Rangers Roster Ruminations
How much longer can sinkerballer Luis Mendoza ride the 40-man roster bubble? In the past few weeks, the Texas Rangers have traded three minor leaguers who were candidates to be on the team's off-season 40-man roster. Getting Pudge for a playoff run and a high-upside pitching prospect for a collection of minor leaguers who project as major league backups or relievers is an absolute win in my book, but the two trades do have me scratching my head because the Rangers' front office seems to be actively clearing the back end of the team's 40-man roster. Not I am not much of a conspiracy theorist, but I do like a good mystery, so bear with me as I don my Sherlock Holmes hat.
THE KEY EVIDENCE
Barring unforeseen calamity, the 30 players shown in the table below are locks to be on the Rangers' 40-man roster during the coming off-season. Below the table is a ranked list of players who are candidates to either remain on or be added to the team's 40-man roster prior to the Rule 5 draft in December:
40-MAN ROSTER CANDIDATES
No. 31 -- Greg Golson (OF); No. 32 -- Esteban German (IF); No. 33 -- Beau Jones (LHP); No. 34 -- Craig Gentry (OF); No. 35 -- Michael Kirkman (LHP); No. 36 -- Zach Phillips (LHP); No. 37 -- Joaquin Arias (IF); No. 38 -- Johnny Whittleman (3B) ... Luis Mendoza (RHP), Fabio Castillo (RHP), David Paisano (OF), Adalberto Flores (RHP), Willie Eyre (RHP), Brennan Garr (RHP), A.J. Murray (LHP), Mike Hinckley (LHP), Chad Tracy (1B/DH)
Beyond the Rangers' top 30 players, there is not a lot to get excited about. German, Arias, and Whittleman are candidates to be added primarily because of the dearth of infielders on the roster. None of the three project to be more than replacement level players in the major leagues. Jones, Kirkman, and Phillips are interesting prospects, but left-handed relievers don't have a lot of value and the team certainly doesn't need three such minor leaguers clogging the roster.
Golson and Gentry profile as backup outfielders and because the Rangers have multiple years of control of five solid outfielders already, it wouldn't surprise me to see either player dropped from the 40-man roster after the season. The remaining players on the list are unlikely to be missed if they leave. In my opinion, the team could protect its key assets with a roster of 36 players.
THE MYSTERY
Given that the organization has plenty of roster space available, it seems likely that the team could have protected Matt Nevarez, Manny Pina and Jose Vallejo during the off-season. So, why has the team seemingly chosen to pursue a strategy that involves removing marginal prospects who are eligible for the 40-man roster? There is likely a combination of factors at play, but the four most obvious reasons that I can come up with are listed below:
● The additions of John Bannister and Willie Eyre to the Rangers' 40-man roster seemed to come out of nowhere last year. Perhaps the team has determined that Castillo, Flores, Garr, or some other collection of prospects profile as future major league contributors and decided to add them to the roster rather than risk losing them in the Rule 5 draft.
● The team has identified a handful of free agents who will require roster slots. Re-signing Vizquel to a major league deal immediately after the season and offering Byrd arbitration would make sense and require two roster spots. A third roster spot would be required if the rumors that Ben Sheets is set to sign with the Rangers are true.
● The Rangers plan to take advantage of problems with roster congestion on other teams. Waiver claims and the Rule 5 draft can be a great way to identify productive major leaguers at a discount price. Worth noting is that the A's are facing another off-season with more talented players than room on their roster. Given the Rangers recent success with identifying contributors from other teams' expendables (O'Day, Strop, Grilli), this could be an extremely effective way to take advantage of an organizational strength.
● Upper-level prospects are worth more than equally talented lower-level prospects. If the Rangers were only willing to give up C-level prospects, then other teams likely gravitated to the older prospects with higher floors. If true, then trading prospects who will be eligible for the Rule 5 draft was not about clearing space on the 40-man roster, but was simply about giving teams what they wanted from among the prospects who the Rangers were willing to trade.
Roster flexibility for a team that has proven to be dexterous should make for a fascinating fall regardless of whether the major league team makes the playoffs. I, for one, look forward to watching the moves Daniels and the team's front office make during the coming off-season.
9 Comments | in Analysis, The Season, Transactions
Reader Comments (9)
Also:
1. by May 1st they will need a spot for Smoak;
2. its not inconceivable that kiker is filling the lefty role out of the pen by the ASB;
3. the list of players to protect after 2010 is staggering. no harm in getting a jump on that; and
4. this frees up a spot for scheppers, if that is where the negotiations so lead.
It seems the Rangers grab a player or two lost in the cracks of the roster transactions every yr. It's almost surely not by accident that they know these players already when their names hit the wire. Given the financial situation, some might think about cutting some of these behind-the-scenes employees, but I would argue the exact opposite. These two or three scouts making $60K per yr are probably adding 5 or 6 wins each yr. What's the value of a couple of FAs who brings that type of wins above replacement value? Maybe 10 times as much? The Rangers need to continue to pay their scouts -- and add another one or two if they are too busy to get everything done.
