Evan Grant

E-mail | Rangers blog

I believe it was Mark Twain, managing the old Hannibal Steamers of the Missouri State League, who was talking about his pitching staff when he said: "The reports of my depth are greatly exaggerated."

Ron Washington should keep that quip handy.

The great myth of spring training is the Rangers' pitching depth. They do not – repeat, do not – have pitching depth. Depth would mean the Rangers have a number of established pitchers from which to choose a staff. Depth suggests that if a pitcher were to go down with injury, another similarly established guy would be ready to step into the void.

To be honest, I'm not sure there is anybody locked into the Rangers rotation or vying for a spot in it on whom the club can absolutely rely. Depending on how you count, there may be as many as nine guys vying for rotation spots. None of them has pitched as many as 190 innings in a major league season. Only once have any of the candidates won more than 11 games in a year (Scott Feldman won 17 last season). There are questions about health and effectiveness.

This is not to demean the Rangers' current situation. What they have are choices, and they've got lots of them. And they've got more attractive choices than they've had in a long, long time.

Four rotation spots are essentially decided, those going to Rich Harden, Scott Feldman, Colby Lewis and Tommy Hunter. Five guys still are fighting for a spot – in alphabetical order, Neftali Feliz, Matt Harrison, Derek Holland, Brandon McCarthy and C.J. Wilson. Right now, it is hard to rule out any of them. They've all pitched well enough to merit more attention and a longer look.

That said, nobody in the Rangers' offices should fool themselves into thinking that they have depth. Once again, put into context, depth would suggest there are no wrong answers. Depth would mean that if one guy fails, you simply move on to the next.

That is not the case here. The Rangers must consider the overall composition of the pitching staff. Taking Wilson or Feliz out of the bullpen potentially messes with what could be the AL's best group of relievers. Taking McCarthy would leave the Rangers with three similar-looking right-handers (McCarthy, Hunter and Feldman are all now sinker, slider, cutter guys). Bypassing McCarthy would mean potentially writing him off for good as a starter. For every attractive choice for the rotation, there is an unattractive one for leaving guys out. There are guys in the starting rotation for whom the club must have potential replacements should they go down to injury.

In a lot of ways, the Rangers' pitching decisions are harder this spring than they've been in a long, long time. Harder, but far more desirable.

Q: Now that the Rangers are going to have a new owner, will Chuck Greenberg make an effort to persuade MLB to switch the Rangers to the Central Division? As all Rangers fans know, those late West Coast games are killers!

Bohus, Ennis

GRANT: Every 10 years or so, there seems to be a little chatter about realignment, and I've seen some recent proposals to suggest that we are in the chattering stage of the cycle. The last time around, Tom Hicks reportedly had an assurance from Bud Selig that he could get out of the West, but supposedly traded that chip in for an annual home-and-home series with the Astros.

That doesn't mean Hicks didn't want to move out of the West, only that he thought six games with the Astros was more significant.

Chuck Greenberg has said the new ownership group wants to be committed to listening to the fans. One thing that's fairly clear is that fans would prefer to cut down the number of late starts, which would mean leaving the West. But no matter how much Greenberg and Nolan Ryan ask for it, you are going to need other clubs who are also willing to move to make it work. And it's almost certainly going to require a club being willing to switch leagues. The obvious choices would be Arizona or Colorado, which would give both the AL West and NL West four teams. The problem there: You'd have 15 teams in each league, which would essentially require interleague play every night of the season. That's something MLB honchos were not keen on a few years back because they wanted to keep the interleague portion of the schedule as separate and special. Maybe now the novelty has worn off.

• • •

Q: As Brandon McCarthy struggles, I can't help but be reminded of John Danks. Now that he's been away for a few years, what's his upside/ downside now (a No. 1, 2, 3, etc.) and the future, and, should McCarthy ever "get it" and manage to stay healthy, a) will he ever approach Danks in production, and b) will this ever be a trade that will allow GM Jon Daniels to remove the millstone from around his neck, or will this trade always overshadow the good he's done in building this team?

Dick Barron, Fort Worth

GRANT: In 2008, it looked like Danks was about to burst out as a possible ace. He went 12-9 with a 3.32 ERA, averaged 7.3 strikeouts per nine innings and a very nice ratio of 2.9 strikeouts per walk. Last year, at age 24, he took a slight step backward. His ERA (3.77) and walks allowed went up, and his strikeouts went down. But he still pitched 200 innings and won 13 games. In other words, he was a very serviceable big league pitcher. He's certainly not developed into a top-of-the-rotation pitcher, but he's etched himself into the Chicago rotation. He'll likely be the White Sox' fourth starter this year, but that's more likely because LHP Mark Buehrle will pitch second, and the White Sox don't want to start back-to-back lefties if they can avoid it.

At 25, Danks is reaching an important phase of his career. Either he wasn't as sharp last year or batters figured him out a bit. Either way, he's now got to make some adjustments to stay ahead of the hitters. If he doesn't he'll simply fade to the back of a rotation somewhere.

