the first thing the Rangers need to is get rid of the one true outcome players. Be like the Astros and find the 3-tool & 4-tool players

I might have missed this, but I think the genera point is, it worked for the Astros. I think the Cubs did something similar. It worked for those two teams because they were the only two teams that basically committed to being absolutely tragically bad. When that's the case, it works. Once other teams get in on it though it pretty much becomes pointless. In the end I don't think the gas is going to last long for that reason. Ticket sales will suffer and then it will have gotten you nowhere because everybody's trying to sell off pieces.

W said:

---

the first thing the Rangers need to is get rid of the one true outcome players. Be like the Astros and find the 3-tool & 4-tool players

---

Most analytics show the "one true outcome" is still the best value (despite it being dreadfully bad baseball to watch).

"Finding" 3-tool and 4-tool players is a bit easier for a team like the Red Sox ($$$$) or the Astros (#1 draft picks). Most teams don't have that luxury.

I agree with you. And that is essentially what I am saying as well. I was just also saying I personally think it's silly to say you don't want to rebuild a certain way because it's bad for baseball. I think it's your goal to win and if it's within the rules, do what you got to do.

The cubs and Astros just accelerated their timelines. I think all teams who don't have the management of Theo, the cardinals, the new Boston guy, or the cash of New York end up eventually where the astros and cubs were, it just takes longer to get there.

I'll be honest. Those 4 years sucked. Now I'm just hoping we have the management to be a smart and keep us competitive for the long haul. If I had to choose, I would not want to go about it that way personally. I don't really know the rangers system that well and would hope for your sake that's not the way your org truly needs to go.

I also think it's important for the franchise to be transparent and honest to the fanbase.

The Astros straight up said 'We're gonna tear it down and start new. It's gonna be rough but it'll be worth it'. A ot of teams won't commit to that and give the can language of 'We're not in rebuild mode'.

They end up either telling themselves and/or the fans that and end up not having a clear cut plan or direction. They end up like the Pirates, Padres, Reds, etc as just a meddling team who year after year never really competes. They have some decent talent but they end up as sellers at every deadline. They're just kind of there

No doubt. I don't meant to give the impression that the Astros were stupid for doing what they did -- I said it then and I say it now "the only way it will be worth it is if they come out of the other side with a WS trophy". You can swallow a historical 4-year tank job if it gets you a title -- not a division or a league pennant though.

And I think most non-big-$$$ franchises (including Texas and Houston) have seen the "oh hey we'll throw a 3-year deal at this aging vet so it looks like we're trying to the fans but reality is it's just a waste of money" and it drives real baseball fans nuts.

The problem now as a previous poster said is you've got a lot of teams all thinking "hey, we'll try this complete tank thing too" -- and it's only going to truly be worth it for 1-2 teams, while the rest will be 15 games out of the race in July and still only be picking 7th or 8th in the draft.

mathguy86 said:

---

People keep saying "tank" with the Astros like tanking was a nefarious scheme to defraud everyone. Drayton gutted the major league team and more importantly neglected the minor league system on purpose to maximize his profits. When Crane and Lunhow took over they didn't have a choice. They had to build the minor league system and had no one left of value at the major league level. Buying a couple of expensive FA's when there isn't anything else there is dumb. If they had won 70 instead of 60 or 55 it only would have delayed or worse negated completely any rebuild plan.

---

I don't think people say it like it in a nefarious way.

I think it's more that this wasn't your run-of-the-mill "hey we'll be bad for a while but then we'll be good".

It was literally the worst 4 year stretch in the history of modern baseball. It was gaming the system -- and there's not necessarily anything wrong with that (or really any different than the Yankees on the opposite end of the spectrum just money-whipping because no salary cap) -- but it is what it is.

piag94 said:

---

Why not sign 3/4 vets on two year deals, then trade them for prospects at the trade deadline?

---

The Rangers have done that and are in the middle of that.

Mike Minor: 3yr/$28M - Signed in '18
Lance Lynn: 3yr/$30M
Drew Smyly: 2yr/$10M (via trade)
Jesse Chavez: wyr/$8M
Jeff Mathis: 2yr/$6.5M
Shelby Miller: 1yr/$2M
Edinson Volquez: I forget how they got him, but he is in a 2yr deal for '18 and '19

In the past 3-4 years, that has been the Rangers' strategy to build the minor system back up, after depleteing it.

I think part of the problem is right now in MLB. Part of it is teams over analyzing things and trying to get an understanding of advantaging themselves over other teams.

Part of the problem of building teams right now is that baseball has transitioned on metrics.

When you look at run production, some teams are seeing that while Ks are not good, Rob Deer stats of blasting HRs or getting a K may actually have a higher run production for some players.

The reason the Rangers have Gallo playing the way he does is, he was T11 for RBIs in the AL. His .206 avg and 207 K in 500 ABs still produced big runs. He was T26 in Runs.

The shift is another issue, that IMO, takes away fun from the game.

Last issue is player entitlement.

Look at what Evan Longoria said on Instagram:

Quote:

---

As fans, why should "value" for your team even be a consideration? It's not your money, it's money that players have worked their whole lives to get to that level and be deserving of. Bottom line, fans should want the best players and product on the field for their team. And as players we need to stand strong for what we believe we are worth and continue to fight for the rights we have fought for time and time again.

---

Players are worth what teams are willing to pay them, not what the players want to be worth.

Longoria signed a 6yr extension worth $100M back in 2012 with Tampa. In 2018 (age 32), he made only $13.6M, but he is under contract for 4 more yrs, plus an Option. He had a broken hand in 2018 and went 125 G, .244, 16 HRs.

Darvish signed a 6yr/$126M contract before 2018 for Chicago, and that is going to be a disaster. He went 8G/4.95 ERA for his $20M season. He will be 32, and he already had durability concerns.

JD has taken the approach more is better. You can have a couple $10-15M SPs and then Sign 5 SP guys at $5M instead of 1 SP at $25M. You take your 2-3 top minor league SPs, and shuffle them around, if necessary. The $5M SPs are disposable. If he isn't doing well, try to send him down and if another team wants him, go out and pick up another SP.

The old approach was... sign someone like Longoria, or Machado, or Harper to a mega-contract, like A-Rod, and hope you can afford enough around him to win. The problem is, when he gets hurt or is out of the lineup, like Hamilton, you end up having a bad season.

And so, I think teams are starting to realize many top line players are too fragile to bet the season on, so they spread the money to fill needs.

One last point. JD has toyed with the idea of a 6 Man rotation. Having many mid-tier SPs, or a bunch of guys who recently had TJ or shoulder surgery and convince them pitching every 6 days will extend their career. The Rangers have 4 projected for the rotation who have had TJ in the past 3 years. The 5th SP had shoulder surgery in 2015 and has just been converted back to a SP, after coming back as a RP in 2017.

The Rangers rotation woes.

If the Rangers go with turf, focusing on lots of players instead of quality players is the right move, when you consider the injuries we'll see. Half the current roster has indicated playing on turf hurts their legs and lower back.

You can't judge the results of the Astros rebuild yet bc their window is still wide open. So far their run has netted the DS in '15, 100+ wins and WS champs in '17, 100+ wins and ALCS in '18 and a 95 win projection at present for '19 (assuming no addition roster moves which seems unlikely). When we look back years from now at the totality of their successes the argument that they "didn't rebuild the right way" will be comical.

If you go back through the Astros drafts going back to 2012 I'd actually say that you could make a good case that their tanking only benefited Crane's pockets. With all of those top draft picks they really only got it right with Bregman. Drafting in the top 5 in the MLB draft really only means that you have more options not that you are assured a good player. It's not like the NBA draft where only the top 4-5 picks are expected to make a difference.

In 2012 they took Correa #1 overall and he's been a good player, but they could have had Corey Seager at #18.

In 2013 they took Appel #1 overall and he's a total bust, they could have taken Kris Bryant who went #2 or Aaron Judge who went #32 or Sean Manaea who went #33.

In 2014 they took Brady Aiken who again is a total nothing and doesn't sign, they could have had Aaron Nola at #7 or Michael Conforto at #10 or perhaps Matt Chapman at #25.

In 2015 they took Bregman, and I can't argue that he's not the best player in the draft, and they also take Tucker who looks like a good player possibly, so 2015 has to be seen as a win for the Astros, but to continue the theme Walker Buehler goes at pick #24.

The point I'm getting at here is that when management argues about rebuilding and tanking, they are just lying to the fans face in order to go cheap for a couple of years. This Astros team could have been composed of Springer, Altuve and Keuchel from the pre-tank years and have had Corey Seager, Aaron Judge, Matt Chapman and Walker Buehler as all of them went 18 or later in the first round. It just pisses me off when fans buy into the management excuse of why tanking works. Good scouting and player development is what works, and while drafting at the top of the draft does open up more options, it doesn't guarantee anything.

