Romro:
Congrats, you posted without saying ASS. But you did say
"little shits" but hey one step at a time.

^^^^
Still not one post of substance. Fail more troll.

Eric, "supply and demand" doesn't really change things here at all.

For supply and demand to alter values, there is a different dynamic than normal that creates a shift in balance between the supply side and the demand side. In this situation, having two first-rounders only alters value if the Rangers end up with less than two players they would value as draft-worthy and first-round value. That's incredibly unlikely.

Instead, even with the extra pick they will still have far more first-round-value players they would want to pick, than they will be able to pick. Even with an extra pick. Signing Bourn will come at a cost to them of a first-rounder they'd love to be able to draft and develop, and having another first-rounder doesn't alter that reality..

Signing Bourn will come at a cost to them of a first-rounder they'd love to be able to draft and develop, and having another first-rounder doesn't alter that reality..

You aren't listening to me. I'm saying it doesn't make sense to sign Bourn if he's going to command a lot of money. That's why I proposed a pillow contract, a lot like Adrian Beltre received from Boston a few years ago. I also think you are overvaluing the the worth of draftees. As you should know, like the postseason, drafting players straight out of high school (as the Rangers are want to do with their early picks) is a crapshoot. Texas has been more right than wrong over the last several draft classes, but they aren't shooting 100% or anything.

Odds are decent that they find a big talent in the later rounds of the draft (Ian Kinsler, Derek Holland) as compared to one of their first two picks. Again, it all goes back to buying Bourn on the cheap, translating his $10-$12 million in surplus value being completely worth it to give up a pick.

I don't know why you go to such greedy and arrogant lengths assuming both our 2013 first rounders will ever become Major Leaguers. The Rangers are projected at 87 wins right now. That's not enough to make the playoffs. With this scenario I invented for the purpose of discussion, the extra 3 wins come in handy.

If the Rangers signed Bourn to a pilllow contact they could potentially flip him at the all star break and get better value than the draft pick they would lose.

But I'm 15 Romro-What is your excuse ? Be a man! Or at least try .

Eric,

I can see why you view Mitch Moreland as a very average first baseman. However, it's not as if he's received the opportunity to play full-time; for the majority of his short career he's been used as a platoon player and has had some injuries. He's coachable, willing make adjustments, has a great attitude, and made improvements on defense, overall production, and hitting against LHP in 2012. If Mitch is going to solidify his spot at first base for a longer period of time, I'm curious to know what you think the expectations should be for his production and performance in 2013, as an everyday player.

Eric.
a - Let me note that we've been discussing whether signing Bourn would truly constitute a loss of a first round pick (whatever that's worth).
b - "Is a first-round pick worth hardly anything" is a different topic.
c - Your assertion and insults regarding what I think of that 2nd topic is therefore pure nonsense because I haven't addressed it.. Nowhere have I come anywhere close to saying that these (or any) first-rounders are assured of becoming major leaguers.

For the record, I think there are just as many flimsy holes in the arguments you just offered on that new topic, as on the old one we were discussing.

As for whether signing Bourn is WORTH that value (whatever it may be), that's yet a 3rd topic and one I haven't cared to discuss. I do know that: signing him will indeed cost a 1st rounder; that the first-rounder it costs will be worth as much as whatever any other low 1st-rounder is worth; and it will have more inherent "value" than a lower round pick, but as to how much value Bourn will or won't offer, it's so subjective that I don't care to argue either way.

Lot of emphasis being put on defense in this forum... Worst defensive team in baseball last year? Detroit Tigers: World Series participants.

Hitting (particularly slugging) has always outweighed defense in baseball. And, it always will. We don't need Bourn.

Defense is important, but not the end-all, be-all. The Rangers took a big hit defensively with Ian having an off year and Josh playing mostly CF and not doing a great job. Returning to elite defense this year would be very much appreciated.

All that said, I'm still not in favor of signing Bourn. Gentry is on par with him defensively, if not offensively. Martin might, possibly, be better offensively, if not defensively. Let the kids play.

Andy, If you really think defense does not matter please watch how much better our pitchers performed when they had Beltre at 3rd vs "Past a Diving" Michael Young.

Game, Set Match.

David, hitting alone does not get you any where, as a Rangers fan you should understand that if you are old enough to watching the powerful Rangers of the 90's getting steam rolled by the Yankees over and over.

Pitching and Defense wins games and wins the world series, yes Detroit got there with the big bats (and Verlander mind you) but they got swept by a team with no big bats. The dominated with stellar pitching and above average defense. And they were the same team that put the Rangers down in order in 2010.

Pitching and Defense with a ok offense can and will win a world series, San Fran Giants are living proof of that the last 2 of three years.

David,

I'm comfortable saying that we again shall agree to disagree. I just don't appreciate the hostility in your comments, because I keep it pretty goddamn cool with you.

