I don't see it that way regarding older players versus younger players. It's about paying guys their value when they are in their prime. Right now the MLB is ass backwards because a lot of guys don't hit free agency until they are 28-30, which in a lot of instances for non-pitchers, is past their physical peak. So you give a guy a six-eight year deal at 29, and you're paying him premium dollars on the backside of that contract when he's half the player he use to be to compensate for the previous three or four years that he was severely underpaid. The Stars are going to get paid regardless. Its about getting your every day MLB players to free agency so they can maximize their earning potential in their peak.

You are dead right about what makes sense. My point is neither side of the negotiating table may like doing what makes sense.

Fair point and understood hahaha. I just wonder if it times for both parties to drop the holier than thou schtick and really try to get something done that betters the entire game of baseball. I am a corporate, contracts and in-house attorney and this stuff fires me up.

rbtexan said:

---

One other mini-rant. A while back someone posted on here something to the effect of, the Rangers have an obligation to the community/fans to win the WS, and so they should spend whatever it takes to make that happen. I'm paraphrasing, I may be misremembering a bit, but that was absolutely the gist of the opinion expressed.

Well, no. They don't have an 'obligation' to spend whatever it takes to win the WS. That in itself implies that they should be willing to bankrupt themselves financially, or in terms of the organization's future re: prospects, etc., because the fans demand WS appearances on a regular basis, a majority of which they win.

The obligation the Rangers have is to field a competitive team with a potentially competitive roster….period. Maybe the breaks go your way, maybe they don't. Last year's roster fits that definition, so does this years, even as it currently stands. IMO, there are only a few teams in MLB who you could argue aren't really even trying. The White Sox the past 3 seasons for example. Not trying would be losing 100+ games in multiple recent seasons, or losing that many on a fairly regular basis. The Rangers have lost 100+ exactly 3 times in their history in Arlington, two of those being their first two seasons after relocating from Washington.

You can't look at what the Dodgers/Yankees/arguably Red Sox are spending, or willing to spend, and say "well the Rangers should be doing that too." Those franchises not only are in massive markets, they have the added benefit of being long-time established historical franchises, with generations of fans. The Rangers, even if you include the expansion Senators that they were originally, have only existed since 1961. The Red Sox, by comparison, played their first season in 1901, 125 years ago.

I hate to sound like our d*psh*t former A&M AD, but there's an element of managing expectations to this stuff.

---

I'm probably the poster you are thinking of and you are only partially conveying the gist of what I think on this subject. Essentially I think the biggest issue with the game is that the league has allowed teams to fall into the hands of investment groups that want to run them like businesses and turn regular profits for the ownership group and their partners. The league should have done everything in its power to make sure teams are owned by people like Cohen who have the bankroll and the desire to add the pieces to win when you have a good team.

IMO there is nothing more frustrating then listening to a team that's super close preach about how they can't add payroll. This Rangers team had the pitching to LEGIT compete last year and yet we rolled out the bargain bin brigade at 1B and DH. We're likely to have a pretty stout rotation again this year and we're essentially running it back despite the obvious need for impact power bats.

If they really can't add payroll for a couple of years during a competitive window, then the owners have no business owning a team. I have no problem with a team reloading and rebuilding when the roster needs to be overhauled, but I think it's silly to make your margin of error super slim for winning by not doing what's necessary to win when the window is open.

Why pay Evo and deGrom 60 million and then go cheap on offense?

I answered your last question in depth in my post. There's a reason why there's a CBT. Not every franchise and every market can spend the same. Look at what the Dodgers are doing, they're buying up everybody. The Rangers can't afford to do that, and to suggest that they should try to keep up with that kind of spending because you want them to is rather petulant. They aren't in the business to lose money.

We can agree to disagree if you like, but the notion that the Rangers organization somehow shouldn't have a payroll ceiling of some type that they stick to is not only financially irresponsible, it's pretty dumb.

