The 2010 MLB Season Thread

[JonInMiddleGA]

It's also worth noting that Youklis was playing through a sore ankle just a few days ago, while there's no mention of any recent injury to Konerko that I can find.

[oykib]

I think the writer's point wasn't that Wins are that hard to figure out. I think it was that Wins, if they were invented today, would be looked at as a convoluted stat invented by people who spent too much time in their mother's basements-- especially in regard to vulturing Wins as a relief pitcher.

Most sabermetricians do themselves a disservice by putting down traditional stats. They have their place. They are an easily understood snapshot of a player's performance. It's not really easy to judge the difference between a WAR of 3.4 and 2.8. What does that difference of .6 mean? If we look at triple crown stats of two players, it's usually pretty clear who's better and by how much. When they're close, most of us do make our own judgements of tie-breakers (position, pressure, defensive ability, etc.).

Honestly, I really don't think the All-Star selections are worth a manager dealing with the minutiae of one pretty deserving guy vs. another slightly more deserving guy. And he's always going to pick the guy, his own player if it's at all close, that makes his life easier.

Any AS snub has to take it on the chin, and his fans should too. Hell, Hank Greenberg once missed an AS game when he had 35HR and 100RBIs at the break. None of these guys situations compare to that.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I can't believe that guy had enough light in his mother's basement to write that ridiculous nonsense.

Oh wait, that's two time AP "Best Sports Columnist," New York Times bestselling author, and Sports Illustrated baseball senior writer Joe Posnanski.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Oh wait, that's two time AP "Best Sports Columnist," New York Times bestselling author, and Sports Illustrated baseball senior writer Joe Posnanski.

Hmm, that might explain why virtually no one looks to SI for baseball coverage.

The rest says a lot more about the declining quality of sportswriters than anything else.

[Chief Rum]

I am a noted "non-sabermetrician". I also don't like the Red Sox. And I like Paul Konerko.

Having said all that, I agree with Joe Pos on this one. Girardi should have looked closer at it.

But, then, I'm still beyond annoyed that Girardi picked Sabathia over Weaver in the first place for the team (this has since been rectified, although Weav pitched yesterday, isn't he supposed to unavailable tomorrow?).

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I love the way the stathead writer assumes he knows more about baseball than a longtime player & manager.

I also particularly liked the way he used Youklis' runs scored advantage as a selling point. If I'm to believe that RBI's are meaningless since they're dependent upon all the players in the lineup ahead of the guy who drove them in, doesn't it also follow that Runs are meaningless since they're largely dependent upon all the players in the lineup behind the guy who got on base?

You make a good argument about the hypocritical use of "Runs" as an argument, but the "longtime player/manager" argument is a bad one.

Joe Morgan is one of the best 2B to ever play the game. Dusty Baker is a longtime player/manager. Both have said some of the dumbest things ever said about baseball.

[johnnyshaka]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I love the way the stathead writer assumes he knows more about baseball than a longtime player & manager.

I guess it boils down to what an "All-Star" is and should be. The popular theory is that it's the best stats (whatever they may be) get the call along with the most popular (for whatever reason). Maybe it even gets "personal", like whose wife makes the best apple pie, who knows? My point is, I think Joe put his foot in his mouth when he tried to justify his decision...it was his decision to make and he made it for whatever reason. He just needed to say that both have had fine seasons and that he felt Konerko's was more deserving...no need to go into why.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Joe Morgan is one of the best 2B to ever play the game. Dusty Baker is a longtime player/manager. Both have said some of the dumbest things ever said about baseball.

I won't disagree with you on either guy.

But they know at least as much as the dude in his mom's basement. After all, both sets of commentators say some of the dumbest things ever said about baseball.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

Have you ever made a legitimate point about anything?

I believe so. YMMV. {shrug}

edit to add: If that's a problem for ya, there's always the Ignore button.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

Pudge, Hammer, Desmond, Morse on the Nats bench tonight. It's as if they're intentionally trying to piss off Strasburg by not scoring.

EDIT: And Christian Guzman, who has been atrocious batting lefty this year, is batting in the 5 spot. Fire Rigglemoron now.

