Sorry for the lack of updates, Blogpark readers. I will do my best to prevent it from becoming a recurring problem.

Also, note that I wrote this yesterday afternoon, before the Rangers loss to Houston.

The Rangers need to make a trade for a DH - I’d put Danks and/or Arias on the block for DH help.

Jamey Newberg recently reported via mlb.com that Danks will see the Rangers' team physician soon due to left elbow and forearm soreness he felt in his last start, a 6-inning 12-strikeout start against San Antonio. The club, however, claims the move is "purely precautionary" and they hope he'll only miss one start. Doesn't that typically mean a trip to the surgeon and a 6-12 month rehab stint is less than a month away?

Using Brock2 for Teixeira with his first three seasons, he projects to be a useful player through age 37-39, and finish with 700+ HR, 2500+ hits, 1900+ RBI, and 1300+ runs. His projected career OPS would be over 0.900. If this is how his career actually develops, then he'll be in the top ten for HR, RBI, and OPS; and top 100 for hits and runs. To me, that says "superstar" more than "very good player." To me, he looks like he's destined to play Greenberg to Pujols's Gehrig.

To me, that says "superstar" more than "very good player."

I'm not familiar with the inner workings of that program, but I don't understand how it could project a 25 year old player to hit 700 HR. It doesn't seem to have a large enough regression/injury factor.

His main value seems to be in his good defense and good durability. His EQA last year was .308, and I think that's probably his upper limit (although he might have one or two years better than that in his career) - although he'll be very good and generally an all-star, I haven't been impressed with his offense to the point where I think he can be the best hitter in the league (adjusted for park) even in his best year. He looks like he'll be 'very good' for a very long time, so he could very likely be a HOFer - I guess that could certainly be called a superstar... I don't think he's going to have the peak of Hank Greenberg though.

Why do you feel that Michael Young's defense has been "very poor." I know his range isn't exceptional but he makes few errors and has other defensive assets such as a strong arm. Isn't "average" a more accurate assessment.

Probably below average. Maybe even well below average. Young has good footwork, soft hands, a good arm, and is a headsy guy, but that does't make up for his poor range. Defensively, he reminds me somewhat of Kevin Elster or Jeff Huson (or, more recently, Derek Jeter). For 2005, he rated the 10th best fielding AL shortsop with 4.5 fielding Win Shares, and for 2004 Young ranked 7th in the AL with 5.8. Keep in mind that he works for a team that emphasizes pitching to contact and ground balls, so even those rankings are probably a bit high.

Derek Jeter is the perfect comparison for Michael Young. He cannot make a play up the middle to save his life.

And the last 2 years, he's made 19 and 18 errors - which is just about average for a SS. If he was making 10 errors, you could live with the poor range. But, he's making an average number of errors and he has no range to his left, giving up single after single up the middle.

He's such a great hitter, and locked up to such a reasonable contract, that I still really like him.

But he struggles mightily at defense.