Tuesday Morning Rangers Notes: Welcoming Endy Chavez
From the 48-Hours-And-Counting Department, wherein we celebrate the long-awaited stateside arrival of Omar Beltre and Alexi Ogando:
● Texas has signed free agent outfielder Endy Chavez -- who is currently recovering from major knee surgery -- to a minor league deal, which will pay an Omar Vizquel-esque $1 million in 2010 if he should make the team (the deal includes a $1.25 million option for 2011); additionally, Jose Molina appears to be attracting more interest from the Rangers than any other free agent catcher at the moment (Jon Heyman, SI.com; T.R. Sullivan, MLB.com)
[This signing would have "shades of Jason Ellison" stamped all over it if not for the non-trivial point that Chavez has, historically speaking, been more useful than Ellison in a back-of-the-roster capacity. The prototypical plus-fielding, light-hitting outfielder with defensive versatility in abundance, Chavez could figure into the Rangers' plans at some point down the line if enough planets perfectly align, although that's going to require Chavez (a) remaining ahead of his recovery schedule, (b) playing well enough at Triple-A Oklahoma City to merit a promotion and (c) the need arising to summon his services to the majors.]
● According to a letter sent on October 22nd, 2009 by MLB executive vice president Rob Manfred to the then-larger group of bidders vying to purchase the Texas Rangers, the ballclub has been in violation of the current collective bargaining agreement "since at least last season" after failing to pay $39.55 million into a league-controlled deferred compensation fund (Daniel Kaplan and Liz Mullen, SportsBusiness Journal)
[Unbelievable. Well, not really, but it's still utterly grotesque. It also doesn't quite end here -- this transgression on the part of the financially woebegone franchise has nothing whatsoever to do with the "line of credit" extended to the Rangers at the request of Tom Hicks last year, which ultimately amounted to $25 million; yes, at the time, Hicks unequivocally stated that it was merely $15 million, so you're now talking about being indebted to Major League Baseball to the discordant tune of $65 million. And people wonder why the commissioner nixed the Matt Purke deal.
Last Wednesday, FOXSports.com's Ken Rosenthal and Jon Paul Morosi reported that the Rangers' pursuit of a higher-caliber backup catcher was being stymied by payroll restrictions, putting the projected Opening Day payroll on a collision course with the $62-63 million mark -- a good 10 percent lower than where team president Nolan Ryan said that he expected it to be months earlier. Unsettling news, albeit news that's now beginning to make more sense; being the deadbeat father of Major League Baseball isn't really a good way to make friends and influence people at the top.]
● Dave Cameron on Derek Holland: "In an organization with a lot of good young arms, in a division with a lot of good young arms, Holland gets overlooked, but he may be the single most important player in the AL West in 2010. If he’s as good as I think he is, Texas has a legitimate shot at winning 90 games." (Dave Cameron, FanGraphs.com)
[Something that I forgot to mention in the context of last week's No. 5 starter-focused discussion: It's true that Texas could not option Brandon McCarthy to the minors without first running him through revocable optional waivers, and it's also true that this should, in theory, discourage the Rangers from attempting to do so, since they would run the risk of having him claimed ... but in practice, this doesn't happen. According to former Blue Jays assistant general manager Bart Givens, an "unspoken and unwritten gentlemen's agreement seems to exist" where players are never claimed on optional waivers, so there's not really a procedural deterrent to optioning McCarthy.]
Quick Hits: According to MLB.com's T.R. Sullivan, the Chuck Greenberg-led ownership group factored the Rangers' $39.55 million debt obligation into its final bid, and it's not expected to derail the sale of the franchise.
6 Comments | in Analysis, The Off-Season
Reader Comments (6)
Huh? Just when I thought I understood waivers. Since when is passing up a chance to claim a promissing player that can help your team win, agreed to, in an unspoken way? Like, I won't take your guy, if you don't take mine? That really works in this day and age? And why with these waivers, and not in others?
There are unspoken rules in every profession. Some are followed more closely than others. Usually, a code of conduct that transcends some of the rules in certain situations is a good thing. It prevents the wasting of time and money on unproductive maneuvers. This sounds like one of those.
Endy Chavez made the best catch I have ever seen a centerfielder make while with the Mets a few years ago (I believe it was an extra-inning game with the Cards). Running full tilt, he jumped up the wall and snagged the ball below the fence line on the other side. I remember talking about it with a baseball fan (a season-ticket holder for UT Austin baseball) at work the next day. Even though the Mets lost that game, Chavez's catch is what we talked about. One play doesn't make a player great, but that was sure one great play. This could be a very wise pickup for our Rangers. If Borbon isn't quite ready, it's nice to know we have a backup option in a guy who has shown that he can play defense with the best of them.
Is Givens admitting to collusion?
I wouldn't call that collusion. They're revocable waivers; that's really the key. Claiming another team's player off of revocable waivers is kind of like pushing a classmate's books off their desk in middle school. They have to pick it back up, but it was always still their book. I'd say there's a difference between avoiding a childish action and collusion.
I guess the question of whether it could be construed as collusion depends on whether the player stands to gain from being claimed & pulled back.
It seems to me that he does; that it would force teams to be more decisive, which would burn options faster, no? So I think it's a valid question.
Personally I'd rather the Rangers test the parameters of that "gentleman's agreement" with BMac & Ray before putting Holland in AAA or losing Snyder back to SF.
If I had to decide today, barring a trade, I'd only bring up BMac & Ray (& Harrison & the other guys with simpler options) in cases of injury to others, but reserve for Holland, Feliz, Nippert & Snyder 4 year-long spots, which would be theirs to lose.