clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Discussion question -- trading for Josh Willingham

There's been a fair amount of talk in the past few days about the David DeJesus trade, and what the Rangers would have to give up to get a similar talent.

Buster Olney has this to say about the deal in his column today:

Spoke with some executives and scouts about the Oakland-Kansas City trade involving David DeJesus and Vin Mazzaro, and the unanimous opinion was it was a good deal for both clubs. The Royals get a decent -- but not great -- young pitcher, who has a chance to get better and become a part of their rotation, and Oakland gets a good -- but not great -- player in DeJesus, at a time when the Athletics desperately need upgrades in their lineup if they are to have any kind of chance to take advantage of their strong young pitching.



Oakland's window of opportunity with its current group of players will expire in no more than three years - and more likely within two seasons -- especially because the team has gotten no firm indication that MLB is ready to give the Athletics the territorial rights to San Jose, Calif.

Ken Rosenthal has said that the A's were also talking to the Washington Nationals about Josh Willingham before cutting the deal for DeJesus.  And Willingham is someone that Rangers fans have discussed as a possible Ranger trade target.

I suggested a package of Tommy Hunter and Matt Thompson being similar to what the A's gave up for DeJesus, although I personally think Hunter is a little better than Mazzaro.

So, what would your feelings be about a Hunter and Thompson for Willingham package?  Willingham is a better hitter than DeJesus, and like DeJesus, he's a free agent after this season.  He'll probably make $6-7 million in arbitration.

Unlike DeJesus, Willingham is defensively limited.  He's played 4 innings in the majors at first base, with most of his time in the field being in left field. 

So, do you pull the trigger on a Hunter/Thompson for Willingham deal?  If not, what would you be willing to part with?