The Rangers never seemed to snap out of a World Series hangover, as the team stumbled to a 78-84 record one year after capturing its first championship. Texas now has several holes to be filled on the pitching staff, and the lingering question of how much money is available for roster upgrades.
Guaranteed Contracts
- Corey Seager, SS: $218MM through 2031
- Jacob deGrom, SP: $115MM through 2027 (club option for 2028 worth at least $20MM)
- Marcus Semien, 2B: $98MMM through 2028
- Tyler Mahle, SP: $16.5MM through 2025
- Jon Gray, SP: $13MM through 2025
- Adolis Garcia, OF: $9.25MM through 2025 (eligible for arbitration through '26)
Option Decisions
- Nathan Eovaldi, SP: $20MM player option for 2025
- David Robertson, RP: $7MM mutual option for 2025 ($1.5MM buyout)
- Andrew Chafin, RP: $6.5MM club option for 2025 ($500K buyout)
2025 financial commitments: $136.75MM ($170.25MM if all options are exercised)
Total future commitments: $469.75MM ($503.25MM if all options are exercised)
Arbitration-Eligible Players (projections from MLBTR contributor Matt Swartz)
- Nathaniel Lowe (4.145): $10.7MM
- Jonah Heim (4.097): $4.8MM
- Dane Dunning (4.078): $4.4MM
- Josh Sborz (4.055): $1.3MM
- Leody Taveras (3.124): $4.3MM
- Non-tender candidates: Dunning, Sborz
Free Agents
The first bit of the Rangers' offseason business was addressed in September, when Chris Young was signed to a new contract extension and promoted from GM to president of baseball operations. Young's previous deal was up at the end of the 2024 season, and despite this year's struggles in Arlington, the Commissioner's Trophy from 2023 was surely enough for Young to earn some extra job security.
Now entering his third winter in charge of the Texas front office, Young faces another unique challenge. The 2022-23 offseason was all about the Rangers trying to finally get back into contention, and Jacob deGrom's five-year, $185MM free agent deal added to the club's spending spree from the previous offseason under former PBO Jon Daniels. Last offseason, with a championship now in tow, Young basically just stood pat, as the Rangers scaled back spending due to the big salary commitments already in place, and plenty of concern over the team's broadcasting revenues.
Unlock Subscriber-Exclusive Articles Like This One With a Trade Rumors Front Office Subscription
- Access weekly subscriber-only articles by Tim Dierkes, Steve Adams, and Anthony Franco.
- Join exclusive weekly live chats with Anthony.
- Remove ads and support our writers.
- Access GM-caliber tools like our MLB Contract Tracker
I wonder what the Rangers could get for Josh Smith. Didn’t get to watch many Ranger games, but just going off the fangraphs splits, looks like he fell off hard in the 2nd half.
Still gotta imagine he’s a possible upgrade for a few teams.
Why would they trade him? They aren’t going to get a top prospect for him and he’s a depth piece they need especially considering Jung and Seager haven’t stayed healthy. And he’s cheap.
Gonna have to buck up and pay for these articles eventually.
Mock trade Cardinals Rangers
Willson Contreras
Ryan Helsley
Jojo Romero
For
Sebastian Walcott
Rangers get a backup catcher and DH with perhaps help at 1b and a middle of the order bat. Get a stud closer and good setup guy. Cardinals get Arenados replacement.
Just don’t. They’ll give up eventually. Can’t have their most interesting articles during the off-season locked.
Their reasoning for why they’re paywalled doesn’t even make sense. They said the articles don’t get enough traffic and ad revenue relative to the amount of time they take. That means very few people are reading them. So their response to very few people reading these articles is to make it so even fewer people can read them? If very few people read these already, do they honestly think those who do that aren’t already subscribed are going to finally fork over a the money specifically for the thing people barely read anyway? If the site is doing this poorly, just put everything behind a paywall.
I don’t believe that explanation for a second. Last season’s outlook articles got hundreds of comments for just about every team but the Marlins. These used to get tons of engagement
“That means very few people are reading them”
Depends on your definition of “very few.” If an Offseason Outlook gets 15,000 pageviews, we might make less than $60 on ad revenue.
If three people become subscribers from that Outlook instead, that’s the better call. It might even be true that if one person becomes a subscriber from that Outlook it’s the better call.
Thus far we’re averaging 13 new subs per Outlook.
“If very few people read these already”
Incorrect premise already but go on…
“do they honestly think those who do that aren’t already subscribed are going to finally fork over a the money”
Yes, because that’s what has been happening.
“for the thing people barely read anyway”
Aaaand we’re back to your incorrect premise.
There is an amount of traffic that represents a large amount of human beings reading something yet does not create enough ad revenue to pay for three hours of work.
We don’t make money from comments
“We don’t make money from comments”
You should consider putting blackpink’s comments behind a paywall.
Interesting stuff. You should do an article of how MLB-R generates its revenue from all the different sources. I’m an old-school accountant, and I find this new way of doing business very interesting.
But people are commenting because they’re clicking on the article. Stop being disingenuous and just admit you’re having trouble paying your mortgage
You sure do. Many wouldn’t be on here reading your articles without being able to comment and interact with others.
You could wait and wait and hope that they unlock the articles or you could cough up the $29.89/year (less than $2.50 a month) and support a website that you visit every day and comment on. Or you can choose option three, whine and complain.
Or, ppl still don’t subscribe and they lose engagement on once pretty decent material. If they haven’t subscribed yet turning once free material into subscriber only isn’t going to make ppl want to subscribe.
I get creating new content for subscribers only. But turning once free content that attracted people to you into subscriber only material won’t really push more subscribers. It’ll push engagement down.
It’d be like Fortnite going from free to play into charging you 2.50 a month to play.
To each their own, but losing engagement means they lose money on both subscription and ad revenue.
Or they could just be honest and say, “Actually, these articles are quite popular, but our site struggling due to ad revenue being down so we need a way to push for more subscribers. Locking popular articles behind paywalls is the best way to help the site.” I’d still disagree with that decision, but it’s not my website, so to each their own. However, as I Believe We Can Win points out, the reasoning they’ve given is flawed. If nobody reads these articles anyway, then nobody is going to make the leap to their subscription service just for these.
And bonus, if hardly anyone subscribes just for these articles then they’ll be losing even more money on them, as they won’t even get the ad revenue they were getting before since Front Office removes ads. Seems to me the proper choice, if times are really that tough for MLBTR, would be to stop writing these articles that lose them money. I’m guessing though that these articles are more popular than they want to admit, which is why they feel locking them behind a paywall will spur more people to subscribe.
“ppl still don’t subscribe”
A risk we took for sure, but fortunately people are subscribing!
“If they haven’t subscribed yet turning once free material into subscriber only isn’t going to make ppl want to subscribe”
What’s the logic here? This is literally the opposite of true.
“It’d be like Fortnite going from free to play into charging you 2.50 a month to play.”
Lousy analogy, because Fortnite is not entirely ad-supported. Fortnite makes tons of money from people who begin as free users and then want more. I have three tween/teen kids dude.
turning once free material into subscriber only isn’t going to make ppl want to subscribe”
==================
Of course it does. I figure there are two reasons for any subscription.
1-I have some go-to sites that i don’t want to disappear. Stuff costs money and salaries need to be paid.
2-This happens less often, but sometimes these are analyses out there that I lack the requisite skills to do so myself, or more commonly, I am just too lazy. No offense, but that’s usually FB related. So I have to pay PFF to find out just how bad of a draft my Raiders are having,.
But of course some people pay for stuff behind the wall.
Logic being this years version has 20 now 21 comments last years had more. Engagement is literally down compared to last year. But you do you man. Any comments stemming from subscription arent even talking about your article which further drives down actual engagement.
“Lousy analogy”
If fortnite required players to play the game with a monthly subscription fee it would drive down users and players. Thats indisputable. Fornite is attractive because its a completely free to play game but makes its money off vbucks required to purchase things like skins which really dont add anything to the game play. If fortnite started charging money less people would play.