I do agree with previous posters re: a work stoppage in '27. It's going to happen, and I think this one will be pretty bloody. The status quo can't continue.

I don't think you really are getting what I'm saying. With the right owner, market doesn't matter near as much. We're limited by market because our ownership group is an investment group that bought the team to make money.

The CBT penalties are almost entirely monetary, and deep enough pockets devoted to winning can withstand those penalties. San Diego is a good example here, their owner was about to die and decided to just start pushing chips in to put the best team they could out there.

It's the most ludicrous thing ever that the rich owners somehow have convinced the fans that fiscal conservatism is in the team's best interest. Maybe if that meant ticket prices and concession prices would also come down, but we all know that's not the case. Don't buy a team if you're not ready to spend to win.

Besides, your argument makes no sense. There is another team in LA that isn't spending like this, because Arte Moreno has decided to be a tight wad in recent years. It's not just the market, it's the attitude of the owners that matters. Also the Dodgers have only been in LA since 1957, not sure why you think longevity of the franchise has any impact here when the biggest spenders are a relatively young team just like the Rangers. Red Sox fans hate their owner right now because he has refused to spend to keep their talent together and that's one of those old teams in a big market.


Unfortunately for everyone involved, when a team goes on sale, all the owners prioritize getting top dollar for that franchise to increase the valuations of their teams rather than making sure the right person gets the team. That's why we keep ending up with lame ass ownership groups. They raised the most capital to buy a team, but a caveat of that capital is that the stakeholders want to make a profit and the "lead" owner doesn't always have the authority or ability to make bold financial moves like what Cohen can do.

I've got no dog in this fight, but I don't fully understand the point you're trying to make. What do you think the Rangers payroll should be next year?

It's not a fight and I don't really care what the final number is salary wise.

My point is that if your team is missing a XX (whatever position) and there is a quality player out there available that obviously makes your team better and more capable of competing for a championship then the team should make that move. I don't need stars at every position, but you at least need contributors and I think it's insane to be so close to contention like this team is, but to be hamstrung by the CBT.

If we're going to have an uncapped system like we do, then you put yourself at a huge competitive disadvantage by having your team building and spending checked by a financial penalty.

In the future if there is a hard cap, then I would feel totally different about this. But the players have made it clear that is a no go.

bmac_aggie18 said:

---

I'm not saying it's going to happen but I could see Tucker turning into Rendon. They both have the same body language and he just go out there and looks like he's bored and uninterested

---

He's also almost as brittle as Rendon.

I'm not the one whose argument doesn't make sense, and here's why.

You seem to be either forgetting or ignoring the fact that, unlike the NFL, player's salaries are guaranteed. Meaning, if as in your example, a team spends a ridiculous amount of money to acquire a player, they are then on the hook for whatever amount of money, or however many years, are left on that contract. There's also an assumption that it's as simple as looking at your roster pre-season and saying "oh, clearly we need player X, let's spend whatever it takes to get him". Who on here really thought Semien, Garcia, and even Seager, were going to underperform at the levels they did? Our O looked at least solid before last season. So if you recognize a problem during the season, then you're having to either trade for a rent-a-guy, or take one a contract that may be disadvantageous going forward.

I can get on board with the rent-a-player approach, but it's not like a ton of impact players were available for in-season trades last season, at least at the positions we needed.

There's a lot more to it than just "let's spend whatever it takes" unless you're the Dodgers. Using what teams in LA or NY do to make your example actually weakens your argument…they have a completely unique situation compared to the other MLB teams.

If there is one thing that holds true for the American sports fan - college or pro, it's that they love to spend other people's money.

All other variables held constant, this should consistently be a top 10 payroll, which they have been for several years. That said, they are projecting to 12-13 right now but we aren't necessarily measuring a finished product yet. That said, opening the new stadium during covid and the local tv fiasco are some major curveballs that had to take a financial pinch. I am curious about the revenue from this past year in the new model. But we are not talking about some egregious lack of commitment

There is a poster on here who does ticket sales for the Rangers, right? Can you please reach out to me via PM if you see this? Thanks!

