Saturday Morning Rangers Notes: Cliff Lee, Take Two
Well, can't say I saw that coming:
● Controversial Mavericks owner Mark Cuban has confirmed that he's contemplating jumping into the Rangers' sale sweepstakes, attributing his newfound interest to the fact that "the economics have changed" and stating that he would like to work with Chuck Greenberg and Nolan Ryan; Chicago sports consultant Mark Ganis surmised that Cuban would want to be the lead owner, "even if he kept them both [Ryan and Greenberg] on" (Barry Schlacter, Fort Worth Star-Telegram)
[The good news is that ownership, at least in the context of the 2010 season, is no longer an enormously pressing issue after the acquisition of Cliff Lee; the bad news is that we've been talking about this for more than a year now and there's still very little clarity to the situation. There are a number of questions to be asked about Cuban, and I'm probably not qualified to answer most of them by virtue of not being the most NBA-educated writer, but one thing that can't be ignored is that he was able to muster a(n unsuccessful) $1.3 billion bid for the Cubs two years ago. Whichever ownership consortium brings Cuban into the fold enjoys a huge advantage dollars-wise.
Digging a little deeper into the well of opinions on Cuban, some -- including Mark Ganis -- believe he would be able to secure approval from other major league owners, invest whatever money is required to sustain post-season contention and translate his innovative marketing ideas to a franchise that could use some innovation in that regard; others point towards Cuban's propensity for rubbing authority figures the wrong way as a red flag, and there have been plentiful reports asserting that he will never own a major league team because of those concerns. I have a difficult time seeing how Cuban/Greenberg/Ryan could peacefully co-exist, but the latter two might ultimately have to capitulate and bring Cuban aboard if things continue to go awry.]
● The Rangers dispatched a scout to Baltimore last night, ostensibly to keep tabs on rumored trade target Ty Wigginton (whom Jeff Zrebiec intimates could recoup 1-2 "mid-level prospects"); in addition, Texas "may have" greater interest in trading for the Red Sox' Mike Lowell, and the Rangers were purported to have "strong interest" in the Cubs' Xavier Nady as of last week (Jeff Zrebiec, Baltimore Sun; Rob Bradford, WEEI.com; Bruce Levine, ESPNChicago.com)
[I suppose this means we can officially throw Ryan Garko into the "projected Opening Day right-handed bench bat that never got a real chance" bin. At least he'll have some company in Greg Colbrunn. Nady likely costs you next to nothing, but hasn't been his usual southpaw-mashing self this season (and isn't actually hitting at all, for that matter; Wigginton has the highest production floor of the three, but would likely have a target painted on his back once Texas relinquished an interesting prospect or two for him; Lowell's still interesting enough, I guess, and I suspect his post-season experience is something the Rangers would like hanging around the clubhouse, but he's hardly the missing cog.
I think I'm thoroughly sick of both of these subjects. How about something we're not sick of talking about?]
● Cliff Lee will make his second start in a Rangers uniform tonight at Fenway Park (DallasNews.com)
[There's an interesting process vs. results debate to be hashed out vis-a-vis the Lee trade, and it begins with this question: if the Rangers don't make the playoffs, does that automatically render this trade a failure? Considering that this was a trade predicated on the belief that pulling it off would make Texas a materially stronger World Series contender, I think a lot of people are going to fall into that camp ... but, of course, it's far better to evaluate based on the underlying process, and even if you're of the opposite mindset, you'd still need to see what the Rangers did with the resulting compensatory draft picks and so on and so forth. I don't know. Maybe we should refrain from overthinking this and simply sit back and appreciate a master of his craft at work while he's still here to be appreciated.]
32 Comments | in Analysis, Rumors, The Season
Reader Comments (32)
Even if Cliff Lee doesn't work out, obtaining him was the right move. This team may truly be an ace away from not only making the playoffs, but also from being a team that can advance in the playoffs. This edition of the Rangers may be the most complete team in Ranger history. Lee has been an ace this season. He certainly was one last year in Philly. Ranger fans have seen notable in-season acquisitions arrive & not perform well in the past (Carlos Lee & Harold Baines to name two); and Cliff Lee may end up doing the same; but this Ranger team is so good, they HAD to take the shot to add an ace. Among the rumored high-end starting pitchers available this July, Lee was thought by many to be the best. With the ownership situation, it's remarkable that Jon Daniels was able to pull this off. Even if it doesn't work out, it was the right move to make.
