Date:     Thu, 9 Aug 2001 10:36:58 -0500
Reply-To: Texas Rangers MLB Discussion <RANGERS@TAMU.EDU>
Sender:   Texas Rangers MLB Discussion <RANGERS@TAMU.EDU>
From:     Beau Sharbrough <beau@SHARBROUGH.NET>
Subject:  2001: Young up + Mateo down = Bad personnel decisions

It appears that we are assessing the geezer signings from a perspective of hindsight. I think that the underachievement of the veterans signed, based on a previously unexpected interleague transition problem, was not expected. The development of minor league infielders, and the dissolution of the major league outfield, were also not expected. I won't go into the pitching, but we all thought it it would be bad, just not as bad as it was in the first ten weeks of the season.

Based on last year's performance, Lamb was clearly not ready to play for a contending team this year. I didn't hear anyone, before the season started, saying that Micheal Young was ready to be an everyday big league ballplayer. Signing veterans to one and two year deals made a lot of sense last winter. I can't say why Galarraga was signed, unless they thought he could DH every day. They were seen as stopgap signings to bridge us to the point where the young players were ready to step in. They were expected to provide some leadership in the clubhouse as well. Hey guys, isn't that exactly what happened? Just that in Micheal Young's case, it was six weeks instead of a year and a half? And Lamb is clearly improved enough to play here, more about him later. We didn't know what to do with Catalanotto, either.

We had five outfielders last winter: Greer, Kaplar, Mateo, Ledee, and I forget. I really thought that Mateo would be a big league star by now. I thought that Kapler had turned the corner and would hit too. We all figured that either Greer or Ledee would be surplus, and be traded for pitching. Okay, Mateo was traded for Bell. Our outfield is not very good, but based on
what we knew in March, it was going to be an area where we wouldn't have to worry.

I expected Caminiti and Galarraga to hit, too. A lot. I thought it would be a regular lumber company. Instead of being big hitters, they were just big. I never suspected that hitters who were (and are) so successful in the NL would have trouble in the AL. It's a transplant that didn't take. If those two had hit here like they've hit since they left, teams would have given us value for them. From this vantage point, the money is called wasted. From the vantage point of the winter, I don't think that we expected them to underachieve so much. They did, and we lost the chips we bet on them. That's life in the casino, guys.

Player moves are gambling. The great thing about this game is that you never know what's going to happen once the season starts. The Yankees win without a roster full of superstars. The Rangers and Orioles and Rockies spend a lot and lose like crazy. The Mariners part with three great players and then run off and hide from the league. I don't think that management can do something to change the conditions enough that there is no gambling involved.

It's clear to me that teams come up with a Plan A in the winter, but they have to work on Plan B, C, and so on for the regular season. When Caminiti and Big Cat underachieve, and we have players that can do better, we get what we can for them. Plan A was for them to succeed, Plan B was to trade them for value, and we got ... Plan C. Plan A was for Mateo to be a star. Plan B was for him to catch fire in OKC. We got ... Plan C. He's not even a Louisville slugger.

Going the other way, Plan A was to play Velarde and Catman at second while Young and Romano slugged it out in the minors. Plan B was to trade one of the good ones for something else we need. Plan C appears to be to look at Romano in center and leave Young at 2nd.

These are a few examples of the way that the management of this team has adjusted during the seasoon, balancing the short term and the long term. I like what I see. I can't fault them for the risks they took - as I've said already this week, I think that the money was spent to convince ARod that they were serious. It's not all wasted in my view - they've dealt with each situation in a way that I think shows that they're going in the right direction.

I better get to work.

-----Original Message-----
From: Texas Rangers MLB Discussion [mailto:RANGERS@TAMU.EDU]On Behalf Of
Gary Collard
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 9:55 AM
To: RANGERS@TAMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Scott Brosius

Dan Cahill wrote:
>
> On Wed, 8 Aug 2001 17:58:35 -0500, Gary Collard <garycollard@NETSCAPE.NET>
> wrote:
>
> >All of these are very true. All of the silly deals for geezers have set
> >this team back two years already, in addition to costing the team more
than
> >half of the Greer contract price that you gripe about so much.
> >
>
> Explain exactly who was set back and how this team was set back two years.
> I just don't see it. Since the players involved are gone after half a
> year, it is not immediately apparent how this team was set back 2 years.

Well, the improvement we have seen in July probably starts in May, so the team might have been a wild card contendor this year, instead of now looking to 2003. Looking at the player development side instead of the competition side, they lost a good cheap hitter in Valdes, lost PA given to Velarde/Caminiti that could have gone to Lamb/Young/Romano to speed their
development, lost PA given to Galarraga that could have gone to Valdes, lost innings given to Petkovsek that could have gone to any number of guys for development purposes.

Add in the $14.45M (now really around $13.3M due to losing a small portion of Galarraga's salary) wasted, without which you could have paid for around 2/3 of the Greer mistake, making it not a big deal instead of a real problem (he is probably only going to be worth $12M over the next three years in reality).

No matter how you look at it, the moves were an unmitigated disaster. When  you have the number 7 payroll and the number 21 team and not likely to contend even if you retain the number 7 payroill next year, the year is a complete loss that is carrying over.

--
Gary Collard
SABR-L Moderator
collardg@earthlink.net

A woman wants one man to satisfy her every need, while a man
wants every woman to satisfy his one need.