This is a great win. Lots of basehits with risp and everyone contributing without the longball.
We are currently a playoff team.
We are currently a playoff team.
#FJB
*****Official Texas Rangers 2026 Season Thread*****
217,817 Views |
2652 Replies |
Last: 1 hr ago by agent-maroon
5 game win streak!
Hello Win Column!
Hello Win Column!
Team is finally on win streak of substance.
Would be a playoff team right now.
Duran is an all star at this point.
South Platte said:
Duran is an all star at this point.
Agreed on that.
I'm an Evan Carter fan, but my hope is that if he doesn't get his avg around .200 by the end of this week, send him down and let him prove that he can hit. He has had so little time in the minors ai think it would do him well.
This winning streak is very encouraging. For obvious reasons, I think teams going on winning streaks of 4, 5 and 6 games are the mark of truly good or great teams. Yes winnign every 2/3 is good too and leads to a winning record, the playoffs and the lot, but winning streaks of an extended nature just show me more.
Just was looking at the schedule and shocked to find out we're already almost a month out from the All Star break. Feel like this season has gone by pretty quick.
Enjoy it while it lasts, because they ain't playing next year.
Tksymm7 said:
Enjoy it while it lasts, because they ain't playing next year.
That's probably exactly right. And the thing is, the players are likely going to lose this particular fight. There's too much empirical evidence that salary caps work. The NFL, NBA and NHL have all seen big boosts in revenue since salary caps were implemented.
I'm not typically on the side of owners, and I'm very aware of the history that drives the suspicious nature of the MLBPA, but at some point it goes from being relevant to just being paranoid. The owners have submitted a plan with a salary floor, which I think is a really positive step. Maybe the number needs to be negotiated upwards, but the players are so committed to no cap, I don't think they can see the forest for the trees.
Long story short, I don't think we have baseball in '27, or at least for a big part of it, and at the end of the day the MLBPA will be accepting some sort of cap. JMO
Yeah, I expect a half-season at best and won't be surprised at all if the entire season is canceled
Not only is the union against a salary cap, they are demanding a salary FLOOR where teams get penalized if they don't hit some minimum team salary.
I don't want to sound like an Owner defender, because for the most part I am not. Most Owner's are greedy, dirty business men or groups that value the dollar above all else. However, in this instance, I think the players are going to have to check themselves in a major way. Stop being the petulant, entitled group of dudes. Put your big boy pants on and work with the owners to get something done that BENEFITS BASEBALL. What's good for the players isn't necessarily what is good for BASEBALL. Have some sense of gravity and the best interest of the sport in mind.
There needs to be a salary floor. There also needs to be rules about deferred compensation. There also needs to be a cap. This is going to be a trainwreck of labor strife for MLB
God loves you so much He'll meet you where you are. He also loves you too much to allow to stay where you are.
We sing Hallelujah! The Lamb has overcome!
We sing Hallelujah! The Lamb has overcome!
The owners first proposal included a salary cap, as well as a salary floor (I believe it was around $175M), which I thought was a really good starting point. The players counter proposal was to dramatically increase the CBT to around $300 (no cap). I agree with Tksymm7, the players are being petulant.
I am always on the side of the free market deciding a player's value. Why shouldn't a player get paid what someone is willing to offer him? The value of baseball franchises has exploded and the game is hugely popular right now. The Mets paying Soto 700 million hasn't made them winners. And honestly, outside of Ohtani, the Dodgers crazy spending has mostly backfired. Tucker = Terrible, Snell = Hurt, Glasnow = Hurt, Every bullpen arm they've signed = hurt or flopped.
Fans like to get riled up over silly things like deferred money, and a certain group of owners like to stoke the flames of these silly things and they somehow create a firestorm demonizing the players for accepting the contracts offered to them by the owners. Any owner can offer deferred money, and it used to be the mark of an incompetent owner celebrated every year on Bobby Bonilla day. Now somehow the narrative has been reversed and it's a good strategy? Pretty sure we'll all laugh at the Dodgers in ten years when these huge bills come due and a big part of their budget is paying retired players.
The owners want cost control like what the NBA and NFL has because they know that makes their franchises even more valuable. They want to reach a point where players are pressured into taking less to play on contending teams. They want these things so that they can make more money for themselves and their investors. This isn't about what's good for the game. And the above comment that infers that the players are somehow responsible for taking whatever deal the owners propose "for the good of the game" is a crap take. Why wouldn't the owners be just as responsible for the good of the game by realizing that proposing a cap is a declaration of war and an almost guaranteed labor stoppage?
