Top ten second basemen. 24 comments


At times the Rangers have one of the best second baseman in baseball. At times the Rangers have one of the worst second baseman in baseball. It’s hard to say where he is, other than to say he isn’t in the top ten. Here is who is:

 

 

 

  • Tony Howell

    I don’t think we have a top ten anything not even a ball girl (should be a ball boy but that’s another story). The Rangers best the very best player they had retaired, and no attempt was made to replace him. Granted pretty big shoes to fill. So jd is going to build a championship from within ok could work other teams have done it. My problem with that is our BEST rookie last year hit 236 an’t going to win jack with that. Jd thinks that was great, he needs to find a Greybar or a Soto type rookie, we got too many left handed 200 hitters on this team.

    • CrazyEd

      Gallo is rated number 9 in the power hitter category.

      There are some good hitters in the lower minors. Whether they will translate it to the majors is the question. Bubba Thompson looks to be promising as he has all the tools as a CFielder. A guy is Spokane is a real beast when it comes to hitting, Curtis Terry, unfortunately he’s a 1st baseman that needs a lot of work defensively. He hit well over .300 with almost Gall0 like power from the right side. There are others that I’d have to look up as they slip my immediate memory.

    • dearmidol

      Big shoes that could be filled with Manny Machado if they cared to.

      • calntom

        From JD:
        “We are excited about what we are building,” Rangers general manager Jon Daniels said. “I am not going to put any limits on this year’s club by any stretch. We have also been pretty clear up front that this was not the winter where we were looking to put the finishing touches. We are not competing at the high end of the trade market or the free-agent market. We are still looking to build it.

  • GoRangers23

    Can someone please help me understand why MLB wants to change the roster in the off-season so that teams can no longer expand their roster to 40 players. They are proposing a 26 man roster during the season and a 28 man roster in the off-season. How is that beneficial? I tried to Google it, but couldn’t find an answer. Obviously 40 is too many, but why limit it to just 28? That has been the rule since, I believe, 1914. Why change it now?

    • calntom

      Good question Go. I have not read anything about the proposed expanded rosters that makes any sense to me. I like the idea of going to 26 for the regular season but not with the restriction of 12 pitchers on the roster.
      I bet the talking heads have beat on this but I don’t have Dish anymore so I do not see any of that.

      Here is an article from CBS Boston. Not worth anything IMO.:

      Many have criticized the roster rules, which generally allow a team 25 active players through Aug. 31 and then 40 until the end of the season. Management proposed allowing a 26-man roster, including a 12-pitcher maximum, through Aug. 31, and then up to 28 for the rest of the season. The union countered that each team should be required to have 28 active from Sept. 1 on and that there be a supplemental roster of four players after the Triple-A postseason ends. No starting pitchers would be allowed on the supplemental roster, and at least two of the four would have to be position players.

      • GoRangers23

        Thanks! Maybe one of the other posters can give us more insight.

        • JacobMcCandles

          Hadn’t heard anything as well. I don’t like adding a ton of players as well…..i would like zero or two tops

          I am getting some huge laughs finding out Warren Beatty is running for President

    • dearmidol

      Here is what I know about it, Go. For a number of years I have heard a lot of grumbling about allowing teams to have up to 40 players on their rosters after September. The general consensus is it makes no sense to play with one rule for the entire year and then in September, with another. Mainly it’s that a team with 38 players on a roster going up against a team with, say, 30 seems unfair. Of course, you could argue to the team with 30 to just bring up more players, but that’s not always possible. Also, a lot of people argue it favors the larger-market teams who can afford to carry 40 major league salaries, giving them an unfair advantage in the playoff drive.

      It used to be a way to get prospects a chance to get their feet wet but, with the way bullpens are being use now, it’s a way to horde more bullpen arms and run more one-batter pitchers into the game.

      if you think about it, with a 40-man roster, a team could use one pitcher per out and still have thirteen position players. Sounds far fetched, until you realize how tempting that would be. Why not? If you have a playoff slot locked up, why burn out arms? Just toss a pitcher out there to get one out. You have an abundance.

      Buck Showalter said that the 40-man rosters allowed him to go from two lefties in the bullpen to five or six, and that changed how he managed. That’s not, he explained, what the spirit of the call ups was supposed to be. Also, instead of being a showcase for future players, it’s become a way to get, say, a fast runner on the roster to pinch run in a select situation, a player who would never really make a major league roster otherwise.

      It’s an integrity of the game issue.

      One thought is to still allow a team to have a 40-man roster in September, but only 26 to 28 are eligible for a particular game, and must be declared beforehand.

      • GoRangers23

        Ok, thanks Kevin! That all makes sense. I also heard that MLB is proposing that
        every pitcher has to face at least three batters. I guess that would help with some of that.

      • calntom

        Great stab at that Kevin. Best I have read so far.

    • GoRangers23

      I mean September, not the off-season. I corrected it.

  • calntom

    From Will Leitch of MLB.com:
    3. How many of these starting pitchers will still be around in August?

    The Rangers rotation seems built to be flipped at the Deadline: Every single guy, even Lance Lynn (who was signed for three years), is a candidate to be shipped out if they have a first half that rebuilds their value. It’s reclamation project after reclamation project . . . Mike Minor, Drew Smyly, Edinson Volquez, even Shelby Miller. The first half of the year is one long audition for essentially the whole staff.

    • JacobMcCandles

      I think Minor,Lynn are definate….Smyly close…Shelby after that. Its BB irony..if all these bullets fire this staff could hold its own with a good BP….

      You were prob right about Ybor city….entering the place looked dicey….but further down was a whole bunch of restaraunts and bars….no problems at all. Found a Cuban place that was there since turn of the century. Was not impressed with Tampa…Cruise was fantastic, Music great……great time in the life.

    • dearmidol

      That is assuming they make it to May without having their arms fall off.

      • calntom

        Yep, there is that falling off possibility…

  • possumrld

    On the Rangers website today – “Jose Leclerc is the No. 9 relief pitcher in Major League Baseball right now according to The Shredder” Wooo Hooo!

    • JacobMcCandles

      That’s strange…..i could name 20 better

      • JacobMcCandles

        30😀

        • possumrld

          Maybe on overall numbers Jake. But I bet not for the last couple of months of the season. He looked great down home stretch! Leclerk had a post All Star break ERA of, 0.73, and a whip of 0.65. And his pre All Star numbers were pretty solid as well.So I think he does merit some credit.
          Of course, the Rangers website is going to be a bit biased. But for the most part that is what they get paid to do. 🙂

          • calntom

            Good job Poss

          • possumrld

            Thanks, Caln!

          • JacobMcCandles

            Oh yeah he was great….but that’s a small litmus test

          • possumrld

            Almost a whole season is not that small.