Friday Morning Rangers Notes: Still Dreaming

What if Giancarlo Stanton was the Kingpin and Jeffrey Loria was one of his bodyguards? Have you ever thought about it?Apropos of something: Norm Hitzges will be running Ron Washington, Nolan Ryan, and Eric Nadel through the house during today's Norm-A-Thon at 8:30 a.m., 1:10 p.m., and 4:50 p.m. CST respectively, so be apprised of that and prepare for some awkward Josh Hamilton/off-season discussion or some such:

● Jim Bowden believes the Rangers should trade Jurickson Profar, Mike Olt, and Martin Perez to the Marlins in exchange forGiancarlo Stanton and Ricky Nolasco, suggesting that Stanton would help replace the power void left behind by the departures of Josh Hamilton and (probably, though not definitely) Mike Napoli, that Stanton is high on the Rangers' list of targets (as are Carlos Gonzalez and Justin Upton), and that Texas might actually pull the trigger on a Profar trade if it meant netting a talent of Stanton's caliber and controllability (ESPN.com)

[This proposal is, in one sense, a throwback to the summer of 2010, when the Rangers reportedly offered Florida their three best prospects in exchange for Josh Johnson and were immediately rebuffed. Two and a half years later, Johnson has been moved north of the border (and, for the record, averaged only 125 innings across 2011-12), the target is now Stanton, but the same basic premise remains in place -- deal from the very top of a loaded system for a controllable, game-changing talent whose projection justifies the exorbitant prospect cost. I don't think there's any great reason for us to expect that Stanton will be dealt yet this winter (indeed, the entire collective of national baseball scribes has insisted for weeks that Stanton will stay put), but let's assume for the sake of discussion that Bowden's proposal has some basis in reality.

Nolasco, at $11.5 million for one year, is a pricey but usable back-end starter with a higher floor than Martin Perez/Justin Grimm/et al. but an established trend of underperforming his peripherals by nearly a full run per nine innings over the last four seasons; from a salary/performance standpoint, Nolasco adds little to nothing in the way of value, meaning that this essentially boils down to four years of Stanton for six years each of Profar/Olt/Perez. That's four years of an established young star on a Cooperstown-esque trajectory for eighteen combined years of could-be, might-be, but-aren't-yet stars -- keeping in mind, of course, that the median outcomes on Profar/Olt/Perez are probably something like an above-average to All-Star shortstop, a solid-average corner infielder, and a No. 3-4 starting pitcher. I love dreaming on prospect ceilings as much as the next guy, but you can't mold a roster or a long-term plan based solely on best-case-scenario upside, because it's not all that often that the best-case scenario actualizes.

The thing worth keeping in mind here is that while the Stanton trade rumors probably won't gear up in earnest yet this winter, the day is likely coming when they will gear up in earnest, and that speaks to one of the advantages of holding firm on your prospect cache -- doing so can open up a window of opportunity to acquire a potentially generational talent later, a theory which becomes easier to buy into with Stanton once you look around and recognize there aren't many organizations with the ammo necessary to make a legitimate run at someone of Stanton's pedigree. To tell you the truth, I don't really like talking about this Stanton thing much because it has such a huge pipe-dream vibe about it, and, frankly, I don't think Bowden's proposal is heavy enough from the Rangers' end ... but to the extent that Bowden's proposal has some basis in reality, yes, I'm pulling the trigger on that deal. It hurts like hell, but you do it.]

● Jon Heyman says that the Diamondbacks' recent signing of Cody Ross could mean that a Justin Upton trade is "back in play," though an Upton trade would apparently require a sales pitch from the front office to owner Ken Kendrick, who is an Upton fan; the thought process here is that either Upton or Jason Kubel will be moved to alleviate Arizona's outfield logjam, and that Upton could end up being dealt over Kubel because Upton stands to recoup a lot more value; for what it's worth, Heyman says "there's a belief [Kevin] Towers would still trade Upton if Texas was willing to give up ... Elvis Andrus ... or Jurickson Profar (though there's no indication the Rangers are about to relent on either of those two)" (CBSSports.com)

[There have been reports hither and yon about the Rangers maybe, maybe relenting on the Diamondbacks' asking price for Upton, but I can't envision a scenario where Profar -- the more valuable of the Rangers' twoshortstops to most trade partners -- is tossed into the pot for Upton, and the problem with the Andrus-for-Upton idea is that Texas didn't offer Andrus before, and still isn't doing it now, while Towers seems perfectly content going into the season with Didi Gregorius as his starting shortstop. The idea here, then, is that the Rangers will have to be the ones who blink, who elevate their bid for Upton above and beyond its previous high because their contingency plans didn't work out and because their sense of urgency is such that they now feel compelled to pay more for Upton than what they've previously valued him as being worth.

Could it happen? Yeah. But it's going to take some imagination, some compromise, and a greater show of faith in Upton on the part of the Rangers than what their bids thus far seem to indicate.]

● While the Red Sox' reported preference is to complete a deal with still-free-agent Mike Napoli, they have also engaged free agent first baseman Adam LaRoche in some level of talks, and could conceivably move on from Napoli if they cannot complete a reworked agreement with "protective language" guarding against Napoli's balky hip situation; in turn, Napoli's representatives have reportedly been in contactwith at least one other team since negotiations between the two sides hit a roadblock; Ken Rosenthal speculates that if negotiations should break off altogether, "Napoli would go back into the market and likely accept a shorter, cheaper deal, perhaps from his former club, the Texas Rangers" (FOXSports.com)

[This, as Rosenthal and others have noted, is likely a three-way leverage play, as both the Red Sox and Napoli look to strengthen their respective bargaining positions by bringing other parties into the mix, while LaRoche attempts to put the screws to the Nationals and extract his desired three-year offer. For the sake of discussion, though, let's say that the Red Sox and Napoli ultimately do end up breaking off negotiations, and Napoli re-enters the market. The Napoli-to-Texas scenario isn't completely implausible based on the information we have available to us at this stage, but it presupposes two things: (a) the Rangers see enough value in Napoli as a 1B/DH-exclusive player to issue a new bid that the Napoli camp finds worthwhile, and (b) the Rangers are okay with purchasing what seems to be damaged goods. It's hard for me to believe that both (a) and (b) are true, and while it's fun to dream of 2011 Napoli coming back and capturing our hearts again, the ship, in all likelihood, has sailed.]

● Gerry Fraley writes that there is "growing enthusiasm" within the organization about Colby Lewis's recuperation from flexor tendon surgery, and suggests that Lewis could possibly return in May, "about six weeks ahead of an early projection"; for his part, Jon Daniels cautioned that "it's still a little premature to say he's officially ahead of schedule [...] May is a possibility but we want to get him back once and get him back for good when he comes back. Overall it's definitely positive news but as we all know it's better to be cautious and make sure there are no setbacks.
(Anthony Andro, FOXSports.com)

[At this point, I'd rather see Texas roll out Darvish/Harrison/Holland/Ogando/Perez on Opening Day and bank on Lewis heroically riding to the mid-season rescue -- even with my continued trepidation with respect to his health -- than commit a largesse to Kyle Lohse, whom Jim Bowden believes could be in line for three years, $45 million and whom Texas apparently isn't interested in anyway. I'm pretty sure I would also prefer that over having anything to do with Aaron Cook or Chien-Ming Wang, whom Fraley mentioned as back-rotation possibilities on Wednesday; non-roster invites are one thing, but that wouldn't be a pretty scene even out of the No. 5 rotation spot.]

