And The Beat Goes On: Dec. 22nd (Where's Nolan? Where's Greggo?)

This post was originally supposed to go up this morning, but didn't because I'm bad at scheduling posts, so here you go.

* * * * *

Do you like trying new songs? Do you like only the finest music?

● Randy Galloway pulls out the obligatory "Where's Nolan?" column in response to the Yu Darvish situation, calling this a "$130 million crapshoot unlike anything we've ever seen in the local jock kingdom" (never mind that an $80 million contract would seem to be a tad on the high side), and seemingly questioning why on earth he would let that damn Jon Boy and his baseball people and ownership railroad him into okaying this oh yeah and he's not returning Randy's calls OH MY GOD WHAT IS GOING ON:

Let us commend, again, the Rangers' ownership group, fronted by Bob Simpson of Fort Worth and Ray Davis of Dallas, for stepping right up with the hip pocket and believing in the judgment of the team's baseball people.

What, however, was Nolan's "judgment" on Darvish? That's what my unanswered phone calls are about. Ryan, of course, is the link between the owners and the baseball element, led by general manager Jon Daniels.

There is no question that Daniels and his people were the gospel-singing-choir of Darvish disciples. They were selling Yu to Nolan and ownership.

The Daniels bunch is putting good reputations, and back-to-back World Series appearances, on the line over a complete unknown at the major league level.

You've got to like that, really. Believe it, sell it. But they also need to be $130 million worth of right in this interesting case.

Then there's Nolan. As team president, he's attempting to balance the books for the owners, while also keeping a championship contending team on the field.

Plus, Ryan has proven to be a Hall of Fame pitcher who is very picky about, yes, pitchers. Nolan is the same guy who said no to Cliff Lee over a $140 million deal. Be gone, Cliff.

Nolan is the same guy who three weeks ago never blinked in refusing to make a competitive offer to keep C.J. Wilson, knowing the Angels had $77.5 million on the table.

And also three weeks ago, Nolan pulled out at $50 million for free agent pitcher Mark Buehrle, after the Marlins went to $58 million. Ryan, by the way, loved Mark Buehrle and wanted him in his rotation.

But for pitchers, Nolan has a value system based on years/money. Cross that line, and he walks away.

That's why we need to hear from Ryan this week.

With his track record, he's walked on proven major leagues arms, all of them thirty-ish, but is willing to plunge in the vicinity of $130 million for a complete unknown kid out of Japan?

The Rangers could have signed both C.J. and Buehrle this month for basically what they will pay for Yu Davish. None of this makes sense based on what we know about Ryan and pitchers. But if he was in disagreement, then it's obvious he's willing to listen to the Daniels' group, and then present their case to ownership for the final financial call. We can guess this is what happened with Darvish.

I would like to think that the front office dynamic is not nearly as autocratic as Galloway makes it sound -- that both Ryan and Daniels were in lockstep (or near-lockstep) in deciding to not give Lee that much money, and in turning away from C.J. Wilson. And considering that this entire column is about Galloway being baffled by Nolan consenting to this investment, I suppose we can interpret this as a good sign that both Ryan and Daniels are on the same page here, and that Ryan wholeheartedly bought into what his baseball operations department was selling him. *

I'm also not sure why we need to hear from Nolan, at this point in the game. What is he going to tell us, other than that the organization is very high on him and very excited about the opportunity to sign him? That the chance to bring a young, projectable potential ace into the fold justifies the huge expenditure? Because that's what he would tell us, if he actually spoke on the subject. That would be his on-the-record rationale for the Rangers going well above and beyond what they were willing to pay Wilson or Buehrle. I'd be shocked if you got much beyond that out of him.

* Of course, one wonders how much of the baseball operations department was on board with giving Buehrle $50 million as Nolan supposedly would have done ...

● Ken Rosenthal writes that the Rangers are still pursuing Athletics closer Andrew Bailey even after acquiring the exclusive right to negotiate with Darvish, and speculates that a Bailey-to-Texas deal would likely precipitate the trade of one of the Rangers' other starting pitchers for help at first base or in center field -- Matt Harrison, perhaps.

