Jones, Hamilton, loose ends

Perhaps it is a strange set of circumstances that Andruw Jones is more of a priority than Josh Hamilton but that’s the way it seems here in the desert.

Jones is still here. He is starting to hit better. The Rangers insist he will not make the team as a starter. All indications are the Rangers were ready to cut him loose, except that he wanted to stay around a little longer and try to impress some other team.

Problem is there is strong sentiment within the rank-and-file to keep Jones. There is an element that thinks this guy could still come back and be at least close to what he was. If so, the Rangers would have to cut ties with Frank Catalanotto and eat his $6 million. Word is that is not an option that owner Tom Hicks will allow.

Hamilton’s contract situation remains unresolved. There is no need to address it. He is signed through this season. He can not be a free agent until after the 2012 season.

But the Rangers have indicated they want to explore a multi-year extension. They just haven’t broached it with Hamilton’s agent yet. They certainly haven’t pursued it as vigorously as they did with Ian Kinsler last spring or Michael Young and Hank Blalock in years past.

They likely will make overtures at some point soon. Not sure where that will go.

There are teams interested in Joaquin Arias. He started at shortstop on Saturday. He can play. The Rangers are happy with Elvis Andrus at shortstop and Arias’ throwing strength is still a concern. Omar Vizquel is the utility guy. Turns out he can play second base in his sleep.

Maybe the Rangers can get a bullpen piece for him. There seems real and palatable concerns about the bullpen. When Jason Jennings name comes up…

Josh Rupe is among the pitchers scheduled to throw on Sunday against the Dodgers. It would seem to be a good time for him to have a strong outing. Throw strikes, more strikes and even more strikes. Be aggressive, all those good things.

Rupe needs to win a job here in the next two weeks. He is out of options.

Still many loose ends to tie up.



In Economics 101 students learn about the fixed cost fallacy–that fixed costs (like Cat’s salary) are irrelevant to optimal decision-making. Remember, the Rangers have to pay Cat’s salary regardless of what they decide. In other words, neither keeping nor releasing Cat significantly affects the team’s total payroll (they have to pay him regardless). Now, if the Rangers believe they can get more wins with Jones than with Cat, the Rangers should keep Jones. After all, if the team can get more wins with the same payroll then they have made a good move. To the Rangers Cat’s salary is a fixed cost, and basing decisions off a concern about having to pay that fixed cost is a classic example of a fixed cost fallacy.

Think you mean sunk cost, OKR. And you are correct.

If true, this is an unsettling example of Hicks reverting to his crappy-owner ways. Let your people do their jobs, and get the heck out of the way.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s