[NBC] The Rangers are working hard to get Roy Oswalt

He was on SportsRadio610.

 

True, but why would they? They have younger arms in their farm that would more than satisfy our need. It's not like it's Holland or bust -- we would be more than happy to take Perez/Scheppers type talent. If they're truly trying to make a WS run, I don't think they would be inclined to trade a young SP that's a) in their rotation; b) pitched well and c) under their control for the next several seasons.

 

i'm not saying that they would trade any of them for roy necessarily, i was more responding to the poster saying that the rangers wouldn't trade those 3 players in any deal.

 

Knowing the Astros, that wouldn't surprise me. Roy should have been dealt two years ago, but that would have been a shrewd move, and the grocer doesn't want to hurt his reputation as one of the most clueless owners in major league baseball.

.

 

The poster was me.. sorry, I meant any deal for Roy Oswalt. Obviously a deal for Pujols changes things, but I just meant deals regarding Oswalt.

 

ah. gotcha.

 

Freddy Garcia and Carlos Guillien weren't Astros A-level prospects either. I forgot who our top guys were, but I remember hearing the trade and thinking "glad we didn't give up our best prospects".

The Rangers have one of the best farms in baseball. I'd rather take their mediocre prospects over our own top prospects.

 

The majority of the time, the team that gets the best established player "wins" the trade. No exception with the Astros and Randy Johnson (even though he didn't say).

Same goes for when we traded Billy Wagner.

Roy Oswalt is probably not as valuable now as either of those guys were at the time of their trades. I want the best possible prospects just as much as anyone else... but I doubt the Rangers give us anybody who they honestly think could be a future ace/all-star.

 

In '98, Baseball America had Garcia as the #6 Astros Prospect, and Carlos Guillen as #7. (source). They actually were A-list prospects for the Astros at the time.

 

I don't get why one team has to win and the other loses. The Mariners weren't winning squat with Johnson, Griffey, etc. They traded both and ended up being a much better team because of it. You can say the Astros do that trade again and again given the opportunity. But I say the Mariners would also do that trade again and again given the same opportunity.

A) If the Rangers can truly project minor league non-Strasburg-level talents to MLB stardom, then their front office has a time machine.

B) Did you think the Astros gave up future star talent for Aubrey Huff?

 

Depends on how you classify A-list prospects. The #6 and #7 prospects were certainly not the best in the organization at the time like he said.

 

All I'm saying in most of these trades, the prospects really don't amount to being as close as good as the player you traded away was (at his prime).

For every Ben Zobrist, there's a Taylor Buchholz.

That being said, we get something that could potentially turn out to be contributing at the big league level in some form in the future... I just won't hold my breath.

 

The Marlins and A's would probably disagree. It all has to do with how good your team is at evaluating minor leaguers.

And it's not really about getting players better than the ones you traded away - it's about getting players that benefit your team more. Let's say the Astros get a minor leaguer that turns into a #3 starter for the team. He won't be as good as Oswalt. However, which benefits the Astros more:

Oswalt at $15MM for the next 2 years
New #3 starter at low salary for the next 6 years

Trades are about more than just who's the best player.

 

Well, we simply disagree on the A-level talent cut-off line. I put A-level at can't-miss prospects in terms of MLB starter(I'd say our only current A-level prospect to be Castro). Berkman, Elarton, Hidalgo, Miller were can't-miss prospects at the time. Everyone behind them weren't so can't-miss.

But in terms of what the Rangers would give up, if they won't even part with one of their top 10 prospects, then it's really a non-discussion as far as the Astros are concerned.

 

I think both were upside 80's lowside in the 60's on the scouting scale that the scouts use. In other words, baring major disappointment, both were going to be something between regular bench players and above average MLB starters. You can find plenty of quotes from Astros people at the time about how both were expected to be in the majors for a long time, but that the short term payoff made it worthwhile.

I think the next tier is guys like Jason Hayward or Stephen Strasburg, who have a good shot at being regular all-stars. If that is what you want to call "the A list", there aren't that many of those in any team's minor league system from year to year.

Now that I think about it, you have the guys who have the raw mutant athletic ability, who have a much wider range - maybe all-star potential on the upside, but the potential to never succeed above the low minors. I would put that kind of prospect below the sure thing with less raw upside, but that's debatable.

 

I would put Castro very much in that 80 upside/60 lowside range. He's going to be on a major league roster for a while, and he will be either a solid, above average starter, or a regular reserve. On the scale in question, he definitely doesn't have the "A-list" "perenial all-star" potential that was attached to Hidalgo and Berkman.

He is much closer to the way they thought of Guillen/Garcia than Berkman/Hidalgo.

In fact, in 1999, Baseball Prospecus listed Garcia as the #30 prospect in their top 40 prospects in all of baseball list, while Baseball America had Garcia as #68 and and Carlos Guillen as #87 in their annual top 100.

 

Well, I do agree that Castro isn't nearly in the old Astros top 5 range. But times change, team suck, and standards get lower.

But it does further point out that even Rangers mid-level prospects would likely improve our farm quite a bit.

 

Taylor Buchholz was an all-star in 2008, then hurt his elbow and is currently recovering from Tommy John Surgery. Turns out he is a much better reliever than starter.

Edit: Buchholz didn't make it, but was considered. Fail on me. I just remembered that he had turned into a great setup man.