Of course, doing so would then leave the Rangers with Scott Feldman as their No. 6 starter again.

● Bobby Keppel, a former teammate of Darvish, says that he's one of the best pitchers he's ever seen in his life.

● John Danks has signed a shiny new five-year, $65 million extension with the White Sox, and the saberuniverse is ... confused, to say the least. 

● Remember that jazz about the Blue Jays bidding upwards of $50 million on Darvish? Yeah, now we're hearing stuff to the contrary, as a Blue Jays columnist and both Jon Heyman and Buster Olney are all saying that the final outcome wasn't even close, and that the Rangers blew everyone away.

● Nelson Cruz is holding himself out of the Dominican Winter League festivities, because he's more focused on working out and keeping his legs healthy after dealing with a spate of leg-related injuries over the last few seasons.

● Drew Davison writes about the Rangers adding catcher Luis Martinez to their 40-man roster in a minor deal that sent Ryan Kelly to the Padres yesterday, Josh Hamilton's search for an accountability partner, and the joyous news that Matt Kata has been re-signed by the Rangers to a minor league deal. 

Some More Takes On Yu Darvish

Rounding up some of the stuff that's been out there over the last few hours ...

Kevin Goldstein has a nice piece up over at BP in which he polls a group of scouts and big league executives and asks them to put Darvish on a scale against other big major league names ... the two most interesting passages are, I think, the comments offered on the comparison between Darvish and Zach Greinke:

The Vote: Tie, 5-5
As good as Greinke can be, his inconsistency and unique personality has some that were polled waffling on their choice.“Greinke is tantalizing, but you take that Cy Young Award season away, and he's not always a star,” said one American League scout. Another scout added, “After seeing Greinke down the stretch in the playoffs, I'll take Darvish.”

An American League executive saw some similarities off the field as well. “They're both weird makeup guys,” he said. “Lots of ego stuff, lots of style points. That could be to his advantage or disadvantage over here depending on how you look at it.”

Interesting that there's already this perception within the game that Darvish's makeup is a bit off and that he has a huge ego (the latter of which was one of the oft-bandied complaints about C.J. Wilson), and yet the Rangers are open to paying anywhere from 80-100 percent more for Darvish than they were for Wilson. That certainly has a great deal to do with how the Rangers project both Wilson and Darvish to perform going forward, but I've reached the point in my understanding of the Rangers/C.J. dynamic where it would seem to make sense that there were also non-baseball factors in play.

In other words, I now have reason to suspect/believe that there was more to the story of the Rangers low-balling C.J. Wilson than how they felt he was going to pitch going forward. I suppose that would alter the oh-screw-me tone of my post the night after C.J. signed with the Angels, but it's also a lot easier to have a brighter tone after the Rangers emerged triumphant in the Darvish auction.

Goldstein also offers this remark:

For most insiders polled, the choke point for just how good Yu Darvish would be occurred somewhere between Matt Garza and Zack Greinke, although a majority still preferred the Japanese import. It's important to note that even the reservations about Darvish had little to do with his talent, and everything to do with the adjustments he'll need to make, from working on shorter rest than he has in Japan, to dealing with far more dangerous hitters, to a new strike zone. Still, reports from professional evaluators and the posting price tell you Darvish was the best pitcher available this winter. While he was priced beyond many teams’ reach, the industry generally believes the righty will be worth the heavy price tag.

Meanwhile, Randy Galloway and Mac Engel evidently hate the Rangers' pursuit of Darvish, with Galloway actually sounding like the voice of reason in this back-and-forth (though his solution is to sign both Wilson and Mark Buehrle instead):

Randy Galloway: He's going to be the hottest pitcher in baseball, from a publicity standpoint. Can he pitch? Nobody knows. I'm taking the $125 to $150 million and I'm signing C.J. Wilson and Mark Buehrle as a free agent from the White Sox. I'm moving on with two established pitchers. That's what I would have done with the money. ... I don't even think Nolan (Ryan) was for this. I think it's all Jon Daniels and his people.

