A Tale Of Two C. Lees: Necessity, Sufficiency And Deadline Dilemmas
Cliff Lee pitches at Rangers Ballpark in Arlington on Monday, June 7th.There's a common thread running through all the analyses of the Bengie Molina trade -- a shared question at their heart: Was it necessary? Did the Rangers need to bring in another catcher? And there's a question that's been asked less frequently, but that's no less important: Was it sufficient? Have the Rangers done enough by bringing in Molina, or is there yet more to be done?
There's no need to add to the many lines written in response to the first question. The answer to the second question, though -- that's worth another word or two. Here's one: No.
The Molina trade was not sufficient to bolster Texas' postseason hopes, because it did nothing to resolve the major pitching issue confronting the Rangers as the July 31 trade deadline approaches -- namely, the doubts about the durability and reliability of their starters, especially in light of their tough second-half schedule.
For all the hopes about the Rangers' rotation this year, at the halfway point of the season, they have only one starter among the top 20 xFIP qualifiers in the American League: Colby Lewis, whose 4.01 puts him at 18th. To find another Ranger on that list, you have to travel more than 20 spots further down the list. C.J. Wilson is 39th, with a 4.64 xFIP; Scott Feldman's 4.71 xFIP places him 42nd. Since the list of qualified AL starters is only 53 players long, that means the Rangers don't have a starter in the top 25 percent of the league in xFIP -- and their remaining two qualified starters are basically in the bottom quarter.
What about the unqualified starters? Tommy Hunter's at 4.64, even after Saturday night's game against the White Sox. The injured Derek Holland's xFIP is at 4.57; his partner on the disabled list, Rich Harden, boasts a 5.74 mark. Current RedHawk Matt Harrison was at 4.87 before his demotion.
Overall, as of Sunday morning, only the Baltimore Orioles' starters had featured a worse xFIP than the Rangers in the Junior Circuit. (By contrast, the Texas bullpen was fourth in xFIP in the AL.)
Now, that ranking doesn't mean the Rangers are doomed to have the second-worst starting pitching in the league in the second half of the season. After all, they've defied the defense-independent stats so far; their starters' cumulative 4.27 ERA puts them in the middle of the AL pack. It's possible they could keep that sort of performance up in the next 81 games, especially given the defense backing them. It's also possible the bullpen could continue saving the starters' rears.
But both Wilson and Lewis have question marks in terms of durability. Feldman, Holland, and Hunter have questions in terms of reliability. Harden has questions in pretty much every facet of pitching known to man. And the Rangers' bullpen has logged more innings than any other team in the AL.
Put bluntly: the Rangers' second-half pitching outlook is a serious concern. Bengie Molina, superior as his game-calling and staff-handling might be, doesn't change that.
So, given their larger pitching issues, why would the Rangers sell Michael Main to the Giants for the difference in salaries between Molina and Chris Ray? It's possible that the Rangers are simply so strapped for cash that they couldn't take on any additional salary whatsoever for the rest of the season -- but saw Molina as sufficient to address their battery woes. That would be a mistake, given the fragile state of the starters.
It would also tend to contradict Jon Daniels' public indications that the Rangers have enough financial flexibility to allow them to make a move in July. Granted, that flexibility could have been maintained if the Rangers simply hadn't made the Molina trade -- but assuming that Texas viewed the acquisition of a backstop as necessary (but not sufficient) step, then the action to make the deal with the Giants dollar-neutral could well speak to the Rangers front office having future pitching moves in mind.
Cliff Lee looms large. His 3.31 xFIP is not only second in the AL; it's the fifth-best among all qualified major-league starters, period. Lee's early-season injury may actually be a boon should the Rangers acquire him, since despite averaging nearly 8 innings per start, he's only racked up 95.2 IP, and has thrown just 1,313 pitches. He's not just a TORP guy; he's a true ace. And half of a season of Lee comes cheap, at approximately $4.5 million.
The question, of course, is whether Lee's value would justify the price the Rangers would have to pay to acquire him. For the moment, let's assume the Mariners would be willing to trade Lee within the division. (That seems fair, since Seattle is out of the post-season chase -- and as a free agent unlikely to sign with an AL West team, Lee wouldn't come back to haunt the Mariners in future seasons.) What you have left is the apparent dilemma at the core of all the rumors and speculations regarding the Rangers' potential pursuit of a trade for Lee (or, really, for any other top-of-the-rotation pitcher, such as Roy Oswalt or Dan Haren).
