D

Live Blog Feed

Finalizing The Rangers Roster: The Madness Of MJH

Posted on March 31st, 2009 11:26am by Evan Grant
Filed under Baseball, Burning Questions, Front Office, Roster report, Talkin' baseball, Texas Rangers

Earlier today, my attorney pal, the Mighty MJH detailed the Rangers’ 40-man roster conundrum and how he’d clear roster spots for all the non-roster invitees who are expected to make the team. If the Rangers need to expose two players to waivers, he’s willing to put 3B Travis Metcalf and RHP Luis Mendoza out there. If the Rangers can’t slide RHP Tommy Hunter to the 60-day DL and he’s got to go with a third guy, it’s LHP Kason Gabbard.

Mike’s a brilliant baseball analyst, but I think in this situation he’s overlooking a very simple governing tenet to roster management: Don’t create holes in your system when you can avoid them.

To wit: I think Metcalf would get claimed in a minute. Actually a New York minute. If you are the Yankees scrambling to fill third base in the absence of Details model/admitteed steroid user Alex Rodriguez, do you 33-year-old Cody Ransom with a .251 career batting average and .780 on-base-plus-slugging percentage? Or somebody six years younger with virtually the same major league stats (.249 batting average; .775 OPS) and a whole lot more power potential? Oh, and did I mention Metcalf is an above average fielder.

And if you lose Metcalf, what happens if Michael Young suffers an injury. Who is the Rangers third baseman? Mike suggests INF German Duran. While Duran did start 25 games at third, he’s a middle infielder and asking him to play the position is a stretch. Metcalf may never be anything more than an insurance policy for the Rangers, but he’s a good insurance policy to have.

If I’m going to have to expose players to waivers, here are my choices:

1. RHP Luis Mendoza

2. OF Greg Golson

3. RHP Dustin Nippert

As Mike points out, Mendoza might just be the next Armando Galarraga, which is why we’re over-analyzing the roster moves. Mendoza came from nowhere in 2007 to establish himself as a prospect, but he slid backwards badly last year. He had no real command of his sinking fastball and was completely without confidence when he took the mound late in the season. In spring training this year, he dealt with a blister problem that set him back for the third consecutive spring. And he’s looked not one bit more confident on the mound when he has pitched.

As for the position player, I hold on to Metcalf as insurance and am more willing to part ways with Golson, a speedy, toolsy outfielder who hasn’t really shown much aptitude as a hitter. I’ve got speedy, toolsy guys in my system and they’ve shown much more aptitude as hitters. If somebody gets hurt, Brandon Boggs will be in the majors. If two somebodies get hurt, Julio Borbon is already a better option than Golson. I’m not entirely sure Craig Gentry isn’t at least as much a prospect as Golson at this point (maybe I’m nuts, but it’s my position).

On No. 3, here’s why I go with Nippert: He’s about to turn 29, er, 28 (Thanks, Goyogringo!) which is hopelessly old for a guy just trying to get a legitimate shot in the big leagues. He’s never been very consistent when it comes to throwing strikes. His chief asset seems to be an ability to pitch multiple innings, multiple times a week. That screams: MUGY (Mop-Up Guy, just made up the acronym). That kind of pitcher can have value on a team like the Rangers where it seems the starters are always going to need some reinforcements, but if I’ve got to choose between a lefty (Kason Gabbard) who is a year younger and who has shown (on those rare occasions he’s healthy) some degree of “pitchability” as a starter or a MUGY, I’ll go with the lefty every time.

