What is your opinion of the A.J. Pierzynski signing?
MJH on accountability
I saw some reports saying the Indians offer to Swisher is something like 4 years $13 million per. That sounds just slightly north of what people are speculating it would take to get Edwin Jackson (4 years $12 million per). How about we take a vote and try to just give 1 word responses to this question.....If the Rangers had to sign 1 of the 2 at 4 years $13 million per year right now who should they sign, Swisher or Jackson?
Actually, I think both are a moot point, due to age, contract term and losing a draft choice.Both wanting over 3 year commitment. Ranger won't tie thier hands over noted reasoning.Niether, thank you.
Hey, who said you could use logic? "Neither" is not an option on this quiz Hubz. You are hooked up to a machine and if you don't answer Swisher or Jackson something really terrible automatically happens to you. So for purposes of this post only you must answer with either Swisher or Jackson. (Truth be told I'm not sure either is worth it either, but humor me. I want to know what people's opinions of these guys are relative to each other considering the Rangers' needs, etc.)
Swisher, definitely. Versatile. Has power. Gets on base. To be honest I'd be fine getting both.
Following up on Jondar's thought, maybe this can be part 2 to the question.....I'm thinking the Rangers would have gone 4 years at $25 or $26 per year with Hambone. So would you rather have Hambone at that price or Swisher and Jackson both at the same price?
Easy choice on part deuce- BOTH, over Mr Katie Humbleton
Both was my thought as well, and, really, was my hope all along with respect to Hamilton (not necessarily with Swisher and Jackson, but with a replacement hitter and mid-rotation starter).
Would be okay with either, but given the choice, I think I'd go with Swisher. I think he's slightly more likely to provide surplus value on such a contract.
This is quite a coincidence. JD just called me with the same question. I told him to go with Jackson.
Swisher because with Holland, Darvish and Ogando under control for while, not to mention a Harrison extension...I'd rather hold off on a long term commitment to a starter in hopes of finding a legit 1-2 instead of getting stuck with a 3-4. Plus we have some young pitchers that could develop nicely over the next 4 yrs.
The Cubs apparently have signed Carlos Villanueva.... you wonder if they are out on Jackson now?
Jondor:YES. Jackson was not offered a qualifying offer, so a 3 year/$39 m (seems to be the magic number this fa year), may turn out to be an excellent sign. Oddly, he still has Upside, with a fb reaching 97, just need C&C and the Rangers coaching staff may make a significant difference. If given a choice, and surrendering a draft choice, take LaRoche over Swisher for you quested it, 3/$39\m ($12,$13,$14.) and bat him in the third hole. So for 2013 Jackson & LaRoche for $24, $1 less than JH. Add AJP for 2/$16, and the Rangers are still clearing $34m + off of the potential (resigning all Ranger free agents + keeping MY) 2013 Team Salary. With those three signs, would give the Rangers a fighting chance for 2013, without compromising or trading their top prospects: Martin, Olt, Profar or Perez or Ross.
Swisher is much more valuable than Jackson, but if we can afford two of Swisher/Jackson/AJP, I'll certainly take the two most former.
If we sign two of those guys, we should still have enough money to afford a couple bullpen arms to round out our roster. I'd be down with that.
Swisher by default.
Well, for me it's not a matter of Swisher vs Jackson. It's a matter of Swisher + current rotation vs Jackson + current lineup. As well as adding in future longterm desires for upgrades in offensive or pitching.
I would be fine going with Perez through June/July then plug in Colby hopefully. Colby is about the same as Jackson or better for alot less, then hope we can find a longterm upgrade next offseason. Then Add Swisher in that lineup with Cruz at DH.
But, If Cruz is DH, then what do we do with Moreland and Olt if Ian plays 1st? Infield overload. If both those guys arent even going to play part time this year platooning at first OR next year in RF with Cruz leaving, then use them in a trade for OF where we need short and long term upgrades and have something like a Swish, Upton, Murph in the OF vs Olt/Moreland on the bench.
Are we sitting on too many young players at the big league level that need to play but arent going to, or that need to be traded?
Tough call. The Rangers have a greater need for Swisher--nice combo of OF/1B defense and additional benefit of quality hitting--than a 3 to 4 pitcher (especially with the chance Colby or Felix will return to effectiveness). AJP would upgrade the catching corp, but I am satisfied with Soto's ability to get quality pitching from the staff, and am wary of AJP's effect on his team mates.
In the new metrics favoring prospects for their low costs and predictable contractual control, signing Swisher should be long enough term to absorb the cost of a lost draft prospect, a structure that does not fit AJP because of his age and the physical demands of catching. In a perfect world the Rangers sign all three FAs on favorable terms. Whether the Rangers have the financial opportunity to steer toward a sufficient degree of perfection enabling this signing trifecta is an open question, but one I hope they can achieve.
I would always want an arm over a bat, and I think id rather have Swisher. Thing is, we have Martin, Olt, and Profar all ready to contribute so it makes more sense to add a pitcher.
Still think Swisher is the surer bet though.
Looks like we're out on Jackson now too and he and the Cubs are getting close. Looks like they're at about $50M now, I'd assume for 4 years. I'd have preferred the Rangers get him at 3 years, but I'd have been willing to do 4 with a guy who rarely (if ever) gets injured and can give you 200 innings of 3 WAR baseball a year.
Sorry - link: http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2012/12/strong-progress-for-cubs-edwin-jackson.html
I think it's clear our lineup needs more beef at this point than the rotation. The rotation is young and controllable right now and has a lot of upside. I don't want to be bogged down by a number 3-4 pitcher who might perform well over the length of a contract or might not. While Swisher gives us something we need now in the form of a good switch hitting bat. Adding Swisher makes the lineup up look a whole lot better for 2013 and rolling with Perez until June/July to see what he has isn't the worst idea. I think Perez deserves a real chance to see what he has. I would be happy if JD rolled out of this off-season with Swisher+AJP+another bullpen arm.
I think our "short deal" preference for Jackson indicates that JD believes our pitching prospects are at mid-rotation level in 1-3 years (or that Jackson wouldn't be appreciably better than what we have during that period). I don't believe that our lack of signing these pitchers (or trading for them) is due to fiscal restraint as much as it's a belief in the pitching prospects we have. What that means for Harrison's extension, I don't know.
On the flip side, I read the pursuit of Ross, Swisher, interest in Upton, etc., as indications that JD isn't entirely comfortable with our young guys in the field. I haven't seen contract details (or speculation thereof) for a guy like Ross or Swisher, but if it's a 3-year deal or longer, that's a pretty good indication where JD views our young position guys.
That's just my guess, essentially that JD is stuck between staying competitive or rushing some guys to the bigs and hoping we pull an Oakland in 2013. We'll see.
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.