Wow!  This is much longer than I anticipated, so read at your own peril.  There is a point to all of this poopie.

While stumbling my way through a couple Master's Programs, and transitioning into the "real world" of business, I found myself using many sports analogies to make my points.  You deal with all different types of personalities, cultures, motivations, etc., as you attempt to create a vision of what your organization is trying to accomplish.  Just as important, one must accept the fact that those working for/with you have their own plans for their lives/careers, and are motivated by different factors.

Balancing the goals of the organization and the goals and dreams of those working for the organization is a must.  Therefore, you must identify what makes each person tick, and evaluate their value to the "team".  Sometimes "talent" isn't as valuable to the organization as "desire", and vice versa.

When the "talent" is informed of the business plan, they immediately begin thinking about how they can maximize the opportunities within it, and parlay that into something bigger later on.  When the "desire-folks" are informed, they immediately begin thinking about the best ways to make it work.  They need the "talent" to do what they do best, but they need this to maximize their own opportunities.

There is a vast difference in these types of folks, generally speaking.  The "talent" knows they are good enough to go anywhere, and if they aren't appreciated for their talent, they will always find another organization willing to take them on.  They don't always have to worry about the success or failure of the organization, because they will always have that desired "talent".  The "desire" folks are just as valuable, but in a different way.  They may not have all those options available to them, so the organization's success is usually important to them in achieving/earning as much as they can.  It matters to them.

In an attempt to achieve a cohesiveness within the group, I will sometimes use a basketball analogy that plays to everyones ego, and how they can benefit based on the success of the organization.  It goes something like this, and I used to use the Chicago Bulls as an example:

"The Jordan-era Chicago Bulls had a mix of some really good players and some players that were not thought to be more than serviceable.  Obviously, Michael Jordan was a great player.  Scottie Pippen, Horace Grant, Toni Kukoc were pretty good players.  Many others were considered role players.  But what happened when they started playing together and began achieving some success?  After they won a few titles, the way people viewed every player on that roster began to change.  Of course, Michael Jordan began went from a great player, to being arguably considered the greatest player of all time.  Scottie Pippen, who was viewed as a pretty good player, started to become viewed as a superstar, who could possibly carry a franchise himself.  Horace Grant's value shot up and he received recognition as a dominating force inside, and received a nice contract from Orlando to team up with Shaq and Penny Hardaway.  Toni Kukoc became viewed as the best European player to ever play in the NBA.  And what about the folks I didn't mention earlier?  Players like John Paxson, BJ Armstrong, Steve Kerr, and Dennis Rodman became considered really good NBA players.  The likes of Bill Cartwright, Bill Wennington, Luc Longley and a host of others became sought after players.  Why?  Because of what the team accomplished.  Did you ever hear of Bill Wennington after his years with the Bulls?  Probably not, but he was still employed in the NBA for many years after the Chicago hey-day, because of his known affiliation with the franchise.  It was perceived that he was experienced and could help his new team with that experience.  Honestly, all Wennington did for the rest of his career is sit on the bench and wave a towel as his teams' unofficial cheerleader.

The lesson to be learned is that a team of individuals can come together to form a successful organization, and through the teams success, everybody makes out.  For some, like Jordan, he is now a legend that will never be forgotten.  For others, BJ Armstrong and Steve Kerr, they made more money than they could have ever hoped for.  Dennis Rodman received all the notoriety in the world for many years, even though he was primarily a one dimensional player.  He got paid and he found fame.  Many of the others were in the league longer than they ever should have been, since they were merely role players, but the team's success increased their individual value.  Some of the guys never expected to make it in the NBA, but in the team concept, were able to win NBA titles.  Nobody can ever take those accomplishments, those memories, or those moments of pride away from them.  They had "desire" to work hard, but needed the "talent" to help them reach their dreams.  Conversely, the "talent" needed the guys that did a lot of the dirty work, and helped them elevate their game.  Now, Jordan is a legend because he developed "talent" and also possessed the "desire" to perform well.  Remember, he wasn't just the most talented scorer of his time, he was also the leagues top defensive player and among the leaders in assists.  Just like everybody else on his team, he sacrificed a lot, just like all of them, to be the most successful team they could."

Jeepers, I promise its a lot shorter when you are saying it, instead of typing it.  Sorry.