Back to you, MJH

42 Comments to “Finalizing The Rangers Roster: The Madness Of MJH”

Adam @ March 31st, 2009 at 11:36 am

Evan, Metcalf sucks. Deal with it already.
Brett in SD @ March 31st, 2009 at 11:38 am

Will you or Mike please explain why you wouldn’t, if you have to expose a player to waivers, expose Eyre as opposed to Nippert? Eyre’s older and less experienced than Nippert. Considering Nippert and Eyre have nearly identical ballpark-adjusted ERA’s (~4.50) and career WHIPS of ~1.6, why not go with the younger Nippert who can also give you an occasional start in a pinch? If Nippert is a MUGY, then it seems Eyre is a BUMUGY (Back-Up Mop-Up Guy).
Brent @ March 31st, 2009 at 11:43 am

Are we SURE that Andrew Jones is the answer at DH/5OF? Because if we’re not, let him AND Cat go, bring up Boggs, and you don’t have to make any hard decisions on pitchers or toolsy outfielders.

Evan, are we SURE?
Jared @ March 31st, 2009 at 11:51 am

Sorry Evan, you’re out of your freaking mind if you want to drop Golson over Metcalf.

Out.of.your.mind.
Jon @ March 31st, 2009 at 11:54 am

Evan,

Your analysis, “I think Metcalf would get claimed in a minute. Actually a New York minute” begs the question – then why hasn’t he been traded?

Awaitng your reply.

Thanks
Charles @ March 31st, 2009 at 12:06 pm

Evan,
Have to say I agree with the consensus here. I’ve been a fan of Metcalf’s to the extent that I’m a fan of any Ranger. I’ve always pulled for him, but let’s face it he’s a serviceable backup/marginal starter at his very best. If MY can play through what he did last year, I’ve got total confidence in his getting through 155+ games this year. If not we’ve got a lot bigger problems than worrying about losing Metcalf to an always difficult end of spring roster decision. Sure Golson has some sizable weaknesses in his game at this point, but giving up on his huge potential based on athleticism after just bringing him into the fold and then having him turn into a big time player somewhere else would once again reflect very negatively on the Daniels administration. That’s not going to happen. 1. Mendoza (to me he is by far the weakest member of the 40-man by a long shot at this point), 2. Metcalf, 3. Eyre or Nippert (if these guys can’t take advantage of the situation – injuries or not – after this many opportunities, are they ever going to)
utb @ March 31st, 2009 at 12:15 pm

Evan,

It’s not about 2009. So exposing a guy like Golson – who actually has potential to be a contributor at some point – instead of roster fodder like Metcalf, seems like an odd move.

Texas isn’t contending in 2009 with or without a backup 3rd baseman. So the real question becomes: who has a better chance to be a long-term ML contributor in the future: Golson or Metcalf?

It’s a no-brainer, IMO.
Evan Grant @ March 31st, 2009 at 12:15 pm

You all raise good points – and Jon, I don’t have an answer for why he hasn’t been traded – but I’m sticking with my opinion.

My question on Golson remains: Please tell me what role you ever see him filling here? Will he play ahead of Boggs this year? No. Will he play ahead of Borbon next year? No. Would you ever have him and Borbon in the same outfield? Maybe if you were the 1980s St. Louis Cardinals, but not in AL park where power is a premium. Just don’t see a scenario where Golson could realistically contribute here. Do see one where Metcalf could: A freak injury to Michael Young.
Shawn @ March 31st, 2009 at 12:15 pm

Since Nippert is out of options it would be best to release him now, instead of releasing someone else now and then another when Nippert becomes healthy. Especially if you are going to have Feldman, Jennings, or Rupe in that same role.
boomer1 @ March 31st, 2009 at 12:15 pm

If NY wanted Metcalf they would have him already. I have enough faith in JD that he made that call to Cashman when he found out about AROD. Even if they do claim him so what? Duran or Whittleman would do just fine if something happened to MY.

I think you have had too much sun to your head Evan.
Goyogringo @ March 31st, 2009 at 12:26 pm

Thanks Evan but I will take MJH’s left-brain analytics to your right-brain obfuscation. Outrighting Golson sounds like something that would get uttered in the SWST break room (and then make its way to print). By talent measure alone, Nipples wins a spot on the roster in a tete-a-tete with Metcalf. Metcalf has been a below average 3B since ST of ‘08; stop living in 2007 when Metcalf was still a prospect. And just for the record, Nipples won’t turn 28 until May – he’s not Dominican after all. As for Mendoza, even as a one-pitch dude: Mendoza > Metcalf.

