When someone slugs over 600 and has an obp Over 400 in 3a not to mention is only 24 it's time to give him a starting job next year however rather than play him in center I'd like to see him put in rf mve Cruz to dh and sign bourn. That would give you a very good shot at having the best defense in baseball assuming at the same time that profar starts at 2nd and kindler gets moved to 1st

You could do the same thing, but put Gentry in CF instead of Bourn. Then you'd basically have the same thing, but save a draft pick and who knows how many millions of dollars.

Agreed but your outfield depth takes a big hit and Bourn allows you to move kinsler down to the 2 or 3 hole(personally it doesn't make sense to me to have a guy who is one your major power threats batting when no one is on base)

I heartily agree. Let Martin play. Put him in RF and get rid of Cruz. Put Gentry in CF full time. Gentry's WAR are amazing and his defense is superb and produces wins.

Bourn is not worth what it will take to sign him, plus giving up a draft pick, for whatever marginal upgrade he might provide over Gentry and/or Martin. If the Rangers weren't willing to give up a pick for Swisher, they shouldn't do so for Bourn.

End of story.

the rangers will be okay with Martin in center,and we got Gentry jic,Bourn is not worth what ever it is boras is asking for,well be a good team even if we don't make another move,plus the only players out there i would trade for are Stanton,Hayward and Hosmer!!

I would be very shocked if the Rangers have any interest in Bourn. He cost a draft pick and will be much more expensive than the TWO players we already have on our roster that are much cheaper. It just doesn't make sense. Our regular outfield line up will likely be Murphy in left, Cruz in right and a platoon of Gentry and Martin. The Rangers are looking at picking up a COF with power and would likely DH Cruz if they are able to attain one.

Bingo, Kyle.

we do not need bourn unless he is a MLB manager

Bourn will not be signed by the Rangers, so why bring his name up anymore. I personally have been high on Martin, like Gentry too but as a 4th outfielder, especially for defense. Cruz is instrumental to the success of the Rangers in 2013. In other post have even gave numbers that shows his is even better than Upton's. Having said that, his speed is waning and should be deployed as the dh. I would rather see the Rangers even signing Berkman over Bourn, and play him at first. The big kicker, which has not been even reflected upon, but because of his talent could easliy play a solid right: Jurickson Profar. Leave Ian on second. The Rangers are going to try Leury Garcia in center, at least at Round Rock in 2013, so the Rangers have their Bourn, but a better bat. Profar is above all a ball player, even before he was signed all other teams wanted him as a pitcher. He could, with a minimum of coaching, could play right as well. Martin's SALARY for 2013 is $3.3, not minimum salary, and increases $.5 per year through 2015, therefore his salary alone dictates playing him. He is ready to play on a regular basis, and though may not be as successful as who he backed up in Cuba [ Cespedes ], could prove as valuable. Moving Cruz would open at bats for Moreland, Murphy and Olt, but do not sell him short. BOTTOM LINE: play Leoyns as the every day center fielder, either with Jurickson at the bottom of the lineup, or at the top. After the first inning it does not matter as much, but does give the Rangers a strong bottom three with the left fielder: Murphy/ OLT [ who will play left better than Trumbo did ]

My one big gripe (any it really isn't that big) with moving Cruz to DH is it hurts his value a bit. I'd like to see him man RF at least half of his games next year, hope he has a good year with the bat, and get a draft pick if he leaves.

Cruz will be pushing 34 at the beginning of the 2014 season. How many teams would offer him a contract large enough to forgo the 1/$13.5+M offer the Rangers would have to offer to recoup a pick? Especially if he's moved to full time DH.