Now there are times in the organization, that individual employees begin to feel they are more valuable than another employee.  Although both employees are equally valuable in relation to their respective roles, the perception among employees is sometimes hard to reconcile when discussing their opinions.  Hey, people believe what they believe, so trying to convince them otherwise is most times a futile endeavour.  This happens a lot in a small business, because everybody has to try to help out in all areas of responsiblity.  In a business that requires some physical ability, there are usually guys that can't lift something without assistance, but are pretty good at math.  The big strong guy isn't happy that the wimpy guy needs help moving things, because he can do it by himself.  The wimpy guy isn't happy because the big strong guy can't count very well, and feels he always has to double check his math.  You get the picture.

In this scenario, when speaking with members of the organization, I will often use the example of a baseball lineup:

"In the proto-typical baseball line-up, you want some diversity, in order to maximize the amount of runs you may be able to score at a given time in the game.  With the 9 batters, you want to have the following:

1)  Lead off hitter as someone who gets on base a lot

2)  Someone who is a good hitter, but adept at moving the runner to 2nd

3) Usually you're top hitter with a good OBP, increasing number of players on base

4) Your power hitter, who can generate several runs with one swing of the bat

5) A pretty dangerous hitter who can "protect" #4, so that teams can't just pitch around him

6) good hitter, that can also provide a little protection

7-8) best hitters left

9) Worst hitter, so he's ninth to minimize the number of times he's at the plate, but possibly a defensive wizard in the field.

You can't just rely on a bunch of guys who hit singles or get on base via the walk, because normally, nobody is going to be able to walk that many times in a game, in consecutive order.  You can't just rely on a bunch of power guys, who are usually more prone to striking out.  It would be a feast or famine type of situation, and a lack of consistency offensively can be a recipe for disaster in winning your division or championship.

It takes several different types to build the most successful type of sustainable offense.  Just as much as we need the big strong guy to move things more quickly, with less man-power, we also need the wimpy math guy to ensure that only the right amount of those things are being moved.  Moving the wrong amount is not efficient for the organization either.  They both provide a specific role beneficial to the success of the team/organization.

When selling the business plan to those who execute it, especially in a large organization, you need to be able to identify the key "leaders" from within the group, to help sell the organization strategy.  As well know, you can have the best plan, but without the right people executing it, it is doomed to failure.  At the same time, you can have the best people, but without an effective plan, the failure of the organization is also at risk.  Therefore, getting buy-in from the workforce and garnering a feeling of partnership and ownership in the plan is an important key to its success.

Look, not many people like to talk to Management, and it's understandable.  So, trying to "always" have management trying to implement these ideas/plans might be viewed as less than ideal by the workforce.  Additionally, it is rare in a large organization for two important things to happen when communicating the plan to the workforce: 1)  talking to each employee, so that they feel a part of things, and 2) that the message isn't altered/distorted when being communicated down through the ranks.

Therefore, identifying the "key leaders" among the employee ranks is vital to the "higher-ups", and discussing these ideas with them, is of the utmost importance.  When they feel that there is real communication and their ideas are being heard, and that they are a part of what is going to take place, it is much easier to get their buy-in.  This in turn, allows them to discuss some things with their "work group", so the seed is being planted for the change/plan that will probably occur.  Additionally, if they are discussing it with someone who gets to talk to the "higher ups", they begin to feel that their input may be listened to also.  If the plan contains something already that they had happened to mention, they begin to feel that "Hey, that was my idea", and they are more willing to ensure it works.

When you get these people of influence out their among the peer group, it is so valuable in keeping everybody focused and calm regarding any change in policy, process, or procedure.  You can't put a dollar amount on that kind of value to the organization.

The reason I even wrote this was to perhaps point out a few things about some of the invisible value certain players may have to the Rangers.  Yes, it was inspired by the MY trade talk.  Some of his true value to this franchise has nothing to do with what happens on the field, but rather in the clubhouse or lockerroom.  He might be the best person for the young guys to talk to about issues, or to help set the example for others to follow.  People do learn by exposure, even if they don't realize they are learning anything at all.

Not saying Young shouldn't be traded, if the right deal is there, but dismissing his value due to lack of range or a .016 drop in BA last season does not always tell the whole story.