The dilemma: whether to trade the uncertain futures yet indubitable talents of top prospects for the dependable performance yet uncertain impact of a top (or even ace) starter. But does trading for Cliff Lee necessarily entail a present-for-future tradeoff? And would it be sufficient to put the Rangers over the top?
Consider those questions through the lens of the last Rangers' deal for a C. Lee: Carlos, in late July of 2006. Texas traded then-closer (and 2007 free agent) Francisco Cordero, corner outfielder Kevin Mench, Triple-A outfielder Laynce Nix, and Single-A reliever Julian Cordero to the Brewers for Lee and Triple-A outfielder Nelson Cruz. The idea was that the free-agent-to-be Lee would take the Rangers to the promised land of the playoffs for the first time since 1999; Texas also hoped to re-sign Lee to a long-term deal.
Lee put up a .322/.369/.525 line (.383 wOBA) for Texas, while playing atrocious defense in left. Over the first 103 games of the season, the Rangers averaged 4.95 runs per game, and gave up 4.89; in the 59 games with Lee, the Rangers scored 5.51 runs a game, and gave up 4.75 on average. Sadly, the improvement wasn't enough. When Lee joined the team, it had a 51-52 record – 2.5 games back of the division-leading Angels, and half a game behind the second-place A's. From that point on, Texas never managed to climb more than 3 games above .500, or any closer than 3 games back. And for that reason, many Rangers fans considered the Lee trade a failure.
Texas' expressed hopes of signing Lee after the season also flopped. Rather than re-up with the Rangers, Lee inked a six-year, $100 million deal with the Houston Astros. In the first three years of that contract, he's posted wOBAs of .370, .396, and .355 -- but he is struggling mightily this year, and continues to be a serious defensive liability.
Meanwhile, Francisco Cordero has had mixed results with the Reds, having signed a four-year, $46 million deal plus club option after 2006. Kevin Mench disappointed with the Brewers in 2006 and 2007, was only marginally better in a year with the Blue Jays in 2008, played 15 games for Japan's Hanshin Tigers in 2009, and is currently at Triple-A Syracuse, in the Washington Nationals' system. Laynce Nix played only 20 major league ballgames with the Brewers before following Cordero to Cincinnati in 2008, where he's continued to struggle at the plate. And Julian Cordero completely fell off the map after 2006.
Four years on, then, Nelson Cruz is probably the most important player included in the deal, at least for the Rangers and the Brewers. And yet Cruz was an afterthought for many, if not most, fans of both teams -- another example of Jon Daniels pulling off a Steve-Jobsian “one more thing.” Neftali Feliz, Engel Beltre, Nelson Cruz: all were generally viewed as high-ceiling, high-variance throw-ins at the time their deals were made.
Additionally, because Lee was a Type-A free agent after 2006, the Rangers recouped the Astros' first-round pick (the 17th overall) and a "sandwich pick" in the June 2007 draft. Those picks turned into Blake Beavan and Julio Borbon, respectively. (The Rangers gave up their own first-round pick, 16th overall, to the Blue Jays, for signing Frank Catalanotto; with the 24th pick overall -- compensation for Gary Matthews, Jr. signing with the Angels -- Texas took Michael Main.)
So did the Rangers sacrifice the future for the present in the Carlos Lee trade? Not really. Was improving their offense a necessity to make the postseason? Very probably. But was the Lee deal sufficient? No: because the Rangers drastically overestimated their playoff chances in 2006. Even had the Rangers played to their “Pythagorean” expectation after the Lee acquisition, they would've had a record of 34-25 -- good only for an 85-77 finish. And Texas also misjudged its chances at keeping Lee.
The Carlos Lee trade is a study in the difference between necessity and sufficiency. In this case, the gap was only bridged by how the Rangers hedged their present-versus-future bets. The return on the Lee deal was sufficient to render it a success, despite the Rangers' failure to achieve their more immediate objectives in 2006.
The Rangers' course in the second half of 2010 depends on Daniels successfully navigating the tricky course between necessity and sufficiency. If the Rangers fail to make a move for a front-line pitcher, then Daniels will again open himself to charges that he struggles at bringing in major-league talent at critical junctures, and at properly weighing prospects' prospective promise against promising playoff prospects. This has been the biggest knock on Daniels' GM tenure to date (see: Adam Eaton, Brandon McCarthy, Frank Catalanotto, et al). Even given the club's financial and legal situation, now that Daniels has pulled the trigger on the Molina deal, a failure to follow it with a trade that bolsters the rotation could -- and, to some degree, should -- raise questions about his ability to put the Rangers in the best position to seriously contend for a World Series crown.
Daniels needs to work his magic once more, and this time under the pressure of a legitimate pennant chase. He needs to acquire a Game One starter, while not sacrificing too many key components of the Rangers' postseason hopes for the next several years. And if the Molina deal did not, in fact, preserve Texas' financial flexibility – to the point that the club might be able to pick up the remainder of Lee's 2010 salary, rather than sending added prospects to Seattle – then Daniels has made his own job harder still.
Cliff Lee isn't Carlos Lee. A high-powered package structured around Martin Perez (or Tanner Scheppers, or Derek Holland) isn't equivalent to a deal highlighted by two months of Francisco Cordero. But Cliff Lee is all but a lock to be a Type-A free agent after 2010 -- and the Rangers are even less likely to keep him than they were Carlos. (As Jamey Newberg pointed out in an e-mail Sunday afternoon, however, it's possible he might only be worth the second-round pick of his signing team in 2011, especially if that team is the Yankees.) The parallels to 2006 aren't exact, but they are there. Maybe -- just maybe -- Daniels can give the Rangers "one more thing": pulling another promising prospect (Maikel Cleto?) out of the Mariners' hats along with Lee, and balancing the "now" and "then" sides of Texas' talent equation.
As in the past, if Daniels does succeed at cutting the Gordian knot binding the Rangers' present and future, it will be because he gambled on both. And if he fails, then the inevitable questions surrounding his position under new ownership will gain force.
[Note: All stats courtesy of FanGraphs and Baseball Reference.]
46 Comments | in Analysis, Rumors, The Season
Reader Comments (46)
until we get rid of washington, it wont matter who we get, he will mis-manage them.....
I cant believe what I just read:
"When things aren't going right for you, you've got to keep fighting, that's all you can do," manager Ron Washington said of Feldman.
THAT IS HOW STUPID OUR MANAGER IS!
you can take him OUT before he gives up the lead.... YOU had the chance.. but you went with your GUT feeling and lost the game for us. Nolan FIRE this guy before he messes up our season... send Feldman to OKC until he gets it right
Josh, this is superb stuff. It is a very real possibility that even Cliff Lee can't save the Rangers, given the schedule, and the missing pieces (emphasis on the plural) in both the rotation and the lineup. Lee would certainly bump their chances of winning an October game or two if they make the playoffs, but I see Feldman as pretty darn below average right now, and Colby and CJ are wearing down fast. I've been a proponent of pressing our bets (Vlad, to me, makes post-season offensive success more likely than we've ever experienced -- but he won't be here next yr) and going for a big trade, but I right now I see an over-rated offense that was feasting on shoddy NL pitching. June was spectacular, but now that the hitters are seeing more quality pitching, they have regressed to right around 3-4 runs per game. This rotation can't match that, despite having the best defense I can ever remember strapping on spikes for the Rangers.
With that said, the West is still winnable if they can get another decent arm to fill this gap, and the cast of #5 candidates (Feldman, Holland, Harden) somehow produces better results. The offense will need to improve some also, with several of the better hitters avoiding slumps and a few of the not-so-hot guys getting back to at least average.
Holland is the wild card...if he can get healthy, he might be ready to truly emerge. It doesn't need to be, and probably wouldn't add enough to our chances of making the playoffs, to go for Lee. These two series with Cleveland and Baltimore will probably add to the illusion of this team's potential, but they simply aren't talented enough to win several 5-4 games in the playoffs or in key regular season series down the stretch.
As much as I hate to say it, we need another infusion of talent, and trading for Cliff Lee isn't the answer. If Holland comes into his own and we can remove Feldman from the equation, then one more starter might help us eek past the Angels. But those guys still might explode and win 97 games again, and how do we feel good about beating that total?
As you mention, it seems certain the Rangers set the parameters of the Molina trade so as to save all of their meager cash reserves for a bigger swap later this month, so maybe JD really comes through without selling the farm. I certainly will be hoping that's the case.
Nice post, Josh. You make some salient points and offer a much needed perspective on the false dichotomy of present vs. future.
I'd like to add that, from a crude PR perspective, this franchise needs to win badly. Let's be honest, those of us whose blood pressures rose when Michael Main was revealed as the PTBNL, and who fret over the hypothetical loss of Scheppers or Perez…we aren't going anywhere. But I doubt that kind of fan makes up the majority of any team's base, and I'm pretty sure it never will in North Texas. It is and would continue be a very good thing for the Rangers to capture some attention for winning, instead of for embarrassing themselves financially or going to court. I have to imagine that this is at least partially concern for the front office. Not that that necessarily makes it right to pay through the nose in a trade, or that it should dictate major transactions, but, just like job security, I'd think it has to be somewhere in the back of the minds in the front office. So, I will be very surprised if JD doesn't roll the dice on at least one big trade this month.
Wilson and Feldman have lately driven home just how strong the need for a starter is. And any fans are vastly overrating Tommy Hunter, solid as he's been, right now. I shudder at the cost to bring in Lee, but I equally shudder at the chances this rotation leads TX to the promised land without him.
Not sure why you label Lewis a question mark in the durability department. Lots of IP in Japan. What gives?
@billy powell - criticism of the "intellect" of the Rangers' manager on this board will get you deemed a racist by certain parties. Be forewarned, your words will be taken out of context.
@James Mason: Yes, the last couple years, Lewis threw 178 and 176 innings over 26 and 29 starts with the Carp -- but NPB just isn't the same as MLB. I'm not predicting Lewis is going to break down, but I do think it's worth wondering whether the Rangers can comfortably expect him to start 32 games and rack up 200+ innings, and what level of performance they'll get from him in the second half if he does.
Nice read, Josh.
I think Cliff Lee is a complicated issue, and not just from the Rangers side. If you're Seattle, do you really believe that you are out of the race? The next three weeks are crucial to finding out, but you have Erik Bedard coming back soon, giving you potentially a significant upgrade to your rotation. And after all, it's the Texas Rangers in front, not the New York Yankees, and the Rangers just dropped 4 out of 6 to competitive, but not top tier teams. Further, you have to remember that you are not just trading Cliff Lee, but you are also trading the two high draft picks that come with him leaving via free agency. So.....if you're Seattle, you only trade him for a clearly winning deal if you're willing to trade him at all.
Where do you start with the complications for Texas? There are many, including one that hasn't been touched on by anyone....
1) Finances. If JD is to believed, I think they didn't take on Molina's salary so they would be able to take on additional salary for a pitcher like Cliff Lee.
2) How much do you give up for a guy who will make a few starts then leave via free agency? Seattle will clearly want a lot in return. Are you willing to give up a significant piece of your future for a stab at the brass ring? Even in a bad deal?
3) The item that no one talks about - what/who are the players that Texas will lose for nothing next year in the Rule V draft? If you are JD, do you include some of these players in a deal (even if it's bad) in order to get some type of return as opposed to nothing? I'm guessing that there are probably 3-4 potentially high ceiling players that would easily make another team's 40 that may not find a way on the Texas 40 next year. JD will need to cleverly manipulate the roster in some way, shape, form or fashion going into next year. Could a trade of this magnitude be a tool to do this?
Some of the answers are coming in the next 25 days. Stay tuned.
Nice Post. You touched on it a bit, but I also want to reinforce the potential pressure that Daniels is facing by not added another arm to this team. This is the best Ranger team that we have seen in years. If this team does not make the playoffs, there are two people who will take the blame and that will be Washington and Daniels. I think Daniels knows that a playoff appearance would do wonders for the team (financially) and if he wants to entertain any possibility of being a career GM (whether here or for another team). So he has some pressure on him to produce some players in a trade. This could open him up to over-buy (as we may have seen with Molina, time will tell).
As far as Cliff Lee goes, he is the best SP on the market, period. I would think that Seatlle would be open to moving him because his agent said earlier in the year that he would probably not stay in Seattle past this season. Seatlle will try to get something for him before he leaves on his own. What is going to make this difficult for the Rangers (besides the bankruptcy issues) is the fact that there are more than a few teams that are interested in Lee...i.e. the Yankees, Red Sox, etc. This being the case, if the Rangers are going to get Lee, they are going to have to outbid these teams and that means giving up some good prospects (probably more than we are speculating). I hate to think about it, but we are going to see some good players get exchanged if we land Lee.