Mac Engel: This reeks of Tom Hicks running around money-whipping guys, just throwing money at names.

Galloway: No. Baseball people were not involved in the Tom Hicks process. That was Tom and an agent I've named the Great Satan, Mr. (Scott) Boras.

Engel: Do you not see any comparisons at all?

Galloway: No I don't. Not at all. The baseball people were going, "NO" (in the ARod deal). Tom Hicks and an agent made that deal.

Engel: The part I don't like about this then, if Nolan is not totally in on this ...Galloway: I don't think Nolan is for the money. He's in on the pitcher. But I don't think Nolan wants to go that high.

I had previously believed that comparing Darvish to any of the far less athletic Japanese pitchers who jumped stateside in the past was about the laziest comparison one could make. I was wrong. 

Comparing Darvish to A-Rod -- or at least the notion that Texas going after Darvish is tantamount to Hicks throwing money around willy-nilly as he purportedly did with A-Rod -- is the laziest comparison one can make. It completely ignores the facts that the 2001 and 2012 Rangers are vastly different from a talent standpoint, and from a payroll/revenue standpoint, and from a front office/baseball operations standpoint, and derogatorily paints A-Rod as a bad/foolish investment when we now know very well that A-Rod was, in fact, worth the money that the Rangers paid him.

The A-Rod signing was a "failure" because the Rangers of a decade ago -- or, according to Galloway, Hicks alone -- were under the erroneous assumption that they were ready to make a real push for playoff contention and the World Series when, in fact, they didn't have enough talent on hand to make it work in the short run, and didn't spend their other dollars efficiently enough because they were in full-out bad contract mode, and especially because the roster itself was skewed too far away from pitching/defense even with A-Rod's above-average defense in the fold at shortstop.

Those same conditions do not apply now, and if the Darvish investment -- assuming something in the vicinity of $110-115 million -- turns out anything like the A-Rod investment in terms of bang for the buck, the Rangers are going to have an excellent player on their hands.

Rogers: Blue Jays Lost Darvish Auction By Less Than $2MM

Back in 2006, the Rangers reportedly bid $27 million on Daisuke Matsuzaka's rights (per MLB.com's T.R. Sullivan), but were handily trounced by the Red Sox. So, too, was every other team that got involved to any extent, as my recollection is that the second-highest bid on Matsuzaka was somewhere between $30-40 million. It was a blowout.

Well, the Darvish auction appears to have been a bit closer:

It matters little to Jays’ GM Alex Anthopoulos, the encouraging pats on the back he might receive for being runner-up to the Texas Rangers on the posting bid for Yu Darvish.

Sources in baseball insist that the Jays’ bid for the 25-year-old Japanese star was over $50 million, barely edged out by the winning bid of $51.7 million reported to be posted by Rangers’ GM Jon Daniels.

“I understand the passion and the interest levels in our team,” Anthopoulos said via conference call Tuesday morning. “I have people come up to me in the street every day. It’s on us to provide a winning product. That’s what you want, but we want to make sure it’s done the right way.”

The Jays have been eternally close-mouthed when it comes to confirming their participation in the chase for any free agents and trades, not just in the case of Darvish, but as a matter of policy. In fact, Anthopoulos maintained he would not even have staged a conference call except for the volume of requests that he had and the subsequent recommendation of his media relations staff.

Of course, we're probably talking about some of the same sources inside baseball that were absolutely convinced within an inch of their lives that the Blue Jays had won it. And since the Blue Jays seem to abide by the same let's-play-things-low-key philosophy as the Rangers do, I'm not sure whom, if anyone, inside the Toronto front office would be inclined to blab about this. We also don't know if all of these "sources" are obtaining their information from one single party, which would heighten the likelihood that this is misinformation.

But with all of those caveats aside, this is quite a story. Let's tell it again.