Henchman, to even get a draft choice he has to be in the top 124 players in baseball. If he is, and his numbers may qualify, he has top value right now or if not in July. If he is moved in July then the Rangers are already out of contention. I like Cruz, it seems more than most who post, but still see the best value on the Rangers part would be sign Berkman and trade Cruz. An MLB -TV commentator even had suggested a trade that would have involved Stanton and Morrison coming to the Rangers, and in addition the Rangers sending Andrus, Olt and Perez to the Marlins. The reality of netting a draft choice, along with the Rangers picking up most of Cruz's salary , and giving Miami a "boomsticker" to partially replace Stanton's appeal, could seal the deal. So Henchman, I think you are on to something that could be used as a bargaining tool and in the end net the Rangers Stanton.

les,

I could easily be wrong but I have never heard anything about this 124 top player thing you're saying... couldn't find anything online either.

Got a link?

thanks

Top 124 MAY be referring to the old "Type A" and "Type B" free agent system. It's been junked.

Now, any player that is tendered a baseline amount (figured this year at $13.3 million) will cause the signing team to surrender their pick if:

1) The surrendering team isn't already surrendering the pick for another signing;
2) The player signed had been on the team losing him for the Entire Previous Season.

There may be some qualifiers for #1 (i.e. the guy you signed was offered more than the guy for which they WOULD HAVE surrendered the pick for an earlier signing?; the pick isn't in the Top Ten of the Draft?; not sure about all the permutations.).

Gnats, it is in the recent player's agreement. The real basis is that a team must offer the mean of the top 124, which this year was $13.5. This even explains why the Rangers offered Josh a contract and not Nap, viewing Hamilton was worth that { 2012 he was at $13.75m ] and Napoli was at $9.4. This was implicit in the new agreement, visa the minimum $ amount a team must offer to have a qualifing offer. It also replaced the old A PLAYER, B PLAYER, C PLAYER, D PLAYER rating which focus more stressed performance and not primarily salary. For example, in 2011 an A PLAYER was #1, B a supplemental along with a team signing a second A player. In order to cut down on draft qualified players, so that they could easier sign with another team, the new agreement came up with this top 124 player mean salary knowing that the original team would make qualifying offers much less frequently. This year as you can see, really hurts a player given a qualifying offer who may not be worth the $13.5m, ie Michael Bourn, Rafael Soriano, and especially Kyle Lohse [ who the Cardinals have no intention to sign]. Poor Kyle may not even be signed until after the next Rule-4 draft. Hope this helps clarify.

Another key factor under the new agreement is that in order to get a draft choice a team must hold on to that player the whole year. What this means is that in July, if say Nelson Cruz is traded, the team that picks him up does not get a draft choice. That is why the Rangers get a #1 and 22nd choice for Josh, while the Angels get nothing for the Dodgers signing Grienke or that the Rangers went hard after him, knowing they would not lose a draft choice. Recall, Grienke was traded by Milwaukee to the Angels last July 27th

Right, I know the current and old rules (well, still learning the ins and outs), but your post confused me a bit. A team can offer a Qualifying Offer to any player, no matter how good/bad they are... they'll still receive a draft pick if the player turns it down.

Anyway back to Cruz, if they offer him 1/$13.5M, I'd be worried he'd take it because this offseason has shown teams are reluctant to sign & lose a pick.

Les, I'm not disputing all of your facts but you're definately sharing some wrong info here.

1.The Ranger's no longer recieve the Angels pick. That pick vanishes and we get a sandwich (1A round) pick.
2. Cruz doesn't need to be "top 124" in terms of performance (if that's what you were talking about). He just has to be viewed as being worthy of a contract that would exceed the AAV of the top 125 players. This year that number was $13.3M. Next it is expected to be closer to $13.5M.

I may not be following what you're trying to say. But in any event, the Marlins would have no interest in Cruz. If you want to subtract Cruz while adding Stanton, you'd need to trade him to a contender then flip the prospects in a package with Profar.

