Comments on: What the heck was that? Rangers conference call edition

By: macjacmccoy

macjacmccoy — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 04:54:44 +0000

“The Rangers can now tell their fans “hey, we tried” when Lee is cracking a grin and buttoning up a pinstriped uniform in a couple of days”

Close he’ll be wearing pin stripes just not blue ones. They’ll red.

By: BC

BC — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 15:20:50 +0000

EPIC RANGERS FAIL.

By: bigharold

bigharold — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 14:10:19 +0000

Agreed. My point is that as much as the Rangers would have like to have Lee, I think they really didn’t want to pay the “reasonable” price for him. No way they wanted to pay the exorbitant price the Yankees look like they are about to pay. And, for get about the years. But, you need to show an aggressive and active face to the face to keep them engaged. I think the Rangers always knew that Lee wasn’t going to stay and that they weren’t going to try that hard either. All that talk about going after Lee aggressively during the playoffs was a kind of preemptive damage control. Had they fessed up during the playoffs and said no way we can afford Lee if the Yankees or LAA are going for him it would have looked terrible.

They just needed to put up the good fight and they did. Now that the RS have forced the Yankees to go to the 7th year the fans will not hold it against the Rangers. Ryan should send Epstein a great bif Thank You card.

By: iamthedoublestandard

iamthedoublestandard — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 07:50:01 +0000

I have to agree that’s pretty pathetic. If Lee wants to be led that way, then he knows where to sign. ‘We don’t want to work for your services. Just tell us what you want so we can tell you that we can’t give it to you.’ Not good.

By: texasdawg

texasdawg — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 07:25:18 +0000

The Ryan-less trip and Greenberg conference call were damage control after Ryan made a mess of things yesterday saying Lee needed to just tell them what he wants.

Ryan is a disaster.

By: iamthedoublestandard

iamthedoublestandard — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 06:52:35 +0000

Everything you said may be true but at some point the Rangers have to draw a line in the sand. I’m not saying that the line should be with Lee but they should never look weak to their playing staff or their fans.

By: bigharold

bigharold — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 05:34:46 +0000

It seems like the Rangers knew they were never going to sign Lee and on some level didn’t want to anyway. All they wanted to do was run a really strong second. The economics are just not there for the Rangers to invest that much in one player, especially a 32 year old player.

I’m aware that they just got a great big cable contract and they seem flush. They sure talked that way. But, they also have to pay for that team too. Suspend reality for a moment and say they signed Lee for 5yrs/100mil, 20 mil a year. Last season the Ranger’s payroll was about 65 million dollars. If they increased it by 50%, to around 100 mil, would they really want to give about 60% of that increase to one guy? What about Hamilton? Kinsler? Elvis? They coming down the FA highway and they’re going to want big increases too. Giving Lee a 5 or 6 year deal for 110-125 mil just doesn’t make sense for the Rangers. On some level it just doesn’t make sense to any team but that not the type of thing that would stop the Yankees.

Sure, everyone would want Lee on their team but at what cost? Essentially, Greenburg and Ryan ended up with the Rangers because Hicks didn’t understand the basic economics of baseball. I’m sure that lesson wasn’t lost on either of them. Of course they had to put up the good fight for the fans but some times you win the war by forfeiting the battle.

By: spindervish

spindervish — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 05:02:17 +0000

Or particularly sustained excellence.

But he does seem to be a different pitcher than he used to be.

I really have no idea what the next 5 years will look like from this guy.

By: gt929

gt929 — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 04:44:55 +0000

Well, most of the comments seem to be running against it as well, but I don’t believe at that ratio. I’m too lazy to count them.

By: Reflex

Reflex — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 04:23:08 +0000

They’ll be glad they lost out in less than four years. Lee’s track record is not one for durability.

By: iamthedoublestandard

iamthedoublestandard — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 04:22:49 +0000

It’s rigged. There’s no way a Rangers fan DOESN’T want Lee. Like u said, it’s not their money.

By: gt929

gt929 — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 03:53:33 +0000

Wholly unscientific, but a DMN poll that asks: “If it takes a 7-year contract to get him, do you still want the Rangers to sign Cliff Lee?” is running more than 3 to 1 against it. I voted yes, but it’s not my money.

By: iamthedoublestandard

iamthedoublestandard — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 03:32:10 +0000

Four years Glenn? The fans in Texas don’t care for that kind of answer.

By: Glenn

Glenn — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 03:18:21 +0000

The Rangers will be glad that they lost out in about four years.