Update: Per ESPNNewYork.com's Andrew Marchand, the Yankees bid less than $20 million for Darvish "according to a baseball official with knowledge of the process," as they liked his stuff, but couldn't be sold on the idea that his stuff and makeup would successfully translate to the majors.

Brown: Reports Of Rangers' $3B TV Deal "Closer To Truth" Than $1.6B

Maury Brown has a good article up right now over at BP detailing why the Rangers aren't saddling themselves with quite the level of monetary risk that the combined amount of their successful bid + eventual contract would suggest, and talking about how the hire of Joe Januszewski from the Red Sox -- a hire made by now-deposed owner Chuck Greenberg -- now figures to be especially valuable to Texas, as Januszewski was part of Boston's initiative to create international sponsorships with Japanese companies at the time of the Daisuke Matsuzaka signing, and should be able to help the Rangers tap into significant new revenue streams that they've never had access to previously.

Which, of course, is all very well and good and deserving of our excitement ... but Brown also has this on the Rangers' much debated TV deal:

When it was reached shortly after Nolan Ryan and former owner Chuck Greenberg won the auction for the club, it was reported that the 20-year deal was worth $3 billion. And then, for some reason, that changed to between $1.5-$1.6 billion, which has now circulated about enough to become “fact.”

But, in speaking with two sources that were close to the negotiations on the television deal yesterday, they say that the original figure of $3 billion is closer to the truth… and possibly then some (the sources would not elaborate as to the total but said that based upon certain escalators in the deal, the package could be worth more).

So, as far as I can tell, we now have Brown in the group with Ben Rogers and Bob Nightengale that believes the Rangers' TV deal is actually closer to $3 billion over 20 years than $1.6 billion, and pretty much everyone else still occupying the $1.6 billion camp. The key here, though, is that Brown actually provides a key hint as far as the escalator-based construct of the deal -- and, in the process, sounds very credible, as that was a detail which no other writer had confirmed up to this point. 

If this actually is a $3 billion TV deal over 20 years (albeit one that doesn't kick in until 2015), then it becomes quite a bit easier to understand why the Rangers took the plunge that they did on Darvish. It also becomes quite a bit easier to envision Texas still springing for Prince Fielder, provided that ownership is at all comfortable with borrowing against those future revenue streams. 

This is turning out to be a pretty good 24 hours.

Endy Chavez To The Orioles

Per Chavez's agent (via MLB Trade Rumors). The Rangers had reportedly harbored some interest in bringing Chavez back, but he'll instead join the growing army of ex-Rangers that's building under the instruction of Buck Showalter up in Baltimore.

Chavez was recalled from Triple-A Round Rock in May to replace a fallen Julio Borbon, and ultimately ended up keeping Borbon's spot even after he regained his health, as Chavez maintained an OPS north of 1.000 over his first 60 plate appearances, and was hitting (a heavily BA-driven) .347/.376/.551 as late as July 19th.

The problem, though, was what happened to his performance beyond mid-late July or so ... here are his monthly performance splits:

May: 41 PA, .351/.400/.595, 176 wRC+, 0.6 fWAR
June: 50 PA, .283/.327/.435, 104 wRC+, 0.3 fWAR
July: 73 PA, .309/.324/.426, 91 wRC+, 0.4 fWAR
August: 62 PA, .281/.295/.368, 72 wRC+, 0.2 fWAR
September: 48 PA, .292/.292/.354, 68 wRC+, 0.1 fWAR

The numbers are indicative of a player who was relatively useful over the course of his first couple of months, and ... not so much beyond that point. Ultimately, though, the Rangers paid very little for some decent fill-in production in center field, and while there were a few downsides in that (such as, say, the Rangers still not figuring out exactly what they had on their hands in Borbon, as he was optioned to Round Rock once his alloted rehab time was up so that Chavez remain in Texas, and then proceeded to get hurt shortly thereafter), the Chavez/Rangers marriage ended up working out just about as well as anyone reasonably could have expected it to work out.

