The Rangers Embark on a Texas-Sized House Cleaning

Coming into the year, expectations were high in Arlington. The Rangers, fresh off of a 100-loss season, went big in free agency, bringing in Corey Seager, Marcus Semien, and Jon Gray. They shopped in the second tier of free agents as well, signing Martín Pérez, Garrett Richards, Brad Miller, and Kole Calhoun to short-term deals. Trades brought in more starters: Mitch Garver joined the team this spring, and last year’s Joey Gallo trade netted several potential contributors in Ezequiel Duran, Josh H. Smith, and Glenn Otto.
Depending on how you weigh the contributions of those last three, that’s something like nine new players. It didn’t make the Rangers overnight playoff contenders – we gave them a 75-win projection and an 8% chance of reaching the playoffs before the season started – but it felt like the opening salvo of a new contender. Sign your free agents when you can get them, supplement them with a burgeoning farm system headlined by top prospect Josh Jung, and pretty soon, you’ve got a stew going.
A lot can change in a few months. This week, the Rangers ownership group, led by majority owner Ray Davis, delivered a clear sign that they aren’t happy with the way things are going. On Monday, they relieved manager Chris Woodward of his duties. Woodward had overseen some down years in Texas after taking over before the 2019 season. He’d shepherded this team adequately, at least as far as wins and losses go; we’re currently projecting the Rangers for 72.5 wins, basically the same as their preseason expectation, and it’s not like we were outliers in that projection; pretty much everyone around pegged them in the 70-75 win range.
The front office was guarded in their defense of the decision. “We do think that we can be better than our record and better than the way that we’ve played at times and so that kind of leads to making a decision now, rather than waiting til the end of the year,” president of baseball operations Jon Daniels told Levi Weaver of The Athletic. That sounds like word salad to me, a way of acknowledging that the team simply felt it needed to make a change.
General manager Chris Young offered more of the same. “The way we utilize meetings, the way we utilize different resources throughout the day, creating a structure that’s really tailored towards winning a game every single day when we come in. We felt like, at times, that got a little loose,” he told Weaver. That’s something far easier to see internally than externally, but it also seems like something the team would have known before this year. After all, Woodward had been managing the team for years, not months.
Firing Woodward was mostly cosmetic, a way of changing the face of the team without changing the way it was built. On Wednesday, the Rangers took a much bigger step. They relieved Daniels of his president of baseball operations duties, ending a 17-year stint as the top decision-maker in Texas (albeit with some time sharing the role with Nolan Ryan) and a 20-year tenure with the club. This is a seismic shift in the baseball landscape; Daniels had survived through up and down times in Texas, building a World Series contender and then overseeing its teardown and rebuild.
I don’t think it was an accident that both Daniels and Young spoke to the media about the earlier managerial change. When he joined the team two years ago after a stint at the league office, Young was seen as a rising star, the likely successor to the top job whenever Daniels decided to hang up his spurs. As a player, Young was often tabbed as a future general manager, and he certainly seems to have taken to the role in Texas.
There’s no question that the rebuilding effort was a collaboration between Daniels and Young. Quite frankly, it seems to have been successful: the Rangers have our sixth-ranked farm system, headlined by Jung, Jack Leiter, and a crop of exciting prospects acquired in trade, headlined by the Yankees trio. The major league team isn’t leading the division, or anywhere near it really, but you can see the bones of what they’re trying to do.
Seager and Semien, along with Adolis García, whom the Rangers acquired from St. Louis for cash in 2019, form a solid trio to build a lineup around. Jonah Heim looks like an above-average everyday catcher, which could relegate Garver to backup status. There are holes behind those top four hitters, but the plan of assembling some stars and using a top farm system to fill in the pieces strikes me as a solid one. It’s hard to develop Seager-level players, but I wouldn’t bet against the Rangers finding four or five players who can contribute league-average production to back the top-end talent. Heck, they’re already in the top half of baseball in position player WAR this year, and their top hitting prospect hasn’t played a single major league game.
