What is your opinion of the A.J. Pierzynski signing?
MJH on accountability
DDan, Bourn is faster and a better fielder, but Upton hits better and has the talent to produce MVP winning seasons. His arrival will also translate into less playing time for Gentry/Martin. He is also older, will command a higher salary than Upton, and cost a draft pick and its associated signing dollars.
Primi, I understand all that. I'm looking at Upton/Bourn this way (based on Eric's comments): similar dollars, similar WAR levels. So the difference is giving up Elvis for one (which he was all for) or a draft pick for the other (which he's totally against). I'm not saying I support signing Bourn. But the argument on this board has been the Martin/Gentry can produce the same production as Bourn (in the 4 WAR range), but cheaper. If that's the case, I wonder what the WAR production from that platoon would look like at the COF spots versus Cruz.
I consider not getting Upton a BLESSING
DDan, the first issue pertaining to retaining Elvis is that he will cost a fortune to re- sign or extend, and with Boras as his agent he will not be handing out a home team discount. Failing to retain Elvis will earn the Rangers a draft pick, poor compensation by any measure.
Second, the Rangers have a log jam in the MIF (and 3B, but that is another discussion) with Profar achieving MLB readiness. This can be solved four ways: play Profar out of position in the OF, play Kinsler out of position in the OF or 1B, trade Kinsler, or trade Elvis. Playing either Elvis or Kinsler out of position degrades their value, and Kinsler is a low return trade option. This leaves trading Elvis as the best solution to the MIF problem.
Last is the issue of money and value. Elvis costs much more than Profar today . This difference will be exponential if he is extended . Profar has the chance to be a better ballplayer than Elvis so it makes no sense to me to keep Elvis over Profar at SS. Aside from the cost/benefit loss of keeping Elvis over Profar, Elvis is losing trade value as time passes .
Justin Upton may not be a Stanton, but he is still a young, outstanding ballplayer. He was also being traded at an extremely low price, witness Atlanta' s coup. This represented a rare opportunity for the Rangers but thet did not execute.This will not be the case with Stanton; the Ms, SD, and StL all come to mind as teams with strong farm systems . So Stanton is not a sure thing and will cost the cream of the farm. Same with Price. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. There is a reason old adages get old and survive the times; there is an element of truth to them . Upton was available here and now at a fire sale price at a time when the Rangers had depth with which to trade. It will be a long, long time before a chance like Upton becomes available again.
sorry for the duplicate . i failed to navigate captcha successfully.
primi, you hit the nail on the head. Upton is not the difference between the Rangers being good in 2013 vs. not being good. Texas is a fine club. The issue is the failed opportunity. Justin Upton is legitimate. He's about to enter his prime and be one of the 5 to 7 best outfielders in baseball, which roughly translates to a 5.0-7.0 WAR player over the next three years.
Elvis is not coming back in two years. Jurickson Profar is probably ready right now, so he could have filled Andrus's shoes. The math is extremely basic. We could not have done better on a value/$ standpoint this offseason than Justin Upton, and this team still does have significant question marks.
You guys are missing the point. I agree with your assessment of Elvis, and I believe he should be traded. But why is it Upton or bust? Why not sign the 4-WAR outfielder (Bourn) you didn't trade for (Upton) and use one of your remaining outfielders as trade bait or in a platoon. Take your 4-WAR shortstop (who has a 4-WAR SS waiting in the wings) and trade him for something of more value at a position of greater need. Again, I'm not arguing that Upton=Bourn. I'm simply questioning Eric's rationale as to why one is worth $12M/yr over the next three years and the other isn't.
As I said previously, if 3y/$38.5M is cheap for a 4-5 WAR outfielder, why not sign Bourn and deal from there? If Gentry is a platoon guy anyway, platoon him with Murphy. Platoon Martin with Cruz and use them both as insurance against either Murphy or Cruz leaving in FA. What were we going to do with Cruz had we dealt Elvis for Upton? Whatever your answer is, do the same after signing Bourn.
Once again, I understand the rationale for trading Elvis (and am all for it), but I don't see why trading Elvis and signing Bourn (or not trading him for Upton) are mutually exclusive. If anything, given what I think will be a shorter-term contract for Bourn, the two could go pretty well together.
I'm not Eric, but to answer your question: we already have enough speedy leadoff types. What we don't have is a bunch of middle of the order types. Aside Adrian Beltre, maybe Lance Berkman, and the best-case-scenario of Nelson Cruz, what kind of power do we have in the middle of our lineup? It's bare.
We're hoping Ian Kinsler and Elvis Andrus are both 4+ WAR players, Nelson Cruz and David Murphy are worth 3.0 WAR apiece, and that the CF platoon of Martin/Gentry is worth 4 WAR. That, plus Adrian Beltre not regressing too terribly much, and the A.J. Pierzynski/Geovany Soto tandem working out.
Michael Bourn is a speedy leadoff hitter who's both expensive and on the wrong side of 30. We already have enough light hitters in our lineup (Andrus/Gentry/Martin/Soto/Moreland). We needed a thumper for the middle of the lineup.
Murphy was worth 4 fWAR last year. It's not a foregone conclusion he'll regress to less than 3 fWAR. He very well could, but banking on that is no better than banking on Ian and Elvis to provide 4+ WAR. He deserves a shot at being the everyday LF unless he shows that last year was a fluke.
Martin shouldn't be a "light hitter". Moreland clearly isn't; although, his hit tool could use some calibration.
Still, your point is solid. Signing Bourn costs a positive player (Cruz or Murphy plus, possibly Gentry altogether) AND a First Round Draft Pick AND the associated allocation money to expand our pool of cash we'll want to use to sign those studly, toolsy, bright and bubbly Top Ten Rounds worth of Rule 4s. That's a lot of subtraction Bourn'd have to overcome to be worth the signing.
Jamie Newberg has a new posting about Leury Garcia. If he makes the team coming out of Spring Training, Bourn becomes even MORE of a negative because Leury has the wheels and arm to play any of the OF positions as well as the MIF.
Ian thinks he can play 3B if Adrian needs a break and Lance can fill in for Mitch from time-to-time.
I think we're set.
AWESOME!!! Captcha's back!!
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.