Also, Endy is a wizard:

And a Jedi:

And OMG MANUFACTURED RUNS:

The Yankees Are "Not Getting" Yu Darvish

I'll be throwing up a four questions post (and delving further into some of the emergent questions springing up as this Gio/Darvish talk intensifies) in a bit, but in the meantime, here's a new report from the Star-Ledger's Marc Carig:

If Japanese pitching sensation Yu Darvish indeed throws his first major league pitch next season, it will not be in a Yankees uniform.

The Yankees are "not getting him," a person with knowledge of the situation said today, on condition of anonymity because the posting process is still ongoing. Darvish's Japanese team has until Tuesday to decide whether to accept the highest bid to negotiate with Darvish.

The Yankees submitted a bid. But the only way they can emerge with Darvish is if it proves to be the highest on the table, and the person with knowledge said the Yankees' bid will not be high enough to top those they believe were submitted by a pair of American League rivals, the Rangers and Blue Jays.

"A ridiculous number," the person with knowledge said, while declining to offer exact figures.

Meanwhile, SI.com's Franz Lidz reported yesterday that the winning bid for Darvish was, in fact, greater than the Red Sox' $51.1 million bid for Daisuke Matsuzaka's negotiating rights back in 2006.

The Cubs reportedly submitted a "very low offer" for Darvish.

The Red Sox apparently submitted a bid, but there were previous indications that Boston was skittish on the idea of submitting a bid at all, and that would be a smokescreen for the history books if the Red Sox pulled a one-eighty from their previously tentative position and threw down $50-plus million for Darvish.

The Blue Jays reportedly submitted a bid above $40 million and "possibly close to $50 million," but that doesn't tell us whether they bid more or less than $50 million, and the inclusion of the "possibly" qualifier further muddies the waters. I could possibly be a Dominican drug lord. Tim Tebow could possibly be the Cthulhu. Anything's possible!

And the Rangers ... well, nobody seems to know much of anything. 

I feel more enlightened already.

"The Growing Consensus ... Is Toronto Will Win Darvish Rights"

Per Gerry Fraley:

The growing consensus among officials with several major-league clubs is Toronto will surpass the Texas Rangers and win the negotiating rights to Japanese righthander Yu Darvish.

Without having direct knowledge of the offers, the officials believe Toronto came in with a bid similar to what Boston offered for the rights to righthander Daisuke Matzusaka in 2007. The Red Sox paid $51.11 million for the negotiating rights and $52 million for a contract. The Rangers finished second, with a bid of about $28 million.

[...]

We stress none of these officials has direct knowledge of the offers. At the same time, monitoring other clubs is part of their job. They usually have a good idea of what their competitors are doing. 

Fraley also suggests that the AAV on Darvish's deal would be roughly $15 million over six years, leaving the victorious team on the hook for a total $135 million commitment. I think that would be well beyond what even Darvish's bigger advocates out there would feel comfortable paying.

Of course, we're also mucking around in the realm of scuttlebutt here, and there doesn't seem to be any direct evidence of the Blue Jays ponying up $50-55 million. But I also can't say it would surprise me to learn that Toronto prevailed, and that the Rangers came up at least $10 million short of the winning bid.

So, Uh, How Much Is The Rangers' TV Deal Actually Worth?

With all of the recent talk surrounding the disparity between the Rangers' and Angels' TV deals, I found this exchange on Twitter last night rather interesting:

Ben Rogers (ESPN) to Bob Nightengale (USA Today): "You initially reported Rangers upcoming TV deal as being worth $3B. In meantime some have speculated less. You still say $3B?"

Nightengale: "yes people involved in negotiations say it is 3b"

Rogers: "That's what I'm hearing too. Thank you."

Meanwhile, every other source that I can think of has reported $1.6 billion. Jonah Keri, the author of the definitive piece on the Rangers' TV deal, says that it's $1.6 billion, and remarks in a footnote that the $3 billion report was "erroneous."

But now we have Rogers saying differently, and Nightengale standing by his original report.

This is very, very confusing, and I'm not convinced that it's simply a matter of the $1.6 billion figure being the NPV of the entire deal. If that were the case, why wouldn't every media rights deal be reported at its NPV? 