Instead of trying to “hide” a 260lb pitcher on the DL or contort yourself into believing that Metcalf is a talent, you might consider the most sensible solution: outright Eyre. He’s the one guy (still injured, still old, still only 1yr in the bigs) who will go unclaimed and remain in the system (with options).
BillyW @ March 31st, 2009 at 12:27 pm

I think lunch with the Sonic chick has affected your normally good sense. I have always been a Metcalf fan. But even I have seen the light. He just not a ML 3rd baseman. I really cant see him being claimed, but if he is its not the end of the world
Charles @ March 31st, 2009 at 12:33 pm

Evan, that conundrum is actually a pretty easy one to answer in my opinion. Let’s say Golson goes out and has a very good year, shows better plate discipline and starts really giving indications that he’s going to reach his potential. I’d say that the chance of that happening is just as high (or low, depending on being a cup half-empty or full kind of guy) as MY going down with a catastrophic injury given his durability in the past. Then you’ve got another great trade chip. All of this excess being built up on the farm isn’t going to pay dividends with the Rangers on the big league club, but (and it is a really big “but” that Newberg mentions all the time)some of it is going to be packaged for very important pieces in the future. You don’t give up on a guy with very high upside potential for a guy that is going to be a perpetual question mark and guaranteed casualty to the 40-man at some point in the not too distant future given what is coming up on the farm. Not too mention, that even though Whittleman isn’t ready yet on the farm and likely won’t be for a while – he’s still not much of a drop off from Metcalf if you absolutely had to go with someone at the point of a big MY injury.
utb @ March 31st, 2009 at 12:41 pm

Evan,

What is the best case scenario for keeping Metcalf…that if Young goes down Texas has a well below-average sub to fill in?

If Golson turns the corner as a hitter, he could easily become a valuable player or trade chip. Metcalf has sucked in the MiLs and I doubt he figures it out at the ML level. He is what he is: a defensive 3rd baseman that has proven, throughout his career, that he can’t hit.

For a team that is looking at 2010 and beyond, give me the guy high-potential young guy over the “insurance policy.”
Adam @ March 31st, 2009 at 12:42 pm

Evan: Golson could have a breakout year and would be a very good trade piece. Metcalf sucks dude, if Young gets hurt than Duran or Vallejo could fill in for him nicely.
Jared @ March 31st, 2009 at 12:44 pm

Evan, if we’re cutting someone that won’t ever contribute here then let’s cut Max Ramirez who is double blocked at catcher and blocked at DH by either Davis or Smoak.

It’s about value, and Golson has far, far more value and more upside to be included in a meaningful trade than Metcalf does.
Jared @ March 31st, 2009 at 12:45 pm

And for the record, I’m completely kidding about cutting Max. I was making a point.
Charles @ March 31st, 2009 at 12:47 pm

Point well made Jared…
Kaisersoze @ March 31st, 2009 at 12:49 pm

Metcalf is going to prove you guys wrong. I’ve never understood why there is so much hate for the guy.
Brett in SD @ March 31st, 2009 at 12:53 pm

Evan,

Who gets bumped from the Rangers’ 12-man pitching staff when Eyre returns? It seems the only two possibilities would be Jason Jennings and Josh Rupe. Is Eyre really better than either of them?
Tommy @ March 31st, 2009 at 12:54 pm

I’m in agreement with some of the points above.

Keep Golson over Metcalf. Golson has the higher upside and has much more potential as a trade chip than Metcalf. And that’s all Golson would be is trade bait. That’s a better best-case scenario than Metcalf can offer. I’ll take German Duran as the emergency 3rd baseman over Metcalf.