@Connor's Dad - I quite agree.
@Connor's Dad - I quite agree. Nobody in their right mind would claim that aquiring Lee gives The Rangers a lock on the WS or even a divisional title. But it increase the chances and so it's a gamble worth taking. A gamble because of the possibility of Smoak and/or Beavan becoming better than average major leaguers.
Cuban would be a huge - and i mean a HUGE - asset to ownership; that's the problem, though. All of the oweers in MLB know that Cuban would put all kinds of resources behind the team. There's no way he would ever get approved by the other owners.
Is anyone going to complain about Feliz being inserted in the game in the 9th with a four run lead just like he was last week vs Baltimore. I would like to hear if the "leverage" situation was somehow different because of the opponent. To me the situation was the same and Feliz did a great job last night. He should be commended as should Washington on how he managed the bullpen last night. If you are going to moan and complain about certain people for tough losses, you should compliment the same people for great wins. Go get em Cliffy
Does it say anything that I had to think about whether you were referring to JD or Cliff Lee when you said "master of his craft"?
@RBD ...
Once Feliz is up, he's coming in ... and after his outing against the Orioles, I want to get him back out there as soon as I can so he can put it behind him ... no it wasn't a save situation, but since he didn't pitch in the ASG, he needed some work ... a 4 run lead, on the road, @ Boston ... not playoff pressure, but pressure none-the-less ...
I'm OK with it ... now he's ready when we need him, he'll have an effective performance behind him, and he should be better prepared ...
As far as Cuban is concerned, it seems that a Cuban-Greenberg-Ryan triumvirate would be awfully tough to beat ... just sayin'
Connor's dad - I am not so sure that Texas did the right thing in renting Cliff Lee for 3 months - at least for the price they paid (Smoak & Beavan). I'm not convinced that Davis will be anything more than a Jason Botts-type AAAA guy. I hope I'm wrong about that. I think that with Smoak you have a guy who will get better and will do enough things well to make him a regular 1B in the majors. Not so sure Chris Davis is that guy. Now, if ownership is settled and the team can finally go out and sign a FA 1B, then I guess I'm okay with the trade. But when will the ownership be settled?
My problem with the trade is that rentals don't always deliver the promised playoff or WS spot. It does happen, but it's not a guarantee. In today's baseball economics, it's much more prudent to hold onto young, cheap, controllable players who are capable of contributing.
In other words, I think they should have held onto Smoak and Beavan, and called up Scheppers. But that's just me.
@AKL: Tanner would never be the ace going into the playoff's. By having Lee on the team in the #1 spot it not only improves the chances of as team win when he pitches, but also increases the chances of the guys who throw behind him by giving them (in theory) better match-ups.
The Rangers didn't overpay to get Lee, but they did convert 6 years of Smoak into 3 mos of Lee, which is why i think the Rangers have to make it to the WS to consider the trade a win. I dont think i would ever put it as a loss tho b/c it only cost us Smoak and we traded Beavan for cash.
red - I'm not convinced that Lee is a legitimate #1 for us in the way that CC Sabathia is, for instance. He's a great pitcher, but he has not been very good in Texas, and he's certainly not accustomed to pitching in 100 degree heat. He very well could be mediocre over the next 2 1/2 months. I hope I'm wrong about that...
Anyway, I wasn't suggesting that Tanner be placed atop the rotation, but that he would be a cheaper and more prudent answer for both now and the long-term in just the #5 slot.
I think what I disagree with you about is your idea that giving up Smoak was no big deal. It could be a very big deal if he ends up an all-star 1B for years to come, which is possible. It would be even worse than the Adrian Gonzalez trade in that at least with Gonzalez he's over in the NL, and we don't have to see him over and over again every season.
I guess my problem is that Smoak is such a great potential talent that I hate to see us get so little for him. At least with someone like Oswalt they would have gotten a whole year.
This shows that the financial situation of the team definitely is the biggest factor right now, regardless of what JD or Nolan says publicly.
Any chance we go after Adam Dunn is Chris Davis doesn't hit before the deadline? I know it would cost more in terms of prospects but aren't we going for it all?
I'm not so sure they would have chosen Oswalt over Lee even if the ownership thing was as good as ever. Lee is better. He is a bonafide ace and one of the top 5 pitchers in baseball. That doesn't just change because he's now a Ranger. Nobody likes losing Smoak, but they love what Lee brings, even if in the short term.