I'm actually beginning to think that there's a vital piece of information being left out here (a contractual option/opt out, or some such) that would bring these two numbers into congruence andhave all of this make some sense ... but, instead, we're left in the dark wondering who in the hell is actually closer to the truth here.

Somebody armed with the ability to get right down to the bottom of this really, really needs to get to the bottom of this.

Today's Off-Topic Poll

I thought this was pretty damn funny. But then again, as a Packers fan, I'm not exactly a leading authority on Cowboys fandom.

Anyway, here's a poll question tied to Corby's grand anti-Cowboys fan rant. Don't vote if you don't watch the Cowboys fairly regularly and don't have any kind of sense of what the fans are like out there:

Rangers Non-Tender Fabio Castillo

Per John Blake on Twitter. Every other arbitration-eligible Rangers player was reportedly tendered, meaning that Mike Adams, Matt Harrison, Elvis Andrus, Mike Napoli, Mark Lowe, David Murphy, and Nelson Cruz are all headed for the arbitration process.

Here's the statistical book on Castillo up to this point in his career:

Year	Age	Tm	Lev	ERA	G	GS	IP	BF	WHIP	H/9	HR/9	BB/9	SO/9	SO/BB
2006	17	2 Teams	FRk-Rk	3.10	8	7	29.0	124	1.241	6.8	0.0	4.3	12.7	2.93
2006	17	Rangers	Rk	0.00	1	1	3.0	12	1.000	3.0	0.0	6.0	12.0	2.00
2006	17	Rangers	FRk	3.46	7	6	26.0	112	1.269	7.3	0.0	4.2	12.8	3.08
2007	18	Spokane	A-	5.92	14	14	62.1	294	1.604	10.5	0.6	3.9	6.6	1.70
2008	19	Clinton	A	5.28	36	7	90.1	395	1.494	8.8	1.1	4.7	7.8	1.66
2009	20	Hickory	A	4.05	40	2	80.0	360	1.400	9.8	0.6	2.8	7.5	2.68
2010	21	2 Teams	A+-AA	2.11	39	0	55.1	237	1.337	7.2	0.3	4.9	10.9	2.23
2010	21	Bakersfield	A+	1.92	36	0	51.2	219	1.297	7.1	0.3	4.5	11.3	2.50
2010	21	Frisco	AA	4.91	3	0	3.2	18	1.909	7.4	0.0	9.8	4.9	0.50
2011	22	Frisco	AA	6.36	42	0	52.1	237	1.548	10.0	1.0	4.0	6.4	1.61
6 Seasons				4.63	179	30	369.1	1647	1.457	9.1	0.7	4.0	8.2	2.02
A (2 seasons)			A	4.70	76	9	170.1	755	1.450	9.2	0.8	3.8	7.7	2.01
AA (2 seasons)			AA	6.27	45	0	56.0	255	1.571	9.8	1.0	4.3	6.3	1.44
FRk (1 season)			FRk	3.46	7	6	26.0	112	1.269	7.3	0.0	4.2	12.8	3.08
Rk (1 season)			Rk	0.00	1	1	3.0	12	1.000	3.0	0.0	6.0	12.0	2.00
A- (1 season)			A-	5.92	14	14	62.1	294	1.604	10.5	0.6	3.9	6.6	1.70
A+ (1 season)			A+	1.92	36	0	51.2	219	1.297	7.1	0.3	4.5	11.3	2.50

And here's what the Professor had to say about Castillo at the end of October over at Texas Farm Review: 

Castillo had made huge strides coming into the ’11 season, with a more consistent plus (to plus-plus) fastball and a sharper slider with more velocity and corridor tilt. But the results in ’11 didn’t match the hype, and Castillo failed to dominate in Double-A like many thought he would/could. During advanced instructs this fall, Castillo looked a bit flat, with a good but not great fastball and a slider that appeared to be a bit loose. Mechanically, Castillo has never been one I would label as fluid or unencumbered, but when he can maintain his line to the plate and not show such an extreme falloff to the 1B-side, he can throw strikes and force the hitter to beat his stuff. During the FIL, Castillo mentioned a foot injury that occurred before the ’11 season (broken bone) that had been affecting his ability to drive towards the plate and sapped his stuff as a result.