McCarthy's biggest issue has been health. He's been an adequate starter when healthy, but has been injured far more than he's been healthy. If he does stay healthy, there is no reason he couldn't put up the kind of season that Danks did last year. Maybe he puts up a career year, wins 15 games, goes 180 innings and helps the Rangers to the playoffs. That to me would be the only way for this trade to end up being a wash for both teams, because at this point Danks is two productive seasons ahead of McCarthy.

On the other side of the argument, I don't think I'd call it a millstone. The deals Daniels made at the mid-point of the 2007 season have helped change perceptions of his trading ability.

• • •

Q: Regardless of the sport, the owner, the GM or the head coach stand before the press and tout the new signee or new player, and how they will help the team. Three months later the guy is sitting at the end of the bench, and by season's end, the same player is released, and the process starts all over again.My question is how much of the hoopla and media hype should we believe on these signings? It is something like the more exploits mentioned, the greater the chance the player is going to be a warm body to fill out the practice squads? Please shed some light on the ways of big time sports lingo.

Steve A.

GRANT: A coach or GM is never going to stand in front of the media and say "Hey, we signed this guy. He's probably washed up, but he does have some credentials in his past."

That's just not good for business.

Quite frankly, it comes down to your local media types to take in all the guy's credentials, analyze the guy's careers and explain exactly where a player is at that stage of his career.

I will cite one past instance. In 2005, the Rangers signed Richard Hidalgo as their big bat. Hidalgo had some great years with Houston, but was also coming off a very poor year that saw him traded to the New York Mets. The Rangers signed him for one year and $5 million. The story I wrote talked about the Rangers taking a chance on Hidalgo trying to rediscover himself and quoted then-Astros GM Tim Purpura discussing a "disconnect" between the mental and physical aspects of his swing. The Rangers would have preferred that I had spent more time discussing his 40-homer season or his .309 batting average in 2003. But the bottom line is that when presenting these signings to the public, the club is always going to present the most positive aspects to the public. It's up to the media to do reporting to vet some of those claims, and then it's up to the fans to draw their own conclusions. Ultimately, though, the perception of the player will depend on the player's performance once he takes the field.

• • •

Q: With having only one season as a manager within the Texas Rangers organization, Steve Buechele seems to be on a "fast track"by being so quickly promoted to the AA club. What are the criteria for manager promotions within the Texas Rangers organization? Being a RoughRider season ticket holder, I love to see Boo back but these minor league manager positions seem to be part of a musical chair routine.

Michael L. Reneau

GRANT: Since moving to Texas, the Rangers have never promoted one of their minor league managers to the big league job. So, just like they have done with the playing talent in the minor leagues, the Rangers are trying to develop prospects on the managerial side, too. In Buechele and just-hired Bill Haselman (at Class A Bakersfield), the Rangers appear to have two bright managerial prospects. These guys aren't in it simply as glorified instructors. They are training to be big league managers. And I think that's the biggest change in the Rangers' philosophy where minor league managers are concerned. The Rangers were impressed with Buechele's managing instincts last year and are giving him more of a challenge this season. Haselman replaces Buechele at Bakersfield.

There's a very good chance that Buechele will be the Rangers' next manager. If he's not, it's because Ron Washington has taken this team to the playoffs and Buechele has had to go elsewhere to get a job on a big league staff.

• • •

Q: Why are there so many questions and confusion and possible power struggles within the Rangers' brass regarding the use of Neftali Feliz? The first thing: They kill his winter ball playing. The second thing: They are split between him being a closer and him being a starter.

We have already seen towards the end of last season, if he is used multiple days in a row, that his velocity drops from near 100 to around 94.

The question: Why didn't the Rangers brass get this worked out before spring training? It would have allowed the young man the ability to prepare his body and especially his arm for either role, whereas now, there is no way he is prepared for either, because the prep as a closer in the off season is different than that of a starter. I have had this discussion on various occasions with one of the greatest of all time, future Hall of Famer John Smoltz. He repeatedly points out the off-season regimen is different, and trust me if anyone can speak with authority regarding this it would be John Smoltz.

Eric Shelander

GRANT: And, Eric, Nolan Ryan, already a Hall of Famer, suggests that Feliz could be prepared as a starter and then shifted to the bullpen when the Rangers decide to make a call. So, I've got you: One definitive Hall of Famer over one likely Hall of Famer.

Also, as a point of fact, Feliz did not pitch on back-to-back days last year, but your point is well taken. His velocity did, in fact, drop from 100 mph on his first day in the big leagues to the low 90s by late September. I think you can attribute that more to him later into the year than ever before.

As for the plan, I wouldn't say this is a power struggle. Members of organizations can have different points of view and express them and then sort things through once they have more information. In order to gain more information, they've got to give him a chance to pitch as a starter.

