 1B/LF/RF versatility and Profar/Swisher would give you 2 switch hitters.

Let's hope the Greinke thing works, but I have allways been against the whole "trade Elvis" thing. One of the premier shortstops in the league, and trust that a prospect will even achieve MLB standards-much less even succeed at the MLB level? That is more often a bust than success. Read this http://www.royalsreview.com/2011/2/14/1992424/success-and-failure-rates-of-top-mlb-prospects

http://www.royalsreview.com/2011/2/14/1992424/success-and-failure-rates-of-top-mlb-prospects

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-zack-greinke-alternative/

This article posted yesterday in big bold letters make me scared for signing pitchers. You take away his one extraordinary season that he hasn't even remotely come close to replicating and you have yourself an good and definitely not great pitcher that doesn't deserve 25 mil a year for six years. If we sign him I see him being an albatross. We need to maintain our small market mentality and sign smartly and not make big splashes in the free agent market. We're not the Yankees or the Dodgers and shouldn't be throwing out 25 mil contracts like it's nothing.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-zack-greinke-alternative/

This article posted yesterday in big bold letters make me scared for signing pitchers. You take away his one extraordinary season that he hasn't even remotely come close to replicating and you have yourself an good and definitely not great pitcher that doesn't deserve 25 mil a year for six years. If we sign him I see him being an albatross. We need to maintain our small market mentality and sign smartly and not make big splashes in the free agent market. We're not the Yankees or the Dodgers and shouldn't be throwing out 25 mil contracts like it's nothing.

Jean-Jacques Taylors ESPN Column this morn sums it all up for me, Good read
and certainly to the point. Pitching wins in Baseball. Always has, always will.
Thinking of Hams play the last few weeks burns me up still. Prima Foolz- phfffftz.

Rangers a Grienke seem to be getting close and closer to a deal...not sure if this will be a good or bad thing, and if Grienke is signed then what happens next.

We either sign Josh or Swisher or trade for Upton or someone else like him, and we try to win it all. Simple as that, right?

Another good post, Eric. Either Greinke doesn't want to pitch in LA, or he's playing the best hand of poker I've seen in a while. As usual, though, I don't agree with the trade Elvis angle.

The Rangers want Upton, but would part with Holland and Olt. Kinsler will move to 1B. Profar will play 2B. Mike Young will put on a Phillies uniform. Nelson Cruz will be in RF and part time DH. The OF will consist of Murphy, Upton, Cruz/ Martin /Gentry.

Also, just heard that we lost Koji to the Dead Sox, for a 1 year deal. That hurts. Wonder what the details are?

Peace

Another good post, Eric. Either Greinke doesn't want to pitch in LA, or he's playing the best hand of poker I've seen in a while. As usual, though, I don't agree with the trade Elvis angle.

The Rangers want Upton, but would part with Holland and Olt. Kinsler will move to 1B. Profar will play 2B. Mike Young will put on a Phillies uniform. Nelson Cruz will be in RF and part time DH. The OF will consist of Murphy, Upton, Cruz/ Martin /Gentry.

Also, just heard that we lost Koji to the Dead Sox, for a 1 year deal. That hurts. Wonder what the details are?

Peace

Rays, D-backs and Rangers all still reportedly in Nashville and in the words of Andrew Friedman he is "determined" to get a 3 team deal done.

Zach Greinke is a groundball pitcher. That is how you survive summers in Arlington. If the Rangers infield defense consists of 1B Kinsler, 2B Profar, SS Andrus and 3B Beltre...good luck getting balls through there. That might be what Greinke is looking at.

Peace

@drseuss

Simple, to the point and exceedingly CORRECT.
Even with Moreland in combo with Kinz, itz awesome.

Someone used "good read" and "Jean-Jacques Taylor" in the same sentence?

Anyway I'm cautiously optimistic about Greinke now. Unless the Dodgers went over $200M in their offer I think Greinke would be willing to leave a few stacks on the table for a better situation in Texas. I'm confused about Upton because the bullshitter Kevin Towers is now saying he doesn't want Andrus or Cabrera because they're only under control for two years. I think he's posturing but we'll see.

Like several others have said before me... I wish we could get the players we want without trading Elvis.

I've heard those of you who support the Elvis-for-Upton idea. I know your reasons for wanting this. One of the biggest reasons is supposedly because Elvis has two years left on his contract, we're afraid we cannot extend him at a reasonable cost, and we can extract maximum value by dealing him now instead of waiting til he has only one year left on his contract.