And yes Red, someone did bring that up in the Bengie Molina post. Also, I would LOVE Cuban as an owner. The guy is a business genius. I don't think he gets enough credit for how smart he is, but that's probably his own fault to an extent.
If nothing else, these two tidbits per ESPN Dallas on Cliff Lee:
"Lee has pitched 112 2/3 innings, an average of 8.04 per start. That means during his 14 starts, his bullpen has had to throw a total of 15 1/3 innings (that includes four games that went to extra innings).
Lee has pitched a total of 88 percent of the total innings pitched during his starts."
@Dude in Keller - I thought the same thing. God I hope we keep JD.
The only way this trade turns into a failure is if Smoak turns into a Palmeiro, Texiera, Morneau, etc, type first baseman in a couple years after we get knocked out of the ALDS by the CWS and Cliff Lee signs with the Angels/Yankees next year.
IMHO, only the last part is very likely.
Andy, I respectfully disagree with you re: Smoak and Davis. While Smoak may or may not be able to turn into a good major league hitter, his is an incredibly one dimensional player. He is super slow with an average at best glove. Davis is lights out at 1st base, and should be able to easily transition to 3rd once Mike Young slows down (which could possibly be sooner than later). The impression that we get is that Davis is already old and worn out, while Smoak is the young up-and-comer. I was very surprised to learn that Smoak and Davis are practically the same age (both born in 1986). I know that Davis was incredibly frustrating to watch last season and for the short while he was here this year, but its not like the guy is pushing 30 and is washed up. He has great power and has done nothing but punish minor league pitching since day one. I for one believe the guy still has a shot to turn into a pretty special player. Smoak to me seemed to be a less powerful, bigger defensive liability version of Crash, who also by the way is completely unable to hit LHP. Will either of them pull it together? Only time will tell, but there is just as much reason to believe that it will be Davis who becomes a great player as there is Smoak... at least imo.
Phil. While Davis is a bit faster on the bases than Smoak, no one expects their 1B to be a speed threat, so that's a non-issue I believe. Whether Davis can turn into a real ml hitter is a good question - I hope he can. And yes, Smoak might be a bust, although there's one big difference between the two - Smoak has a great eye and will carry a much higher OBP, which makes him much more valuable, even if his average isn't at .300.
Regarding the defense, if you remember from 2 years ago, Davis was absolutely horrible at 3rd, and his play at first, in my opinion, is way overblown solely because of that crazy stretch he has. And Smoak has never been called a defensive "liability" at first, so again I think that's a non-issue.
But I'm not knocking Davis - and I hope you're right that Texas made the right choice and held onto the right guy.
I'm just sharing my opinion, so take it for what it's worth. I just happen not to prefer rental players at the expense of real young talent. My feeling was that if we're going to lose Smoak, we should have gotten something at least through 2011, because I don't think Lee will sign here, and you don't get guys like Smoak at the end of the 1st round very often.
well... Cuban-Greenberg-Ryan in any order is a plus for me... I like that.
Andy Kaufman Lives ... Sheppers is having trouble at OKC.. and he is NOT ready for MLB.
to me.... Davis is a much better choice than Smoak over the long haul...
when the season ends, we will know....
Oh jeez, a Rangers fan on today's game had a sign that says "That's the way baseball go"
"Davis is a much better choice than Smoak over the long haul..."
LOL, okay.
And what are you basing this pronouncement on, billydpowell?
@ Pryor - Did you know that Shakespear invented hundreds of new phrases and more than two thousand new words? The fan was simply misquoting Shakespear. From Henry IX, act II, scene III. :-
King Henry "Forsooth, I feared the battle lost!"
Lord Arlington "That's the way battle go, my Liege"
Nobody knows what Davis and Smoak will be, but I think it's safe to say if you think Davis will be better than Smoak in the long run, you're in the minority on that belief. Does that mean much? Not really. But most people would agree Smoak has a much higher ceiling and greater potential right now. And lets not forget most Rangers fans felt the exact same way until he was no longer a Ranger. Smoak has hit the bell really well against the Angels the past 2 nights including 2 home runs as well.
I was listening to Dallas sports talk today and the "experts" were claiming that the Rangers are a LOCK for the playoffs. I almost drove into the ditch. You mean the same team that lost 4 in a row to the mighty Orioles? Cliff Lee just pitched twice and the rangers have the same amount of wins as if I started those games (my fastball has been clocked at 67mph). Take it from someone who lived in Atlanta, GA from 1993-2005, followed a perennial division winner and saw how it was done, that is NOT how one wins a division! You are supposed to fatten up on the sub-500 teams and either split or take 2 of 3 from the division contenders. Hey Dallas sports talk guys...stick to football! The Angels aren't going anywhere anytime soon folks.