And The Beat Goes On: Christmas Day

If your car is hail-damaged in the current wave of DFW storms, blame it on Michael Young's Christmas Day revenge

— Joey Matches (@BBTiA) December 25, 2012

● In case you missed it, Nick Swisher agreed to terms with the Indians on a four-year, $56 million deal with a fifth-year vesting option that could drive the total value to $70 million, and most analysts are deeming it a decent to good value for Cleveland; Keith Law thinks that it's a good-value, poor-fit type signing, though, and it's reasonable to posit that this deal would have helped Texas more than it will help Cleveland, given their respective positions on the win curve.

Jim Bowden, however, says that the Rangers were never "in" on Swisher, and aren't "in" on Adam LaRoche, either, as they aren't interested in doling out long-term deals or yielding draft picks for either player. So it goes ...

● Thad Levine went on the radio to talk about the Rangers' continued effort to acquire impact talent to compensate for the losses of Josh Hamilton, Mike Napoli, et al., and seems to hint that the Rangers are all but done in free agency, with any possible impact acquisition likely coming down via the trade market.

● Brad Corbett, former Rangers owner, died peacefully on Christmas Eve at the age of 75, and Gerry Fraley has a fitting retrospective on the life of one of more unusual pro sports team owners that the Metroplex has ever seen. As the Rangers' owner from 1974-80, Corbett exhibited certain characteristics reminiscent of Jerry Jones (his insistence upon serving as both the owner and the GM, often with disastrous consequences) and Mark Cuban (living and dying with the Rangers' every success and failure), and holds the distinction of having presided over a baseball team which ran through four managers in an eight-day span during the 1977 season.

Mike Shropshire wrote at some length about Corbett in Seasons in Hell, delving into Corbett's overarching reason for wanting to buy the Rangers -- "[he] had become rich and now wanted to have some fun" -- and the background of his ownership consortium, which included Amon Carter, Jr. and Ray Nasher, the man responsible for developing NorthPark Center. There are two particularly striking bits relating to Corbett in Seasons in Hell that, I think, accurately convey his free-spirited, free-wheeling approach as the Rangers' owner, and convey the stark difference in team-owning protocol between the 1970s and the present:

The new Rangers deed-holders at the hastily arranged meeting with the media [after purchasing the club] were woefully ill-prepared to answer any specific questions concerning who actually owned what and how much they had paid for whatever it was that they weren't sure that they owned.

Corbett was asked when he expected to receive formal approval of the franchise sale from the American League. He shrugged and rolled his eyes, as if to say, "You mean the league has to okay this deal? Nobody told us that."

And this:

[...] An experienced and talented marketing executive from Fort Worth, Jerre Todd, approached Brad Corbett with what Todd called "a comprehensive promotional and advertising plan" to provide the team with a better image and take full advantage of the revenue potential not just from Dallas and Fort Worth but also from Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana.

"I made my pitch to Corbett thoroughly and elaborately ... it was a damn good plan," Todd told me, "and then Brad got this faraway look in his eye and he yelled, 'Parking lot! We'll have a big barbecue in the parking lot!' And he sent me away and that was that." 

In Corbett's defense, Shropshire also notes that Corbett made a strategically inspired hire in hiring Dr. Bobby Brown as the team's president during the ownership transition ... Brown, a four-time World Series champion and third baseman for the Yankees through the '40s into the '50s, was said to "command the total respect of everybody associated with the [Rangers]," including firey skipper Billy Martin, which made him an ideal authority figure to help keep Martin in line. 

In August 1974, however, Martin concocted a plan where he would ship David Clyde to the minors for a week and then recall him as an intended wake-up call -- which Martin likened to sending "little hoodlums" to prison just long enough to scare them straight -- and Brown vetoed Martin's proposal, telling Martin that Clyde had done too much for the Rangers to be manipulated in that way. The first sparks of friction between Martin and the Rangers flew after the Clyde veto, and the countdown to Martin's eventual firing was set into motion.

Corbett eventually fell out of public favor as his lavish spending on free agents and misfires on the trade market took a toll on both the Rangers' win totals and their finances. Among other things, Corbett reportedly traded Bobby Bonds and Len Barker to the Indians during a conversation at the men's urinal with Indians executive Gabe Paul, consulted his young son on trades, and once stormed into the clubhouse after a loss to call his assembled group of players "a bunch of dogs," then threatened to sell the team "to a bunch of Arabs."

I don't know that I would necessarily call those good years for the Rangers, given their acquired "circus" reputation during that era ... but Corbett wanted to win, and did preside over a few good to very good Rangers teams that just couldn't make it over the hump into the post-season, and there's just something intangibly endearing about colorful owners who leave great stories behind for later generations to enjoy.

I think you could also make a very convincing argument that the successes of the last few years wouldn't have been quite as sweet if not for the oft-bumbling ways of the Rangers during their first 30-plus years of existence.

Sunday Morning Rangers Notes: Things Fall Apart

Some things lingering out there this morning, as the 48-hour countdown to Christmas Day ticks away:

● After meeting with the Rangers this past week, the Diamondbacks reportedly "came out of nowhere" to sign free-agent outfielder Cody Ross a three-year, $26 million deal which includes a fourth-year club option with a $1 million buyout (effectively making it a guaranteed three-year, $27 million obligation), giving Arizona a surfeit of outfielders which will presumably lead to another move; ESPN.com's Buster Olney confirms that Arizona is working to trade an outfielder in the wake of the Ross signing (whom many pundits believe will be Jason Kubel), while CBSSports.com's Jon Heyman hints that the Ross deal will act as a catalyst for interested teams to make another run at Justin Upton (Jim Bowden, Twitter)

● As of Friday afternoon, Jon Heyman was reporting that the Rangers were beginning to "look into Michael Bourn" as a possible free-agent addition to their outfield mix, but characterized their interest as being in the "infancy stage"; there is some thought that Bourn's slow-developing market and lack of desperate suitors could force him and agent Scott Boras into accepting a one-year deal and taking another shot at a multi-year deal during the 2013-14 off-season, but given that Bourn received and rejected a qualifying offer from the Braves, he will cost his next employer a 2013 draft pick, and it remains to be seen whether there's a team out there willing to part with a draft pick for a one-year signee (CBSSports.com)

● Two interesting notes from Jeff Wilson's piece yesterday morning: first, "[Rangers] players and/or their agents have expressed concern about the off-season to [Jon] Daniels, who insisted that the winter planning is far from over and is steadfast in his belief that the Rangers will be a good team in 2013"; second, Wilson writes that the Rangers will talk to Elvis Andrus about a contract extension, but "club officials quietly aren't hopeful" that a deal will get done (Fort Worth Star-Telegram)

● Pirates closer Joel Hanrahan is close to being dealt to the Red Sox in exchange for a multi-player package consisting of Stolmy Pimentel, Jerry Sands, and possibly Mark Melancon, and free-agent outfielder Raul Ibanez is close to re-joining the Mariners on a one-year deal; the Rangers had been mentioned by FOXSports.com's Ken Rosenthal as a potential suitor for Hanrahan, and one local report indicated some interest in Ibanez on the part of the Rangers (ESPN.com)

The Beginning Of A.J. Pierzynski ... In Texas

My earliest, strongest memory of A.J. Pierzynski -- which perhaps speaks to my lack of greater league-wide awareness during my earlier years, considering that he's been kicking it around the majors since 1998 -- is his violent 2006 home-plate collision with Michael Barrett, his emphatic hand-slap on home plate after having bowled over his Cubs counterpart, and the left side of his face being caved in by Barrett's closed fist immediately thereafter. Seven months before the incident that cemented his provocative reputation, though, Pierzynski assumed the role of heads-up victor when, during Game 2 of the 2005 ALCS, he had the presence of mind to run out a swinging strike three that was controversially deemed to have hit the dirt before it hit Josh Paul's mitt, and in the process reached base as the eventual winning run in a series-equalizing game against the Angels.

