- Thread starter
- #41
DT LUNA
Vietnam Veteran
STRO"s not drawing much board interest esta noche.
STRO"s not drawing much board interest esta noche.
Good news folks
Kyle bird sent down. One less poopy reliever to deal with.
Not just on board, Only 18,000 at game. Smallest in series.STRO"s not drawing much board interest esta noche.
Not just on board, Only 18,000 at game. Smallest in series.
Sampson has started 5 games for us now, all between 5 and 6.2 innings. He has given up 10 ER in 28.2 innings. At some point they need to make him a part of the rotation.
You hit the nail on the head.This is more a baseball question than a Rangers question but thought I would ask it while all is quiet. If we had Trout on the Rangers would you want to keep him and pay him what the Angels ended up paying him or trade him for a number of players. Me personally, I would have traded him and restocked the team but that is just me. Just too much money and too many years for my blood.
Something tells me it would be hard letting him go if he was one of our own. I suspect we would all agree about Trout as long as he is on another team, but I think many would want to keep him if he was one of our own.This is more a baseball question than a Rangers question but thought I would ask it while all is quiet. If we had Trout on the Rangers would you want to keep him and pay him what the Angels ended up paying him or trade him for a number of players. Me personally, I would have traded him and restocked the team but that is just me. Just too much money and too many years for my blood.
Yeah, but Beltre was not 12 years at $430 million or all of us would have said trade him. If Trout's skills diminish in 5-6 years they are going to still be paying a boatload of money. To me that franchise just does not learn from Vernon Wells, to Pujols and now this.Something tells me it would be hard letting him go if he was one of our own. I suspect we would all agree about Trout as long as he is on another team, but I think many would want to keep him if he was one of our own.
I remember suggesting that we should trade Beltre and rebuild during that dismal 2014 season. I was still on the ESPN Dallas board at the time and not on here. I couldn't find one person that agreed with me. Rev even stopped by the ESPN board to tell me how foolish my idea was and said he was telling everyone on here about what I was saying. He said everyone here thought I was wrong too.
I still think that would have been the best route to take, but getting anyone to agree to part with Beltre, who had not even been here three full years, was near impossible. I can imagine how hard it would have been to get Angels fans to agree that it was best to trade a guy who had come up through their system and had been there several years already.
Loyalty tends to blind us at times, and others' loyalty tends to look foolish to us at times.
The question is will he ever take them to a WS while soaking up the money for the next decade? If not, what is the point? If he fails, flipping him will be impossible. Was a terribly bad move on LAA IMO.Yeah, but Beltre was not 12 years at $430 million or all of us would have said trade him. If Trout's skills diminish in 5-6 years they are going to still be paying a boatload of money. To me that franchise just does not learn from Vernon Wells, to Pujols and now this.
This is more a baseball question than a Rangers question but thought I would ask it while all is quiet. If we had Trout on the Rangers would you want to keep him and pay him what the Angels ended up paying him or trade him for a number of players. Me personally, I would have traded him and restocked the team but that is just me. Just too much money and too many years for my blood.