In my judgement the Astros only went 1-4 (2-4 depending on what you think of Correa) on top picks and the one they hit for sure on was a compensation pick for not signing the previous years pick.

I'll be royally pissed if the Rangers try and sell the fans on an Astros style rebuild.

free_mhayden said:

---

BarryProfit said:

---

You can't judge the results of the Astros rebuild yet bc their window is still wide open. So far their run has netted the DS in '15, 100+ wins and WS champs in '17, 100+ wins and ALCS in '18 and a 95 win projection at present for '19 (assuming no addition roster moves which seems unlikely). When we look back years from now at the totality of their successes the argument that they "didn't rebuild the right way" will be comical.

---

Some of you Astros fans are too quick to get defensive and are missing the point.

No one is trying to talk smack about your team -- you came out the other side with a WS title which made it worth it right there.

That doesn't change the historical depths it took to get there.

As for the window, this is pretty much the last year before it starts to close. Eventually those cheap stud draft picks start to get paid. That's not to say they will go back to the basement again anytime soon, but 2016-2019 is essentially the window they'd have multiple plus position players on the cheap. Houston can extend the window, but it's going to require spending a lot of money.

---

I'd say what the Astros are doing is actually going to keep the window open longer than most people think. They continue to draft well and so far haven't spent any stupid money yet.

The biggest things that screw teams are drafting bad and Evan Longoria or Robinson Cano type contracts.

They haven't done either yet.

Just to be clear...Are you really trying to make the argument that a draft pick is a hit or miss based on if a better player is taken later?

I think he's just arguing that the Astros didn't get good off the top of the first round picks that their losing seasons gave them.

irish pete ag06 said:

---

free_mhayden said:

---

BarryProfit said:

---

You can't judge the results of the Astros rebuild yet bc their window is still wide open. So far their run has netted the DS in '15, 100+ wins and WS champs in '17, 100+ wins and ALCS in '18 and a 95 win projection at present for '19 (assuming no addition roster moves which seems unlikely). When we look back years from now at the totality of their successes the argument that they "didn't rebuild the right way" will be comical.

---

Some of you Astros fans are too quick to get defensive and are missing the point.

No one is trying to talk smack about your team -- you came out the other side with a WS title which made it worth it right there.

That doesn't change the historical depths it took to get there.

As for the window, this is pretty much the last year before it starts to close. Eventually those cheap stud draft picks start to get paid. That's not to say they will go back to the basement again anytime soon, but 2016-2019 is essentially the window they'd have multiple plus position players on the cheap. Houston can extend the window, but it's going to require spending a lot of money.

---

I'd say what the Astros are doing is actually going to keep the window open longer than most people think. They continue to draft well and so far haven't spent any stupid money yet.

The biggest things that screw teams are drafting bad and Evan Longoria or Robinson Cano type contracts.

They haven't done either yet.

---

Well when I say window I'm not talking just a window of being competitive -- as long as Houston doesn't keeps payroll at a decent level and doesn't make a number of bonehead moves then a team's window for being competitive can be on the high end of 8-9 years (both Texas and Houston had runs of about that long during previous eras).

I'm talking more "legitimate World Series contender" window.

2020 you start paying Altuve $29m, Springer hits his last year before arbitration and Cole/McHugh/Verlander hit free agency.

Now, some of those guys you'll pay and some you likely will let walk because production won't be there (Verlander) -- but that's the time that unless ownership starts spending $200m then that core group becomes one of a competitive team, not necessarily a WS caliber team.

Were the draft picks the sole reason Houston won a title? No -- but it was the biggest contributor in that you had 2-3 +WAR players that were making peanuts so you could spend money to surround them.

It's something that any team not named the Yankees/Dodgers/RedSox has to deal with.

Just to be clear literally any human body the Astros could have drafted including me and you would have provided more value than Appel and Aiken. They had 3 overall number one picks and only one of them will ever contribute to the big league club.

I purposely only looked at other players taken in the first round to be fair to the Astros since the baseball draft is so expansive it wouldn't be fair to say, look who they could have taken in the 22nd round who turned out to be an all star.