Assuming the injury is in the rear-view, Castillo can hopefully return to form and once again show the late-inning arsenal that warranted a spot on the 40-man roster. If not, well, Castillo could end up being a 40-man casualty, as the queue for roster spots is getting lengthy and talented.

Here are the salaries I projected for the rest of the Rangers' arbitration-eligible players last month, and I feel pretty comfortable in those same numbers a full month later.

C.J. Wilson Speaks ... On Facebook

Sent at 5:18 a.m., in what I'm assuming is his final direct correspondence with the Rangers' fan base at large:

I just want to say thank you to all the ranger fans who have supported me, and my efforts in the community the last six years in Texas. Surely it's both hard for some to understand that I left for a different team let alone a division rival- it was bittersweet for me as well. At the end of the day the rangers didn't make a push to keep me on the team. The angels an marlins wanted me on their teams and proved it. everything written about an asking price etc was media speculation and never had an ounce of truth.

The rangers are a great organization with talented front office and players and will be a difficult team to beat and it's very sad to leave such awesome teammates and fans. The last few years in ranger stadium were special- going from a losing team to bankrupt to american league champs was a complete transformation and obviously everyone should be proud of it. The charity will continue even stronger now and we will continue to support North Texas kids as well as SoCal kids. Please keep that spirit of philanthropy alive for your local causes like cooks children's hospital, Scottish rite, dallas children's and the boys and girls club.

Lest anyone forget what he's meant to this organization, or how massive a success story he is given that he was originally a fifth-round draft pick, here's one final glimpse back at his Rangers career:

Year	Age	ERA	G	GS	IP	ERA+	WHIP	H/9	HR/9	BB/9	SO/9	SO/BB
2001	20	2.01	13	13	71.2		1.005	6.8	0.5	2.3	9.4	4.17	PUL,SAV · APPY,SALL
2002	21	2.78	31	20	136.0		1.191	7.2	0.3	3.5	6.2	1.75	CHT,TUL · FLOR,TL
2003	22	5.05	22	21	123.0		1.407	9.9	0.8	2.8	6.5	2.34	FRI · TL
2005	24	4.17	16	16	58.1		1.354	9.4	1.4	2.8	8.8	3.17	FRI,BAK · TL,CALL
2005	24	6.94	24	6	48.0	67	1.688	11.8	0.9	3.4	5.6	1.67
2006	25	2.51	13	0	14.1		1.395	8.2	0.0	4.4	14.4	3.29	OKC,FRI · PCL,TL
2006	25	4.06	44	0	44.1	114	1.286	7.9	1.4	3.7	8.7	2.39
2007	26	3.03	66	0	68.1	151	1.215	6.6	0.5	4.3	8.3	1.91
2008	27	6.02	50	0	46.1	74	1.640	9.5	1.6	5.2	8.0	1.52
2009	28	2.81	74	0	73.2	166	1.330	8.1	0.4	3.9	10.3	2.63
2010	29	3.35	33	33	204.0	134	1.245	7.1	0.4	4.1	7.5	1.83
2011	30	2.94	34	34	223.1	152	1.187	7.7	0.6	3.0	8.3	2.78
7 Seasons		3.60	325	73	708.0	126	1.291	7.9	0.7	3.8	8.1	2.16
162 Game Avg.		3.60	56	12	121	126	1.291	7.9	0.7	3.8	8.1	2.16

Be well, C.J. -- but please also pitch like s*** against Texas. Thanks.

And The Beat Goes On: Dec. 9th

I like to think that this track would work pretty well as a theme song for Yu Darvish:

● Jeff Wilson says that the Rangers won't be lured into an acquisitions war with the Angels, and that the Rangers prefer to keep their financial flexibility so that they can retain their "core players" and are also disinclined to move their top prospects.