David Draggle writes: Lot of emphasis being put on defense in this forum... Worst defensive team in baseball last year? Detroit Tigers: World Series participants.

Hitting (particularly slugging) has always outweighed defense in baseball. And, it always will. We don't need Bourn.

Detroit making the World Series is confirmation bias. They also got routed in the World Series by a far inferior offensive team. So there you go.

Baseball is 4 quantifiable aspects: pitching, defense, offense, base running (or team speed). Saying any of those is unimportant is a tad foolish, don't you think?

Andy writes: Gentry is on par with him defensively, if not offensively. Martin might, possibly, be better offensively, if not defensively. Let the kids play.

It's hard to compare a platoon outfielder like Gentry with a guy who's produced 20.1 fWAR over the last 4 years. Even if his defense appears on par, Michael Bourn has proved in it an everyday role. Craig Gentry will never be an every day player in Texas.

I agree with you on letting the kids play, but already anointing Gentry and Martin as (possibly) the CF equals of Bourn -- statistically the most valuable defenseman in baseball two of the last three years -- is a stretch.

Eric (if that was addressed to me)
If I used the wrong wording and it somehow came off as hostile rather than simply a STRONG disagreement to the quality of your analysis, it was not my intention and my apologies. There was bluntness in my response (because I do think the argument planks you're using are so weak as to be silly, and you're smart enough to think more precisely than that), but there was no hostility intended.

At the same time, I'd suggest you might examine your own behavior and apply the same standard to yourself that you expect of others, before you point fingers or cry foul next time. I'm not sure that "keeping it cool" would include throwing personal insults at others for positions they didn't offer on a topic they weren't even discussing, and I'm not sure that my "hostility" was anything more than pointing out a flimsy argument for what it is.

On topic ...
If you think Bourn MIGHT BE worth the cost, that's simply a matter of one opinion of his impact if signed versus another, and have at it. But
a - in a world where you don't have anywhere close to enough picks to get the players you want before someone else grabs them, the extra first-rounder DOES have value, none of which is eliminated by having another high pick, and that loss needs to be factored into the Bourn equation;
b - it's objectively wrong to assert that the likelihood of finding a jewel in the draft will not be diminished (and perhaps quite significantly) by giving up the highest pick you have in the draft, and that the odds of finding that jewel are best with that pick over any other; and
c - you having to rely on such easy-to-see-through arguments to make your case for Bourn must mean it's a weak idea.

To address a potential Bourn acquisition directly, personally I don't see great value for the Rangers in adding him. Even if he comes at a slight discount on a one-year deal, he still would cost their top pick (the loss of which will more than erase any potential "discount" from the deal), and he's still just a fast slap-hitting CFer who can steal bases and they have two more of those already who cost them nothing (extra) to utilize.

Gentry played less than half time each of the last two seasons and produced bWAR of 1.7 and 2.9 in such limited use. Double that to a full-time role and he offers 3.4 to 5.8. Bourn has been averaging almost 5.0. So just from a pure "better lineup" standpoint (ignoring all the cost issues) it takes a giant leap of "hope so" to think his addition can realistically assure an extra 3 wins or more over what they already have in place with Gentry your starter and Martin the platoonish developmental backup together filling CF. Gentry is a year younger than the 30-year-old Bourn and Martin is still a pup (25).

Going back to the original post, I have to agree with Eric. I like the idea of adding Bourn, especially on a one-year contract. Siging him for 4-6 years I am hesitant about. So the 1st Round draft pick is lost, but it could be regained if Bourn performs as usual and leaves as a Type A free agent after this season. I like the idea of having what I would consider a true leadoff hitter with Elvis behind him, and moving IK down to a run producing spot in the lineup.

I don't agree with those saying Gentry would be a 3.4-5.8 WAR player. I don't think you can just assume that a player will double his WAR if he plays twice as much. There are other factors to consider, such as the exposure he will get in a full time role which will allow the advance scouts to better prepare pitchers, and the wear and tear of a full time role for a player that's always been a reserve.

Eric---seems like we are grasping for topics doesn't it.
Sure Bourn would be an upgrade and i'd like to see him leadoff and i see cf as a defensive position.

But what if he had a great season---he would then be poised to sign a bigger contract and be gone.

His real "cost" would be the development of Martin.

It's obvious that the improvement of this team must come from within.
Early last season, even Wash said he expected Martin to be a big contributor--i think he even used the word force.
Madagan has said his potential is "limitless". And a 15 million dollar obligation says a lot.

I wish JD had said from the start that we believe in our kids and we are going to let them play!
I would have been thrilled.

Instead we were told that Grienke and Upton were targets.
Now i feel let down.
I've been back and forth on Bourn too.
Let's trust our scouts and FO and play the kids.