Fans like to get riled up over silly things like deferred money, and a certain group of owners like to stoke the flames of these silly things and they somehow create a firestorm demonizing the players for accepting the contracts offered to them by the owners. Any owner can offer deferred money, and it used to be the mark of an incompetent owner celebrated every year on Bobby Bonilla day. Now somehow the narrative has been reversed and it's a good strategy? Pretty sure we'll all laugh at the Dodgers in ten years when these huge bills come due and a big part of their budget is paying retired players.
The owners want cost control like what the NBA and NFL has because they know that makes their franchises even more valuable. They want to reach a point where players are pressured into taking less to play on contending teams. They want these things so that they can make more money for themselves and their investors. This isn't about what's good for the game. And the above comment that infers that the players are somehow responsible for taking whatever deal the owners propose "for the good of the game" is a crap take. Why wouldn't the owners be just as responsible for the good of the game by realizing that proposing a cap is a declaration of war and an almost guaranteed labor stoppage?
AggieEP said:
I am always on the side of the free market deciding a player's value. Why shouldn't a player get paid what someone is willing to offer him? The value of baseball franchises has exploded and the game is hugely popular right now. The Mets paying Soto 700 million hasn't made them winners. And honestly, outside of Ohtani, the Dodgers crazy spending has mostly backfired. Tucker = Terrible, Snell = Hurt, Glasnow = Hurt, Every bullpen arm they've signed = hurt or flopped.
Fans like to get riled up over silly things like deferred money, and a certain group of owners like to stoke the flames of these silly things and they somehow create a firestorm demonizing the players for accepting the contracts offered to them by the owners. Any owner can offer deferred money, and it used to be the mark of an incompetent owner celebrated every year on Bobby Bonilla day. Now somehow the narrative has been reversed and it's a good strategy? Pretty sure we'll all laugh at the Dodgers in ten years when these huge bills come due and a big part of their budget is paying retired players.
The owners want cost control like what the NBA and NFL has because they know that makes their franchises even more valuable. They want to reach a point where players are pressured into taking less to play on contending teams. They want these things so that they can make more money for themselves and their investors. This isn't about what's good for the game. And the above comment that infers that the players are somehow responsible for taking whatever deal the owners propose "for the good of the game" is a crap take. Why wouldn't the owners be just as responsible for the good of the game by realizing that proposing a cap is a declaration of war and an almost guaranteed labor stoppage?
I agree with you for.the most part. I used to hate the huge salaries like ARod and others 25 years ago. However, I came around to the notion the the players are simply entertainers and should make whatever a team wants to pay them.
However. With the salary cap and floor, I think most teams would be competitive and players can still get good salaries. Maybe no $700MM for ten years, but now they can go playe for the other teams not named the Mets, Yankees, and Dodgers.
Good post. It's weird for me as in my day-to-day life I am reflexively anti-union. But in the baseball world, the players union is the one entity pushing for something closer to a free market approach. The argument about "what's best for the game" doesn't hold water here -- I could just as easily argue that ownership groups should be broken up because the historically only care about revenue and nothing at all about putting a consistent winner on the field (see: the Ray Davis led Rangers ownership group). Owners like Steinbrenner, for all their faults, were good for the game because they wanted to win above all else. This modern, private equity approach to franchise ownership sucks and is not in the best interest of the sport.
So to hell with the owners, let the players make whatever the market dictates. Last I checked, the Rangers or Royals could've paid Kyle Tucker whatever they wanted. They just chose not to and want to complain about the Dodgers "ruining baseball"
So to hell with the owners, let the players make whatever the market dictates. Last I checked, the Rangers or Royals could've paid Kyle Tucker whatever they wanted. They just chose not to and want to complain about the Dodgers "ruining baseball"
I've always sided with the players, but not this time.