The idea of adding major league talent a year or two before a team is ready to contend isn’t unprecedented. The Astros and Cubs both jump-started their contention windows by making moves in free agency, and while it’s not exactly the same situation, the Padres added Eric Hosmer and then Manny Machado to shepherd their burgeoning farm system. The Rangers aren’t attempting some out-there strategy; they’re playing variations on a theme that gets results if the farm system can support it with some stars of its own.
That said, Daniels’ firing doesn’t appear to be about a failure of that strategy. “The bottom line is we have not had a winning record since 2016 and for much of that time, have not been competitive in the A.L. West Division,” Davis, the team’s majority owner, said in a press release. That’s indisputably true, but it’s also something that Davis would have known going into the season. The Rangers haven’t lost ground anywhere obvious; they’re having more or less the season that everyone expected for them, minus Jung’s freak injury (he tore his labrum lifting weights).
I’m veering into speculation here, but it seems to me that Davis simply wanted Young at the helm instead of Daniels. That’s his prerogative, and he told Weaver that he had decided to fire Daniels before the team let Woodward go. It doesn’t seem like anyone on the team expected it, though. When asked about whether Daniels had advance warning that he’d be dismissed, Davis said simply, “It was a surprise.” Daniels released a statement of his own later in the day, but didn’t address the firing; instead, he simply thanked everyone in the organization, fans, and media.
Another way of looking at Davis’ complaint that the team didn’t win enough: the Rangers won the AL West in 2016 with a payroll $30 million higher than league average. By 2019, they were only $10 million above average, and by 2021, they had fallen to nearly $40 million below average. Sure, the team prioritized future talent over current major leaguers, but they also spent less, period.
When the Rangers embarked on their spending spree last winter, it wasn’t some irresponsible lurch to the top of the payroll tables for a small-market team. This year’s payroll checks in at $3 million below league average, and scarcely more than the team spent assembling their 2012 World Series squad. In the meantime, league-average payroll has increased by $44 million per team. The Rangers are trying to play a different game than they did 10 years ago, pairing Texas-sized ambition with an Oklahoma-sized payroll (no disrespect to Oklahoma, I just needed a nearby state with a panhandle for comparison’s sake). Combine that with a concerted effort to swap current performance for future potential, and it’s no surprise that they didn’t produce a winning team.
There’s merit to changing up leadership. Give someone the same job long enough, and they can become set in their ways, missing chances to change and improve. If that’s what happened with Daniels, if Young’s new ideas were creating breakthroughs while Daniels stuck his fingers in his ears, we might never know that from the outside. A shakeup that looks sudden might make far more sense in context.
This move doesn’t feel like that to me, though again I’m admittedly looking in from the outside. It reads to me like Davis had been unhappy with the direction of the team for some time, which falls at least partially at his feet as well. It’s not as though Daniels was a rogue agent, slashing payroll and trading off key contributors against ownership’s wishes in a front-office-driven rebuild. The bottom-out-and-build-back trajectory the Rangers have taken over the past five years assuredly had ownership buy-in, as well it should have.
In Davis’ press conference, he emphasized winning, and in fairness, the team hasn’t had a winning record since 2016. But again, that was by design, a design he signed off on. The point all along was to blow it up at the major league level, then lift back into contention starting this year or next, keyed by the farm system and free agent signings. It’s strange to see that given as a reason for Daniels’ firing given the trajectory the team has followed.
As for Young, he’s stepping into what looks at first glance like a rosy situation. The Rangers have been building towards competing starting in 2023, and they’ve done a good job of it. The major league team might be 12 games under .500 (a grisly 7-24 record in one-run games hasn’t helped), but their underlying talent looks better than that; they have a .495 Pythagorean expectation and a .491 BaseRuns record. They’ve only been outscored by five runs on the year.
The farm system should contribute to next year’s club, and in the years after that. Jung looks like a potential difference-maker. Leiter is having a rough introduction to Double-A, but there’s plenty of young pitching in the pipeline. Daniels and Young have done an excellent job drafting and trading over the past several years; the cupboard looks well-stocked, both in terms of near-term major leaguers and players who might be traded to supplement future playoff drives.
If the team is following the same blueprint as the successful rebuilds by the Cubs and Astros, they’ll augment their team with increased spending in free agency. Davis seems to agree – today he identified the team’s biggest needs as “a couple frontline starters and a middle of the order bat.” Or maybe he doesn’t agree; in his press conference addressing Daniels’ dismissal, he said “We’re not going to spend like last winter,” referring to the Seager/Semien/Gray deals.
Which will it be? I’m not sure. Davis is making a strong statement that he wants to win — literally. “I’m not a good loser. We plan on putting a competitive team on the field next year,” he said in the same press conference. For Young, that has to be reassuring to hear: an owner who wants to win and a team set up to level up sounds like a great introduction to running a team.
If I were Young, though, I’d be a little worried. Something just feels off in all of this. If Davis knew he was going to fire both Woodward and Daniels, why not make both moves at once? If he was unhappy with the trajectory of the team, why not make this move before the season – and why agree to the rebuilding plan in the first place? “I’m not a good loser” is a strange statement for someone whose organization just finished a long rebuild. And if the real issue is just that Davis thought Young was ready to run the team, why not make the move after the season?
Maybe this is all armchair quarterbacking, and the team will go out this offseason and sign Justin Verlander, Clayton Kershaw, and Chris Bassitt to assemble a powerhouse rotation. Maybe they’ll opt for a great hitter instead and make a run at Aaron Judge. I wouldn’t be surprised if they stood pat, though, simply hoping for continued improvement next year. “We’re not going to spend like last winter” implies that it’s not their preferred team-building mechanism.
I can’t shake the feeling that there’s more here than meets the eye. To outside observers like me, the Rangers seemed to be doing pretty well this year when it came to balancing the present and the future, a franchise with ownership and the front office working in harmony with the team on the field. It’s clear, after seeing their personnel moves and hearing the reasoning behind them, that nothing could be further from the truth. I’m not sure I liked Texas’ plan six years ago; tearing down a division winner never feels great, and future success isn’t a given. It’s just strange to see that rebuild mostly work while also getting its architect fired.
Ben is a writer at FanGraphs. He can be found on Bluesky @benclemens.


Righting this ship is going to be a tall order. Thankfully,
You don’t believe in Young?
It’s just a bad, cut-off height joke. Outwardly, Young seems like a pretty ideal GM candidate, and I agree with you that the motive behind the move could very well be due to be the potential of Texas losing their popular in-house candidate.
This totally went over my head
It won’t go over Young’s head.
Well played.
The timing is very strange. The only possibility that comes to mind is that Young would have been offered and taken the top job in Detroit immediately and Davis didn’t think he could wait until after the season to fire Daniels more gracefully.
I don’t think it’s strange at all. The front office has signaled they are planning to start reshaping the franchise now.
If the front office going to start reshaping things now and Davis has already decided he wants Young to oversee any changes, then he needs Young in charge of the team when they’re reshaping things.
It could be even more complicated than that. He could (possibly) be planning to hire someone over Young and let the new person decide the direction of the franchise, but he trusts Young more in the interim than Daniels.
But either way, I’m pretty confident he had decided that as long as the reshaping of the franchise had already started, he didn’t want Daniels in charge of it.
Young has a better and safer road to success in Texas than Detroit; I would be surprised if that was the motivation. Though it’s not to say Young didn’t dangle that as leverage, I guess.
Yes he might have said he preferred to be top dog in Texas to Detroit but top dog in Detroit to second dog in Texas
Not saying much there, though.
They’re both two years away with big sunk costs.
Texas’ advantage is their top prospects haven ‘t yet thudded.
Detroit ‘s top prospects all look like projects with a gap before the next wave.
No significant hopd but for turnarounds.
Texas can still dream on Jung and Leiter helping to fill in the gaps.
But there’s no guarantee they can do it right away.
Most prospects don’t, even when they don’t fall flat on their faces.
Seems clear that ownership is not satisfied with what they got for the money spent. Can’t say I blame them. Not to mention trading Clase …
Mannnn that one hurt at the time and is even worse now. I know you can’t predict injuries, but getting three outs from Kluber in exchange for a kid throwing a 102 MPH sinker s t i n g s.
Ten years ago almost every prospect writer led with the Rangers system, projecting Odor, Alfaro, Gallo, Olt, Brinson and Mazara as building blocks. None of them (save Gallo?) becoming stars, or even consistent regulars, looks like a factor in Daniels’ downfall.
