Feb 1, 2010, 9:28 AM EST
The Rangers have had two pitching prospects — Omar Beltre and Alexi Ogando — on their roster for several years now, though they’ve been unavailable to join the club or its minor league affiliates because of a visa problem. The kind of visa problem that comes from taking part in a human trafficking ring. I hate it when that happens.
But their luck, and by extension the luck of the Rangers, has changed, as the State Department appears poised to lift their visa restrictions and allow them to come to play in the U.S. The long and the short of it is that Beltre and Ogando were pawns in a much larger fraud, and since their restrictions, each have worked to educate others about the dangers of human trafficking, which more or less earned them a second chance.
And based on the scouting reports, they should get a good shot at taking advantage of that second chance. Each has serious heat, and each have pitched well in winter ball. Assuming no problems in spring training, each should be starting at AA ball which, given how often teams use AAA to stash minor league veterans instead of prospects these days, is practically a step away from the big club.
- My Imaginary Hall of Fame Ballot 69
- Phil Hughes signs a three-year extension with the Twins 23
- The Padres have talked to the Phillies about Cole Hamels 23
- Why is John Smoltz a shoo-in for the Hall of Fame? 63
- Phillies GM told Ryan Howard they’d be better off “not with him but without him” 85
- Trea Turner’s agent is unhappy his client is in limbo after trade to Nationals 48
- Nexen Heroes accept Jung-Ho Kang posting fee from unidentified MLB team 37
- Giants acquire Casey McGehee from the Marlins 16
- Bud Selig will get a $6 million a year pension. Which is obscene. (145)
- The United States will seek to normalize relations with Cuba (144)
- Rays, Padres, Nationals agree to 11-player trade (97)
- St. Petersburg City Council votes down deal to allow Rays to look for new stadium site (90)
- Phillies GM told Ryan Howard they’d be better off “not with him but without him” (85)