Tim Cowlishaw

Archive | Blog | E-mail

On a team that will never compete with the Yankees in the American League or the Angels in their own division when it comes to free-agent spending, I didn't think $12 million for Kevin Millwood made any sense.

On a team that can only get better and become a real contender for a postseason bid by getting sold to a new ownership group this winter, I didn't think $12 million for Kevin Millwood on the books looked like a deal-maker.

So when the Rangers skipped his turn in the rotation for last weekend's series with Los Angeles, I felt sure that the whole "taking time off to study film with pitching coach Mike Maddux" storyline on Millwood was a joke. Nothing more than a tall tale for a team determined to shut him down and prevent him from reaching the 180-inning plateau that triggered the $12 million option.

I hate when good conspiracy theories get blown up like that.

But then, watching Millwood pitch a highly effective seven innings in Oakland on Monday, looking like the Millwood that was among the league's ERA leaders the first half of the season, I realized the method behind the apparent madness.

If you're general manager Jon Daniels or team president Nolan Ryan or manager Ron Washington and you're going to be judged next season by how much your team lives up to this overhyped notion that 2010 is the Rangers' year, you need Kevin Millwood on that wall.

Or that mound, anyway.

If you ask, "Could that $12 million have been better spent?" the answer is yes. You might have been able to sign Millwood for half that and get center fielder Marlon Byrd under contract. You could have done all sorts of things with that $12 million.

But that's meaningless.

The relevant question is: Would the Rangers have spent that $12 million if they did not have to?

If Hicks remains the owner, we know the answer. It's no, because he doesn't have it.

If Hicks has sold the team before the winter meetings or free-agency period – highly unlikely at this point – the answer still could be no. It's certainly not a definite yes.

So by letting Millwood regain his pitching groove and reach the inning threshold that triggered the 2010 clause, Daniels, Ryan and company assured themselves of having a quality pitcher in their rotation who otherwise would have been long gone.

And if you look at the Rangers' young roster, there really is little danger of losing key components for next season. Byrd, with his somewhat unrecognized outfield play and 42 doubles and 79 RBIs, is at the top of the list. He, like Millwood, is one of those guys you love having in the clubhouse of a young team, too.

The team's best players are already under contract for 2010 or, at worst, limited to arbitration. It's not like Josh Hamilton is going to break the bank in that area after a 49-RBI season, either.

The pitchers who have prospered in the rotation this season (Scott Feldman and Tommy Hunter) and the one with the potential to hit that level in 2010 (Derek Holland) all benefit from having a 35-year-old Millwood in the top spot.

If he can pitch an entire season the way he did through June this year, the Rangers are true contenders. If he can simply repeat 2009, that's not bad, either.

And if he completely falls apart, then even in the club's worst-case scenario, it's money poorly spent that wasn't going to be spent otherwise.

If that's true, then there was no gamble at all played out in Oakland this week. Ryan and Daniels were just rolling with house money that was going to escape their pockets if it didn't get spent.

When he makes his last Arlington start of the year this weekend against Tampa Bay, Millwood deserves a hearty "welcome back" from Rangers fans.

It may be the kids already here and the prospects on the way that offer this franchise so much hope.

But bringing back Millwood for another 180 innings on a team more strapped for cash than its competitors has the look of an unexpected stroke of good fortune.