No salary cap is fine….but you're going to wind up seeing the Dodgers and Yankees in the WS every year, or virtually every year, because those franchises can spend so very much more than other teams. The bottom line is the current model isn't good for the game of baseball long term - it's just good for the players, and for people who like to hate on owners because they're rich. The disparity between the haves and have nots is getting wider, and some sort of cap/floor compromise is the only thing that will keep the game relevant and engaging. Personally I don't want to enter every season hoping the Rangers win enough games to make the playoffs and then have them go home to watch another Yankees/Dodgers world series. JMO
No salary cap is fine….but you're going to wind up seeing the Dodgers and Yankees in the WS every year, or virtually every year, because those franchises can spend so very much more than other teams. The bottom line is the current model isn't good for the game of baseball long term - it's just good for the players, and for people who like to hate on owners because they're rich. The disparity between the haves and have nots is getting wider, and some sort of cap/floor compromise is the only thing that will keep the game relevant and engaging. Personally I don't want to enter every season hoping the Rangers win enough games to make the playoffs and then have them go home to watch another Yankees/Dodgers world series. JMO
So explain to me why every sport that has put in a salary cap is actually doing better since they did it.
Really we're only talking about like 5-7 franchises that can't or won't sign superstar free agents and we're letting that cloud how we think about the entire league. And even among that group, the Marlins signed Stanton to a huge deal, and the Royals have Witt now on a mega deal.
I also don't think that adding a cap is suddenly going to make Soto want to play in Milwaukee or Ohtani play in Pittsburgh. In a hypothetical world where the money offered is equal, guys are still going to want to play in NY, LA, Boston and Chicago. We'd probably see a bit more variety, but honestly we've seen that already with the Padres getting Machado, us getting Seager, the Twins getting Correa, etc.
I just think the owners have successfully created this utopian vision of a capped system that is super unlikely to play out in the real world. Like Skubal is going to sign with the Rays just because of a cap?
I also don't think that adding a cap is suddenly going to make Soto want to play in Milwaukee or Ohtani play in Pittsburgh. In a hypothetical world where the money offered is equal, guys are still going to want to play in NY, LA, Boston and Chicago. We'd probably see a bit more variety, but honestly we've seen that already with the Padres getting Machado, us getting Seager, the Twins getting Correa, etc.
I just think the owners have successfully created this utopian vision of a capped system that is super unlikely to play out in the real world. Like Skubal is going to sign with the Rays just because of a cap?
rbtexan said:
So explain to me why every sport that has put in a salary cap is actually doing better since they did it.
Yeah you're conflating two things -- I'm willing to accept that in this context a salary cap would help the sport increase revenue and franchise value. I just don't agree with the philosophy behind it.
I am usually on board with the market setting itself, guys getting paid what someone thinks they are worth and so on. If the Mets want to pay Juan Soto 70M over a quarter century (I know I am being dramatic) then be my guest, because we all know that in this day and age of baseball he ain't worth but maybe half that contract at best, and only worth it for another 5-7 years, and not 10+. Couldn't agree more.
However, in this day and age of baseball, the gap between hitting and pitching grows wider every single day, and hitters inherently have less and less value. So why would we the owners and fans want to implement a salary floor of 150M that is going to make them spend in some cases an extra 100M, on half their team where those players have diminishing values year after year after year because pitching is exponentially getting better year after year after year. Spending 150 million on a roster to go 70-92, and my team BA be .225. While the Dodgers are spending half a billion dollars and running away with the league and trying to three peat.
I view a salary cap and salary floor as a way to reset the MLB and bring it back to reality.
However, in this day and age of baseball, the gap between hitting and pitching grows wider every single day, and hitters inherently have less and less value. So why would we the owners and fans want to implement a salary floor of 150M that is going to make them spend in some cases an extra 100M, on half their team where those players have diminishing values year after year after year because pitching is exponentially getting better year after year after year. Spending 150 million on a roster to go 70-92, and my team BA be .225. While the Dodgers are spending half a billion dollars and running away with the league and trying to three peat.
I view a salary cap and salary floor as a way to reset the MLB and bring it back to reality.
rbtexan said:
So explain to me why every sport that has put in a salary cap is actually doing better since they did it.
What does "doing better" mean to you?
Franchise values are WAY up in the capped leagues, but that's an owner only benefit that doesn't trickle down.
I'd argue that the capped system in the NFL has made players into commodities more than people and fans don't care one bit when guys are cut as cap casualties because "that's just business." Teams want you to be a fan of the team and not individual players and they foster that atmosphere knowing that player turnover is going to be high year to year.
In the NBA the new apron system is going to force OKC to make tough decisions about their core after just two championship runs into the playoffs. Good for parity, not sure how good it is for individual fanbases.