How do you feel about it 8 runs later?

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Marmel

The Yankee manager snubs the Red Sox guy. Shocking.

Ehh... I'd prefer every one of our guys get the days off anyway, especially one like Youkilis who has a history of declining as the year goes on and some weird foot/ankle injury. Bad enough that we'll apparently bump Lester so he can pitch in this. Plus, it's not like he picked Teixeira and his .825 OPS (although the .262 BABIP will regress to the mean) over Youk.

btw

Originally Posted by wins

(c) The official scorer shall not credit as the winning pitcher a relief pitcher who is ineffective in a brief appearance, when at least one succeeding relief pitcher pitches effectively in helping his team maintain its lead.

has anyone seen a scorer with the balls to follow this rule? Maybe I don't look close enough, but it's always seemed to go to the guy in to finish the 5th. I kind of wish the scorer had the option to give it to the most effective reliever regardless of when the team took the lead, although that might endanger official scorer's lives if they picked the wrong one (against Ugueth Urbina for example).

[larrymcg421]

If they insist on having a W/L stat, then I'd prefer they give the win to the starter if a) his team wins and b) the outing met certain criteria (i.e. a minimum number of innings and a Quality start).

The pitcher that pitches 7 shutout innings whose team scores in the bottom of the 9th deserves a Win as much as the pitcher who pitched 7 shutout winnings and leaves with 15-0 lead.

Likewise, a pitchers who gives up 6 runs in 5 innings does not deserve a Win under any circumstance.

[dawgfan]

Gee, what a shocker - an award-winning traditional media journalist who also happens to blog and has embraced modern statistical analysis of baseball is dismissed by JIMG.

He makes an outstanding point about the absurdity of those who cling to old, traditional baseball statistics and reject these complicated, modern statistics by showing just how convoluted the "win" statistic is for pitchers, and the point flies miles above JIMG's head.

Rarely have you made yourself look more like a neanderthal than you have lately in this thread, and with your posting history, that's really saying something.

[k0ruptr]

he didn't have to pick on Paulie


lol.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I love the way the stathead writer assumes he knows more about baseball than a longtime player & manager.

It's cause he does.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Gee, what a shocker - an award-winning traditional media journalist

dawg, I'm an award winning traditional media journalist (2x Georgia Stringer of the Year, once for the old UPI and once for AP), if that doesn't cause you to strongly discount the value of awards from the wire services then I don't know what will. That weighs quite a bit on how little value I place on them since all that was really required to win was being prolific, not being particularly talented.

He makes an outstanding point about the absurdity of those who cling to old, traditional baseball statistics and reject these complicated, modern statistics by showing just how convoluted the "win" statistic is for pitchers, and the point flies miles above JIMG's head.

Let me see here, this genuis complains that older stats have the advantage of history, which make the seem more transparent and easy to understand, though this isn’t necessarily true

and

Oh yeah, So simple. And people think OPS+ is complicated?

Now those two quotes give me the idea that he believes the criteria for wins are more complicated than OPS+ as well as difficult to understand.

My response to that is that if I could grasp them easily as a child then how impressed am I going to be with an alleged gifted writer who is gives every indication that he struggles/has struggled with them?

Rarely have you made yourself look more like a neanderthal than you have lately in this thread, and with your posting history, that's really saying something.

Too many of the pseudo-intellectual stat heads are like listening to Tony Schiavone proclaim "it's the greatest Monday Nitro ever" for 52 straight Monday nights. And then along comes another wanna be expert who complains about the complexity of the Wins criteria? But I'm the neanderthal?

Well fuck you very much dawgfan, that's why there's an ignore button, for both our sakes please make use of it more often.

edit to add: And I'll pledge to do a better job of refraining from clicking on posts from people I've had ignored for ages just in order to maintain the flow of a conversation. It kind of dawns on me today how high a percentage of the people I find to be intolerable twits in this conversation I've already got on ignore, that's my own fault for engaging them more than is necessary.