Those, I suppose, are my two strongest memories of Pierzynski, and while those snapshot memories exclude a lot of good and probably even more bad, they do, I think, help convey the seeming truth that Pierzynski is someone you love to hate until he's playing for your team ... and then "you hate him a little less." If you harbored a deep disdain for Pierzynski before yesterday's one-year, $7.5 million pact went down, then you're probably going to have one hell of a time finding a way to stand him (or even like him) over the next 9-10 months. If you're a bit more receptive on the matter, though, perhaps you can find some way to buy into Pierzynski as a player whose intelligence and competitiveness and work ethic supersede his problematic reputation, whose signal is strong enough to drown out the noise.

And, either way, the Rangers are a better team today with Pierzynski than they were yesterday without him, which is the ultimate goal. The question of how much better is subject to various uncertainties at this point in time (including, notably, Ron Washington's intended playing-time distribution for Pierzynski and Geovany Soto, who has now been relegated into a backup-catching role where he'll still net fairly heavy playing time), but Pierzynski makes the Rangers' offense better and, in all probability, makes the pitching staff better -- albeit with a few performance- and intangible-related concerns along the way.

First, recognize again that there's something of a qualitative explanation for the vast disparity between Pierzynski's career offensive mean (.284/.324/.429, 94 wRC+) and his 2012 outburst (.278/.326/.501, 118 wRC+), and take note that even though Pierzynski will have another year of tread worn off his mid-30s tires in 2013, there's some reason to hope in a bit of a carryover effect where his numbers don't crater back down to (or below) his career averages this coming season. The aging curve is a cruel, fickle beast, especially where catchers are concerned, but Pierzynski has proven exceptionally durable over the course of his career and has demonstrated some aptitude for being able to convert hard work with his coaching/training staff into tangible results at an age where most hitters are running out of gas.

Second, notice that Pierzynski is a lifetime .291/.334/.432 hitter against right-handers in nearly 5,000 plate appearances (.287/.338/.536 in 2012), and that Soto is a lifetime .295/.390/.501 hitter against left-handers in 600-plus plate appearances. You can make reasonable cases as far as their respective 2013 platoon projections perhaps being worse than their career platoon batting lines (particularly in Soto's case), and you can again note that Pierzynski/Soto won't be utilized in a strict platoon (e.g. Soto may end up being employed as Yu Darvish's personal catcher yet again this season, regardless of the opposing pitcher's handedness), but Pierzynski is healthy and driven, and Soto is apparently out to get into the best shape of his life again, and there is legitimate reason to believe that Pierzynski/Soto can be an offensive upgrade over last year's mish-mash of Napoli/Soto/Torrealba/et al.

Third, understand that "catcher defense" consists of multiple value-generating activities, and that Pierzynski has his own specific pros and cons within the scope of this rather large area -- South Side Sox, for example, recently published a convincing critique of Pierzynski's pitch-blocking skills in which it was noted that he has consistently ranked among baseball's worst pitch-blockers in recent years, and a quick glance at Pierzynski's defensive numbers indicates that he's not particularly sharp in terms of nailing runners with basestealing intentions (though, for what it's worth, he's performed at or above the league-average caught-stealing rate in both 2010 and 2012). On the other hand, though, Pierzynski ranked slightly above average in terms of pitch-framing from 2007-11 (2012 data isn't available), and to the extent that you can buy into that performance as a static baseline, you can buy into Pierzynski as a decent defensive catcher who may hurt his pitching staff in one way and then help it in another way.

[For what it's worth, Pierzynski caught Mark Buerhle's no-hitter against Texas on April 18th, 2007, and Philip Humber's perfect game against Seattle on April 21st, 2012.]

Fourth, with respect to any concerns over Pierzynski possibly casting a negative or poisonous pall over the Rangers' clubhouse, I was struck by this passage from Ben Reiter's August 2012 SI.com feature piece on Pierzynski:

"He's not any more of a d--- than anyone else," said White Sox designated hitter Adam Dunn. "Throw his helmet? Who doesn't? He has this reputation, and once you're labeled as something, you do any little thing and it gets blown up."

"Playing against him for so long, he was probably one of my least liked guys," said Diamondbacks closer J.J. Putz, of his mindset prior to signing with the White Sox for the 2010 season. "Then my locker was right next to his, and after that he became one of my favorite teammates ever. He's not a baby, but just a guy who is so passionate that he doesn't hold anything back. Until you play with him, you have a misperception of what he is."

"If he were well liked, people would be like, 'He's a hell of a player, the cornerstone of that franchise,'" said one opponent. "Now, it's like, 'He's a d-----." Indeed, cut away his reputation, ill deserved or otherwise, and Pierzynski's story is simple: he is hard working and dedicated, and has successfully played one of the most physically and mentally grueling positions in any sport for a very long time. He has perhaps never played it more successfully than this season, for the first place Sox.

C.J. Wilson created something of a stir back in the spring of 2008 when he opined that the average major league player is a d-----bag, a comment that reportedly drew the ire of Michael Young and others within the Rangers' clubhouse, and perhaps his sense of phrasing and timing left something to be desired ... but the thing is, C.J. really wasn't off base in saying what he said. The major league clubhouse is not a pantheon of morality or virtue, and with very, very few exceptions, the major league player is not a pillar of goodness or righteousness. I don't pretend to be any great fan of Pierzynski's violations of baseball's unspoken on-the-field code or his off-the-field antics or his television work with FOX or any of the rest of it, but beneath the outward braggadocio is, by virtually all accounts, a decent guy, and it's hard for me to imagine Pierzynski proving to be any sort of meaningful clubhouse disruption or distraction in an environment that isn't nearly as pristine as we're sometimes led to believe it is.

Fifth, Jamey noted this morning that, per ESPN Chicago's Bruce Levine, Pierzynski has been "extremely inconsistent with the [Chicago] media, a source of frustration that Levine might have implied between the lines has not helped the way he’s characterized in the press." There have also been a few reminders of Pierzynski's hostile mid-season response to being "snubbed" by All-Star manager Ron Washington, which doesn't bother me in the least and, despite their differences in opinion, probably doesn't bother Washington or Pierzynski in the least either. The more interesting point to me is the media angle, as I'll be curious to see if/when the DFW media ends up turning on Pierzynski for not being as respectful or forthcoming with the press as what it has grown accustomed to in the past with Michael Young and friends. Of course, those stories will only materialize if the Rangers put a disappointing product on the field in 2013. If they win ballgames, and if Pierzynski holds up his end of the $7.5 million bargain, then all is fine and well. Chemistry follows winning ... not the other way around.

Pierzynski isn't a long-term solution behind the plate, and he's not a perfect solution behind the plate, but he's a very reasonable buy with a legitimate shot at churning out a little surplus value above and beyond his $7.5 million salary (another 2- to 2.5-win season may be within his grasp), and with the Rangers' position on the win curve being such that their post-season chances benefit greatly from each marginal win they can add, I'm able to sit back this morning and say that the 2013 season looks a little brighter than it did yesterday -- yes, even though it meant adding this guy.

Cubs, Edwin Jackson Agree On Four-Year, $52 Million Deal

And so it is that another of the Rangers' reputed targets has been erased from their off-season whiteboard, as multiple sources -- including CSNChicago's Patrick Mooney -- are reporting this afternoon that the Chicago Cubs have agreed to terms with free-agent right-hander Edwin Jackson on a four-year, $52 million deal. Less than 48 hours ago, ESPN.com's Jim Bowden tweeted that the Padres had withdrawn from the Jackson hunt after declining to go as far as four years, and noted that the only two teams left in the hunt were the Cubs and the Rangers.