This is not defending anybody, believe me!  But you take two pretty consistent bats out of this lineup, then its not only pitching we need to worry about.  All players have a role, but sometimes that role isn't on TV or on the field.  We read other teams' blogs, so you know they read ours.  Sometimes, we all get carried away by reducing the value of some of our own players....value to the team, that is....by what we post.

I love the ideas and talking about them, so keep that going.  Some folks are more difficult to replace than others.  When a new guy takes the place of an old guy, it's sometimes because we feel he fills a need on the ballclub, but by filling those certain needs, other needs that had been filled by the old player are now exposed.

Just some food for thought...

It appears that AJM has quite a sense of humor...

"Lone Star Ball: A Blog about a cost-cutting baseball team"

I was quite amused when I looked up and saw that "subtitle".  This is a great site for Rangers' fans to rate and debate, while we still have one thing in common--a true love of the game and the roller coaster ride of remaining loyal Ranger fans.

The sad part, in my eyes, is that we get bogged down on the negative side of being Rangers fans.  Collectively, right now, we have been consistently critical about our owner, front office, players, etc..  No matter how much I partake in this criticism, I still enjoy the game, and hold out hope every year that "this is the year that everything starts to come together".

I believe, deep down, that I am just one of the many blind-faith sheep of the Rangers' fan base.  At least I hope some part of me stays that way.  After moving to Arlington in the mid-70's as a kid, I became an instant fan of the Rangers.  Attending a Rangers game was one of the few things that my family did together, because it was really cheap back then.

I always enjoyed not just rooting for the hometown team, but I always had my favorite players, and loved rooting for them.  For the first few years, I became very close friends with a classmate, who's father was a member of the Rangers' organization (true, I didn't even know it for like the first 6 months of becoming friends with him), and someone most of you would readily recognize if I mentioned the name.  I remember one night, while spending the night at his family's home, we were doing something and low and behold, into the house walks Jim Sundberg and Mike Hargrove....just to hang out for the evening.  This was awesome, and it happened quite often.

We would often go to the ballpark and get to run around in the clubhouse, sit down in the bullpen (which was only cool the first couple of times), and got to meet and know many of the players and their kids.  It was great fun, and I always cherish those memories.

I remember when the Rangers sucked, but were still fun to root for, because they always seemed to be the underdog.  I remember even sitting with family and friends listening to the games on the radio, and getting excited when Dave Hostetler would come up and hit a homerun.  Why would we all sit around and listen to the radio broadcast?  Well, that was like a fun thing to do back then.  This was a time before we had anything like cable TV, video games, internet or even a remote control.  It's strange to have fond memories like that, but when I started working at age 12, most of my money went to going to Rangers games and sitting in the frying pan seats in the bleachers of Arlington Stadium.  I've never had season tickets, but you wouldn't know it, because I was always there.  Years later, I was in attendance for Ryan's 7th no-hitter..on accident.  Great times!

 

I know I went a little off course, but I guess the subtitle Adam put on there made me look in the mirror, so to speak, and made me realize that the reason I even discovered this site is because I was still "a fan" and really wanted to keep up with the Rangers news and possible off-season moves.  These things have always gotten my juices flowing going into the upcoming season.  The excitement builds.

I still like to root for the Rangers, and I do like to identify certain players and cheer for them also.  When it comes to Rangers' baseball, I am not a "stat" guy who dissects everything and takes all emotion out of it.  I still root for the Jack Daugherty's, Geno Petralli's and Rusty Greer's of the world.  I still get happy when a member of the Rangers is recognized for something, because that just makes me feel a little bit better that one of our guys was noticed for something positive.  The Rangers have been an underdog and afterthought for so long in the baseball world, I still await David's slaying of Goliath one of these years!

This makes me take into account the grand discussions we have on this site, and appreciating the fact that there are so many knowledgeable folks on this site, that we can discuss any facet of the game.  Statistical breakdowns, player evaluation, minor league stuff, trades/FA, Front Office, and who we love and who we hate, all have a place on this site. 

I just hope that one day Adam can change that back to a Texas Rangers Blog, instead of us making it a Blog about what we don't like.  I'm ready to be a kid again, and root for the players that make the Rangers fun again.  If they get gamers who want to win, it makes it that much more fun to watch.

We all came to this site to have a good time discussing Rangers' Baseball, not to feel miserable about it and have a bad time.  Thanks for creating a site like this Adam! 