@ john in clearwater - The Rule V problem most certainly has been mentioned, although it's not quite as bleak as you intimate. A player taken under Rule V has to be kept on a team's 25 man roster for a year, not their 40 man roster, or he returns from whence he came. Unless, of course a deal can be worked out, as The Rangers did for Snyder.
@ billydpowell - Rangers lost so Ron W gets the blame. Dumb comment. Yes, you are a Washington hater. That is short for Washington-the-manager hater, not Washington-the-man hater. So no, despite James Mason's warning to you I am not suggesting you are a racist. Just a fool.
Okay, folks, today's words for the day are "ad hominem." As in: "There will be no more ad hominem comments on this post, whether about Ron Washington, or about anyone commenting on Ron Washington."
@john in clearwater: I think Seattle has to be in sell mode, now. They're 14 games back with 81 to play, and at 34-47, they'd have to go 47-34 to make it to .500 -- which basically means they'd have to post what would've been one of the best first-half records in the AL just to get even. And even if the Rangers collapse, and don't make it to 87-90 wins, Seattle would still have to reckon with the Angels. They just dug too deep a hole.
Also, Scott Lucas has a handy list of Rangers players eligible for the Rule 5 (not V! pet peeve!) draft in 2010. Very few names on that list would (1) be key pieces in a deal for a player like Lee, or (2) really have much of a chance at sticking at the big-league level next season (as Anthony notes). I think if one or two of those names were included, it wouldn't be because of their Rule 5 status as much as their attractiveness as prospects.
@Rob: Your first paragraph is exactly what I'm driving at.
Thanks for the comments, folks!
You paint a bleak picture of second half pitching, Joey, and (alas) you may well be right. But you don't come off the fence with regard to a Lee trade. Should we or shouldn't we? Most fans (and I'm as guilty as anyone) only want to make such a deal only if it involves giving up cast-offs (such as Harden), spares (such as Arias or Salty) or second tier prospects. Remember the hullabaloo last year whan a Halliday trade was mooted! But that won't cut it. We would likely have to give up two top prospects to get Lee, even if we take all of his remaining salary. Yes or no? After reading your article I say yes, because if you are right we won't even make it to the play-offs, let alone reach the WS. But I'm glad I'm not JD. He'll likely be crucified by the hoi polloi whatever he does. Unless we actually win the WS. I ask again, Joey, Yes or No....
Oops..... I mean Josh, not Joey. Sorry! (slinks awat muttering, wiping egg off face...)
@Anthony: No worries. Heh.
Doesn't "Should we or shouldn't we?" completely depend on the price? As much as I'd argue that Molina pushes Daniels into a need-to-buy scenario, I can't imagine him telling Zduriencik, "Sure, we'll ship you Perez, Scheppers, Smoak, Beltre, and Beavan for a few months of Cliff Lee, salary on you guys..."
Great stuff. Some of the best comments I've read too.
Two minor things:
1) The draft picks the Mariners would lose are probably a little more valuable to them as their financial status allows them to take 'the best player available'.
2) What is the projection for Texas' budget, in particular regarding the draft? What do people know about the new ownership's financial impact on the club? Would they be able to strike on a significant drop well out of slot like Smoak or a huge drop way out of slot like Porcello? Also could the ownership situation drag on that long?
Currently it doesn't seem likely Texas would be picking up a Borbon or Hunter in the draft. Even if they did get Lee and lose him to free agency, I think they would be lucky to draft a Michael Main.
@Josh - Yes, naturally it depends on price. If the Mariners say Perez, Smoak , 2 lesser prospects and you pay his salary, is it yes or no?
@ Josh - I meant to add, "Stop wriggling!"
Meh. Pass on Cliff Lee unless you can somehow persuade the M's to take Chris Davis, Blake Beavan, and Rich Harden - which they certainly won't do. I think they (TX) have enough to get er done this season, so there's no reason to panic and sell the farm. That is, if Holland can get back healthy and pitch like he was at the start of the season, and no other substantial injuries occur to Lewis, Hunter, and Wilson.
