The Rangers' Outfield Conundrum: Why Signing Marlon Byrd Is Risky
Would the Texas Rangers be subjecting themselves to undue risk in re-signing Marlon Byrd to a multi-year contract extension?I had mentally braced myself for a defeat. I could have handled a confluence of the worst possible baseball outcomes on Sunday afternoon. What I didn't expect -- and probably should have, in retrospect -- was an outright bullpen collapse with a five-run lead and just four outs standing between the Texas Rangers and an eminently successful home finale. No point in sugarcoating that dejecting finish.
Those of you solely interested in vilifying manager Ron Washington can obtain ammunition against the polarizing skipper from one of three sources, those being his decisions to (a) not supplant Chris Davis at third base with the more defensively proficient Omar Vizquel after the seventh inning, (b) stick with a clearly erratic Frank Francisco in the top of the ninth inning because "he's the team's closer," with disastrous results, and (c) not pinch-hit Josh Hamilton or Julio Borbon in place of an ice-cold and rarely utilized Andruw Jones to lead off the bottom of the ninth inning.
Yet in spite of that itemized list of perceived late-inning gaffes on the part of the manager, the generally reliable relief corps remains chiefly responsible for what transpired on the field ... and that brings me back to something I wrote nearly four months ago: "Much the same way that [Washington] has probably received too much blame for the past failings of the Rangers, he's probably about to receive too much credit for their newfound success." Yep.
Of far more consequence than Sunday's disaster is Washington's apparent infatuation with Marlon Byrd, whom the third-year manager would like to see re-signed this coming winter and presumably anointed the starting center fielder for as long as he was contractually tied to Texas. The movement to lock Byrd up reached its zenith this past weekend, during which Byrd went 4-for-9 with three home runs and three walks, and claims from the club presidency suggesting that the Rangers could afford to make Byrd a competitive offer only throw more cannisters of gasoline on the speculative flames.
There are several problems with this "Sign Byrd or else!" mentality, foremost among those being that he doesn't really fit the paradigm for a player whom you would be inclined to tender a multi-year contract towards: he's not exceptionally productive, he doesn't have much -- if any -- upside, he's on the wrong side of 30 and he primarily plays a position which most seem to believe will be the domain of Julio Borbon in the not-so-distant future.
"But," barks the devil's advocate, "he's an intangible-loaded leader of men, is a better bet to age gracefully than most due to his young-player skills and would nicely hedge the Rangers' bets against the possibility of Borbon faltering and/or Hamilton continuing to reside in the ballpark infirmary. How do you not re-sign Byrd?" A compelling argument, to be certain, but you don't commit upwards of $15-20 million -- yes, I believe he could net more than that in what is shaping up to be a lackluster free agent class for center fielders -- on the basis of a player's off-the-field qualities, no matter how valuable you might perceive them to be.
[On a related note, check out Sky Andrecheck's September 22nd article entitled "Can We Measure Clubhouse Chemistry?" for some thought-provoking commentary on the impact of players' clubhouse contributions. His hypothesis? "The maximum positive impact that any one person can have on morale and attitude is relatively small compared to the disruption and difficulty caused by a few bad apples." Something to think about.]
The major problem one encounters when trying to project Byrd's win value several years into the future is that his fairly unusual career trajectory leaves him with little precedent; after all, how many age-29 outfielders saddled with lengthy injury histories and dubious lifetime numbers suddenly break out with composite .295/.352/.467-caliber production over their next three seasons? Not many, I would wager. What bothers me is the impression that Byrd already enjoyed his career season (2008) and doesn't have much room to improve upon the 2.5-win player that he is right now, which renders him slightly above average -- nice, but hardly irreplaceable.
To synthesize all of that into one semi-coherent question, is it really prudent to commit big dollars to slightly above-average players with limited upside who are entering their age-32-and-beyond years? And even if it was, isn't it dangerous to rely upon such a player to remain average defensively at such a heavily speed-dependent position as center field?
