Would free-agent outfielder Pat Burrell (pictured) be a good fit with the Texas Rangers? - Scott Ableman/Flickr.comThe potential long-range consequences of Mark Teixeira's $180 million defection to the Bronx may not become readily apparent for months (or even years) to the greater populace of Major League Baseball, but insofar as the Texas Rangers are concerned, nothing better encapsulates the immediate impact of the off-season's most lucrative signing than this sage remark from venerable hitting oracle Rudy Jaramillo:

"I'll just tell you one thing -- I'm just glad he's out of our division now."

I'll drink to that.

Originally setting out to tackle a wide array of Rangers-related topics but falling miserably short due to time constraints, this morning's edition of notes will be singularly focused on an odd tidbit of speculation published by FOXSports.com's Ken Rosenthal earlier this week:

One slugger to watch: Pat Burrell. The Rays could sign either Burrell or Jason Giambi if Bradley lands with the Cubs. The Mariners also like Burrell, and the Rangers could view him as an option if they do not trade for the Tigers' Gary Sheffield. The Reds have publicly stated an interest in Burrell, but he likely will rise out of their price range.

We already hashed out the many reasons why Sheffield would be such an inexorably poor fit with the Rangers earlier this week (injured, expensive, not productive, a jerk, etc.), but the idea of Pat Burrell landing in Texas's wheelhouse is a trifle more intriguing -- and, as a consequence, deserving of further exploration.

The ever-formidable FanGraphs, created and run by David Appelman and staffed by a smorgasbord of excellent stat-oriented writers, has fast developed into one of my "go-to" baseball websites, and the Christmas Eve unveiling of replacement value sections on the player pages belonging to major league hitters represents yet another tremendous step in the right direction for the sabermetric realm.

By combining an assortment of variables (including offensive and defensive runs above average and other peripheral adjustments), we can easily calculate just how many runs a given player was worth above replacement level (i.e. waiver wire-caliber talent) in a given season, convert that figure into wins above replacement level, and then affix a dollar amount based on the number of wins that player contributed. Easy enough, right? No? Well, I'll be incorporating the concept into my often incoherent Rangers ramblings more frequently going forward, so perhaps the uninitiated will eventually come to embrace it. Or not.

Getting back to the overriding point, Burrell -- a "three true outcomes" kind of guy if there ever was one -- would no doubt supplement the Rangers with the right-handed power bat they appear to covet so desperately, but at what price? You don't want to insert the lumbering 32-year-old slugger at his native position (left field) unless you have absolutely no other choice, because Burrell is one of the worst defensive left fielders in the game, registering at an unsightly 20 plays below average defensively in 2008 and 73 plays below average over the last three seasons (according to John Dewan's plus/minus defensive evaluation system), and would almost certainly cost the Rangers at least 10 runs in the field, if not many more than that. That's nothing short of deplorable, and would act as a detriment to what the Rangers are presumably attempting to accomplish first and foremost in 2009, which is improve the pitching staff and the defense.

Now that we've established that Burrell would essentially be restricted to one position -- designated hitter, which does nothing to improve the team's offensive or defensive flexibility, and in fact necessitates the trade of Hank Blalock -- in Texas, there's the question of just how much value his bat would provide. Neither of the two player forecasting systems currently available on FanGraphs (Bill James or Marcels) project Burrell's offense as being more than 18 or 19 runs above league average in 2009, but I suspect that may be a bit on the conservative side to begin with, so we'll round up to 20 runs for convenience's sake.

Assuming that he would rack up something in the neighborhood of 600 plate appearances isn't too terribly far-fetched, either (he's notched 567, 598 and 645 plate appearances in his last three seasons in Philadelphia, equating to an average of 603), and his abhorrent defense is removed from the equation entirely, but he's also soundly penalized for playing exclusively as a designated hitter (see Tom Tango's positional adjustments table for more information on that).

The net result? After a bit of rudimentary arithmetic, Burrell projects as being worth roughly 22 or 23 runs above replacement level in 2009, or approximately 2.2 to 2.3 wins -- the epitome of a $10 million player, which he is almost certain to nab in spite of the glut of power-hitting corner outfielders presently on the market. That, however, accounts for only 2009, and a multi-year deal aggregated with offensive regression would almost certainly spell disaster in terms of pure "bang for the buck."

Furthermore, there are strong indications that, given a similar number of plate appearances, the Rangers could concoct a homemade solution at designated hitter (perhaps comprising Max Ramirez, Jarrod Saltalamacchia and/or the presumptive fourth outfielder, likely David Murphy) that would provide roughly comparable value at a fraction of the price.

Ramirez, in particular, seemingly finds himself entrenched behind Saltalamacchia and Taylor Teagarden on the organizational catching depth chart at the moment, and I can think of far worse ways to utilize the 700 or so plate appearances that the designated hitter's spot in the batting order would entail than by throwing the bulk of them at a remarkably talented young hitter, albeit a hitter of questionable defensive repute whose long-term prospects behind the plate don't seem terribly bright.

What am I saying? In essence, that the Rangers shouldn't regard the addition of a right-handed power bat as a major off-season priority. There is most certainly room for improvement in that regard (and definitely at third base, but we'll save that discussion for later), but throwing a two-year, $20 million contract in the direction of Burrell simply because he would address a perceived lineup imbalance is, well ... no smarter than taking on Sheffield's albatross-like contract for that exact same reason. Burrell is years younger and was light-years more productive with the stick than Sheffield was in 2008, but in these perilious economic times and under these stifling payroll constraints, Texas cannot afford to throw big money at small problems.

Only the Yankees can do that.

Enjoy Black Friday II.