February 28, 2016
Rangers sign Ian Desmond to play Left Field
Huh.
Adam Morris at LoneStarBall thinks Desmond is actually being signed as the full-time Super Utility guy...someone who can fill in for outfielders and infielders alike, thus clearing the bench of at least one extra player.
Maybe. That makes more sense than signing him to be a Left Fielder.
I think (hope) that this was done because the Rangers have a big trade locked down already. If so, there hasn't been word one about it.
On the face of it, this just doesn't make a lot of sense. Texas has been quoted over and over again saying, "we can't go after a better defensive center fielder like Fowler or Jackson because money. We can't spend even $8 million a year." Well, that was bullshit. They have been quoted over and over saying "we're going to platoon in Left Field. That's why we keep signing platoon-friendly outfielders like Justin Ruggiano and Drew Stubbs." That was a bunch of baloney, too.
I don't get it.
Adam Morris at LoneStarBall thinks Desmond is actually being signed as the full-time Super Utility guy...someone who can fill in for outfielders and infielders alike, thus clearing the bench of at least one extra player.
Maybe. That makes more sense than signing him to be a Left Fielder.
I think (hope) that this was done because the Rangers have a big trade locked down already. If so, there hasn't been word one about it.
On the face of it, this just doesn't make a lot of sense. Texas has been quoted over and over again saying, "we can't go after a better defensive center fielder like Fowler or Jackson because money. We can't spend even $8 million a year." Well, that was bullshit. They have been quoted over and over saying "we're going to platoon in Left Field. That's why we keep signing platoon-friendly outfielders like Justin Ruggiano and Drew Stubbs." That was a bunch of baloney, too.
I don't get it.
Posted by: Ben at
01:01 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 171 words, total size 1 kb.
1
FWIW, after 24 hours, there are smart people (along with the normal pundits and journalists) all over baseball saying "this is a smart move and an incredible deal." Well, I never doubted it was a good deal; Ian Desmond at $8m for a year is, value-wise (IF you're paying for past performance) fantastic) a good deal. I'm just not a big fan of paying for past performance, even though that's still mostly the way things are done in MLB. For instance, I think taking a gamble that Desmond will be worth more than one additional win as a left fielder and utility player is a bit borderline. As a contrast, I still defend the Elvis Andrus contract extention on the grounds that the expectations that Elvis would continue to be worth 2 - 3 fWAR for several years were solid.
Several people have pointed out that if Desmond doesn't work out in Left Field, you still have all those other guys Texas already signed. The problem is that if Desmond doesn't work out, *he's* on a guaranteed big league contract. If he sucks, you have to eat most of that money and release him...because if he sucks, you're not gonna get a valuable trade out of him.
I feel better about this today, but this is still a high-risk move.
Several people have pointed out that if Desmond doesn't work out in Left Field, you still have all those other guys Texas already signed. The problem is that if Desmond doesn't work out, *he's* on a guaranteed big league contract. If he sucks, you have to eat most of that money and release him...because if he sucks, you're not gonna get a valuable trade out of him.
I feel better about this today, but this is still a high-risk move.
Posted by: Ben at February 29, 2016 09:44 AM (S4UJw)
15kb generated in CPU 0.015, elapsed 0.0648 seconds.
43 queries taking 0.0538 seconds, 97 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
43 queries taking 0.0538 seconds, 97 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
