Trade Blalock?

by texaschief on Jul 26, 2007 2:25 AM CDT Comment 22 comments

If it's rebuilding we want, why not get younger everywhere we can? I'm sure we could land an Ian Snell or a pitcher of the same caliber for Blalock. I know there's a thread already about the comparisons between he and Metcalf, but personally, i think Metcalf can handle himself.

I keep hearing 2009 is the season we're looking to contend now, so let's say our 08 infield consists of Metcalf, Young, Kinsler, and Saltymaccia. Our outfield COULD POSSIBLY boast Tori Hunter, Jermaine Dye and Marlon Byrd. I know....VERY LONG SHOT.

But, with the pitching we could gain through some of these trades, we could be set up nicely to MAYBE make a run at Teixeira when he becomes a free agent after 08. We could then move Salty to catcher where from everything i've read is where he belongs. I've seen him compared to a young Piazza.

So, assuming ALL of this happens... again...long shot.... we could be looking at an 09 lineup:

2B Kinsler
SS Young
CF Hunter
1B Teixeira
LF Dye
DH Botts
C Saltymaccia
RF Byrd
3B Metcalf

Pitching:
Millwood
McCarthy
Loe
(Prospect)
(Prospect)

I know this is a HUGE SALARY number, but we'll have a lot of young, cheap pitching. Only Gagne and Millwood would have big numbers. I figure we could have a serious chance at signing both Hunter and Dye considering they both really want to play for Wash. It's the Teixeira signing that I don't honestly see happening. With Young, Kinsler, Dye and Hunter on the books, I just dont see Hicks dishing out 100million plus for TEX.
But, if we're just one player away, you never know. This is the guy who spent a quarter billion on A-Rod. So, who knows.

Ultimately, I'm curious what we could concievably get for Blalock assuming he can come back and play the rest of the season and we trade him during the winter.

0 recs | Comment 22 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

lol

Texas Rangers Own ALL!

by OkieFromMuskogee on Jul 26, 2007 2:23 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Blalock

His value has to be as low as it has ever been at this moment. If he comes back and has a stellar last 2 months of the season, it would increase his value. At the same time, you would have a 27 yr old player entering the prime of his career.

Trading him doesnt make sense either way.

by kumar75150 on Jul 26, 2007 2:31 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

wait

how exactly do we end up with Tex and Salty on the same team?

by kumar75150 on Jul 26, 2007 2:32 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

wait nevermind

I just reread your explanation. wow

by kumar75150 on Jul 26, 2007 3:22 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

man

40 million + per year for tex, dye, and hunter

sweet

by kumar75150 on Jul 26, 2007 3:23 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Why would we trade Blalock at 27

only to turn around and sign two OF over 30? Plus you'll have to pay double what Blalock makes for each of those guys.

"I'm an aggressive guy, I'm not a guy who's going to go up there and swing like a girl." - Sammy Sosa

by cgolden on Jul 26, 2007 7:17 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Well

With that kind of thinking we should trade MY for whatever we can get and go with Valquez till that Elvis (Atl trade) kid is ready.

by sftxfan on Jul 26, 2007 7:33 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I wish Young

were tradeable. Sadly, that contract will be a boat anchor for most of the next 6 years.

by DJCahill on Jul 26, 2007 7:41 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Saltymaccia

definitely what I'm calling him from here on. Who needs all those syllables.

by Brett Perryman on Jul 26, 2007 7:53 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

So were trading Tex

for Salty? Then resigning him?

Hopefully, as ignorant as that is, thats what your saying and not that we could trade Blalock for Salty.

by Nichols22 on Jul 26, 2007 7:54 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I think

as best as I can tell, that he's saying we could trade Blalock for Ian Snell (which the Pirates likely wouldn't do) and then spin Ian Snell for Saltalamacchia (which the Braves likely wouldn't do).

There was an Ian Snell-Salty rumor a little while back, so it's not THAT crazy.

Gas, brake, honk. Gas, brake, honk. Honk, honk, punch. Gas, gas, gas.

by thedirkatron on Jul 26, 2007 9:23 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

wow.

