OK 6 of one half dozen of another. if they move him (1B), it will stay take longer to develop. By the way we are loaded at first base as well. Bye bye to fields...later though.

Nice to see you back BTW.

Nice to see you back BTW.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Right, it's a lot easier on me too. He can post for himself vs. instant messaging me trying to tell me what to post.

 

Guess what, we are going for beers Sat. nite, the wives abadoned us for a Sat. evening, and we will have a good laugh about all the prospect love that goes on.

Nice to see you back BTW.

 

Maybe the Borchard comparisons will prove to be unfair because Fields is still so early in his development but its hard to ignore the striking similarities. Well not that hard seeing that the Sox drafted him.....

BTW I love the comment on that Hot Stove blog that says this Texas deal would be great for both teams.

 

Hmmm ... funny ... isn't that what KW always tries to accomplish?

Footwork supposedly quite improved in AFL, For what that's worth.

 

I think Blalock's footwork is pretty good though. 

I have my doubts on Fields, but he really made progress as the season progressed last year. He has the tools, although I think the Sox are rushing them if they send him to AAA. Plus the Knights park does awful things to a hitters swing (at least it seems to).

Just saw this on ESPN News

http://www.metsblog.com/TheHotStoveReport

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It would be nice if the Rangers also threw in a pitching prospect but I like the deal. We are going to lose Garland after 2006 anyways and Crede soon after. We would have Blalock on a cheap 3-year deal.

 

Podsednik (lefty)

Iguchi (righty)

Thome (lefty)

Konerko (righty)

Blalock (lefty)

Dye (righty)

Pierzynski (lefty)

Uribe (righty)

Anderson (righty)

 

That lineup kicks ass.

Edited December 16, 200520 yr by SSH2005

I'm pretty proud of this thread. I'm usually the asshole who creates topics that have been already been posted. Not this time.

 

Thank you, Ralph Malph.

Blalock has a really nice contract as well:

 

2006: $3.00 million

2007: $4.75 million

2008: $5.95 million

2009: $6.20 million option; $250,000 buyout

Edited December 16, 200520 yr by SSH2005

It would be nice if the Rangers also threw in a pitching prospect but I like the deal.  We are going to lose Garland after 2006 anyways and Crede soon after.  We would have Blalock on a cheap 3-year deal.

 

Podsednik  (lefty)

Iguchi  (righty)

Thome  (lefty)

Konerko  (righty)

Blalock  (lefty)

Dye  (righty)

Pierzynski  (lefty)

Uribe  (righty)

Anderson  (righty)

 

That lineup kicks ass.

 

 

Actually they will throw in a pitching prospect. KW will want to get an arm for triple A. In addition another reason this makes sense is that Texas and Boras get along well. I would think texas would be able to sign Crede long term.

Actually they will throw in a pitching prospect. KW will want to get an arm for triple A. In addition another reason this makes sense is that Texas and Boras get along well. I would think texas would be able to sign Crede long term.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, we are talking about it in the other Garland thread. The Rangers also have a couple highly rated starting pitching prospects in John Danks and Thomas Diamond. They could include one of those two guys.

Isn't there talk about Wilkerson? I'm all for giving Anderson his shot, but Wilkerson would be a good #2 hitter.

Isn't there talk about Wilkerson? I'm all for giving Anderson his shot, but Wilkerson would be a good #2 hitter.

Yea he's a high OBP guy, but he strikes out a 100+ times a year (147, 152, 155, 161 last 4 years). Do you really want that in your 2 hole when you are trying to move a runner over? I don't know, thats just something to think about.

Yeah, we are talking about it in the other Garland thread.  The Rangers also have a couple highly rated starting pitching prospects in John Danks and Thomas Diamond.  They could include one of those two guys.

 

Browsing Google for information relaing to those two, both are currently in the Rangers AA affiliate. Unless we're considering moving either to bullpen use, they'd be useless this season. I can imagine either would start the season at AAA. Which is fine, but unfortunately we'd still have two open bullpen positions.

 

Is there even a AAA pitcher on the Rangers that is worthy of being included alongside Blalock in any deal for Garland/Crede? I would believe if there were a AAA pitcher succeeding Texas would hold onto them.

