Apoplectic

Good lord, this is bad. 

The folks at Fox Sports are absolutely speechless.

The Rangers were desperate to land Zack Greinke. I know it's true because I read five thousand Tweets and fifty stories about it this week. And when you stop to think about it, it makes all the sense in the world. It's just so Rangers to pay a number two starter $147 million.  That's just what they do, so we should certainly conclude that the Rangers screwed the pooch by not closing the deal when they had the chance. And we know they had the chance because.... Well, we know they had the chance.

After all, Greinke was enamored of the Maddux brothers, blown away by Nolan Ryan and duly impressed with the full cupboard of prospects that the Rangers have assembled down on the farm. He wanted to come here so, so badly but Jon Daniels screwed the pooch, trying to be too cute with his seventeen-team trade scenarios.

And now look at them.  

No $147 million number two starter. No #Leadership whatsoever. No hope.  As of today, the Rangers rotation has three All-Stars (Darvish, Harrison and Ogando) and a kid who has provided dominant World Series performances.  And it's obvious that's all they are going to have because they didn't get Greinke and there are no other pitchers that they could possibly acquire by any means.  How the hell can you expect to win with that?

If there is one thing that this past 24 hours proves it's that we have entered a new era in Rangers baseball: the era of the salary dump.  Because there is no other reason to trade away the most important player in club history other than to save $6 million.  No other reason whatsoever.

Add it up:  they give away the most important player to any team ever (I undersold it in the previous paragraph) in order to "save" $6 million, and refuse to pay a number two starter $147 million. You can only come to one conclusion. The Rangers' new owners have already moved away from the early Tom Hicks era of overspending on free agents and are already arriving at late Tom Hicks-era spendthriftiness where they pocket all of the TV money and try to get away with running a bunch of so-called prospects out there.

Speaking of which, prospects never work out and I can prove it. Ever heard of Ruben Mateo?

Case closed.

And what of #Leadership? I feel I should bring this up because I don't see where anyone else has even bothered to mention it in any of the Michael Young farewell stories, but he was a leader in the clubhouse who simply cannot be replaced.  Twelve and a half years ago, Doug Melvin accidentally acquired the single greatest leader any ballclub has ever known, but since then and especially lately, the Rangers have set about accumulating nothing but spineless dolts who couldn't find their way from the clubhouse to the field without Young leading the way.

Do you want to see what it's going to look like when the Rangers take the field on opening day, 2013? Check it out.  Not pretty, is it?

Then again, maybe -- just maybe -- Daniels has some sort of plan. 

I know, it sounds crazy, but it might be possible that Daniels has a plan (or six) that doesn't involve wildly overspending on a number two starter or trying to shoehorn an aging veteran in decline into the lineup every day so as not to upset him. (Holy moly:  Joey tells me that Greinke's ERA+ over the past three seasons is 106.  Verlander's is 150 and Jered Weaver's is 141).

Maybe the Rangers have actually been really good at evaluating personnel, knowing when to hold 'em and knowing when to fold 'em.  

Maybe there is another guy or two or three or four with leadership qualities in that clubhouse.

Maybe prospects don't all end up like Mateo. Maybe some of them turn out to be Elvis Andrus?  I'm so old that I remember when Michael Young was a prospect.  It's true. Contrary to popular belief, he did not fall from the sky as a fully-formed 30 year old veteran. Like all great veterans, he was once a prospect.

Maybe there's a way to land a young catcher who will nail down what is clearly a position of scarcity for the next ten years. Who knows? Maybe there's even a way to get ahold of an actual ace to go along with the one they already have and not pay him $147 million.

Nah.

This is a disaster. Has to be. Otherwise, all of the theories that the media came up with this week were wrong.

And The Beat Goes On: Dec. 9th

This is the most appropriate song I can conjure up in the wake of Michael Young's departure:

Just to recap yesterday: Michael Young was traded. Zack Greinke signed with the Dodgers. A completely unnecessary tragedy befell the Dallas Cowboys. Manny Pacquiao got his clock cleaned. Moving along ...

● Evan Grant talks about the Rangers' plans being complicated by their failure to sign Zack Greinke, and says that yesterday's Michael Young trade may have signaled the beginning of the salary dump era for the Rangers. Okay.

● Randy Galloway writes about the end of the Michael Young era, and says that yesterday's trade alleviated some pressure from Ron Washington, as Washington had himself been subjected to "heavy pressure" by some members of the front office who wanted Young benched by the time August rolled around:

In a way, this trade benefits Washington more than anyone else. An ongoing fight has been erased with those in the front office who want to step beyond their assigned jobs and also attempt to fill out the lineup card.

There were some ugly moments last season in this area, but Washington, from the standpoint of holding his clubhouse together, absolutely did the right thing. He continued to play Young, who was a clubhouse icon, beloved by his teammates.

I still have it in my mind that this was a necessary move because the front office didn't want to cross the point of no return with respect to dictating how Washington uses his players, and because Young was still going to be in line for full-time -- or very close to full-time -- playing time in 2013 without upper management stepping in and saying, "No, you're not going to do that." Which, again, I don't think they want to do.

From that standpoint, yes, the trade alleviated some tension ... but the question you have to ask yourself now is, is this finally over? Or is another situation going to develop down the line where Washington's fierce loyalty to a single player -- or unwarranted lack of trust for another player -- destroys on-field value to the team and, as a consequence, reduces the team's chances of reaching/succeeding in the post-season? I'd like to think that the answer to that question is 'no,' but the thought of it has been gnawing at the back of my mind for a while now. And while the organization seems loathe to lay down the law on the matter of Washington's lineup construction, you have to recognize that there's a limit to how much they can butt heads on this kind of stuff before it begins to undermine Washington's longer-term job security.

Everything is fine today, and everything should be fine into perpetuity ... until it isn't anymore.

● Gerry Fraley has a lengthy rundown of the Michael Young era which, among other things, talks about Young being at the epicenter of a pre-'02 organizational showdown between then-manager Jerry Narron and then-G.M. John Hart, with Hart campaigning for Frank Catalanotto as the club's starting second baseman, and Narron, in turn, vowing to roll with Young instead. Also:

Hart fired Narron after the 2002 season, replacing him with Buck Showalter. After the managerial change, Hart tried again to run off Young.

A proposed trade for second baseman Damion Easley fell through. In spring training, Showalter tested third baseman Hank Blalock at second. The situation became so frustrating to Young that he left training camp for a day to clear his head.

Alex Rodriguez responded with the most significant contribution of his three seasons with the Rangers. Rodriguez used his considerable influence with owner Tom Hicks to lobby for Young. Hart got the message.

“I’m the biggest Michael Young fan in the world,” Rodriguez said at the time. “I’ve been hard on him for two years, riding him. I consider him a great friend and a championship piece.”

I'm not sure that I would call A-Rod sticking up for Young the most "significant contribution of his three seasons," given that it ran parallel to A-Rod hitting 156 homers over 2001-03 and churning out 27.1 fWAR. That is a cool little story, though. WE NEED STORIES.

● Jeff Wilson has a story on the Michael Young trade and on the total collapse of the Zack Greinke-to-Texas aspirations, along with a note that Jurickson Profar "figures" to play second base in 2013, pushing Ian Kinsler to first base and Mitch Moreland to DH. I think that's the most confidence I've seen any Rangers beat writer exhibit in Kinsler moving to first base to accommodate Profar. 

● A few days ago, David Schoenfield wrote a fairly lengthy piece on Zack Greinke and the reasons for the disparity between his bWAR (which characterizes him as a good, but not great mid-rotation type over the last few seasons) and his fWAR (which characterizes him as one of the best starting pitchers in baseball over that same duration), and attributed much of the disparity to his decline in performance with runners on base, which he shows to be the product of lacking fastball control/command.

