Peter Bourjos of the Angels.

In exchange for what exactly? Yes, the Angels have too many outfielders. No, the solution to the problem is not to trade away one of the only good ones.

one of the only

I'm seeing this unusual phrase a lot lately. Is it somehow making its way into the lexicon? It seems really awkward.

The 2b FA market is pretty thin. I wonder if an expensive 2B like Brandon Phillips or Brian Roberts could be had for not much in terms of prospects? The FA market is populated with old guys like Orlando Hudson and Mark Ellis or guys off down years like Kelly Johnson and Aaron Hill.

If you get Peter Bourjos, where exactly do you play him? You already have Delmon/Austin/Bosch in the outfield. Bourjos doesn't really have much of a split. Why would acquire a player that good to platoon him/make him a 4th OF?

If you get Peter Bourjos, where exactly do you play him?

Does Delmon have a guaranteed contract? I think he can be nontendered (although he probably won't after the ALCS).

I'm seeing this unusual phrase a lot lately. Is it somehow making its way into the lexicon?

What makes it unusual? I've been hearing it for as long as I can remember and it never seemed awkward to me.

What makes it unusual? I've been hearing it for as long as I can remember and it never seemed awkward to me.

Only implies one, singular. One of implies multiple, plural.

"I lost one of my only clients"

"I totaled one of my only cars"

"One of my only children got into Stanford"

"One of my only stocks hit it big."

and special for David,

"FDR is one of the only great presidents"

Few is the word you're looking for, not only.

Few is the word you're looking for, not only.

I don't know. There's only a few times I would ever use that phrase anyway.

Only implies one, singular.

It implies completeness, but surely not singular?

There's nothing strange about "She dated only bankers", and, yes, bankers is one group, but "She dated only bankers and baseball players" works smoothly too.

By Chone, Peralta's been better defensively but I still suspect that, if they signed Reyes, it would be Reyes at short and Peralta at 3B.

In the unlikely event of the Tigers trading for Bourjos (I assume Reagins wasn't "resigned" so a new GM could ship out the young guys), I doen't imagine they'd worry about Boesch. He's 4th OF material (and they've treated him that way) and there'd be plenty of playing time. You make that move because you think having Jackson and Bourjos in the OF at the same time would catch everything.

Jackson's an interesting guy. He took a couple of steps forward this year (walk rate, ISO) and the drop-off is entirely due to his BABIP dropping from a truly unsustainable 396 to a probably still unsustainable 340. But a massive drop in K-rate or a big jump in power is necessary.

from m-w:

<pre>1: unquestionably the best : peerless
2 a : alone in a class or category : sole <the only one left> <the only known species>
b : having no brother or sister <an only child>
3 : few <one of the only areas not yet explored>

Boesch wasn't treated as 4th OF material...they platooned him, that is about it. He played well and would have topped 500 PAs if he didn't get hurt.

Peralta played like crap when he moved to 3B in Cleveland...might be surprised if they do that to him in Detroit.

2B and 3B are the huge holes.

They also would need to either convince Reyes to play second base for one season (Reyes will view that with as much zeal as a 6-year-old has for spinach), although he did play 43 games there in 2004.

There is as much chance of that happening as the GOP nominating Barack Obama for President and calling for the 2012 election to be one by acclamation.

The Mets tried this. Kaz Matsui -- remember him? That is why Reyes played 43 games there in 2004. After that experience, I don't care how much the Tigers offer Jose Reyes. Even if they are the high bidder (unlikely), there is no chance they will offer SO much more than the next highest bidder that it would get Reyes to switch positions.

Whoever wins the Reyes bidding is not going to be a team that sees him as a second baseman. You don't even need to get into whether or not Reyes would accept it, or if it would make sense on the field. It's not going to happen.

Also, Reyes is a much better defender than Peralta.

Also, he would be awesome to watch in that park, what with the deep, triples-friendly gaps.

Also, Misirlou's grammar commentary is double-weird, because the phrase "one of the only" is extraordinarily common and he is wrong about the meaning of the world "only."

After seeing Peralta do his best Jeter impression in the playoffs, I'm not sure why you wouldn't want to move him off short.

Also, he would be awesome to watch in that park, what with the deep, triples-friendly gaps.

Yeah, if he has to go somewhere, I'd be fine with Detroit.

Sign Reyes, move Peralta to third, bat Jackson ninth as God intended him to be, start printing 2012 playoff tickets.

Bourjos and Trumbo for Cabrera. There that was easy.

They need speed, and they need a second baseman.

Welcome, Jose Reyes.

There must be a paragraph missing. One of the more fragile players in baseball--how could this not work out?