Have the Rangers Done Enough to Compete in 2026?

The Rangers have had a relatively busy offseason, once again reshuffling their roster in an attempt to jumpstart a disappointing lineup and provide requisite depth across an otherwise thin pitching staff. But have those efforts represented real progress, or have they only succeeded in treading water when it comes to their chances of competing this coming season? With just a couple weeks before pitchers and catchers report to spring training, the latter appears more likely than not.

However, that outcome is far from assured; baseball comes with plenty of randomness and the Rangers have at the very least put themselves in a position to compete for a playoff spot, if several factors break their way.

All that said, let’s recap what has been done to this point in order to consider the state of the lineup, the pitching staff, and the direction of the organization more broadly.

I: The Lineup

The lineup has been the most glaring issue in recent years, twice now in consecutive seasons disappointing severely following a World Series title in 2023. To address those shortcomings, the Rangers took decisive action this offseason. They cut ties with both Adolis García and Jonah Heim, non-tendering each player. That decision was surely a tough one, considering the value those players provided to the Rangers, in particular during the World Series pursuit. Additionally, Marcus Semien was traded to the Mets for Brandon Nimmo in an exchange of productive, but expensive and aging, players. Those moves cover the most significant departures this winter.

All said, what does this turnover represent? Unfortunately, it might be most simply characterized as addition by subtraction. That trio of departed players had 1,504 plate appearances in 2025 and wRC+ values ranging between just 69 (Heim) and 89 (Semien), according to FanGraphs. The Rangers ranked 26th in baseball in terms of wRC+ last season; moving on from these players after two seasons of missed expectations was probably a necessary move.

The next question, though, is who will step in to take those 1500+ plate appearances. For one, there is the aforementioned Brandon Nimmo. Nimmo, whose contract comes with more of a financial obligation at this point than Semien’s, represents an upgrade offensively in an immediate sense. There are reasons to be concerned about his game, from his defensive shortcomings to his skillset as he ages (headlined in my view by the massive dropoff in walk rate in 2025), but in the short term he is projected to contribute more offensively than Semien.

Another key addition is Danny Jansen, who signed a two-year deal in December. Jansen’s signing very much fits the mold of the Kyle Higashioka deal a year prior in that it was also a two-year deal and that the lines again are more blurred than a traditional starting and backup catcher duo. As was the case with Heim and Higashioka going into 2025, there will likely be relatively equitable playing time distributed between the Rangers’ catching tandem in 2026, barring injuries.

So, the Rangers have effectively swapped the offensive production of García for Nimmo, Heim for Jansen, and Semien for, presumably, Josh Smith. All of these adjustments should represent upgrades. Smith, though, is not really replacing Semien in the lineup because he himself was a key offensive fixture (563 plate appearances) alongside Semien in 2025. So Semien’s production is not being replaced by Smith so much as it will be replaced by whatever depth options prove themselves to be most viable in 2026.

And among those options, the Rangers once again seem to be relying primarily on regression to the mean —in a positive sense— from a significant fraction of their lineup: will Joc Pederson, Jake Burger, Ezequiel Durán, and others provide bounce back in such a manner such that a lack of lineup depth isn’t exposed? The Rangers would be in a much better position if they could swing a trade for someone like Brendan Donovan to replace Semien and keep Smith in his familiar “everyday utility player” role than crossing their fingers that the rest of the lineup stays as healthy and productive as they surely hope is the case. That said, after the MacKenzie Gore trade, it’s unclear to what extent the Rangers have the prospect capital (Sebastian Walcott aside) to even get the Cardinals on the phone re: Donovan.

Taken together, the Rangers have replaced some under-performers in their lineup, but failed to add the necessary depth to insulate themselves should several other key players underperform in 2026, which is always a risk. The lineup should be better, but likely more marginally than significantly.

II: The Pitching Staff

The Rangers are coming off a season in which they led all of MLB in team ERA, with an exceptional 3.49 value across the staff. This was no small feat, particularly when considering the state of things going into the year. The Rangers came into 2025 depending heavily on pitchers with significant health struggles and with a bullpen that was stitched together with a series of modest one-year deals.