I like Greinke, and I think he would have been a nice short- to intermediate-term addition to the Rangers, but I feel like there is a reasonable amount of doubt that he truly is an "ace" within the context of the entire league (maybe a reasonable approximation thereof), and I can't begrudge the Rangers for not going toe to toe with the Dodgers and their bottomless pockets at that sort of contract length/AAV.

I get that there is salary inflation born from the proliferation of monster TV contracts which is taking seemingly unreasonable dollar amounts and turning them into new free agency norms, and I get that you really can't function within the winter market if you're paralyzed by fear of overpayment ... but there's a fine line between overpaying and irresponsibly overpaying, and my gut feeling is that an identical contract doled out by the Rangers would have leaned a bit more towards the latter than it would have the former.

To reiterate in not so many words: I'm okay with the Rangers not going "all in" to sign Greinke. I'm okay with them passing here. But if you disagree, here's a poll where you can register your disgust.

● In this story from yesterday afternoon on the Rangers being "poised to win the off-season," MLB.com's Richard Justice says that Jon Daniels believes Justin Upton is soon to become one of the game's elite players, and makes a cryptic reference to Nelson Cruz possibly being one of the next pieces to go.

● You may have noticed yesterday that I expanded the content width of the site and "upgraded" the Disqus commenting platform utilized on front-page + Clubhouse posts to the latest version, which re-enabled live commenting. It's not a perfect switch (e.g. you have to click on the "Discussion" button in order to change the comment sorting order), but the content space had been feeling cramped for quite a while now, and this feels like a change for the better. Drop a comment if you have some vehement objection to the switch, or if it's not going over particularly well for your reading device of choice.

Reports: Dodgers "Close" To Signing Greinke To $145 Million Deal

So, according to the Twitterverse, it appears we have some movement within the Zack Greinke realm of things:

The Dodgers appear to be closing in on signing Zack Greinke. Still some ground to be covered, but they're out in front.

— Tim Brown (@TBrownYahoo) December 9, 2012

#Dodgers closing in on signing Zack Greinke, according to a source. More to come at ESPN.com

— Jayson Stark (@jaysonst) December 9, 2012

And Jon Heyman:

#dodgers are definitely trying for greinke. #rangers still seem to be in mix, but #rangers people dont have great feeling now.

— Jon Heyman (@JonHeymanCBS) December 9, 2012

Dylan Hernandez tweets that while the deal isn't final yet, it's looking like Greinke will score six years, $145 million from the Dodgers. 

Twenty-something hours ago, Jim Bowden tweeted that Greinke had been "blown away" by the Rangers in his meet-and-greet with the club, and two days ago, Heyman wrote that some Dodgers people had grown a bit discouraged in their negotiations with Greinke while simultaneously wondering if Greinke simply preferred the Rangers over the Dodgers

If these latest reports are to be believed, though, then it sounds like Greinke signing with the Dodgers is imminent, and that the Rangers will probably end up landing one of their backup pitching options -- possibly R.A. Dickey, possibly James Shields (one local writer, possibly T.R. Sullivan, recently remarked that he was the Rangers' No. 2 pitching target), possibly someone else. I don't think that should come as any particular surprise, either, given that the Dodgers have the capacity to buy pretty much anyone they want on the open market with the aid of their new multi-billion dollar television contract. 

Update: T.R. Sullivan confirms that the Rangers have been told that Greinke is not going to sign with them.

Update: According to Gina Miller (who was the first to actually break the news of Greinke signing with the Dodgers) and others, it's going to go down as a six-year, $147 million deal. Jeff Wilson affirms that the Rangers' top pitching options are now R.A. Dickey and James Shields, and says that the Rangers have not talked about Anibal Sanchez much as of yet. 

Nightengale: Michael Young-To-Philly Deal Is Done

It's a day that seemed virtually inconceivable once upon a time, and then looked a little more plausible once the episode of 2009 transpired (which stemmed from the organization's request for him to move from shortstop to third base), and then started to seem likelier than not once the acrimony of 2011 developed, and then looped back around to inconceivability after the struggles of last year ... and now, that day is here, on the eighth of December 2012, a little more than five years and nine months after the Rangers bestowed "the contract" upon him and nearly 12 years and five months after his arrival in the organization. The face of the franchise has left the building, and I can't quite get my head around it just yet, and I'm not sure when I will get my head around it.

Per various sources, the framework of the trade sending Young to the Phillies has been in place for several days, and the lone hang-up was Young pondering whether to waive his full no-trade rights, which he acquired after his 10-and-5 rights vested in May 2011. Reports began to surface this morning that Young was expressing a "willingness" to go ahead and accept the trade to the Phillies, and during the 12:00 p.m. hour this afternoon, Bob Nightengale of the USA Today reported that Young had agreed to the trade after receiving "$1.2 million in benefits" -- apparently to cover for the difference in state income taxes -- and full no-trade protection from the Phillies.

Texas, meanwhile, is reportedly paying $10 million of Young's $16 million obligation for the 2013 season, and receiving major league reliever Josh Lindblom and minor league reliever Lisalverto Bonilla as their half of the trade return. The perception here seems to be that Lindblom has a decent chance to be useful within the context of the Rangers' 2013 roster (more as a back-end middle reliever than anything else, one would think, given his problems with the long ball), while Bonilla is a less finished but higher-upside relief prospect with what Jason Cole describes as a "good, lively fastball ... and plus change-up." In that sense, this trade conveys more value to the Rangers than one would have expected, given that their projected bullpen depth has been something of a concern.

The Phillies, meanwhile, make out decently from a pure value standpoint -- Lindblom/Bonilla have some worth, but they're expendable pieces, and the reality is that Young's on-paper value figures to improve next season, given that (a) he's being shifted away from the 1B/DH mold back to third base (which gives him a 10+ run boost within the realm of positional adjustments) and (b) his true offensive talent isprobably still greater than what his disastrous 2012 season would have us believe. Dan Szymborski's ZiPS projection system pegged Young's pre-trade 2013 offensive forecast at .279/.317/.401 (which may yet benefit from the jump to the N.L.); that's still not very good, but it's easier to mask a low-.700s OPS at the hot corner than it is at more offense-inclined positions like first base and DH.

Now, you may look at the larger body of evidence on Young's limited defensive skills at third base, and scoff at the notion of Young possibly being able to help the Phillies in any material way by moving back across the diamond ... but Philadelphia's third base situation was in a pretty awful way, and, in their view, they're picking up someone who at least has a chance to give them positive value in 2013 at a position of need, who is a well-regarded veteran with a reputation for being one of the better clubhouse presences in the majors. It's not that hard to get why they're on board with the notion at a price point of $6 million. I don't know if it'll work out for them or not, but I get the thought process.

For their part, the Rangers have cleared approximately $6 million of their projected 2013 salary obligation off the books, and that frees up $6 million of capital that they could choose to allocate towards Zack Greinke, Josh Hamilton, Justin Upton, or some other target of their choosing. They have also significantly opened up the spectrum of possibilities as far as their 2013 batting order is concerned; by stripping anywhere from 400-650 projected plate appearances for Young out of the equation, Texas opens up flexibility at 1B/DH to roll with a better-projecting arrangement, and while I haven't yet decided on what that arrangement should be, I have to imagine that the Rangers feel better about their projection at those spots today than they did with Young still firmly entrenched in the 2013 picture.

I won't go so far as to say that this is a great day for the Rangers organization, because there is a certain element of bittersweetness underlying the whole matter. In a burst of frustration back in late July, I stated that I didn't want to watch Young play baseball for the Rangers anymore, and I stood behind that remark through the months that have passed since; one shouldn't conflate that remark with disdain or hatred for Young, though, because I didn't hate or even dislike him then or now. I did, however, hate what he had become on the field, with his decline in two-way utility being exacerbated by the manager's unwavering devotion to him and refusal to scale back his playing time even after it became abundantly clear that, no, playing him full time was no longer a good idea.