Doesn’t help that their homegrown pitching development has been subpar. Neil Ramirez, Dillon Tate, Martin Perez, Luke Jackson, Justin Grimm, and Tanner Scheppers were the only ones to have even a semi-successful career (usually as relievers), and most of them really only were successful with other teams. The less said about Joe Palumbo and Luis Ortiz and the like, the better.
Profar as well. That entire crop fizzling out is kind of crazy.
It seems like Texas always has a highly ranked system with a bunch of toolsy dudes who don’t work out.
On the not being competitive by design since 2016, I’d say they tried to go the middle road for at least a couple of years with only trading guys on the last year of their deal at the deadline once they were out of it. Guys like Minor and Lynn were really good and could have been traded sooner (or at all) to have this rebuild happen faster.
They basically decided they were not going to rebuild, ever, and that their breakout was just around the corner. And because they were so good at patching holes they could convince themselves that they could return to the playoffs with just a little bit more work.
And then they had the new stadium opening and they wanted to have a good product on the field because of that. Which didn’t work at all.
This “we will never take a step back” approach only works when you can develop like the Cardinals or Giants. And they really, really didn’t. If you don’t, every other team either intentionally takes steps back (even the Rays and the Mariners, who in their ‘rebuilding phase’ largely treaded water) or it happens to you anyway whether you like it or not.
The ones that suffer most are the ones that don’t plan for it and give out big contracts to players that can’t carry the team during the down swing, can’t be moved, and are too old by the time they can be ready to compete. We know two or three of those, right? Defroit, Philly, Cinci come to mind.
In this case ownership had to have been on board and it’s not reasonable to question its effectiveness after the fact
I’d say the ownership was on board with the actions. Whether you want to place blame on owner, FO, or both, those actions were designed to be more competitive than they were. The Rangers didn’t decide to tank. Losing was forced onto them by other teams being better. Sure the owner cut payroll (a little at first still trying to keep some just in case) when it was obvious money couldn’t make them even an average team.
Not pushing back on ownership means that when ownership changes plans, you’re out.
It might be just me, but I definitely got Jerry Jones vibes from Davis. Less “this team is a success because of me”, and more “this team will succeed when and because I want it to succeed.” Probably not a comforting thought to any Rangers fans out there, but still. Listening to that whole interview, his demeanor just reeked of possessive arrogance of his team.
“I felt it was necessary to get Chris and Jon through the trade deadline, through the draft and the things that were happening at the time,” Davis said. “On Monday, when Jon and Chris came in and wanted to relieve Woody of his responsibilities, I didn’t want to connect the two and I didn’t want it to be done at the same time. Chris signed on to relieving Woody. So I’ve separated the two and we did Woody then and Jon now.”
I, I, I. Not “we”, not “the team”, not “the organization”. Some of his other quotes do use “we”, but his tone and meaning don’t really reflect it.
It might be an overreaction or an overgeneralization on my part, but I can’t shake the pervasive feeling that Davis is a baseball Jerry Jones in some way.
My understanding is that Davis has played no role in the baseball operations whatsoever to this point, leaving everything up to Daniels. It’s unclear whether he will do the same going forward, or whether he feels burned and wants to take more control.
You figure Daniels was his direct report and Young was his future direct report. He didn’t seem to involve himself in anything below that
I think a lot of this also has to do with general sentiment around DFW about the team. Once Nolan left, a sizeable portion of the fanbase chose to side with either Nolan Ryan or Daniels and the more the Rangers struggled, the louder the former side got.
The spending spree this offseason was probably the nail in the coffin for Woodward/Daniels. The average fan sees a team spend a couple hundred million on two star players and expects that to lead to a winning record right away (even if the plan was always for a couple years down the road).
I think Daniels is a good baseball mind, but I wonder how much of his earlier success was due to having such a good supporting cast around him (AJ Preller/Thad Levine/Nolan Ryan). Once they all left, he seemed to struggle a bit until Chris Young was brought in.
Little rambly, whoopsiedasies.