[rowech]

Jon,

If you have two identical batters in every way for an entire season. They get the same exact ABs, the same exact walks, the same exact doubles, etc. in the exact same order for the entire season....one guy bats 3rd or 4th and the other guy bats 8th...are they going to have the same number of RBIs? Are they going to have the same numbers of runs scored?

Runs are obviously important as that's what makes teams win/lose but the runs stat on their own don't mean anything until you can figure out the best way to produce those runs. That's what the new stats are about and they are extremely important to understanding baseball and a player's contributions a lot better. What stats contribute directly to producting runs, how stong do they contribute, is it worth paying/valuing those pieces more than others. That is what the new fangled stats are all about.

As far as wins...they're pointless. I've known that since I was 12 and started doing draft leagues for tabletop games. I didn't pay attention one bit. I looked at ERA and WHIP. If a guy gives up no baserunners and no runs, he might not get a win. How does that measure how well a guy pitched.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by rowech

If you have two identical batters in every way for an entire season. They get the same exact ABs, the same exact walks, the same exact doubles, etc. in the exact same order for the entire season....one guy bats 3rd or 4th and the other guy bats 8th...are they going to have the same number of RBIs? Are they going to have the same numbers of runs scored?

Runs are obviously important as that's what makes teams win/lose but the runs stat on their own don't mean anything until you can figure out the best way to produce those runs. That's what the new stats are about and they are extremely important to understanding baseball and a player's contributions a lot better. What stats contribute directly to producting runs, how stong do they contribute, is it worth paying/valuing those pieces more than others. That is what the new fangled stats are all about.

Rowech, you do get that I understand pretty much all of the new ones, right?

I tend to stop caring enough to understand them once people start adding XYZ+ to a measurement because it strikes me as overkill & I'm simply not that interested but there's nothing about the stats themselves that mystifies me. I've got my own grognard tendencies & am a fan of stats in general and if you had seen some of the convoluted measurements I've come up with for various tabletop games then you'd know there isn't much that's too convoluted for me to turn into a stat.

My primary objection is to absurdity, like the claims that RBI measures nothing (which occurred up the thread multiple times). Just say its not the end all/be all of offensive stats, you won't hear a peep out complaint from me. Claim that it's a poor measurement compared to NewStatABC and I'll generally let you make your case without much complaint. Dismiss it as a measurement of nothing and I may find myself compelled to call you out for a damned idiot.

If a guy gives up no baserunners and no runs, he might not get a win. How does that measure how well a guy pitched.

That's not necessarily how I view what Wins measures really. There's an element of that, but moreso an element of how the team overall fares when he pitches, which is something that most of the new stats doesn't even address. If you aren't playing fantasy baseball, where team performance doesn't matter, then there are definitely more useful stats. If you're a fan of a team or interested in team performance, then it's at worst a quick indication of some measure of how the team performs when that pitchers is crucial to the outcome. Imperfect? No argument from me.

In the case of this latest outbreak, I find the writer to be laughable, although not the worst example of irrational prejudice for the latestgreateststat. The runs/rbi's thing pretty much sealed the deal for me on it, the rest of my objection is because he comes across as a pretentious asshole, much like the large majority of latestgreateststat proponents.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The runs/rbi's thing pretty much sealed the deal for me on it, the rest of my objection is because he comes across as a pretentious asshole, much like the large majority of latestgreateststat proponents.

FWIW, (if I'm not one of the lucky thousand on your ignore list) I think you're misreading the writer on the Runs/RBI's thing. His point isn't that Runs are more meaningful than RBI's, it's that looking at the complete line that would be printed on a 1960 Topps card, Youkilis looks better. That Youkilis is having the better half-season before you get into advanced metrics or even fielding ability and positional flexibility.

Originally Posted by the article

Look, here’s the depth of Joe Girardi’s analysis:
– Konerko is hitting .299 with 20 homers and 63 RBIs.
– Youkilis is hitting .293 with 18 homers and 57 RBIs.