And yet, in spite of that, in spite of his sub-replacement value in 2012 and the plaintive wailing over his defense and the frustration over his contract and the lingering bad feelings that arose from his trade demands in 2009 and 2011 ... he was ours, you know? He developed from a solid, but unspectacular prospect into a fringe star who made some really cruddy Rangers teams during the early- to mid-aughts more fun to watch, he emerged as a legitimate team leader (even if the local media did go overboard in its deification of Young), and, ultimately, he was a successful piece of the core Rangers-watching experience for a very long time. 

I'm glad that this trade went down, because it needed to go down, because it was time for all parties involved here to move on. Don't, however, let the ending to this narrative obfuscate the fact that Young gave this organization (and, us, for that matter) some very good times over the last 10-plus years ... and if I have one big regret about Michael Young being traded, it's that they just couldn't manage to win the big one while he still a member of the Texas Rangers.

Big Day [Infamy In Progress]

Before we muddle around in the hyperbolic quagmire of wild speculation, complicit dissemination of misinformation planted by "MLB sources" and irresponsible rumors that is the aftermath of the Winter Meetings, let's all take a moment to join hands, bow our heads and pray to Josh Hamilton that Joey's final day as a student goes well.  Our little buddy has two exams today, his final two final exams of his educational career and the final hurdles to be cleared before he wields a degree from SMU Cox School of Bidness.

OK. Now pray. PRAY for Pete's sake.  It's the least you can do.  

Get on with it.

Also, it's Pearl Harbor Day.  

Also, it's the day that Michael Young ceases to be a Ranger.

Also, it's the day that Zack Greinke becomes a Ranger.

Also, it's the day that Josh Hamilton ceases to be a Ranger.

Also, it's the day that Justin Upton becomes a Ranger.

Or not.  Except the parts about Joey's final exams and Pearl Harbor. Those things are real.

What I love most about the Winter Meetings is that every person connected with baseball descends upon one giant Baseball Biosphere and every baseball reporter on Earth follows these "MLB sources" around (except Parks, who just stalks Verducci) day and night, praying, begging and pleading to be the first to be fed misinformation so that they can be the first to Tweet it to the world.

And in spite of the fact that all of these sources and all of these reporters are all jammed together into the Biosphere with one another for days on end, no one - not a single one of the reporters - ever seems to be right about anything.

You and I can sit on our couches and make up tweets about crap that we dream up in our baseball heads that are every bit as likely to turn out to be true as any one of the horde of reporters who are embedded in the Baseball Biosphere.

An example?  Two evenings ago while lounging comfortably on my plush, luxurious and stylish couch in toney North Dallas, I issued a smart alecky tweet about setting the over-under on how much of the $16 million owed to Michael Young the Phillies would pay at $6 million.  I did this because I just seen six or seven tweets appear simultaneously about how the Yankees were supposedly kicking the tires on Young and I figured that it had to be a plant, probably from the Rangers. No one had "reported" the Young-to-Philly thing yet. 

About 10 minutes later, I got a text from an "MLB source" saying that I was probably off by about a million (I pointed out that I was taking the under) and shortly thereafter, the "story" actually broke.

So yeah, I accidentally broke the Michael Young / Philadelphia "story" from my couch in Texas by issuing a snarky tweet.

Here's another wild-ass guess that has exactly as much chance of becoming true as anything that has been "reported" so far about the multi-team cluster-F that Jon Daniels has supposedly cooked up: Daniels and Tampa's braintrust of GM Andrew Friedman and President Matthew Silverman are working together, conspiring to hold up everything in an effort to get Tampa overpaid (if that's even possible) for David Price without Texas having to do the overpaying, and the stooges in all of this are Zack Greinke, Jerry DiPoto and Kevin Towers (who waits for Daniels to give in and send him Jurickson Profar for Upton). 

What if Daniels knows that Texas has Josh Hamilton in the bag already for three years, $70 million or somesuch. What if he really wants to come away from all of this with David Price and a catcher, not Greinke and Upton?  Does Daniels simply want to hold up Greinke to discourage the Angels and force them to move on to Kyle Lohse or Anibal Sanchez, thus assuring that Greinke leaves the AL?

Since when did Daniels signal his intentions to the point where reporters are issuing missives that he is "maniacal" in his pursuit of someone as they have done with respect to Upton?  

Arguably, the Rangers biggest hole is at catcher. Why is it that you didn't hear one single peep about the Rangers and a catcher this week? 

How can it possibly be that there aren't four or five teams dying to get their hands on Mike Olt given the pathetic state of the 3B market?  Did you read any hot Mike Olt rumors this week?  No. None other than he has been offered to Arizona and Arizona doesn't want him.  

Are you really buying it that Daniels controls a player like Olt in a situation like this and isn't working feverishly to leverage that asset? Are you really buying it that Daniels didn't spend an enormous amount of time and energy exploring the catcher market?  

No and no.

Daniels and his crew have always been masters at disguising their intentions. Get tied on because the week you have spent being teased with possibilities based on rumors floating out of the Baseball Biosphere is, more likely than not, nothing but a mirage. The one thing you can be pretty sure of is that Daniels is up to a helluva lot more than he's let on and more than half of what he's let on is nothing more than an attempt to manipulate the market and bend it to his will.

Grant: Rangers, Phillies In "Advanced Talks" On Michael Young Trade

The first two evenings of the winter meetings came and went with relatively little in the way of meaningful late-night activity, but the third night has brought us word of the Rangers "feverishly" working to acquire Justin Upton, a new rumor that the Rangers actually are showing signs of trading Elvis Andrus ... and now, this, via Evan Grant of the Dallas Morning News:

As the winter meetings draw to a close Thursday, the club may be looking at consummating a deal that has been in discussion for four years: the trade of franchise hit leader Michael Young.

According to three major league sources, the Rangers were in advanced talks with Philadelphia about a deal for Michael Young that would include the Rangers eating more than half of his remaining $16 million in salary. The Rangers would likely receive a young major league reliever along with a lower-level prospect.

According to Grant, the Rangers approached the Phillies and at least one other team about a potential Young trade before the winter meetings even commenced on Monday morning; however, progress stalled as the club worked to finalize deals with both Geovany Soto and Joakim Soria, as well as ratcheting up its pursuit of Josh Hamilton and Zack Greinke and tinkering around with other assorted trade possibilities.

To the extent that we can buy into this report, though (while keeping in mind that Grant's beat-writing chops are very strong and that there probably isn't a better conduit for Michael Young-related news than Grant), it seems that legitimate headway has been made towards a Young-to-Philadelphia trade, and that the notion of him being traded before the 2013 season isn't nearly as far-fetched as we once believed it to be.

It is, however, worth bearing in mind that "advanced trade talks" doesn't mean anything more or less than what the words say. It doesn't mean a trade or certain, or even likelier than not; to that end, Young wields full no-trade protection stemming from his 10-and-5 rights (which he acquired last May), and may not have the inclination to leave Texas -- particularly when you consider that he still appears to have the full backing of the manager, which consequently seems to have him back in line for everyday playing time with the Rangers in 2013. It may seem an untenable situation from the front office's perspective, but I'm not sure I see the motivation for Young to pull the trigger.

Unless, of course, he's already been informed by one high-ranking Rangers authority or another that he's not going to be a full-time player next season after all (doubtful), and/or he craves the opportunity to break out of the 1B/DH/UTIL mold and seize a full-time role at third base again. In any event, time keeps slipping away ...