Also consider that everyday employment of Byrd and Hamilton in center and right field, respectively, would likely precipitate a trade of Nelson Cruz, whom some in this organization inexplicably remain skeptical of, and largely restrict David Murphy and Julio Borbon to left field. I'll be candid in saying that I dislike this idea; first, Cruz is one of the absolute best players on the team and not nearly as easy to replace as some might think, and second, Borbon almost certainly won't hit enough to be a quality major league left fielder, whereas he stands a reasonable chance of evolving into a valuable commodity if he is allowed an extended opportunity in center field. Don't bet on him getting that in a timely manner if Byrd is re-signed.
In my mind, the realistic best-case scenario is the one where Byrd snags his huge payday from some other desperate club -- preferably in the National League, since I don't want to have to root for his early demise -- and a Hamilton/Borbon/Cruz outfield alignment becomes reality, with David Murphy intermittently spelling all three of his teammates and logging his customary 400 plate appearances in the process. All indications seem to suggest that the Rangers still harbor significant concern over Borbon's defensive reads and throwing mechanics, but I'll be borderline shocked if he doesn't prove capable of playing league-average or better defense in center field in very short order.
Perhaps I would be singing a materially different tune if my line of work took me through the Rangers' clubhouse daily and I was intimately familar with Byrd's commanding off-the-field presence. Perhaps I'm understating just how integral he is to the Rangers' success in ways that transcend the numbers. It's entirely possible. Statistically, however, he's a dicey proposition going forward, and while one can't help but appreciate the value that he has supplied for relatively little money over these last three years, I simply can't shake the feeling that whichever team ends up throwing big bucks at him just might end up regretting it.
Quick Hits: According to Jim Reeves of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, team president Nolan Ryan "might be out" if a Sandy Alderson- or Dennis Gilbert-led consortium were to claim majority ownership ... The Rangers drew 2,156,016 fans across 78 home dates during the 2009 regular season, denoting an 11 percent spike in attendance relative to 2008 ... Third baseman Michael Young (strained left hamstring) expects to return to the Rangers' lineup for Monday evening's series opener in Anaheim ... Shortstop Omar Vizquel, the ageless 42-year-old wonder, plans to continue playing through at least 2010 ... Follow Baseball Time in Arlington on Twitter and/or Facebook.
19 Comments | in Analysis, Game Recaps, Rumors, The Season
Reader Comments (19)
We've seen this act before. Dave Dellucci, Gary Mathews, Roberto Kelly, etc.. Similarly aged outfielders who come to Texas and use the Ballpark/Rudy to post their career years and get a big contract elsewhere. Don't break the bank for Byrd and if they feel that strongly about him, bring him back in 3 years to end his career as a Ranger.
I think you are right about what Byrd will get in free agency. I think the Rangers should spend that money somewhere else. Borbon will be the CF next year and he will surprise people with his defense.
Well articulated post JM. I tend to value guys like Byrd myself, but the business side demands a level thought process that weights on field performance to clubhouse presence at least on a 90-10 at best variable in my view. Throw in the virtually certain diminishing rate of return, the compromise to financial flexibility, and the fact that any of the other 4 outfielders can and should provide same level on field impact as Byrd, and the decision should be an easy one. It's a clear no-go in my book.
Keep in mind as well that there will be other Byrd's out there. Texas has been an attractive option for them in the past and look for that to continue. In fact, that may be a good topic for a future post. Who's out there, that would be the most attractive of those type guys to replace Byrd on this roster?
I followed your link to the article on chemistry and posted a thought about how Ian Kinsler, as great a chemistry guy as he is (and really my favorite player on the team, even with all his pop-ups this season), had one rare moment where he let his own disappointment in his performance spill over the line, and I think it directly contributed to MY's injury and the team's imminent elimination from the playoff chase. There have been several cases where Ranger players' attitudes/habits have been seen to be destructive to the team's chances of posting a winning season (A-Fraud, Tex, Ponson, MB, Padilla). I certainly buy into the value of that player who wants nothing more than to help his team win in any way possible, whether its schooling the youngsters, or listening intently to those who can help you be your best, or building rapport with some of the more surly members of the roster. I think Bradley this yr has REALLY missed Kinsler's outgoing, inclusive banter. I only hope Ian can continue to produce that infectious camaraderie with his inspiring attitude while he deals with some mighty high expectations placed on him by himself, the press, and fans like me.
