Email of the Day

Letters! Oh, We get Letters!

Here is one from Curt:

Bob,

Just listened to another Rangers segment where you mentioned that Hicks has been the biggest obstacle this franchise has faced for the past several years (don't disagree). You also patted yourself on the back for being on top of this from the get-go, seeming to imply that not too long ago BAD Radio was the lone voice crying in the wilderness when it came to Tom Hicks. I know I've heard Dan mention this in the past, as well.

This may be true, but what I remember as the BAD Radio stance was that Jon Daniels was a lousy GM. I'm sure you railed against Hicks also, but I don't recall you ever comparing him unfavorably to a fern. What I remember most is how both you and Dan dismissed the Ranger farm system, saying that Daniels should not get credit for something that had not produced results at the major league level. Now that the system is starting to bear fruit and Jon Daniels is seen as one of the better GMs in the game, it seems like you're ignoring that previous stance and focusing instead on the Hicks one. I guess I'm not the most devoted listener, so maybe the amount of air time dedicated to Hicks' ineptitude vs Jon Daniels' was 10 to 1 and I happened to listen at the wrong time. But for someone like me, it seems incredibly disengenuous to position yourselves as being first on the scene in uncovering the true cause of the Rangers' failings, when at the time it appeared to run a distant second to an opinion you've swept under the rug.

Please tell me I'm wrong. I want to believe in my heroes.

Curt in the Hinterlands

Thanks, Curt for your email.

I am a bit confused here on your direction. It appears you are comparing 2 different opinions about the same team and allowing one to influence how you feel about the other (which is a fair thing to do).

First things first: Our Tom Hicks view has not changed in a long, long time. Especially not since the "owner has to stop writing checks" interview with Dale Hansen.

How that relates to Jon Daniels is anyone's guess, but in October of 2008, I wrote This very controversial essay which has likely been the least well-received thing I have ever written.

The premise was that at the time (easy to say now) the Rangers were continuing in disarray with several consecutive bad moves in a row (it seemed) and another bottom finish. The fruits of the Teixeira trade had not been realized and the question was "what if the GM had not made any moves at all?"

Surely, an unrealistic question, but at the time - with the Danks trade, the Adrian Gonzalez/Chris Young trade, and a few other moves that had not exactly worked well, a conversation that was tailor-made for blogs or segments.

Obviously, the Braves trade changed everything in the career of Daniels. It is likely that this will be his signature move of his career - the one that will always have him employed. Like Donnie Nelson "finding Dirk" or Tom Grieve trading Sammy Sosa, we all know that GMs often get linked to a signature move - no matter how fair it really is.

So, to answer your question: Has my opinion on Daniels adjusted since writing that column? Absolutely. I now have far more information that says he knows what he is doing than I had in October of 2008. As for Hicks, I also have more information. The kind that only confirms that my worst fears of the man were correct back in 2005.

Ask Sports Sturm #3: JD versus the Fern - Updated

Dear Sports Sturm-

I am pretty sure Jon Daniels doesn't know what he is doing, and he has actually made a huge mess of this thing. Is it possible the Rangers would be better off if they had no GM at all, or perhaps a nice houseplant like a fern sitting in his chair not answering the phone?

Dave - A frustrated Baseball Fan


What if the Rangers did not make any trades, any free agent signings, and only kept what talent they had when John Hart left?

This discussion is surely a controversial one, but it is all based on the idea that the case could be made that the Rangers would have been better served if they would have made no trades and no free agent signings from October 5, 2005 (the day Jon Daniels was named general manager) until this very day.

This is not to say that a fern is a better judge of talent than Jon Daniels, because that is ridiculous. Daniels knows more in his little pinky about baseball than most of us would ever hope to know. But, that is not the point. The point is that very smart baseball men occasionally get on rolls where they cannot make good deals. It would appear that Mr. Daniels had a spell like that for a few years.