On the whole, things played out as well as the Rangers could have hoped. In the rotation, Jacob deGrom threw 170+ innings; Nathan Eovaldi rewarded the Rangers for having committed three more seasons to him; Jack Leiter took a significant step forward and pitched 150+ innings. Most people likely wouldn’t have taken the “over” on those three providing 450+ innings in 2025. Patrick Corbin filled in admirably too as a consistent backend rotation option. The bullpen, cobbled together as it was and largely closer-less, ranked 5th in MLB in ERA (3.62). If there was an Achilles’ heel for the bullpen, it was in save situations, where just 37 of 66 saves were converted.

Now, while Rangers team officials surely are hoping for some regression to the mean for the lineup in 2026, so too are they hoping that phenomenon does not apply to the staff. The staff xFIP in 2025 was not first, as was the case with ERA, but 10th; meanwhile the bullpen xFIP was just 20th in baseball (4.22), suggesting the staff over-performed considerably in terms of ERA/run prevention.

Going into the 2026 season, the Rangers will again lean on the trio of deGrom, Eovaldi, and Leiter, the hope being that they can get another 450+ IP across that fickle, yet talented, group. The team is also in a much better place with the addition of MacKenzie Gore. Regardless, depth issues remain; the median number of starters teams have employed in recent years is 11 and starters are getting more rest between starts than in recent years as well. While I am reasonably optimistic about Kumar Rocker and Jacob Latz continuing to develop this season, the Rangers are all but assured to need more starting pitching, and depth appears scant after those players. Six viable starting pitchers, in this era, is very probably not enough. While 2025 Patrick Corbins do not grow on trees, it would be a boon if Chris Young could identify another cheap depth option for the rotation in the lead-up to spring training.

The Rangers are also once again running back their bullpen blueprint from 2025 this season. They have offered exclusively single-year deals to relievers, none of which are particularly close to 8-figure contracts. This worked last season, and it’s maybe fair to have some faith in the Rangers’ brass being successful again. However, should the Rangers season’s first four months largely go to plan in the lead-up to the trade deadline, it’s hard not to see the Rangers then having to pay through the nose for some late-inning bullpen help. Premium bullpen arms are often seen as a “luxury good”, sought after by teams squarely in contention and with few other holes on the roster; while the Rangers do not qualify as such, the bullpen in certain ways feels like where the Rangers’ payroll constraint rears its head most clearly.

III: The State of the Organization

I wondered at the top of this post whether the activity this offseason —a revamped lineup, bolstered rotation, and remade bullpen— represented real progress or just “activity” that amounts to treading water. The Rangers finished 2025 with an 81-81 record; Dan Szymborski just released his “Late January” ZiPS projections, and his model projects the Rangers to have an 80-82 record. For ZiPS, treading water seems to be the verdict. That said, no model is perfect and all models feature margins of error; ZiPS gives the Rangers a 29% chance of making the playoffs and suggests the 80th percentile of performance for the Rangers represents ~88 wins, a competitive total in the expanded playoff format.

In terms of the future, Keith Law just released his farm system ranking (The Athletic subscription required) and the Rangers rank just 26th; things would surely be much worse without the presence of Sebastian Walcott. Mackensie Gore makes the rotation a lot stronger on the whole, but the return in prospects was not insignificant.

Meanwhile in the AL West, the Mariners look formidable and their farm system is ranked third by Law. The Astros remain dangerous and the Athletics look ascendant. In short, the competitive landscape is strengthening, to the Rangers’ detriment.

As a fan, such projections and rankings aren’t terribly encouraging, but so too are they not damning. Underperformance has pinched the Rangers’ competitive window in the wake of their 2023 World Series win, but the window is not closed yet. The state of the farm system, payroll constraints, and an aging core means the needle is tougher to thread, but like Dan Szymborski’s model suggests, there is still an outside path to contention.

Trading for Gore in particular highlights the optimism of the front office for the Rangers’ chances in 2026. Whatever the case, these next two seasons with deGrom, Eovaldi, and Gore under control and while Corey Seager is still in his prime represent the best chance the Rangers have to thread that needle. That competitive window functions as an argument that the Rangers should continue to lean in while an outside shot remains. Things may get ugly if the Rangers underperform their projections, but their upside is enough to justify leaning in despite their less than ideal odds.