Thursday, March 26, 2009

Just Hear Me Out

For the Texas Rangers, the Josh Hamilton contract-extension talks commenced this week. According to the Texas Rangers website, Hamilton was not on-board:

"My agent and I were disappointed with their offer," Hamilton said.

The Ranger blogging world has seen increased action regarding the quote. At Lonestar Ball, Newberg Report, Inside Corner and BBTIA, Rangers fans continue to voice their displeasure.

From what I can tell, most Ranger fans fall into three categories: 1) they think that a deal will get done before the season; 2)they think that a deal will get done during the season; 3)they believe that Hicks is simply too cheap to meet Hamilton's demands.

I have seen no one suggest what initially went through my head:

Is extending Hamilton necessarily a good idea?

Yes - I realize that premise sounds ridiculous. Hamilton is a natural, one-of-a-kind talent that appears to enjoy being a Ranger. He has provided Texas with some amazingly positive media coverage and was probably the story of the 2008 baseball season.

But before setting me on fire, think about it: because of Hamilton's off-the-field problems, his career got a late start. He made a splash during his rookie season at the age of 26, as opposed to 22 or 23.

Hamilton is about to turn 28. He is locked up this year for $550,000 and is under Ranger control for three additional arbitration years (2010-2012). By the time he can declare for free-agency, Hamilton will be 32 years old. To spell it out:

He has played more than 100 games in a season once in his career (2008).
He has obviously had some serious off-the-field problems.
He will be approaching his mid-30's before he can become a free-agent.

This is difficult to write - because Hamilton is such an amazing talent - but re-signing Hamilton just seems like a risk that Texas doesn't need to take. What if concerns about Hamilton's durability are realized over the next two seasons? What if...off-the-field situations crop back up? What if, at age 32, Hamilton just can't move like he can now?

Also think about the Mark Teixeira situation. Teixeira produced 4.5 high-quality seasons for the Rangers during his tenure in Texas and was not re-signed.

In 2007 - when it became obvious that Teixeira was going to test the free-agent market - Jon Daniels traded him for an amazing haul of high-end prospects. The Rangers' current future largely depends on four prospects acquired in the Tex deal: Elvis Andrus, Matt Harrison, Jarrod Saltalamacchia and Neftali Feliz. Could JD do the same thing with Hamilton?

I know that it's a reach - the Atlanta trade was probably a once-in-a-lifetime type deal. And I know that it could be a poor PR move. I just cannot overlook the importance of having a strong farm-system. In today's game, prospects are currency. The Angels' farm-system has provided them with the ability to consistently contend throughout this decade. The Dodgers farm-system will allow them to consistently contend throughout the next decade. The Rays will be a contender for the foreseeable future - because of their farm-system.

The Texas system is great right now - but will it be three years from now?

Something else to consider: Texas has never had any problems drafting/developing/signing high-end offensive producers. Since moving into Rangers Ballpark in Arlington, the Ranger offense has never been a problem. Look at the players that have been drafted/acquired just within the last three years: Hamilton, Davis, Smoak, Ramirez, Saltalamacchia, Cruz, Murphy...the list goes on and on. Finding high-caliber offensive players simply is not a problem for this franchise.

And what if Hamilton - after four really good years in Texas - can be flipped for a Teixeira-like haul? And if Hamilton continues to produce as he did in 2008 - there is a chance that he has more value than Teixeira.

Hamilton is great - but I think that it's at least worth a discussion.

4 comments:

  1. I couldn’t agree with you more on this. He’s an incredible talent and somewhat of a hero in these parts(although he doesn't deserve or want that title), but people aren’t looking at the business aspects of this deal. Good stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I know - fans aren't supposed to look at the 'business side' of things, but I can't help it. Plus - I think flipping Hamilton in 2011 might make sense from a 'baseball' perspective.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm going to disagree. The Teixeira trade was made during a rebuilding phase to restock the depleted farm system. In 3-4 years Texas looks(hopes) to be in the thick of the World Series hunt. That's not exactly the time to be unloading possibly one of the best hitters in the league for a nice haul of prospects. What message does that send as an organization? This guy could potentially give the Rangers 6-8 years of unbelievable production. AS far as his off the field problems: that can always be taken care of with a contractual clause that voids the contract if a relapse occurs.

    Bottom line, in 3-4 years this organization shouldn't even resemble the one that traded Teixeira. This should be a competitive club with a higher payroll due to the success. If not, your plan makes more sense. If we're competing year in and year out, why get rid of the guy that brought you success?

    Business strategies don't have to stay the same. They can evolve as the business landscape evolves too.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mike - that's true, but if Texas doesn't extend Hamilton now - at least they have the ability to determine, AT THE TIME, whether they are contenders or not.

    What if Hamilton turns into Milton Bradley (Hammy does have a history of experiencing nagging injuries)? I don't think that the reward (2 years) is worth the risk.

    ReplyDelete