That’s it? That’s how far Joe Girardi is willing to go to pick his All-Star choice? Because, I’m looking only a little bit deeper here … Youkilis has three more doubles, five more triples and 12 more walks. Youkilis has scored 17 more runs (he leads the league). He even has three more stolen bases. His on-base percentage is 26 points higher, his slugging percentage is 19 points higher. I have absolutely no doubt that even looking only at the basic stats, Youkilis’ first half offensive numbers are slightly but distinctly better than Konerko’s …

Of course, it's pretty likely that Girardi either had more complicated reasoning that didn't come across in a one-line quote, or he cares so little about the all-star game that he couldn't be bothered to look for more than 5 seconds. But as long as we're arguing the point...

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

dawg, I'm an award winning traditional media journalist (2x Georgia Stringer of the Year, once for the old UPI and once for AP), if that doesn't cause you to strongly discount the value of awards from the wire services then I don't know what will. That weighs quite a bit on how little value I place on them since all that was really required to win was being prolific, not being particularly talented.

Granted, but there's a bit of a difference between a regional award and a national one.

Let me see here, this genuis complains that older stats have the advantage of history, which make the seem more transparent and easy to understand, though this isn’t necessarily true

and

Oh yeah, So simple. And people think OPS+ is complicated?

Now those two quotes give me the idea that he believes the criteria for wins are more complicated than OPS+ as well as difficult to understand.

My response to that is that if I could grasp them easily as a child then how impressed am I going to be with an alleged gifted writer who is gives every indication that he struggles/has struggled with them?

Jon, we understood Wins as kids because that was one of the primary stats of the time. Kids today that read blogs grasp advanced metrics. And that's his point.

Now, I think he glosses over the complexity argument - while I get what things like WAR and VORP and xFIP measure, I couldn't give you an exact formula, whereas I can recite pretty much all the basics about how pitcher wins are defined. That's not to say that pitcher wins aren't still an odd, somewhat convoluted statistic, but it is easier to explain than many of the new advanced metrics.

Too many of the pseudo-intellectual stat heads are like listening to Tony Schiavone proclaim "it's the greatest Monday Nitro ever" for 52 straight Monday nights. And then along comes another wanna be expert who complains about the complexity of the Wins criteria? But I'm the neanderthal?

The "pseudo-intellectual stat heads" wouldn't really have much reason to act smarter than thou if it weren't for people like Girardi making idiotic statements about the numbers favoring Konerko over Youkilis.

Well fuck you very much dawgfan, that's why there's an ignore button, for both our sakes please make use of it more often.

edit to add: And I'll pledge to do a better job of refraining from clicking on posts from people I've had ignored for ages just in order to maintain the flow of a conversation. It kind of dawns on me today how high a percentage of the people I find to be intolerable twits in this conversation I've already got on ignore, that's my own fault for engaging them more than is necessary.

Ah, this give me a pleasant feeling. I start to get worried when I've gone a long time between massive disagreements with/being revulsed by you; I start to wonder what's wrong with me. Now I know that all is right with the world...

[TroyF]

My primary objection is to absurdity, like the claims that RBI measures nothing (which occurred up the thread multiple times). Just say its not the end all/be all of offensive stats, you won't hear a peep out complaint from me. Claim that it's a poor measurement compared to NewStatABC and I'll generally let you make your case without much complaint. Dismiss it as a measurement of nothing and I may find myself compelled to call you out for a damned idiot.

This is pretty much the way I look at it. I love stats. Love them, love them, love them. I love advanced stats, basic stats, any kind of stats. If it can be measured in some way, I'm there.

It's just the no stat is entirely worthless. It's the context you take with the stat that's important. If I'm talking with someone and they say "player x had 10 more RBI and 2 more HR than player y, he's clearly the better player" I'll step up and throw a fit. Probably to the point he'll think I'm an unbelievable geek and will run away.

But say something like RBI is worthless? Please.

[Lathum]

I enjoy the HR hitting competition but don't know how much of Boomer I can stand

[samifan24]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I enjoy the HR hitting competition but don't know how much of Boomer I can stand

To top it all off the loudmouth is now a member of the Pro Football Hall of Fame

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by samifan24

To top it all off the loudmouth is now a member of the Pro Football Hall of Fame

To his credit he has really toned down the BACK BACK BACK BACK


Corey Hart putting on a show

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by TroyF

But say something like RBI is worthless? Please.

