Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 17:40:25 -0500
Reply-To: Texas Rangers MLB Discussion <RANGERS@LISTSERV.TAMU.EDU>
Sender: Texas Rangers MLB Discussion <RANGERS@LISTSERV.TAMU.EDU>
From: Beau Sharbrough <beau@SHARBROUGH.NET>
Subject: So long, Doug, we'll miss ye

Guys, I agree with Jamey that Doug Melvin didn't deserve to be a fall guy. On the other hand, I think that he had lots of chances to make the Rangers a better team, and that his progress in that direction was questionable enough that the owner can make a case for the change.

I remember when the Yankees and Bob Watson parted ways. It was Jerry Jones and Jimmy Johnson all over again. I can hear Steinbrenner in his office, telling George Costanza that 500 guys could GM this club to the World Series. I don't think that the same thing is true of the Rangers - I think that the GM has to be good and the owner has to stay out of the way.

I am trying to think of a team with three HOF players (like ARod, IRod, and Palmeiro) who all played well and yet had a losing team. This may have been the most unusual thing that has happened in a season of unusual happenings. 

I agree that Jamey seems a bit too close to the story. Jamey, what basis could an owner have for firing a GM? If I read your post carefully, I think I could say that it makes the case that owners aren't qualified to evaluate general managers. I have a very good imagination, and if I imagine that I'm a baseball owner (instead of the owner of three quarters, a dime, and two nickels) I can evaluate my GM any way I like. It would be good if owners communicated to their GMs what it is that they'll be evaluated on, so that the poor guy can try to build a winner AND keep his job. Still, let's try to get into Hicks' head and ask ourselves what we wanted Doug to do that he didn't do.

I wouldn't be a good guy to pretend to be the manager because I would have canned him after his first two trades. Geez, Doug, are you going to dump the veterans, or the prospects, or both? Not only that, but the explanations for why it was a good idea to trade Canseco still ring hollow - and on my fantasy Rangers I have a GM that tells better lies.

OPEN LETTER FROM TOM HICKS TO THE RANGERS LIST (as Tom was channeled by Beau Sharbrough)

I would like for my GM to win now, to develop players in the minors, and to have the coaches and managers and scouts in place to do just that. I'd want him to trade whatever we have too much of, for whatever we need more of. Too many catchers? Not enough 3rd basemen? Convert 'em. Do it in a way that preserves value, don't over pay.

When Melvin came to town, he said that we were going to quit having this great offense and instead that we would concentrate on pitching and defense. I think that his record in that area is not good. In the 7 years since he got here, we haven't had good pitching and we haven't had good defense and we've spent heavily on great offense. I know that ARod is convinced, after watching the M's this year, that the idea of Pitching and Defense deserves more than lip service from the Rangers. And I don't think he's alone.

Heck, this team went wheels off from the very start. Doug waited too long to turn the ship around, and we were losers this year. Seattle and Oakland are very tough and we can't compete with them by being nice.

I'm going to can Doug Melvin for failing to develop pitching and defense over seven years. For letting Ruben Mateo surprise me. And for telling me that we could compete with the truckload of expensive veterans he brought in this year.

Wait, I should think that over. Mirabelli for Duke-sher. Nah, I'm gonna have to let him go. I can't hold Duchscherer in one hand, and hold Caminiti, Galarraga, Velarde, Brantley, Mahomes, and Petkovsek in the other and say that he made the team better through signings and trades. As that Newberg guy says, who was Doug listening to when he made those decisions? Did he see these guys play? (I'll have to cut Doug some slack for Darren Oliver, though. I sure learned my lesson on that one.)

I'm going to can Doug Melvin for missing so badly on Greer and Mateo. I'm stuck with a guy who can't play and I lost a guy who couldn't miss. I'm going to let each GM have one chance with a prospect like Mateo. If they blow it, they're gone.

I was down on Tom Grieve for keeping Bobby V for too long. I was down on Doug Melvin for keeping Johnny Oates too long. If he had fired him in the off-season, the embarrassment of this spring might have been avoided. This team was a winner from 15 June on. Who shall I blame for the bad start?

Oates? Or the man would wouldn't let that whining quitter quit?
Caminiti? Or the man who signed him and told me that we could compete?
Galarraga? See Caminiti.
Velarde? See Galarraga.
Petkovsek? See Velarde.
Brantley? Mahomes?
Larry Hardy? Or the man who let him into the dugout?

What did Doug do to make the Rangers a better team this year? Sign ARod? Too easy.

Okay, that's the major leagues. Maybe Doug is building some great teams in the minors. Let's see ... oops. No winners this year. If the players are that good, why aren't they learning how to win baseball games? Are we going to evaluate their progress based on their individual statistics, instead of team performance? Do I need to watch more minor league games for this group to get better? And what about pitchers? Why don't the guys we bring up look like the guys that Houston brings up? That Drayton is wearing me out.

The other owners all think that I have a good minor league. Is that enough for me to keep a GM around? Or should I just get the best minor league director I can and emphasize the majors with the GM? Isn't that what I've done since I bought the team? I want to win, I want to win sooner than later, and I want my baseball people to tell me how.

Heck, I've spent more money than anyone ever spent on a free agent and on a draftee, and I'm not getting the results that I want. Maybe the next GM will be able to take my money and win some games.

How he does that will be his problem.