Tonight's Explosive Michael Young Trade Rumor (Sort Of)

So, after a round of hazy rumor-mongering about the Phillies possibly being interested in Michael Young, and a hearty chortle from the masses who recognize the long odds of Young actually being traded (let alone for much, if anything, of value), and a bizarrely worded statement from Jon Daniels about Texas not pursuing a Michael Young trade ... well, we have this late-afternoon report from Evan Grant of the Dallas Morning News stating that the Rangers, according to two sources, are actually serious enough about trading Young that they have approached his camp about him possibly waiving his 10-and-5 no-trade rights:

The newest target may be the New York Yankees. The Yankees lost Rodriguez for at least part of 2013 due to offseason hip surgery and need a third baseman. In addition, they could use a potential option at shortstop to split time with Edwin Nunez if Derek Jeter isn’t ready to start the season. The Yankees also lost backup third baseman Eric Chavez to free agency; Chavez reportedly agreed to a deal with the Arizona Diamondbacks Wednesday.

And a little earlier in the afternoon, MLB.com's T.R. Sullivan threw up a short but mysterious blog post that read as follows: "The Rangers are being very careful with what they say about Michael Young. They do not want another mess after what happened two years ago when they signed Adrian Beltre and moved Young to DH. But the Yankees are still without a third baseman after Eric Chavez signed with the Diamondbacks." Said blog post has since been taken down, which you can read into however you'd like.

The Rangers are in a strange place with Young right now, one which is further complicated by the manager's unwavering desire to play Young on a full-time basis -- which certainly didn't sound any weaker when Ron Washington spoke on the subject yesterday -- and the hands-off dynamic between the front office and the manager's office. Specifically, the front office seems to recognize that Young playing on a full-time basis next season is a dangerous, value-destroying proposition, but simultaneously wants to avoid the appearance that it's dictating how Washington should deploy his players, and also doesn't want to look like it's actively shopping Young for fear that the whole matter lands out in the open, another trade falls through, and another P.R. imbroglio transpires.

I made this point four months ago today, and I feel like it bears repeating right now: Young, as he currently stands, is not a worthless player. No, he isn't going to produce at a $16 million level, and may not even produce at half that level, but if you were to utilize him in a scheme where he netted around 300-350 (or even a few more) plate appearances, playing full-time against southpaws and part-time against right-handers and chewing up spot starts around the infield, he would very likely project as an above-replacement player in 2013 -- particularly if you assume that he's going to regress upwards just a bit towards his career mean (the "dead cat bounce," if you will), and that Young's true offensive talent level hasn't actually fallen as far as his 2012 season would have you believe.

The problem, however, is still that we still have absolutely no reason to believe that Washington will utilize Young in a way that maximizes his on-the-field value to the ballclub. He didn't do it in 2012, even after it had become abundantly clear that the Rangers were suffering for his inaction, and I don't see any reason to believe that he'll do it in 2013. And even if the status quo has somehow miraculously changed, even if Washington actualy has seen the error of his ways and is willing to downscale Young's playing time, there's an unsettling question lingering out there about how Young would respond to being "demoted," how it would play in the clubhouse, and what the overall net impact of such a move might be. So, yeah, it's not hard to get why the Rangers might want out.

I'll still be completely floored if something actually comes about here, because Young's declining value + salary + no-trade clause all amount to one massive, MASSIVE hurdle that just feels insurmountable -- but maybe, just maybe, there's a chance that this will happen. And if it actually does happen, if the face of the franchise does leave the building after 13 seasons in Texas ... well, I'll be sorry that they couldn't manage to win the big one while Michael Young was still in the building.

Nobody Knows Anything, Really

It's the 10:00 p.m. CST hour on Day 2 of the winter meetings, and after hearing reports for the better part of the day about how the Rangers were making serious progress with Josh Hamilton and pushing towards a conclusion, the narrative appears to be shifting as the hour grows late:

(a) During the 6 p.m. hour, Jon Daniels told the media assemblage in Nashville that he had not yet communicated with Hamilton's agent, Mike Moye, and denied that the Rangers were closing in on a pact with Hamilton (although none of that amounts to a categorical denial that the club has been negotiating with Hamilton);

(b) During the 8 p.m. hour, Hamilton tweeted a picture of himself and his wife, Katie, with the caption "heading home!!" (which is odd in the sense that he's leaving the meetings without any sort of agreement being in place, or even being particularly close -- ESPN.com's Jim Bowden tweets that Hamilton still wants to return to Texas, but wants more time to establish his market, while CBSSports.com's Jon Heyman states that the Hamilton talks have been "put on hold" while the club directs its attention towards Zack Greinke):

(c) Within the two last hours, FOXSports.com's Ken Rosenthal published a story in which he stated that it will be "an upset" if the Rangers do not land one of Hamilton or Zack Greinke:

The Rangers are competing for both players, major-league sources say, while also continuing to engage in trade discussions for Arizona right fielder Justin Upton, Tampa Bay right-hander James Shields and others.

The team’s goal: To land both a star pitcher and a star hitter.

Some in the industry believe the Rangers’ preference is Greinke, saying that the team president, Hall of Fame pitcher Nolan Ryan, always wants a pitcher first.

The Los Angeles Dodgers, however, remain the front-runners for Greinke, and are likely to offer the largest financial package, sources say.

Greinke, 29, also might prefer to return to the National League rather than pitch in a hitter-friendly park in the AL. But if he chooses the Dodgers, the Rangers will be in position to pivot quickly.

The team has made progress with Hamilton, sources say. A deal, if reached, likely would be for four or five years with multiple options. But it is still possible that another team could beat the Texas offer.

On a tangentially related note, T.R. Sullivan reiterates the worst-kept secret of the winter -- that is, that the Rangers are pursuing Zack Greinke -- but states that Texas does not expect to be able to sign Greinke, with one club official remarking: "That one is going to be hard. The Dodgers are probably going to blow us away."

So, that about sums up where we are at this point in time, and only deepens the mystery of what, exactly, is going on within the Rangers' war room right now. If there's anything that strikes me as much of a surprise here, it's that Hamilton is no longer present in Nashville, because one wouldn't imagine that he would be departing if an agreement with one team or another was especially close. And with things progressing slowly on the Greinke front, one doesn't get the feeling that either Greinke or Hamilton are going to select their final destinations within the next 24-48 hours.

On the other hand, though, Rosenthal has been persistent with his reports throughout the day of the Rangers and Hamilton making serious progress towards a contract, and Rosenthal is known to be well-connected with the organization (and, in particular, with Jon Daniels). 

Nobody really knows anything, I suppose.

Grant: Rangers Trying To "Finish" Josh Hamilton Deal, Working On Multi-Team James Shields Trade

I don't really know if I'm taking the right approach to winter meetings coverage by addressing rumors and news one post at a time (bearing in mind that I'm "covering" the winter meetings from hundreds of miles away, but there's a new item out there this evening that has piqued my curiosity, and I think it merits at least a bit of discussion.

According to two separate reports from Evan Grant of the Dallas Morning News this afternoon/evening, the Rangers are speculated to have offered Josh Hamilton a four-year contract worth more than $100 million today, and, per one source, are attempting to "surround" Hamilton in a concerted effort to nail down an agreement. In addition, the thinking appears to be that Hamilton and the Rangers are deep enough into negotiations that Texas has started to pursue a multi-team deal -- possibly with 3-4 teams involved -- that would bring James Shields, the club's reported No. 2 pitching target behind Zack Greinke, into the fold for an unspecified return.

It's difficult to supply much in the way of insight on this Shields-to-Texas notion without knowing (a) who the other teams involved might be or (b) what the Rangers might have to give up in order to swing a deal. I'm also highly skeptical of this word that the trade proposal may have a multi-team structure, given what we know about the complexity of such deals, the difficulty of satisfying every involved trade party, and the rarity of such convoluted deals actually coming to fruition. 

What's not difficult is understanding why Shields is attractive to Texas -- yes, he's only under club control for two more seasons (two club option years for 2013-14 at $9 million and $12 million, respectively), and yes, those will be his age 31-32 seasons, but he's a 220-plus-inning workhorse who profiles nicely in the role of a No. 2-3 starter on a first-division team. He doesn't operate within an elite, No. 1-caliber tier such as Zack Greinke does, but he's a good starting pitcher with quality year-over-year peripherals, and his contractual situation is attractive for a team that wants to win now (which, I think, the Hamilton signing would clearly signal) without tying up an excess of future payroll, because he's not locked into a long-term, high-AAV contract like Greinke eventually will be.