This study does not take into account several very important factors. For instance:

1) There is no accounting for payroll. The idea that the Rangers would have resigned their own free agents (including Teixeira, Cordero, Soriano, and Matthews) is a very daunting expense. Even those of us who would love to see their payroll increase would concede this is an absurd bill. At the same time, the cost of Millwood, Padilla, Catalanatto, Jason Jennings and Milton Bradley would not have occurred, so you could see how you would add over $43 million in players (without Teixeira’s new money determined) while subtracting roughly $33 million. If you assume that the Rangers could have done a similar deal with Chris Young that the Padres did, that would add another $2.5 million, so the Rangers payroll would still be at just about $80 million dollars- or up about $13 million from the $67 they spent in 2008. Also, we must figure out how a fern would go about negotiating with Scott Boras, but for the sake of discussion...

2) There is also no accounting for player development. Whenever the discussion of Edinson Volquez or Jon Danks is raised, many will often suggest that the Rangers never would have gotten the performance out of those young lads that their current teams did. Well, you might be right, but in the court of sports discussions, we always assume that Michael Jordan would have been great in Portland, Brett Favre would have been great in Atlanta, and Randy Moss would have been pretty solid in Dallas. Of course, there is no telling, so any arguments on this line are surely subjective and impossible to prove.

3) A fern needs to be watered regularly. And we are assuming that the Fern would make all of the same draft picks that Jon Daniels and his staff has made.

4) There is no accounting for prospects. This is about the major league teams. If Daniels strategy has been to ignore the big league team and just stock pile for 2009 and beyond – a theory that has been advanced by more than a few people, then he will get the last laugh, as the fern has been trying to win now. But, that is purely guesswork at this moment in time.

But, after we are aware of those and other factors, it is very interesting to look at the Rangers Major League club at this moment, October of 2008, and compare them to what they would be if they only had the talent they had in October of 2005, and the draft picks they have made since then.

First, an email explanation of the methodology, from our intern, TC, - the man who put this study together - and a man after my own heart:

Bob,

The question you brought up yesterday--would the Rangers be better off if they had not made any moves at all--is one I'd been meaning to look in to as well. I had a little extra time after I got off work today, so I did the math. If the Rangers had not made any trades, not signed any new players, retained the players they had before Daniels, and drafted the same as they did in real life, it seems they would be a strong playoff team today.

The spreadsheet I've attached has two pages. One is just a list of key moves made by Daniels. The other is a comparison of the stats of the current team compared to the stats of the team as it would look had a fern been the GM. The key stat here is Wins Above Replacement Player. A team made up entirely of players who could be replaced easily by street free agents would win somewhere around 20 games. So if we add around 20 wins to the total of the WARP of the real team, we get an 82-win team. Since the real team ended up winning 79 games, I'd say the stat does a pretty good job of estimating wins.

The stat estimates that the Fern-led Rangers would win somewhere in the neighborhood of 108 games. So even allowing that the stat to be off by 10 games, the Rangers are still a wild card team. If they're as good as WARP indicates with a top 3 of Danks, Volquez, and Young, I don't think it would be crazy to call them a World Series contender.

I might have left someone out of either lineup, and one could argue that maybe the starting rotations ought to look different. On both sides, I tried to find the player who would most help their cause. I certainly would appreciate your input as to who should be where and stuff. But any changes at this point would be minor and unlikely to affect larger point: that a fern would be a much better manager than
Jon Daniels.

I figured since you have Moneyball on your desk and read the Pro Football Prospectus books that you would be okay with stats like WARP. I further figure that those sorts of things aren't well suited for use on the radio, since lots of people don't know what they mean and some people have a prejudice towards that sort of thing. I did this just so that I could know with precision how much better the fern is than
Daniels, but if you want to turn it in to an Ask Sports You and would like to change the stats being used, let me know which ones you would like me to look up, and I would be happy to find them.

TC Fleming

OK, with that in mind, here are the current Rangers, including their “WARP” rating from the most this season. The players used, are the players who own the highest WARP at each position. That is why Blalock is at 1B, and Teagarden is your Catcher.