Texas, however, was reported to be interested more in a short-term deal than a long-term deal on Jackson, and I think it's reasonable to surmise that the Rangers also balked at the idea of going as far as four guaranteed years on Jackson. We never went terribly deep as far as discussing Jackson (which I suppose is for the best now that he's landed elsewhere), but I can get why four years for a mid-rotation-type pitcher on a first-division club might not have been an appealing proposition for Texas. Six different employers in the last five years may speak to some of the frustration that lingers out there within major league circles over Jackson's inability to harness his ace-caliber stuff into ace-caliber performance and start-to-start inconsistency, and you wonder if there was some thinking among Rangers' brass that $50-plus million was too rich for an inconsistent mid-rotation worker whose youth and upside are rapidly slipping away.

The flip side of the Jackson argument, however, is that an organization steeped in pitching knowledge like the Rangers -- who have both Nolan Ryan and the Maddux brothers on the payroll -- could conceivably have coaxed some sort of a breakthrough out of Jackson, and that his ground-ball tendencies, excellent durability, and above-average peripherals would have played well in front of the Rangers' defense, which figures to remain fairly sturdy across the defensive spectrum in 2013. And, ultimately, if you want the Rangers to improve their 2013 ballclub with diminished concern for the long-term ramifications of doing so, there's a pretty good chance that you wanted the Rangers to go and get Jackson.

I can't express great surprise at the fact that nothing came of this fleeting Rangers/Jackson dalliance, though, and it's getting harder to imagine Texas tapping into the free-agent pool for any sort of off-season rotation ugprade, given that the best options still lingering out there are Kyle Lohse -- whom I can't talk myself into buying as a smart play for the Rangers at his likely price point -- and a withering Shaun Marcum. If you're looking for something better at the back of the Opening Day rotation than a Martin Perez or a Robbie Ross or a Justin Grimm, but you're as thoroughly turned off by Lohse/Marcum as I am, then you're best served by turning a keen eye towards the trade market and hoping for the best.

Report: Rangers Meeting With A.J. Pierzynski Today

In this afternoon's edition of "well, here's a name you can sink your teeth into because the Rangers are showing some indication of interest, and because the Rangers kind of need some help at this position," ESPNChicago's Bruce Levine is reporting that A.J. Pierznsyki and his agent were/are scheduled to meet with Rangers brass in Arlington this afternoon/evening. This isn't the first time that Pierzynski has been tied to the Rangers thus far this off-season, but it's the first we've heard of the two sides actually getting together to discuss a possible fit/contract, and to the extent that we can categorize this as the Rangers making legitimate progress towards upgrading their catching situation, it sounds like the Rangers could finally address one of their areas of immediate need sooner rather than later.

Pierzynski is an interesting case in player valuation because he possesses the characteristics of someone with major downside potential (that is, a full-time catcher who turns 36 years old in 12 days), yet posted up a career-best offensive season in 2012 (520 PA, .278/.326/.501, 118 wRC+) and is coming off his first three-plus-win campaign since 2003. There will invariably be some talk of Pierzynski being an ideal left-handed power bat replacement for Josh Hamilton because he popped 27 home runs from the left side of the plate last season, but the concern there is that Pierzynski totaled just 17 home runs in 1,003 plate appearances from 2010-11, and even though there may be a qualitative explanation for that disparity *, Pierzynski's career arc and the aging curve are more suggestive of a 10-15 home run player per 500 plate appearances from this point forward.

[* According to an interview conducted by the Chicago Tribune back in August, Pierzynski felt "lost at times" during his down 2010 season, and in 2011 he began working with former White Sox hitting coach Greg Walker and assistant hitting coach Mike Gellinger to straighten out the kinks in his offensive game, as well as embarking upon a new workout program directed by White Sox staff. Pierzynski says that his new approach finally began to yield results during the summer of 2011, but he suffered a broken wrist in mid-August 2011, and wasn't quite right again until the 2011-12 off-season. I'll leave it to someone else to determine whether Pierzynski's "new approach" is a permanent fix which should be reflected in his projections on a going-forward basis, or whether his likeliest near-term outcome is regression to or below his career offensive norms.]

I don't profess to be the greatest Pierzynski fan in the world, and I'm skittish over the prospect of handing out a multi-year deal -- mind you, a deal with a potential AAV around $8-9 million -- to a catcher who's closer to 40 than he is 30, but the Rangers' current catching situation is such that you would feel significantly better about a catching tandem comprised of Pierzynski and Geovany Soto than you would about a catching tandem comprised of Soto and Eli Whiteside. The Rangers appear to value quality receiving skills -- pitch framing, baserunner handling, and game calling, as well as rapport and chemistry with the pitching staff -- over maxed-out offense from their catchers, but offense still matters, and the offensive downside potential of a Soto/Whiteside tandem is terrifying enough that it makes some sense for Texas to make a serious run at Pierzynski.

That, however, assumes that the money/contractual terms he's seeking are roughly congruent with the amount of value the Rangers believe he's capable of producing over the life of a possible contract with Texas ... and that hasn't proven to be the case with Mike Napoli, Josh Hamilton, Zack Greinke, Russell Martin, or any of their other healthy, open-market targets thus far this off-season. Soto was a comparatively cheap re-sign, while Joakim Soria is a rehab project who may not produce legitimate value until 2014. Pierzynski's certainly going to be lower on the guaranteed dollars spectrum than guys like Napoli or Hamilton or Greinke, but it remains to be seen just how far they're willing to go here -- or, for that matter, whether today's meeting will even result in an actual offer.

The End Of Josh Hamilton, And The Winter Of Our Discontent

It's December 17th, just four days shy of what would have been Josh Hamilton's fifth anniversary as a Texas Ranger, and his nearly five-year-long swim through the organization has now fully transitioned from reality of the present to memory of the past. It's a transition that some of us saw coming more than a year ago and most of us saw coming months ago, a transition which we thought we had sufficiently braced ourselves for ... and, for the most part, we did. I'm not surprised that life after Josh Hamilton is beginning now for the Rangers as opposed to beginning 4-5 more years down the road.

Four days after his departure, however, I'm still rather surprised (and dismayed) at the fact that the next leg of his major league journey will find him strengthening the Rangers' No. 1 rival for a while, and I'm still unconvinced that the back end of his newly minted contract is going to hurt the Angels as much as we'd like to think it will. (I can't, however, say I'll miss him opening his mouth). 

There's been a lot written over the last 72-plus hours about how the Angels overpaid to the hilt by escalating their pursuit of Hamilton to a $125 million level, and how Hamilton, flawed as he is personally and psychologically and physically and even on a pure baseball level, is an exceptionally cruddy bet to generate $125 million of value over the next five years. I take no issue with those assertions, and, if you're solely focused on that aspect of his departure, you probably think the Angels committed a colossal mistake. A month and a half ago, ESPN.com's Dan Szymborski forecasted Hamilton to churn out 15.5 wins above replacement over the next five seasons, translating to $87 million of fair market value over that span (given a four percent inflation rate). There's nothing unexpected about a top-flight free agent being "overpaid" relative to his long-term WAR forecast, but paying out a 40-45 percent premium for a player already loaded down with an excess of risk is a pretty unappetizing proposition.

The Rangers were smart to not get involved around that price point, and, frankly, even their speculated four-year, $108 million offer had the strong aroma of the winner's curse about it, such that whatever amount of enthusiasm you could muster over the Rangers being able to plug Hamilton back into the middle of their lineup would have been massively undercut by your sense of dread over the degree of overpayment. You could say the same thing about the impact of this deal upon the Angels, but there's a reasonable case to be made that their payroll ceiling -- and, consequently, their margin for error -- is significantly greater than that of the Rangers at this point in time, and that the Angels are therefore much better positioned than the Rangers to weather the looming albatross that is the back end of the Hamilton contract. 

None of that, however, changes the fact that the Angels have meaningfully improved their 2013 (and perhaps 2014-15) ballclub(s) by landing Hamilton, or that the Rangers really haven't done much of anything thus far this winter ... and so in spite of the reality that the Angels signed Hamilton to a bad contract that would have represented a fiscally irresponsible roll of the dice for Texas, the local media has wasted no time in using the Rangers' "failure" to sign Hamilton as a platform for launching its most scathing missile strikes against the front office to date. Evan Grant:

And you thought the collapse over the last three weeks of the season was bad.

It pales in comparison to the worst off-season in the history of off-seasons, which took another dramatic turn for the worse Thursday afternoon.

[...] Did I miss something? Don’t the Rangers have three consecutive 90-win seasons? Haven’t they been to two of the last three World Series? Doesn’t money go farther in Texas than elsewhere? Isn’t Ron Washington an easy manager for whom to play?

The answer to all five is "yes."

So how come, all of a sudden, nobody wants to deal with the Rangers?

For this there are only theories. None of them are very complimentary. If it can be summed up in a word, that word would be hubris – extreme pride or arrogance. Committing hubris would entail Rangers management thinking it had the baseball world by the tail, would entail thinking it could “win” free agency and trade negotiations, that everything would fall into place and that players are simply assets or liabilities to be moved around like stocks and bonds.

Randy Galloway:

The Rangers appear foolish, but worse yet, they also have come across as absolutely clueless, with some arrogance thrown in. Idiots? Yes, that, too.

[...] What happened? I don't know, but it appears some front-office egos got in the way. You do know, Jerry, what can happen when inner-office egos grab an organization by the throat. All these years later, everybody still talks about Jimmy and Jerry, and that ego thing. Don't they, Jerry?

But suddenly, Jon Daniels, the general manager who appeared to be in total control of the Rangers' winter moves, well, Jon got hit upside the head with a fungo. At the moment, Jon might as well be, well, you, Jerry.

The outcry among media types and fans alike from the Rangers' winter inactivity has been loud, swift, and forceful. Their 2012 season was swallowed up in its entirety by an extended period of uninspired, subpar baseball, ending in a catastrophic flameout that we all found wholly unacceptable, and if it's difficult to accept this sort of inaction from a great team coming off a deep playoff run (see: 2010-11 Rangers), it's damn near impossible to accept this in light of the way things ended three-plus months ago. People are pissed. People want more talent in here, they want it now rather than later, and when it doesn't materialize in an expeditious manner, they want to know why. I get it.

And, for what it's worth, I'm not thrilled myself with the way the off-season has unfolded. I feel that there have been opportunities which slipped away, and that there's a reasonable debate to be had over the Rangers' current player-valuing methods.

What I don't get, though, are the accusations of hubris and arrogance, the seemingly baseless speculation of outsized egos taking control of the Rangers' inner circle, and the talk of this being the worst off-season in the history of the franchise. I especially don't get the arrogance bit because, from my perspective, the Rangers' "failure" to land any of their reported off-season targets speaks more to their internal valuations/projections -- and perhaps their spending capacity -- being on the conservative side of things, and to them simply not offering as much money as the highest bidder, than a grossly inflated sense of front-office superiority and pride or free-agent disdain for the Rangers.

Late last month, Texas reportedly offered Russell Martin a two-year, $13 million deal. Pittsburgh sealed the deal with a two-year, $17 million contract.

Earlier this month, Texas reportedly maxed out on Mike Napoli at two years and something in the vicinity of $20 million. Boston sealed the deal with a three-year, $39 million offer, though the deal now appears to be in jeopardy due to emergent concerns over his health and the Red Sox are attempting to negotiate a shorter contract. Depending on the severity of Napoli's medical problems, two years and $20 million may not be as far off from his eventual contract as we originally thought it would be.

Earlier this month, Kansas City blew up the Rangers' pursuit of James Shields by throwing down a package consisting of Wil Myers, Jake Odorizzi, Mike Montgomery, and Patrick Leonard in exchange for Shields and Wade Davis. A comparable offer from the Rangers would have elicited much wailing and gnashing of teeth, I think, given that most of the wistfulness from the Rangers' fan base over that deal was oriented towards us dreaming on that sort of return for Derek Holland or Matt Harrison.

Earlier this month, Texas made a significant play on Zack Greinke, but reportedly balked at the Greinke camp's demands for an out clause after three years that would have shifted the needle further to the left on the risk-reward continuum, and was ultimately bested by the Dodgers' six-year, $147 million offer, which included Greinke's demanded out clause.

Then there was the Justin Upton thing, which effectively boiled down to the Rangers trying -- and, to this point, failing -- to make a deal work without kicking either Elvis Andrus or Jurickson Profar into the pot. R.A. Dickey isn't happening, because the Blue Jays are, in effect, blowing the Mets away with their reported offer fronted by top catching prospect Travis d'Arnaud. And, of course, there's the Hamilton thing, which we already covered in exhaustive detail above, and which I could not get behind in good conscience even if I was armed with foreknowledge that Hamilton would sign with the Angels if he didn't sign with the Rangers.

Perhaps my usual sense of cynicism is absent this morning, but I don't see the evidence to support the notion that the Rangers have whiffed on these names because they're too consumed by their own arrogance or overconfidence in their abilities, or because free agents don't want to play for the Rangers. I think the Rangers whiffed on these names because they didn't offer the most money/most appealing contract terms (Martin/Napoli/Hamilton/Greinke), or because they didn't make the best trade offer (Shields/Dickey), and because they valued Andrus/Profar to such a great degree that they couldn't bring themselves to break the stalemate with Kevin Towers and the Diamondbacks on Upton.

The next question, of course, is whether they have erred in their approach on any of these counts, and that's a more complicated issue. The Rangers' internal player valuations may be perfectly supportable and reasonable and capable of withstanding scrutiny from skeptical outsiders, but in light of everything we know up to this point, their valuations (and corresponding offers) simply haven't been hefty enough to lock down any deals, and that leads you to wonder if their careful, calculated approach is simply lagging behind an off-season market where inflation just feels like it is running rampant and overpayment in terms of dollars/prospects is turning into the new market norm.

Put another way, we can question whether they're adapting to a fast-changing market as quickly as they should be, and wonder if they're overvaluing their in-house talent and/or undervaluing outside talent in a way that's incongruent with how the market has actually developed Perhaps none of the above is true and the Rangers harbor zero regret about the way things have played out, but in light of everything we know up to this point, these seem like reasonable points for us to contemplate. 

The other thing that's been gnawing away at me for a week or two now is the growing likelihood that the 2013 Rangers won't be as good as they could have been if they had played things faster and looser and more aggressively earlier in this winter, which heightens the probability of a scenario where they miss the post-season and years of club control of their best players -- a year of Yu Darvish at his best, of Adrian Beltre at his best, of Elvis Andrus at his best -- vanish into the ether without them even gaining bottom-seed dmission to baseball's post-season crapshoot.

The easy and perfectly logical counterargument is that the Rangers should be playing things so that they have a self-sustaining, long-term contender that has a good chance of reaching the post-season every year (thereby buying the maximium number of shots at the World Series) ... but, on a more visceral level, I'm still consumed by regret that the Rangers couldn't win the big one with Mike Napoli or Michael Young or Josh Hamilton, and I really can't stand the thought of the same happening with Andrus and Beltre and Darvish and friends. 

