"Hey I'm just gonna throw on my Rangers goggles and pretend like everything is peachy and that every player on my favorite team is the best!"

- BBTiA Forum

I see the Rangers as needing a couple of bullpen arms and a right-handed corner outfielder to platoon with Murphy.

Assuming that AJ Pierynski and Berkman are healthy look at what they do.

Berkman is not going to play much 1st base. He is the DH and replaces PADMY in the lineup. That is an easy +2.5 to +3.0 WAR right there in terms of offense.

Pierynski replaces Yovit Torrealba. That is also a big upgrade. Both these players make the Rangers a better team.

I think I read that Josh Hamilton was about a +4.5 WAR player last years. Berkman and Pierynski might equal that output because the players they replaced were at +0 or below.

Where the Rangers are going to have trouble is with left-handed pitching. To me that might open the door for Mike Olt in the outfield to spell Murphy (assuming he can play the outfield) or Moreland. The problem is there are only 25 spots on the roster.

I don't understand the push back against projections. As in life, baseball grounded firmly in projections. It begins with scouting teenagers and continues with FA and trade decisions. The issue is upon what the projections are based. Baseball analytics have evolved with transistor like frequency. The game is being deconstructed to a degree unimaginable even ten years ago. This data gives rise to large and small sample sets that can be used to varying degrees to predict performance. Scouts, GMs, agents, managers, bookies, and Fangraphs are projecting continuously. There is no reason why Eric, and anyone else here can't engage as well.

I tend to give greater weight to those forecasters who use observable data in an intelligent manner. Thus Fangraphs earns greater credibility with me than Bleacher Report, as do the stats savy participants here at BBTiA. The fact that baseball is not as predictable as an object in motion or the throw of the dice is no reason to denigrate the process. Baseball has a lot of luck in the the game that will probably never be predictable, but that does not mean a fact based, statistically driven, analytic process should be shunned or disparaged.

The fact based organizations are in ascendancy, and rightfully so. The Amaros and Towers of the game are becoming an endangered species. The Beanes, JDs, and Friedmans will win more per dollar spent and this success, driven by the huge dollars involved, will ensure that hardcore statistical analysis will be incorporated by every team.

Yeah right, that's what the great game of baseball has become. Wins per dollar value.
Umm, I don't think so, even if it is a business. Some of you lil' gm's need to hold a job
in consumer sales or try to hold your market share in a fast paced territory, where other
good salesmen can take your account with a whisper. You judge Tower, but you know nada.

Ghost, money doesn't talk, it screams, and there is more money in baseball than ever before. Teams are profitable when they win more. The lone baseball owner is being supplanted by sophisticated investment groups, a trend that will continue as the price of a franchise approaches 10 figures, an amount already leap frogged by the dodgers. These teams need to answer to their owners, who in turn must satisfy their lenders. There may never be another Veeck, but I can assure you will see more Guggenheim's.

Oh please. Money only changes in denominations. Bartering & negotiations are skill sets.
There's no blinking, whether it's a mil or twenty mil. No, it's not buying a Chevy or Ford, but
it's not about winning either. You adjust to the situation and continue or move on. Values are
relative to each scenario with teams needs & wants. Nobody shakes over the money amount.
It's relative towards a bottomline. The testosterone fizz is only in the mind of a newby, Talks
are as cool as the other side of the pillow. Gentlemen can agree to disagree or clasp hands
with a broad or edgy smile. Deal done... no sweat. GM's are a special breed, not dummies.

Ghost, are you trying to defend Tower? If so, you're doing a rather poor job of it.

I think your argument has something to do with bartering and negotiating are skill sets and something that most of us don't understand or do very well, as in contrast to Kevin Tower...

As a negotiator, Tower and the Diamondbacks have done the absolute worst thing they could have done in trying to sell their products: they talked ill of them from the outset... whether it was Chris Young, Trevor Bauer or Justin Upton, Kevin Tower and the rest of the Diamondback organization made it very well known, that these weren't their kind of guys...

As a result, almost every baseball analyst: whether it be a reporter, columnist, scout or "anonymous gm" has said that Arizona came out short in each of these trades...

They still might do really well next year...but, they could have done a whole lot better in terms of getting fair market value for the players that they dumped on and eventually simply dumped... They took Trevor Bauer, a guy who they selected third in the draft just the year before, who is an exceptional talent (and may be a bit of a knucklehead) and basically gave up on him and got at most, 40 cents on the dollar for him...

Their return on Upton, a guy who played through a thumb injury last year (a death injury to hitters) and they had positioned as their cornerstone franchise player... a guy who is only 25.. and dumped him for very little.... 3 mid level prospects, delgado who atlanta was willing to trade for 3 months of dempster and Prado (a nice player who has a year left on his contract)....

Tower certainly didn't get top dollar for either of those guys

Ghost, if your comments regarding money only changes in denominations was referencing my earlier post about my perception the influx of money into baseball is going to force more FOs to use sabremetrics with greater intensity in order to squeeze more wins per dollars (note, not a denomination but a measure of value), then I don't understand your response. If you are defending Towers, then I am with mm, as Towers, while likely a better GM than I would be, though I have never had that job, has done yeoman's work this offseason so place himself at the bottom of the class of GMs. If you are suggesting that I, not being or have been a GM, is not qualified to evaluate his trade moves or to comment on them, then what am I and other non-GM participants supposed to comment on?

