Cruz appears to be declining on defense, and I doubt he'll reach the level he did several years ago offensively, but he was hardly the worst problem with the Rangers last year. That said, I would be happy with him DHing now and then to keep him out of RF, which I think at this point is easily the weak point defensively. We have every reason to expect every other position to be above average, and a couple to be elite (mostly the left side of the IF, and possibly CF, depending on how much Martin plays it). Wait, maybe not C. I don't expect that much out of A.J. defensively.

Eric, you don't seem to be showing back up in this thread to respond to follow up comments, but could you explain to me why you're in favor of putting Berkman at 1B when you're not in favor of moving Kinsler? It is simply because Berkman has played 1B before and Kinsler hasn't? It seems to me that with his knees in the shape they're in you wouldn't want to try to roll him out there on an everyday basis. And, if you're looking at it from a "maximize value at each position" point of view as the reason to put Kins at 2B instead of 1B, then sure maybe Berkman's power numbers at 1B would be an upgrade over Kinsler's, but wouldn't the lack of defense there compared to Moreland or even Kinsler decrease this value?

Romro:
Your application was denied.

I'm evidently in the minority here because I think adding Bourne would make this a better team... and it's only money. I'm not talking about some stupid 4 or 5 yr deal but if you could get him at 2yrs/$28M... then he'd totally be worth it. I think we are all picturing Bourne as just another Gary Matthews Jr... and that's not the case at all. Also, it's just money... we're not losing prospects or established MLB players.
The whole draft pick thing is a farce. Do teams picking in the 20's really count on their draftee being a difference maker in 1 or 2 years? No, they don't. Hell, look at the Rangers 1st round picks in the last couple of years; Skole and Deglan are busts.
The Rangers hit paydirt in Latin America and in rounds 2 through 5 or 6. Right or wrong they have changed their mindset when it comes to forking over huge signing bonuses to 18 yr old kids... or college kids that weren't good enough to be drafted out of high school. Their philosophy may come back and bite them in the ass some day but I really don't think the Ranger's value 1st round picks nearly as much as other teams do.

I'm not talking about signing Bourne to some massive 5 yr/$75M deal but I would be more than ok with a 2 yr /$30M deal....even if the 2nd yr is a player option where he could test the waters next off-season. Bottom line is he would make this a better team.
The Giants showed us that good pitching + good defense + an athletic lineup, that has some pop but more importantly; manufactures runs wins ball games. The Tigers had power at nearly every position but they played shitty defense and need water breaks moving from 1st to 3rd. They were simply out-played by a team with sound fundamentals.

Mensa = Not that Eric= Billy V.

I guess it's fun to pretend when you're a child.

Think we've got a stalketr.

What's a stalketr???

Back to school little boy.

Eric, you don't seem to be showing back up in this thread to respond to follow up comments, but could you explain to me why you're in favor of putting Berkman at 1B when you're not in favor of moving Kinsler? It is simply because Berkman has played 1B before and Kinsler hasn't?

Sorry, I've been busy. Outside of 'Not that Eric' successfully trolling Romro, I'm happy with a lot of the responses I've gotten.

To answer the above question, yes, to an extent. One could argue (and I believe someone already has) that part of the reason we signed Berkman was to keep him off the field. I understand that, and agree to an extent, but 1B is essentially as demanding as being a DH. I'm not too afraid of Berkman getting injured over there, maybe only 5-10% more likely as sustaining an injury running the bases.

And, if you're looking at it from a "maximize value at each position" point of view as the reason to put Kins at 2B instead of 1B, then sure maybe Berkman's power numbers at 1B would be an upgrade over Kinsler's, but wouldn't the lack of defense there compared to Moreland or even Kinsler decrease this value?

Mitch Moreland is basically a replacement-level 1B, perhaps slightly better. If Bourn is a 1.0 win replacement over our CF platoon, and Berkman is a 2.0 win upgrade over Moreland at 1B, that's a net gain of 3.0 wins. I think those are fair figures. Sure, we'd be losing some range at 1B having Berkman there instead of Moreland, but Lance's bat > Mitch's would make up for that, in my opinion.

AaronM writes: Mooreland played hurt all last year. He was rolling early in the year before he hurt his wrists.

The big issue you did not hit on is not the cost per dollar, but the cost in our 1st round draft pick we would have to give to the braves since he was given a qualifying offer he turned down. (That offer was 13.3 mil 1 year btw)

No way the Rangers would give up a 1st round pick for a 1 year deal. Not worth it.

(1) Mitch Moreland has a track record, and even when he's healthy he's not much better than a replacement-level 1st baseman. As far as talent goes, he's not young or anything, so I imagine he's just about peaked in value. This will be his last year making the league minimum. That's the only reason to keep him/play him.

(2) That draft pick isn't as valuable as many of you think. Remember, the Rangers have two first round picks this year, not only one, so the difference in signing Bourn would be losing our 24th pick (I think) and settling for the #30 pick (I think). Not a terribly big deal.

