So is Prince gonna DH? Seems like if Moreland is gonna be in the lineup, you might as well put him at first.

Alvarado the problem with your lineup is that Choo is far and away the best lead off hitter they have and Andrus is perfect for the No. 2 bunt em over role.

quote:

---

My lineup goes 1.Martin 2. Andrus 3. Choo 4. Beltre 5. Fielder 6. Rios 7. Moreland 8. Soto 9. Profar.
This gives Rangers the ability to go L,R,L all the way thru the lineup.

---

.

I don't think Choo's 21 homeruns are enough to negate his .423 OBP. He has to hit lead off in my mind. Plus Wash has already said He is going to try Fielder out at the 3-hole


Enviroag beat me to it.

[This message has been edited by Cholder7 (edited 12/21/2013 3:26p).]

Add Morales, flip Moreland in a package for an arm or some prospects and call it an offseason.

OF: Choo
SS: Andrus
1B: Fielder
3B: Beltre
OF: Rios
DH: Morales
2B: Profar
C: Soto
OF: Martin

I still think you try to roll one more year with Moreland. I still think the kid has something. And I think morales is done.

Morales is going to put up an 800 OPS at Rangers Ballpark.

Moreland has a career 758 OPS.

Agree I want Moreland more than morales

You think the Rangers can get Morales?

They have the money and wouldn't have to forfeit a valuable draft pick like other teams (since they are already due to the Choo signing).

We will get the choo pick back when someone signs Cruz

flip Moreland in a package for an arm or some prospects and call it an offseason.
--------------------
I think you are putting WAY too much value on Moreland.

quote:

---

flip Moreland in a package with some prospects for an arm and call it an offseason.

---

FIFY

Seriously, wouldn't want to trade away Moreland's defense for some marginal pitching.

quote:

---

We will get the choo pick back when someone signs Cruz

---

The point is the penalty for signing free agents like Choo or Morales is the loss of a draft pick -- Texas has already surrendered their highest draft pick for the Choo signing, and you can't lose picks gained via compensation (what Texas will get with Cruz).

Put in another fashion:

Texas surrendered the #21 overall pick (1st round) to sign Choo.

Texas will gain the #34 overall pick (compensation/sandwich round A) when Cruz signs elsewhere.

If Texas signs Morales, they would surrender the #60 overall pick (2nd round).

Only the first 10 picks in the draft are protected... and Morales isn't a fit in the NL because of his defense... So that leaves the White Sox, Twins, Blue Jays or back to the Mariners as teams that wouldn't forfeit a first rounder to get him.

Otherwise the team that signs Morales will likely be giving up a first round pick in the 11-30 range, rather than a late 2nd round pick at #60 that Texas would surrender.

That's why Texas has the upper hand for his services.

quote:

---

I think you are putting WAY too much value on Moreland.

---

How is flipping in him in a package for "an arm or some prospects" over-valuing him?

I'm not high on the guy, but it's silly to say he doesn't have any trade value at all.

I don't find the value in signing Morales, unless they trade Moreland for something of value.

I think Moreland can give you .275\23HRs (114GP\.274\15; 147\.232\23). That is pretty much what Morales gave the past 2 years (134GP\.273\22; 156GP\.277\23).

Even if you platoon Moreland to only face RHP. Replace him with Choice against LHP.

For RHP:
1B Moreland
DH Fielder

For LHP:
1B Fielder
DH Choice

Those numbers are the past two seasons for Moreland and Morales.

Moreland has some trade value, but every organization in baseball has their own Mitch Moreland. Or they have their own Mitch Morelands.

He's a first baseman who doesn't play great defense, strikes out as often as he gets a hit, doesn't hit for much average, whose "strength" is rather hitting for power.

He's just about the easiest kind of player in baseball to find. I can't imagine his trade value is all that valuable.

[This message has been edited by TXAggie2011 (edited 12/23/2013 12:44p).]

quote:

---

The point is the penalty for signing free agents like Choo or Morales is the loss of a draft pick -- Texas has already surrendered their highest draft pick for the Choo signing, and you can't lose picks gained via compensation (what Texas will get with Cruz).

---

My understanding- via the Yankees situation and my reading of the CBA- is that clubs can lose their compensatory picks.