If the Rangers did manage to acquire both Hamilton and Shields in one fell swoop, their projected 2013 salary obligations (including arbitration projections) would soar from approximately $110 million to $140-145 million. If that scenario actually came to pass, I wouldn't be surprised if the Rangers executed some sort of follow-up move to create a little bit of payroll breathing room -- something like, say, moving Nelson Cruz for salary relief, or Jon Daniels muttering dark incantations in order to hypnotize a rival G.M. into trading for Michael Young without the Rangers having to eat 80-plus percent of his remaining commitment. Yeah, I think I could get on board with this plan.

Report: Rangers "Making Progress" On Josh Hamilton Contract

In the wake of growing speculation about the lack of development in Josh Hamilton's market and the likelihood of him actually returning to Texas (which sounded completely far-fetched just a couple months ago), Ken Rosenthal offers this update on what sounds like some legitimate advancement in the Hamilton-to-Texas negotiations:

Sources: #Rangers, Hamilton making progress. Deal, if reached, likely would be 4 yrs. But still possible another team could beat TEX offer.

— Ken Rosenthal (@Ken_Rosenthal) December 4, 2012

Meanwhile, in a possibly unrelated but nevertheless interesting development, ESPNDallas.com's Richard Durrett reports that one of the Rangers' money men, Ray Davis, is expected to arrive in Nashville at some point today. Back in January, Davis's co-owner, Bob Simpson, talked up his desire that the Rangers re-sign Hamilton, and one wonders if that is a sentiment that (a) survived the entire 2012 season and (b) is shared by Davis. The position of the front office on the matter is somewhat less clear, although it is believed that Jon Daniels is open to a Hamilton return and that others in the organization may be coming around on the idea of his return.

And that's where we are right now. There have been reports suggesting that the Rangers would prefer to do a short-term, high-AAV deal with Hamilton (Jeff Wilson suggested a three-year pact with a fourth-year vesting option, presumably with salaries ranging anywhere from $20-25 million), and, to that end, four years seems a decent compromise. Texas seems particuarly reluctant to get involved at five or more years, though, and one would imagine that if somebody does decide to throw a fifth year on the table, the Rangers will draw themselves away from the negotiating table to pursue other options.

Even at four years, though, it's a dually frightening/exciting proposition -- on the one hand, there's nobody else on the market who offers the potential offensive impact that Hamilton does, and no team better equipped to extract maximum value out of Hamilton over that proposed four-year window. And on the other hand, you're rolling the dice on Hamilton still having 3-4 quality years of production left. The downside potential here is quite substantial, and, ultimately, I'm still rather surprised that this appears to be coming together.

This may be a case, however, where the organization is confident that it can get at least two-plus additional good years out of Hamilton, and hopeful that does still have a good third year left, with the possibly steep decline in his value during the second half of the deal being partially mitigated by an influx of television money. And the fact that they're reportedly making progress here may signal a willingness to pursue something along these lines over, say, committing an even more massive chunk of green to Zack Greinke over a longer duration.

So, four years. Let's pretend the total obligation is somewhere around $95-100 million over four years, and let's pretend there's going to be a fifth-year vesting/club option tacked onto the end of it. Are you down?

For what it's worth, ESPN.com's Jim Bowden says that the Rangers are considering signing Hamilton, then still going ahead and trading Elvis Andrus for Justin Upton, and plugging Jurickson Profar in at shortstop. To the extent that you can believe that, the Rangers' reported progress with Hamilton shouldn't hamper their pursuit of Upton ... but since when have any of us ever believed anything during winter meetings week?

JD On Trading Michael Young: "I Learned My Lesson Two Years Ago"

There have been some rumblings in recent days about the Phillies expressing tentative interest in Michael Young, who, in the view of their decision-makers, appears to be a possible short-term answer at third base. These rumblings have been qualified with the usual disclaimers about Young having to waive his no-trade clause and the Rangers having to pick up a a good-sized chunk of his remaining obligation to make anything work, and all of that has been accompanied by some spirited "PLEASE PHILLY TAKE HIM FOR FREE WE'LL DO WHATEVER YOU WANT US TO DO" tweeting from the Rangers' fan base. Desperate times call for desperate measures, I suppose.

Late Monday, though, Jon Daniels said that the organization wasn't interested in pursuing any of that, and he phrased his response in a way that, to me at least, comes off as somewhat off-putting:

General manager Jon Daniels said he is not looking to trade Young, who has spent the past two seasons as Texas designated hitter/utility infielder.

Daniels doesn't want another mess that happened two years ago. Texas signed Adrian Beltre to be its third baseman, and Young was not happy with his situation. He asked for a trade, but the Rangers could not accommodate him. The situation was not really resolved until Spring Training.

"I learned my lesson two years ago," Daniels said. "It didn't work out the last time. That's not something we're pursuing."

I'd be lying to you all and to myself if I trumpeted Daniels' comments as a firm declaration that the Rangers aren't going to trade Young. That's not what Daniels is saying. What he's saying is that the Rangers aren't purposefully searching for a trade to move Young out of the organization, and in no way is that surprising, because Young, at this point in time, is a virtually untradeable entity. We can talk up our hopes of Young pulling off a bounceback season or even a milder dead-cat bounce until we turn blue in the face, but at the end of the day, Young is a $16 million/year player with negligible defensive value who threw up -1.4 fWAR last season. Actively searching for a trade would be an exercise in futility, barring a strange turn of events where Texas wants to eat his entire remaining obligation in exchange for some player(s) of negligible value.

So, in a way, Daniels is really doing nothing with these comments beyond sensitively handling this one gunpower-loaded question that was lobbed in his direction. He's not saying the Rangers won't trade Young, and, heck, even if he did say that, that's not really an answer you could accept at face value. If there was something cooking behind the scenes, Daniels wouldn't go out front and say, "well, we're thinking about trading Young," or "yes, we're looking to trade Young," or "yes, we're working on trading Young right now." That's an important bit of perspective to keep in mind when you're combing through these hot stove comments that so often masquerade as something they're not.

I think what's bothering me about Daniels' response, though, is the bit about him having "learned [his] lesson two years ago." The organization publicly shouldered some of the blame for the incident of two years ago, and I imagine that Daniels and company do still regret how the entire affair played out and, in hindsight, wish they had handled it differently. I get that. But there's something about the wording here that rubs me in entirely the wrong way, in a way that makes it sound like the Rangers were more in the wrong than Young was, and like Daniels' plans somehow run subordinate to Young's demands.

If that sounds like a vague complaint, that's because it is vague. It's hard for me to nail down why, exactly, this is grating on me. Maybe it's because there's something that just doesn't feel right about the general manager stating that he learned a lesson from one of his players, regardless of how much clout said player might possess within the room. Maybe -- no, probably -- it's something I'm making too much of, and that I need to let go of.

But it still bothers me, and while there should only be one more season of Michael Young in Texas, I can't rid myself of my apprehension about what the 2013 season holds in store for him ... or, for that matter, about the matter of his playing time, and the prospect of either a still-struggling Young getting everyday starts from Ron Washington, or an unhappy Young being transitioned into a part-time role after the Rangers acquire some form of 1B/DH help. That discussion isn't going to take place today, but it's not all that far away from happening.

