Posted by Spence on September 20, 2008 at 8:51 AM
Who is Bucholz? The four appearances in '07 or fifteen in '08? Boston runs the risk of pitching him in '09 and seeing they have the '08 version, then what do they do? Texas has leverage because teams are willing to deal starting pitching this offseason. KC, SF, and FLA will deal. The phones better be smoking now laying some groundwork. I think trades will start early this winter. Get in while the gettin's good.
Posted by lonestardead on September 18, 2008 at 10:1 AM
Buchholz would immediately become a lead candidate as the ace of this pathetic staff. Salty would only be the ante required to get in the talks
Posted by egriffey on September 16, 2008 at 6:10 PM
If Boston is foolish enough to give up Buchholz, then heck yeah. But I doubt they would be. As JN points out, they'd be selling low on a guy who made every top ten prospect list in the world last year. That guy has ten times the value of Salty. But, who knows what the pitching-rich Sox would be willing to do? That would be the biggest prospect blunder since Danks for McCarthy.
Posted by asfas22 on September 16, 2008 at 1:59 PM
the rangers should find the best trade they can find if they can improve the team by trading salty or laird or both then do it. Especially if teagarden continues to show he could be ready to take over with max as the back up. BUT be careful taking the over hyped Red Sox or Yankee prospects
Posted by hxpxdxtx on September 15, 2008 at 11:29 PM
I'd say yes if the Sox say yes. Salty's a great prospect but we're loaded at C. Yes, Bucholz is unproven but I'd argue that Salty is too, and IMHO Buch has done more than Salty (what's the hitter's equivalent of a no-hitter?). As you pointed out a few days ago, we have nice waves of young arms coming up but wouldn't CB instantly be near or at the top of our pitching prospects' list?
Posted by ffdean on September 15, 2008 at 2:56 PM
I would prefer not to use our assets on obtaining more "potential" players. Go after the proven productive pitchers available.