I know this is kind of stupid, but can someone point me in the right direction for a list of potential free agents this off-season.  I like to play GM sometimes, and I am not finding the list I am looking for.

Thanks in advance.

PS:  And by the way, I will work harder in the future to figure out a way to ask this type of question in 300 words or more in the future.

Well, its turned into an interesting game here at the end, and I feel bad for the Steeler fans.

I don't understand how they could rule that an incompletion, as it was clearly an interception.

Yes, I heard the explanation by the referee, but that was total BS.  The guy rolled, clearly had the ball, got up to run and THEN knocked the ball out of his hands with his knee.  Anybody knows that once he had possession and then rolled, it is a "catch/interception".

Well, God must be smiling on the Steelers after that fourth down sack.

Maybe justice will prevail.

EDIT:  OMFG!  What the hell??????  Maybe I spoke too soon.  I can't believe that fumble at the goalline.

On various threads, I read about the Rangers' need for a right-handed DH for various reasons, and those reasons just boggle my mind.

Some of those reasons are:

We need someone to DH against left-handed pitching.

We need someone to platoon with Dellucci

We need someone to platoon with Blalock.

Are these serious concerns and suggestions?  If so, I am missing something in a big way.

We obviously face more RHP's throughout the season, and I'm more concerned about a legitimate DH for either side.

Like it or not (and I certainly don't), Nevin is our right-handed DH going into the season.  If he can do anything this season, I will be happy, but they aren't eating that $9 million contract without at least seeing if he can revert back to some semblance of his former self.  They can cut him for all I care, and if they can get a decent professional hitter, I'm all for it.  However, I think our focus should be on a "quality" left-handed bat, but that's just me.

As far as a platoon hitter for Dellucci, I think that takes into account a major assumption which I am not willing to count on yet.  

I believe the most likely scenario for the Rangers' outfield is a 4-man rotation in the OF, with Mench, Wilkerson, GMJ (possibly Nix..bleh), and Dellucci.  If that is the case, there isn't a real need for another spare DH.

If the Rangers go with what I think is there best lineup, then it would be Mench LF, GMJ CF, and Wilkerson RF, with the undesirable teaming of Dellucci and Nevin as the DH platoon.

As far as finding a spare to platoon with Blalock, I think that it won't be necessary.  I believe that he will cure that which ills him against lefties.  IMO, the Rangers need to leave him in there against lefties, to determine his future value and whether to keep him or not.

Anyway, I guess I just am missing the boat, but I can't believe how many times I see posts regarding this.

I don't really care about college football, UT, or watching much except to predict the next draft.  Tonight, I had the opportunity to watch, so I did.  I was pulling for Texas and felt that LenDale White would be the difference in the game.

However, I believe that the performance by Vince Young is one of the most incredible performances by an individual player in a team sport, that I have ever seen.  This is one of those that I will always remember, and I'm happy that I saw it live.

Although there are great players on both sides and it is a team effort, this game just seemed to be one man (and his will to win) against a team worth of stars (Leinart, Bush, L. White, Jarret) and beat them....all of them combined.  This was just totally unbelievable and whether Texas won or lost, Vince Young just gave me a great memory of perhaps the best performance I've ever seen.

I can think of several times I have thought I've seen incredible performances by an individual in a team sport, yet most of the time, I wasn't as surprised, or was the player up against bigger odds.  Michael Jordan's will to win was unlike anything I has ever seen, but tonight, Young surpassed my feelings about him.  I don't even like Jordan.

In fact, I'm reflecting on some of the greatest individual performances I have witnessed, and all seem to fail in comparison.  Some of the greatest I can think of:

1.  Jordan just seeming to will his team to a win, and he did it so many times.
2.  When I was at Nolan Ryan's 7th no-hitter.
3.  Larry Bird in one greatest efforts I had ever seen in a playoff basketball game.  The one when there was almost no time left and in the final seconds Bird steals the inbound pass and in one motion throws up a shot and it goes in. (I didn't like Bird either)
4.  Reggie Miller scoring like 5,000 points in the last 20 seconds of a game.  (I didn't like Reggie Miller either)
5.  Emmitt on that Monday night game vs. the Giants, when he had the injured shoulder and just carried Giant defenders on his back as he kept running.
6.  Kirby Puckett just coming up huge everytime the Twins were in the World Series...especially the one against the Braves.
7.  In 1995, Juan Gonzalez vs. the NY Yankees in the playoffs.  Even though they lost in 4 games, Juan hit 5 home runs in the series and accounted for almost all the Ranger runs.  He WAS the Ranger offense.

you get the picture.....there are so many that we have all witnessed.  

