I tend to rip writers more than I praise them. Not a great trait, I know, but I gotta be me. In this case, though, I think it’s worth pointing out that Ken Rosenthal nails the Rangers-Cliff Lee thing in my view:
If I were the Rangers, I would almost want to lose Cliff Lee. Don’t get me wrong, Lee would be a tremendous asset. But for five years, $135 million or whatever the final price will be . . . well, let the Yankees take that gamble. Lee will turn 33 next Aug. 30 — in the first year of his new deal . . . The Rangers need not obsess over Lee. They need not worry about the Angels, A’s or any other American League team. They need only remember how they got in this position in the first place. By making sound baseball decisions.
Lee would be nice. He’s won a Cy Young and has starred in the postseason. But I also think it’s not unreasonable to think that he has peaked. That doesn’t mean he won’t be excellent for a while longer. It’s doubtful, however, that he will be better, and $125 million+ pretty much requires that he maintain or improve on his current production for several years running.
It could happen. The odds don’t favor it, though, and a team like the Rangers (i.e. any team other than maybe the top couple of cash cows in the league) would be in big trouble if that gamble doesn’t pay off.
While the Yankees are almost certain to outbid Lee anyway, mooting this, if I were the Rangers I wouldn’t even take the chance. I’d let Lee go, wish him the best, and then allow Neftali Feliz to go back to starting where, dollar-per-dollar anyway, he’s almost certain to be a more valuable starter than Lee over the next five or six years.