Andy, why can't Martin play backup time this year and take over LF or RF next season?

Martin doesn't need to play backup. He destroyed the minor leagues. He played backup for a little while in 2012. He's gotten his feet wet; now is the time for him to prove he can swim. He needs to be given the chance to play pretty regularly (I'd say 4-5 times a week, or basically, most times against RHP and occasionally against LHP) and either he'll do well or he won't. But the time is now.

There is no argument that Bourn can, should or will be hired/signed, for any amount of money or time.
Bourn dosen't fit into either scenario of "win now" or, if the present team fails and the Rangers become sellers,
Bourn is not considered a fit in a youth movement or even a virtual fit of salary. Bourn is a double square peg,
This is a mere short relative mind game, that fills space into a dying or bored forum. You can't build around him,
nor is his WAR going to be enough to offset Martin/Gentry's combined input. Bourn's basically-"Three Card Monty".

Look, there's a lot more certainty to Bourn's performance than the Gentry/Martin combo. So if you want to roll with the platoon, at least understand it's more of a risk (performance-wise), and the upside versus Bourn is minimal (next season, anyway). Bringing Bourn in costs more but provides more certainty. I can see a number of scenarios in which Bourn and Martin both get plenty of playing time next season, though we wouldn't be relying on the almost-completely-unknown quantity (Martin) as much.

I believe there's merit in both options.

Far too many questions throughout the line up, to make Bourn a viable choice of upgrade.
Murphy maintain a 2013 trek? Martin a true MLB'r 2014? Cruz healthy and a cornerstone?
I can goe through the whole filed of play and state that Elvis & Beltre are the only solid checcks.
Bourn is not a differense maker. He does not make the team better. Rent-a-player at best.
Angel Beltre will make the team before Bourn does. Some can tweak & spin a Bourn scenario
any way you want, but he'sw not a viable positive difference maker. He's a waste of time/money.
Like I said: Bourn= a "Three Card Monty". $10+mm/one year or more can be better spent, duh.

Bourn is kind of a fit here. We could use a known quantity CF. What makes Bourn not a fit here is the presence of a Gentry/Martin platoon that should be good for at least 3-4 WAR and the loss of the first round pick and the slot money it represents. The math just doesn't add up. If we could sign him for 2-3 years I think we would seriously consider it. Bourn won't want to sign for 2 and definitely not for 3. The Rangers won't sign him for 1 because the costs are just too high.

So in the long run i just don't see a fit. We are talking about 15 million for a 1-2 win upgrade, on the top side, and the loss of 1+ million of signing pool. It just doesn't seem like something that this front office will do. I think we would be more likely to see some big and unexpected trade then the signing of Bourn.

^This.

Well said.

Bourn will not improve the Rangers sufficient to justify his salary. Other than his incontrovertible fielding skill, Bourn does to fit Arlington. The ballpark rewards power and Bourn lacks it.

I also am skeptical that Bourn’s base running game will play as well in Arlington than it has in Atlanta. There has been some discussion here about the Rangers returning to its aggressive base running roots. The storied aggressiveness may be a myth, and if not, what aggressiveness employed in 2012 was unsuccessful.

I do not know how to parse and interpret base running statistics ex-SBs, but it is easy to compare stolen base efficiency. Consider the following:

2012/SB 91/CS 44/Attempts 135/Success Rate 67.4%
2011/SB 143/CS 45/Att 188/SR 76.1%
2010/SB 123/CS 48/Att 171/SR 72.0%

Compare these rates with that of the success rates for MLB and the AL:

2012 MLB 74.0%
2012 AL 75.0%
2011 MLB 74.3%
2011 AL 72.1%
2010 MLB 72.4%
2010 AL 75.0%

A success rate of 67% is essentially breakeven. As for the return to aggressiveness, only in 2011 did the Rangers execute better than the league averages. Perhaps this comparison is marred by its small sample size, but my 2012 eye test convinces me otherwise. My recollection of 2012 base running is a series of miscues: 1B/3B coaching errors, Kinsler pick offs, and very poor situational bunting. Kinsler and Gentry, in particular, had poor SB seasons. Before the team invests in a small ball running game, or any type of aggressive running game, it needs to determine what went wrong in 2012 and decide if it can be fixed. In the meantime, an investment in Bourn may not deliver the return expected of him.

Hey Eric, you didn't answer my question...

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.

I mentioned this earlier in the thread, that's why I didn't respond to you directly. Basically, with over 1,000 PA's and nearly 2,000 innings played at 1st base in the field, we have a pretty clear picture of who Moreland really is. His career UZR is -1.4, and his career wRC+ is an even 100. His cumulative WAR in three years is 1.6.

That's average.

It's not so much a matter of him not being a solid enough player vs. RHP; it's that he has proven he can't hit lefties. If you make him an everyday 1B, how many starts to you give him against lefties before deciding enough is enough? Through April? May? June?

However much time you give him is taking away starts from better offensive options. We saw last year just how much of a hole one player can dig himself in our lineup. FanGraphs said Michael Young was worth -1.4 fWAR last year. But in the grand scheme, when you figure he batted in the heart of our lineup mostly the entire season, that's 4-5 at bats per game he was taking away from someone who could have helped determine the outcome of the game. All it takes is one plate appearance.

So when considering Moreland vs. LHP, consider the effect Michael Young had last year. It's the same type of issue. Also, to reiterate, Mitch Moreland is not young and projectable. He's already in his prime.

With all the work Mitch is putting into hitting lefties right now, I think he deserves a shot at playing most days, including against LHP, especially since there's really no one else that's a clear upgrade from him. No, I'm not expecting him to turn into Prince Fielder. Not even close. But he doesn't have to make that much of an improvement in order to be worthwhile as an everyday player.

But he doesn't have to make that much of an improvement in order to be worthwhile as an everyday player.

I suppose, but that just depends on your definition of worthwhile. When I think of worthwhile, I consider that to be above replacement level. The fact that Mitch Moreland has almost exclusively started games vs. RHP and hasn't been a heck of a lot better than a replacement, it can be argued that he's already not worthwhile.

I like Mitch, but I see sports as black and white. Anyone can be replaced at any time. If he doesn't significantly prove himself vs. LHP in the small sample of, say, April, then it's time to keep him in his natural fit as a platoon 1B.

And to be honest, I'd like to see Mitch Moreland moved at some point between 2013 and the start of 2014. No need to pay him more than the league minimum he's making right now. Not worth it.

Eric--i hope you're wrong about Mitch Morelands future here. This is definitely his make or break season.
I think his talent and work ethic will win out.

I remember him coming up in late July '10 and started hitting tough pitchers-- in the clutch.
Seems to me he was our toughest out --hitting in the 9 hole.
He was a rookie hero in our most dramatic season--pennant and World Series.
Mariano Rivera couldnt get him out. Phil Hughes called him our toughest out.
He hit a home run in that series--i believe off a left handed pitcher.
That's why many of us have so much love for him.

Mitch had a bad wrist injury in "11 and pulled a hamstring last year.

I think he's a good defensive player with plus power.
It looks like pitchers have made adjustments to him--found the weakness in his swing.
He has to make an adjustment now.
I think he's capable of 25 hr's if he can stay in the line up.
After losing Josh,Nap and Cruz--we need some pop.

I don't think the Rangers will wait forever for Mitch to hopefully reach his potential. But right now I don't see a lot of upgrade options from free agency or trade. It's possible one materializes during the season, I suppose. Right now I think he's easily best choice we have to start the season.

Agreed, Andy. I think this is a make-or-break season for Mitch.

Eric, so are you basically against the front office's decision to allow Moreland to be the everyday first baseman, at least to open the 2013 season? Like Terry C said, I hope he proves you wrong and shows what he's really made of.

I think we give Moreland a short set of ABs. AFter those ABs I think we probably end up seeing someone like Brandon Snyder taking the ABs vs LHP at 1b.

The question is if Moreland is going to be average against LHP can't you likely find someone who is going to be better then average to play at 1b for those games. We are going to have to scrape up offense this year, and 1b is a place where we can easily run a platoon to get additional offense.

his WAR is largely based on unreliable defensive metrics. although he can steal bases, he can't hit and he'd be a trivial upgrade over gentry or martin.

Defensive metrics are reliable, just not for catchers.

Eric--i hope you're wrong about Mitch Morelands future here. This is definitely his make or break season. / I think this is a make-or-break season for Mitch.

@Terry @SilverSlugger

So, don't you think it's a bit of a red flag if you guys are saying this is a make or break season? By saying this, aren't the both of you proving my point for me?

For guys I believe in -- which are players whom actually produce, or show signs of production -- there isn't a make or break season. There's an expectation that you assume will be fulfilled.

I remember him coming up in late July '10 and started hitting tough pitchers-- in the clutch.
Seems to me he was our toughest out --hitting in the 9 hole.
He was a rookie hero in our most dramatic season--pennant and World Series.

1. What does "clutch" mean? How can you quantify it in relation to 2010 while facing "tough pitchers"?
2. He wasn't our toughest out. He was hitting in the 9-hole, so he was probably our easiest out.
3. What about what he did was worthy of the title "hero"?

I think he's a good defensive player with plus power.

4. What evidence do you have that he's a "good" defensive player?

It looks like pitchers have made adjustments to him--found the weakness in his swing.
He has to make an adjustment now.

5. Uh, duh. That's baseball.

Anyway, I'm curious what the Mitch Moreland apologists have to say.

Mitch Moreland has shown signs of production. Not enough to your liking, I guess. I'm glad the front office agrees with me, and not you.

The front office actually agrees with Andy in that we don't have a better option, not you.

eric--as much as you've already got every detail of this season figured out--down to the exact win total-87?

I think we should play the games anyway.

Bourn will not be in the best interest of the Rangers. If Cruz were to be suspended what we would need is a corner OF and we already have internal candidates for that. Olt or Moreland could play RF. We could trade for Soriano (@$5M/yr) but he would be the 4th option. Kinsler could go to 1B or the OF where ever he feels the gmost comfortable, then Profar would be on 2B (this would be option C as I would prefer him to start in AAA for one obvious reason)
So Olt in RF would gmake the best sense.
That way we save that $ for any starter or power bat that becomes available by the All-Star game.

Mitch Moreland has shown signs of production. Not enough to your liking, I guess. I'm glad the front office agrees with me, and not you.

eric--as much as you've already got every detail of this season figured out--down to the exact win total-87?

I think we should play the games anyway.

@Slug @Terry

I'm taking these statements as both of your concessions speeches because you have no credible data to use in defense of Mitch Moreland. Rather than attacking the topic, you attack the person whom you disagree with.

That isn't how you succeed in arguments.

Mitch isn't a lost cause yet. But I seriously doubt Mitch will be the opening day 1B in 2014, if not in August, if he doesn't have some marked improvement - especially against LHP. I think "make or break" is a legitimate way to describe Mitch's situation.