The Texas Rangers Major League Baseball club has a problem.

It has, specifically, a "Josh Hamilton" problem.  We'll call it "The Josh Hamilton Problem".

If you're a Rangers fan, you know what a "Josh Hamilton" problem, a.k.a. a "Josh problem" is.  Richard Durrett wrote an article about it for ESPN in 2012.  Here are some Josh Hamilton problems:

"Ocular Keratitis" kept him out of the lineup for a week in 2012.  That's when downing too much caffeine dries your corneas out.

Josh had a period in which he couldn't hit during day games.  The problem was his baby blue eyes reflecting light the wrong way.  He tried sunglasses and eye drops.  No word on what finally solved the problem.

He quit chewing tobacco at one point, causing a slump.  Even when he broke and strained things out of pure hard effort (like Rangers great Rusty Greer, Hamilton is no stranger to the outfield wall), he usually broke or strained the WRONG something.

Early in 2015, Josh was traded, two years through a five-year-$125 million deal, from Los Angeles back to the Texas Rangers.  While the specific details have never actually been released, front office leaks and certain public details have confirmed that Los Angeles is paying practically ALL of Josh's contract through the final year; 2017.

Free Left Fielder.  Former MVP.  Freakish natural talent.  Slightly used and abused.  Mostly by himself...but still.

There was no small amount of grousing about this trade.  It had been clear from the start of his time in Anaheim that Jon Daniels' refusal to hand over buckets of money to Hamilton was prescient.  In 2013 Josh produced at half the level he had in 2012.  In 2014, he was about 50% worse again (we're talking overall value here, by the way).  He ended 2014 hurt, and while recovering he relapsed with cocaine and alcohol.  That's how he ended up back in Texas.

The Hamilton acquisition for Left Field displaced some potentially promising talent, and seemed to guarantee a position for someone who wasn't actually perceived to be either reliable or even all that good anymore.  Yet when he returned to the field, after many dazzling smiles and a muddled apology for hurtful words, he was met with cheers.  So many cheers.

Certainly he was still Josh Hamilton, but he was home.  He was OUR Josh Hamilton.

And he mostly performed to expectations.  Josh was hurt when he got here, hurt at the end of the season, and hurt twice during the season.  Josh appeared in 50 games, and batted .253/.291/.441.  Bizarrely, his ISO was the highest it had been since 2012, .188.  He hit 8 home runs in his fifty games.  Two or three of them took the lead or won the game directly.

At the end of 2015, Josh hurt his knee.  He had it operated on, hurt it again, had it operated on AGAIN, but it still hurts.  The most recent news is that there really isn't anything that can be done at this point.  Josh is trying some alternative treatments, but he acknowledges that the knee is what it is.  It's going to hurt, he just has to figure out if he can manage the pain.

Dare we think it, if he can still play.

So now the Texas Rangers have a Josh Hamilton Problem.  The Josh Hamilton Problem is that he's here, on the Rangers 25-man roster.  And he will be all this year and next, barring stays on the 60-Day Disabled List.  What do you do with Josh Hamilton?

Let's ask some questions.

Can Josh Hamilton still play baseball at the Major League level?

Posted by: Ben at 06:58 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 2545 words, total size 17 kb.

Your free agent Third Baseman has produced nearly 5 and 1/2 fWAR per year over the past five years and averaged 132.2 wRC+ (weighted Runs Created adjusted for League and Park).  He produced over 5 1/2 with an average wRC+ over 138 in the first four years and played through a severe injury in that fifth year, indicating he probably lost .5 to 1 fWAR and and 10 to 20 points in wRC+.  As best as anyone can calculate, his play had a literal value of $150 to $200 million over that five years.  An actual free agent contract for that kind of value *right now* would go well over $100 million and would likely reach $150 million.  He actually got $96, so that was a pretty good deal.

Would you give him $60 million for a three year extension?