"to even get a draft choice he has to be in the top 124 players in baseball"

This is not accurate. He has to be offered the average of "the 125 highest paid." But
1 There are some who are overpaid, and lots of top players who are paid a pittance because they are not yet eligible for free agency. Trout, Stanton, Harper, and Price were all among baseball's best last season, but none were in the top 125 salaries.
2 He doesn't have to be offered a contract comparable to those 125, only a one-year offer. That makes a big difference. A player who figures he is about to land a 4-5 year deal for $40M is going to decline a qualifying offer of one year for $13M.
3 The trade value of any player who might make sense to give a qualifying offer - including Cruz - takes a hit if you wait until mid-season, since the trade removes the ability to recoup a draft pick from losing him as a free agent. Any team trading for him right now also has the possibility of leveraging him into a first rounder as their fallback from losing him in free agency, in addition to what they get from him for the season.

Ansel, so what you are saying is that a given player would be willing to lose $3M for an upcoming year if he signs for 4 years or an amazing $5M if he took the 5 year deal, a staggeringly loss of near 40% in salary for the upcoming year. In this money driven world, this truly would be an exceptional player. However, there is nothing demanding that team that made the qualifying offer to come through, after that player originally turns its down in October or November [ depending when the WS ends ]. Just ask KYLE LOHSE, who may just end up accepting that 4-5yr/$40, if a team will even offer that.

Les, the player who declines $13M in order to get $40M that is GUARANTEED isn't under the sense he is losing anything. And he isn't - in fact, he is guaranteed $27M more! Those who focus on AAV while ignoring total guaranteed dollars don't grasp the dynamics of guaranteed contracts and how much value there is in a guarantee.

As far as your statement that "However, there is nothing demanding that team that made the qualifying offer to come through, after that player originally turns its down," that makes no sense. There isn't anything left to follow through on, since the qualifying offer is a one-week-only, take-it-or-leave-it offer.

Back to Leonis. Sorry, he's not the best CF'r on this team currently. Put him in the Miami deal for all I care. This guy does not have the instincts. He's been hyped like the Braves used to hype their kids. He's 24 and IF he ever makes it will be as a late bloomer now.

what makes you say that, murph? dude tore up AAA last year

Ansel, like I said, tell that to Lohse. And what you say is right on. In that week a player accepts it or turns it down. As we know. if turned down then the team gets the draft choice if the player eventually signs with another team. IN certain situations, their is the worry that the player would actually accept the qualifying offer. That is what drove the Rangers in not giving an offer to Napoli. The worry that he would accept, and at a salary the Rangers did not want to pay, especially a player that knew had physical challenges. Henchman, beg to differ, but the Rangers do get the 22nd choice in the first round. That only pertains to the bottom 10, who keep their first round choice, and the compensated team gets a choice after the first 31 in 2013. Pittsburgh failed to sign Appell. So come RULE-4 Time, we will see where the Rangers draft. Gnats I agree, Cruz if he is still on the Rangers will get the Napoli treatment. Henchman, I did not suggest the Cruz to Miami trade, a commentator on MLB-TV did, and primarily for the reasoning posted. Lets look at it this way, and I specifically implied that this would not be the situation 100% of the time, a player accepts the 5/$ 40 , another takes the $13+ and the following year becomes a free agent again, believing in his talent has a successful year, but still signs a 4/$40. After the 5th year Player A has made $40m, where as Player B has made $53m. Using the 125 [which makes more sense mathematically], divisible by 750 [25 team roster x 30 teams] or 1/6 of the total, which equates to 16.67% of the players, implies that both Player A and Player B are clearly in the top 20% of major leaguers, and unlikely baring injury and /or advanced age [ which you would not offer an advanced multi-year contract to in the first place], of having a major let down. To give an example, there is much belief that Boras will have Bourn sign a one year contract somewhere, so he can get the big contract in 2014, thus circumnavigating the free agent system. So there is a multitude of new problems in the recent players agreement related to free agency, to the point that Selig's office has forced to already come out with a statement basically to the effect that ' it is to early to tell'.

Though this has been entertaining and quite informative, personally I will try not to go off on a tangent in the future. Even if this is what the forum is all about, especially on a very confusing subject, that has loads of new loopholes, which I am sure Boras will bring out, simpler to stick to the 'would you trade Andrus for Upton' ? forums.