Report: Rangers Sign Joakim Soria To Two-Year, $8 Million Deal

The Rangers rolled into winter meetings week faced with the necessity of addressing no fewer than four areas of need (catcher, outfield, starting pitcher, and relief pitcher), and after addressing one of those needs late Sunday night by re-upping Geovany Soto, they attacked another area of need Monday afternoon by grabbing free-agent right-hander Joakim Soria on a reported two-year, $8 million deal. Texas has not been averse to pursuing pitchers coming off serious injuries during the course of the Jon Daniels era (see Eric Gagne, Brandon Webb, Rich Harden, Joe Nathan, et al.), and the Soria signing is an extension of the organization's M.O. on that front, as the Rangers again attempt to buy some serious future value on the cheap. 

Soria, 28, has a rather fascinating career arc -- he was inked by the Dodgers as an international free agent at the age of 17 (in October 2002), but lost his entire 2003 season to Tommy John surgery, was released a year later, and then leveraged his comeback 2005 indy-league campaign (Mexican League) into a new pro-ball opportunity with the Padres. One year later, he was procured by the Royals in the Rule 5 draft, and from 2007-11, Soria reigned as one of the undisputed best relievers in professional baseball, throwing down elite relief numbers on an annual basis and earning some peripheral Cy Young Award support with a 10th-place finish in the 2010 AL CYA balloting:

Year	Age	Tm	ERA	G	SV	IP	BF	ERA+	WHIP	H/9	HR/9	BB/9	SO/9	SO/BB
2007	23	KCR	2.48	62	17	69.0	270	185	0.942	6.0	0.4	2.5	9.8	3.95
2008	24	KCR	1.60	63	42	67.1	260	270	0.861	5.2	0.7	2.5	8.8	3.47
2009	25	KCR	2.21	47	30	53.0	222	202	1.132	7.5	0.8	2.7	11.7	4.31
2010	26	KCR	1.78	66	43	65.2	270	236	1.051	7.3	0.5	2.2	9.7	4.44
2011	27	KCR	4.03	60	28	60.1	256	102	1.276	9.0	1.0	2.5	9.0	3.53
5 Yrs			2.40	298	160	315.1	1278	181	1.043	6.9	0.7	2.5	9.7	3.92
162 Game Avg.			2.40	68	37	72	292	181	1.043	6.9	0.7	2.5	9.7	3.92

The 2011 calendar year found Soria's performance slipping across the board, and 2012 brought about more unfortunate news, as Soria underwent a second Tommy John elbow ligament replacement procedure in early April. This is where things become a tad murky, for a couple of reasons: first, there's a natural comp to be made here between the Soria signing and the Nathan signing (both formerly elite relievers who underwent Tommy John surgery and were subsequently signed by the Rangers), but Nathan was two-plus years removed from his procedure when he made his first regular-season appearance for Texas back in April. His 2011 "recovery" season in Minnesota, meanwhile, was characterized by replacement-level performance out of the Twins bullpen.

That's an important distinction to keep in mind for the purposes of forecasting Soria's performance, because in no way is it realistic to expect Soria to recapture his previous bullpen ace form right out of the gates. Most sources seem to be pegging Soria's tentative return date around May, which would give him roughly 13 months of recovery time; a bullish projection might have Soria struggling to get his feet back for the first 2-3 months after his return and grappling with consistency-related issues down the stretch, which is a nice way of saying that Soria isn't the greatest bet in the world to generate good value out of the Rangers' bullpen in 2013. Yes, he might quickly hop back on the horse with stronger numbers than what Nathan produced during his own recovery season, but I don't think you can realistically hope for much more than middle relief-type numbers out of Soria in 2013.

The other reason why the Soria situation is murky is because this is his second Tommy John procedure, and that places him among a comparatively small group of pitchers. Dr. James Andrews said earlier this year that the success rate for pitchers recapturing their pre-injury form following a second Tommy John procedure was close to 20 percent; however, the success rate for relievers coming back from multiple Tommy John procedures is better than it is for starters, and given that Soria isn't an especially hard thrower in the first place, I think you have the basis for some hope that he'll be able to hold up physically and eventually get back to a place where he can approximate his 2007-11 production.

In that regard, the news that the Rangers managed to tack on a third-year team option is pretty noteworthy -- if things work out in the way they're no doubt envisioning, Soria will be mediocre to decent in 2013 (with some chance of things clicking later on in the season, hopefully just in time for the playoffs), and very good to elite in 2014-15, when the Rangers will have club control over Soria at market-level or below-market prices. The annual salary breakdown hasn't yet been made public, but one would expect to see Soria pulling down $3 million or less in 2013, with a climb in his 2014-15 salaries proportionate to the expected improvement in his performance.

And sure, it could blow up in their faces. There's a decent chance that Soria never really makes it back, that his rehab hits a snag, that he can't get his command within the strike zone back, that he ends up being physically unable to recapture his old form ... but if worse comes to worse, it's an $8 million obligation amortized over multiple seasons. The Rangers don't want to have to survive a hit like that, but they do have the ability to survive a hit like that. That, I think, is an especially attractive feature of this deal; yes, it's a fairly significant risk, but relievers are inherently risky as is, Soria has a truly elite relief pedigree, and I'll happily take a high-beta deal with an attractive potential payoff and survivable downside over a big-money relief contract any day of the week.

Update: Per the usual suspects on the Rangers' beat, the Soria contract has been finalized, and as previously reported, it's a two-year, $8 million deal with a third-year team option. The annual salary breakdown has not yet been disclosed, nor has the value of the third-year option or its associated buyout.

The Day Mike Napoli Left, And The Fallout For The Rangers

"It's something unpredictable, but in the end it's right ... I hope you've had the time of your life."I love Mike Napoli. I'd love to see him win a World Series ring here. It's completely within the realm of possibility that Texas could commit stacks of cash to Napoli and that he could justify their faith in spades. I just wish I could convince myself that the odds of this possibility are all that great -- or, for that matter, that he's the right buy for Texas at the contract salary/length he's probably going to command.

It can feel rather hackneyed to quote yourself (especially when you're resurrecting a quote from only a week ago), but this feels like a case where doing so is exactly the right approach, because that quote perfectly conveys my sentiment this afternoon in the wake of Mike Napoli signing with the Red Sox for three years, $39 million. We all knew that this off-season was going to be a transitional period for the Rangers marked by some degree of roster turnover, and that turnover has begun in earnest today. And, yes, I'm still sorry that the Rangers couldn't win the big one with their 2010-11 core intact. I'm sorry they couldn't win the big one with Napoli.

Three major bullet points spring to mind here on the Napoli signing:

● I went back and forth over the last week trying to decide if I was being too risk-averse with regard tolast week's post on Napoli, and if the Rangers should actually pull the trigger on something in the general vicinity of three years and $40 million. Ultimately, though, I never was able to convince myself that it would have been the right call for Texas, and I'm able to sit here this afternoon and feel okay about the Rangers letting Napoli walk at that price, given all of my previously stated concerns on the matter of locking him in. It appears that similar apprehension won out within the Texas front office, as Jeff Wilson reported this morning that the Rangers never went past two guaranteed years with a third-year option in their offer to Napoli (who himself wanted four years, $40 million from Texas). It's a bummer that he's leaving, but I get it.

Keith Law has also chimed in today with his concerns about Napoli's production on a going-forward basis, and his thoughts on the matter closely mirror my own:

Napoli's current value is largely based on a 2011 stat line that stands out in almost every way from the rest of his career, other than the fact that he didn't play a full season even in that breakout campaign. He's a classic "old player's skills" player, patient with power, striking out a lot and contributing little on defense. Even in years when he doesn't hit for average, which is likely to happen more often than not, he can still help Boston offensively by getting on base and hitting for power, a skill he might retain longer than other players of his ilk because he's not just a dead-pull power guy. That said, he's 31, an age when bat speed can start to disappear quickly, and he's been about as durable as a Dixie cup, making this an extremely high-risk signing for the Red Sox even at just three years.

One commenter did point out on last week's post that I committed an oversight in not calling any attention to Napoli's injuries from last season, which presumably hampered his performance to at least some degree and which I should have at least mentioned in my discussion of his recent performance. A fair point, but here's the problem -- Napoli's entering the dangerous over-30 area of the aging curve, he's not particularly athletic, and he endured the better part of the 2012 season with significant lower-body injuries, including the quad strain that cost him more than a month and the severe ankle sprain from the 2011 World Series that never fully healed. Should we really be adjusting his 2013-15 projection upwards to compensate for that?

In other words, based on all available information, can we really feel confident in his ability to remain healthy over the next three years? If you can, more power to you. But I'm not sure I can, and, in that regard, Napoli is landing in as good a place as any as far as his health and performance are concerned, because the Red Sox aren't going to require his services behind the plate nearly as often in 2013 as the Rangers would have. Boston doesn't need him as a catcher, whereas Texas would have needed him to serve as a catcher on a fairly regular basis, and given our existing concerns about his health, workload, and overall decline potential, that's something you have to factor into your projection.

● About a month ago, the Rangers declined to extend a qualifying one-year, $13.3 million offer to Napoli, and Jon Daniels' rationale for the decision looked a little something like this: "We'd like to have Mike back, but not at that predetermined figure. I don't want to say anything disparaging about the guy. He has been a big part of our club for the past couple of years and we would like to have him back. But we just didn't want to start the offseason making that investment at that amount of money. We have a budget and there are a number of things that we want to do."

I understood the logic underlying that thought process, but it still struck me (and others) as a rather curious decision, because the prevailing belief at the time seemed to be that Napoli would decline a qualifying offer and hit the open market. If Napoli had declined the Rangers' qualifying offer and he had gone on to sign elsewhere, the Rangers would have netted a compensatory draft pick for their troubles -- a not-insignificant consolation price in this new era of artificial restraints on amateur talent acquisition. Ultimately, though, the Rangers seemed worried by the possibility that he would accept such an offer, and it seems that payroll-related concerns won out on that internal debate.

Now, however, in the wake of Napoli signing for nearly three times as much guaranteed money as the Rangers' qualifying offer, the questioning has commenced courtesy of Buster Olney:

It would be interesting to hear TEX internal review of whether it made right choice in not giving Napoli qualifying offer to get draft pick

— Buster Olney (@Buster_ESPN) December 3, 2012

And from Keith Law:

The only other team that had significant public interest in Napoli was Texas, who chose not to extend him a qualifying offer and won't receive a draft pick even though his contract with Boston shows (in hindsight) that he would have been foolish to accept such an offer from the Rangers. Unless Texas is willing to bench Michael Young, they're probably only in the market for one bat, with Josh Hamilton the most likely and attractive target, and recently re-signed Geovany Soto in line to get most of the starts behind the plate.

I get the logic behind what transpired here on the qualifying offer front, and why they were loathe to jack their preliminary payroll close to $125 million before doing anything about the starting rotation or the bullpen or the outfield ... but it's hard to take a step back from all of this and not feel like the Rangers whiffed in terms of overestimating the likelihood of Napoli accepting their qualifying offer. 

● With Napoli now out of the picture, and with Soto having re-signed with Texas for a reported $3 million, T.R. Sullivan runs down the list of remaining catching options that have some appeal to the Rangers, which includes Kelly Shoppach, Bobby Wilson, John Buck, J.P. Arencibia, and A.J. Pierzynski.

Sullivan notes that the Rangers could also go out and procure one of the Red Sox' other existing catchers (David Ross, Jarrod Saltalamacchia, or Ryan Lavarnway), but Sullivan mentioned in one of his mailbags late last month that the Saltalamacchia reunion probably wasn't going to happen: "There are those within the Rangers organization who like Saltalamacchia. But his time with the Rangers didn't end well a few years ago, and re-acquiring him would probably aggravate raw wounds on both sides, even though he has improved considerably since his departure."

For what it's worth, Ken Rosenthal reported this morning that the Rangers are now the most "aggressive" team on Josh Hamilton, and notes that re-signing him would "ease [the] sting of losingNapoli." I don't know what I'm supposed to believe in anymore.

Report: Rangers Re-Sign Geovany Soto To One-Year Deal

"Don't worry, buddy. It'll all be over soon enough."On the day before the 2008 winter meetings, the Rangers moved catcher Gerald Laird to Detroit in an effort to recoup some pitching value and alleviate what was then a four-catcher logjam behind the plate (h/t JN) ... and on the day before the 2012 winter meetings, the Rangers have re-signed Geovany Soto in order to avoid a possible future without a catcher. There's a little embellishment there on the back end for dramatic effect, but we wanted action this week, and action is what finally appears to transpiring.

Per the local beats, Soto has agreed to return to the Rangers for the 2013 season on a one-year deal (pending physical). Financial terms have not yet been disclosed, but it's a virtual certainty that Soto will bank less than his $4.6 million arbitration projection (via Matt Swartz's arb-forecasting model), and it's been my belief for a while that Soto would ultimately bank less than his $4.3 million salary from last season. A couple of weeks ago, I pegged Soto as a non-tender who would eventually re-sign with Texas for $3 million; that figure may be a tad on the low side, and I won't be surprised if his salary is eventually revealed to be in the $3.5-4 million range instead. 

Texas acquired Soto from the Cubs at the non-waiver trade deadline back in July in exchange for Jake Brigham, who proceeded to experience arm trouble and hit the disabled list shortly after joining the Cubs; late last month, the Rangers reworked the original deal by taking Brigham back from the Cubs in exchange for a healthy Barret Loux, and both Soto and Brigham were cut loose in advance of last Friday's 11:00 p.m. CST non-tender deadline. Soto is now locked in, and as of two days ago, Brigham was expected to be re-signed by the Rangers to a minor league deal.

I gave the bird's eye view of Soto's career back when the original trade went down in July, and, truthfully, not a whole lot has changed since that point -- I had high hopes at the time that Soto's strong pre-trade contact rates might augur well for an offensive bounceback in Texas, but he was a sub-replacement level black hole down the stretch, hitting a meager .196/.253/.338 (52 wRC+) over 164 regular-season plate appearances after joining the Rangers. If you're the blame-ascribing type, Soto also threw down a sub-.430 OPS in regular playing time over the final three-plus weeks of the season. Yes, those numbers are quite alarming all the way around, and even with the lowered offensive standards inherent to the catcher position, Soto has to be better than that.

The other half of the valuation equation, though, pertains to defense, and Soto netted significant praise on that end of the spectrum for his late-season work with the Rangers' pitching staff. Yu Darvish launched his game into a CYA-caliber gear down the stretch with Soto as his personal catcher, and in mid-late September, assistant general manager Thad Levine went on the record about how much the organization appreciated his ability to learn on the fly and work cohesively with the pitching staff:

“Anytime a catcher makes a change mid-season, you expect there to be some learning transition as he gets to know the pitching staff,” Rangers assistant general manager Thad Levine said. “I think we almost feel like we didn’t experience that one iota. He picked up right where our guys had left off. He became such a student of the game, spent so much time with [pitching coach] Mike Maddux, [bullpen coach] Andy Hawkins and the pitching staff. On the days he wasn’t catching those guys, he spent time with each of the pitchers. I think he made it a seamless transition. So, yes, he has hit the ground a lot faster than we had expected.” 

A month and a half ago, I ruminated a bit on Soto's possible positive impact on the team's called-strike rates (relating somewhat to the concept of pitch-framing), and at the end of the day, the biggest reason why Soto is coming back is because the organization seems to highly value catchers who mesh well with the staff, who have a skill for calling games, and who can generally bring out the best in their pitchers in one manner or another. In that sense, Soto's two-month run was a rousing success, and that's the big reason why the Rangers are going to end up paying upwards of $3 million for a player who gave them virtually nothing with the stick in August/September.

