• E-mail

Buy or sell? Sell or buy? Go for broke or build for the future?

Geez, the only e-mails I've received more often lately detail the financial benefits coming my way if I can just help a guy move some money out of Nigeria.

Everybody wants to know what direction the Rangers will head six weeks from now when the trade deadline arrives. Will they sell off their veteran assets for more building blocks of the future? Or will they add veterans and try to make a come-from-behind playoff run?

How about I add a third category to the debate?

Hold.

What if the Rangers simply held on to the club they have and let things play out? What if they decided they didn't need to make a decision whether to trade Milton Bradley or re-sign him by July 31? Ditto Hank Blalock? What if they simply focused on playing baseball and trying to finish with the best record possible? What if I wrote a declarative sentence for a change instead of a question?

OK, I can at least comply with that last request.

I think it might just make a bit of sense to let the season play out. Don't rush to trade Vicente Padilla, Bradley or Blalock. Don't rush into extensions for them all. Don't sell the farm for some magic beans.

This strategy has worked before.

Surely, I'm kidding, you say. No, I'm not.

Let me tell you about a team that was a game under .500 (39-40) at the All-Star break, in third place in its division and nine games behind the leader and without any shot at the wild card. Team didn't add or subtract any significant pieces. Simply let its young players and veterans continue to play. Said team went to the World Series. And won 14 consecutive division titles.

Let me introduce you to the 1991 Atlanta Braves. Now I'll be the first person to admit that what gave the Braves staying power in 1991 was the rise of John Smoltz, Tom Glavine and Steve Avery. I will not dare to compare Scott Feldman, Kason Gabbard and Eric Hurley (or any other young pitcher in the Rangers' control) to that trio.

What I will say is this: The Rangers are playing better than expected. Maybe the building/rebuilding process is a little bit ahead of everybody's best guesses. No, the Rangers might not be ready to win this season. But say the Rangers trade guys like Bradley and Padilla, and then at the end of the year, they realize they could contend in 2009. If only they had a cleanup hitter and a starter for the top half of the rotation.

Or, in other words: If only they had Bradley and Padilla.

This isn't necessarily the absolute answer. It's entirely possible the Rangers will fall further off the pace in the next month. It's entirely possible that somebody will be willing to "overpay" for Bradley or Padilla or Blalock or Eddie Guardado, Marlon Byrd or Frank Catalanotto.

But it's also possible that the club that has played well above .500 since the first three weeks of the season just might continue to build on that as the season goes on. And the Rangers just might get convinced that they've got a contending team for 2009 on their hands. So long as they don't have to go searching for pieces they already had.

Q: With the rash of injuries Hank Blalock has suffered the last two years, I imagine that his trade value is relatively low. However, most of the pundits seem to be saying he's as good as traded come the deadline or that the Rangers won't pick up his option for 2009. My question is why? Do the Rangers have so much talent that they can cast aside a proven (albeit injury-prone) infielder? Even with Chris Davis' imminent promotion, I just can't see why the Rangers would go forward with Chris Shelton, German Duran or Frank Catalanotto instead of Blalock. Surely there's room on the team for him this year and in 2009.

Daniel Hagelberg, McKinney, Texas

GRANT: If Blalock comes back here soon, gets hot and the Rangers get on a roll that pushes them into the playoff race, I doubt Blalock goes anywhere this season. Then the Rangers have decisions: Do they pick up the option? If they do, do they place Blalock at first base or ask him to go back to third? Do they ask Chris Davis to move back across the infield to third if Blalock plays first? (My guess on the final issue is "no." Makes no sense to me to have a natural third baseman playing first and a natural first baseman playing third unless you want to have more fielding issues than you already have.)

If Blalock comes back and performs poorly, he's not going anywhere either, except perhaps the bench. There would be little if any trade value at that point. And if the Rangers fall out of the race, then Davis takes over at first. End of story.