Terry,

Daniels does believe in our young players. if you remember he brought up Profar and Olt to not sit on the bench, but that is what they did because Wash does not trust them. He continued to roll out his guys win or lose. That was a big reason why Young needed to be traded because Wash was going to run him out for another 600+ at bats.

David writes: Gentry played less than half time each of the last two seasons and produced bWAR of 1.7 and 2.9 in such limited use. Double that to a full-time role and he offers 3.4 to 5.8. Bourn has been averaging almost 5.0. So just from a pure "better lineup" standpoint (ignoring all the cost issues) it takes a giant leap of "hope so" to think his addition can realistically assure an extra 3 wins or more over what they already have in place with Gentry your starter and Martin the platoonish developmental backup together filling CF. Gentry is a year younger than the 30-year-old Bourn and Martin is still a pup (25).

Speaking of fallacious logic.

Assuming a platoon outfielder potentially turns into a 6 WAR center fielder is beyond the realm of ridiculousness. If Craig Gentry was that player, the lowly David Murphy wouldn't have been cutting into his at bats last year. There's a damn good reason why Gentry is a 4th outfielder and why the Rangers have thus far limited his exposure to RHP, as Alan alluded to. Yes, he's an elite fielder. Yes, he's hit quite well in his small sample to LHP. But the statement you made in your above paragraph makes it sound like if Brandon Snyder had a good couple months hitting lefties, that you could extrapolate that production over an entire season. That's not the way WAR rolls.

Based on defense and SB's alone, yeah, I think Craig Gentry is a 2.0-2.5 WAR CF in 2013. But that's under the assumption he only nets 50-60 starts. Exposing him full-time to righties would absolutely kill his value to the team, because dude gets worked. He's not exceptional in the OBP department, hasn't proven he can consistently rake, and, as we all know, he can't steal bases if he's not on base.

"If you really think defense does not matter"

I didn't say that, and I don't think that. Here's what I said:

"Defense is important, but not the end-all, be-all"

In other words, offense is more important than defense (see 2012 Tigers), but defense should never be just written off. One of the reasons the Rangers did so well in 2011 was their defense, which was pretty great at almost every position.

Your witness.

"I agree with you on letting the kids play, but already anointing Gentry and Martin as (possibly) the CF equals of Bourn -- statistically the most valuable defenseman in baseball two of the last three years -- is a stretch."

Perhaps I should have capitalized the word "possibly". I realize it's far from a certainty. But what I said is true: Martin COULD, possibly, be on par with Bourn. Maybe. Gentry is already on par with him defensively, and offensively, IF you consider that he batted mostly against lefties. If Gentry doesn't play every day, but when he does, he's as effective as Bourn (based on UZR and wRC+ in 2012, he was) then he's holding up his part of the platoon. Then it's up to Martin to either hold up his part, or possibly become the everyday CF.

Just in case I wasn't clear, I do not think it's a slam dunk that the Gentry/Martin platoon will necessarily equal, much less exceed, the production Bourn brings. But as we've discussed many times before, the cost of getting the more proven player is probably not worth to the Rangers what it could be to a team that has nobody with any promise in CF.

Andy, I understand that line of reasoning, but Martin doing his part is a big, big question mark. If it works out really well, the two are probably equal to Bourn (perhaps slighly better). If they don't, we're in trouble...not only in 2013, but in 2014 and beyond as well.

I, for one, don't see why Martin can't be the fourth outfielder and backup all three positions to get playing time. Trade Gentry to that team with nothing going on in CF.

Who exactly are our backup COFs this year anyway? And who will be the starters next year? Will there be any 4-WAR OFs available to sign next year?

No, we're not. If they don't work out this year, reevaluate the situation next year.

The Rangers spent a few bucks on Martin; he's making significantly more than Gentry. If they sign Bourn, they're essentially giving up on Martin. Gentry probably wouldn't bring much in return. His best use is here is as a CF playing mostly against LHP and in defensive substitions later in the game.

Who exactly are our backup COFs this year anyway? And who will be the starters next year? Will there be any 4-WAR OFs available to sign next year?

Haven't seen the list, but from what I hear next year's FA class was even worse than this one, and this one sucked. That's why I was so high on Justin Upton, and why I gladly would have paid Nick Swisher what Cleveland got him for. We have Nelson Cruz and David Murphy coming off the books after this coming season, so we're left with 2 Major League OF's (Martin/Gentry). Or, to be more specific, we're left with one OF, and one 4th OF.

I'm not on board with either Olt or Moreland becoming OF's in 2014, or at any other point, for that matter. To me, it looks like Texas is going to load up for Giancarlo Stanton. But I could be wrong. Maybe they have hopes for Engel Beltre to to get a crack. Who knows.