(3) If Michael Bourn can improve the team by 1-2 wins, I don't see why a cheap one year deal would not be worth it. Again, we're not going to be paying him $15 million PLUS losing the pick. If the contract + cost of losing the pick is cheap enough ($6-$9 million), this scenario would be totally worth it.

"That draft pick isn't as valuable as many of you think. Remember, the Rangers have two first round picks this year, not only one, so the difference in signing Bourn would be losing our 24th pick (I think) and settling for the #30 pick ..."

Logically fallacious. The prior existence of the bonus pick would not somehow negate the loss of the 1st round pick from signing Bourn. They'd still be suffering the loss of a 1st round pick, and that has real value.

In fact, it could be argued that the existence of the bonus pick has ENHANCED the value of the 1st-rounder, because the addition of another pick and its slot money will create even more potential for juggling bonus money and adding flexibility to draft/sign a better player here or there.

Eric,
(
1) Mooreland has a track record of being an above average defensive first baseman who has the potential to hit.
Lets remember that he was the ONLY one to hit about 260 was it during our first world series.
He is Young and deserves the chance to prove that it is his position to lose as not many players would continue to play injured when they are considered unproven and risk being labeled as a poor hitter.

(2) As for draft picks not mattering you could not be further from the truth there. The picks mean a lot because we can not exploit the international pool as we have done in the past and we will be placed with a cap on what we can spend on players. Long as the days of paying big bonuses out to players like Jairo Beras.

(3) Because Bourn is a player that relies on speed for his game, his is now reaching the point he will show big diminishing returns. If signing him for a 1 year deal was a brilliant move, someone would have grabbed him up by now. Picking up 1-2 wins from Bourn is not worth the cost and limits the front office to pursue possible trades around middle of he year. Member soon David Price, and King Felix could see themselves on the Market as neither team can really afford to pay what they will be expecting to get in free agency. If Zack Grienke is worth 150 million, then Price / Felix are worth at least 200 Million.

But in Nolan and Daniels I will trust. Daniels even pointed out the injury that Mooreland played through. He was hitting in around .320 and had 8 HR 20 RBI After just April and May before the Injury.

I agree with David...too much to loose signing Bourn...that why he is still available. Not just the Rangers, but other teams must see him the same or he would be signed. Is he worth the loss of draft pick and pool money VS the upgrade over what you have?

Maybe if Romro212000 would stop stalking Not that Eric and worrying about Eric Reining maybe he could tell us his opinion on signing Bourn. He seems to kinda have this Manti Teo thing going with Eric Reining.

You numb nuts need quit posting your childish BS on a baseball web. Trying to see who is going to "one up" the last post is getting childish.

"1B is essentially as demanding as being a DH"

Not even close to accurate. All your athletic motions at DH take place in the batters box and on the basepaths. First basemen move around constantly during play. Stretching for thrown balls, fielding balls and getting into cutoff position.

@ozzie

Why is he even allowed to post here. Numb nuts should've been banned weeks ago, but no mod wants to get off their ass and do it.

David, "Logically fallacious"? That's poor word choice, in my opinion.

Listen, the point I'm making about the draft pick is that signing Michael Bourn, from a draft pick compensation perspective, would not be as crippling as a team like, say, the Mets, who own the #11 pick. They have one first round pick -- the first which is unprotected -- and they would forfeit it to the Braves. The Rangers have two first round picks, neither as valuable as #11, and if they lost it they'd still be able to fall back on the 2nd one.

From a logistics standpoint, if you can get Bourn signed cheaply (plus the $2 million or so for the draft pick [I haven't looked up the actual slot money]), it's worth the extra 1.5-2.0 wins.

Romro:
Why haven't you been banned? All you do is flap your gums and say ASS. One might say you have an infatuation with that word.

^^^^^
I posted substance before little shits like you with nothing better to do with your time than troll a board under multiple user names showed up and essentially ruined this place. Now run on back to school lil boy. You clearly need it.

Eric, my word choice accurately reflected my thinking. Where your logic failed was in your assertion that the existence of the bonus pick had somehow lessened or eliminated the value of the 1st rounder. But there is no linkage, and your logic failed by linking the two picks.

The Rangers have a draft menu that's set from #31 on down, and they can either have #24 (which clearly adds the value of a first rounder) on top of that draft, or not. While we can argue whether Bourn is WORTH that pick, there's no valid way to assert that signing Bourn wouldn't cost them whatever value exists in a first-rounder.

David,

Where your logic failed was in your assertion that the existence of the bonus pick had somehow lessened or eliminated the value of the 1st rounder. But there is no linkage, and your logic failed by linking the two picks.

While I was at Virginia Tech, I studied Communication, so I'm not going to pretend I have any sort of knowledge about economics outside the two weeks I studied it my sophomore year before I dropped out. However, your above statement is contradictory, mainly because of supply and demand.

This concept can be applied to our shortstop situation, being that you and I disagree on that as well. If I have Elvis Andrus and Jurickson Profar, naturally one of them is expendable. But if I only have one shortstop, then that player is not expendable. He's essential.