The question is what happens if Blalock comes back, performs well and the Rangers pretty much tread water? Would a month at first be enough time for him to prove he could play the position, prove he's healthy again and make a more serious contender come knocking on the Rangers' door bearing prospects? Yeah, I think it is. A trailing team in a playoff race is a desperate team, and it might be willing to "overpay" at that point. Blalock might also increase his trade value by showing that he can help a contender at first or third.

What it comes down to is this: How does Blalock perform individually and how do the Rangers perform as a team?

Q: I heard some talk today by national radio personalities that the Rangers and C.C. Sabathia could be a possible fit at the trade deadline with a contract extension in the $150 million neighborhood. Is this a legit possibility or just a talking head killing time on the air? If it is legit, what kind of names would be included in a deal like that?

Joe

GRANT: Unless the Rangers get on a serious run in the next three weeks and make up serious ground on the Angels and in the wild-card race, I don't see them being significant players for Sabathia at the trade deadline. Doesn't mean they won't go after him hard in free agency, but I don't think Sabathia is going to sign any extensions before free agency unless it is absolutely silly money. Even sillier than $150 million.

So, to go after Sabathia in a trade, you'd have to be willing to part with a boatload of talent (start with Elvis Andrus and just keep adding names to the list) and you'd have to be willing to accept that he's only a rental. That only makes sense to a team that is one pitcher away from winning the World Series. Like I said, unless the Rangers get on a serious roll very soon, I don't see how they can think they are just one pitcher away. They might think that if some things go right, they can contend, and then you never know what might happen in the playoffs. But under that second scenario, you hold rather than buy.

From my seat, a truly desperate team (hello, Yankees) would seem to be the most likely fit.

Q: Will Nelson Cruz get one more shot with the big league club before he becomes a free agent at the end of the season?

Mick Wright, Dallas

GRANT: Barring an injury, I don't see it. Maybe in September if this team is in the playoff hunt, but if it's not, I think John Mayberry Jr. is more likely to get a September look than Cruz.

If Milton Bradley is healthy, the Rangers are stretched to the max to find playing time for five outfielders (Bradley, Josh Hamilton, David Murphy, Brandon Boggs and Marlon Byrd) at four spots (including the DH). Cruz is putting together a monster year at Triple-A, but without injury, I think he's simply been bypassed in the Rangers' plans.

Boggs has seized an unlikely opportunity that was originally given to him because he was the only outfielder on a 40-man roster that didn't have much flexibility. If the Rangers had flexibility at the time, it's entirely possible they would have added Cruz, and Boggs would still be playing in the minors.

Q: Who are the Rangers' top five prospects after the draft? Is Justin Smoak in there now or not? And what about Max Ramirez and what position do you think he will play in the majors?

Mo, Dallas

GRANT: In January, I ranked the top five Rangers prospects as: 1. Elvis Andrus, 2. Eric Hurley, 3. Chris Davis, 4. Michael Main, 5. Blake Beavan.

Davis has to rise because of an incredible first half. So does Neftali Feliz (No. 12 on my January list). And Max Ramirez (No. 11), too. Main would have to fall simply because he hasn't yet pitched this year because of a stress fracture in his rib cage. But some other guys would have to drop also, not because of anything they've done, but because Davis, Feliz and Ramirez have forced their way to the top.

When I did my prospect rankings it was based on a combination of success and projection. To update that list in the middle of the year, you'd have to weigh actual success more heavily.

With that in mind, here's how my top five would look today: 1. Davis, 2. Feliz, 3. Ramirez, 4. Andrus, 5. Hurley.

Notice that Hurley has dropped from second to fifth while still advancing to the majors and having two pretty good starts to his career. That doesn't mean he's become a lesser prospect. It simply means the Rangers' farm system is having a very good year.

Q: Will Neftali Feliz ever be promoted? What about the other trio of guys in Clinton with him? All have performed as expected or even above, haven't they? What else do Feliz, Derek Holland, and Kennil Gomez have to prove in Clinton?

Reagan, Arlington, Texas

GRANT: What's that saying, something like: "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it?" Is that right?