Texas is in a tricky position right now, armed with some money to spend and attractive young talent but a shrinking pool of options and a roster that, as it stands right now, arguably lags behind the Angels in terms of projected 2013 wins. There are certain in-house possibilities for their squad that make some sense (e.g. pulling out of the starting pitching market and reserving their trade ammo until the mid-season trade market materializes), some that make less sense (e.g. Ian Kinsler at first base, though I guess there's a case to be made that it could work), and some that make almost no sense (e.g. Geovany Soto and Eli Whiteside as the Opening Day catching tandem), but the problem is that none of those possibilities strike us as especially appealing, and it's hard to feel overly jazzed or confident about the roster in its present form, or even feel certain in a big move being close on the horizon.

And, with that being the case, we continue to wait. We wait for that one big move which re-energizes the fan base, we wait for the winter of our discontent to subside, and we wait for that feeling of unbridled anticipation for baseball season to return to our hearts. 

Friday Evening Open Thread: Four Questions

1. According to Andy Martino of the New York Daily News, the Rangers reportedly "indicated a willingness" to trade Mike Olt and Cody Buckel to the Mets in exchange for R.A. Dickey; however, the perception among baseball types was that the Blue Jays had emerged as clear front-runners in the Dickey sweepstakes, and FOXSports.com's Ken Rosenthal is now reporting that the Rangers have withdrawn from all trade talks on Dickey. Assuming that Olt/Buckel was the Rangers' actual offer (or some other package approximating its value), would you have pulled the trigger?

2. If you had to pick whether the Josh Hamilton signing will help the Angels more than it will hurt them over the next five years (or, conversely, whether the signing will hurt the Angels more than it will help them over the next five years), which way would you guess that it will go down?

3. When you ponder and look back over the Josh Hamilton era in Texas, what is the single strongest memory that is conjured to mind? Is it the tremendous highs of his MVP season, the lows with which we unfortunately became acquainted, or all of the associated drama in between?

4. Now that the Rangers have seemingly passed/whiffed on Zack Greinke, Justin Upton, Josh Hamilton, Russell Martin, Mike Napoli, James Shields, and (apparently) R.A. Dickey, what's the best course of action for the Rangers with respect to the rest of their off-season and the 2013 season? 

[I was going to post something of a lengthy and detailed nature on Josh Hamilton and the Rangers this afternoon, but after the tragic events of this morning in Newtown, Connecticut, I don't have it in me to finish said post -- and, frankly, it doesn't feel like baseball, or sports in general, really matters right now. Cherish the ones you have in your life, and remember to hug your loved ones a little tighter the next time you all happen to cross paths.]

Angels, Josh Hamilton Agree On Five-Year, $125 Million Deal

In today's episode of "watch another reported Rangers target possibly go to someone who isn't the Rangers," multiple reports on surfacing on Twitter that the Angels are nearing a deal with Josh Hamilton. Yahoo! Sports' Tim Brown is reporting that the Angels are "getting close"on a deal, but that it hasn't been nailed down as of yet. Both CBSSports.com's Jon Heyman and Bob Nightengale of the USA Today have confirmed the existence of on-going talks between the Angels and Hamilton's camp; one Los Angeles sports radio host called the talks "serious negotiations." 

And now, as of 1:15 p.m., ESPN 103.3 FM's Ben Rogers is reporting on Twitter that Hamilton to Los Angeles is a done deal. FOXSports.com's Jon Paul Morosi is reporting that the contract will span five years. If true, that would destroy the notion -- or perhaps hope -- that this afternoon's sudden jolt of movement on the Hamilton front was a grand act of posturing. For what it's worth, Hamilton insisted all along that he would give Texas the first chance to beat his best offer, and assuming that his best offer is indeed materializing from the Angels, it would seem that the Rangers have declined their option to match or beat the Angels.

1:20 p.m. CST Update: The deal is done, per everyone. Ben Rogers is reporting that the deal is five years, $125 million (via Twitter). Jon Daniels has confirmed that the Rangers have been told that Hamilton is signing with the Angels, and also indicated that Hamilton never gave the Rangers to match the Angels' offer even after pledging that he would do so back in May, which doesn't seem to be going over particularly well within the Rangers' front office:

"It was our full expectation that the phone call was going to be before he signed, and certainly not after," Daniels said. "Josh had indicated recently, last week, that he felt it might be time to move on, but we were still talking. We had had addition conversations this week that I thought had moved in a positive direction."

Daniels confirmed that the Rangers spoke with Hamilton about a deal that could have been more lucrative than the Angels' final price, believed to be $125 million, but Daniels said that the Angels' deal is for more guaranteed money.

I'm inclined to believe that this proposed deal referenced in the last paragraph would have looked something like four years, $90-95 million, with fifth- and sixth-year vesting/team options that could have escalated the total value above $125 million. According to ESPN.com's Buster Olney, though, Hamilton had grown frustrated by the Rangers seemingly dragging their feet in negotiations, and once the Angels began to move on Hamilton, progress materialized quickly. I'll leave it to someone else to make the final binding determination on whether Hamilton's camp played dirty in reneging on its pledge to give Texas one final chance to match his best offer, or if the Rangers misplayed their hand in the Hamilton negotiations ... though for what it's worth, I can't feel animosity towards Hamilton on this count. Things change, verbal pledges are broken on both sides, and s--- happens. It's baseball, and even if Hamilton had given the Rangers one last chance to match, it sounds like the marriage was already over and his mind was already made up.

So, this is where we stand -- Hamilton is gone, and he's gone to the Rangers' prime division rival for $25 million annually over the next five seasons. This is a tough one for me to wrap my head around, because even though Hamilton walking for that kind of guaranteed money is almost certainly in the Rangers' long-term best interest, this still isn't a good day for the Rangers organization. Quite the contrary, in fact. Hamilton may be a basketcase fraught with risk, and a poor bet to generate $125 million of value over the next five years, but he still figures to be a major offensive threat over the next two, maybe three years -- a threat who, in the short run, is going to make the Angels a better team, and is leaving a fairly substantial void in the Rangers' lineup for the time being. We can be thankful that the Rangers aren't going to be entangled with the back end of that deal whereas the Angels are, but the short run also matters, and in the short run, the Rangers' chances of reaching the post-season in 2013-14 just took a measurable hit.

The other thing gnawing at me about this is how it feels like the relative back-end negative impact on the Angels may be smaller here than it would have been for the Rangers, had they managed to sign him to an identical (or even slightly lower) sum. Texas has been very judicious in picking and choosing its spots to commit large quantities of money while showing a clear aversion to contracts with poor ROIs, and letting Hamilton walk conforms perfectly with that policy. The Angels, meanwhile, are incurring additional risk that Hamilton turns into a late-contract vegetable, that their spending efficiency (dollars spent per win) craters, and that they ultimately reach a point of payroll unsustainability where they have to re-rack and lay low for a couple of years until they can bring their payroll scene back under control. In that sense, the Angels' loss would be the Rangers' gain, but the issue is that the Angels boast their own massive income streams (No. 2 media market, $3 billion TV deal, etc.) and their own well-capitalized owner who seems fully prepared to go toe-to-toe with the Dodgers in terms of spending. Yeah, the Hamilton contract could set the Angels back in a big way ... but what if it doesn't?