Two star players aren’t enough. You need to put the rest of your payroll into a third veteran player so you can brag on the team’s website about you put that guy into a Halos uniform.
Winning records are optional. Putting fannies in the seats flies forever.
Dumbasses.
What’s with all the parotty accounts today?
It’s wild that it took this long for Daniels to go. They had a comically bad development pipeline. While assigning credit for a team “drafting and developing” a player is very difficult because players will switch organizations pretty often partway through their development, the Rangers were unusually bad at this. Since 2010, the highest position-player fWAR of any players who were acquired and developed under his watch were:
Gallo: 14.0
Odor:9.8
Leonys Martin: 7.1
Mitch Moreland: 3.9
Isaiah Kiner-Falefa: 2.4
For pitchers, we have:
Derek Holland: 12.3
Martin Perez: 11.4
CJ Wilson: 9.3
Alexi Ogando: 6.2
Jose Leclerc: 4.4
This is not good. If you look at the other general managers who were hired around the same time as Daniels, or before, and take their 2010-2022 fWARs for guys they drafted and developed, they absolutely blow him away. Sure, John Mozeliak and Billy Beane and Brian Cashman are great. But Dayton Moore has has five position players with double-digit fWAR during his tenure (and considerably higher across the board), and Eric Hosmer is at 9.9. Moore also has comparable pitching development (and would almost certainly be better than what the Rangers did too had Yordano Ventura not passed away).
Given all of this, it’s remarkable how good the Rangers were during his tenure. The Teixeira trade was part of that, with a bunch more advanced prospects coming back to the team and most of them panning out. But his team had this unnatural ability to find guys off the scrap heap and turn them around, with everyone from Josh Hamilton to Ian Desmond to Nelson Cruz. Good for them that they could patch holes like that but the foundation was shaky the moment the guys from the Teixeira trade stopped producing.
Might do some good to specify those figures are only for their time on the Rangers. Confused me for a minute until I clued in.
This is true, although with the exception of CJ Wilson and Leonys Martin that is almost the entire value of those players. And if we are including that for other teams than those other teams look better too.
Funny, if you switched Daniels for Rizzo, you could be describing the Washington Nationals. Absolutely dreadful at drafting and player development, but quite astute with trades and free agent signings (until recently)
To be fair, Rizzo looks absolutely awesome on this specific metric, especially on the position player side. Pitching depth, uh, leaves a bit to be desired though.
Position players:
Anthony Rendon: 30.7 fWAR
Bryce Harper: 29.4 fWAR
Juan Soto: 21.4 fWAR
Ian Desmond: 14.0 fWAR
Danny Espinosa: 5.9 fWAR
Pitchers:
Stephen Strasburg: 33.2 fWAR
Jordan Zimmermann: 15.7 fWAR
Drew Storen: 3.1 fWAR (ouch, that’s a fall)
Ross Detwiler: 2.6 fWAR
Craig Stammen: 2.6 fWAR
Some people might say, how hard was it to select and develop Bryce Harper and Stephen Strasburg? But this is also spotting Daniels two years and dropping Trea Turner (who was part of a trade so weird they changed the rules).
You said since 2010, but even if we use 2009 as the starting date, which is when Rizzo became GM, that eliminates Desmond (2004 draftee), Espinosa (2008), Zimmermann (2007), Detwiler (2007) and Stammen (2005).
In fact only one of those ten players was drafted or signed in the past decade (Soto in 2015). That’s literally a whole decade of IFAs and draft picks, and there’s one singular player who was above replacement level.
Your last paragraph answers why he stuck around as long as he did. While his developmental record was ghastly, he made some really good trades and pickups that kept the team afloat with a pair of division titles right before Houston established their stranglehold in 2017. It’s almost like developing the farm system isn’t the only part of the job!
How much rope should Daniels have gotten? He started in 2006 and from 2009-2016 they won fewer than 87 games once (in 2014 when everyone got hurt and they finished last). So a guy with that kind of track record should get a decent bit of time to rebuild, no?
Curious how a player gets tabbed a future GM while still playing? What was it about Young? Just that he said he wanted to be a GM someday?
He was a Princeton grad, and I remember the announcers always talking about how smart and analytical of a player he during local broadcasts. I’m assuming that is where it came from.