With Soto in the fold, the catching situation for 2013 becomes a little clearer, and the options open up a bit -- in a perfect world, Soto is a No. 2 catcher who logs about 60 games behind the plate in a given season and alleviates some of the abuse on the No. 1 catcher, but he at least has the chance/ability to be a viable No. 1 catcher if circumstances should push Texas in that direction. That's the scenario you're probably looking at if the Rangers should manage to re-sign Mike Napoli, given that Napoli has never started more than 84 games behind the plate in any calendar year, and given that the team who signs him is probably best served by starting him only 50-60 times behind the plate in 2013. 

Per Jeff Wilson of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, both Napoli and A.J. Pierzynski top the Rangers' catching wish list (bearing in mind those caveats with Napoli I just stated), and they're also believed to be interested in the Blue Jays' crop of catchers, including J.P. Arencibia. Per Evan Grant (and at least one other local writer whose name escapes me at the moment), the Rangers have thus far been unwilling to offer Napoli more than two guaranteed years, and last week's meeting between the two sides doesn't appear to have triggered any clear progress towards an agreement. 

One other thing worth mentioning: my payroll projection from last month had Texas at $110.65 million after including projected arbitration raises and after including Soto at my initial $3 million prediction. If Soto ends up making more than $3 million on this deal, adjust that payroll projection accordingly, and adjust all other expectations of yours accordingly.

Sunday Evening Pre-Winter Meeting Fun And Yuks

Remember that hat? I remember that hat.I've been thinking to myself that I might as well go and blow the place up if I'm not going to be dialed in over the next three days, and, to that end, this is a good time to mention that there will be full content through at least the next three days, along with daily all-day winter meetings chats for the masses ... so be apprised of that as I play a little bit of weekend catch-up:

● I suppose the best way to launch any kind of rumor-oriented post is to touch upon the most eye-grabbing rumor first, and, to that end, FOXSports.com's Ken Rosenthal and Jon Paul Morosi report on the eve of the winter meetings that Derek Holland "could become available" in a trade -- but only if the Rangers can first find another starting pitcher to plug into the starting rotation. Under one possible scenario they've drawn up, Texas pushes to sign Zack Greinke, and subsequently moves Holland and Mike Olt to Arizona for Justin Upton, which would leave the Rangers with a starting rotation of Greinke, Yu Darvish, Matt Harrison, Alexi Ogando, and Mystery Pitcher X (likely Martin Perez for the time being), and a starting outfield comprised of Upton and some combination of Leonys Martin, Craig Gentry, Nelson Cruz, and David Murphy.

This is a surprising rumor to the extent that Holland is a cost-controlled, talented left-hander just one season removed from a very stout 2011 campaign ... but, in another respect, it's really not all that surprising, given that the Rangers have reportedly attempted to move Holland on multiple occasions over the last few years in deals for pitching (Cliff Lee, Zack Greinke, Matt Garza, et AL.), and given that Holland has been a frustrating quantity who went backwards for the better part of the 2012 season. It's hard for me to gauge the wisdom behind parting ways with Holland -- who's locked in through 2016 at just $26 million total, plus option years for 2017-18 -- without having a better grasp on what he could bring back or who would be replacing him, and, as such, I guess the best thing I can say about this is that I'm open to and interested in seeing if this plan will materialize.

I have some trouble believing that Upton is attainable using only Holland and Olt as trade bait, though. That feels like a trade that would have already happened if it were actually within the realm of possibility as constructed.

● CBS Sports' Jon Heyman writes that the Josh Hamilton market is the "mystery of the winter," as the Orioles are quietly admitting that they likely won't be able to make a serious play for Hamilton, and no other serious suitors are known to have stepped up to the plate as of yet. Hamilton's representative, Mike Moye, is refusing to drop any hints or comments for public consumption, and the perception around the game seems to be that Hamilton's market is a black box with no clearly probable outcome. MLB.com's T.R. Sullivan remarks that Hamilton was spotted in Nashville earlier today, and says that many baseball officials believe he will ultimately end up back in Texas. So it goes ...

One thing that Heyman seems to hint at -- and that has also been documented in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram -- is the cooling of frustrations and tempers within the room with regard to Hamilton. There was an oft-quoted comment made by a Rangers official soon after their late-season collapse (and Hamilton's horrific finish) about the team not wanting him back at any price, and the undercurrent of public disdain for a possible Hamilton return seemed to grow stronger once word came down that he was seeking a seven-year, $175 million contract.

Since that point, there has been some talk of cooler heads settling in on the matter of Hamilton's possible return, and Heyman notes that while the Rangers remain frustrated by Hamilton's rash of injuries in 2011 (and, presumably, the inconsistency), they recognize just how much offensive clout he brings to the table, and assuredly do, at some level, want him back. What's the level? I can't imagine it extends more than a skosh past $100 million, and the problem is that even if cooler heads are prevailing on the matter, they're still faced with the same quandary that is his perilous long-term projection and the above-average risk that something -- be it physical or mental -- strips away meaningful chunks of value within the first year or two of his next contract. It's a scary proposition.

But if Hamilton does end up coming back on some type of commitment, I'll get why it's happening, and I'll get why the Rangers pulled the trigger. Yes, it's a scary proposition, but Hamilton at his best is a Cooperstown-level wrecking ball, and if they do pull that trigger, it's going to signal objective confidence on the part of the organization that there's enough of Hamilton's best left to justify what would be an enormous commitment. I'm by no means a fan of every move that the club makes, but I'm prepared to defer to the club's better judgment when it comes to a situation with as many unknowns and opaque variables as the Hamilton situation ... unless they actually do give him $175 million.

● Since we last talked last week, purported Rangers target Russell Martin landed with the Pirates on a two-year, $17 million deal (Jon Heyman reports that Texas clocked in at two years and $13 million, which Martin said "wasn't even close"), and Geovany Soto was non-tendered, effectively leaving the Rangers catcher-less while reducing the pool of open-market options. Meanwhile, Mike Napoli still appears to be weighing his options after completing the latest leg of his nationwide tour this past week, and indications are that he's holding out for a four-year offer, while the Rangers continue to play the wait-and-see game in the hopes that he'll cut his demands back to three years.

And as we all know, there's only one catcher out there who can bring all of the tools and skill and aplomb to the table that the Rangers sorely lack behind the plate right now ...

● T.R. Sullivan reported this morning that the Rangers are interested in trading for R.A. Dickey. I haven't decided what to do with that information. In theory, the Rangers should be interested in trading for anyone at any time provided that their target at least somewhat addresses an area of identified present or future need, so that drives the quantity of players that they're "interested in" at any given time well into the triple digits. From that standpoint, I can't muster much interest in a rumor shrouded by so much ambiguity. On the other hand, though, Dickey has a newly minted Cy Young Award on his mantle and fairly attractive performance over his last three years, and the Rangers need starting pitching, so yeah, I can muster up some interest on the basis of those facts.

Two things do immediately stand out in my mind with respect to this Dickey-to-Texas notion: first, if Dickey gets moved, he'll be getting moved with just one year of club control at the height of his possible trade value arc (career-best season, CYA hardware, and all of that). I'm cautiously optimistic that he could function as a legitimate rotation asset in Texas, but I'm not sure that a full-scope cost-benefit analysis of a Dickey-to-Texas deal would treat the Rangers very kindly.

And second, I still can't decide what I'm supposed to think of Dickey from a going-forward standpoint; a snapshot view of his performance over the last three years suggests that another 3-3.5 win season is in his immediate future, but he's such a completely unique player within the context of major league history that it's damn near impossible to ascertain when he'll begin to face a breakdown in performance due to age or general wear and tear. I certainly get the "interest" on the part of the Rangers, and I'm fascinated in seeing where this goes because, hey, we all love a good narrative (and it's been a lot of fun watching Dickey flourish into a star), but I can't help but feel like Dickey is less of a certain thing than what you'd usually assume the reigning CYA winner to be.