I should reiterate that I am in no way, shape or form close to panicking, that the Rangers still have an excellent front office with some payroll manueverability, and that the off-season isn't close to being over ... but that doesn't change the fact that today isn't a good day for the Rangers, that the last week hasn't been good for the Rangers, and that one of the Rangers' front-line winter options will now be pummeling the baseball for their chief divisional rival next season. Things could still very well work out for Texas; it's the fact that they haven't as of yet, though, that's planting seeds of doubt in our minds, that's contributing to our anxiety, and that's turning what was supposed to be a fun off-season into a not very fun off-season.

And The Beat Goes On: Dec. 13th

I can only hope that this song is playing when we all inevitably meet our end at the hands of an increasingly vengeful Michael Young:

● T.R. Sullivan's latest piece basically reiterates everything that we know up to this point (chiefly, that the Rangers want to bring Hamilton back), and includes some quotes from Jon Daniels about the Rangers being more concerned with finding the right move for the good of the organization than creating flashy headlines:

"Going into the offseason we felt like there were a number of options to improve the team internally and we still feel that way," Daniels said. "Obviously, we were looking at a few specific guys [externally] but at this point, with the exception of Soria, they haven't materialized. The danger is reacting for the sake of a headline and satisfy everybody's desire to make an offseason move. Just like our fans and players, we want to do something but it's got to be right. The offseason winners and losers are not always the same teams who are playing in October."

● Randy Galloway bemoans the Rangers' lack of meaningful activity thus far this winter, saying that the Rangers "look like fools" right now while emphasizing that the reason they've taken on that appearance is because of the media playing up the notion that Texas was "holding baseball hostage" during winter meetings week. 

● Jon Daniels says that the Rangers have heard good things about Eli Whiteside's catching/throwing ability and, in particular, his ability to work with a pitching staff, and notes that while Texas isn't necessarily done looking for catching help, the organization is comfortable in his ability to handle the backup catching role. I'm fully prepared to eat my hat if the Rangers roll into the season with a Soto/Whiteside catching tandem; the Rangers value quality receiving skills behind the plate over maxed-out offensive production, and that's a very reasonable position to take on the matter, but the problem is that the offensive floor on that tandem is one of black-hole proportions. I'm cautiously optimistic in Soto rebounding in 2013, but last season's 62 wRC+ campaign should leave you skittish, and Whiteside's a lifetime 65 wRC+ hitter.

It would be one thing if, say, 7-8 of the Rangers' nine total offensive positions were nicely squared away, such that you could feel okay about completly punting the catcher position and preparing to roll into the season with an offensive projection well below the league norm for the catching position. But they're not, and Whiteside is a poor hitter even behind the plate, and Soto's still rather dicey, and I just can't believe that they're going to roll into the season with this as their catching arrangement. 

● Michael Young stopped down on ESPN 103.3 FM yesterday to elaborate upon some of his remarks from his closing press conference, which included him downplaying his comments about the front office and stating that the Rangers' push to trade him put a bit of a "fire in his belly." 

Young also says that he supported and urged on Josh Hamilton in his battle to quit chewing tobacco during the season, noting that he wanted what was best for Josh as a person and that he couldn't care less whether it affected him on the field. Two months ago, Nolan Ryan criticized Hamilton's timing in attempting to kick his tobacco habit during the season given the seeming adverse effects upon his performance.

● Kevin Sherrington says that if the Rangers fail to re-sign Josh Hamilton, they have to go "all-in" to acquire R.A. Dickey and Michael Bourn. In other news, a single tear just ran down Leonys Martin's cheek and he can't figure out why. 

And The Beat Goes On: Dec. 12th

I've decided that the Rangers probably would have had more energy and swagger this past season if they had dressed like this:

● In case you were blacked out last night and find yourself functionally incapable of scrolling down, a big trade just happened, and indications are this trade has significantly reduced the likelihood of Justin Upton being traded to the Rangers, with Kevin Towers sounding pretty content with his post-trade roster and less inclined to move Upton. That's good if you've been living in a perpetual state of anxiety over the possibility of Elvis Andrus being traded; it's bad, however, if you don't want the Rangers to re-sign Josh Hamilton, and it's not a real great development any way you look at it, because fewer top-market options for the Rangers means less leverage.

● T.R. Sullivan says that Derek Holland met with Nolan Ryan around Thanksgiving to talk about the erratic command and inconsistency that plagued him in 2012, with Holland acknowledging that he needs to step things up "big-time."

● Sullivan also has a piece on Ian Kinsler, which mentions that Kinsler nearly underwent surgery around the All-Star break to address his recurring ankle pain from his 2010 sprain (pain which has since subsided once again), and talks about Kinsler's role within the context of the 2013 roster, which includes this interesting bit:

Young's departure leaves Kinsler as the senior member of the Rangers, as far as continuous service time. Young was also the Rangers' unofficial team captain, leaving a possible void of leadership within the clubhouse.

Kinsler is one of those who will be looked upon to help fill the void.

"It's a little overrated, honestly," Kinsler said. "The goal of the team is not who the leader is. The goal of the team is to win and get back to the exciting style of baseball we had in 2009, 2010 and 2011. Last year it just felt like there wasn't that excitement, that energy. Regardless of who the leader is or who you guys want to say the leader is, it's about getting the energy back in our ballclub. I'm going to do my best to provide that. To be a leader, you have to perform in the field and you have to perform in the clubhouse. It doesn't matter who it is. There's no next in line."

● Zack Greinke says that he was favoring Texas at one point, but "that changed at the end," which I think is the most roundabout way that one can possibly say "yeah, I got moneywhipped into changing my mind."

Indians, D'Backs, Reds Agree On "Monster" Three-Way Trade

The winter of our growing discontent feels like it became a little bit colder tonight, as various sources from the Twittersphere are reporting tonight that the Reds, Diamondbacks, and Indians have agreed on a monster three-way, 10-player trade involving the following players:

To CLE: RHP Trevor Bauer, RHP Matt Albers, and RHP Bryan Shaw (from ARI), and OF Drew Stubbs (from CIN)

To ARI: SS Didi Gregorius (from CIN), and LHP Tony Sipp and 1B Lars Anderson (from CLE)

To CIN: OF Shin-Soo Choo and UTIL Jason Donald (from CLE)

Bauer entered the 2012 season as one of the 10-15 best prospects in the game, and is, in effect, being moved along with a couple of middle relievers in exchange for a seemingly busted first base prospect, a left-handed middle reliever, and Gregorius, whom Diamondbacks general manager Kevin Towers reportedly covets despite the scouting perception that he profiles more as a utility player or a second-division starter at shortstop. This is, of course, a world full of imperfect information, and it may be that the Diamondbacks know something about Bauer which has compelled them to move him for a seemingly light return, but this just feels like another trade where, based on the information available to us, you wish the Rangers could have somehow managed to worm their way into the picture. 

The problem, though, is that the window of opportunity has shut on Trevor Bauer, and may have already slammed shut on Justin Upton, as a proposed three-team deal involving the Rangers, Diamondbacks, and Indians reportedly fell apart last week and hasn't shown any recent signs of revival. Arizona does still need long-term help at third base, and has a little less pitching depth today than it did yesterday with Bauer's exit, and, from that standpoint, you can still hope that there's some basis for the two clubs hooking up on an Upton deal revolving around Mike Olt and either Martin Perez or Derek Holland (yes, the latter is definitely more valuable than the former) ... but, at this point, that isn't a deal I feel too confident in actualizing, particularly now that Arizona has plugged one major hole and now seems to be feeling less pressure to rashly pull the trigger on a trade sending Upton out of state.

And if Upton is off the table, one has to imagine that the next course of action for the Rangers involves turning to a backup off-season plan centered around Josh Hamilton -- unless it doesn't. Regardless, though, this hasn't materialized into a very satisfying off-season for the Rangers as of yet, and whether it's fair to the Rangers' front office or not, the vocalized discontent of the masses is about to get even louder.

