I guess my point is - if we'd been under, we could have made a run this year if we wanted to.

But perhaps we never were going to and it doesn't matter.

Us being over is still inexcusable. There is a whole office of people doing the math on that. Someone fouled up their job royally.

No one is upset about paying tax on $100,000.

But we should all be upset that it means we absolutely cannot play in the free agent market this year.

We easily could have pressed the reset button on that restriction but didn't watch the numbers close enough to avoid it. There is a whole office of people at Globe Life Field who dropped the ball on that.

fc2112 said:

---

But we should all be upset that it means we absolutely cannot play in the free agent market this year.

We easily could have pressed the reset button on that restriction but didn't watch the numbers close enough to avoid it. There is a whole office of people at Globe Life Field who dropped the ball on that.

---

What does "watch the numbers close enough to avoid it" mean? Offer less on a trade deadline offer and possibly miss out? Do you really want your GM approaching the trade deadline in a playoff chase with restrictions revolving around staying under a CBT that in all likelihood won't matter the next season? You'd rather have super clean books then, I don't know, try and win?

As many are trying to tell you, our overage last year will have almost zero impact on our ability to play in the free agent market this year.

Yes we could have easily pressed the reset button if we didn't decide to make acquisitions at the trade deadline. I'm not sure why we'd be applauding not going for it in a playoff chase. As others pointed out, we cut the division to 2 games in September. I'd personally take that over punting in July so we can 100% reset our CBT threshold that... by all indications we have no intention of going over significantly anyways.

Unless you thought we were going to be sporting a $280MM payroll this season (adding $100MM or so from this point), then the overage did.not.matter. You're upset because some beat writer pointed out that we might could have been more efficient on something that in the grand scheme of things for 2026 wouldn't have mattered either way.

Quote:

---

What does "watch the numbers close enough to avoid it" mean?

---

How about don't pay Eovaldi an All Star bonus he didn't earn?

fc2112 said:

---

Quote:

---

What does "watch the numbers close enough to avoid it" mean?

---

How about don't pay Eovaldi an All Star bonus he didn't earn?

---

So no added goodwill towards a guy that put up 4.3 WAR for us in 2025 even in limited innings. A guy that by all accounts has been one of the leaders of the team and who, depending on how the next two years play out, you might have to ask that he waive his no trade clause.

Great... You're still $90k over. What move do you not want to make at the deadline or whatever player you want to get stingy with on bonuses so that we can have a $280MM payroll in 2026 (that zero people ever thought was a likelihood)?

Evan Grant is a beat writer and not a GM for a reason. It's focusing on the wrong things.

Why do you keep mentioning beat writers?

rbtexan said:

---

Quote:

---

Chris Young deeming Joc Pederson a worthwhile pickup at 2Y/37M is 1000 times more damning of his job performance than any CBT overage.

---

Yep

---

I think we can all agree on that. But going for it in 2026 was, imho, at least a possibility if we'd stayed under the cap.

And I was preaching about staying under the cap all year long.

What salary would you have considered going for it?

I agree with the thoughts on the difference in taxes likely being negligible for the most part. I thought the bigger worry all along was the loss of draft picks that came with repeatedly going over the threshold though?

Probably so, but as poorly as the Rangers typically draft in the early rounds it shouldn't matter

I have no problem with us staying under the tax if we fully commit to it. Can't be in a situation again this year near the trade deadline where we ultimately decide to go over only to get players we didn't need and still miss out on the playoffs.

Pirates singed Ryan O'Hearn for 2/$29M. He's a guy I would have loved us to look at if not for the Joc clog.

Looks like Anthony Rendon is available

lol

I can't imagine being an Angels fan. So many big time off-seasons that have amounted to nothing.

We dodged such a bullet by not getting him.

Quote:

---

We can cut bait on him sometime this year if he doesn't come around.

---

Spring training would be a great time for that

Too bad it's not like the NBA he'd be a great expiring contract to trade ha. (jk on NBA that cap system is crazy)

I'm going on the record as saying Joc Pederson sucks. Not just a little. A lot (based on what we're paying him).

He's a platoon DH with no decent defensive position, and he's fat and out of shape. Not to mention a very streaky hitter (.237 career average) and he's 34 and looking very over the hill.

Possibly the worst signing of the CY era. And I don't give a flip if he hits 290 this year, it would be a fluke and he still sucks.

Joc definitely up there, but worst signing will depend on how deGrom's tenure finishes here... Right now we've paid him $110MM for essentially one season.

IMO, the difference is that we knew what we were getting when we signed deGrom, and he's been that. A elite TOR starter when healthy, but a guy who will likely be injured a lot. That's what he was, and that's what he's been.

Pederson, on the other hand, has been nothing close to being as advertised. The deGrom thing looks worse because of the money, but when he's out there he's worth every penny. Pederson is worth probably less than half of what he's getting, and that's being generous.

deGrom really let us down at the end of the season. He was getting a lot of wins at the beginning of the year and at the end when we needed him to have a vintage deGrom performance he couldn't do it. Hoping that was just due to coming back from injury.

Water Boy said:

---

deGrom really let us down at the end of the season. He was getting a lot of wins at the beginning of the year and at the end when we needed him to have a vintage deGrom performance he couldn't do it. Hoping that was just due to coming back from injury.

---

While he was not himself at the end of the season he was still a good pitcher. He hit the wall as far as coming back from TJ surgery.

DeGrom gave up the most homeruns in a single season for his career last year. It's something serious to watch at the beginning of this year. His fastball got absolutely t-bagged his last handful of starts.

The problem with deGrom was giving up so many homers. He would pitch at an elite level then give up a walk followed by a homerun.

Can't understand it. How can he hit all his spots but as soon as he makes a mistake the ball is out of the park. It was equally as frustrating when the opposing pitcher would make mistake after mistake and we would get 0 runs.

I think it was several factors. First, while not technically recovering, he was still coming back from TJ, and sometimes the 1st year back is a bit wonky. Second, he hadn't pitched that many innings in a number of years. And lastly, he's older now and his fastball doesn't have quite the same velo it had when he was in his 20s/early 30s. He's probably figuring out how to be less of a power pitcher and letting guys get themselves out. That would lead to, and explain, the HRs allowed. JMO