This time, Vince Young beat those other guys on pure will and skill.  This wasn't just any game, or one game in a series.  This was for the National Championship against what was being touted for a month as the greatest team of all time.

I didn't believe......I have learned my lesson.

Listening to them all in interviews (Leinart, Bush, etc), they are relatively gracious, but cannot really figure out how they lost.  They believe they are the best and all they have figured out is that Vince Young beat them.

To put it in perspective, if I would have told you yesterday that USC would score 38 points with:

Leinart throwing for 356 yds and a TD

L. White rushing for 124 yds and 3 TD

Bush rushing for 82 yds and a TD

Jarrett with over 100 yds and a TD

USC with a 12 point lead with 5 minutes left in the game

What do you think Texas' chances would have been?

Me too.  I just underestimated Vince Young.

I sure wish his heart and will could be implanted into the Ranger dugout.  Maybe he can DH??????

First off, I want to say that I am content with the pitching moves Daniels has made.  Until Millwood was signed, I was far from content.  Because of that single signing, I feel we have a chance to get another pitcher via FA, whether its next year or even Clemens.  The bullpen is fine, if it plays out like I feel it will.  Additionally, I have a gut feeling that there will be another move for pitching before spring training. (not B. Anderson either)

That being said, I am a little reluctant to anoint the Rangers offense as a slam dunk to repeat its production over the past couple years.  I know I am in the minority opinion of the value of Soriano's impact on the offensive prowess of the Rangers, but he always has the ability to impact the game with one swing of the bat.

My concern now is protection for Tex.  Teams will not pitch to him if they don't have to.  I believe Blalock will rebound, but the problem is the DH.  IF Nevin is really working hard, then that could be a pleasant surprise, but I withhold judgement on that.  I understand the "DH by committee" approach, and I do not want to sign Thomas or Piazza, but I like the idea of a consistent bat in the lineup.....a professional HITTER.

Delucci, DeRosa, or any of the other bench players don't excite me at all as a DH, except in spot duty.  Does anybody have any ideas for a possible hitter that I can't think of, that the Rangers could possibly add for protection for Tex or Blalock?

I doubt the Rangers would ever sign him again with his baggage, but the only name that I keep hearing in my pea brain is Raffy.  I would only like that if Tex is hitting cleanup AND that we can get him on the relatively cheap deal.  I don't think anybody is knocking down his door right now to sign him.

The Rangers trading Soriano for "something", but not what we were hoping for.  No pitching to plug into the rotation.  No true answer in CF.

Hopefully, the Rangers offered enough to Morris to get him in here.  The money saved from moving Soriano hopefully make it possible.  Nevertheless, Morris is not "really" a number one starter, so that is a shame.

Right now, we still have a line up of decent offense, average defense and no starting pitching.

Additionally, it seems that JD irritated most of the other GM's in the league.  Honestly, that doesn't bother me too much.  Perhaps he was irritating by over-valuing our players, and they couldn't fleece us in a trade.  On the other hand, hopefully he didn't turn everybody off to the point that they just don't want to deal with him.  I guess we shall see.

Hey Tom, take a contract with you to the Rose Bowl and after Texas wins, get Roger drunk and have him sign it during all the celebration going on.

I still would like to see another pitcher come in here that is not named Tomko, Eaton, etc.  I also have no desire to bring in someone like Benson, if its only to allow the Mets to free up more money to sign more players.  I'll take him, but Milledge is the target there.

In lieu of not getting any pitching, we may just have to rely on crappy FA's like Tomko (hoping for a Morris or Millwood signing.)  At the same time, if we could pull in Hudson and Bradley or Milledge, then I will just wait until next off-season for any significant pitching moves.

Man!  I used to love the Winter Meetings.  

OK, I want to preface this with the fact that I know it is early and perhaps Daniels can pull a rabbit (heck, even a hamster would be nice) out of his hat, during this off-season maneuvers.

