"Of course, I can believe that dumbass Eric Reining's view that he is just a platoon player, or I can believe Bill James who has him ranked as the 10th best LF in MLB right now."

lol

Of course, I can believe that dumbass Eric Reining's view that he is just a platoon player, or I can believe Bill James who has him ranked as the 10th best LF in MLB right now.

I mean, sure, we can all build water crafts out of newspapers and float to fantasy island to come kick it with you, but personally I'm more inclined not to waste the effort.

You have no evidence to suggest (a) last season was not a fluke, (b) that he can somehow sustain a .433 BABIP against lefties, (c) that Texas is interested in shelling out 3 years for a 4th outfielder, or (d) that David Murphy would take less money to stay with the Rangers when he's more valuable elsewhere.

I can freely name 30 corner outfielders I'd rather have than Murph.

Write out the list, and tell me how many of them are going to be available in FA next year.

tell me how many of them are going to be available in FA next year.

Has nothing to do with my statement.

1. Trout
2. Hamilton
3. Heyward
4. Upton (Justin)
5. Harper
6. Cargo
7. Reddick
8. Hunter
9. Bruce
10. Ethier
11. Swisher
12. Stanton
13. Gordon
14. Myers
15. Braun
16. Pagan
17. Werth
18. Bautista
19. Cabrera (Melky)
20. Holliday
21. Beltran
22. Soriano
23. Parra
24. Even Carl Crawford
25. Cespedes
26. Pence
27. Starling Marte
28. Willingham
29. Nelson Cruz

In good conscience, I could only name 29, but that's not the point.

I concede that Murphy will probably be extended a year, but that doesn't mean I would do it. I know you are a David Murphy lover and a Nelson Cruz hater, but still.

Give me a valid argument why the Rangers should give 3 years to a 4th outfielder.

Murphy has been relatively consistent since 2008, and with Ian's tip on if not crowding the plate at least get closer to it, may a major difference especially with lefties. So 2012 was not a fluke, it was not even his best run producing season of his career. His numbers against lefties was high, and may not again be duplicated. But he is a solid second tier LF, however, unless Martin has a major breakthrough , outfield is the Rangers' weakest link. The extension, if signed will be done by Opening Day. If not at least 3 years and a reasonable $7m a year, it is unlikely that Murphy would sign because he could do better in free agency, especially the tendency to over pay at that phase.

In all likelihood, Murphy can do way better than 3/27 in free agency. If Shane Victorino made 3/39, Murphy is at the worst worth 3/33 or 3/36.

You can only name 29 better corner outfielders in a universe where 60 Corner outfielders positions are open. Yet he is just a platoon outfielder. Gotcha.

The reason the Rangers would give a multi year contract to Murphy is the same reason they'd give a multiyear contract to anyone. They figure it is the best option of the available options. The Rangers have no COFs in the pipeline for the forseeable future, and the list of available FAs is atrocious.

It really doesn't matter if Mike Trout, for example, is a better outfielder when there isn't a snowball's chance in hell he will be a Ranger. I think there is a good chance the Rangers lock down one of their COFs, and I suspect they'll go with the one who won't suffer from the new blood tests for HGH.

He can't defend his points, so he instead attacks the poster.

Yep, looks like typical Cahill logic.

I think you are misinterpreting the points I'm making about David Murphy. I don't disagree with this statement: They figure it is the best option of the available options, but I think you are slightly neglecting the business angle to this, which you reference by basically saying our Minor League OF talent stinks, and that the 2014 free agent crop is also poor. I concur with each of those assessments.

However, what is more valuable to you? -- is the question. Would you rather pay David Murphy $8-$9 million apiece in 2013 and 2014, or would you rather find two scrubs making significantly less money who could contribute roughly the same amount of wins? Whether Texas is about to be rolling in the cash or not, I tend to lean a little further towards saving the money and letting him go. If you are going to gamble, you bet it on someone with a bigger upside than David Murphy.

Honestly, we could play guys like Engel Beltre and Joey Butler, but only if we absolutely needed to. Unless it's a superstar of the Harper/Heyward ilk (which isn't going to happen), or Gioncarlo Stanton (who may or may not someday happen), the Rangers can live with Martin and Gentry as their outfield constants. Neither of our corner outfielders are essential to the franchise like Darvish is, or Kinsler, or Beltre, or Profar. I will lose very little sleep if Murph is out of the organization in 2014.

