I’d trade Masterson to get Teagarden, though. While I like Masterson, he is far better suited to coming out of the pen. As a starter, his fastball sits high 80s/low 90s and he struggles with left-handed hitters (high BB and HR). Out of the pen, Tito can match Masterson up against righties and he can let loose, hitting 95/96 with his fastball (on occasion).

Masterson’s minor league numbers were decent, but nothing special. Here’s how Masterson stacks up against Buchholz and Bowden:

Masterson: (233 IP – 53 G/36 GS)) 3.79 ERA 8.3 H/9 2.28 BB/9 7.45 K/9 1.18 WHIP
Bowden: (405.2 IP – 82 G/79 GS) 3.15 ERA 7.91 H/9 2.35 BB/9 8.64 K/9 1.14 WHIP
Buchholz: (344.1 IP – 74 G/73 GS) 2.43 ERA 6.59 H/9 2.48 BB/9 10.91 K/9 1.01 WHIP

Looking at those numbers, two things jump out immediately: (1) Masterson was used as a reliever about one-third of the time, while Bowden and Buchholz were almost exclusively starters. (2) Masterson’s minor league numbers were, by far, the worst of the three in ERA and K-rate.

If Masterson projects as a reliever, and the Sox intend Bowden and Buchholz to be starters, he has the least value.

i guess you missed the big games he came in to hold the 7th and 8th innings?

and compared to what Buchholz and his one no hitter v. a poor team?

Masterson goes before Buchholz, fo shizzle.

He’d trade Masterson for Teagarden. He’d trade Masterson, Lowrie, and another prospect for Asdrubal Cabrera, Kelly Shoppach, and Franklin Guttierez [wishful thinking], because he thinks Lugo can’t be moved, so we shouldn’t waste the contract. The deal works, in his opinion, because Cleveland needs a future closer and an infielder that might end up at either SS or 3B, because Jhonny Peralta is playing 3B in Winterball.

Masterson: (233 IP – 53 G/36 GS)) 3.79 ERA 8.3 H/9 2.28 BB/9 7.45 K/9 1.18 WHIP
Bowden: (405.2 IP – 82 G/79 GS) 3.15 ERA 7.91 H/9 2.35 BB/9 8.64 K/9 1.14 WHIP
Buchholz: (344.1 IP – 74 G/73 GS) 2.43 ERA 6.59 H/9 2.48 BB/9 10.91 K/9 1.01 WHIP

That is a significant sample size.

I am still extremely hopeful that Clay will take a big step forward. Even last year, when he lost confidence in his fastball, went through some growing pains, had some health issues, there were some positives (K/9, for one).

But yes, if he put’s up another 1.76 WHIP, I won’t be extremely high on him next year.

at least at SS. From 2006-08, Hanley was -40 according to the Fielding Bible’s Plus/Minus system. That’s second worst, trailing only Capitan Intangible* at -68. If Lowrie plays good defense (or at least average), and bats well (say .280 / .360 / .470) then Hanley isn’t much of an upgrade. I think Hanley is destined for the outfield, probably center field.

I agree with your broader point, that no one is untouchable.
*The Spanish for ‘Intangible’ is ‘Intangible.’

“Untouchable” is a relative term. I wouldn’t trade Buch for any of the “realistic” trade proposals I’ve heard (i.e., not Russ Martin or Albert Pujols).

Middle relievers/set-up men are relatively common. Potential aces aren’t.

is a good example of a guys with a small sample size of success who didn’t (and won’t) pan out.

IMO, Masterson’s value is near its peak. Let’s look at him from another team’s (Ranger’s) perspective. He’s young, cost-controlled, can pitch relief, can start, had some good ML #s including an ERA of 3.16 and about 7K/9IP.
When considering those facts, any team would like to add him to their roster. Next year, he will either be a decent #4/5 starter or a good reliever. His ERA will almost certainly go up. He will be a year older.

That being said, I think we should trade him. We have three other guys who can pitch the 7th/8th innings (Oki, Ramirez, Delcarmen), and three other young RHPs (Bucc, Bowden, Bard).
Let’s see if we can get Teagarden for Masterson and two more prospects (Hagadone + Middlebrooks?)