If you based your decision ONLY on the information I shared, you would probably come to the conclusion that it's probably a good deal.  You're paying for two years of production over three years, something a guy like this will almost certainly reach.

On the other hand, if you're reading this *here* (a Rangers blog), then you know who I'm talking about, and you know I'm leaving out a REALLY IMPORTANT piece of information.

The player is Adrian Beltre, and the contract extension would cover his ages 38 - 40 years.

Now, of course, if you don't know who Adrian Beltre is, and all you're understanding here is "AGES 38 - 40", then you're thinking "Are you insane?"  If you know who Adrian Beltre is, then you're thinking "Hm.  Umm.  Welllllll....huh.  I don't know...I mean this IS Beltre...but that's a lot of money for a guy in his late 30's who's going to start declining ANY MINUTE NOW...right?"

Posted by: Ben at 10:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 617 words, total size 4 kb.

This started as a comment at One Strike Away, a Rangers blog I read daily.  The subject is minor Rangers prospect Ryan Rua, who started in Left Field for Texas last year but broke his ankle the first week of the season, and showed poorly upon returning to the plate.  He's been quietly mashing the ball in Spring Training, leading some to speculate on his future with the big club.  Comment commences:

I tweeted back and forth with Jared Sandler (Rangers contributor for WFAA and other places) on this issue yesterday evening. In and of itself, I don't think the Ian Desmond deal was the *right* deal, but it was certainly a *good deal*. The one area where it really bothers me is that it blocks Rua, who the Rangers considered major league left field talent before he broke his ankle. He's showing once again that he's a legitimate LF option, but with Desmond on a one-year MLB deal, Rua gets pushed further down the depth chart. Ruggiano will almost certainly get playing time before Rua does, and I would bet after Rua's poor play coming back from injury Texas will likely be inclined to play him in Round Rock for a while.

So, playing odd-man-out, which is where Sandler seemed to get edgy: if Rua mashes, who does he knock out of their current gig? Desmond isn't going anywhere; he's on a MLB deal so it's DL, trade, or release if he's a bench bat. Ruggiano can play all three outfield positions and potentially 1B; he has the historic stats to suggest he *is* the right-handed platoon bat anyone would want. Choo isn't going anywhere, especially if he plays to his potential. That leaves DDJ, and on the face of it he's the most likely to lose his position as this point. Ruggiano can play center and may have as a good a bat; unless Desmond bombs he's still in LF, and if he bounces back even a little he'll probably hit better than DDJ. That moves DDJ to the bench, and he's faster than Rua so he keeps the fourth outfielder spot. Rua is still in AAA.

Added info:  Evan Grant's lineup update for March 8th presents a breakdown of outfield options.  He implies (does not directly state) that Ruggiano likely became the odd man with the Ian Desmond signing.  That is, Ruggiano was signed to platoon with Hamilton, but supposedly Ian Desmond will now hold down left field until someone pushes him off.  Plus, Rua has options, Ruggiano doesn't.  The job he was signed for his gone, and his guarantee is only $500,000.  He may be done in a few weeks.

My conclusion: it will take two player moves/transactions in the outfield to occur before Rua gets called up. Which is a real shame, because I think the ability to be a full time Major League outfielder is there. And once again I say "getting Ian Desmond for 1/$8 was a fantastic deal. I'm just not sure it was the right or best deal for Texas."

Posted by: Ben at 09:49 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 512 words, total size 3 kb.

MLB has reportedly overturned Utley's suspension for a late slide that broke Ruben Tejeda's leg last year.

For those who don't remember, Chase Utley broke Ruben Tejeda's leg on a takeout slide into Second Base during Game 2 of the 2015 NLDS.  Utley was the recipient of extensive criticism for deviating significantly from the basepath on the slide, in an obvious effort to try to physically hinder Tejeda, who was trying to turn a double-play.  While Chase Utley is well-known for pushing the boundaries on this particular play, his play was also defended by many players.  To sum up, even those critical of Utley specifically defended the use of "takeout" slides on double-plays as an integral part of the game.