But to tie this up in an intelligible bow, I'm saying I'd rather pay 2 platoon outfielders (whether from the farm or free agency) at pennies on the dollar to make up for Murphy's production.

David Murphy is expendable.

But can you afford to have platoons at 2 spots? That takes up 5 spots of primarily outfielders, as opposed to 4. The Rangers had 5 OFs most of 2011, but 4 for most of 2012. Murphy was not a platoon OFer in 2012. In fact, he was more than halfway to an all-star. He deserves the chance to do that again.

I'm sorry if you've already written his season last year off as something he is 100% unlikely to replicate, but it seems the Rangers aren't quite so pessimistic. I don't think he should be extended at $10+m/yr, but I would like to see him here longer if he comes anywhere close to 2012. Acknowledging the small sample size is a part of him committing to continuous improvement.

"In all likelihood, Murphy can do way better than 3/27 in free agency. If Shane Victorino made 3/39, Murphy is at the worst worth 3/33 or 3/36."

Exactly. That's not what 4th outfielders make. By this assertion, you are suggesting he will be paid like an everyday guy.

"The reason the Rangers would give a multi year contract to Murphy is the same reason they'd give a multiyear contract to anyone. They figure it is the best option of the available options. The Rangers have no COFs in the pipeline for the forseeable future, and the list of available FAs is atrocious."

This. This is the reason to give Murphy the benefit of the doubt if you think there's a chance he can come anywhere close to replicating his 2012 season. All the best OFs that don't come with substantial risk, high ceilings with low floors that will likely be paid closer to their ceilings (e.g. Ellsbury), are locked up for a while. If we don't want Cruz back (and I'm skeptical, mostly because of the defense), that leaves guys like Granderson and Pence that will likely be overpaid because of their power, but also with significant defense questions as they'll be on the wrong side of 30 (or, basically, the same class as Cruz). Murphy will likely cost half what those guys will, and his floor is probably higher than 50% of their production.

Basically, if you don't want Murphy, you're either counting on guys like Butler to step it up to Murphy's level, or you're looking at a bunch of guys that are basically similar to him (and of those, why shouldn't you pick him?) or guys that have power and mediocre to bad defense but will cost substantially more than Murphy.

Remember when the Rangers considered moving Ian to 1B? That probably isn't the best idea, but it's not the worst either, because there are just no good 1Bs available for easy acquisition, and it's possible that our team is better with Ian at 1B and Profar at 2B than Moreland at 1B and Ian at 2B. In absence of available upgrades, you gotta do with what you got. We gots Murphy, and we ain't getting a Trout. We probably won't get a Stanton, either.

That's why Murphy isn't really expendable.

Murphy would have been a good trade chip this past winter if we'd not be in such a dearth of COF at the moment. Generally you want to sell high, and Murphy's stock has never been higher.

Maybe that's why Towers was stockpiling them.

I find your logic incorrect because you're implying Towers was doing something right.

...but yes, he was--for the same reason we (proposed) trading Elvis this off season.

This. This is the reason to give Murphy the benefit of the doubt if you think there's a chance he can come anywhere close to replicating his 2012 season.

I only give the benefit of the doubt to people who have proven to be good (Kinsler, Cruz) but are coming off bad seasons, rather than someone like Murphy coming off an aberration season. FanGraphs and Bill James each project roughly 2.5 WAR from Murphy in 2013. I think that's pretty accurate. In my opinion, you don't commit the money until he proves it. I'd say through June should give us a decent idea if he can continue hitting lefties. If the Rangers invest 2-3 years and Murphy is pre-2012 Murphy vs. LHP, then I'd view his contract as a mistake. (I mean, unless we got him at some ridiculously favorable deal, say, $7 million AAV.)

Let's just keep it real: If David Murphy can't hit lefties, does that not make him a platoon outfielder? 4-5 at bats a game against someone you can't hit will sink a lineup and cost the team games over the long haul. Just look at Michael Young last year.

I just have no reason to believe his .433 BABIP vs. LHP will ever stand up again. If I'm wrong, pay the man. But not until he shows it.

I agree with that. He himself admitted it was a small sample size. A .433 BABIP is ridiculous, so I'm not expecting that again. But he could still prove to be a solid everyday player, especially, as we noted earlier, given that the pickings for COFs are pretty darn slim. If that happens, he'll be a steal if he costs < $10m/yr.

Here's hoping.