From Article XX, Sec. B, Subsec. 4(c)(ii)...

quote:

---

A Club’s highest available selection in the next Rule 4
Draft shall be determined after accounting for any selections the Club forfeited for exceeding its Signing Bonus Pool in the Rule 4 Draft. With the exception of draft selections awarded to a Club pursuant to...Rule (4)(c)(2)...all of a clubs draft picks will be subject to forfeiture...pursuant to subsection (4)(c)(i)...including draft selections obtained through assignments, draft selections obtained in the Competitive Balance Lotteries and Forfeited Draft Pick Lotteries, and draft selections awarded as compensation pursuant to subsection 4(b) above.

---

Subsection 4(b) addresses compensatory draft picks awarded for lost free agents...

quote:

---

(b) Former Club. The former Club of a Qualified Free Agent subject to compensation shall receive an amateur draft choice (“Special Draft Choice”) in the next Rule 4 Draft...

---

(4)(c)(i) addresses clubs that sign a qualified free agent.

quote:

---

A Club that signs one Qualified Free Agent who is subject to compensation shall forfeit its highest available selection in the next Rule 4 Draft. A Club that signs more than one Qualified Free Agent subject to compensation shall forfeit its highest remaining selection in the next Rule 4 Draft for each additional Qualified Free Agent it signs...

---

[This message has been edited by TXAggie2011 (edited 12/23/2013 1:12p).]

You may be correct as I was going by an old wiki entry.

But even if that's the case the point still stands in that the draft pick the Rangers will be giving up to sign Morales will likely be 15-20 spots lower than what other teams would be.

quote:

---

But even if that's the case the point still stands in that the draft pick the Rangers will be giving up to sign Morales will likely be 15-20 spots lower than what other teams would be.

---

A third of the league would lose a pick in the compensatory round or later as the Rangers would. The teams that pick later in the first, of course, aren't losing much better of a pick than the Rangers would.

We can all agree that the opportunity cost to rangers if they sign Morales is less now than Pre-Choo? Good, moving on.

quote:

---

We can all agree that the opportunity cost to rangers if they sign Morales is less now than Pre-Choo? Good, moving on.

---

I wouldn't necessarily think of it like that. Pre-Choo (or pre-Morales if, by chance, the timing was reversed) they had the security of having another pick about 10 spots further down the board. Now, they don't.

No that's exactly the correct way to think of it. Losing the 31-34th pick is more advantageous than losing the 17-20th pick. Org may(did) determine that Choo was worth the better pick. Org may have believed Morales wasn't worth that pick, but may determine now he's worth that lesser pick. The decisions on each player are not fully independent on each other.

In no world is the #15 or #17 pick not more valuable than the #33 pick.

So again, Texas has less to lose by signing Morales than most other clubs.

Rangers fans - would you rather have Choo or McCann/Beltran based on signed contracts?

probably choo...who knows what beltran and/or mccann the yanks are getting...same could be said for choo i guess, but i feel he has less health concerns.

mhayden

quote:

---

In no world is the #15 or #17 pick not more valuable than the #33 pick.

---

Well, then you missed the '90s Rangers world where most of our #1 picks sucked.

'89: #5 - Donald Harris (OF: 82 games .205)
'90: #16 - Dan Smith (SP: 29 IP)
'91: #19 - Benji Gil (SS: 604 games .237)
'92: #22 - Rick Shelling
'93: #30 - Mike Bell (3B: 19games)
'94: No pick
'95: #7 - Jonathan Johnson (SP: 77.1 IP \ 6.63 ERA)
'96: #18 - RA Dickey
'96: #24 - Sam Marsonek (SP: 1.1 IP)

Granted... some of those are above #17, but you get the point...

OrA

In short, I just don't have a feel for McCann and Choo. I look to watch those two to see how it plays out, but don't have a strong indication if given one for the other.

NYY are on the hook for 3yrs\$15M per. I want nothing of that with Beltran @37.

Choo is signed from 2018-2020 for 3yrs\$20M per, where he'll be 35, 36, 37.

Given Choo or Beltran, I take Choo. Choosing between Choo and Beltran+McCann... no way do I want Beltran.

If the Rangers had signed McCann and Choo went to the Yanks... My personal bias would say McCann was the better signing<just being honest> . I think either one would be good for what the teams need. I think they both good signings, when compared in a vacuum.

quote:

---

Granted... some of those are above #17, but you get the point...

---

Yes, because if a team with the #17 overall picked approached the Rangers to trade it for their #33 overall picked, no strings attached, the Rangers would turn it down because they have better luck drafting later.

