Teagarden Untouchable?
"I don't think Texas will trade [Taylor] Teagarden" - Gammons
I think most believe TT is the best catcher in our system and he is the one we would most like to see land the everyday job sooner than later. But does anyone think that he should be "untouchable" - in the sense that Clay Buchholz and Derek Holland are untouchable? I for one do not. If we can land a premier pitching prospect by giving up the best of our 4 catchers, I say go for it. We can make something work with Salty, Laird and Max. Is there anything about Teagarden that screams "sure thing"? I don't think so. Very solid behind the plate. Some real pop in his bat. But nothing that makes me think we'd be trading away Pudge or Johnny Bench. And maybe I'm in the minority, but his durability is a bit of a concern for me - in the long run.
Given the choice, I hold onto TT and probably Max while dealing the others. But if we're able to land a highly coveted arm, I'm alright dealing everyone's favorite longhorn.
Agree or Disagree?
0 recs |
67 comments
Comments
I don't know what's going to happen
but I have this feeling that Salty is going to have a tremendous season/career when he finally gets the ABs, and will be overall > TT. Maybe it’s the fact that he’s still 23 and has time to figure it out, maybe it’s the FO’s being unwilling to trade TT over how well he did over the last month of the season.
I hope I’m wrong. We’ll see.
"Relying on the government to protect your privacy is like asking a peeping tom to install your window blinds."
by Maximilian on Dec 1, 2008 11:44 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
I've made this very point a couple times myself
It seems like the front office is either doing one of two things: either holding onto Tea because they think he’s the safer bet to be a solid catcher now (which would conversely probably mean they’re less interested in taking the time to try and develop the higher ceilings of Salty and Max) or they’re truly enamored, much like the fans, with his September performance.
I think it’s probably a little of both, but it definitely seems like the Rangers don’t want to let go of Tea right now, irregardless of the fact that he’s our most tradeable catcher (and also likely at an all-time peak in value) right now.
"Somewhere out there, between 14-32 BBWAA NL MVP voters are trying to get cheaper winter heating by drilling a hole in the microwave." - Jeff at LoL
by lonestarJon on Dec 1, 2008 11:53 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
John Beckwith: He lived with his mother till he was forty! She tried to poison his oatmeal!
Jeremy Grey: Erroneous! Erroneous! Erroneous on both counts
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
by knockoutking on Dec 1, 2008 1:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I like the word irregardless
although I’ve been told by many its not a word. I still use it and just tell people I’m a trendsetter
by BEW on Dec 1, 2008 10:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Guess that makes two of us
My mother said irregardless all throughout my childhood, so I guess it’s a very real word to me, at least.
"Somewhere out there, between 14-32 BBWAA NL MVP voters are trying to get cheaper winter heating by drilling a hole in the microwave." - Jeff at LoL
by lonestarJon on Dec 2, 2008 12:05 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Do you use it in situations where you mean "regardless"?
The 40 Trumps All!!!
There are two kinds of men in this world: Men who make jump throws, and men who wish that they were Derek Jeter so that they could make jump throws.
by thedirkatron on Dec 2, 2008 6:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Ding. Ding. Ding.
Bring up Matt West '09
by Chase Irwin on Dec 2, 2008 9:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Probably
But I don’t really use “regardless” that much, so I don’t hardly ever mean “regardless”. I mean irregardless.
"Somewhere out there, between 14-32 BBWAA NL MVP voters are trying to get cheaper winter heating by drilling a hole in the microwave." - Jeff at LoL
by lonestarJon on Dec 2, 2008 9:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I could see it as a pun, maybe
As in irregardless of what you already considered regardless.
It’s like a layer above.
This is an exciting time in my life.
The LSB CPP's are in full bloom.
by Chase Irwin on Dec 2, 2008 9:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It. Is. Not. A. Word.
You mean regardless, dolt.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Dec 2, 2008 11:17 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
L O L
This is an exciting time in my life.
The LSB CPP's are in full bloom.
by Chase Irwin on Dec 2, 2008 11:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Heh
Potayto, potahto.
"Somewhere out there, between 14-32 BBWAA NL MVP voters are trying to get cheaper winter heating by drilling a hole in the microwave." - Jeff at LoL
by lonestarJon on Dec 3, 2008 12:02 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No.
Potato, Ipotato.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
There are two kinds of men in this world: Men who make jump throws, and men who wish that they were Derek Jeter so that they could make jump throws.
by thedirkatron on Dec 3, 2008 6:42 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Hahaha
Nice.
"Somewhere out there, between 14-32 BBWAA NL MVP voters are trying to get cheaper winter heating by drilling a hole in the microwave." - Jeff at LoL
by lonestarJon on Dec 3, 2008 7:01 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
iregardless of what you say
its every bit as much a word as people who type lmao, beasticon, rec, Marcus Lemon
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Dec 3, 2008 9:55 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That's rediculous.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Dec 3, 2008 9:57 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Nah
There have been lots of stupid people before you.
by brettgardner on Dec 2, 2008 8:47 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Heh
“It seems like the front office is either doing one of two things: either holding onto Tea because they think he’s the safer bet to be a solid catcher now (which would conversely probably mean they’re less interested in taking the time to try and develop the higher ceilings of Salty and Max) or they’re truly enamored, much like the fans, with his September performance.”
Inherent in this statement is the idea that you are smarter/a better evaluator of talent than Daniels and his cadre.
Baseball Jesus, do you think it might be possible that they simply think T will have the best career because of his “ceiling,” among other things? And Baseball Jesus, do you really think the the F.O. is unaware of the pitfalls of small sample size reliance?
Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.
by Brian Thomas on Dec 1, 2008 1:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't see what your problem is with my statement
It’s just my opinion, just like everything else I post on this site.
I base it on what I’ve read about the three catchers, and everything I’ve read seems to indicate that Salty and Max indeed have a higher ceiling due to their offensive potential while Tea as the the safer bet to have a solid MLB career. And based on who the Rangers seem willing and not willing to trade this winter, all I’m saying is it looks like the Rangers would rather to hold onto the “safe bet”, at least for now. I never made a condemnation of that however, one way or the other.
I do believe that organizations do make judgements about certain guys based on September performance – Luis Mendoza/Armando Gallarraga would be a prime example there. Maybe “enamored like the fans” wasn’t quite the best choice of words, but I do think Tea’s MLB performance this year has given him a definite edge over the other two guys going into 2009.
"Somewhere out there, between 14-32 BBWAA NL MVP voters are trying to get cheaper winter heating by drilling a hole in the microwave." - Jeff at LoL
by lonestarJon on Dec 2, 2008 12:32 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough
Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.
by Brian Thomas on Dec 2, 2008 8:23 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think any player is "untouchable"
But I do think he’s probably valued more by the Rangers than any other team will pay for them. Obviously if San Fran called and offered Lincecum for Tea, the Rangers would do it, but of the guys who one reasonably would expect as a return, the Rangers would rather keep TT.
I think if Boston and JD were to discuss a Buchholz for Tea trade, both sides would consider it, but both would be very uncomfortable in pulling the trigger. Both would rather set those guys aside and discuss other options. If Salty, Bowden, Masterson, etc didn’t exist, they may make that deal. But a deal with slightly lower players on each side is far more palatable for both teams
by JBImaknee on Dec 1, 2008 11:56 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Another thing
you say the following
But does anyone think that he should be “untouchable” – in the sense that Clay Buchholz and Derek Holland are untouchable? I for one do not. If we can land a premier pitching prospect by giving up the best of our 4 catchers, I say go for it.
If you’re assuming guys at Holland’s level or above are untouchable, who would you consider as a premium pitching prospect that you’d trade TT for?
by JBImaknee on Dec 1, 2008 11:58 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
well see that's tough...
because the Rangers, more than, arguably, any other organization, can ill-afford to part with high ceiling pitching (unless it brings in developed pitching). Holland to the Rangers means more than he would to, say, the Red Sox.
If they are simply using the label to say, “we’ll only deal you TT, if we get back the pitching prospect that really hurts to part with” then I’m ok with it. If they’re using the label to mean, “Sorry, he’s our catcher of the future, we will not part with him, inquire elsewhere” then I have a real problem.
I guess you heard Fat Joe left Atlantic.
by Haeger Champ on Dec 1, 2008 12:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Acceptable
Of course the Giants won’t do it, but I would take Sanchez or Cain from the Giants or I would take Nolasco from the Marlins.
Go Cubbies and Go Rangers!
by pbpsean on Dec 1, 2008 12:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think "untouchable" really doesn't mean that.
It means an untouchable can be traded for an untouchable or an untouchable could be traded for a cornerstone piece. Or, if the trade market is thin, like it was for Santana, then these players might actually be untouchable.
In this case, I would even guess it’s kind-of a secret code. JD and Theo have talked. They know what they want, and they know what they want to spend to get it. They both say they’ll go back and think about it, and use the media to give some indication of what their thinking. Putting the “untouchable” label out through the media preconditions the negotiations at the Winter Meetings.
Maybe it isn’t all that complicated. Maybe untouchable is just a media term.
Go Rangers!
by rooster on Dec 1, 2008 12:19 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I think Texas should trade all four catchers and resurrect B.J. Waszgis
by Joey Matschulat on Dec 1, 2008 12:26 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Drew Meyer
Can’t we convert him to catcher?
"You taste like a burger. I don't like you anymore."
by Heebs on Dec 1, 2008 2:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
watch us go all arod on the sox
and trade one of our catchers to the yanks.
45-35
Jindal '12
by Longhorn on Dec 1, 2008 12:37 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Laird and Salt have both ben rumored to have been discussed before...
I would kinda laugh, just to see how quickly the Boston hype machine turns on the Texas Catchers…
by laxtonto on Dec 1, 2008 1:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
i would love if someone leaked something to the press about salty to the yanks, Boston would get all kinds of antsy and nervous…
45-35
Jindal '12
by Longhorn on Dec 1, 2008 2:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
hope it turns out better than the arod trade
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
by ab03 on Dec 1, 2008 2:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes
but just like rooster I have to qualify that response. Obviously, if TB came out and said we need a catcher and we are willing to part with Price for Teagarden, well of course you do that. That is not going to happen though. I would not trade him for the realistic price I think he could fetch. Everyone on this board hammers home the point that the Rangers need to be better on D, well that starts up the middle with Teagarden, Kinsler (potential to be an above avg def 2B), MY into Andrus (Love MY but Andrus is a gold glove waiting to happen, well a “real” gold glove that is, and Borbon in the future.
by Michael Cave on Dec 1, 2008 1:20 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
right
untouchable is all relative.
I'm undefeated in fights. Have I been in any? No. Thats because people know my f'ing status. Don't mess with the elite. - Miles
by Dirk Diggler on Dec 1, 2008 1:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
no it's not
that is why throwing the term around is so ridiculous. a player either is or is not untouchable, and the truth is, very few, if any, players are.
by clark on Dec 1, 2008 2:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well
ok this is splitting hairs. I agree that I don’t think many people are untouchable — if any — which is why it’s all relative. David Price is about as untouchable as it gets, right? I can’t imagine a scenario in which the Rays would trade him. But, Tea is certainly more available than Price. It’s all relative.
I'm undefeated in fights. Have I been in any? No. Thats because people know my f'ing status. Don't mess with the elite. - Miles
by Dirk Diggler on Dec 1, 2008 2:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
your suggestion is kind of defeating
if you consider untouchable an absolute distinction, then nobody is untouchable.
even a david price is not truly untouchable as you could probably pry him away with a buccholz/ortiz combination. there is no player that couldn’t be had for some combination of mlb players or money.
so, why use the term untouchable in that context? better to give the word some meaning and just think of it with the nuance that most other people think of it with.
so in this case, are the rangers willing to trade tea for a package that that they are likely going ot get from an interested team?
the answer is no
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
by ab03 on Dec 1, 2008 2:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
instead of using "untouchable"
I prefer what could be considered the inverse of that term, “available”. A player is available if the team will readily move him for fair value. Right now guys like Laird, Salty, Blalock and Byrd are probably all available, although a “fair value” return differs for all of them.
You are right, I don’t know why I pulled out the jackassery on the above post. Sorry about that.
by clark on Dec 1, 2008 3:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Am I the only one
who desperately wants TT to bring along all the young studs comin’ up? Laird and Salty’s game calling abilities have always seemed subpar to me. I think underestimating the importance of a strong game caller and defensive catcher for young pitchers is a mistake. We don’t need Salty or Max’s bat in this offense, but even so, Jaramillo can make the bat boy into a silver slugger.
by the funk on Dec 1, 2008 1:50 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Jaramillo
Teagarden can hit. And when he does I don’t want to hear a lot of “Rudy is such a genius” bullshit. He may not be the best all around hitter among Rangers catchers, but he can do it.
I agree with you about the defense. He’ll be good at the plate and behind it.
by Black Francis on Dec 2, 2008 2:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
teagarden can hit
but can he make consistant contact? no one knows.
is teagarden a better hitter than laird? maybe
is he a better hitter than max? no
is he a better hitter than salty? probably not
teagarden is far and away the best defensive player behind the plate.
but his value is as high as it POSSIBLY could be
would you trade teagarden/kennil gomez or fabio castillo for 2 of bowden/hagadone/bard?
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
by knockoutking on Dec 2, 2008 5:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No
I think he’s a better hitter than you apparently think he is.
His value is not as high as it could possibly be. His value will peak when he is the Rangers’ starting catcher and has matured as a player.
by Black Francis on Dec 2, 2008 8:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
why do you think he is a better hitter than he is?
sorry, his value is as high as it has been since he has been a professional
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
by knockoutking on Dec 2, 2008 9:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Like I said below, I'm not going to change your mind.
I think he’s going to be a good hitter from watching him hit. A little at UT, a little in the minors, and a little in the majors. Could I be wrong? Yes, but I don’t think I am. You do. Let’s leave it that and see what he does.
by Black Francis on Dec 2, 2008 10:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
deal haha
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
by knockoutking on Dec 2, 2008 10:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
We are all in way too much of a hurry
for the front office to “decide” on a catcher.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Dec 1, 2008 2:16 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
No ones untouchable
There’s always a deal out there that can easily make a player go from untouchable to traded. Teagarden could be untouchable, but if the right deal comes along (say, for Buchholz), you got to have the feeling that he could be traded
Gammons wrote this, so also, you have to take this with a grain of salt. We all know Gammons is a die-heart Red Sox fan, so he probably posted this to scare off teams to not try and talk with the Rangers about Tea, so it will drive the price down for him that the Soxs can easily make a trade for him without involving Buchholz. It wouldn’t surprise me if this was true
In Smoak We Trust
by Smoak Some on Dec 1, 2008 3:18 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I think that's a bit much
Gammons may be a parrott who tends to buy into the Sox hype he hears from Boston. True.
But I highly doubt he is proactively engaged in pro-Red Sox propaganda/subterfuge/sabotage, or propasubtatage, as it is more commonly known.
The man has scruples.
Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.
by Brian Thomas on Dec 1, 2008 3:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It also seems like a stretch to think that
communication among GMs is so poor that a Gammons conjecture would be taken as gospel. And if it’s not, it seems like it would only serve to raise his value. But mainly, yeah, people don’t take Gammons that seriously.
by Brett Perryman on Dec 1, 2008 3:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Agree
Really. Does Gammons have that good of sources inside the FO of the Rangers? They are usually pretty tight lipped. I tend to thenk the Bosox are using Gammons to get out their spin
by BEW on Dec 1, 2008 10:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
of course he does
hes peter fucking gammons!
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
by knockoutking on Dec 1, 2008 11:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Agree
It’s still just chicken to see if it is going to be Salty (or Salty +) for Buch or Tea for Buch.
This is just Gammons speculation/rumor mongering to fill up offseason column inches. Maybe Gammons believes it, and maybe the BoSox won’t give up Buch now. But it’s a long offseason and someone will blink before the Rangers get to Surprise (or JD will find another partner before then).
by thedudeabides on Dec 2, 2008 4:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
heres my question
best bat: maxram
best glove: teagarden
worst glove: max?
worst bat: teagarden
median bat/median glove: salty
whose value is at its highest? teagarden
whose value is at its lowest? salty
whose value is meh/in the middle: max
whats one good arguement to NOT do kasey kiker or neil ramirez or wilfredo boscan/teagarden for buchholtz from the rangers side? we have multiple pitchers who are on the same level as kiker/ramirez/boscan and catchers who are probably on the same level overall as teagarden for a guy that is a top of the rotation player. now i understand that wont get it done, but what i dont understand is why anyone would even consider not trading teagarden in a package like that for a matt cain or buchholtz-type pitcher
its not like our only catching prospects are tomas telis and teagarden…
overall, is teagardens ++ glove and below average bat worth more than saltys/max’s plus bat and near average defense PLUS a high talent arm?
no way
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
by knockoutking on Dec 2, 2008 5:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
i have believed for a while now
that we should trade the catcher(s) that net(s) us the best package of ML-ready pitching. then we would find a way to make it work with the talent that remained. i do like teagarden best and hope he stays. he seems to have the best temperament to handle a young staff and possesses a good balance of defensive and offensive abilities. i dont think he should be viewed as untouchable though, but would want more than bowden or masterson for him (i.e. bucholz)
by Smoakin in the Boys Room on Dec 1, 2008 6:33 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Um... this is rather simple
Yes, Taylor Teagarden is unfuckingtouchable. That means Boston can go to hell and whoever else might want TT.
Feed them Laird, Max. and Salty. Let them fight over those three. However, I really would like to keep Laird.
A Texas Designer's Map of the World
by hurlerhurley on Dec 1, 2008 10:06 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
hurlerhurley
general manager and head of public relations.
"Relying on the government to protect your privacy is like asking a peeping tom to install your window blinds."
by Maximilian on Dec 1, 2008 10:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
you wouldnt trade teagarden for buchholtz?
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
by knockoutking on Dec 1, 2008 11:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Personally,
I would not. I know I will get slammed for that but I just think that Teagarden is a necessary to making this team a contender.
by Michael Cave on Dec 2, 2008 1:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm with you.
Of course good pitchers make contenders, too, but Teagarden is one of those “special” catchers, I believe. He may not be Rodriguez-good, but I think he’s going to be pretty damn good. A well-balanced player at an essential position.
by Black Francis on Dec 2, 2008 2:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Couldn't say it better myself.
"Either we need to re-calibrate our rectangle, or Alfonzo Marquez is not having a good night." - Josh Lewin
by utlonghorn24 on Dec 2, 2008 3:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Of course good pitchers make contenders, too, but Teagarden is one of those "special" catchers, I believe. He may not be Rodriguez-good, but I think he’s going to be pretty damn good. A well-balanced player at an essential position.</blockquote>
the most balanced player in my eyes is salty
teagarden has far and away the best glove
max has the best bat
in my eyes who is the player with the least warts as a player? salty
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
by knockoutking on Dec 2, 2008 5:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You seem pretty convinced of this.
I’m not going to change your mind.
I don’t think Saltalamacchia is the future at catcher, but my opinion could change. He’s young. Ramirez I don’t think is a catcher…he’s just playing there.
And, again, I think you underestimate what Teagarden will do at the plate. I don’t see anything to indicate he’s going to hit for a high average or achieve more than an average OBP. But average OBP is pretty good for a catcher, and I think he’s going to have some real power. Not Josh Hamilton power, but power nonetheless. And no I’m not basing that only on last year’s big league debut.
What’s more is I think you underestimate the value of Teagarden’s defense. He’s really good, and that’s very important.
I’ve always like Salty, but I haven’t seen him play much when he’s not struggling. His willingness to take pitches last season impressed me, though.
by Black Francis on Dec 2, 2008 9:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
i think that teagarden is still a good major league player if he hits .240
i think salty really got fucked by ron washington the last yr.
i think they should trade teagarden 100% without a doubt if they can get a matt cain or clay buchholtz type pitcher.
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
by knockoutking on Dec 2, 2008 9:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Last I'll say about this
Teagarden’s a good player if he hits .240. I don’t know whether you mean .240 with the ability to get on base and hit for power or not. If he gives you .240 by hitting a bunch of singles and that’s it, then no, I don’t think he’s the right catcher for the Rangers. The Rangers have a pitching staff SO bad that they need everyone to hit. I mean they seriously need an offense that puts last year’s to shame.
So if that’s all he does then he’s still a good MLB player because he’s so good behind the plate. He’d be an asset to a team with an above average lineup and average or better pitching staff. Not for the Rangers because even though you need a good catcher to improve your staff, nobody can help the bunch of clowns the Rangers typically send out there. You have to lead the league in offense just to sniff the .500 mark.
But I think Teagarden is going to hit better than that, and I think at some point the Rangers are going to get some better pitching. At least we can hope. In my mind, then, he’s the best guy for the job.
On the other hand if the farm were devoid of pitching prospects you may as well go ahead and put Ramirez behind the plate. His defense is going to be the least of your worries. I’d be more worried about the other players on the field getting whiplash from watching line drives fly over their heads at mach .5.
I’m just not sure about Saltalamacchia.
Anyway, I don’t think you or anyone else can say anything with 100 percent certainty.
by Black Francis on Dec 2, 2008 10:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
o no
im not saing 100% without a doubt
i think he can be a gold glover hitting .240
i would love for him to be the rangers starting catcher, and in a perfect world, he probably would be – if the team had
an above average lineup and average or better pitching staff.
anyway, i think its a good problem ot have, 3 players who all have good arguements to be the rangers starting catcher
…now if we only have this problem with starting pitching in 2-3 years ill be happy :)
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
by knockoutking on Dec 3, 2008 9:47 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well if Gammons said it...
it must be good as gold.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
by slc ranger on Dec 1, 2008 10:45 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

by 
