Remember Edinson Volquez and Juan Dominguez? Both guys were rushed through the system at the first sign of success. Both had spectacular flameouts at the major league level. Dominguez never recovered from his. Volquez, after being sent down to Class A, seems to have made a pretty good recovery. But perhaps the setback kept the Rangers from knowing exactly what they had in Volquez before dealing him to Cincinnati.

Holland (6-0, 2.92 ERA in 14 starts) is 21; Feliz (6-2, 2.06 ERA in 15 starts) and Gomez (8-2, 2.83 ERA in 12 starts) are 20. None of them has played in a full-season league before. Gomez bypassed advanced rookie ball (Spokane) entirely. These guys are very good prospects, but there is no need to rush them at the first sign of success. The Rangers want to carefully monitor them to try to avoid fatigue, so that will be a factor. Moving young guys to a higher league can often induce stress on the arm simply because pitchers think they have to have better stuff to compete in a higher league.

I'm a big fan of "mystique." What's wrong with these guys dominating the Midwest League this season? What's wrong with one of them maybe leading the league in wins and another in ERA and another in strikeouts? That can only help a kid's confidence and his reputation.

No need to rush these guys right now. They are having success. Let them continue to have it for the time being.

Q: The Rangers have a large number of minor league players from Latin America in their system. What are they doing to help them adjust to the U.S. and stay out of trouble?

Rob, McKinney, Texas

GRANT: Players at the club's state-of-the-art academy complex in the Dominican Republic receive daily English lessons and lessons in adapting to U.S. culture. That continues when those players get to the Arizona Rookie League. Billy McLaughlin is a part-time scout who serves as the club's "cultural enhancement" director. It's his job to make sure the players are best acclimated to U.S. culture when they get here.

After they go off to other spots (usually their second year in the states), the manager becomes the de facto camp counselor. Bottom line is kids who are in the early 20s or even younger often do things they regret later in life, whether they grew up in Saint Louis or Santo Domingo.

Q: Wondering if you have any info on Brandon McCarthy's health and when he might return.

GRANT: McCarthy threw off a mound in Arizona on Monday for the first time since early April. So let's assume the forearm inflammation is behind him once and for all. Let's assume that the first mound session is essentially his first day of spring training. Spring training is six weeks long. If there are no setbacks, I think the start of August might be the time you will see McCarthy pitch in games. Now whether he's pitching in the majors or minors, that's still to be determined either by trades, injury or lack of effectiveness.

But if the Rangers play well with their current rotation of Kevin Millwood, Vicente Padilla, Kason Gabbard, Scott Feldman and Eric Hurley, McCarthy might have to go to the minors.

Q: Rumors are stirring about Wilmer Font. I was wondering if you had any info on his condition/troubles?

Nik

GRANT: I know there were some rather vague rumors about the gargantuan, 6-4, 237-pound 18-year-old on the Internet. I've asked about Font's condition since he's not currently pitching for any of the Rangers' minor league clubs. He's been bothered by shoulder problems this season, but I've been told he's throwing off a mound in Arizona and isn't far from being ready to pitch in games.

When he's ready, I guess he'll make a couple of starts for the Arizona Rookie League team (he was 2-3 with a 4.53 ERA in 45 2/3 innings with that club last year). Maybe he finishes the season at Spokane. Font was the youngest Rangers player in the minor league system last year. Keeping a kid comfortable at such a young age is important to his development. Billy McLaughin, the Rangers' director of cultural enhancement who serves as kind of a counselor for the Latin American kids, is based in Arizona. The Rangers may want him to work closely with Font this season to ensure he gets acclimated to life in the U.S.

Q: Since Milton Bradley has gone down, the lineup just seems less scary (amazing what losing the OPS leader will do). Do you think the Rangers consider him a rental to be flipped for more goodies or a core guy whom they will try to re-sign? I can go both ways on him because of the injuries, but as a Bradley doubter this off-season, I have really enjoyed watching him play and think his intensity is one of the things the Rangers haven't had enough of lately. Thoughts?

Eric

GRANT: I agree, Eric, and I think I said as much in last week's newletter.