But I think my point stands, tanking doesn't equal an investment in winning. The Dodgers haven't been tanking and they have an abundance of young talent helping the big club like Seager, Bellinger, Buehler, Verdugo and Urias as well as shrewd pickups like Muncy and Taylor.

Lucky #007 said:

---

I think he's just arguing that the Astros didn't get good off the top of the first round picks that their losing seasons gave them.

---

Except they absolutely did.

2011 - George Springer
2012 - Carlos Correa
2013 - Mark Appell - traded for Ken Giles
2015 - Alex Bregman


Those 4 players contributed 17.3 WAR to the 2017 Houston Astros season for what amount to $6m in salary ($4.5m of which was Springer).

You could even take it a step further and included Daz Cameron -- whom the Astros drafted when they did because nobody had as much draft pool money as they did (from being so bad for so long) which was part of the trade for Justin Verlander.

Yeah based on who was taken after them.

If you look at the 2017 WS team you'll see each of those 1st round picks

Correa and McCullers
Aiken (The may have missed on drafting him but they were spot by identifying the UCL issue and not signing him)
Bregman (They pick they made in return for not signing Aiken)
McCullers

All taken in the first round and played major roles on the WS team.

So yeah I do agree that there were better players taken behind them, but saying the team didn't really benefit from the #1 picks is a stretch.

Sure they benefited but the new CBA made it where you had to have top picks when they assigned slot values to each pick.

Quote:

---

In 2012 they took Correa #1 overall and he's been a good player, but they could have had Corey Seager at #18.

In 2013 they took Appel #1 overall and he's a total bust, they could have taken Kris Bryant who went #2 or Aaron Judge who went #32 or Sean Manaea who went #33.

In 2014 they took Brady Aiken who again is a total nothing and doesn't sign, they could have had Aaron Nola at #7 or Michael Conforto at #10 or perhaps Matt Chapman at #25.

---

Yeah. No. You can't do this with baseball drafts. its a crapshoot and everyone misses.

Correa looks like a good pick. Injuries will be his real deciding factor I think. No one in baseball has ever suggested this was a bad pick at #1. And 17 other teams passed on Seager.

2013 Judge came out of nowhere and looked like nothing before hitting the majors a second time. 31 teams skipped him and 32 skipped Manaea. And Manaea really didn't look like he had it until this year.

And again and again and again. Guys get injured in the minors. They don't develop as predicted. And guys drafted low low low end up being all stars.

AggieEP said:

---

If you go back through the Astros drafts going back to 2012 I'd actually say that you could make a good case that their tanking only benefited Crane's pockets. With all of those top draft picks they really only got it right with Bregman. Drafting in the top 5 in the MLB draft really only means that you have more options not that you are assured a good player. It's not like the NBA draft where only the top 4-5 picks are expected to make a difference.

In 2012 they took Correa #1 overall and he's been a good player, but they could have had Corey Seager at #18.

In 2013 they took Appel #1 overall and he's a total bust, they could have taken Kris Bryant who went #2 or Aaron Judge who went #32 or Sean Manaea who went #33.

In 2014 they took Brady Aiken who again is a total nothing and doesn't sign, they could have had Aaron Nola at #7 or Michael Conforto at #10 or perhaps Matt Chapman at #25.

In 2015 they took Bregman, and I can't argue that he's not the best player in the draft, and they also take Tucker who looks like a good player possibly, so 2015 has to be seen as a win for the Astros, but to continue the theme Walker Buehler goes at pick #24.

The point I'm getting at here is that when management argues about rebuilding and tanking, they are just lying to the fans face in order to go cheap for a couple of years. This Astros team could have been composed of Springer, Altuve and Keuchel from the pre-tank years and have had Corey Seager, Aaron Judge, Matt Chapman and Walker Buehler as all of them went 18 or later in the first round. It just pisses me off when fans buy into the management excuse of why tanking works. Good scouting and player development is what works, and while drafting at the top of the draft does open up more options, it doesn't guarantee anything.

In my judgement the Astros only went 1-4 (2-4 depending on what you think of Correa) on top picks and the one they hit for sure on was a compensation pick for not signing the previous years pick.

I'll be royally pissed if the Rangers try and sell the fans on an Astros style rebuild.

---

The Aiken pick turned into Bregman, they were able to get Bregman by balking on Aiken after his physical turned out funky. So they went 2-3 on picks, effectively. You're a clown if you don't count Correa as a good pick.