I think those saying the RBI stat is "worthless" are over reacting to the value that old school stat guys place on it. Both are wrong. RBI as a stat carries some value, but not much.

[Drake]

Just for the record: I hate the All-Star break.

I wish they would play baseball 358 days a year. Give the WS winner a week off to bask, then back at it.

[Drake]

dola,,,

I completely recognize that in the above scenario that the WS would subsequently become meaningless to me, and then I'd hate that, too.

I still hate the All-Star break.

[JetsIn06]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I think those saying the RBI stat is "worthless" are over reacting to the value that old school stat guys place on it. Both are wrong. RBI as a stat carries some value, but not much.

I think the best way to describe it is this: It's not a good stat to use when comparing players.

[rowech]

All-star break is essentially the only two days (Mon and Wed) where there are no major sports being played at all. I believe it's still the only two days on the entire calender where there is no baseball, football, basketball, or hockey.

[jbergey22]

I think you are missing something if you choose to ignore sabermetric stats however in the case of Youkilis and Konerko. I have seen much worse decisions. The White Sox are leading the AL Central and Konerko is the major offensive contributor on that team. As a Twins fan I am still waiting for a 2 month long slump that he seems to have every year to start however.

[miked]

Is George Steinbrenner dead?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Report: Yankees' Steinbrenner dies at age 80 - ESPN New York

[miked]

Yup, just heard it on the radio

[JonInMiddleGA]

NY Daily News now reporting it as well.

Yankees owner George Steinbrenner has died: source

[stevew]

man, that sucks.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Yep. Legit chances at getting to a World Series don't come around often for most franchises. Maybe Smoak turns into a 10-time All-Star slugger, but there's no guarantee the Rangers would have a good enough lineup around him to be in the playoffs all the time. With Lee, they have a real shot at getting into the World Series and winning it.

I'm surprised the Yankees were so intent on getting Lee now and giving up a top prospect in the process when they are the front-runners to get him as a free agent this winter, but it just goes to show you how valuable he is perceived by playoff contending teams - right now, he is arguably the best pitcher in the game and a guy that can make a real impact in the playoffs.

They dont have a legit chance of making the World Series IMO. Their pitching will still be the worst among AL playoff teams.

This is probably why the Twins and their small market have been able to stay successful for a very long time. They dont give up their key prospects for 2 month rentals.

The Rangers have one of the most talented minor leagues in baseball right now so Im sure they would have had other chances to make the playoffs.

Id be pissed if I was a Rangers fan. Most pitchers that go to Texas just suck anyway as its not much different than the old coors field there.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

They dont have a legit chance of making the World Series IMO. Their pitching will still be the worst among AL playoff teams.

This is probably why the Twins and their small market have been able to stay successful for a very long time. They dont give up their key prospects for 2 month rentals.

The Rangers have one of the most talented minor leagues in baseball right now so Im sure they would have had other chances to make the playoffs.

Id be pissed if I was a Rangers fan. Most pitchers that go to Texas just suck anyway as its not much different than the old coors field there.

First off, the playoffs are a crapshoot. The Braves had a dominant pitching staff for years and won once. You have to get a little lucky, catch some breaks and get hot at the right time. If you have a chance to get in the playoffs, you do it.

The Rangers have a deep, deep minor league system. They can afford to give up a prospect for a rental, and then turn that into 2 draft picks.

I think this was a good move.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by TroyF

First off, the playoffs are a crapshoot. The Braves had a dominant pitching staff for years and won once. You have to get a little lucky, catch some breaks and get hot at the right time. If you have a chance to get in the playoffs, you do it.

The Rangers have a deep, deep minor league system. They can afford to give up a prospect for a rental, and then turn that into 2 draft picks.

I think this was a good move.

First of all this move guarantees nothings. The White Sox are always throwing shit against the fan around this time of year and it hardly ever works out for them.

Secondly we obviously have different opinions on this as I am a Twins fan and they dont waste their talent on this type of stuff. Other teams may feel a 2 month rental on a good pitcher is worth one of the top prospects in baseball while I think it is just not very smart. I am very glad the Twins opted to not give up Ramos and Hicks for Lee.

If the playoffs started today the Rangers odds of winning the World Series would probably be around 30-1. So basically they gave up one of the top prospects for a 1 and 30 chance of winning the World Series. With that said the Rangers do have a decent sized payroll budget so this is a mistake they can likely live with.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

If the playoffs started today the Rangers odds of winning the World Series would probably be around 30-1.

BoDog lists them today at 15/2.

Only the Yankees are better odds at 3/1, with Tampa also 15/2.

[Logan]

jbergey talking out of his ass? MBBF thinking Steinbrenner is the devil?

Welcome to FOFC.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

BoDog lists them today at 15/2.

Only the Yankees are better odds at 3/1, with Tampa also 15/2.

That surprises me. Thanks for the info.

Yanks at 3/1 seem like a good bet right now.

[molson]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

If the playoffs started today the Rangers odds of winning the World Series would probably be around 30-1. So basically they gave up one of the top prospects for a 1 and 30 chance of winning the World Series. With that said the Rangers do have a decent sized payroll budget so this is a mistake they can likely live with.

I would say the odds are, at worst, 8 1/2 or 9 to 1. I'd only put them a little lower than 8-1 because they might not have home-field in an ALCS.

Baseball outcomes in short series are SO close to a coin flip. You could put the Pirates in the playoffs and they wouldn't be much worse than a 10-1 shot.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Logan

jbergey talking out of his ass? MBBF thinking Steinbrenner is the devil?

Welcome to FOFC.

Talking out my ass? Why dont you decide this when the Rangers get beat out in the 1st round and Smoak is a 5 time all star.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by molson

I would say the odds are, at worst, 8 1/2 or 9 to 1. I'd only put them a little lower than 8-1 because they might not have home-field in an ALCS.

Baseball outcomes in short series are SO close to a coin flip. You could put the Pirates in the playoffs and they wouldn't be much worse than a 10-1 shot.

Oh cmon now.

There is 8 teams in the playoffs. If all teams were even theyd all be 8-1 minus the juice.

If the books make the Yankees 2-1 which will likely happen that leaves the rest of the teams at 16-1 odds. Since I believe the Rangers are going to be the least capable team in the playoffs I dont feel my 30-1 is terribly off.

[molson]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Oh cmon now.

There is 8 teams in the playoffs. If all teams were even theyd all be 8-1 minus the juice.

That's my point. In a 5 or 7 game series, everything is just about even money, with a slight advantage for home field/last ups.

Let me put it this way. Playing .600 baseball is a great achievement. (97 wins over a season). In the NFL, .600 gets you 9 1/2 wins in a season. In the NBA, .600 is 49 wins.

Baseball is a different kind of game. Results can only be evaluated over months.

Maybe some mathematician can figure out the odds in a 5 or 7 game series, if a .600 team plays a .550 team. I'm sure there's not much of a difference.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by molson

That's my point. In a 5 or 7 game series, everything is just about even money, with a slight advantage for home field/last ups.

Your saying the Pirates in a 5 game series with the Yankees is basically a coin flip? Thats crazy.

Yankees would be -300 at the worst.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

The White Sox are always throwing shit against the fan around this time of year and it hardly ever works out for them.

.

Comparing going out and getting an over the hill Ken Griffey Jr. or a broken down Jake Peavy to getting possibly the best pitcher in baseball and a guy who was unhittable in the playoffs last year is absurd.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Comparing going out and getting an over the hill Ken Griffey Jr. or a broken down Jake Peavy to getting possibly the best pitcher in baseball and a guy who was unhittable in the playoffs last year is absurd.

Their list is a hell of a lot longer than them two.

So if Lee goes to Texas and sucks the rest of this year and gets hurt next year was he over the hill right now as well?

Peavy was in high demand last year at this time in case you had forgotten.

[ISiddiqui]

Let's take a step back for a second. The Rangers have a great farm system. It isn't like they have no one else in the system and dealt their only future star. Sometimes you need to deal big prospects every once in a while to improve you team while still growing home grown talent.