Bradley, Hank Blalock and Vicente Padilla are the most interesting potential trade decisions this club may have to make. Blalock we've already discussed. Padilla underachieved last year in the first year of his three-year deal, is pitching very well right now and will be going into the final year of his contract in 2009; making him the kind of guy who might be very attractive to another contending team.

Bradley is here on a one-year deal and has been a huge part of why the offense has been so spectacular. He's really been the perfect cleanup hitter for this lineup. And as I mentioned last week, the fact he can hit right-handed is important given that the Rangers' No. 3 hitter (Josh Hamilton) is a lefty, as is the likely future No. 5 guy (Chris Davis).

There is some reason to think that keeping Bradley in the middle of the lineup – if he can stay healthy – can make this a very formidable lineup for the foreseeable future. To me, the only really attractive free-agent option on the market is Vladimir Guerrero, if the Angels don't re-sign him first. But Guerrero will be 33 next year and is an injury concern himself.

I simply can't answer this definitively. If the Rangers fall further from contention, they've got to be willing to listen to offers, but if they don't get full value for Bradley, then it makes sense to either spend the second half of the season working on a contract extension or taking a chance by offering him salary arbitration if he reaches free agency. Under that scenario, if Bradley signs elsewhere, the Rangers would receive a pair of draft picks as compensation.

I also raised this possibility last week: The Rangers could trade him and then try to re-sign him during the off-season. It's a nice thought, but the second half of that move is easier said than done.

Q: Who is the starting catcher in '09: Jarrod Saltalamacchia, Taylor Teagarden, Max Ramirez or Gerald Laird?

Jason Parks, New York

GRANT: When asked this question a couple of weeks ago, I think I went with Saltalamacchia. Think my reasoning was that Laird would be very tradeable at the deadline and, at the time, Laird was struggling at the plate.

Not so sure that's my answer now. Laird played really, really well leading up to his injury last Friday. He seemed to separate himself from Saltalamacchia in the catching race. Now, Saltalamacchia has at least a month to show the Rangers what he can do behind the plate and with the pitching staff as the everyday catcher. I think his play over the next month will be a significant factor in determining which direction the club goes at catcher. And Max Ramirez's exposure to the big leagues over the next month may help the club determine if he is ready to hit in the majors and whether he's got the tools to be a big league catcher.

What is clear is that somebody is going to have to go. The easy answer is Laird, because he's the closest to free agency. But I don't think there are any easy answers to this situation. I just know the Rangers are going to be very popular with teams desperate for front-line catching.

Only thing I feel fairly comfortable in saying is that I don't think Taylor Teagarden is a front-line, everyday catcher. Oh, he's got the skills, all right. But I think his shoulder is too fragile to hold up for 120 games per season.

Q: When Ron Washington took over as manager for the Rangers, they immediately became the worst defensive team in the AL in errors committed and they also lead the AL in walks allowed. These same two problem children are at it again in 2008.

Is this an acknowledged problem within the organization and is Ron Washington capable of affecting change or is his inability to rectify these problems going to be the reason he is fired?

Josey Wales

GRANT: Josey, you outlaw you, this is a disjointed question. Maybe, since he came in with the reputation of being a fielding guru, you could lay the poor fielding at his feet. But the walks? How can the manager take the blame there? I think a ton of walks would more imperil the pitching coaches than the manager.

Beyond that, the Rangers didn't bring in Ron Washington to be their fielding instructor. Yes, he had the reputation for being an excellent fielding instructor in Oakland. But when the club hired him as manager, if anything, they wanted him to take a step back from the hands-on, individual instruction and run the club as a whole.

I think early during his tenure with the Rangers, Washington tried to be too involved with hands-on instruction. Since he's delegated more stuff to his coaches and taken more of an overseer's role, he has grown as a manager, and the team has played better as a whole. If the Rangers make a managerial change at some point, it won't be based on one particular aspect of this club; it would be based on the team's overall performance.

For now, though, based on the way the Rangers have rallied back from an awful start, the way their lineup seems to have grown into a force and the way the personalities on the club seem to have bonded, I would think Washington's job is more secure here than any point since the first day of his first spring training.