But dang, Feldman is a real concern. He hasn't really looked like last year - not even one start. He looks like the Feldman from 2 seasons ago who was penciled in as long relief on a team with a suspect rotation.
Anthony and Josh -
Thank you for the clarity.
@Anthony: If I'm Daniels, I turn that deal down. And if that's Seattle's final offer, and I can't pull off another trade for front-line pitching, then I brace myself for the largely deserved criticism I'll take for overpaying for Bengie Molina and not having anything to follow it with.
Trading a prospect (in either direction) is like calling at poker - you play the percentages. If you calculate that you will win the hand 60% of the time, you call. If you lose, you do NOT say "It was a bad call"', unless you are Hindsight Harry. But oh my, do we not have a few of them? Anyone who complains that we traded Danks but who does not complain that we traded Lance Nix falls into this catagory. Take Scheppers for example. He definitely looks to be a major league talent, but will his shoulder hold out? JD has to decide NOW if he should be traded, not 5 years down the track. To wait 5 years and then say "I told you so" is to be interlectually dishonest. To return to my poker analogy, it's no different than saying, "Let me see your cards before deciding whether to call". And to those of you Washington-the-manager haters who now exclaim in triumph, "HA! Got you, Washington uses his gut, not the sabermetric percentage tables", I say "I like his gut, and besides, games only last 3 hours. It's what he does with the other 21 hours of the day that makes him a good manager" So there!!
Tend to agree with "dude in UK". Trade or no trade, Holland may hold the key to the season. With Feldman foundering (have they the guts to send him to OKC to figure stuff out?), an effective Holland may be enough to allow Texas to just barely eke out the AL West championship.
@Anthony: I agree with you in part, but I disagree with your Danks/Nix example. Danks and Nix were and are very different talents. And plenty of folks gave very sound reasons for not liking the Danks-Masset-McCarthy deal at the time it was made ~ reasons that simply didn't apply to trading Nix.
Edit: One additional thought, here. Part of determining whether to call in poker is calculation of pot odds. A key point of today's piece (in poker terms) is that by overpaying for Molina, Daniels has edged closer to pot commitment.
@ Anthony: I would like those other three hours to be what defines him as a good manager WITH the other 21. The 21 hours are good, though.
Most people think Holland is a big key, and I agree with that. I also think Harden can be a big part of the team for the rest of the season. If he can put it back together, he is a front line starter. Now, I don't know how much I believe that he can, but if he somehow does, it sure could be a boost to the rotation.
@Josh - There were plenty of Chicago fans who didn't like the McCarthy- Danks deal, either. McCarthy's problem is a body that won't hold up, not lack of pitching ability.
@Philly- Agreed. That's why I called him a good manager, rather than a great manager.But I'm sure he is an avid reader of sites such as this and so I'm optomistic that he will learn from the experts and improve. Once he gains the knack of managing with hindsight he will be unbeatable.....
@ Anthony We are ALL experts, after-all. Right? Anybody?
It seems as if no one is agreeing.
@ Philly - Well I did play in a couple games of softball during my (very happy) time in Dallas, as a catcher no less, so I guess that makes me an expert. I had the classiest 000/000/000 slash line in the history of baseball....
Well, if we are going on softball, I'll answer my own question.
I am an expert!
The Rangers rotation, even with Cliff Lee, does not match well against NYY and TB. JD and Ryan know this and have pitched their hopes to a division title not a WS appearance.
Even with new ownership, there will be precious few funds to bring in high-priced talent. I would rather exercise patience and faith in Ryan and JD to develop pitching talent and sign Josh Hamilton and CJ Wilson to long-term contracts.
@TL My worry about CJ is the amount that he is going to be wanting. I thought I heard before that even when he was still in the BP he was going to be hard to resign. I do think that he has the chance to be better next year after getting a full year as a starter under his belt.
With Cliff Lee I don't think we necessarily make it to the WS. Not sure the pitching would be enough, the offense would be consistent, and Wash would make the best choices.
@texaslifter: The Yankees, Red Sox, and Rays are probably the best three teams in baseball. That said, with Lee, you've got a pitcher who gives you a great chance to win every game he starts -- against any team, featuring any starter. And Lewis' FIP and xFIP match that of any Yankees starter you put out there, any Rays starter not named Shields, and any Red Sox starter not named Lester. The Rangers wouldn't be favorites in a series against whichever team emerges from the AL East, but the result wouldn't be predetermined, either.