The Jon Daniels – Texas Rangers

========WARP
1B Hank Blalock 1.7
2B Ian Kinsler 8.2
SS Michael Young 8.1
3B Chris Davis 2.3
RF David Murphy 3.4
CF Josh Hamilton 8.1
LF Brandon Boggs 1.6
C Taylor Teagardn 1.1
DH Milton Bradley 7
======== 41.5

SP Kevin Milwood 3.6
SP Vicente Padilla 4.1
SP Kason Gabbard 0.9
SP Eric Hurley 0.5
SP Brandon McCarthy0.6
======== 9.7

CP CJ Wilson 0.9
RP Jamey Wright 2.1
RP Josh Rupe 1.7
RP Warner Madrigal 0.6
RP Kameron Loe 0.5
RP Wes Littleton 0.2
RP Frank Francisco 3.7
RP Joaquin Benoit 1.2
======== 10.9
Team Total 62.1

And here is the best team the Fern could roll out for this season:

1B Mark Texiera 10
2B Ian Kinsler 8.2
SS Michael Young 8.1
3B Chris Davis 2.3
RF Mark DeRosa 8
CF G Matthews, Jr. 1.6
LF Alfonso Soriano 5.8
C T Teagarden 1.1
DH Adrian Gonzalez 8.1
======== 53.2

SP John Danks 8.5
SP Edinson Volquez 7
SP Chris Young 2.8
SP Eric Hurley 0.5
SP Scott Feldman 1.8
======== 20.6

CP Fran Cordero 5.8
RP RA Dickey 2.5
RP Ron Mahay 2.2
RP CJ Wilson 0.9
RP Joaquin Benoit 1.2
RP Josh Rupe 1.7
RP Frank Francisco 3.7
RP Wes Littleton 0.2
======== 18.2
Team Total 92

So, there you have it. The JD Rangers get 62 wins (+20) for 82 real wins, and the Fern Rangers sit at 92 (+20) for an absurd total of 112 real wins. Even if Bill James is off by a dozen wins – which he very seldom is, the result puts the fern at 100 wins in 2008.

Shocking.

Do you believe it? I am not sure even I do, but it shows you the shocking subtractions that have been made around here.

Let’s hope the supplies on the farm are as good as they have been advertised.
I look forward to your comments below.

Update 10/26, 8:00am: There appear to be some issues with TC's study with the WARP and with a few lineup issues raised by some readers that shall be sorted in out in good time (when I get done with the Cowboys today). I thought of taking it down until everything is airtight, but the link is out there so for now, please know that we are aware of some issues and will try to work to work them out quite shortly. Lo Siento.

=============================================================

Update 11/1: So, when I did this originally, I sent it out to the discriminating eyes of my Rangers media heroes. Guys like Newberg, Hindman, Grant, Lewin, and Adam Morris. Morris, of www.lonestarball.com took the time to give TC's numbers a strong test. Here is his email response:

A couple of things...

1) You left out Marlon Byrd, who would give the Daniels group an additional 5 wins or so compared to having Boggs out there.

2) Much of DeRosa's value is derived from him playing 2B. If you put him in RF, instead of 2B, his WARP probably drops by about 3 or so.

3) Ditto with Adrian Gonzalez at DH...Milton Bradley was a better offensive player than Gonzalez was this year, even factoring in the time missed, so it doesn't make sense to say Gonzalez would give you more wins above replacement as a DH.

4) This also overlooks the fact that you are giving Fern a full season from your 1B, while giving Daniels about 1 or 1 1/2 months from his 1B.

5) Laird had a higher WARP than Teagarden, although that's the same for Daniels and Fern.

6) You also omitted Matt Harrison, who had a higher WARP than Eric Hurley. And if you are going to include Jamey Wright (a f.a. right now), you should probably include Eddie Guardado, who adds a couple of wins to the bullpen.

7) Danks and Volquez would likely have a WARP about a half-run lower apiece if they were in Texas, owing to the terrible defense behind them (which would result in more earned runs allowed, resulting in a lower WARP).

8) You could also just combine Cruz and Murphy (since Cruz didn't come up until Murphy was done for the year), and give you a combined WARP from the COF slot that you don't have Byrd in, which boosts the current total.

Really, there are three guys on your "Fern" list who made significant contributions that weren't made up by guys currently here...that's Teixeira, Cordero, and Danks. Otherwise, Soriano's WARP was lower than Byrd's this year, DeRosa was either a wash with Kinsler at 2B or a wash with the Cruz/Murphy combo, Volquez/Hamilton is a coin flip, Bradley/Gonzalez is a wash...

He then did a very extensive blog post on the topic here ...I am impressed and honored by the attention to detail.

But, even with the adjustments made, the difference in wins appears to still be 15 wins in the fern's favor. 15 wins is the difference between first place and last place in the AL Central, and in the Rangers case, 15 wins would take you from 16 games out of the Wildcard chase to merely 1.

So, while I certainly did not like to have so many oversights in the project (TC and I both share the burden of guilt) I still suggest that while he weakened the argument from 30 wins to 15...15 wins is still 15 wins.

Here is the response from embattled TC:

Bob,

Here is the new spreadsheet with the inclusion of Win Shares to back up the original argument. And I was wrong about the math on the phone. It's pretty close to a 15-win advantage for both methods, WARP and Win Shares.

Also, I just read Adam's post and the accompanying comments, and I have some pretty mixed reactions. On one hand, I've never had anything in the ballpark of 42 responses to anything I've written before. Having this many people discussing something I'm kind of involved in is neat, and at least in the case of Adam getting involved, it really helps towards the goal of learning the true and accurate answer to the question.

But on the other hand, some of these commenters seem to really miss the point. I'm sure that you've had some of the same reactions. By posing and answering a bit of a fun question, we are not declaring our baseball philosophy. We're just trying to answer the question. By looking in to this matter, we are not saying that payroll and prospects are unimportant. We're just saying it's too complicated to consider for this specific experiment.

Finally, I quibble with Adam's conclusions. I really appreciate his tweaks to the lineups (although I wonder how exactly he was able to account for DeRosa and Gonzalez), but to look at the differences and dismiss them seems silly. Using his totals, the Fern wins 15 more games. 15 wins is a lot. 15 wins is a ton. Granted they would miss the postseason this year (15 more wins gives them 94. The Red Sox took the wild card with 95 and the Angels took the division with 100 wins), but Paul DePodesta says in Moneyball that if a team wins 95 games and misses the playoffs, that team should be okay with that. I think he would say the same of 94 wins.

Wouldn't everyone around here just be overjoyed with 94 wins? Based on his response at the end of the post, I don't think he values 15 wins the same as I do. It seems like a lot of this difference comes from the fact that he boils the 15 wins down to Cordero, Danks and Teixeira then separately dismisses all three losses. I agree with him on Teixeira, but just because people weren't clamoring for Cordero doesn't mean he wouldn't be a great help to the team. Then he dismisses Danks, saying it has been beaten to death. No doubt it has been beaten to death, but it's still significant. You can't just say it's not important because it's been heavily discussed before.

Our original conclusion is that a Fern would be better than John Daniels. That conclusion is still true, and it's true by a pretty impressive margin. Not as much as we thought initially, but still an impressive margin.

So, there you have it. Decide for yourself.

Here are the new amended lineups:

First Daniels - Updated
Daniels WARP
1B Hank Blalock 1.7
2B Ian Kinsler 8.2
SS Michael Young 8.1
3B Chris Davis 2.3
RF David Murphy/ Nelson Cruz 10.4
CF Josh Hamilton 8.1
LF Marlon Byrd 5.4
C Gerald Laird 2.7
DH Milton Bradley 7
================= 53.9

SP Kevin Milwood 3.6
SP Vicente Padilla 4.1
SP Scott Feldman 1.8
SP Matt Harrison 1.2
SP Brandon McCarthy 0.6
================= 11.3

CP CJ Wilson 0.9
RP Jamey Wright 2.1
RP Josh Rupe 1.7
RP Warner Madrigal 0.6
RP Kameron Loe 0.5
RP Eddie Guardado 2.5
RP Frank Francisco 3.7
RP Joaquin Benoit 1.2
=================== 13.2
Team Total 78.4

And the Fern's:

Fern WARP
1B Mark Texiera 10
2B Ian Kinsler 8.2
SS Michael Young 8.1
3B Chris Davis 2.3
RF Mark DeRosa 8
CF Gary Matthews, Jr. 1.6
LF Alfonso Soriano 5.8
C Gerald Laird 2.7
DH Adrian Gonzalez 8.1
=================== 54.8

SP John Danks 8.5
SP Edinson Volquez 7
SP Chris Young 2.8
SP Eric Hurley 0.5
SP Scott Feldman 1.8
=================== 20.6

CP Francisco Cordero 5.8
RP RA Dickey 2.5
RP Ron Mahay 2.2
RP CJ Wilson 0.9
RP Joaquin Benoit 1.2
RP Josh Rupe 1.7
RP Frank Francisco 3.7
RP Wes Littleton 0.2
==================== 18.2
Team Total 93.6

The End to a fun little debate that has grown a life of its own...

When The Stars Turned the Corner

As the Plane heads off to what could be the final game of the season (if things don't go right), we ponder when the Stars figured it out again. I will say the summer of 2006, when they made Morrow the captain, said goodbye to Arnott and Guerin, and made some odd trade with Montreal for Mike Ribeiro.

I was emailed a link to this blog, yesterday , where a Stars fan was writing another tribute to Brenden. It was good stuff, but I was emailed the link because it referenced something I said many moons ago.

Usually, when I am sent this, it is to remind me of a mistake I made in the past (like when I thought Okafor was a better pick than Dwight Howard) because these archives don’t lie. If you search hard enough you can find some really dumb things I have said over the years, but I will leave that up to you and your boredom.

Anyway, I was sent something I got very right. It was from April 27, 2006, when I wrote about Game 3 of the Stanley Cup Playoffs – Round 1, with Dallas losing to Colorado again . I was all bitter about another Stars crash and burn, but I guess I decided that the Stars needed a new captain that day and wrote this:

• I endorse Brendan Morrow (above) for captain in 2006-07.

Wow. I am really proud of getting that one so right – please don’t note that I also obviously didn’t know how to spell his name.

What seems like such a no-brainer now was certainly questioned then; but I guess I can’t lose them all.

Links:

Evan Examines the Rangers turnaround ….

On the evening of April 24, while all around them was silent and sullen, the senior members of the Rangers' roster conducted a makeshift board meeting in the back of the club's charter flight from Detroit to Dallas.

A three-game sweep in Detroit extended the Rangers' losing streak to seven games and left the club with the worst record in the American League and staring at the same kind of season-killing start that had scuttled the 2007 season before Memorial Day.

Something had to be done if the season was to be saved.

Eddie Guardado, with the most major league service time, represented the bullpen. Kevin Millwood spoke for the starting rotation, Milton Bradley and Michael Young for the position players. By the time the plane had landed, the group had decided it was time to take the rather extreme measure of a players-only meeting.

A day later, they met. As is custom, the most experienced member of the club, Guardado, spoke first and told the team, "This is where it starts." The others followed, echoing the approach that the season started anew with the next game. And when it was done, almost every player on the roster had said something.

"We became a team that day," Young said. "The effect of that meeting was huge."

Even Dr. Phil would be envious of the results of the Rangers' group therapy. Since the meeting, the team is 13-6 and has won each of the six series it has played. Manager Ron Washington's job security is no longer being discussed. In three weeks, the Rangers have moved back to the brink of .500. Or if you count things this way, they began Thursday 3 ½ games behind the wild-card leader, Boston.

Was it that simple? Was some introspection all the Rangers needed? Are they winning because they had a meeting?

"It's not that simple," Guardado said. "I've been through a lot of meetings where you said a lot of the same things and nothing happened. That everybody said something was important. I came out of it feeling good, and I think everybody did. I think there was a feeling like a ton of bricks had been taken off each of our backs. We started relying on each other more. Now, we are picking each other up."

It shows in the way the Rangers' lineup has approached its job. It shows in the way the starting rotation and bullpen have gotten back in synch to ensure that one doesn't place too much of a burden on the other. It shows in the way the veterans seem to feed off the rookies' energy as much as the rookies feed off the veterans' experience.

Hicks has no confidence in Daniels …it would appear from his quote….

Speculation was rampant that manager Ron Washington would be fired, but Ryan said a knee-jerk reaction would have been a mistake. Daniels and Hicks agree that Ryan's experiences -- 27 seasons as a player and 15 years in private business -- were invaluable in deciding to remain patient.

"He wanted us to face the issues because he wasn't prepared to give up on this season," Hicks said. "We did face the issues, we thought long and hard about them, we decided to be patient, and it looks like that decision was a good decision."
That means that ideas were shared by Ryan and Daniels, a pairing Hicks said is working well and should make the Rangers better. Ryan can give Daniels perspective he didn't have before.

Said Hicks: "Some of the mistakes J.D. made in trades we wouldn't have made had Nolan been at the table. I don't think we'll have to worry about that again."
Hicks' faith in Ryan is so strong that he has taken a step back from the Rangers to juggle his other two major league franchises, the Dallas Stars and FC Liverpool. He also has let Ryan to be the public face of the ballclub.

It's a luxury he has because Ryan's grasp on the Rangers -- business and baseball -- improves each day. He is getting a better idea of how to meet deadlines and demands set by the office of Major League Baseball, and he knows which prospects are where and what they can do.

But only four teams are playing in the minors now. Nine, including two teams in the Dominican Republic, will be playing by summer. He'll have more to grasp then, but he hasn't given anyone a reason to think he won't be on top of those clubs, too.

"I give him a lot of credit," Daniels said. "He's taken on a lot in a very short amount of time. To a degree it's been a crash course. Every day he's got everything from how the big-league club is doing to merchandising to facility improvements."
Indeed, Ryan's spacious office is home to a rack of jerseys that could be worn next season.

He has hired Dale Petroskey, former president of the Baseball Hall of Fame, to oversee marketing, community development, government relations and the Texas Rangers Foundation.

Nolan Ryan Tender Beef is now available at Rangers Ballpark.

He can be heard on radio ads telling fans they could use some baseball.

Ryan will be keeping lookout during the Lone Star Series.

"It's a big weekend," he said. "There are going to be some Astros fans who haven't seen our club. So we hope we play well."

Why is Vince Young Dancing Topless? …

Spurs stay alive …

Boosted by a hot shooting stroke, scrappy defense and an inspired Manu Ginobili, the Spurs kept their season alive for at least one more game.

Ginobili scored 25 points, making 6 of 9 3-pointers, and Tim Duncan had his best game this series with 20 points and 15 rebounds, as the Spurs raced to a 13-point lead in the first quarter and never trailed again.

The Spurs won with 3-point shooting (11-of-21) and with defense, holding the Hornets to 41.3 percent shooting.

It was a performance typical of the home team in this series, in which the visitors have been beaten by an average of more than 18 points.

Now, this Jekyll-and-Hyde series heads back to the Big Easy, with the Spurs hoping to break the home-team-in-a-rout trend. Monday’s Game 7 will be just the third for the Spurs since Tim Duncan arrived in 1997.

“We’re happy to go back to their gym, and we think we’re a pretty good road team,” Duncan said. “We’re going to do our best to make a better game of it.”