So let's turn the tables for a minute...

What if we do in fact trade Elvis for Upton, who has three years left on his current deal. Let's assume/hope/pray that Upton has a great year for Texas in 2013. Then he has two years left on his deal... so we're right back where we started, worrying that we either have to extend him at an exorbitant cost, or do we then deal Upton to extract maximum value while he still has two years left on his deal?

That's why I don't always buy the notion that we must deal Andrus while he still has two years left. Adding Upton is a big step forward. Losing Elvis is a big step backward. Spare me the speech about Profar and his dreamy talent and how he is ready to step in for Elvis. I'll believe it when I see it. I fully expect Profar to become a great SS... eventually. I'm concerned about his readiness for 2013. I expect some rookie growing pains, which can be difficult to tolerate on a club that expects to contend for a World Series title. It would be a shame if we spend all this money on Greinke, deal an established stud like Elvis, etc and push our big chips into the middle of the table... just to find out that one of our biggest 2013 weaknesses is having a .220 hitting shortstop who has a little less defensive range than Elvis.

I know it could work out okay. I just wish some of the big "Trade Elvis for Upton" supporters would exercise caution and be a little more willing to admit that it might not work out okay.

Like several others have said before me... I wish we could get the players we want without trading Elvis.

I've heard those of you who support the Elvis-for-Upton idea. I know your reasons for wanting this. One of the biggest reasons is supposedly because Elvis has two years left on his contract, we're afraid we cannot extend him at a reasonable cost, and we can extract maximum value by dealing him now instead of waiting til he has only one year left on his contract.

So let's turn the tables for a minute...

What if we do in fact trade Elvis for Upton, who has three years left on his current deal. Let's assume/hope/pray that Upton has a great year for Texas in 2013. Then he has two years left on his deal... so we're right back where we started, worrying that we either have to extend him at an exorbitant cost, or do we then deal Upton to extract maximum value while he still has two years left on his deal?

That's why I don't always buy the notion that we must deal Andrus while he still has two years left. Adding Upton is a big step forward. Losing Elvis is a big step backward. Spare me the speech about Profar and his dreamy talent and how he is ready to step in for Elvis. I'll believe it when I see it. I fully expect Profar to become a great SS... eventually. I'm concerned about his readiness for 2013. I expect some rookie growing pains, which can be difficult to tolerate on a club that expects to contend for a World Series title. It would be a shame if we spend all this money on Greinke, deal an established stud like Elvis, etc and push our big chips into the middle of the table... just to find out that one of our biggest 2013 weaknesses is having a .220 hitting shortstop who has a little less defensive range than Elvis.

I know it could work out okay. I just wish some of the big "Trade Elvis for Upton" supporters would exercise caution and be a little more willing to admit that it might not work out okay.

Like several others have said before me... I wish we could get the players we want without trading Elvis.

I've heard those of you who support the Elvis-for-Upton idea. I know your reasons for wanting this. One of the biggest reasons is supposedly because Elvis has two years left on his contract, we're afraid we cannot extend him at a reasonable cost, and we can extract maximum value by dealing him now instead of waiting til he has only one year left on his contract.

So let's turn the tables for a minute...

What if we do in fact trade Elvis for Upton, who has three years left on his current deal. Let's assume/hope/pray that Upton has a great year for Texas in 2013. Then he has two years left on his deal... so we're right back where we started, worrying that we either have to extend him at an exorbitant cost, or do we then deal Upton to extract maximum value while he still has two years left on his deal?

That's why I don't always buy the notion that we must deal Andrus while he still has two years left. Adding Upton is a big step forward. Losing Elvis is a big step backward. Spare me the speech about Profar and his dreamy talent and how he is ready to step in for Elvis. I'll believe it when I see it. I fully expect Profar to become a great SS... eventually. I'm concerned about his readiness for 2013. I expect some rookie growing pains, which can be difficult to tolerate on a club that expects to contend for a World Series title. It would be a shame if we spend all this money on Greinke, deal an established stud like Elvis, etc and push our big chips into the middle of the table... just to find out that one of our biggest 2013 weaknesses is having a .220 hitting shortstop who has a little less defensive range than Elvis.

I know it could work out okay. I just wish some of the big "Trade Elvis for Upton" supporters would exercise caution and be a little more willing to admit that it might not work out okay.

Well put Marco, very well put