.
Look like any GM's you know? :- )
If you want to see 85 seconds that capture the essence of Dr. D's complaint with the "win 85-90 games with efficient dollars" approach -- as Dr. D sees it, anyway -- this Lombardi video will give you a feel for it.
Dr. D watches this as part of his pre-lifting routine. Ideas like these make the difference on the 12th rep, as well as in life generally. ... for the kiddies who just joined us, Vince Lombardi was a legitimate sports genius, a geniunely great leader. Just for example, he took a 1-10 Packers team to a 7-5 record first year, doing very little other than inspiring his players and teaching them correct playing technique. He went on to win 5 championships in 7 years. He didn't win championships by spending money. He won championships because he was a champion.
Granted, our bloggy sparring amigos could reply that they define "winning" differently: that winning is wins per $, or making the playoffs, or filling the stands, or whatever. Fair enough; winning can be defined by each person for themselves. But Dr. D's response? Go tell Vince Lombardi that you're redefining "winning" as finishing second?
You can't take the passion out of sports and have anything worthwhile left over. You can't play "to make the playoffs" and accomplish anything that will last.
.
=== Texas 2013 ===
The Rangers are one and done, and as they say in golf, a putt is a stroke you can't get back. The 2011-13 Rangers never won. Three years ago, there was the possibility of a dynasty. That possibility is slipping through their fingers.
I'm not saying they've done nothing, of course. But for those of us who pay attention to championships, the 2013 season becomes a wasted one for them. I love the Wild Card; it devalues second place and thereby weights first place the way it should be weighted. Sportswriters complain that the divisional races aren't worth much. Tell that to the 2013 Rangers; if they'd won one or two more games, they'd have won the AL West and been able to bring their pitching to bear on a long series. They traded a top-100* prospect for Ryan Dempster, trying to win that extra game. They lost. They lost despite their best efforts.
There's a sentiment out there that says the 2011-14 Rangers are exactly where they want to be. Hey, the playoffs are a crapshoot anyway; we don't care about those. They're one of the contenders, and that's the highest target that an intelligent man can really aim at.
See the video. Contending? That's not why the Angels traded for Greinke or the Rangers for Dempster. There are a lot of GM's who, in Texas' shoes, would feel like they just ... um... what's the word. Oh: the Rangers just "Lost."
.
=== Wild Card ===
Texas and Baltimore would have been in the playoffs with 91 victories. The Mariners don't have to amass more talent than New York and Texas. They have to put together a 90-win team.
Oakland did it with a bunch of rookie pitching. The 2012 season was an encouraging one for fans in Seattle, Oakland, and places like that. For years, we've been seeing blog posts about how unpossible it is to catch Texas, talent-wise, so we might as well punt [fill in next three years] and rebuild properly.
I doubt there are many people on SSI who doubt that the Mariners' appropriate 2013 goal is to try to make the playoffs. Yes, there are situations wherein there's nothing to do but to detonate the roster and start over. This isn't one of them. Geoff Baker is pushing hard for a "splash" signing and if the 2013 M's roll Josh Hamilton out there, great. If they don't, it's not over. Michael Saunders is still packing those 74 dingers next season....
.
=== Texas 2014-15 ===
The caveat emptor, first. Nobody is saying that the Rangers are about to complete a series of 90-loss seasons. That's not what is about to occur. But they have to wonder whether their best shot at a dynasty has come and gone.
Without Josh Hamilton, the Rangers' offense looks extremely ordinary. Their pitching staff is deep, especially in the bullpen, but that makes them 2013 Tampa Bay or 2013 Oakland, as opposed to making them the 1996-2001 Yankees.
The future's so bright that Texas can ... take off their shades now.
...they can let their aging free agents walk and um...sign more free agents. :) Just saying...the Rangers' minor league system isn't as deep as it was four years ago, but it's not shalow either...they can trade for another young bat from their pitching depth. Not that they're uncatchable...just saying they're probably going to continue to spend 40 million per year more than we do on payroll.
It's nice to see that all written down, I didn't realize just how depleted the Rangers were going to be this off season, it makes me feel even better about next year. And regarding Michael Saunders getting compared favorably to Josh Hamilton up there...I just want everyone to remember who said that first! I agree they won't be anywhere near toothless, and actually could be a career reinvigorating landing spot for one BJ Upton if they let both Napoli and Hamilton walk. I think it's very easy to envision 3 playoff spots coming from the AL West next season.
... somebody else will...
The Rangers' re-tool, if that's what goes on, will leave them as powerful rivals very likely. Not writing them off by any stretch.
Still, it's a pleasant thought for M's fans ...in 2011 you had Josh Hamilton, Michael Young, Adrian Beltre and Mike Napoli all with OPS+ from 117 to 175 ... then hitters 5-6 were Nelson Cruz with 29 homers, Ian Kinsler with 32 homers at second base, Elvis Andrus, Mitch Moreland and David Murphy as the 7-8-9 offensive weapons.
They're still pretty loaded but after 2011 I was legitimately worried about a 1998 Yankees type of situation.
Being the one who comp'ed Saunders to Hamilton first :- )
My prediction of Saunders breaking Bonds' HR record might have been a Little Bit tongue in cheek.
...tongue THROUGH cheek and into someone else's ear. LOL
I agree...the Rangers will probably still be competitive but don't look near as threatening as they did after 2011.
What do you think of the Mariners' decision to fire Chambliss?
I actually look at this as the exact opposite. Profar and Olt are two of the best and lowest risk position prospects in baseball right now, and Martin Perez will probably rank in the Top 50. Michael Young's $16 million comes off the books after 2013. Same for Nelson Cruz's $10.5 million and Nathan's $7 million. They're already opening up about $35M this offseason if they don't resign Hamilton ($13.75M), Dempster (~$4.5M), Napoli ($9.4M), and Feldman ($6.5M).
They'll still be stuck with a number of underperforming veteran salaries in 2013 and I don't see them being able to replace Hamilton this offseason. 2013 is the one transitional year where there's a great chance to take them down. I'd be very worried what this team will look like in 2014, they're going to have a lot of resources in both rookies and finances.
In 2011 the Rangers had eleven (11) tough hitters, including six (6) "Grade A offensive weapons" as Bill James put it. Hamilton, Napoli, Kinsler, Young, Beltre and Nelson Cruz combined for an average OPS+ of about 130 between the six of them, and there were five other hitters behind that.
The rotation, led by C.J. Wilson and Alexi Ogando, had ERA+ of 150, 136, 126, 112, and 100. Compare Felix', which was 109 and 122 the last two years. I'm not saying that they had a rotation better than 5 Felixes, but their rotation was pretty rare in terms of production.
The fact that they've got exciting young talent coming up, and lots of money, that's great, but various teams have had 6 players in BBA's top 100 and lots of money. What the Rangers had, in 2011, was an "All-AL Team" both in the lineup and in the rotation. I'd rather deal with potential dominance than actual, realized dominance.
..............
I've thought that C.J. Wilson and Josh Hamilton were the straws that stirred that drink - their two best players being the two guys they hid the champagne for, and all of that stuff. We'll see how much difference it makes if you subtract their two teetotaler* superstars ...
*I know, I know