And I am quite sure there are more than a few participants who pay the rent from their competitive consumer (and other) sales jobs and have to deal with preserving market share in fast paced territory

"Teams are profitable when they win more."

Not even remotely close to the truth. The Yankees have been the winningest team in baseball for 16 years. They have not been the most profitable. All that winning has cost them enormously in player salaries....rather than take profits they've chosen to invest their immense revenues in salaries and even in revenue sharing.

Most profitable team in the majors during that time? Most believe the Minnesota Twins. Despite immense personal wealth from the team's owners the team has consistently chosen to bank profits instead of investing in players in the name of winning. While they've enjoyed modest success during that time, the owners made no real effort to field the team most capable of winning.

In short...there is not a lot of correlation between winning and profits in the major leagues.

For reference:

http://baseball.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/19568/20100408/baseballs_team_by_team_profits_and_losses/
http://www.nextgenjournal.com/2012/03/pennants-or-profits-the-question-facing-small-market-teams/

@Primi

I have no problem with projections. My problem is with how people use them. It's one thing to say that based on past performance and expectations for 2013 "I project the Rangers will win 87 games".

It's something altogether different and (to me) objectionable to act like that projection is some sort of immutable fact. All over this thread when one poster or another asserts the Rangers as a World Series contender you'll see someone say something to the effect of "They're an 87 win team; the analysis says so".

Forecasts are fine...and serve as a good starting point for discussion. But I'll just point out that throughout last August all the propeller heads were saying "percentages say the Rangers are 99.5% likely to win the West" and acted like anyone who doubted that possibility was irrational. While the doubt might have been a low-percentage thought it turned out to be a very well-founded low-percentage thought. I think those that adhere strictly to the numbers fail to take into account that while a 90% certainly is a very good one, it's still wrong 10% of the time.

"The fact based organizations are in ascendancy, and rightfully so. The Amaros and Towers of the game are becoming an endangered species. The Beanes, JDs, and Friedmans will win more per dollar spent and this success, driven by the huge dollars involved, will ensure that hardcore statistical analysis will be incorporated by every team."

Maybe I'm wrong, but I seriously doubt that any MLB organization doesn't have a rich set of advanced analytics at their disposal. Seriously, if your team is not using the tools so readily available to any and all of us then you are operating at an unbelievable disadvantage.

I guess the question is to what degree the analytics shape decision-making is the question. I wouldn't want it to be 100%....the human element is still needed. Nate Silver's "The Signal and the Noise" goes into this a great deal, discussing the pros and cons of each approach and why the combination of the two is best.

Mr. Man, I am in complete agreement, but some teams are more devoted to statistical analysis than others. In a recent interview Towers mentioned sabre and spoke about how a few years ago he finally started looking at park adjustments. To me, that indicates he is not a good sabre user, a conclusion buttressed by his recent trades. Amaro has picked up The two Youngs (great move by JD getting so much on that trade). At the other end of the spectrum, SF is a beta site for all kinds of cutting edge analytics, some direct from Silicon Valley.

Jurickson Profar is een eersteklas speler in de maak. De Texas Rangers en het Nederlands honkbalteam zal worden vereerd om zo'n talentvolle honkbal playe op hun team hebben. Jullie zullen helemaal gek op dit kind en zijn vaardigheden. Wees klaar voor de geweldige honkbal die op je weg zal komen in de komende jaren. Hier is te hopen dat hij speelt op de Nederlandse honkbalteam in de World Baseball Classic.

Translated by: http://translation.babylon.com/dutch/to-english/

Jurickson Profar is a world-class player in the making. The Texas Rangers and the Dutch baseball team will be honored for such a talented baseball playe on their team. You will love this child and his abilities. Get ready for the great baseball which will be on your way in the next few years. Here's to hope that he plays on the Dutch baseball team in the World Baseball Classic.

wow.... will Profar play for the Dutch?

If he plays, that's who he'd play for. He's on their provisional roster.

I thought only people in the Netherlands liked was soccer and marijuana.

Well Champ I guess that's because you are an idiot.

Deze Champ man heeft geen idee waar hij het over heeft. Hij moet gewoon wat redneck hillybilly uit Texas. Ik probeerde je te vertellen mensen hoe geweldig Jurickson Profar was maar een groot deel wil mijn land beledigen.

JD knows he failed this offseason and lost out on plan A, plan B, plan C etc.
We had to settle for stop gap players. As this team is constructed today, you can forget about playoffs.
This team is designed strictly for entertainment this year and if they lose alot the 30,000 butts in seats wont be there.

Translated:

This Champ man has no idea about which he has it. He must be a redneck hillybilly from Texas. I tried to tell you men how tremendous Jurickson Profar was but a large part [of you] want my country insulted.

This means lighten up, guys. Seriously. Don't disrespect our guests.

I don't like that this Dutchie wants to call me a redneck... Why don't you go pick tulips and go to your local coffee shop?

Cham:
I believe you started it with the marjuana and soccer remark.From your posts that I've read the hillbilly remark seems apt.

*champ-oops

Eric,
your beginning to act like the other Eric