Also, I would get rid of pitchers in this order: Eyre, Nippert, Mendoza, Gabbard. Eyre goes first because he can’t be a starter, and he’s the oldest. I can’t decide between Nippert and Mendoza because they’re both so frustrating. If only these guys could throw strikes! The Rangers can never afford to give up young lefthanders. Ever.
t ball @ March 31st, 2009 at 12:55 pm

On Metcalf, why would the Yankees trade for him if they think there’s a good chance he gets released and they can have him for nothing or a waiver claim?
dooley in dallas @ March 31st, 2009 at 1:02 pm

The Rangers have had Golson for one spring. They traded former No. 1 Mayberry for him. They owe it to the organization to give Golson a longer look than one spring.
He is already tradeable. Give Rudy some time away from Andruw Jones and let him work more with Golson, and he might turn the corner as a hitter.
Mendoza, Metcalf and Nippert in that order would be the three I’d take off the 40.
Ace @ March 31st, 2009 at 1:07 pm

I see both sides of the arguments about Metcalf and Golson but I have to agree with Evan from the standpoint that the depth at OF in the organization is much better than the 3rd base depths. Its true that Golson in a year or 2 could turn into the true 5 tool player some people seem to think he can be but who do you replace in the Rangers OF when/if he is ready. Hamilton and Bourbon are locks in my opinion for at least the next 5 years with Murphy and Boggs in the 3rd/4th OF roll(I am just looking at who we have now in the ML or on the cusp, not prospects who are 2 or 3 years away). The team has to look at the here and now more so than next year when it comes to roster managment. Otherwise they would have Holland in the rotation this year from the start instead of looking at him as a mid season call up.

Another thing, I really like how the comments on this blog are more constructive and discussion like than the DMN blogs. At least here, so far, you opinion isnt ripped apart by someone who thinks their 9th grade education makes them experts
bill powell @ March 31st, 2009 at 1:16 pm

WELL, Evan, looks like your out voted and maybe outsmarted…..
I have to chime in with the pack, with one exception, Eyre goes FIRST, unless you know something WE dont, then Metcalf..
Brandon B @ March 31st, 2009 at 1:17 pm

I’m not going to argue who should be dropped between Metcalf and Golson. I am going to point out the hilarity of saying that Golson is anything more than a AAA roster filler. What exactly is the fascination with this guy? I think it was Keith Law who said it best on this blog. When asked if Golson is a similar player to Mike Cameron, he said that they are both black, but the similarities end there. Please quit drinking the MJH kool-aid and look at Golson’s track record. The guy isn’t just going to “turn the corner” this season and be worth something. All he has to do is add some power, contact, and patience. Heck, anyone can do that at the AAA level. Yeah, good luck with that.

The Rangers have plenty of space on their 40 man roster for when the real prospects and players show up. They could drop any of these guys today and not be any worse off:

Kris Benson
Dustin Nippert
Scott Feldman
Greg Golson
Travis Metcalf
Willie Eyre
Luis Mendoza
Joe Koshansky
Frank Catalanotto

That’s 9 players who likely wouldn’t be on the 40 man roster of a good team. Benson, Nippert, Feldman, and Catalanotto wouldn’t be on the 25 man roster of a contender for sure.
Tsing Sao @ March 31st, 2009 at 1:21 pm

Great, but what would they do when they get Gary Sheffield? Based on Rangers current track, I wont be surprised if they get Sheff (same principles: low investment, potentially rewarding player who just got released)…
blalock @ March 31st, 2009 at 1:22 pm

id outright mendoza and eyre and be done with it…
Brandon B @ March 31st, 2009 at 1:27 pm

dooley, what difference does it make what the Rangers traded for Golson? Don’t forget, the Phillies traded a former #1 pick for Mayberry.
gordosan @ March 31st, 2009 at 1:57 pm