● Mac Engel writes that the Angels were stupid to throw that much money at Pujols and Wilson. Then again, he also says that Wilson is a "solid No. 3 starter." That makes my head hurt, and it's misleading statements like those from guys who wield high-visibliity platforms that fuels the general public's belief that, no, Wilson really isn't that good after all.

● One senior baseball executive told MLB.com's T.R. Sullivan that he has a gut feeling the Rangers are going to be involved on Prince Fielder before all is said and done.

● Richard Durrett has the details on C.J. Wilson's contract:

2012: $10 million, plus a $2.5 million signing bonus 
2013: $11 million 
2014: $16 million
2015: $18 million
2016: $20 million

Remember, kids -- backloaded deals are your friend. 

● Yesterday was the No. 2 traffic day in BBTiA history. Either misery loves company, or we're doing something right. Or both.

● Behind the DMN paywall, Evan Grant says that the Angels' free-agent spending spree could come back to hurt them in the long run. Tim Cowlishaw says that the Pujols/Wilson signings put the Angels on level footing with the Rangers. Gerry Fraley says -- or his editor says that he's saying -- that Wilson will never fit the profile of a top-ranked starter, which is all well and good ... except that he already was a top-ranked starter in both 2010-11, which renders that statement patently false.

Outside the DMN paywall, Kevin Sherrington writes that the Rangers need to make some kind of a move.

● The New York Times' David Waldstein says that many baseball executives believe Yu Darvish could end up with the Rangers. Evan Grant counterargues that if the Darvish auction plays out the same way the Dice-K auction played out five years ago, we shouldn't expect the Rangers to be the team negotiating with him:

While the Rangers have some money available to improve the club, it doesn't appear that they are willing to invest $100 million or more on a single player to try and do it. The Rangers did not get involved with Albert Pujols. They aren't likely to get involved with Prince Fielder, unless his market totally dissolved. They weren't willing to go to $75-80 million on C.J. Wilson to keep him.

Sources have indicated the Rangers simply aren't willing to make a $100 million gamble that may limit future flexibility. Especially since Darvish is unproven.

The club is more focused at this point on solidifying it's core talent to long-term deals and will try to improve the depth of the roster in free agency. As far as any big upgrades, particularly, for the rotation, it is more likely the team will continue exploring trades. 

And, you (yu) know, I don't think that abstaining from pursuing Darvish and retaining that financial flexibility is necessarily a bad thing ... but I do think a lot of long-time Rangers fans attach a very negative connotation to the term "financial flexibility" dating back to the Tom Hicks era, and I think that may be driving at least a very small part of the general discontent within the fan base right now.

That, and abstaining from the market in order to lock in your own guys isn't a very sexy counter to your biggest divisional opponent commiting upwards of $300 million to the best pitcher and hitter on the open market in the same day.

Jon Daniels, however, says that the Rangers aren't planning to counterpunch the Angels, and that they're continuing to work within the parameters that were already in place well in advance of the winter meetings.

● The Cardinals lost scouting director Jeff Luhnow to the Astros on Thursday, thereby ending the "OMG WHO'S GOING TO BE THEIR GM?!" game. For what it's worth, Keith Law described this as an excellent hire on Twitter earlier, and I did notice somewhere that Luhnow expects to keep manager Brad Mills within the club's employ for the time being, but I'm not motivated enough to find links to that stuff right now because, hell, it's the Astros who cares in fact I don't even care enough to finish this senten

● K-Rod trolled the hell out of the Brewers by accepting their offer of arbitration even though they expected him to decline, and he'll now bank upwards of $13 million next season. 

● Texas acquired middle infielder Greg Miclat from the Orioles to complete the Taylor Teagarden trade.

● Maury Brown says we all should have seen the Angels coming. Drew Davison has a story about Scott Servais being happy in his new role. Alright screw it I don't have enough left in me to finish compiling links time to pitch myself off the top of Reunion Towe-