Did you forget the part of the season where we went 11 of 12 against bad teams? Guess not. Stick to the Braves.
Is anyone going to complain about Feliz being inserted in the game in the 9th with a four run lead just like he was last week vs Baltimore. I would like to hear if the "leverage" situation was somehow different because of the opponent.
I really don't know why you put leverage in quotations, it's a perfectly valid and highly useful sabermetric concept. I'm guessing you didn't bother to read my follow-up response. And this is an imprecise comparison, anyway, since part of my original gripe about last week's situation was that Feliz wasn't fully rested.
If it makes you feel better, though, I thought the pitching management was great on Saturday. At least a few people have attempted to argue that Feliz should have faced Youkilis, even though Lee (a) was fully pitching up to his "best LHP in baseball" reputation last night and (b) has been a monster vs. RHB this season (.215/.226/.314 in 340 PA). So, there's that.
Any chance we go after Adam Dunn is Chris Davis doesn't hit before the deadline? I know it would cost more in terms of prospects but aren't we going for it all?
Do you think the Rangers could support a $4 million boost in payroll? If not, how many additional prospects does it take to offset the Nationals kicking in approximately that much money? I like Dunn as much as the next guy, but it's time for everyone -- and understand I'm not picking on you specifically -- to drop these grandiose ideas of still going out and grabbing an Oswalt/Dunn-type player, because it's not happening.
Hell, I'm already harboring some trepidation over the mere fact that Texas is pursuing a righty bat ... I can already hear the howling if the Rangers did something like send Moreland + Erlin/Ross to the Orioles for Wigginton, or perhaps even going a little beyond that to ensure that a trade remained budget-neutral.
Cliff Lee just pitched twice and the rangers have the same amount of wins as if I started those games (my fastball has been clocked at 67mph).
You do realize Lee was sensational last night, right? That Texas lost because the offense could only muster two runs of support, right? Did the 1993-2005 Braves not once get swept by a poor team? I find that exceptionally hard to believe.
"If it makes you feel better, though, I thought the pitching management was great on Saturday."
I couldn't agree more, Joey, but alas, the baseball geniuses that inhabit DMN disagree with you. Whether it be leaving Lee in for the ninth, bringing in "the zit face" for the eleventh, or the poor base running by a couple of Rangers, it was all the fault of Ron Washington. It makes me weep.
Andy Kaufman Lives
"Davis is a much better choice than Smoak over the long haul..."
LOL, okay.
And what are you basing this pronouncement on, billydpowell?
the same thing YOU base yours on..... my very own opinion..
sometimes I agree with others, and sometime I "go with my gut feeling"
Wash gets away with it, why cant I?
If Cuban can come in as part owner with Greenberg (and Ryan) and get along and not be too goofy then I'm all for it. Look, the reality is that ANYBODY besides Tom Hicks will be a better owner.
"You do realize Lee was sensational last night, right? That Texas lost because the offense could only muster two runs of support, right? Did the 1993-2005 Braves not once get swept by a poor team? I find that exceptionally hard to believe."
Absolutely on all of your points. I agree with everything you wrote. Btw, I'm a ranger fan, but your point about Lee makes my point. You can have great pitching performances and STILL lose to the top AL teams.
Yes, the Braves used to drive me crazy when they would drop a series to Pittsburgh, for example. But they had the pitching depth in their rotation to overcome it. Not sure yet if Rangers do.
But for talk radio so-called "experts" to claim that the playoffs are a lock???? Heh!? They better win their division b/c Tampa, Boston and others are likely to grab the wildcard spot.
Hey stu - since when are radio personalities "experts" in anything? They're just peeps who get paid to give their (usually pretty well informed) opinions, and entertain us a bit, that's all.
I think Wash made the right call too. Lee was dealing and only needed one more out. Gotta think Lee can get it done and he didn't. It is what it is. He was awesome all night long. I would be happier if Wash got a hold of our base running. We seem to end up in one run games... after we get a couple guys (Elvis, Vlad) out on the bases. It is really getting frustrating. Someone needs to take command and quit being OK with wasted outs and wasted RISP chances.