Popovich, who won his 99th postseason game to match Red Auerbach for fourth on the NBA’s all-time list, has known this kind of pressure before.

On the golf course.

“I can visibly see my hands shake when I’m trying to make a two-footer for a Budweiser,” Popovich cracked.

The stakes are significantly higher now.

The site of Game 7 — and perhaps given the state of star David West’s back, the date of it — was the only bit of good news to come out of San Antonio for the Hornets.

Parker added 15 points for the Spurs, but it was more than the Big Three who secured a return trip to the Big Easy.

Ime Udoka hit all five of his shots en route to 13 points off the bench, and Fabricio Oberto made the most of his first start of the series with four assists in the first quarter to help kick-start the Spurs’ offense.

“When you are able to have that many people play well, you have a chance to win a basketball game,” Popovich said.

Chris Paul led the Hornets with 21 points, but the Spurs were able to take away his other scoring options. Paul finished with a series-low eight assists.

West, fresh off scorching the Spurs for 38 points in Game 5, looked almost human. Guarded primarily by Duncan, West had just 10 points, making 4 of 14 field goals. By game’s end West was in bad shape.

Felled by a Robert Horry back-pick early in the fourth, West — who had been battling a stiff back — was helped to the locker room and didn’t return.

Thanks to the heavy lifting the Spurs had done to that point, the game was decided.
The Hornets trailed by seven at half, and did not open the third quarter well. Parker stole Morris Peterson’s opening inbounds pass and, two seconds into the second half, the Spurs were up nine.

“I took that as a bad sign, right off the bat,” Scott said.

Flipping the script from what normally happens to them in New Orleans, the Spurs won the third quarter 20-12. Behind a 7-0 quarter-closing run — sparked by a Udoka 3-pointer and block of Jannero Pargo that became a Duncan layup — to take a 78-63 lead into the final frame.

By that point, the return trip to New Orleans had all but been booked. The Spurs, befitting their been-there, done-that nature, won’t sweat it.

Ticket Prices at the New Stadium are just really, really expensive …not really, really, really expensive..

The team announced Thursday that the least expensive seats in the new $1.1 billion stadium in Arlington will cost $59, just $9 more than the cheapest Texas Stadium seats. Also, those seats – at least 8,000 of them – won't require a one-time seat option, which costs as much as $150,000.

The season ticket prices for the 50,000 reserved seats in the new stadium will range from $59 to $125 per game, including two preseason contests.

"That's very comparable to our ticket prices for the past couple of years at Texas Stadium," said Brett Daniels, a Cowboys spokesman. "There's just a small increase."

And just like at Texas Stadium, fans must buy season tickets to the new stadium. Single-game tickets are not available.

Tickets initially will be sold only to current season ticket holders.

Most reserved seats at the new stadium also will require seat options, which range from $2,000 to $5,000. The seat option gives fans the right to buy the same seats for 30 years.

The reserved seats are mostly in the upper decks, corners and end zones. The club seats are between the end zones and closest to the field.

On Thursday, the team also announced that it would sell 1,200 loge seats in the upper deck at midfield. Those will cost $125 per game and require a $12,000 seat option. The loge seats will have cushioned club-style seating, but those fans won't have access to the stadium's private clubs.

Cowboys officials said they would offer single-game tickets at the new stadium only if they failed to sell all the seats as season tickets.

"If that happened, we would come up with a single-game price," said Chad Estis, Cowboys vice president of sales and marketing.

He said the team doesn't expect that to happen.

The Cowboys had no single-game tickets available for the 2008 season. The few that were available in 2007 sold out in minutes.

Thursday's announcement comes nearly six months after the Cowboys released prices for the expensive club seats – $340 per game – which require seat options ranging from $16,000 to $150,000.

In March, the Cowboys said that about 8,000 of the 15,000 club seats had been sold. Mr. Daniels said some of the club seats are still available, but he declined to say how many.

The Comedy of “We”



Brenden’s House is big