It seems basically that it’s because he went to Princeton for school and stayed in baseball long enough to get noticed.
By that measure, Kyle Hendricks and Brent Suter are also future GM candidates.
I find this kind of ridiculous. You’re selecting on people who went to a cold-weather, academically rigorous school rather than any of the warm-weather, academically rigorous schools that are out there, and then selecting on the players who were good enough to get noticed. Not any specific aptitude for evaluation or analysis.
Thank you for this comment. I want to put in $0.02 for Rice here, as a national top-15 school academically that’s also a renowned (or ex-renowned) baseball program. Where is the GM chatter for Brock Holt or Philip Humber?
(Okay, fine, I think it’s also true that Chris Young showed an interest and desire in FO work that, say, Anthony Rendon does not.)
I think there’s a certain assumption that at a lot of schools with top athletic programs those guys got in on an “athlete track” and can’t actually be smart. This is almost certainly true at certain academically rigorous schools (hello UCLA!) and is potentially also true at Rice, Northwestern, Stanford, Duke, etc. But once you start qualifying it like this the criteria looks even more arbitrary, since this potentially happens at Ivy League schools too.
In terms of ex-players who are now front office guys, the one who always stands out is Billy Beane, who IIRC drafted out of high school and went back to school later at UCSD. Jerry Dipoto went to VCU; Brandon Gomes went to Tulane; Ray Montgomery (formerly Angels and Brewers scouting director before naming him bench coach) went to Fordham.
Kenny Williams and Ruben Amaro Jr. were both Stanford grads. Not sure Stanford’s baseball program has ever been viewed in the upper tier (even vs. say Rice), though I’m sure football and basketball players there were at least somewhat on the “athlete track”.
Hay!
As opposed to Rice?
Stanford has underperformed a truly mind boggling talent level- they are generally a top 10 team, have been in that zone for decades. They should have Vandy’s (recent) record, albeit in the 90s and oughts. They don’t. CWS is noisy.
Billy got his admission revoked when he went pro.
Ivy League schools give no athletic scholarships. The others do.
Well, sort of. I’m guessing you never worked in an Ivy League admissions office.
Some of the best companies hire for smarts rather than specific aptitude. Early Amazon, Bridgewater come to mind
Then why does it matter that they were a major league baseball player? Or even a minor league baseball player? Or even a baseball player at all?
(I’m of the mind that at the minimum, playing in college is helpful but I definitely don’t see any difference between a guy in the minors and the majors)
It shouldn’t but the person has to actually want the job. Amazon and Bridgewater were revolutionary companies in their fields. An MLB franchise usually only appeals to someone with a baseball background including Fangraph writer
Your ability to see it is not the determining factor though, is it? You don’t really know anything about Chris Young other than what you’ve read, while the people you heard talking about his abilities probably have.
Try a little humility once in a while.
This might be the worst rebuttal I have ever read.
no you
Well, lately a lot of GMs weren’t players.
Cleveland’s string of post-Hart GMs weren’t and the majority of the GMs plucked out of their org weren’t either.
Still, Cleveland and other teams will hire recent ex-players as Special Assistants to groom them for front office jobs. Some end up as GMs.
And some teams don’t really have GMs. They divide GM duties between two or more people. With a team president for the business side and a vp of baseball operations, each with a staff of specialists.
If where he went to school was the ONLY reason they were saying that, then they would be saying the same thing about Hendricks, Suter, Holt and Humber.
That makes me think there is probably more to it other than just where he went to school.
Instead of reducing his accomplishments out of hand, which seems harsh, is it possible that he was always interested in learning the newest techniques, embraced analytics (maybe the first pro player to do so), helped teach it to his teammates, was a leader in the clubhouse and showed an aptitude for org/game management that other players did not?
Fair, but lots of Princeton grads are smart, conventional thinkers. Young had MLB success with an 86 mph fastball. Plus he played for Pete Carril. Good prep for out-of-the-box thinking.
Usually it’s their clubhouse behavior. Comments and questions that show their understanding of the business of baseball, not just the on-field aspects. Some players just walk in for batting practice, take tbeir swings, go listen to music or nap before tbe game and after the game they shower eat and go home. Others are constantly chatting with the coaches and manager, team staff, effectively putting themselves on a post roster career.