You're missing the point, I'm only arguing against tanking. Just having the #1 pick doesn't guarantee anything. The Astros made themselves intentionally non-competitive for 4 straight years and while they were able to pick up some good players (great in Bregman's case) my whole argument is that the baseball draft is such a crap shoot that I'm not going to buy into management cratering the team for half a decade in the spirit of rebuilding.

If you scout well and get lucky, you can find good players, then you have to develop them. That's how you get good. This includes international scouting. Hell, look at the Braves, they didn't have to spend 4 years demolishing themselves in order to rebuild the roster.

The Astros fans are always so quick to see an insult to their team and jump to its defense. This is a Rangers thread and I'm hoping my team never does what the Astros did by declaring themselves non-competitive.

Again, my only point is that drafting #1 overall =/= getting the best talent so logically losing on purpose doesn't net you the best talent. The reason the Astros are good, and will continue to be good is that they scout well and develop well, not because they draft #1. Crane is a business man and he profited big time those first 4 years, especially in 2014 with a 22 million dollar payroll.

Above #10 (and especially #1 overall), it's hardly a crapshoot and you absolutely have a very high chance of picking a major contributor:

2012 - Carlos Correa
2011 - Gerrit Cole
2010 - Bryce Harper
2009 - Stephen Strasburg
2008 - Tim Beckham
2007 - David Price
2006 - Luke Hochevar
2005 - Justin Upton
2004 - Matt Bush
2003 - Delmon Young
2002 - Bryan Bullington
2001 - Joe Mauer
2000 - Adrian Gonzalez
1999 - Josh Hamilton

From 1999->2012, 9 out of the 14 players picked ended up being All Star's... A 10th probably would have been had he not killed someone (Matt Bush),

irish pete ag06 said:

---

AggieEP said:

---

You're missing the point, I'm only arguing against tanking. Just having the #1 pick doesn't guarantee anything. The Astros made themselves intentionally non-competitive for 4 straight years and while they were able to pick up some good players (great in Bregman's case) my whole argument is that the baseball draft is such a crap shoot that I'm not going to buy into management cratering the team for half a decade in the spirit of rebuilding.

If you scout well and get lucky, you can find good players, then you have to develop them. That's how you get good. This includes international scouting. Hell, look at the Braves, they didn't have to spend 4 years demolishing themselves in order to rebuild the roster.

The Astros fans are always so quick to see an insult to their team and jump to its defense. This is a Rangers thread and I'm hoping my team never does what the Astros did by declaring themselves non-competitive.

Again, my only point is that drafting #1 overall =/= getting the best talent so logically losing on purpose doesn't net you the best talent. The reason the Astros are good, and will continue to be good is that they scout well and develop well, not because they draft #1. Crane is a business man and he profited big time those first 4 years, especially in 2014 with a 22 million dollar payroll.

---

I may not be like other Astros fans but I was really happy to see the rebuild. I followed the minors more and started keeping up with Altuve in single A. Drayton and his office has been blowing smoke up Astros fans asses for the better part of a decade to just keep butts in the seats (meanwhile foregoing the draft or any type of talent development). I didn't care if it was going to be bad. Seriously bad is bad. What's the difference in losing 95 or 110. Who cares at that point. If those 15 extra losses mean a better chance to draft or more money later to sign someone, I'm all in.

This faux "competitiveness" that front offices use to sell and some seem to currently do feels more like a slap in the face and assuming the fan is ignorant.

---

I think most true fans of a team can appreciate a plan and process, even it sucks for a while.

I think collectively the preference of most though is that owners would spend their way into competitiveness rather than tank their way into it... but obviously that's not realistic and why MLB is going to have a problem as long as a salary cap doesn't exist.

Hayden intentionally leaves out appel and aiken to game his stats. 9 out of 16 is a little higher than 50/50, but that's still not my point. Obviously you can get good players drafting number 1, but you can also find them at any other spot. Management has created sheep who believe in the process allowing them to rake huge profits and revenue sharing payouts while the reality is picking top 5 every year is no guarantee of winning.

When is the last time the dodgers have picked in the top half of the draft? It's been a while and yet they have lots of homegrown mlb talent.

There's plenty of research out there that shows the % hit of MLB players/stars based on draft slot.

Yes you can find studs "anywhere in the draft" -- that doesn't make it a coin-flip on whether the #1 pick or the #50 pick will be a MLB regular.