It's Mr Gigem.

Your argument: Can't compare the Rangers with the old established franchises.

My response: The Dodgers have only been in LA since 57.


Your argument: LA is a unique market allowing them to outspend everyone else.

My Response: Why don't the Angels have that same ability?


Your argument: We all felt good about the offense last year at the beginning of the year.

My response: Seriously? We knew we had a huge hole at DH and 1B and we paid 18 million a year for Joc Pederson and traded for Jake Burger when Pete Alonso could have been had for 27 million a year.



I don't know why this is so hard to understand that the x-factor in how your team runs itself is the mindset and financial strength of the lead decision maker in an ownership group. I find the comments on making smart financial decisions hilarious, you don't buy a baseball team to run it like a nuclear family household. You buy a baseball team because you want to win a championship. You buy a team because you love baseball. Fans always love to hate these long term deals because there will be a time when you pay a guy 30 million to be a replacement level player, but we don't have a 2023 WS championship without Seager and Semien, both of whom will eventually be way overpaid. I can't help but think that the 2025 Rangers with Pete Alonso would have been in the playoffs with the best ERA in the league and a good chance to win another one. I don't need Juan Soto, but I also think it's silly that we're incapable of adding to the roster in an uncapped system when we have a legit chance to win. With the same need for a power bat this year, we weren't in on Alonso or Schwarber. Both of those deals were relatively short term also, not 15 year Soto deals.

RH for the bullpen:

Jakob Junis has agreed to a one-year, $4 million deal with the Rangers, per source. @Ken_Rosenthal was on it.

— Mark Feinsand (@Feinsand) January 18, 2026

Thanks!

Quote:

---

Your argument: Can't compare the Rangers with the old established franchises.

My response: The Dodgers have only been in LA since 57.

---

They were in Brooklyn before that. The Brooklyn Dodgers. That would be in NYC. And they played their first season in 1890

Quote:

---

Your argument: LA is a unique market allowing them to outspend everyone else.

My Response: Why don't the Angels have that same ability?

---

The Angels have been laughed at for the way they've thrown money around. Spending it poorly doesn't mean they haven't spent it.

Quote:

---

Your argument: We all felt good about the offense last year at the beginning of the year.

My response: Seriously? We knew we had a huge hole at DH and 1B and we paid 18 million a year for Joc Pederson and traded for Jake Burger when Pete Alonso could have been had for 27 million a year.

---

You sure do love writing checks out of other people's bank accounts, don't you?


Man, let's just move on. I think you're wrong and you think I'm wrong. Agree to disagree.

I just checked in on this thread. So we're using Steve Cohen as the gold standard of what an owner should look like? And should we be surprised that there aren't more billionaires who only want to win and don't care how much money they lose in the process?

I don't remember when Cohen bought the Mets and don't care enough to look it up, but I did look up the Mets recent seasons and they've made the playoffs five out of the last twenty years. Also signed Juan Soto and missed the playoffs in his first year. Can't spend much more than they do and they're in the biggest market, but yet the results aren't there.

Being big spenders in free agency makes fans happy, but championships are won with strong farm systems that are supplemented with free agents. For as much money as the Dodgers spend, their farm system is always loaded. The Rangers farm system currently sucks.

I think the Rangers will have a better offense (can't be a lot worse), a style of play that should be more aggressive, a manager that is locked in and engaged (I think Bochy delegated to the players too much) and the pitching staff will once again be a strength. They'll be in the thick of it in September and then if they get in, who knows what they will do with DeGrom and Eovaldi on the mound. It's all about who gets hit at that point.

I can't PM right now. You're welcome to email me jchance@texasrangers.com

when does the season plan for victory plus go on sale?

Already has. $140