With that out of the way, please understand that I do not hold out much hope for many developments that will help the team in 2006.  Most of the primary free agents I had considered for having a "real" impact on this team are gone, haven't been contacted, or have no reason to want to come to Texas.  I have decided on a plan that could possibly work, BUT the Rangers will be overpaying if this would even be possible.

Here it goes:

Plan predicated on an $85-$100 million payroll going into the 2007 season.

There are only 5 free agents for 2006 that I felt I would go after, or at least consider:  Burnett and Giles are gone (I would have made both deals they received).  I believe Morris is tired of sitting around waiting for the Rangers.  I haven't heard even a peep about Millwood and the Rangers.  Rogers would be my last resort choice, but he's a good pitcher who can keep a low ERA at The Ballpark.  Other than those players, nothing else is that appealing to me.  So with that in mind, we go forward and focus on some trades and sign some crap to get us through the next season.

There are two pitchers that I would like to go after, and hopefully overwhelm (overpay) their teams with an offer of young players.  Those two pitchers are Dontrelle Willis and Roy Oswalt.  The chances of getting them are remote, but there is always hope.

I would offer a package of something like Adrian Gonzalez, Laird, Danks or Volquez, Nix, Kinsler, another pitching prospect and they could change it up if they want.  This would provide a bunch of young players for them to keep, trade, develop, or help keep payroll down.

By overpaying, it is the only way I can see dislodging one of these two.  Once I get one, I sign them to a nice extension.

Next, I would trade Mench for Orlando Hudson to cover 2nd and the imminent departure of Soriano  for Broxton and Milton Bradley would necessitate this.

Soriano just paid for either Willis or Oswalt.  Mench and Hudson's salaries pretty much wash out, when coupled with the $$ value of the Soriano deal.  Bradley is the new dollar value to be taken into consideration.  Either way, payroll has not jumped up much, if at all.

Sign Matt Morris on a 2 year deal with an option for a third.  If he says no, then offer Rogers arbitration and if he says yes, that's fine.  If not, then we just sign some of those junky FA pitchers we were looking to sign anyway.

To fill out the rest of the rotation and/or positional players, sign 1 or 2 year deals with some of the lower tier FA's, but NOT over-paying.

After drudging through the season, plan on SPENDING THE FOLLOWING YEAR IN FREE AGENCY.  After next season, the likes of Zito, Buehrle, Mussina, Pettite, etc. become available FA pitchers.  Additionally, some of the young guys may have developed, but that is yet to be seen.

Basically, this is what the team would look like going into the season.

1B:  Tex
2B:  Hudson
SS:  Young
3B:  Blalock
RF:  Delucci/GMJ/Young player or serviceable FA
CF:  Bradley
LF:  Delucci/GMJ/Young player or serviceable FA
C:   Barajas

SP:  Willis or Oswalt (I believe Oswalt less likely)
SP:  Rogers or Morris
SP:  Young
SP:  Loe
SP:  One of those Latin dudes or cheap FA

Well, I'm getting tired, but you get the gist.  After next season, the Rangers can go after another premium SP if they want, or maybe somebody will be ready to pitch from the farm.

As far as the perceived holes in the weak OF, let's not forget we have the baseball god DeRosa.  Buck can play him ANYWHERE.

I know its a little far-fetched, but I'm tired of just sitting around watching nothing happen.  I see more potential through FA the following year, if we can make a move on a premium pitcher via trade right now, and lock him up.

Like I said, I'm really tired......LOL

...to the Chicago Cubs.

No names yet, but they just reported that Pierre was traded to the Cubs for "3 young pitchers".

Like I said, nothing more reported, but apparently a deal has been reached.  I guess we'll see.

Here is my take on this:

I like Pierre and would have liked to have him with the Rangers

I would not have included Diamond in the deal...at all.  The other two, I'm not sure about.

I would have played the fire sale angle and sent Nix packing with something, but that's about it.  After all, we would be taking the salary off the Marlins' hands.

Anyway, now we can all stop bashing Pierre, and watch him ignite the Cubs offense.  Say what you will about the guy, but those that don't see his "gamer" attitude, are missing something and PAYING WAY TOO MUCH ATTENTION TO STATS.

I wouldn't have given up much, but he's got some game.  While the Cubs have a spark in their lineup, we are looking at another season with Delucci leading off.

Yeah, Pierre can't help this team.....