And finally, to the Dodgers point, just because they've won two straight doesn't mean we blow the whole game up. If we look at it since 1990, they've won 3 world series in 35 years and they've always had this ability to "be the Dodgers". The Yankees have only won once since 2000. The Mets haven't won since 1986. The Cubs have one in the last 100 years. For all the handwringing about the Dodgers you'd think they would have stacked 10 championships by now, but they haven't and I don't think they will. The Blue Jays were one dumb baserunning play from beating them last year. Mookie and Freeman are just getting older and older and some of these other deals are going to suck resources away from them keeping the team young and athletic in the coming years. They have been spending like this because they know their window has about 2 more years before they have some reloading to do.
Don't blow the game up because of recency bias.
AggieEP said:rbtexan said:
So explain to me why every sport that has put in a salary cap is actually doing better since they did it.
What does "doing better" mean to you?
Franchise values are WAY up in the capped leagues, but that's an owner only benefit that doesn't trickle down.
I'd argue that the capped system in the NFL has made players into commodities more than people and fans don't care one bit when guys are cut as cap casualties because "that's just business." Teams want you to be a fan of the team and not individual players and they foster that atmosphere knowing that player turnover is going to be high year to year.
In the NBA the new apron system is going to force OKC to make tough decisions about their core after just two championship runs into the playoffs. Good for parity, not sure how good it is for individual fanbases.
And finally, to the Dodgers point, just because they've won two straight doesn't mean we blow the whole game up. If we look at it since 1990, they've won 3 world series in 35 years and they've always had this ability to "be the Dodgers". The Yankees have only won once since 2000. The Mets haven't won since 1986. The Cubs have one in the last 100 years. For all the handwringing about the Dodgers you'd think they would have stacked 10 championships by now, but they haven't and I don't think they will. The Blue Jays were one dumb baserunning play from beating them last year.
Don't blow the game up because of recency bias.
We're just going to have to agree to disagree. One thing you failed to mention about all of the other leagues is that not only are franchise values up, but so is viewership and fan interest. One positive about caps (and again, I would emphasize that I've historically been on the player's side) is that if your team sucks, it's much easier to turn things around quickly when there's a salary cap that can be manipulated, instead of having to endure a 3-5 year rebuild.
Look, it doesn't really matter how we feel about it. I feel pretty confident that the salary cap is a non-negotiable item for the owners this time. Which is why I don't think we see baseball in '27. But when it does finally get settled, I'll bet you a dollar to a donut that a cap is part of the deal.
Personally I'd say roughly a $275M cap and a $185M floor would be a pretty good place to start a negotiation.
*edit to add - I've always been a Ranger's fan, not a individual player fan. So the roster turnover doesn't bother me one bit.
I agree with everything AggieEP has said on this page...
So not official yet - but Langford ought to be back Friday. I'm pretty certain Helman goes down.
Why don't you think Haggerty? Helman got to PR last night instead of him so he could be viewed more valuable at least in that regard
Edit to say I forgot Haggerty is on bereavement
Edit to say I forgot Haggerty is on bereavement
Can someone please explain to our outfielders how to throw the ball to second base. Making asinine throws trying to get lead runners when they have no chance has cost us runs two nights in a row.
When did Carter become Joey Gallo? Seems like he was a good contact hitter as a rookie.
WestTexasAg said:
When did Carter become Joey Gallo? Seems like he was a good contact hitter as a rookie.
Right after he had surgery.
I think he is trying to play through a back issue.
Expect an IL stint soon.
I think he's trying not to have to medically retire.
Owners wanting to control costs is also the free market. They are doing so on behalf of their customers, which is you and I. They understand that at some point, the customer base won't want to keep up with the rising cost of consumption.
Correct. He has back issues that he will live with the rest of his life. Those aren't going anywhere.Quincey P. Morris said:
I think he's trying not to have to medically retire.
Tksymm7 said:Quincey P. Morris said:
I think he's trying not to have to medically retire.
Correct. He has back issues that he will live with the rest of his life. Those aren't going anywhere.
That's sad. You can tell something isn't right.
Featured Stories
See All
6:02
2h ago
1.5k
In-Home Visit: 'Explosive' Kerns brings speed to the secondary
by TexAgs Recruiting
36:01
3h ago
2.1k
24:38
4h ago
1.8k