Edited December 16, 200520 yr by Flash Tizzle

Isn't there talk about Wilkerson? I'm all for giving Anderson his shot, but Wilkerson would be a good #2 hitter.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I believe Wilkerson will be a free agent after 2006 and is also a Boras client. Not gonna happen.

Edited December 16, 200520 yr by SSH2005

Isn't there talk about Wilkerson? I'm all for giving Anderson his shot, but Wilkerson would be a good #2 hitter.

 

 

Yes in the original thread, but as this plays out, I actually think KW would rather have the prospect than Wilkerson. Firstly it gives one of our prospects a chance to play center field. In addition we will need a back up arm in case of injury this year. I like Wilkerson alot, I have no idea what he is owed but if they get blaylock I think they will be able to hide andersen in the lineup. Just some thoughts.

Browsing Google for information relaing to those two, both are currently in the Rangers AA affiliate. Unless we're considering moving either to bullpen use, they'd be useless this season. I can imagine either would start the season at AAA. Which is fine, but unfortunately we'd still have two open bullpen positions.

 

Is there even a AAA pitcher on the Rangers that is worthy of being included alongside Blalock in any deal for Garland/Crede? I could imagine if there were a AAA pitcher succeeding Texas would hold onto them.

 

 

THere will be people non tendered later next week. We will get a bullpen guy.

I believe Wilkerson will be a free agent after 2006 and is also a Boras client.  Not gonna happen.

 

 

There you go

remember tho, people on here were saying

garland for vazquez

and such

 

instead it was useless pitcher hernadez + viz and a prospect for vazquez.

 

Alot can change from now and the time of the trade, hell, im very confident it well be something better then we think .

Garland and Crede for Blalock and a pitching prospect makes the most sense. We would lose Garland after 2006 anyways and you know KW and Reinsdorf want to get rid of their last remaining Boras client. Blalock would be under an inexpensive deal for 3 or 4 years.

 

Bruce Levine on ESPN 1000 right now. He still thinks both the Cubs and the Sox are in the hunt for Miguel Tejada. He says either Garland or Contreras will definately be traded. Levine is saying that neither Cubs or Sox officials would talk to him about Tejada, meaning something is probably up. He is saying that Orioles officials still say Tejada wants to leave and they want a blockbuster package for him.

Edited December 16, 200520 yr by SSH2005

Garland and Crede for Blalock and a pitching prospect makes the most sense.  We would lose Garland after 2006 anyways and you know KW and Reinsdorf want to get rid of their last remaining Boras client.  Blalock would be under an inexpensive deal for 3 or 4 years.

 

Bruce Levine on ESPN 1000 right now.

 

I'd have no probelm with merely a pitching prospect and Blalock if the pitching prospect were top tier. Atleast within the Top 20 in the league. Are Diamond or Danks either of these? Can we project either of these two to enter our rotation (or bullpen) by 2007? In my mind, top pitching prospects within the Texas Rangers organization doesn't do much. The same title for the Dodgers, however, is quite different. I'd rather trade Garland to LA for two quality prospects (one Guzman, ideally), leave Crede on our club for this year, and worry about a replacement 3B in 2007.

Edited December 16, 200520 yr by Flash Tizzle

Right, forget about Wilkerson, he is indeed a Boras client. I think one of those pitching prospects is too, not sure.

Interesting about levine. I don't think he knows what he is talking about, but on the chance he does, I think its interesting what KW is doing. basically he is using Garland as leverage agaisnt both these teams. For tejeda it will be garland that gets traded not Mcarthy. he wants garland out, and the orioles would risk losing Garland after one year where TExas would probably over pay to keep him. KW is very smart and I think either way we can't lose!

Right, forget about Wilkerson, he is indeed a Boras client.  I think one of those pitching prospects is too, not sure.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I believe John Danks is the prospect who is a Boras client. I'm not positive though. Thomas Diamond isn't so he would have to be the pitching prospect we would get in a trade with Texas.

Edited December 16, 200520 yr by SSH2005

Id be in love with tejada.

Not sure that Danks is a Boras client, I will look it up. White Sox drafted his brother, who was not in the Boras stable, and the Danks family was very impressed with the White Sox.

 

Josh Rupe, anyone?