Last yr's 40-man transactions were indeed a little strange. Nobody was going to take Eyre coming off surgery. But thankfully, they have some wiggle room to develop a good roster mix of up-and-comers and solid vets -- somebody who plays defense like Vizquel would be great. And I certainly hope they agree to arbitration with Byrd.
Sheets would be a luxury given the current state of the staff. If they plan on signing him, they probably could trade Millwood to offset the cost. His value is probably a little higher than it has been at any time since he joined the team.
Sure seems like AJ Murray doesn't have much of a future with this ballclub. If he can't get a callup this year with the dearth of LH relief and the numbers he'd put up, I don't know when he would ever get a call up. Better off getting rid of him now.
David,
If the Rangers fill their 2010 25-man roster spots from within, how do you see the front office dedicating the approximately $30 million in payroll that will roll of the books?
Investment in player development?
Reduction in payroll?
Reduction in ticket/merchandise prices?
Major trade involving assumption of significant contract(s)?
To what extent a combination of the above?
Perhaps offering multi-year contracts to Hamilton, Feldman, Wilson, others?
The Rangers marketing department has a young, contending team to sell this offseason. They will not need reduced ticket prices to increase sales so I have a hard time seeing the team going that route.
There are those who follow the team who advocate trading for or signing a high salaried player or two who is viewed as the missing piece to producing a contender. The problem with that approach is that it affects the team's ability to re-sign its rising young stars. I maintain a spreadsheet that projects player salaries through 2016 that suggests that the team might be best-served by rolling with the players that it has. Payroll will bottom out in 2010 at ~$50M and then climb steadily to ~$100M in 2014.
Alluding to what Jack Daddy wrote, here are the most notable 2010 Rule 5 draft candidates:
Engel Beltre
Wilfredo Boscan
Jake Brigham
Miguel De Los Santos
Ryan Falcon
Wilmer Font
Kennil Gomez
Geuris Grullon
Daniel Gutierrez
Kasey Kiker
Marcus Lemon
Mitch Moreland
Joseph Ortiz
Carlos Pimentel
[There are some other interesting players on the periphery (e.g. Ryan Tatusko) that could certainly force their way into consideration with strong 2010 minor league campaigns, but these are the most prominent names, and in all truthfulness there are several listed above that aren't even realistic considerations (Brigham has been shelled at Hickory, while MDLS hasn't even pitched stateside yet).]
DIA: It's my understanding that money is very tight across the game right now and that scouting budgets are at the forefront of the paring line. You might be surprised. Also, I'm still not sure what it says when John Lombardo, an important component of the baseball operations department, ends up being axed due to apparent budgetary constraints, but John Hart continues to collect six-digit paychecks as a "consultant."
Hard to fathom the Rangers dispensing a multi-year deal to Hamilton after the way this entire calendar year has gone for him, and I'm not sure that I'm inclined to give a high-walk, relatively volatile reliever like Wilson a multi-year deal, either...I am, however, particularly interested in seeing whether Texas pursues such a deal with Andrus after this season, since there's that ancillary risk/reward component in play where the Rangers have to decide whether Elvis has played a little bit over his head this year, and whether they might be better served from a financial standpoint by waiting another year in order to amass more data (with the obvious downside being that even a one-year wait could prove very costly down the road)...
Joey,
The economic models in MLB have been and will continue to be changing significantly. The US economy is in depression for at least another three years, with no foreseeable will among financiers to invest in R&D and manufacturing jobs that create a strong middle class with discretionary income. Along with fans, portfolio managers like Tom Hicks will continue to feel the sqeeze from an unsustainable debt-load.
Negotiation of player contracts will feel the weight of deflation, not inflation, and the looming renegotiation of the MLB television contract in 2012 means less broadcast revenue per team. The potential long-term contracts the Rangers may negotiate (Wilson, Hamilton, Feldman, Andrus) will strongly hedge the likelihood of falling revenue. The Rangers are relatively well positioned to weather a potential flight of homegrown talent. It would be advantageous for the Rangers ownership to advocate for an expansion of the 40-man roster to protect talent. The players association, like most collective bargaining units, would be in a difficult position to refuse and could easily spin the potential benefits to members.
I see MLB eventually requesting subsidies from state and local governments to support franchise values. The model has already been set in the banking, automotive and insurance sectors. To what extent the public receives an equity stake is the great unknown. Btw, the Green Bay Packers will not be the model advocated by the financiers.
Okay! Whatever happened to Mike Hindman? He seems to have simply fallen off the face of the earth. No report. No statement he had quit. Was fired. Period. Does anyone know where he went? I hope he is in good health. Let me know!