True or False? Marlon Byrd has been worth more wins to his team in 2009 than Bradley was in 2008? Do you really need to consult statistics to know how TRUE that is, especially given the fact his old team HAS WON MORE GAMES without MB, and his new team has won fewer than last yr? Sure, sure, there are a lot of other factors in play, but winners find a way to win against similarly-talented, or even better, opposition.
And of course, chemistry isn't just provided by players. Coaches and even front-office types can contribute. If Maddux and his superb communication abilities gets away from the Rangers' brass last fall without signing his name on that contract, how much confidence exists within the young pitching staff going into this season?
I always find it amusing, as much as I hate the Yankees, that they haven't won a single WS title since Paul O'Neil and Scott Brosius retired. Think about that, with all the talent they have running out to their positions night in, night out...8 seasons, approaching $2B cumulatively in payroll...zero rings. O'Neil and Brosius will never be brought up in conversations about the Hall of Fame or the All-Time Yankee Greats, but they came to the park wanting badly to win and didn't care if they ended up with a little mud on their pants or blood on their jerseys while making it happen. To me, if winning isn't the only thing on your mind, you aren't giving your team its best chance to win. That, in a nutshell, is why guys like Milton and Vicente aren't going to ever hang around very long with any team looking to contend for championships. Guys like them are too selfish to contribute everything they have inside themselves toward getting that ring for their fans and teammates and themselves.
I wonder if Paul and/or Scott might be available to speak to the team in Surprise next Spring? I bet they could get the team really fired up about their chances of going all the way in 2010!
Marlon Byrd would be missed but I get what you're saying. "Dude" also makes a good point. You could really go either way with this argument.
It is almost always a bad idea to sign a veteran player to a multi-year contract immediately after a career year performance. A. Stephens is right - guys who have the potential to do what Byrd did this year are usually available as second-tier free agents or trade targets - after all, that's how Texas got him.
There's really no reason to bring Byrd back. He'll command too much money, and he's -- as you put quite well -- on the wrong side of 30 and simply isn't an upper-echelon player. Some of the same people who gripe and complain about Young's contract clamor for Byrd to be brought back. I just don't get it... appreciate what Byrd has done while here and hope he gets the payday that he rightly deserves -- just hope it isn't from the Rangers.Take the supp pick, plug Borbon into CF and have Boggs or Golson or Gentry or whoever as the 5th OF. It's pretty simple...
Besides, going with (almost) all young players is probably the only way Wash will play them. From Broussard to Blalock to Jones -- the unbelievable reliance of Wash on bad vets is becoming just too frustrating to deal with.
Its not that I disagree with the logic of this post, but it is so obviously a bean counter argument that I have very little joy in my agreement.
Yeah - what they do or don't do with Byrd is small potatoes. I'm more interested in what they do/not do with Lackey, Sheets, Salty, Franky, Millwood, etc.
Someone can't be playing regularly from the group of Byrd, Borbon, Hamilton and Cruz. So who do we move, or in Byrd's case, allow to leave? Well, it can't be Hamilton -- injured as he was, we would never get true value for him in a trade. I also think he's still the fan favorite out of the four. And I think we have to hold on to Borbon. We've seen enough to know the upside he brings. So that leaves two. Do you want Cruz or Byrd? I think you have to stay committed with Cruz, again based on potential. I think we have seen the best that Byrd can be; I don't think we have seen the best Cruz can be. Keep in mind, it's not like we would be forcing Byrd to leave. If he agreed to stay for a more modest sum, I'm sure that the Rangers would like to have all four guys. But if he has to have the amounts Joey mentioned, I think we have to let him find it elsewhere and give him our best wishes.
Great post (as usual), Dude. Personally, I would love to see the Byrd of 2009 here for the next 3-4 years. But alas, he'd more likely be the GMJr of 2009... (Wrong side of 30? Half his luck! I'm the wrong side of 60...) so here I have to agree with A. Stevens. We should be beating the bushes for the next Byrd (Please note - I did not say we should be giving Bush the bird...). The Rangers reclamation projects of the past few years have, for the most part, been pretty successful. Even Jones looked pretty good for a while! Ron Washington has been critiscised for relying too heavily on his veteran players, and so he does. But isn't this an integral part of baseball? Why else would an organisation give a player over about 27 (peak performance year?) a big money, long term contract? But just about every team does it, even when they can't afford it.
"Yeah - what they do or don't do with Byrd is small potatoes. I'm more interested in what they do/not do with Lackey, Sheets, Salty, Franky, Millwood, etc."
I think those latter four names will all figure prominently into the off-season discussion, but from the perspective of Hicks Sports Group, saddling the organization with another $60M+ in debt by signing Lackey would probably be counterintuitive as far as maximizing the franchise's sale price.
I think you just answered your own question Joey, there will be no money to offer Bryd or any other FA. I think JD will spend most of the winter looking for another Bryd type to bring in as a NRI this spring, I also think that is how he'll rebuild the bull pen also.
Right on, Joey,
"...maximizing the franchise's sale price." And isn't that what it's really all about?
But also jwtyler,
"...JD will spend most of the winter looking for another Bryd type to bring in..."[sic] and that can increase the value of the franchise also. Again, it's only about money, but at least it can be about improving the club also.
Byrd? Warning to all... remember GMJ? Love Marlon, but let him go get his big payday elsewhere. If he's still here in April, I'll still love the guy then too.
"...If he's still here in April, I'll still love the guy then too", but not more than a top-of-the-rotation pitcher.
"I think you just answered your own question Joey, there will be no money to offer Bryd or any other FA. I think JD will spend most of the winter looking for another Bryd type to bring in as a NRI this spring, I also think that is how he'll rebuild the bull pen also."
I think you're on the right track with this line of thought; that said, I could see somebody like free agent-to-be Omar Vizquel being retained with another $1M-type deal, given that Jose Vallejo has been jettisoned, Joaquin Arias is probably destined to be cut during this winter's round of 40-man roster pruning and Esteban German hasn't distinguished himself as a reliable defender. The utility infielder cup doth not floweth over.
Suffice it to say that I'm very interested in how much financial latitude Daniels is given insofar as pursuing potentially helpful free agents this winter -- Byrd included. And when Nolan is insisting that the Rangers can make Byrd a competitive offer, exactly how "competitive" are we talking? Like three years and $15 million, with the deal being structurally backloaded? Something more than that? Something less than that?
There's been some talk about how the Rangers' apparent lack of financial flexibility isn't really that deleterious because, well, there aren't really any free agents Texas should be aiming to go after. And that may be true. The flaw in that logic is that financial flexibility is very important when the opportunity to swing an impact trade falls in your lap, but you need some payroll room to accommodate the contract coming back your way. There's a reasonable chance that such a potential deal will drift into Daniels' field of vision this winter, and if it's money that chiefly inhibits the deal's completion (and not the cost in talent, as was the case with Roy Halladay), the grousing around these parts is going to become very, very loud.
One thing that could help the
Rangeres is if the whole FA market collapes bringing down prices for everyone. The best plan could be to offer Byrd arb and wait for the market to fall and then get him on the cheap and for a one year deal that gives Borbon time to develope.
The winter market will probably be depressed to some extent by the economic challenges currently facing baseball, but I'm going to have to assume that some team is going to look at Byrd's quietly productive résumé, his penchant for clubhouse leadership, his decent (if not spectacular) outfield defense, and respond by committing at least two years to him.
In fact, he's probably the best viable center fielder (and by "viable," I mean capable of actually handling the position with some level of proficiency) in a relatively weak free agent market for center fielders. There's going to be some sort of market for him, and that's why I strongly doubt he would accept the Rangers' overtures to go to arbitration.
You forgot the 4th late inning Washington gaffe of not pinch running for Davis in the ninth after he got to first (Gentry was on the bench). Unforgivable. The guy is the WORST in-game manager in baseball