2007-06-22 08:55:01 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Baseball
Well, statistically, they have the worst record in MLB.
It breaks my heart but what can I do? They're my home team.
They have potential but always end up short.
2007-06-22 10:09:38 · answer #1 · answered by Adam 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No they definitely are not.
The starting pitching is more or less dreadful. They have a couple of starters who were good for prior teams, but who can't pictch effectively in the home ballpark. Quality third baseman Hank Blaylock's injury is a major problem for them. They did not replace departed center fielder Gary Matthews adequately, and the outfield defense is very poor. The catching is weak, as evidenced by trading for a catcher with a very poor offensive history in Adam Melheuse, who played about 40 games in the past 3 1/2 years in Oakland. The set-up men are poor also.
If Eric Gagne can regain his dominating form from 2003-2004, then the team can become mediocre.
2007-06-22 10:10:25 · answer #2 · answered by mf52dolphin 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What is with people getting on here and asking if really awful teams are really good teams today? The Orioles are terrible, the Rangers are worse than terrible, and that's just facts this year. Both organizations are run terribly, and nothing looks to change anytime soon.
2007-06-22 09:02:22 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I do think of Nolan Ryan, even on the appropriate of his profession, offered greater constructive than Bobby Witt. Ryan replaced into greater dominant and had some marvelous highlights with the Rangers. i will evaluate you that pal Bell advantages the nod over ARod. And John Wetteland ought to ingredient out Jim Kern. Rusty Greer ought to be over Sammy Sosa, yet in all probability a RIchie Zisk or Mickey Rivers ought to bypass over Greer. Greer had the longetivity, yet yet another men had greater constructive single years. you haven't any longer have been given a DH, so Zisk, Mike Hargrove, Toby Harrah, or somebody ought to take that function.
2016-12-13 10:21:24 · answer #4 · answered by rosalee 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, unfortunately. They're a disappointment once again. They've traded away some great players the past few years, like Adrian Gonzalez, Chris Young, and Bobby Jenks. Now they're paying the price. Their pitching is also horrible.
Come to RootZoo for smart sports talk. Head on over and ask this question there, you'll get the best responses.
http://www.rootzoo.com
2007-06-22 08:58:06 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, but the Rangers do maintain an amazing consistency as a franchise. Its pitching sucked 30 years ago, sucked 20 years ago, sucked 10 years ago, sucked five years ago, sucked last year, and sucks today. That's an impressive tradition. Let's hope Daniels is able to break it some year soon ahead.
2007-06-22 09:40:10 · answer #6 · answered by Chipmaker Authentic 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you want to go by the numbers, they're a bad team. They do have good players, but they just need a better manager and know how to work as a team.
2007-06-22 09:05:09 · answer #7 · answered by Ace 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, their record is 28-44. Their pitching staff has a team ERA of 5.40 entering tonight's game against the Astros. That should answer your question.
2007-06-22 15:45:01 · answer #8 · answered by The Official Texting Pro 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
look at their record....granted a lot of it is because of injury...but i still think it's a no....they haven't earned a good record and they haven't done enough to be considered a good team...maybe in a few years...maybe they should take back a-rod...and then give him up again...once they get rid of him then they'll do better
2007-06-22 08:59:57 · answer #9 · answered by Yogaflame 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
nope
2007-06-22 09:00:36 · answer #10 · answered by ishi93 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