Why would you sign Wilson to a long-term contract?
Why attempt to sign CJ Wilson to a long term contract? (and I define long term as 3 years, buying out 2 years of potential free-agency).
1. CJ Wilson performs and has transitioned well as starter. As a homegrown talent, a signing communicates to fans and ML-ready prospects that the Rangers have the capacity to retain and reward talent beyong the arbitration years.... i.e. we don't grow talent gone to the Yankees, Red Sox, other high payroll teams.
2. The Rangers have significant payroll room and justification to increase Wilson's 2011 pay significantly. Our team guaranteed Harden $7.5 million for one year of service, hoping that his performance would be comparable to CJ's to date. A new contract should compensate Wilson in 2011 at the $7-8 million level, with increases and performance bonuses in 2012 and 2013. Wilson rises to challenges.
3. The Rangers need a sucessful, veteran presence in the rotation for 2011-2013. Feldman's 2010 season raises questions about his ability to repeat his 2009. Holland, Hunter, and Scheppers are expected to anchor the rotation during these years and will most likely experience growing cycles in the MLs. Feliz has found home as closer. To become a perennial WS contender, the Rangers need a high performing lefty as well as an effective Derek Holland.
This winter is time to explore a serious commitment to CJ.
@texaslifter: The Rangers have already shown their capacity to reward and retain homegrown talent by signing Feldman to a contract extension after his 2009 season -- despite signs that his performance that year was unlikely to be sustainable.
You're making a big assumption about the Rangers' financial situation in 2011. We're all hoping new ownership will lead to a considerable increase in payroll, but that's all it is right now: hope.
C.J. Wilson heads into today's action with a 3.34 ERA, but a 4.06 FIP and a 4.64 xFIP. He's striking out fewer batters than league average and walking more batters than league average; his 1.52 K/BB ratio is over half a point below league average, and places him 49th out of 55 qualifying AL starters.
His .258 BABIP is backed by a 14.6 LD% and 5.9 HR/FB%, which suggests he might actually be able to keep opposing batters from hitting the ball hard off of him. Remember, though, that folks were saying the same thing about Scott Feldman last year (though, granted, Feldman's LD% and HR/FB ratio were much higher than Wilson's).
Just for reference, and based on work done by Russell A. Carleton (aka Pizza Cutter): Wilson has faced 427 batters. LD% stabilizes at about 300; K/BB at about 500. BABIP and HR/FB% pretty much never stabilize.
Signing Wilson to a long-term contract right now doesn't make much sense to me; it runs the risk of repeating the mistake the Rangers made with Feldman. Maybe if Wilson has a better second half of the season...
We've reach the point this season where I believe we reasonably reach these conclusions:
1) Feldman has not, and may not, regain his 2009 form
2) Barring a miracle cure while on the DL, Harden can be deemed a bust
3) Wilson and Lewis are solid middle-of-the-rotation guys (which you need) but neither is an ace
4) Hunter has a clear path to the No. 2 spot if he continues his current pace
5) Holland, once he's healthy, is the ultimate wild card, both on and off the field
Getting back to the point of your post, the "feel-good" of having Molina in the back-stop only works if you have pitchers who are confident in each other. Can any of the current starting rotation look to anyone else and say, "That's our ace." I'd argue that Hunter comes closest at this particular time.
I know the likelihood of trading for Cliff Lee is 50/50, maybe less, but he would undoubtedly offer up instant confidence and credibility for this staff. And, at this point, I would see if Seattle would bite on the following offer:
Holland
Harden (who has historically pitched well at SEA)
Beavan
OBeltre
MRamirez
I would definitely go for it if I were Texas. If you could get SEA to bite on this, you'd still have Perez, Scheppers, Ogando and Font as live arms you didn't have to give up.
Okay, folks, today's words for the day are "ad hominem." As in: "There will be no more ad hominem comments on this post, whether about Ron Washington, or about anyone commenting on Ron Washington."
Good policy, Josh. Remove the bigoted epithets aimed at Washington and the latter won't show up anyway. The are only a couple regular posters here repeatedly posting the bigoted comments anyway, so it shouldn't be hard to monitor them.
On the financial flexibility question, I agree that the Main for Molina move suggests the Rangers don't have much cash to work with. But it also, unfortunately, suggests that won't be changing much even after the Davis/Simpson group takes over the team. Davis and Simpson easily could have arranged the cash to back a trade where the Rangers didn't have to give up Main. Their group's men already occupy the owners' seats every night, and Bud Selig has made it very clear they will be the owners once the bankruptcy goes through. But even if that somehow didn't happen, it would not have been hard to arrange the deal in a way they would have been reimbursed.
They chose to give away Main instead of paying Molina.
@Josh Garoon: Nice discussion.
Please read my July 5th 6:45 pm post. I make the assumption there will be no significant change in total player salary in 2011. Without an increase in revenue (highly unlikely in the near future), new ownership will most likely keep overhead relatively stable.
To date, Wilson and Lewis have very similar outcome metrics. Both pitchers are budget friendly and their cost-benefit to the Rangers is outrageously favorable. The team's approach to CJ will be telling this winter especially in light of the Feldman signing, which I did not favor.
I am curious about your thoughts: Why should the Rangers let CJ Wilson walk after 2011?
Sorry, just an aside here after I re-read my post. If Texas traded Holland and Harden to Seattle, the Mariners could boast a Triple-H rotation led by Hernandez. Hey, you can't discount marketing!
thanks JM, AinA always gets on me, but I dont care,,, mommy told me"sticks and stones my break my bones, but names will never harm me" ... and I believe her more than AinA
so there..
RW's actions and lack of, are what I am talking about..... not the man or his intellect... just baseball savvy
AinA ???
The Rangers have a good problem in that a fair number of players in their deep Minor League system are going to have to be added to the 40 man roster or lost to Minor League free agency if they are not added to the 40 man roster.
The fact above should be considered when thinking about trades. Would the Rangers be better off trading some of those prospects even in unbalanced trades than simply letting them sign somewhere else if they cannot add them to the 40 man roster? I think maybe so. The issue with the 40 man is why this is the year not next year, to make a trade.
What JD and crew need to do is figure out who do they want to add to the 40 man and then any of the players that are going to be lost to Minor League free agency should be traded, even in uneven deals.
In this situation making a trade for Cliff Lee who then signs for the Yankees is good for the Rangers because they then get to sign two players at a lower level who they then control for several years. This is also the reason, in addition to salary issues that Lee is a better fit than Oswalt.
Supplemental question: How difficult would it be for Molina to play enough to become a Class A free agent? Could the Rangers get compensated for Molina as well as a pitcher?
Unrelated; if I was the rangers brass I'd keep Washington as manager until the end of the year. Then I'd "Promote" him to a system wide defensive coach and hire Bobby Valentine if still available for manager.
@Cliff Phelps: According to Eddie Bajek (MLB Trade Rumors), as of July 4, 2010 Benji Molina would qualify as a Type A Free Agent. Would the Rangers attempt to resign him this off-season?
Cliff, which Rule 5 candidates do you believe the Rangers would have to protect on the 40-man or lose? I suspect few enough to accommodate easily on the roster.
I have forgotten where the list of guys that must either be placed on the 40 man roster or released was published. I think the number was something like 12 or 13 players and only about 6 or 7 spots that would come open.
Maybe Joey or Jason know the actual number.
Here it is: http://rangers.scottlucas.com/site/rule5.htm
"As Jamey Newberg pointed out in an e-mail Sunday afternoon, however, it's possible he might only be worth the second-round pick of his signing team in 2011, especially if that team is the Yankees."
Possible but unlikely. Right now Cliff Lee is the highest ranked free agent besides Pujols and Jeter and I think that both of them will stay with their respective teams. Cliff Lee provides about as sure a lock on a first round compensation pick as is possible.
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2010/07/elias-rankings-update.html
Jon Daniels is in tough spot right now with the Cliff Lee situation. I want to win right now and make the playoffs this season and be succseful during the post season. As much as we all want Lee you have to consider what your giving up. I can stomach giving up either smoak or davis but I can't with Derek Holland or Tanner Sheppers. I want the Rangers to get Cliff Lee but if losing smoak Holland, sheppers in a trade sounds like the texeira deal. Seeing how we most likely won't have Lee after this season. So if we don't get Cliff Lee don't blame Daniels because he may of just saved our 2011-2015 season.
@Schilling
Completely agree. Thankfully, JD and Ryan are committed to the long-term plan.