Glad subscriptions are up. You do enough advetising and begging its bound to go up. Ad blockers are great ways to get rid of ads so are vpns.
@No Soup For Yu
That is literally the reasoning that they gave for putting the articles behind a paywall and they laid it out in an article.
It seems as though you misread or misunderstood something. They explained that these articles are some of their most popular and require much more effort than other work so putting them behind a paywall to drive revenue is a logical decision.
I subscribed specifically for these articles. Guess I’m one of the 13 for this one! LMAO
This actually makes sense as Walcott is blocked until at least 2028.
Lots of things could happen in the two years before Walcott is ready. He could move to RF, Seager could move off of SS, Walcott could take longer to figure it out at the upper levels. No trades just yet.
C’mon. $30 a year is cheap. Look how much newspapers have become!
Why in the world would the Rangers trade their #1 prospect for a bunch of castaways? No one wants Contreras contract, especially as a back up catcher (and especially the Rangers who are operating without a TV contract). Helsley is a free agent soon and JoJo is just a depth bullpen piece. The Rangers would laugh at you and then hang up the phone.
The Rangers should trade Walcott IMO but if they do they would get a lot more value for him.
Castaways? Contreras is a good player would instantly be one of the Rangers best hitters. Helsley is one of the best closers in baseball and Romero is a good setup guy.
What on earth do you think they could get for Walcott that’s better tha. I suggested? You are clueless.
LMAO Contreras is getting paid $18 million a year to be a backup catcher/DH and about to turn 33 years old who the Cardinals regretted signing not even a month into his contract.
Helsley is good, but he’s about to be a free agent. Why would the Rangers trade their top prospect, the #23 overall prospect in all the game, for a rental reliever?
And JoJo is just a run of the mill lefty reliever.
You are absolutely clueless.
Contreras was the Cardinals best hitter in 2024. He would be the Rangers second best behind Seager who of course is signed to a dumb contract. And the Cardinals can pay some of his salary.
Helsley is a stud reliever. You think the Rangers will get lucky again like they did with Yates? I doubt it.
Relievers are much easier to find than guys that are 18 years old SS and the #23 prospect in all of baseball.
Again, Contreras is going to get traded as a salary dump, he is not someone who is going to return one of the best prospects in baseball. Get a freakin clue.
As I said the Cardinals would pay some of his salary. The Rangers can trade Walcott and then sign the next Walcott in the next round of international free agency.
Are you a Rangers fan? Good luck.
If it were that easy to just “sign the next Walcott” then the Cardinals should just keep their resources and do the same. But you know it isn’t that simple and you’re just clueless. I’m done with you. Muted.
In Bochy we trust. If overall team health holds up, he’ll have them playing October ball in 25.
These are the moves I see CY making:
If you do not resign Eovaldi:
FA-Flaherty or Fried and trade for Crochet
If you do sign Eovaldi
FA Manaea or SEverino perhaps cushion deal with Bieber or Buehler
POSITION PLAYER SIDE
FA O’niell to hit against LHP
Goldscmidt to DH spell LOwe occasionally at 1B
Perhaps see if Cubs would take Gray and Duran + couple of mid tier prospects for Suzuki or Happ
Perhaps Baltimore would consider Gray or Mahle for Mullins in change of scenery trade
Perhaps Baltimore would consider Gray or Mahle for Mullins in change of scenery trade
==========================
I like your suggestions, but particularly this last one. It might cost Texas a few shekels to even it out.
Do all the ads go away if I subscribe to Front Office?
Sure do!
If you want to charge money that’s fine, people can choose to pay or go somewhere else. My complaint is you read 1/2 an article and all of a sudden they want money to finish it.
To me that’s insulting. Either put the whole story behind a paywall or make it free, you just piss people off that way
This “you just piss people off” comments are killing me. That’s a you problem, not theirs. Calm down and pay writers of content you like to read.