Chase Utley received a two game suspension from MLB for the play, citing his deviance from the basepath as being excessive, and therefore judging his slide as an attempt to harm another player.  Utley appealed the decision, allowing him to complete the series at least before a judgement was made.  When the Mets defeated the Dodgers, the appeal was put off until the off-season, with the suspension intended to be carried out during the first two games of the 2016 season.

Once the season was over, MLB was encouraged from all corners of Major League Baseball to review the rule governing Second Base slides before the 2016 season began.  This was done, and changes to the rule clarified that intentional takeout slides would no longer be allowed, but efforts to hinder the fielder during the course of a normal slide would generally be allowed, although there is room for Umpire discretion as well.

As an addendum, Chase Utley's suspension will, according to some sources, be dismissed.

There's a lot of consternation about this move, if true.  However, considering the adoption of the new "clarifying" rule about second base slides, this almost had to happen.  The new rule is a tacit admission that the old rule wasn't clear enough.  And considering you can't redo the playoffs, it's also largely meaningless.

Of course, you can argue that Utley was obviously engaging in a dangerous slide that violated the intention and the spirit of the rule by too large a margin.  However, players argued that the rule wasn't 100% clear, and many players interpreted the rule differently. Changing the rule at this point functions as MLB agreeing the rule wasn't clear enough...if the rule wasn't clear enough, then you can't "prove" Utley violated it.

There is a certain amount of legalism in this argument, I admit.  A large percentage of fans, and even baseball professionals, criticized Utley's slide as being well beyond what they considered accepted norms.  But once again, we turn to the wide disagreement by fans and players on this issue that was prevalent at the time, showing that there really was no consensus on the rule.  Beyond that, even if there had been wide agreement, the only opinions that would actually matter are the Umpires' consensus understanding of the rule, MLB's official interpretation, and the Player Union's collaborating opinion.

Put simply, the act of changing the rule to make it clearly reflect what Utley was suspended for is itself an indicator that the rule *did not* already describe the criteria for breaking the rule.  If the rule could not clearly be demonstrated to be broken by Utley, he can't be suspended.

Those changes likely don't affect the Rangers, much; only Rougned Odor has any kind of reputation for that level of "hard play", but I haven't seen him make the kind of move that Utley was known for.  The rule doesn't address going into a legitimate slide "spikes up", as some people call it.  It remains to be seen if the Umpires will apply the "intention" of the slide change to other areas of aggressive baserunning.  Something that *will* affect Texas is the practical elimination of "the neighborhood play".

The Neighborhood Play is an overly-elaborate description for the act of the fielder manning Second Base turning a double play while not actually being in contact with the base or even having tagged up.  Umpires and players have worked under the assumptions that A)  Any clean catch and throw at second would beat the runner from First whether the Second Baseman or Shortstop were tagging up or not, and B)  Because of takeout slides, the fielder at Second was safer standing away from the base.

In order to show how strictly they intend takeout slides to be governed, MLB has also empowered Umpires to use strict guidelines to judge Second Base tagging by the fielder.  "Neighborhood Plays" have also been made reviewable.  This is saying as much via intentions as with actual wording...something that has admittedly been the bane of baseball as often as it has been a boon.

The intention is for runners to slide *before* reaching base and the runner *must* make contact with the ground *before* reaching base.  The runner must target the base with their slide, and cannot attempt to alter the slide away from the base after starting the slide.  As a compensatory move to support the runner, the fielder at Second must now cleanly tag the base while in possession of the ball before throwing it on in an attempt to get another out.

I haven't seen enough of Odor to judge whether this will be a problem for him, but I do worry about Andrus.  Elvis is widely reported to have issues maintaining focus and intensity, but acts instinctively when he's on his game.  I will not be surprised to see Elvis miss double-plays this year because he never tagged up.

Posted by: Ben at 10:14 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 944 words, total size 6 kb.