Would anyone else give consideration to keeping Arias up as the back up middle infielder and passing on Visquel.
boomer1 @ March 31st, 2009 at 2:02 pm

No I think you keep Vizquel around to help out Andrus.
Charles @ March 31st, 2009 at 2:29 pm

Brandon B…so what you’re saying is drop everyone who isn’t going to turn the corner and then what, field one A/AA/AAA team with the guys who have “it” – all that is tongue in cheek. I’m not the least bit invested in Golson and frankly I think the chance that he pans out as anything more than a AAAA or 4/5 outfielder is pretty remote, but that isn’t the question. Even evoking Keith Law doesn’t mean a whole lot because every one of those guys has made a bad call on someone. I bet I can go to any championship team over the last decade and find guys the equivalent of Catalanotto or Feldman or even Benson. Were they playing limited roles, ofcourse, but they still had a purpose. I agree that none of the guys that you listed are catastrophic losses, but so what? The question isn’t hey how do we trim it down to 31 guys, it’s how do they trim it down the least and field the team they want to come opening day. Who’s got the upside and who can we trade a toolsy unproductive outfielder for when some Jim Bowden clone surfaces as the GM of a team. There is always someone out there willing to take a chance if you can work out the right deal.
utb @ March 31st, 2009 at 3:06 pm

Brandon B,

I bet you didn’t believe that Cruz was going to “turn the corner” either. The farm-system is all about guys with potential. Golson has it. Will he tap into it at some point – doubtful.

But Metcalf has no upside. He will turn 27 at the end of the year and has produced a 9-year career of mediocrity.

Golson, OTOH, is 23 years old, and has skills to at least become a serviceable 4th OFer…and much more if the “light” turns on. Golson is, more than likely, going to be a non-factor…but he much more likely to contribute than Metcalf.
Brandon B @ March 31st, 2009 at 3:13 pm

Charles, you are assuming our GM can turn a toolsy unproductive player into something other than another toolsy unproductive player. The next time JD wins an offseason trade will be the first.

That said, you missed my point. I’m not saying they should just cut all of those guys. I’m saying that none of those guys is worth worrying about losing. Too many people on this blog think that the Rangers have some crisis over choosing who to cut. In reality, the Rangers have plenty of guys who would be cut by the Yankees or Red Sox without hesitation if the right player came along. Heck, Nippert was cut by the DBacks. You don’t see them worrying about the potential of a guy who will have a career ERA over 5.00. At the same time, you see a bunch of Rangers fans worrying about Nippert being given his walking papers. Most MLB teams could come up with a 5.00+ERA guy any time any place. So why worry and argue about Nippert. Oh, wait it’s because he has “potential”. Forget that he has never shown anything at the MLB level other than the ability to be a contributor on the worst staff in baseball.

Sure you can find A guy on any championship team that fits into the Benson/Catalanotto category. You won’t find a championship team that has 3 (Benson, Feldman, Nippert) of 12 MLB pitchers that fit into that category.
Jolly @ March 31st, 2009 at 3:19 pm

Evan: Your count is off. If Tommy Hunter goes to the 60 day DL you only need 1 guy dropped off the 40 roster if you also drop Koshansky (for now)……..
Surely we can find a position player so we don’t have to have Galarraga nightmares…..
And keeping Coach Vizquel over Arias makes you need that extra spot………..
Brandon B @ March 31st, 2009 at 3:27 pm

utb, you are joking right? Cruz has “turned the corner”? Have you ever compared the minor league stats between Cruz and Golson? By your statement, I’m going to assume not because if you had, you wouldn’t be silly enough to even list the two players in the same sentence.

Let me give you a quick glance at the minor league stats of the 2.

