Creativity is the theme of the Rangers offseason. Or, put another way: How do you fill a bunch of holes in a two-time defending division winner with limited financial flexibility and a diminished farm system?

Over the next few days, I'll try to examine a few situations where the Rangers might apply some of that creativity to keep the train rolling.

Let's start with the No. 1 annual issue: The starting rotation.

The question: Should the Rangers try to convert Matt Bush to a starter?

I know where your head just went. It went straight to Neftali Feliz. You are probably breaking out in a sweat, maybe hyperventilating a little. You are probably in a very bad place at the moment. Maybe even Alexi Ogando, Robbie Ross and Tanner Scheppers flashed in front of you.

Stop.

This is not that. While the recent history of converting relievers hasn't been terribly successful for the Rangers, it should not stop them from considering this as an option. It all depends on the individual involved. In the case of Feliz, he wasn't ever fully committed to starting and that's a recipe for disaster or an injury. Or both. Ogando was successful for four months, but fatigued in the second half of 2011, then was batted back and forth between the rotation and bullpen until he was basically a pile of mush. Ross and Scheppers were cases of the team being desperate. Neither should have ever been a starter.

In a perfect world, Bush would be a controllable starter (six more years of control) with well above-average stuff. Rangers GM Jon Daniels pretty much played down the idea right after the season, but backtracked somewhat off of that a couple of weeks ago, allowing the Rangers have at least discussed it internally. He didn't respond to queries about it this week, perhaps because he's leery of being viewed as flip-flopping on the matter. Suffice to say, there is still plenty to discuss. The plan for now is to leave him in the pen, but, depending on the events of the winter, that could be revisited.

Bush has the stuff and the delivery to start. His 97 mph fastball may drop to 94-95 mph as a starter, but what's more important than velocity is the fact that he's an extreme strike-thrower with his fastball-slider-cutter mix (you do wonder if he'd have to develop more of a changeup, but that's another discussion for another time). The strike-zone command is the biggest reason for starting him. He threw strikes 67.9 percent of the time last year, sixth highest in the AL among pitchers with at least 60 innings of work and highest of any Ranger. The top strike-throwing starter: Colby Lewis at 65 percent. Guys with great stuff who throw strikes are elite pitchers. It's that simple.

The world, however, is not perfect.

Forget the injury concern. Guys who are going to blow out are going to blow out. Unless there is a noted previous medical risk - I don't believe there is - you have Bush is going to be 31 next year with what amounts to a much younger arm. The issue here is that he's had so little work as a starter, the Rangers would have to take pretty extreme measures to try not to abnormally increase the injury risk. It would probably a mean a pretty strict innings limit and lots of extra rest during the season. Could they plan on 150 innings for him in 2017, including the playoffs? That might be the outer limit. I'd guess going from 80 (between the minors and majors in 2016) to 125-130 would be more reasonable, and even that is a big jump.

So if you limit the innings, could you count on Bush to be a No. 3 quality starter? That, to me, is the question. Could he be a guy who pitches in your playoff rotation? If you can come up with a plan to answer this in the affirmative, then starting clearly has to be seriously considered. If he's just going to be a guy to fill out the rotation, then, no. He's too valuable in the bullpen. He's an eighth inning guy or the closer-in-waiting and he's very possibly Andrew Miller if the Rangers make another playoff run.

It comes down to that: Is he capable of filling out your playoff rotation if you get there or is he more valuable pitching high-leverage innings in the bullpen?

It's a tough call.

But it's one the Rangers must consider, past failures be damned.