Michael Young Says Goodbye, And It's An Interesting Goodbye

Per the tweets flowing down from the Michael Young farewell press conference, which went down live earlier in the 5:00 p.m. hour:

Michael Young said he didn't want to have a conference call. Wanted a press conference instead to say thank you and goodbye.

— Emily Jones (@EmilyJonesFSN) December 10, 2012

Young starts by thanking his teammates, staff and Ron Washington, in particular.

— Emily Jones (@EmilyJonesFSN) December 10, 2012

Young to the fans: Never had the chance to say goodbye, but that's the nature of the business.

— Emily Jones (@EmilyJonesFSN) December 10, 2012

Michael Young on #Rangers fans: "It was my pleasure and my honor to go out there and play for them on a daily basis."

— Jeff Wilson (@JeffWilson_FWST) December 10, 2012

Young said told he would get about 300 at bats if he stayed with the Rangers, and that was a firm number.

— Emily Jones (@EmilyJonesFSN) December 10, 2012

Young said he knew writing was on wall when ABs were getting cut.

— Anthony Andro (@aandro) December 10, 2012

Young on Rangers management: There's no relationship there.

— Emily Jones (@EmilyJonesFSN) December 10, 2012

Young hasn't talked with front office since trade talk surfaced. Talked to Wash yesterday.

— Anthony Andro (@aandro) December 10, 2012

Michael Young says he regrets the way he handled move to third, praises Elvis.

— Or Moyal (@OrMoyal) December 10, 2012

Michael Young regrets way he handled being asked to move to third. But the way DH move went down? "I wouldn’t change a damn thing," he said.

— Jeff Wilson (@JeffWilson_FWST) December 10, 2012

Young also spent significant time praising Profar. Among quotes: "My kind of guy."

— Or Moyal (@OrMoyal) December 10, 2012

Young, of course, netted 651 plate appearances last season, and the predominant -- and understandable -- line of thinking was that Young would still be in line for everyday playing time in 2013, given Ron Washington's fierce loyalty to him and the front office's reluctance to interfere in matters such as Washington's lineup construction. This, however, suggests that something significant happened during the aftermath of their late-season collapse, and that either Washington saw the light and consciously downscaled Young's projected 2013 role (which still seems a bit doubtful from my perspective), or that upper management swallowed hard and handed down an edict from above.

It's also possible that Washington and upper management bilaterally agreed on a significant cutback in Young's playing time being in the best interest of the team, which is what you should be hoping to be the case if you fear the notion of bad feelings developing between the dugout and the front office. Either way, though, I'm surprised -- and, frankly, a bit relieved -- to hear that Young actually was going to be slotted as a part-timer next season if he had remained in Texas.

I'm not surprised to hear that Young remains hacked off at Rangers management, though, or that he still resents the front office for their perceived role in triggering his 2011 blowup/trade request, or that he would have handled everything the exact same way if he could do it all over again. I'm also not surprised that Young gushed praise for his teammates (specifically, Elvis Andrus and Jurickson Profar), or that he genuinely appreciates his teammates, his manager, and the fan base for everything that they've given him. I believe he was being completely sincere with his words of appreciation and thanks (which is more than you can say for some pro athletes), and, frankly, I'm glad he took this opportunity to say goodbye in a way where he could directly connect with the fan base that unwaveringly cheered/hoped for him to perform at his best for more than a decade.

Peace out, Michael Young. It was a fun ride ... well, most of the time.

Monday Afternoon Open Thread: Four Questions

1. Now that the dust has had a chance to settle a bit and the full extent of the Zack Greinke contract has become public knowledge (six years, $147 million, player opt-out after three years), what is your general feeling on how the whole affair unfolded? Are you relieved that Texas ultimately didn't battle it out with the Dodgers at that price point, frustrated that the Rangers seemingly didn't go "all in" to acquire him ... and, more importantly, what is your feeling on what the Rangers should next with their starting rotation?

2. When you take a moment to stop down and reflect upon the Michael Young era in Texas, what's the most overwhelming memory? Is it the good times -- for Young, at least -- of the early- to mid-aughts? The defensive limitations of his middle to later years? The contract and all the organizational tension that followed, or the big offensive output in 2009/11 and his sometimes-heroics?

3. Per Jeff Passan, the Royals tried unsuccessfully to trade Wil Myers straight up for James Shields before Kansas City and Tampa Bay finally hammered out last night's trade, and were also rejected by the Athletics when they attempted to trade Myers straight up for Brett Anderson. Assuming that nothing less than major league-quality starting pitching was enough to land Myers, and knowing what we know right now about the Rangers' roster situation, would you have moved either of Derek Holland or Matt Harrison in a straight-up deal for Myers? (Remember, the former is locked up at fairly cheap AAVs through at least 2016; the latter is under club control via arbitration through only 2014).

4. Gaze into your crystal ball and answer this open-ended question: "By Christmas Day, the Rangers will ____________."

Rosenthal: Royals Trade Myers, Others To Rays For Shields, Davis

The hype-to-reality ratio on the Rangers' off-season has been a bit out of kilter of late, with Texas being rumored to be in on virtually every big name and nothing really actualizing to this point ... and now, tonight, things have taken an even greater turn for the strange, as the Rays have traded RHP James Shields and RHP Wade Davis to the Royals in exchange for OF Wil Myers, RHP Jake Odorizzi, LHP Mike Montgomery, and RHP Patrick Leonard.

Shields is, well, Shields -- a good, but not great No. 2-3 type starter with two remaining years of club control. Davis is a back-end starter with five additional years of club control who was converted into a usable relief asset during the 2011-12 off-season, although indications are that the Royals intend to convert Davis back into a starting pitcher. Myers is universally regarded as one of the top prospects in baseball (both Baseball Prospectus and Baseball America placed him among their top three mid-season 2012 prospects), as someone who profiles as a significant long-term asset in a COF spot. Odorizzi has already achieved a taste of the majors, and figures to settle in as a long-term No. 3-4 starter, which at least gives him a shot at being a more valuable rotation asset in 2013 than Davis. Montgomery has fallen quite a ways from his position as the Royals' pre-2012 No. 1 prospect, but is still young, and has some hope of turning things around.

It's the sort of trade where you understand the thinking that compelled each side to push their stack of chips across the table (the Royals, and more specifically Dayton Moore, want to win now, while Andrew Friedman feels that the long-term value of their haul supersedes Shields/Davis) -- but, at the same time, you're left feeling somewhat wistful over the fact that Texas couldn't be involved in some form or fashion. Shields isn't the end-all, be-all of rotation pieces, but he would have bolstered the Rangers' 2013 starting rotation in a meaningful way, and with several reports indicating that Shields was the club's No. 2 pitching target, they're now going to have to move on to their No. 3-and-below targets.

Myers, meanwhile, would have represented a long-term solution to a long-term area of need (COF), and no, there was never really anything out there directly linking Myers to the Rangers ... but it was a nice thought, nevertheless.

The Royals are being targeted with criticism from all corners for pulling the trigger on an all-in type move when they likely won't be close enough to 85-90 wins over 2013-14 for a short-term, all-in type move to work, and, ultimately, I don't think the debate over the merits of this trade will end up treating Dayton Moore and company particularly kindly. From the Rangers' vantage point, however, this trade effectively strikes another name off the top of their off-season acquisition wish list, and leave them in a position where the best starting pitching options still lingering out there are R.A. Dickey -- for whom the Mets are reportedly demanding a Mike Olt-plus package -- and Anibal Sanchez, who will likely command $75-plus million guaranteed at his signing date within the next month.