It seems as though the TxAggie2011 method of trying to argue any point, even if it means saying 2+2 doesn't equal 4, is rubbing off on some of you.

quote:

---

Rangers fans - would you rather have Choo or McCann/Beltran based on signed contracts?

---

I'd probably say it's a wash. McCann and Beltran contracts aren't as likely to look bad in their final years, but there's also a lot more health questions with them both.

As Newberg just said in his latest email -- The line up needed one more bat, the defense needed one more outfielder, the offense needed a guy that gets on base at a high clip... Texas got all of that with Choo.

Contract will look bad the last few years, but I think Texas feels that the current roster is close enough to pennant caliber that it's worth some money hits in 2019 and 2020 if you've put your team in a very good spot for 2014/2015/2016.

quote:

---

No that's exactly the correct way to think of it. Losing the 31-34th pick is more advantageous than losing the 17-20th pick. Org may(did) determine that Choo was worth the better pick. Org may have believed Morales wasn't worth that pick, but may determine now he's worth that lesser pick. The decisions on each player are not fully independent on each other. The decisions on each player are not fully independent on each other.

---

In bold is a huge understatement. Personnel decisions are a big, tangled mess of thin string. They're all interconnected in more ways than any outsider could think of.

At the same time, is a team going to go into an off-season targeting Player A and Player B, but they won't sign Player B unless they sign Player A because they're willing to give up the 21st pick on Player A but their boundary on Player B is somewhere between the 22nd and ~34th pick?

I'm pretty skeptical of that for a number of reasons.

quote:

---

In no world is the #15 or #17 pick not more valuable than the #33 pick.

---

I never suggested the 33rd pick was better than the 15th or 17th.

quote:

---

So again, Texas has less to lose by signing Morales than most other clubs.

---

11 of the 29 other teams (Toronto's #11 pick is protected) would give up a pick in the compensatory round or later.

You then have a number of other teams with a marginally better draft pick (Cardinals, BoSox, Braves, etc...)

Have I said you do not lose more giving up the 33rd pick than the 15th or 17th?

Absolutely not. I'm saying its a minority of teams that have a notably better pick to lose. The Giants, D-Backs, etc... have a choice to make, but about half the league are a little more or a little less in the exact same position the Rangers are.

Its probably just not meaningful to be singling out the probable 33rd pick. Now, the Mets? They'd be giving up a 3rd round pick. Maybe that's more meaningful.

quote:

---

Yes, because if a team with the #17 overall picked approached the Rangers to trade it for their #33 overall picked, no strings attached, the Rangers would turn it down because they have better luck drafting later.

---

His point is pretty clearly that this isn't the NFL draft, it certainly isn't the NBA draft.

His point is pretty clearly that the MLB draft looks more like a game of craps than it does the NBA draft, and moving up or down a few spots in a MLB draft isn't especially impactful on the direction of a franchise (unless, perhaps, you're talking about the very very top handful picks).

mhayden

quote:

---

It seems as though the TxAggie2011 method of trying to argue any point, even if it means saying 2+2 doesn't equal 4, is rubbing off on some of you.

---

Because you TOTALLY missed my point.

quote:

---

Yes, because if a team with the #17 overall picked approached the Rangers to trade it for their #33 overall picked, no strings attached, the Rangers would turn it down because they have better luck drafting later.

---

That wasn't my point... my point was that teams drafting in the 2nd round (presumably #33 pick) routinely drafted players with more value than the Rangers' 1st rounder.

The Rangers drafted so poorly with their 1st round picks, the pick was not any more valuable than if they had traded it away or was left with a smaller pool of players to select from.

If Texas signs Kendrys Morales, they will give up the #33 pick.

Roughly 20 teams in the league will have to give up a higher pick than that (possibly as high as #12) to sign Morales.

So you can continue with the 2+2 doesn't equal 4, route -- or accept the painfully obvious statement that Rangers will have to give up less to sign Morales than most other teams in baseball.

Next you'll be telling us how similar Dash Harris was to T.J. McConnell.

quote:

---

That wasn't my point... my point was that teams drafting in the 2nd round (presumably #33 pick) routinely drafted players with more value than the Rangers' 1st rounder.

The Rangers drafted so poorly with their 1st round picks, the pick was not any more valuable than if they had traded it away or was left with a smaller pool of players to select from.

---

I understood your point, it was just a silly one. "Oh this pick isn't valuable because chances are nothing will come of it anyways!".

Just because Texas historically hasn't done much with said pick doesn't mean it isn't more valuable than a lower one.