Why the Texas Rangers aren’t going to suck any more

by Blair Lovern

Hallefreakinlujah!

I continue to read doom and gloom about the Rangers because they've stunk in the past, that they can't do this thing right, can't do that thing right, they missed out on Barry Zito, etc. Let me tell you something right now: it's a good thing the Rangers didn't sign Barry Zito under the same terms as the Giants. Years ago they probably would have made a more desperate attempt. But the Ghosts of Rangers Past are not running this team any more.

A few weeks ago, Texas brought in folks from the entire organization to talk about where the Rangers are headed.

With minor league operations in Arizona, California, Iowa, Oklahoma and Washington, it's very easy for some sort of disconnect to be felt among those spread-out people. The hashing out of a baseball philosophy, face-to-face, carries a lot of weight. This sort of meeting isn't just for sports. It's often forgotten how eye contact can go a long way. I'm a big fan of colleague camaraderie, and when you or the Rangers or anyone else relies on a chain of people to get a job done, it's important everyone be on the same page. Why it's taken the Rangers six years to host a meeting like this is beyond me. But that was the past.

Did the Rangers need Barry Zito to win? I don't think so, especially since he's not the ace many seem to think he is. If you don't believe me, read Rob Neyer. Long-term, expensive pitching contracts are ridiculous. You think Zito is just an above average pitcher now? Wait until 2014, when you could have put that money into player development and gotten a few more Zitos and such (if you hire a competent front office staff) in that span at a fraction of the cost.

Did the Rangers need Daisuke Matsuzaka to win? It would have been great to have had him, but the team didn't need to spend $51 million to find out they needed to spend $52 million more to really see if that was the solution.

People complain a lot about the spending habits of the Yankees and Red Sox, for example. Those teams write checks like few others. But you don't need to spend $800 gazillion to win a World Series. You don't even need to be in a huge market (hello, Chicago Cubs?)

In order to win in MLB, a team needs to excel in three major areas:

Your owner must be fast and loose with the checkbook and stay out of the way.

The Rangers have an owner who is willing to spend money. In the past his money spending has been, ah, questionable. I was worried he became overly obsessed with Zito. Don't blame Jon Daniels for that saga. But guess what? The Rangers weren't suckered into a dumb Boras deal this year, when they could have been. What a huge leap for Mr. Tom Hicks. You can't question an owner who wants to spend to win. You can certainly question how he chooses to spend. As much criticism as Tom Hicks deserved in the past, you need to evaluate what he does now. There's no future in the past, as Vince Gill (who never sang a country song in his life) once sang.

Hicks passed the Matsuzaka and Zito tests with, I won't say flying colors because he wanted them pretty badly. But there was a proper amount of movement in the nautical flags. So, Bravo.

A smart GM.

The babyface GM arguments were silly to begin with, and they're beyond old now. Jon Daniels has never screwed up royally or unroyally, if that is a word, and I'm guessing it is not but I am too lazy not to bother to know and/or care. He's pulled off some sharp moves. Not all have gone to the team's liking, and that's unfortunate. But he's cast off the dead weight if it hasn't worked. Can you imagine if Carlos Lee was signed to this team again? Ugh. I trust Daniels to lead Texas for a long while. I hope he is able to.

Daniels is flanked by two sharp people who will probably become GMs themselves. The Rangers will miss them if they do go off to help build other teams.

Thad Levine is JD's assistant, and slightly older than his boss. He's a creative man to have in the Rangers' front office, important for working on trades and someone who can look at a player's numbers and be honest about predicting their future value, instead of drooling over whatever Scott Boras says they'll be doing, like topping Hank Aaron's home run record or Cy Young's 511 wins and/or both by age 36.

Another key person in the front office is A.J. Preller, director of pro and international scouting, and an absolute baseball nut. I wouldn't be surprised if he sleeps with his cell phone if he is not, in fact, eating it along with a baseball. If he could breathe baseballs and cell phones, then this guy. . . (sorry, just playing the role of a writer who loves to remark how people "eat, sleep and breathe" things.) I guess you could lump an asset like AJ in the third category below, but I'll just leave him here.

A smart player development office.

This has been such a weak link for Texas, most evidently with pitchers. Yes, the team has drafted some quality non-pitchers who are crucial to the Rangers' success at being the best third place team in the AL West. But I, a fan and a commentator, demand more.

Overall, I'm not impressed with the prospects closest to the big leagues now. I want to be. But I 'm looking at the lists and don't see it. I'm not talking stars, I'm talking solid, regular contributors. The most enthusiastic guys for me are way down the list and who knows where they'll be in terms of development two, three, four, five years? I could be proven wrong, and I hope I am. But my gut tells me not to expect much from a team that had so much confidence in its No. 1 prospect that they traded him to Chicago.

Baseball America recently graded the Rangers overall organization at the quality of C-. I think that is a tad low. (Every year, BA grades each MLB team in categories: major league success, minor league success, talent, drafts and trades and overall organization direction.) They got an F for having the worst composite winning percentage in the minors (winning percentage isn't the best way to measure player development, but they have a point) and C's everywhere else. I differ from my former colleagues in thinking this team's overall direction is stagnant.

The Rangers aren't the best team in MLB by any means. But I haven't been this excited for them (long term, not short) in many seasons. Many questions remain. But they can't be answered until the games are played, and I will be out there watching at Ameriquest, sneaking deep into the lower sections to take the seat of a Richie Rich who doesn't feel like showing up in the hot sun.