Personality, people skills, and, not to put too fine a point on it, intelligence all factor into it. Finally, some guys come out of college with an actual education.
Meanwhile, some guys are “strong as a mule and almost as smart. ”
It takes all kinds.
Mules sure do kick ass.
Just neighing.
This should be a Charles O. Finley quote
Mules beat up their fathers?
I’m assuming it’s the Ivy League credentials
Lots of baseball and book learnin’.
Over at ESPN they recently did a long piece on the ways teams rebuild, ranging from the Cubs “burn it to the ground” approach they call a hard rebuild to the bit by bit soft rebuild.
The average rebuild came out at about six years.
They didn’t mention Cleveland and tbeir stealth rebuild where they moved out older, expensive (and risky) veterans to make room for younger replacements. In the process they rebuilt the whole team while being competitive in 5 of the last 6 years. In fact, few people in the game realized they were rebuilding until they moved Clevinger for the haul from SD. Not all the newcomers played out long term (Reyes comes to mind) but they were useful in bridging the gap. On paper it looked like tbey were reloading but reloading usually involves trades for known quantities and FA signings. Cleveland was contending while moving veterans for prospects and projects. A classic rebuild without coming close to bottoming out.
Texas under Daniels really went more for an unending reload and, for a variety of reasons (Jung’s injury and COVID, among them), fell short. Despite spending reasonably (and getting a new ballpark) they haven’t been competitive in the last six years and look to be at least two years off. By that schedule last winter’s spending is…off. They spent like a win-now team that wasn’t ready to win. And tbe players tbey spent on may be on the decline by the time tbey’re really ready to compete.
There’s no telling what Daniels was told to do but generally teams with new parks coming try to align tbeir competituve window with the new park but Texas didn’t. And Covid cost them a year of player development but unlike other teams, they don’t seem to have a 40 man crunch. Doesn’t speak well of player development.
So basically, much like Avila, it is his time to go.
Still, Young’s inherits the problem now of a team with a contender payroll but not a contender roster. He can’t really do a proper rebuild and there may not be the right mix of FAs out tbere for a quick turnaround.
In the meantime, Houston is in mid-window and Seattle just opened their’s.
Not an easy fix.
What do you call it when a championship team just plain falls apart, while at the same time the farm system fails to develop and the club ends up in a place where they have to sell off a generational player for prospects seemingly just to avoid relegation to AAA?
Wait, I know this joke!
The Nationals! 🙁
Huizenga? 😁hd
A team that got lucky.
(2003 Royals.)
Teams don’t totally fall apart unless they’re broken up on purpose or never were all that good. KC went from 63 to 86 to 56 after going all in to “take the next step”.
Most good teams take at least two years to implode, even tbe Amaro Phillies.
How is it possible to sign off on a half billion for 2 albatrosses without being committed to the guy who is aiming the plane at the mountain? Add that to the fact the owner stated he expected this team to be “good” and he’s clearly unstable. Maybe next decade.
Easy peasy.
Article link is to the wrong Chris Young (ARI outfielder not 6’10” pitcher)
At least not country singer
This cracks me up. All we need to get our car going is an engine and wheels!
The “couple of frontline starters” part is true, if pretty disconnected from reality. OK, cool, how much money do you want to spend on Verlander, Rodon, deGrom, or even Eovaldi or Bassitt? And you still have to retain Martin Perez if you want to run out the same group as last year.
It might be possible to pick up a power bat, depending on what you think has happened to JD Martinez or Mitch Haniger or Joey Gallo, or if you’re willing to spend enough on Josh Bell. But I think what they need (along with like 15 other teams in baseball) is a guy who gets on base to hit near the top of the order. That’s arguably just as hard to find as a guy with power. Maybe you think Benintendi is back (I would be wary there), or you spend big on Nimmo (and ignore the injury history and the huge amount of money other teams will offer), or bank on Michael Brantley coming back from injury…
Maybe “we’re not spending big” is a negotiation tactic? To keep Judge and Rodon from asking for $400M each?
That, or his idea of a frontline pitcher is a wee bit different than everybody else’s.
Tyler Anderson and Taijuan Walker are having good years and probably will come for less to what Jon Gray got last year. Although I can’t imagine anyone calling them “frontline starter.” Maybe he’s just nostalgic for Kyle Gibson.
That’s the problem.
There’s only about 50 true frontline pitchers (not just aces, there’s even less of those) and those that have them don’t let them go unless they’re too risky or too pricey. It’s like the old line about buying a used car being “buying somebody else’s problem”.
Texas should know (Kluber!) as well as SD and Pittsburgh.
If Texas didn’t figure it out, they’ll probably try for Kershaw again.
If they had a better farm, they might even try for Bieber.
Aces you either groom them yourself or pay through the nose.
Yeah I think there’s a reasonable debate over what “frontline” means. I think pitchers projected to get above 4 wins is pretty sparse; those projected to get above 3 wins probably fits better. Per Depth Charts, there were 30 of those pitchers this year, and if you want to include some guys close to 3.0 (Framber Valdez, Clayton Kershaw) and some other guys too I think that’s fine too. Somewhere between 30 and 45 pitchers; I’d think that guys like Tyler Mahle and Chris Bassitt are in that gray zone.
Yeah if Eovaldi and Walker are going to be your “frontline starters” then you’re destined to top out at 80 wins and be staring up at the Astros by 15 games again…
15 games behind would be an improvement on this year but hardly worth a 9 digit expense.
And then he says we’re not going to spend like last year. High hopes for Jung, Leiter and Rocker
Ironic, isn’t it? You have to excel as a play to make the majors, you have to succeed in the front office to keep the job. Owners, OTOH, have only one bar to clear — filthy richitude.
And chumminess with other owners
Everyone likes to talk about the Semien/Seager signings, but what’s even more ridiculous to me is that they supplemented that signing with KOLE CALHOUN, thought that was good enough, and that they did so in December! When he likely would have still been available before the start of spring training.
Seens like Young and Daniels were butting heads over control and direction and it became a him or me scenario for Davis.
Considering Davis said Young wasn’t aware of the decision beforehand and the reports are that Young was taken off guard by the move I don’t think that’s the case
Pretty sure when the Rangers say they are not “spending like last winter”, they are saying they won’t be committing $560M in a single offseason, not that they will stay pat.
Healthy amount of space between $560M and ~0, which is where most teams reside.
But getting two frontline pitchers and a middle of the order bat is going to take something like that. If not more.
Judge and one frontline pitcher alone might break that.
Just as there is a big gap between $560M and $0,
there is a big gap between Aaron Judge, a top 3 hitter in the league, and a typical middle of the order bat.
No, the Rangers are not signing deGrom, Rodon, and Judge.
No team is.
But there is a deal to be made somewhere among Nimmo/Conforto/Pederson/Haniger and Clevinger/Severino/Bassitt, etc.
Sure. But those talents are not going to take Texas to Houston’s level.
If that’s the best they can do, it might be best not to do anything until they see what the kids can do.
There’s a difference between spending to make a statement, and spending for effect. You see the difference in-season between the “big december news” and the team’s position in september.
Sometimes it is best to do nothing than to do the wrong thing or the right thing at the wrong time.
Texas just reminded us of it. The “won” the PR game in the offseason but it’s made no significant difference in the standings.
“Seager and Semien, along with Adolis García, whom the Rangers acquired from St. Louis for cash in 2019, form a solid trio to build a lineup around.”
Not really. Obviously Seager sure, but Semien is 32 next year, is decent but not special by any means, and is already seeing the decline side of his bell curve.
Adolis Garcia has lots of tools but not great skills, which is often a profile that peaks well, but does not age well. He will be 30 next year and a still building team like the Rangers should be thinking about selling high while Garcia is still a commodity. He has a cheap contract and performing at his peak (WRC+ 113) – a performance level which is not necessarily all that likely in a couple of seasons when Chris Young’s Rangers might reasonably aspire to be competitive again.
Agree – at 16th in wRC+ (101) and 19th in wOBA, it’s not exactly a lineup that scares me. “Passably competent” perhaps?