Bottom line: I really believe this is a no-risk situation for the Rangers. The first three weeks of camp give the Rangers plenty of opportunity to look at all options and then make decisions. They will make those decisions with plenty of time for Feliz to either get a six-inning outing if he's going to the rotation or to pitch on back-to-back days if he's going to be a reliever.

• • •

Q: Evan, as a season ticket holder, I become frustrated every year when the Rangers allow MLB to schedule 2:05 p.m. games during June, July and August (this year, there are five games). Doesn't seem very "fan friendly" to me! I know I've heard them say that they extend this "courtesy" to the opposition so the teams can get out of town early and, in doing so, count on that team to return the favor to the Rangers. Well, why don't they extend the "courtesy" to the fan that during the three hottest months of the year, they won't schedule 2:05 p.m. start times? I see only one game (Sat., June 26 vs. Astros) where they could say that it's a Fox Game of the Week, even though the schedule shows it as a FSSW game. But July 11 vs. Baltimore and August 15 vs. Boston at 2:05 p.m ... come on!

If an organization didn't have the foresight (even though they could've gotten the money) to put a retractable roof on the stadium,show the courtesy to your fans to spare them 100-plus degree days in the sun. After all, the players make millions, not the fans!

By the way, I refuse to believe it if you tell me that the Rangers don't have a say in starting times.

Adam, Dallas

GRANT: Typically, the Rangers play Sunday night games from June 1 through the end of August as a concession to the heat, but there are exceptions. Opposing teams really aren't crazy about that plan, since they are getting out of town and if they are heading anywhere other than Kansas City, they are looking at an arrival in the next city at 3 a.m. or later. That's why they aren't motivated to play getaway day games against the Rangers in their own home stadiums. But, when it comes down to it, the Rangers usually make the fans' comfort the first priority over their players. Sometimes, they just don't have much say in the matter.

This year, there are five day games between the end of school and August 31. Let's take them one by one

Tampa Bay (June 6): Tampa Bay is off at home on June 7. The Collective Bargaining Agreement states that teams who have an off day at home after a road trip must play a day game on the final day of that road trip if the distance is significant or if they change time zones. There are specifics but, understand that this is because the CBA dictates it.

Houston (June 26) FOX has a window of exclusivity for the night and so, in order to televise locally, the game must begin before 6 p.m. . It's going to be just as hot at 2 p.m. as at 5 and players won't have to deal with the setting sun.

Baltimore (July 11): Due to travel for All-Star participants, MLB mandates all games on the Sunday before the All-Star break be day games with the exception of the ESPN Sunday night telecast. And that game must be played in the same time zone as the All-Star Game (this year in Anaheim). The Rangers petitioned ­ with no luck ­ to be able to play an evening game.

Boston (August 15): Boston is off at home on the 16th. See the CBA rules.

Oakland (August 29): There is no particular reason, but school, I believe will be back in session, and the Rangers are likely to get a better crowd for a day game than a night game. The next Sunday, the Rangers would absolutely play at home.

• • •

Q: Assume the Rangers are in the playoff picture just prior to the non-waiver trade deadline, would the Rangers re-acquire Kevin Millwood from the Orioles? Millwood would be in the last year of his contract, unless he signed an extension with the Orioles. The Rangers could use him to solidify a playoff push down the stretch, and Millwood would againprovide veteran leadership to a team needing that in a playoff race. What would the Rangers have to give up, or is this a realistic trade scenario?

Jeffrey W. Shell, Rockwall

GRANT: Assume it's possible, but if the Rangers are searching for a starting pitcher, they will be aiming higher. They will want someone who can front a championship rotation. Not sure if Millwood was ever capable of that, but pretty certain that if he once was, he's not any longer. At best, he'd be a guy to round out the bottom of the rotation. The Rangers will more likely need help at the top, rather than the bottom.

Think Roy Oswalt. Think Brandon Webb. Think a healthy Tim Hudson. I'm just pulling names out of a hat here, but what they all have in common is the ability to front a playoff-caliber rotation.

• • •

Q: If the Rangers win 87 games again, where in the West will they finish? How many innings are they counting on for Harden, and is it realistic?

Norton Rosenthal

GRANT: If the Rangers win 87 again, I think they finish third, but maybe no more than five games out of first. What I'm saying: The division is better overall. I think Texas, Seattle and Los Angeles are all capable of winning somewhere between 85-95 games. My ultimate guess: The winner will need 92 wins. Second place is likely to be 88-90 wins. And so, if the Rangers win 87, I think they are third.

As for Harden, the benchmark is 150 innings. It's something he hasn't done since pitching a career-high 189 innings in 2004. He's come close the last two years, pitching 148 and 141 innings respectively. If the Rangers get 150 innings of Harden pitching at the level they believe he's capable, they'll consider the $7.5 million well worth it. That's 150 innings of No. 1 or No. 2-type stuff for $7.5 million. A guy with that kind of stuff who is going to throw 200 innings? He's worth double that, if not more.