I don't buy into the idea of withholding both draft picks if I can get what is to be a sure thing (Michael Bourn). Again, this entire thesis is based on getting Michael Bourn at a reasonable rate. If we only had one draft pick, it would hold a lot more value to the franchise, and I would not be inclined to forfeit it.

Eric wrote: "Mitch Moreland is basically a replacement-level 1B, perhaps slightly better. If Bourn is a 1.0 win replacement over our CF platoon, and Berkman is a 2.0 win upgrade over Moreland at 1B, that's a net gain of 3.0 wins. I think those are fair figures. Sure, we'd be losing some range at 1B having Berkman there instead of Moreland, but Lance's bat > Mitch's would make up for that, in my opinion."

I'm prone to agree with you as I do not really trust Moreland full time at 1B this year. He's horrible against left-handed pitching. I heard somewhere that he's paying with his own money to have someone work with him on that over the offseason, but I'm skeptical he'll still be playing there everyday in July.

I'm still curious about your aversion to moving Kinsler, and I think that, assuming Profar is ready, this could lead to about the same gain in wins that you proposed above. The ZiPS for next year have Moreland at 0.9 WAR and Berkman at 2.3 WAR, so Berkman gives you an extra 1.5 wins or so, bringing your added wins you proposed above to around 2.4/2.5.

Profar is slotted for 3.2 WAR, so by basically swapping him and Moreland in the everyday lineup you get an extra 2.3 wins. Maybe Kinsler loses some value going from 1B to 2B and that costs you some WAR, but Profar had in incredible glove last year and I would think he would be a defensive upgrade that would help to make some of that back. Kinsler's UZR was -0.2 last year, and I'm certain Profar would be better than that.

Guy writes: "1B is essentially as demanding as being a DH"

Not even close to accurate. All your athletic motions at DH take place in the batters box and on the basepaths. First basemen move around constantly during play. Stretching for thrown balls, fielding balls and getting into cutoff position.

First basemen require less athleticism than any other position on the diamond. SS's and 2B's have two wide ranges to cover; outfielders patrol a ton of ground; 3B requires the longest throw in the infield, and also to supplement the range of the SS.

1st base doesn't require nearly as much in comparison. Like I said, I'm sure right now Mitch Moreland is a better fielder than Lance Berkman, but it's not like we'd be asking Lance Berkman to be our infield quarterback. He can defend like Michael Young for all I care.

I'm still curious about your aversion to moving Kinsler, and I think that, assuming Profar is ready, this could lead to about the same gain in wins that you proposed above. The ZiPS for next year have Moreland at 0.9 WAR and Berkman at 2.3 WAR, so Berkman gives you an extra 1.5 wins or so, bringing your added wins you proposed above to around 2.4/2.5.

Profar is slotted for 3.2 WAR, so by basically swapping him and Moreland in the everyday lineup you get an extra 2.3 wins. Maybe Kinsler loses some value going from 1B to 2B and that costs you some WAR, but Profar had in incredible glove last year and I would think he would be a defensive upgrade that would help to make some of that back. Kinsler's UZR was -0.2 last year, and I'm certain Profar would be better than that.

It all comes back to Ian's $70 million extension, and the fact that he likely won't be able to justify it transitioning to 1st base. I think Kins is a 4.0 fWAR 2nd baseman in 2013, which is probably a conservative figure. I'm expecting a major bounce back from him. A move to 1st base, because of his bat, will cost him around 1.5 WAR. I'm not comfortable taking him out of his natural position, inserting Profar outside of his natural position, then potentially moving them back to SS/2B when Elvis Andrus leaves. That doesn't make sense to me.

I want all the Rangers who are signed to longterm extensions to be able to justify their deals by the time they're done. Ian is now on the wrong side of 30 (or about to be), so his WAR figures are going to start diminishing. Maybe not this year, maybe not until he's 33 or 34, but they will. We need to accrue as much value as we can, while we can. 2B is the best position for Ian do do so.

AaronM writes:
1) Moreland has a track record of being an above average defensive first baseman who has the potential to hit.
Lets remember that he was the ONLY one to hit about 260 was it during our first world series.
He is Young and deserves the chance to prove that it is his position to lose as not many players would continue to play injured when they are considered unproven and risk being labeled as a poor hitter.

Your first statement is completely, 100% false. Mitch Moreland has accumulated over 1,000 PA's in his career up to this point, and he's produced a triple slash of .264/.328/.441. That's good for a wRC+ of exactly 100 -- precisely average.

Lifetime, he's totaled 1859.0 innings at 1st base. His cumulative UZR is -1.4. Again, just about exactly average.

In 295 games, spanning three separate seasons, he's been worth 1.6 fWAR. Meh. So if 100 is average wRC+, 0.0 is average UZR, and 0.0 is replacement level, then Moreland is hovering dangerously close to average, if he's not already average. I gave him the benefit of the doubt by saying or maybe slightly better (than replacement level), but he is, in fact, ridiculously average. Based on the objective data, you'd have a hard time finding a more average player at any position in all of baseball.