Golson: 5 seasons, .265 AVG, .310 OBP, .406 SLG, 716 OPS, 46 HR, 120 SB, 623 K
Cruz: 8 seaons, .298 AVG, .370 OBP, .539 SLG, 909 OPS, 149 HR, 105 SB, 707 K

If you can seriously look at those numbers and say that Golson has the same step to take to become a MLB player, then there is no sense arguing with you. Cruz has put up those numbers playing 5 seasons at AAA. Golson’s pitiful numbers come playing 5 seasons below AAA.

Sure all of the guys in the minor leagues have potential. However, real prospects like Cruz have skill. Guys like Golson continue to have potential with nothing to show for it.

Please don’t get me wrong. I would love to see Golson turn into a 5 tool player at the MLB level. Unlike some, I’m not going to lose sleep over it and cry if the Rangers cut a career underachiever with little potential to turn his potential into contact with the ball.

To answer your first assumption that I thought the Rangers should cut Cruz, I didn’t think they should and I thought all along they hadn’t given him a legitimate shot. Don’t believe me? Search the DMN blogs and you will find all proof that your assumption was false.
Brandon B @ March 31st, 2009 at 3:34 pm

utb, one other thing. Please show me where I said the Rangers should keep Metcalf or where I stated he is a better prospect than Golson? I do agree with Evan for the reasons he stated. That doesn’t mean I think Metcalf is a better prospect because I don’t. As Evan stated, the Rangers don’t have a need for Golson since he sits behind Boggs and Borbon. They do have a need for a backup 3B. MY has been durable his whole career, but the guy is a year older than last year. He is going to have an injury sooner or later. He had some kind of hand injury last year that he was able to play through. Assuming he won’t get hurt because he has never been hurt is foolish especially considering guys are throwing balls in his direction at 95 mph. It wouldn’t take much to hit him in the hand or elbow and end his season.
Goyogringo @ March 31st, 2009 at 3:44 pm

BB – Miss the DMN blog do ya?
utb @ March 31st, 2009 at 3:49 pm

Brandon,

Again – you are solely focusing on this year. What if Golson does turn the corner? What if he breaks out in 2009 and becomes a legit CF option. Then Texas has the ability to flip him for something valuable – whereas Metcalf will never have any value.

And yes, Cruz and Golson are completely different players – but the point remains, Cruz didn’t “figure it out” until age 29, despite doing well in the minors.

Murphy was also a late bloomer. Sorry – you don’t just cut talented players at age 22/23 b/c they haven’t done it “yet.”

Like I said – Golson is probably nothing more than a future 4th/5th OFer – but there is a chance he turns into much more. Why eliminate that possibility by cutting him in favor of a below-average 27-year-old? Who cares if Young goes down – this team isn’t contending this year anyway.

And people here get concerned about roster decisions because sometimes guys that “haven’t figured it out” DO figure it out…ala Galaragga.
Ehren @ March 31st, 2009 at 3:49 pm

Evan,

I agree with your assessment. Eyre and Nippert are both expendable. The Rangers don’t trade Metcalf because they had 8 players play third last year. Golson to me is just another Donald Harris.
Brandon B @ March 31st, 2009 at 4:42 pm

utb, the point doesn’t remain. Cruz was always a stud in the minors. Golson never has been and likely never will be. The situations are completely different. Cruz appears to have finally figured out MLB pitchers. Golson has yet to figure out A or AA pitchers after 5 seasons. What would make anyone think he is going to figure out AAA pitching this year?

Why do you write off the Rangers so quickly? As constructed now, they aren’t going to the playoffs, but who’s to say that they don’t make some trades later and/or sign Sheets mid-season if the aged Angels crater? There is a lot of season left before writing any team off. And believe me, I am not a Hicks kool-aid drinker.
utb @ March 31st, 2009 at 9:26 pm

Sorry – but a rotation of Millwood, Padilla, BMac, Harrison and Benson isn’t going to allow this thing to contend.

A bullpen of Francisco, Wilson, Guardado, Rupe, Feldman and Madrigal isn’t going to allow this thing to contend.

If you are looking at 2009, you are missing the big picture.