OK there's no chance we could get Snell or a pitcher of his caliber for Hank...we'd have to give up Hurley or somebody else, too. and that ain't happening.

and even if we DID land Snell, WHY THE HELL WOULD WE TRADE HIM FOR HITTING??????

"No, Donny, these men are nihilists, there's nothing to be afraid of."

by Walter Sobchak on Jul 26, 2007 11:34 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well

I don't think we'd have to throw in someone as good as Hurley, but you're right to think Snell is more valuable than an expensive injury risk like Blalock.

I'm not sure Snell is more valuable than Salty, though. There were rumors the Pirates wanted to trade Snell for Salty earlier in the year and were rebuffed. Catchers who can hit are very valuable, and there are some doubts on whether or not Snell is for real. He wasn't anything special last year, but he is very young so there's reason to believe his emergence this year is for real.

Gas, brake, honk. Gas, brake, honk. Honk, honk, punch. Gas, gas, gas.

by thedirkatron on Jul 26, 2007 1:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

13 of 18

Snell had 13 quality games in his first 18. He has hit a rough patch in the last 3 games...but I'm guessing he won't go all Zach Duke on us. He'll rebound. He was on pace for 186 strikeouts in 230 innings...not bad; has a 3:1 strikeout to walk ratio, was on pace to win 14 games for the horrid Pirates at the All Star Break, and has good presence on the mound - I like his attitude.

Pitching is always more valuable than hitting, all other things equal. Now if Salty was guaranteed to match Tex's production, I would ask you if Snell is expected to improve on these numbers in the next couple of years...if so, I STILL say Snell is more valuable, no matter how highly Salty's ranked.

"No, Donny, these men are nihilists, there's nothing to be afraid of."

by Walter Sobchak on Jul 26, 2007 3:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Rangers

Wouldn't trade him regardless of the return, too damaging for PR. Unless he went all Teixeira on everyone, that is, which I doubt.

sportsdeals.blogspot.com

by BudLight on Jul 26, 2007 7:54 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I can't tell if you're serious or not

I'm sure we could land an Ian Snell or a pitcher of the same caliber for Blalock.

Do you really think we can get someone like that for Blalock?

mmmmmm...64 slices of American cheese...

by t ball on Jul 26, 2007 7:55 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Why didnt our rotation include

Johan Santana?

i mean, since we are in dream world and all..

by jasun on Jul 26, 2007 9:59 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

You'll need Santana

cuz that pitching staff won't cut it.

Hit me in the eye...maybe I can see better.

by Clueless on Jul 26, 2007 10:07 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

very odd

with all the hoping, its still a slightly above average team

Forget Johnny Bench, we got Gerry "the Jet" Laird

by ab03 on Jul 26, 2007 10:12 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

hold on .....

y'all are reading way too much into this. I said trade Tex now for Salty and prospects. Then trade Blalock for whatever pitching we could get for him... and if Blalock is as good as Y'all say he is, "27 and entering his prime", we should be able to get some pitching...don't you think?

Then, this winer we could sign Hunter and Dye. THEN, DEPENDING ON HOW CLOSE WE ARE TO A WORLD SERIES, WE COULD RE-SIGN TEX WHEN HE BECOMES A FREE AGENT IN '09.

WE PUT METCALF AT 3RD, TEX AT FIRST AND SALTY AT CATCHER IN 2009.

I REALIZE IT'S A LARGE PAYROLL, BUT WE'VE HAD CLOSE TO A $100MILLION PAYROLL BEFORE.

As far as trading Young goes, he's only an average SS defensively. In 3 or 4 years, if the Elvis kid is the phenom everyone says he is, he'll be 21 or 22 and may be ready for the show. So, yeah, i wouldn't have a problem trading MY for an outfielder or pitching a few years from now.

Baseball is a business. A business of winning. Loyalty doesn't win Divisions, Pennants, or World Series'. Just ask the Yankees, Red Sox, Angels and A's. Those teams are competing a lot more often and more consitantly than we are.

by texaschief on Jul 26, 2007 6:13 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs