Blalock to Phillies

Tough call

Undervalue and overvalue at both ends. As a not serious answer, a framed copy of the Constitution, the Liberty Bell, Bob Carpenters' dessicated remains, and every starter not named Adam Eaton?

I don't think there is a beneficial match.

Time does funny things. The worst of which is, it keeps moving when you don't.

by Ed Coffin on Sep 5, 2007 8:43 AM CDT reply actions

Just

Stop.

I knew that grand slam he hit would bring the trade demands for him...

Just. Stop. It.

If Lindsey Lohan, Kobe Bryant, or a democrat politician was dogfighting, they'd walk and we all know it.

by Sharky on Sep 5, 2007 8:49 AM CDT reply actions

i knew you would say some crap like this

by slash on Sep 5, 2007 11:54 PM CDT up reply actions

Grand Slam

That Grand Slam might have been a bad thing for him. It seems like all he is doing is trying to pull everything into the seats.

by sftxfan on Sep 5, 2007 9:13 AM CDT reply actions

That's normally how it has gone with Hank

he's locked in, hitting well, spraying doubles all over the field, he hits a couple dingers, and then all of a sudden he looks to pull everything, and it all goes in the crapper for him.

Hopefully that doesn't happen this year.

by DJCahill on Sep 5, 2007 9:24 AM CDT up reply actions

Yep, it's a shame, too

he used to rip some sweet line drives to left & LC when he first came up.....that homer off Gagne in the AS game ruined him.

by tklawless on Sep 5, 2007 12:40 PM CDT up reply actions

What idiot likes Metcalf?

I will not get my comeuppance!

by Brian Thomas on Sep 5, 2007 10:03 AM CDT reply actions

I like him, but I think his defense is well above average, and that he could be valuable in a utility capacity, much more so than JHJ, anyway. Metcalf's bat would have to improve considerably for him to ever be considered an MLB regular.

"No team has any major strengths as all NFL players are roughly the same. If you cant run on third and one it isn't because of your players." - Sharky

by inactive lsb user on Sep 5, 2007 11:33 AM CDT up reply actions

I'd agree w/ that assessment

His bat just has a long way to go...

I will not get my comeuppance!

by Brian Thomas on Sep 5, 2007 3:13 PM CDT up reply actions

The bat may be flat

but he does have the skipper that made Eric Chavez into an all star/gold glove caliber 3rd baseman... Who knows what could happen?

Fireballs beat Knuckleballs.

by FormerLSBUser on Sep 5, 2007 7:01 PM CDT up reply actions

That's the problem

He doesn't need help with the glove, he needs help with the bat.

by badradiorules on Sep 5, 2007 10:21 PM CDT up reply actions

I don't want to trade Blalock

but I'm wondering if Phillies might make Brett Myers available this winter?

Just a year ago, he was considered one of the brightest young SP in baseball. Since then he has had personal problems, health problems, and a move to the bullpen - but Myers could represent the rare chance to obtain a potential, young top of the rotation arm at a deep discount. I'd be interested.

Saltalamacchia: one player, six vowels.

by tricer on Sep 5, 2007 12:06 PM CDT reply actions

I've been confused about Myers also

He was really hot stuff last year. And everytime I see news about him this year, it seems like he's been going downhill for one reason or another.

I don't think I would trade Blalock for him, but it does seem like JD and Pat Gillick like to deal, so that isn't too crazy a thought.

by JBImaknee on Sep 5, 2007 12:25 PM CDT up reply actions

Myers

89 ERA +
93 ERA +
79 ERA +
122 ERA +
118 ERA +
96 ERA +

Worse than average for 4 out of 6 years, but he's still only 27 with a career ERA+ of 100 = league average. He's probably benefited quite a bit from pitching in the national league, when you compare adjusted numbers to his raw numbers. Definitely wouldn't trade Blalock or anyone significant for him before he can prove that he can return to '05 and '06 forms, post injuries and personal drama.

"No team has any major strengths as all NFL players are roughly the same. If you cant run on third and one it isn't because of your players." - Sharky

by inactive lsb user on Sep 5, 2007 12:56 PM CDT up reply actions

I wouldn't trade Blalock for Myers

mainly because Hank is my favorite Ranger and I still think he could be a dominant hitter in the next few seasons. He is also signed to a reasonable deal for 08 w/ 6.25 million club option in 09.

But Myers definetly has big upside. The last 3 season he has had k/bb ratio greater than 3:1 and WHIP under 1.3. He seems like the type of guy that could end up being a top rotation starter, or at the other end of the spectrum he could end up being just a setup guy.

His most comparable pitchers on baseball-reference is a pretty diverse group including names like: Eaton, Harang, Westbrook, Lackey, Beckett, Radke, Vazquez, Bronson Arroyo, and Wade Miller.

Saltalamacchia: one player, six vowels.

by tricer on Sep 5, 2007 1:25 PM CDT up reply actions

Myers

I don't trade Blalock for him either. Myers seems like a player that could really benefit from a change of scenery, but I'm not sure I see JD trading for a wife-beater.

"Then I met some friends for a beer, went to a BoDeans's concert, and son of a vondruke, if I didn't leave him at the concert hall."

by RCCook on Sep 5, 2007 1:48 PM CDT up reply actions

Myers

If they asked for Laird and Blalock for Myers, would u do it?

If they asked for Laird and Otsuka, would u do it?

Say if u would. Our rotation would be Millwood, Myers, Padilla, McCarthy, Gabbard (no particular order).

So that leaves us no room for Volquez, Hurley, and etc. if they deserve a spot in spring training. If we did get Myers, I would try to trade Padilla though (that's if a prospect shows they should get the 5th spot).

by Coolbean04 on Sep 5, 2007 1:15 PM CDT reply actions

Laird and Aki for B. Myers

I'd do that in a heartbeat.

Saltalamacchia: one player, six vowels.

by tricer on Sep 5, 2007 1:26 PM CDT up reply actions

I think that's the deal

they'd want too. Myers right now is there closer. So Otsuka can step in and be effective while replacing him while upgrading a C position.

by Coolbean04 on Sep 5, 2007 1:40 PM CDT up reply actions

Too much

Laird and Blalock? Hell no.

Laird and Otsuka? Hell no.

Otsuka straight up? Sure.

Laird straight up? Sure.

I just don't think Brett Myers is worth two valuable players. We have pitchers coming up through the system who will be controlled cheaply and who are younger.

"No team has any major strengths as all NFL players are roughly the same. If you cant run on third and one it isn't because of your players." - Sharky

by inactive lsb user on Sep 5, 2007 1:28 PM CDT up reply actions

I don't see Laird and Aki

as being all that valuable, especially to the Rangers. Both can be easily replaced.

Myers has an upside that none of our other SP can match.

When we have a surplus of quality SP, then we can avoid trading for potential top rotation arms - until then it is worth looking into - especially if he could be had for a couple of spare parts like Laird and Aki.

Saltalamacchia: one player, six vowels.

by tricer on Sep 5, 2007 1:37 PM CDT up reply actions

You're kidding

"especially if he could be had for a couple of spare parts like Laird and Aki"

Laird will have value and this has been discussed ad nauseum on this board, it need not be reiterated.

Just because we are rebuilding and have less utility for a great setup man / closer, doesn't mean that he won't net a nice prospect or two from a contender looking to bolster the pen next year. I have no issues with adding quality starting pitching, but I'm far from convinced that Brett Myers is an ace. We're already stacked with marginal #2's and 3's, so I don't see the point ...

Aki will be 36 next year and will have significant value if he returns to form after this injury and performs in the 1st half. Hopefully many of the '08 contenders will learn from the Tigers and others, who failed to add an important bullpen piece at this year's deadline. You have grossly understated his value when you consider how well he has pitched in his age 32-35 years:

230 ERA +
107 ERA +
223 ERA +
185 ERA +

His one down year, '05, was still above league average of 100 (he posted a raw ERA of 3.59). Aki's career MLB ERA+ = 173.

A spare? Give me a fucking break.

"No team has any major strengths as all NFL players are roughly the same. If you cant run on third and one it isn't because of your players." - Sharky

by inactive lsb user on Sep 5, 2007 9:10 PM CDT up reply actions

cool your jets mr. era+

Laird and Aki don't have a ton of trade value, no matter what this board says ad nauseum. One is among the worst hitters in baseball and the other is a broken down, late thirties soft tossing reliever whose strikeout rates have been dropping precipitously for 3 straight seasons. And by the way he can't even throw without pain and hasn't been able to for months.

What would you give up for a package of Dionner Navarro and Mike Gonzalez right now? I certainly wouldn't give up a damn thing for that pair, and they would have similar value on the trade market as Aki and Laird right now.

And by the way, I'd suggest that you start looking at pitcher's peripheral statistics, rather than ERA+. The k rate, bb rate, hr rate, etc are much more useful in determining a pitchers future performance.

And Bret Myers may or may not develop into a top rotation SP, but I think he is a better pitcher than McCarthy or Gabbard - so I think he would fit in our rotation without any problems.

Saltalamacchia: one player, six vowels.

by tricer on Sep 5, 2007 11:19 PM CDT up reply actions

Dionner Navarro and MIke Gonzalez?

I'm no huge Laird fan but I think he has more upside than Navarro....

Aki is a different story it all depends on how he does next year (if he doesn't have TJ surgery), I understand his age, but do you remember how many teams wanted him this year before he was hurt? He was a much hotter commodity then Gagne!

"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates

by slc ranger on Sep 6, 2007 12:11 AM CDT up reply actions

comps

I simply made the comparisons because I think those players would have similar trade value right now, and sometimes it is helpful to look at similar players to remove our Ranger bias.

Laird is probably better defensively, but Navarro is younger and was a top prospect only a few years ago. My guess is that the two would have similar trade values at this point. Not many teams would have much use for either one.

Gonzalez and Aki are both very good late inning relievers when healthy, but most teams don't have a lot of interest in acquiring pitchers with significant elbow or shoulder injuries.

My point was that Laird and Aki don't have a ton of trade value individually or packaged together, just like Navarro and M. Gonzalez wouldn't have much value on the trade market right now either.

Saltalamacchia: one player, six vowels.

by tricer on Sep 6, 2007 7:53 AM CDT up reply actions

Aki

has significant elbow or shoulder injuries? News to me.

"My point was that Laird and Aki don't have a ton of trade value individually or packaged together"

This is unsupported, but tricer has the end-all-be-all savvy baseball opinion, regardless of evidence, so we should trust his value assessments based on his word ...

"No team has any major strengths as all NFL players are roughly the same. If you cant run on third and one it isn't because of your players." - Sharky

by inactive lsb user on Sep 6, 2007 9:17 AM CDT up reply actions

uhhhhh

"Aki has significant elbow or shoulder injuries? News to me. "

I suppose you think that he hasn't been pitching, or throwing off a mound, or throwing at all for a period of months because of some reason other than an injury?

Saltalamacchia: one player, six vowels.

by tricer on Sep 6, 2007 9:31 AM CDT up reply actions

Some reason

other than an exagerrated elbow or shoulder injury.

"Rangers closer Akinori Otsuka hasn't pitched in a game since July 1st, ever since he was put on the disabled list to give his sore forearm a little rest. That's all it was supposed to be, but here it's over a month and a half later, and Otsuka is still experiencing soreness in his arm. Otsuka has been examined by both his team doctor, Keith Meister, and orthopedist Lewis Yocum. Both told him that it was just tendinitis, and there's nothing structurally wrong with his elbow."

How should I interpret that?

"No team has any major strengths as all NFL players are roughly the same. If you cant run on third and one it isn't because of your players." - Sharky

by inactive lsb user on Sep 6, 2007 9:36 AM CDT up reply actions

I guess it is semantics

IMO a pitcher that can't throw a ball for a period of over 2 months has a significant injury.

And even if it isn't a "significant injury" in your estimation, wouldn't you agree that JD would have a tough time getting good value for a reliever that needed 3 months of rest in the previous season?

I wouldn't want to give up any significant asset to acquire a late thirties reliever with decling strikeout rates that wasn't able to pitch in the second half of the preceeding season. Maybe some GM will see it differently and JD will be able to take advantage, but I seriously doubt it.

Saltalamacchia: one player, six vowels.

by tricer on Sep 6, 2007 9:43 AM CDT up reply actions

Tendonitis

Is not a signifigant injury. If we were in a pennant race, he would be able to pitch through the pain right now and it would go away in the offseason.

However, there's no reason to push that right now, because pitching with it can cause problems in other areas of the arm. You tend to change your delivery a little to alleviate the pain.

He should be 100% going into spring training if that is what is wrong with his arm.

by badradiorules on Sep 6, 2007 11:05 AM CDT up reply actions

on the ticket this morning

Norm said that the Rangers are now saying that exploratory surgery may be needed and that the recovery time would be eight months.

And if we were in the middle of a pennant race Aki would still not be pitching, he is physically unable to throw - much less pitch.

Saltalamacchia: one player, six vowels.

by tricer on Sep 6, 2007 12:50 PM CDT up reply actions

Well then

It's not tendonitis

by badradiorules on Sep 6, 2007 10:20 PM CDT up reply actions

I look

at peripheral stats, jackass. I also think that ERA+ is a pretty good metric if you're trying to evaluate based on a single statistic. If you want to do a full statistical analysis, I'm down, but I think K/9 rate alone wouldn't suffice in comparisons, whereas you could get a pretty good read using ERA+. I chose to pick one stat that matters by itself. Last time I checked, what's most important is getting outs and preventing runs from scoring. I don't care that his K/9 rate has fallen precipitously because it was pretty high to begin with in 2004: 10.13 K/9, you'd expect that to fall with age. However, he had 6.41 K/9 this year, so 2 K's every 3 innings from him is good enough for me. Especially if his walk rates remain outstanding (1.66 BB/9 last year, 2.51 BB/9 this year).

HR Rate, you want? Try 3 in his last 92 IP. None this year in 32.3 IP. Might that HR rate bode well for his future performance?

He's getting outs, don't really care so much if they're strikeouts. He's not walking people and he's not getting hit hard: 2006 WHIP = 1.073, 2007 WHIP = 1.082.

On Navarro / Gonzalez

Navarro has not shown flashes of consistency, but he's also 23 and four years younger than Laird, making it an awkward comparison in the first place. But Laird managed an OPS+ of 102 last year over 243 AB's, whereas Navarro has yet to hit above league average for a season over a 200 AB sample. Moreover, although the career fielding percentages are virtually identical (Laird - .985, Navarro - .989) Laird has thrown out 41.1% of baserunners over his career (267 games), whereas, Navarro has thrown out 27.1% (236 games), a notable difference. It's safe to say that Laird has much more value.

Gonzalez is 29 and Aki is 35, so I don't see how they are an equivalent package, whatsoever, I assume you just looked at dumb comparables instead of the stats. Gonzalez is a great pitcher, I'd imagine that he would have considerable value if he were available, likely more than Aki. 10.21 K/9 for his career, with an ERA + of 188 for his career. Aki career = 8.42 K/9 with an ERA+ of 173.

Lastly, isn't it premature to say that Brett Myers is a better pitcher than McCarthy? I don't think McCarthy is anywhere near his prime at age 24, but Myers is beginning his prime at age 27. It ain't looking too good for Myers this year, despite an 11.66 K/9 rate ...

"No team has any major strengths as all NFL players are roughly the same. If you cant run on third and one it isn't because of your players." - Sharky

by inactive lsb user on Sep 6, 2007 12:19 AM CDT up reply actions

grow up

you need to learn to debate a point without resorting to teenager lines like "give me a fucking break", and calling names like jackass.

I disagree with you on some baseball points, big deal. Pull your panties out of a wad and get over yourself.

Saltalamacchia: one player, six vowels.

by tricer on Sep 6, 2007 5:58 AM CDT up reply actions

Jump off

the high horse. If you're busy telling people how they should analyze baseball players, "And by the way, I'd suggest that you start looking at pitcher's peripheral statistics, rather than ERA+," then expect insults to be more than reciprocated. If the word "jackass" is too hostile for you, cry me a river. Address arguments when you're wrong, instead of launching character attacks to distract from the baseball discussion.

"I disagree with you on some baseball points"

Feel free to flesh those out? Or are we gonna leave it at the opinion level? I used your statistics, even.

"No team has any major strengths as all NFL players are roughly the same. If you cant run on third and one it isn't because of your players." - Sharky

by inactive lsb user on Sep 6, 2007 9:21 AM CDT up reply actions

what argument

have you made that you would like me to address?

I don't think that Aki nor Laird holds much trade value currently and you seemed to take issue with that. I also think that Brett Myers has top of rotation potential, and I suppose that you don't agree with that. But I don't see where you have made any salient points that I haven't already addressed.

Saltalamacchia: one player, six vowels.

by tricer on Sep 6, 2007 9:37 AM CDT up reply actions

Read my post

about 4 up from this one.

"I don't think that Aki nor Laird holds much trade value currently and you seemed to take issue with that. I also think that Brett Myers has top of rotation potential, and I suppose that you don't agree with that."

These claims are still unsupported, maybe that's why I would take issue with them? Whereas, I provided you with a bevy of statistics that suggest that they will, in fact, have value. I've yet to see an argument supporting that Brett Myers is or will be a top of rotation arm. The guy's in his prime already, having the 2nd worst season of his career, but his K/9 rate is outstanding so he must be talented, even though he doesn't know how to pitch that well?

Dude's thrown 200 IP once in 5 years, what would lead you to believe that he is a top of rotation guy?

"No team has any major strengths as all NFL players are roughly the same. If you cant run on third and one it isn't because of your players." - Sharky

by inactive lsb user on Sep 6, 2007 9:43 AM CDT up reply actions

OK

Let me try and address these one by one.

Gerald Laird has been one of the worst hitters in the ML this season. .222/.278/.338/.616 pretty much says all you need to know. .213 EqA. Sub replacement level production. There is no way to throw out enough baserunners or lay down enough bunts to justify putting that lack of offensive production into an everyday ML lineup. And you are trying to convince me that someone is going to look at this resume and decide to give up significant assets for this?

You have to look long and hard to find a team with a catching situation so bad that Laird would provide value. He is a nice backup or platoon catcher, but he has pretty much proven this season that he is nothing more than that.

Aki was an effective late inning reliever but he is hurt and I don't believe that mid thirties relievers with declining stuff and injury concerns are a real valued commodity in the trade market.

I can't statistically prove to you that these guys don't have much trade value, all I can do is appeal to your common sense. If the Rangers had a need at catcher and in the bullpen - would you give up anything significant to acquire players like Laird and Aki? I wouldn't. Catchers like Laird can be picked up for next to nothing on the waiver wire and I wouldn't trade much for an injured pitcher that hasn't even been diagnosed but has gone months without throwing.

As for Brett Myers, I said that I thought he had top rotation potential. The primary reason I say that is because he has already proven that he can be a very good ML starter. His age 24 season (05) he pitched 215 innings and posted a 1.21 whip, 8.7 k/9, 2.8 bb/9, and 3.72 era. Those are indicators of a borderline dominant pitcher, and especially impressive for a 24/25 year old in the big leagues. Last season he was slightly less effective and pitched slightly less innings and had some serious personal issues during the season.

Most sources that I have seen indicate that a pitcher generally reaches the prime years of their career a little bit later than a hitter, something like ages 29-31, rather than 27-29. So if you buy into that thinking, Myers should have his best pitching in front of him, as long as he can stay healthy.

These days you just can't get an ace pitcher, especially if you are the Rangers. Those guys don't hit FA and nobody wants to trade them. So the next best thing IMO is to identify young SP that are under team control that have exhibited some signs of dominance at the ML level and hope that the final developmental steps in becoming an ace take place while the guy is a Ranger. If you can't acquire an ace, you have to try and develop one yourself, or find a guy that has the potential to reach that plateau, but hasn't done it yet. In my estimation, Myers is about a good a bet to fit in that second category as any pitcher in baseball that might be acquirable.

Saltalamacchia: one player, six vowels.

by tricer on Sep 6, 2007 1:38 PM CDT up reply actions

the thing about Laird

is he still has potential and if you platoon him, he can still hit lefties.....he's had a couple of good years before this one and he has a lot of tools for a catcher(none of them really great)....so he has value, COMPLETELY underrating him

There's always a Market for Relievers, eccspecially now.......Otsuka is a Really good set-up man and can be a closer......he coulda netted a better deal than Gagne before he got hurt.......he will more than likely recover fully, so he's gonna have some pretty good value.......

and even though he's hit like crap, Laird still holds value, because of his ability and potential.....it was rumored he coulda brought back Pie from the Cubs earlier.......now common sense tells you there my friend, the kid has some trade value.........Laird and Aki would bring back a pretty nice package i think

by slash on Sep 6, 2007 5:40 PM CDT up reply actions

1 man, 5 tools

One thing we can agree upon: there are significant differences in our value judgments. I'd like to hear Coffin, Adam and others -- who perceive Laird as valuable -- opine just to generate a broader perspective of the value analysis. It's been discussed briefly in several threads, but I guess we can look at it in depth.

You are overvaluing Laird's 2007 season as a sample (370 AB's, doesn't qualify for the batting title). Is positional weight, age/performance, prospect history, and production relativity important at all?

If this means anything, only 10 catchers in MLB are qualified for the batting title this year. Since 2000, the average number of catchers that qualified is 8.125 (65/8). It's an understatement to say that dependable catching is scarce.

Mike Young: .770 OPS this year, top 10 for SS. Granted, the number itself looks bad on first glance and when compared to his career production. Then again, there's only 9 SS's with a higher OPS in MLB, and those 9 are very recognizable talents.

Laird: .616 OPS this year. If Laird were to qualify, he'd be top 10 in OPS for C's. You have to conceptualize how diluted the offense is for catchers -- only 3 of the C's that qualify have an OPS better than .800: Martin, Martinez, Posada. 2006: only 4 catchers finished above .800 OPS. 2005: only two. In perspective, a catcher with an OPS over .700 is actually above average for the position. Then consider a catcher who plays plus defense. Then consider that plus defense from a position up the middle (C, SS, CF) and how valuable that can be for a pitcher. You could argue that the Rangers' might need more from the C position given the vast deficiencies at several other positions, but Salty's offensive potential, when maximized behind the plate, is likely a main reason why we're trading Laird.

Laird is the state career hits leader for California. 2nd round pick of Billy Beane's in 1998, we all know Beane's track record. 1-5 is likely done with the Rangers, but he could easily be of value elsewhere. His ceiling as a hitter, based on milb numbers, is to be an average MLB hitter. But, Laird showed signs in '06 with the .805 OPS over 243 AB's = 102 OPS +. A young catcher that has proven he can hit above league average, nonetheless catcher average, who plays great defense, will have value. Ultimately, we should have this debate settled before next season begins, and the Aki one will be settled by July 31.

As for Myers, you neglect to use adjusted numbers, presumably to withhold the true picture from your argument. "Those are indicators of a borderline dominant pitcher, and especially impressive for a 24/25 year old in the big leagues" Not really, he was good for an NL pitcher not "borderline dominant" for an MLB pitcher, for just two years, and one of those years he didn't even throw 200 IP. You need consistent 200+ IP seasons from your top of the rotation pitchers. Myers showed nothing in 3 years prior to '05 and '06, proceeded to beat his wife, and has regressed to below mediocrity in '07 (89 ERA +). Vicente Padilla, himself, posted a watered down 3.28 ERA in the NL in 2002, which was only good for a 116 ERA+. Myers' '05 season with the 3.72 ERA, only amounted to a 122 ERA+. Better than average (#3 pitcher, maybe, if he fulfills his potential), not borderline dominant.

"No team has any major strengths as all NFL players are roughly the same. If you cant run on third and one it isn't because of your players." - Sharky

by inactive lsb user on Sep 6, 2007 7:20 PM CDT up reply actions

bullet point responses

re. the significance of Laird's 07 stats: his career line is .246/.298/.373/.672 and that line is raised by numbers that he generated while playing in a backup or platoon type role.

re. Laird's minor league track record: it ain't that impressive. .271/.348/.406/.754 over seven minor league seasons doesn't really say much for his prospect status. And come on, are you really pointing to his high school records?

re. Laird's defense: He is good at throwing out runners, but IMO he does a horrible job at blocking balls and framing pitches - which in my estimation are just as important to catcher defense as throwing. I don't have stats to back that up, just my subjective opinion from watching him play.

re. positional scarcity: I realize that catcher is a position that doesn't have a lot of stellar hitting, but among catchers with greater than 100 at bats this season - Laird's OPS ranks 48th.

re. Myers: You keep bringing up the 200 IP benchmark. His last 3 seasons as a starter he pitched 176, 215, 198 innings. That is an average of 196 innings per year over a 3 year period. I guess by your standards he was 4 innings away from being a workhorse. And yes, his results this year have been pretty poor and the Phillies decided for some reason to move him to the bullpen. That is the only reason that he might be obtainable, if he had thrown another 196 innings this season with another "watered down" sub four ERA, there is no way that the Phils would even consider moving him.

I'm not saying that Myers is an ace, and I'm not saying that he will certainly develop into one. However I will say that he would be the highest ceiling pitcher in the rotation if he were in Texas and if he is able to have a couple of seasons similar to what he did at age 24/25 - he would be the best pitcher the Rangers have had in quite a while.

Saltalamacchia: one player, six vowels.

by tricer on Sep 6, 2007 9:45 PM CDT up reply actions

Myers

I'd trade Blalock for him in a Kansas City heartbeat.

I think the odds of Brett Myers becoming a dominant starter again are better than the odds of Hank becoming a dominant hitter again. Factor in how much more valuable a starter is than a position player... and, yah, I'd do that deal every single time, beaten wife or not.

I'd also trade them Laird + Otsuka or Benoit for him. But I can't see them doing that.

The 40 trumps all!

by thedirkatron on Sep 6, 2007 8:56 AM CDT up reply actions

they might do that deal

depends how much they've soured on Myers, which i think is a lot......maybe if we add a minor leauger or two.......Gold and Guzman?????.......tough trade to evaluate, since the value of both team's players are hard to evaluate........

by slash on Sep 6, 2007 7:05 PM CDT up reply actions

Why does everyone want

to trade Blalock for a pitcher? I think we have enough pitching depth going into next year. If you trade Blalock who plays 3B? How about Laird and a low minor league prospect for a legitimate CFer?

by RangerMad on Sep 5, 2007 1:44 PM CDT reply actions

Because

you can never have too much pitching depth.

The 40 trumps all!

by thedirkatron on Sep 6, 2007 8:52 AM CDT up reply actions

You can

if you hit .240 as a team with no power

by badradiorules on Sep 6, 2007 9:25 AM CDT up reply actions

most of our hitters

underachieved and I'd rather have pitching that could hold the opponent to those numbers to win, than us trying to out hit them.......plus i think we'll hit a lot better next year.......and i also don't wanna trade blalock

by slash on Sep 6, 2007 5:42 PM CDT up reply actions

Really?

Who on this team is going to hit better?

C - If its Salty, it will improve greatly. If its Laird, it will be just as awful

1B - If it's Salty, he won't hit near Teix levels. If its Wilk, do you really think that he'll be better than this year?

2B - Kinsler - Its reasonable to think that he'll improve a little.

SS - Young - expect about the same.

3B - Blalock - It will help to have him around the whole year. But, apparently we're trading him and are going to play Metcalf? More awful offense.

LF - Cat - expect about the same.

CF - If its Byrd expect a lot worse. If it is a free agent, expect less thaan what they've done this year.

RF - Cruz - expect the same horrible performance.

DH - Botts - expect Sosa level performance.

You've got to be really optimistic to see any improvement in this offense next year. You're right, you can't have enough pitching. However, we've been trying to improve our pitching staff for 20 freaking years.

Where you think that the offense will be better next year (and I don't see where that improvement will come from), I see real signs that the starting pitching can be above average next year.

With Hurley, Volquez, Kiker, Poveda?, Harrison?, Jones? to go along with McCarthy, Gabbard and Millwood in the coming years, there's optimism. That's not mentioning most of the teenagers coming through.

The only time this organization has won was by outhitting people. It is much easier to fix an offense than to fix a pitching staff. We've got a servicable to good pitching staff right now that could be good to great depending on how quickly Volquez/Loe/Hurley/McCarthy/Gabbard adjust to a full season. However, this lineup is bad when everyone is healthy and awful if Kinsler, Young or Blalock get injured.

I'm not trying to say that pitching isn't important, but they HAVE to address their offensive needs if they are going to be good anytime soon

The only time this

by badradiorules on Sep 6, 2007 11:11 PM CDT up reply actions

IF you think Myers

can be in the front of your rotation, it makes a lot of sense.

I'm not convinced Brett really adds a lot to our team though, but I understand how folks have seen his flashes and believe he could be that guy.

by DJCahill on Sep 6, 2007 9:48 AM CDT up reply actions

Well

The only CF youngster that I've heard possibly being available is Pie and that's it.

So what CF are you thinking about?

by Coolbean04 on Sep 5, 2007 1:45 PM CDT reply actions

I don't

have any names at the moment. After the new prospect rankngs come out then I may look into it. I think the Rangers are more likely to trade for a CF prospect such as Pie instaed of signing a high $$$$ FA. Just my opinion.

by RangerMad on Sep 5, 2007 2:27 PM CDT up reply actions