For Yu Darvish, we know he can either sign with the Rangers, or go back to Japan. Prince Fielder is a very different matter though.

So, we have two different contests. First is the Yu Darvish contract, assuming he signs, length and dollar amount. Second, is who, how long, and how much. I'm sure we can come up with a decent prize if need be, but until we figure that out, let's use this thread to put in some guesses shall we?

I'll start the bidding with Darvish: 5/$78, Prince goes to the Nationals at 8/$175

UPDATE 12/23/2011: The current averages... Darvish, 5 years, $68.45 million. Prince, Rangers, 6 years, $145.6 million.

Two pitchers, one team, one starter, the other a reliever. Both having career years.

Starting pithcer (throws right): 2.53 ERA, 3.17 FIP, 3.01 xFIP, .259 BABIP, 8.69 K/9, 2.3 BB/9, 3.4 fWAR.

Relief pitcher (throws right): 1.99 ERA, 2.72 FIP, 3.06 xFIP, .254BABIP, 7.08 K/9, 1.77 BB/9, 0.9 fWAR.

By looking at those stats, you probably know the two pitchers I'm talking about and the team both James Shields and Kyle Farnsworth play for. Definitely not cheap trade targets.

On the other hand, they come from the same source. Rather than trying to acquire a reliever and a starter from two different sources and pleasing two different markets, we can pay a tax (albeit a large one) to acquire that top flight reliever in one fell ninja swoop.

Now, many of you are probably thinking "Oh hell no, why the hell would we buy HIGH on two guys playing in a slightly pitcher friendly park based on half a season of top flight pitching? They have years of pitching behind them that were no where near what they are doing now. In Texas, those BABIP's go up, and so follows the FIP and xFIP, and they lose a heck of a lot of value here."

While that is in part true, they are having career years and their road numbers aren't as good as their ones at home in the Trop, they are still better, more consistent pitchers than Derek Holland or Arthur Rhodes. And in the end, isn't that the goal of the game, improving?

Now, we have a lot to offer, but reports are the little listening that was done on Shields suggest he is off the market and the price was high to begin with. Add in Farnsworth, and the price goes up even more just to keep them from hanging up the phone.

So, I'll throw out an initial offer and throw this thread to the wolves.

Shields and Farnsworth for

Holland, Wieland, Erlin, E Beltre, Mendonca, Odor

Off and on for the past few years, we've heard rumors of the NBA wanting to rid itself of several teams, or some bloggers want to change the way the playoffs shape up. 

Finances? The Union doesn't think so. They say there is no way the league could be losing as much money as audited financials show.

In fact, both finances and competitiveness should be considered when talking about downsizing the NBA.

The NBA is talking about expanding revenue-sharing, a move that would hurt larger markets in some areas. None of those areas would be player acquisition. The Lakers are set to make $3 billion over the next 20 years from a new deal with Time Warner Cable. That TV deal would not be involved in revenue-sharing. While I'm against revenue-sharing, any talks of an expansion of it should have no overall affect on talks of downsizing the NBA.

Let's instead look at operating income (as reported by Forbes) alongside each team's regular season record for the bottom 6 earning teams.

6th worst operating income: Sacramento Kings (24-58). Also ranked as the 7th least valuable franchise in the NBA and have earned losing records each of the last 5 seasons. While the Kings took part in a big draft day trade this year, the next season at least does not look good for this franchise.

5th worst operating income: New Jersey Nets (24-58). Ranked the 10th least valuable franchise in the NBA, also have not held a winning record since the 05-06 season (went 41-41 in 06-07). Lets be honest here as well, Deron Williams will not stay with the Nets. While we may or may not be able to sign him, I have no doubt he will not stay on that team, despite a fancy new arena.

4th worst operating income: Denver Nuggets (50-32). Ranked 11th least valuable franchise in the NBA, despite having winning records every year since 03-04 (Melo's rookie season). Still have a very bright outlook with George Karl coaching. Very competitive team that looks to get better in the next few years, despite trading away Carmelo Anthony.

3rd worst operating income: Indiana Pacers (37-45, lost in playoffs). Ranked 4th least valuable franchise in the NBA. Haven't had a winning season since 04-05 (went 41-41 in 05-06). The absolute example of a team that currently needs to be contracted and why the league needs to restructure the playoffs. Entered the playoffs with a losing record, much like the Seattle Seahawks this past season in the NFL.

2nd worst operating income: Charlotte Bobcats (34-48). 6th least valuable franchise in the NBA. Only 1 winning season in the franchise's (albeit short) span. Sorry MJ, you may be a legend as a player, but the Bobcats are not what the NBA needs. Not a well built team (unlike the Oklahoma City Thunder), not getting revenue.

Worst operating income: Orlando Magic (52-30). 11th most valuable franchise in the NBA. Has made the playoffs each of the last 5 seasons (despite a losing record in 05-06). Will Dwight Howard stay? Should not be considered when talking about removing the Magic from the league, but still an interesting thought.

In looking at these teams, I see four that could very easily be "contracted" out of the league. Ones that aren't competitive and haven't been in some time. Four less teams, logically speaking, means more revenue for the rest of the league (though not 100% of the revenue earned by the other teams in the league), a more competitive free agent market, lowering the cost of high value player, and a lower need for revenue sharing. In my opinion, Charlotte, Indiana, New Jersey, and Sacramento need to be contracted from the NBA.

Further, several of these teams have made the playoffs (in the Eastern Conference) in recent years with losing records. This simply highlights the need for a new structure for the playoffs. What that structure would be is up to you and for another discussion.

For now, so long and good morning (since I'm finishing this at 4:45 in the morning here in Dallas). It will be interesting to see how this new CBA works out, whenever it does.

Saw a few comments elsewhere about a potential trade between us and the Houston Astros. Michael Young for Carlos Lee. After the jump, I'll have some analysis from Dave Cameron on Carlos Lee, along with comparing their stats from the past 3 seasons and their current contracts.

Continue reading this post »

So, a while back, I posted a fanpost asking for yall's thoughts on the 2011 rotation. With Lee, Greinke, and Nolasco off the board, let's revisit this topic and try to keep everything in one thread.

Who makes the starting rotation to start the season? I have left Scooter Feldman off this list as he will not be healthy for opening day.

Continue reading this post »

Alright fellas, with all the names coming off the market and a decision expected from Cliff Lee! by the weekend, let's look at our options potentially on the trade market. In this, I will post stats from the past 2 seasons (without the W-L record, which most see here as irrelevant), along with packages that are the expected asking price for each.And let's not forget Age and Contract situation.

First, there's the fan favorite Zack Greinke. I say fan favorite because a) he is always talked about in Ranger trade rumors and b) he is a legitimate TORP. Let's take a look at his stats from 2009 and 2010.

Zack Greinke, 27, owed 27 mil over the next 2 years.

2009: 33 GS, 229.1 IP, 9.5 K/9, 2 BB/9, 0.43 HR/9, .313 BABIP, 79.3% LOB %, 40% GB %, 4.5 HR/FB, 2.16 ERA, 2.33 FIP, 3.15 xFIP, 9.4 WAR.

2010: 33 GS, 220 IP, 7.4 K/9, 2.25 BB/9, 0.74 HR/9, .314 BABIP, 65.3% LOB %, 46% GB %, 7.5% HR/FB, 4.17 ERA, 3.34 FIP, 3.76 xFIP, 5.2 WAR

Ok, looking at this, he had a down year last year. Yet the asking price has only gone up. The current asking price appears to be 3 out of Holland, Perez, Profar, Beltre, and that's the starting point. For me, it's too rich, but that's just me.

On to Matt Garza, who could be on the market for the right price. Problem is, it appears the Rays want more for Garza than he's probably worth. Let's look at his stats.

Matt Garza, 27, COT's does not show his contract info beyond 2010.

2009: 32 GS, 203 IP, 8.38 K.9, 3.5 BB/9, 1.11 HR/9, .284 BABIP, 75% LOB %, 39.7% GB %, 10.2% HR/FB, 3.95 ERA, 4.17 FIP, 4.21 xFIP, 3.2 WAR

2010: 32 GS, 204.2 IP, 6.6 K/9, 2.77 BB/9, 1.23 HR/9, .279 BABIP, 75.5% LOB %, 35.8% GB %, 10% HR/FB, 3.91 ERA, 4.42 FIP, 4.51 xFIP, 1.8 WAR.

The price on Garza is still steep, despite clearly being a few steps below Greinke. Evan Grant, love him or hate him, which for the most part it seems to be we hate his baseball perspective, says the price would be Holland, Borbon, and Profar. Really? Way too much IMO. But, you make the call.

Now on to Ricky Nolasco. People on here have said he's another Colby Lewis in terms of quality. Not sure what the asking price is on him, so I'll shoot high (and probably be shot for it).

Ricky Nolasco, 28, again COT's does not show his contract past 2010.

2009: 31 GS, 185 IP, 9.49 K/9, 2.14 BB/9, 1.12 HR/9, .336 BABIP, 61% LOB %, 38.3% GB %, 11% HR/FB, 5.06 ERA, 3.35 FIP, 3.28 xFIP, 4.3 WAR

2010: 26 GS, 157.2 IP, 8.39 K/9, 1.88 BB/9, 1.37 HR/9, .328 BABIP, 71.6% LOB %, 40% GB %, 12.4% HR/FB, 4.51 ERA, 3.86 FIP, 3.55 xFIP, 2.5 WAR

Based on WAR and other peripherals, I'd say that Holland, Borbon, Profar is about right for Nolasco, but that could be high. Maybe Schep, Profar, Hunter sounds better.

Based on what you see here, I would think Nolasco is the best option if you feel you need to trade for starting pitching. So, now that you are armed with the stats for 2 years of each of them, debate, and vote in the poll please.