With all due respect, why does Richie Whitt at the Observer write about baseball? It's a serious question. I think the sport mentally hurts him, maybe physically and emotionally, too. Point me out to a positive take on the Rangers he's done. I don't mean an ass-kissing-I-love-you one. I mean an honest look. Don't think I don't think criticism should be hurled in heaps at this team. But (as with just about everything else with that alternative, whatever that means, paper) there's a difference between criticism and rancor mixed with juicy unsoundness.

Like Whitt, I was at the final home game Sunday. Crappy day, crappy season. And who's to blame for this year? Writes Whitt: "There’s plenty of blame to pass around, starting with Daniels."

That's the wrong place to start. First, the 2006 lineup was the most versatile in years. Der, they didn't hit that many home runs like in 2005. And all those home runs got them where? Is it Daniels's fault that some of these acquired guys in 2006 didn't play at their usual level? Who in their right mind would have expected Brad Wilkerson to have the season he had? Or Eaton? Or Otsuka? Oh, wait, he was actually good. (Shhh, don't mention that.)

Is it Daniels's fault that Carlos Lee's fat butt got in the way of all that air between him and Grady Sizemore's fly ball Sunday? Did Daniels throw 114 pitches in 4.2 innings on Sunday, or was that Millwood? "Pitching ace Kevin Millwood won only 16 games" this year, writes Whitt. Gee, that's two wins behind crappy league leader Johan Santana.

Whitt writes that Daniels "made 12 trades and acquisitions in his first year on the job, and, most notably, wound up sending away pitcher and Highland Park product Chris Young, who has won 11 games and last week came within two outs of a no-hitter...." That's five fewer wins than lousy Millwood.

Whitt writes: "Cornerstones Hank Blalock and Mark Teixeira had only so-so seasons."

Really? Check the stats: Teixeira is pretty much on par with his career numbers in every category except home runs. As I see it so far in four seasons, last year's home run binge was the fluke year.

Same with Blalock. He is on a normal career pace except for home runs.

I've never understood the uber-obsession with home runs. Let's say you have 500 at bats and 25 home runs. That might make you a lot of money as a ballplayer, yes? It's also a five percent success rate at scoring a run. This is the most simple of examples, but it's not the kind of reliability I'd like to have up and down my lineup.

Is it really too bad that the Rangers don't have Alfonso Soriano's 40 homers, 40 doubles and 40 steals? Those numbers are cool, but Soriano got the Nationals where this season? And he got the Rangers where the two seasons before that? Sorry, I'd much rather have Kinsler and the cash.

I have a three-part formula for creating a winning ballclub:

1.) You need a non-meddling owner who's fast and loose with the checkbook.

2.) You need a non-meddling owner who hires a competent front office and coaching staff.

3.) You need a non-meddling owner who demands a killer farm system.

The blame starts and ends with owner Tom Hicks, not Daniels, not Buck Showalter, not Captian. Hicks looks as if he's shied away from dumb free agent signings and hired a smart GM. That is so important and obvious, yet so rare, in MLB. I like the moves Daniels made this year. They may not have all worked out, but they weren't rash or pointless or costly. There was a purpose behind them, given the resources the Rangers had, and if that's not being a good GM then I don't know what is.

The Rangers have never ever had a killer farm system. This is a joke. Is 2006 first rounder Kasey Kiker the next Billy Wagner? Not yet. Then again, Kiker was 18 and out of high school this year. I used to work for Baseball America magazine, and here's a little secret about minor league players: No one knows what the hell they are going to do until they do it. And it takes more than a good No. 1 draft pick one year to make an organization strong.

If the Rangers are going to find success they're going to have to improve from within - not by making razzle-dazzle moves every week. A lot of core players and their agents will have to make decisions in the not-so-distant future about where they think this organization is headed. And if they are as bitter as the fans then you can kiss a consistently winning ballclub goodbye until Hicks kisses the team goodbye.

Comments

Todd Maternowski Staff

Hear hear!!

I really like the moves Daniels made in the off-season, and still do. For a team who's entire core is talented players under age 30, and now with some pitching prospects for once in history, I like the Rangers' chances in the future. Who cares about this season? I mean, seriously, who cares? This is not the Yankees and Red Sox spending the GDP of a third-world nation and getting a first-round playoff-exit [assuming they make it to the playoffs, that is]. It's a middle-dollar ballclub that needs to correct 4-5 years of terrible front office mistakes. Hicks did the same with the Stars ten or so years ago, and won one Stanley Cup, went to another and has been a perennial contender pretty much every year since. Whitt needs to stop crying and start enjoying what he's paid to write about.

2 years, 3 months ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

Todd Maternowski Staff

Reason #1 for firing Buck: after Arizona fired him, they won the World series. Two years later, after the Yankees fired him, they won the World series. Hicks was a genuis to hire him in the first place, knowing that a World Series was just an easy pink slip away.

2 years, 3 months ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )