Signings and trade ideas
I've been mulling this over and over all night trying to figure out ways to get better besides the typical Dunn and Burrell conversations. I know Peavy is still a hot topic around here. First, the signings I would like to see happen:
1. Sign Mark Mulder for the 5th spot in the rotation. The most recent reports on ESPN is that he's healthy and has figured out the delivery issue. Angel pitching coach Mike Butcher has done a solid job cleaning up pitchers mechanics the past two seasons and I think he'd work well with Mulder. Back in Oakland, he wasn't the ace (Hudson and Zito)... the big three. In St. Louis, he was asked to lead a rotation due to the injuries to Carpenter and Wainwright. Maybe he's the kind of guy who needs more around him, which we obviously do. He's likely low cost too and that's a plus.I was thinking 1year for $1M-$2M base filled with incentives.
2. Sign Jason Varitek. The Red Sox just signed Josh Bard (formerly of the Padres) to be their catcher, and rumor has it they're still trying to trade with the Rangers for one of their young catchers. Tek would be able to spell Napoli in the event of injury or just a day off and play better than average defense. His big plusses are his invaluable leadership on and off the field. His game calling ability is amazing. He may be able to help us against the Red Sox in terms of how to approach their pitchers and hitters. No, he's not the hitter he once was, but that's not why I want him signed. I want the leadership and defense. 1-2 year deal max for $2M-$4M per.
3. Sigh, if we must, then we must, sign Fuentes for no more than 3 years at $8M per. If he really to be an Angel, those are our terms... take it or leave it.
Now for the trade, my one and only trade: Mathis, Morales, Wood, Adenhart, Weaver, and Willits to the Padres for Jake Peavy and Adrian Gonzalez. It fills holes for the Pads and they get young players who won't cost them for a few years.
My line-up:
1. Figgins 3rd
2. Izturis SS
3. Guerrero RF/DH
4. Gonzalez 1st
5. Hunter CF/DH
6. Rivera LF/RF/DH
7. Kendrick 2nd
8. Napoli C
9. Matthew Jr. LF/CF/RF/DH (When healthy)
Bench: Evans, Rodriguez, Aybar, Varitek, Quinlan, Brown.
SP1. Lackey
SP2. Peavy
SP3: Saunders
SP4: Santana
SP5. Mulder
BP: Arredondo
BP: Spier
BP: Oliver
Set-up: Shields
Closer: Fuentes
If you want one more in the pen Jespon till/if Escobar comes back. Or if you feel Jepson is expendable, insert him in the deal minus Willits so we don't have to carry Evans on the 25 man roster. I know Reagins said we're going with a youth movement, but I'm not especially sold on it. If we ever have the abiity to obtain Peavy and Gonzalez, for the above mentioned guys, better damn well do it. Good trade for both clubs.
This Fan-Post is authored by an independent fan. Tell us what you think and how you feel.
0 recs |
43 comments
Comments
Another thought
Acuda, this is directed at you and I’m onboard with your man love for Morales… believe me man. If the Pads wanted Trumbo, place him in the trade instead if Morales. Shit, I’ll take Morales as my everyday DH, while spelling Gonzalez at 1st. Hopefully that drops Quinlan from the 25 man roster.
by matt92130 on Dec 31, 2008 2:59 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Adrian Gonzales
The Padres aren’t trading him.
Understand the Padres’ motivation for trading Peavy—it is a salary dump. It isn’t that he can’t pitch or that he’s bad in the clubhouse, it is that he is slated to make too much money and the Padres are shedding payroll with an eye on selling the team.
Gonzales, on the other hand, is signed in 09/10/11 for $3M/$4.75M/$5.5M, the last year being a team option with no buyout. He is VERY affordable and there is no incentive for the Padres to trade such a young and productive player. They don’t have to worry about him until 2011, in essence.
Unless Kevin Towers suffers an undiagnosed head injury, there is absolutely no reason for the Padres to trade Gonzales to the Angels or anyone else, without the payoff being overwhelming. Jeff Mathis and Reggie Willits aren’t overwhelming, and those two removed from the proposed deal are what the Pads would ask for Peavy alone.
Time to move on to a more realistic opportunity.
by George Kaplan on Dec 31, 2008 5:04 AM PST reply actions 4 recs
I don't think
They’d ask for Morales, Wood, Adenhart, and Weaver just for Peavy. I can see Wood, Adenhart, and Weaver. But the Morales part of the deal is for Gonzalez, including Mathis being a catching prospect for them and Willits filling out in CF and being their leadoff hitter. Could Jepson finish the deal? Maybe Nick Green? That’s 6 players for 2… the Marlins and Tigers did something very similar last year.
Not unrealistic.
by matt92130 on Dec 31, 2008 5:27 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
For Peavy
I don’t mean those players specifically for Peavy. Earlier reports had Wood (to replace Greene), Adenhart, Jepsen and one more player for Peavy. The Pads need cheap, young talent with the ability to enter the lineup between now and the next 18 months. Weaver, in fact, probably doesn’t fit the profile, since he has logged too many seasons and is approaching arbitration too quickly.
What one needs to do is not conflate this situation with the Marlins and Cabrera/Willis. In that case, both players were due for fat paydays the Marlins knew the team couldn’t afford. Again, this is NOT the case with Gonzales. He is already signed through 2011. There is zero incentive for the Pads to trade him.
Peavy is signed as well, but his deal gets more expensive in a few years and the Padres think this might be the right time to sell—keep in mind the haul the Rangers got for Teixeira, versus what the Braves received for him.
by George Kaplan on Dec 31, 2008 6:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Towers basically hung up on Reagins when his name came up according to the report
This is the worst offseason in years. But hey we got Colorado's closer!
by hauldog on Dec 31, 2008 2:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hell no on Varitek
He’s an old, expensive catcher, when we already have two young inexpensive ones. And I’m not sure he’ll hit any better than Jeff Mathis next year. Plus, he’d cost us our #33 pick in the draft, who will almost be certainly helping us more five years from now than Jason Varitek will.
by mattwelch on Dec 31, 2008 5:45 AM PST reply actions 4 recs
Varitek
Absolutely right. He is an excellent receiver who is apparently baffled by what to do with that stick in his hand. Mathis can be just as inept for a fraction of the cost.
by George Kaplan on Dec 31, 2008 6:32 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Mathis is baffled w/ a stick in his hand
I would want Tek for his leadership and post season experience.
by matt92130 on Dec 31, 2008 6:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Varitek
If a poor-hitting catcher with good defensive skills and playoff experience is what we need, then I bet we could get Jose Molina for a good price, too. He has one WS ring and knows both Scioscia’s system and many of the Angel pitchers already. He is no less of a threat on the basepaths than Varitek and has the added bonus of being younger. As we know, age is not kind to catchers.
Or we could show patience with Mathis, expect that his case of the yips in his throws to 2B and 3B will get better, and keep him guiding Santana and Saunders as well as he did in 2008.
None of them will hit like Johnny Bench, so in the end it is all about the D. I can’t see Mathis regressing in that category.
by George Kaplan on Dec 31, 2008 8:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
because our 2002 team was SO FULL of "post-season experience"...
Varitek can hardly walk. I would rather teach Napoli to throw out some base runners and keep our #33 draft pick.
by BryanHarvey'sMoustache on Dec 31, 2008 8:47 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I want some of that stuff
that matt92130 is smoking. No way should we sign Varitek.
Angels fan since '67
by red floyd on Dec 31, 2008 10:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Brilliant ! ! !
When I'm not at the stadium, I'd rather be watching my Halos back in Costa Rica!
by Dono Romantico on Dec 31, 2008 12:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This idea is ludicrious. Agreed
This is the worst offseason in years. But hey we got Colorado's closer!
by hauldog on Dec 31, 2008 2:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Adam Dunn
Baseball Analysts has an interesting piece on the Angels or Red Sox signing Dunn . . .
http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2008/12/a_viable_plan_b.php#comments
by G Abbes on Dec 31, 2008 8:37 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Lowell
This is probably a different topic for a different thread, but if I’m Mike Lowell, how would I feel about the Red Sox clearly courting Teixeira and planning on moving Youkilis into the 3B slot? Granted, Lowell is paid extraordinarily well, but I seem to recall he took a bit of a discount in order to remain with the Sox.
by George Kaplan on Dec 31, 2008 8:47 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah.
I bet if the Sox signed Teixeira, he would have wanted to press the reset button, go back in time, and sign that 4 year deal the Phillies offered him before they eventually settled on Pedro Feliz.
by Chzburger Jones on Dec 31, 2008 11:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Our outfield is staying the same.
I wouldnt mind to get a Dunn or Burrell personally but we already have five outfielders with a possible sixth (figgy) and Ninja has already said something to the effect of keeping the OF the same.
There will be no Dunn, Burrell or GA. Outfield stays the same. Have fun discussing about what wont happen though!
by BryanHarvey'sMoustache on Dec 31, 2008 8:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Dunn
makes all too much sense for our team. Too bad he can’t play small ball. Otherwise, the Soth might approve.
by Chzburger Jones on Dec 31, 2008 11:13 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
i dont know how many times this needs to be said
THE PADRES ARE NOT TRADING GONZALEZ. GET OVER IT!
Towers himself came out and said that Adrian WOULD NOT be moved. period. end of story. not gonna happen.
Kotch would've had that.
by howiestheman on Dec 31, 2008 9:08 AM PST reply actions 2 recs
Thank you, ditto, and rec'd
I don't know...I'm makin' this up as I go.
by ArkAngel on Dec 31, 2008 9:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Plus: Mulder and Varitek??
Blecch. Double blecch.
I don't know...I'm makin' this up as I go.
by ArkAngel on Dec 31, 2008 9:18 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Okay...I thought this one out
Orioles get: Maicer Izturis, Kevin Jepsen, Reggie Willits, (maybe one more, such as Shane Loux)
Angels get: Brian Roberts
Angels then flip Roberts/Morales to Cubs for Derrek Lee OR
Roberts/Figgins to Cubs for Aramis Ramirez
Comments?
by cmy912 on Dec 31, 2008 10:15 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Derrek Lee?!?
It was the old Angels who traded for players well into the downsides of their careers. Not the current Angels. Derrek is well into his decline phase, but under contract for $26M over the next two season. Sorry to say, but Morales is more than capable of reproducing Lee’s 2008 numbers for the Angels in 2009.
Pass, thanks.
As for Ramirez, I think he would be a great pickup, but a couple of things come into play:
1) The Orioles would want more players (both quality and quantity) for Roberts;
2) I think Reggie Willits’ value to other teams is greatly overestimated by many here;
3) If the endgame is picking up Ramirez, then that is a heavy price in total players to pay overall.
Much as the Cubs want Roberts, it is doubtful they’d pay the price of their marquee 3B.
by George Kaplan on Dec 31, 2008 11:00 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Pass on D-Lee.
He is a great hitter and defender but his power drop off after his Florida days is rather disturbing, especially considering that Florida is a much harder place to hit homers than Chicago. He is essentially a right handed James Loney (which isn’t a bad thing necessarily).
by Chzburger Jones on Dec 31, 2008 11:16 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
trade
Get Holliday from As-send Billy
PURA VIDA
by cgregez on Dec 31, 2008 10:48 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Brian Fuentes is a Halo
Reports are the Angels signed him for two years plus an option for roughly $20M. Seeing his splits against LH hitters in the past three years, it is great to see we’ll have one specialist to come in to face Ortiz with the game on the line.
by George Kaplan on Dec 31, 2008 11:07 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Atkins trade?
Good hitting 3rd baseman from the (Orange area) of the OC. I would guess we’d give up less in a trade for him than some of the other names mentioned above & get a power hitting 3 bagger who hits around .300 & 25-30 HRs a year (w Coors factor).
PURA VIDA
by cgregez on Dec 31, 2008 11:28 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
We have had 2 fanposts before about this
and both have been completely choc-full of reasons why we (the general HH public) DON’T want Atkins.
by Chzburger Jones on Dec 31, 2008 12:54 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I just threw up in my mouth
This is the worst offseason in years. But hey we got Colorado's closer!
by hauldog on Dec 31, 2008 3:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Atkins hasn't progressed
Look at his splits in 07 and 08—if he’s not hitting in Coors, he isn’t hitting, period.
That is a very distressing stat to look at. Why trade for a hitter who can hit only in one stadium?
by George Kaplan on Dec 31, 2008 11:38 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Peavey
The Cubs are making moves that would seem to indicate that are making another run at Peavey….
by mustard_man on Dec 31, 2008 12:12 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
It's possible.
But I think the more likely scenario is that they are going to try yet again to get Brian Roberts. If that is the case, the Mark DeRosa trade makes much more sense because I highly doubt they would be comfortable with Mike Fotenot or Aaron Miles as their starting 2B.
by Chzburger Jones on Dec 31, 2008 11:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Or the stated scenario
that they are making payroll room for Milton Bradley.
They are probably going to sign him for 3/30
I brought sexy back, but they only gave me store credit....
by PhiSlamma on Jan 1, 2009 1:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Please answer one question for me !
Everyone is talking about all of these trades that are not going to happen. Some of you don’t want to give up on our kids and others are not willing to give enough for the bat that any intelligent Angel fan knows we need. One move and the solution to our problem is solved ……………………. can anyone on this site tell me why Angel management will not sign Manny ?? It absolutely makes no sense, its instant proven offense that has not deteriorated and shows no sign of doing so. He protects Vlad and is one of the greatest clutch hitters in the game today. He guarantees that the Angels can play with anyone in the East and gives us a great shot at another World Series appearance. I would love to hear from you as fans why this hasn’t happened !! I truly believe our power hungry manager Mike has too big of an ego for Manny to be in our dugout ………………….. please you tell me why this hasn’t happened …………………. you don’t have to be a genius to figure it out. Just ask Joe Torre !!!
by cookieman 57 on Jan 1, 2009 1:54 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Sheesh
Don’t get me started.
I don't know...I'm makin' this up as I go.
by ArkAngel on Jan 1, 2009 2:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ark we know...
You hate Manny.
Cookieman (Dad), I agree with you, Manny would provide instant offense, but I think Angel managament may be a little concerned w/ having 4 outfielder over the age of 34. Vlad, Hunter, GMJ, and Manny if signed. Granted, this could be Vlad’s last year as an Angel…. anything goes, so who knows. I’m beginning to wonder if the Angels are hoping for a GMJ comeback so maybe they can deal him after this year when his no trade clause expires (W/ the exception of 4 teams). Right now, he has no value. If he plays and does okay, he may have some value for trade bait (Of course, us eating a sizeable portion of his salary). But back to Manny…. that’s why I don’t think they’ll sign him. But you’re right, he absolutely would be a HUGE addition to our anemic offense. We’ll see how the kids do.
by matt92130 on Jan 1, 2009 8:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Here is why
I think this was covered in another thread, but it bears repeating:
By acting in an incredibly unprofessional way, Manny caused the Red Sox to trade him and thus void the two option years for 2009 and 2010 which were for $20M each.
This means that Manny would consider any deal (1) less than three years, and (2) less than $20M per year as unacceptable.
So let’s say the Angels sign him for $22.5M and 3 years.
1) He has to be a DH, since he is a liability in an OF which doesn’t have a jai lai wall.
2) His presence in the lineup at DH limits the team’s ability to rest Vlad in that spot, which is where most have projected him to be over the next few seasons
3) Vlad’s contract will end after this season—if you pay Manny $22.5M for three years, what do you offer Vlad, who will be the mainstay of the lineup for his 6th season in Anaheim this year?
4) What happens when the Texieira-type contracts in 2010 and 2011 are signed and Manny decides he’s underpaid and underappreciated? Will he fake injuries to prove a point to management—he did this many times in Boston, so it is fair to assume he’d do the same thing to his new team.
Manny is a phenomenal hitter. He is also a poor baserunner and a terrible defensive player. If he was a package like Teixeira (offensively and defensively), then he could justify the amount of money he’s expecting. But if he should slump, be brings nothing else to the party.
If there was an opening at DH, I’d say there was an opportunity. But the Angels need that slot to extend Vlad’s career and putting Manny in the OF simply weakens the team defensively. There is too much downside to justify making such a deal.
by George Kaplan on Jan 2, 2009 7:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Also
the Angels’ Traveling Secretary would have to start wearing protective gear.
Manny is a tool.
I don't know...I'm makin' this up as I go.
by ArkAngel on Jan 2, 2009 10:49 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Protective gear
Yes, at least a cup and a helmet.
I was thinking about how Boras denies he encouraged Manny to become a malingerer in Boston to get out of the contract.
But think about it: Manny always ran his own agenda when he played for the Sox. The team always forgave and forgot—winning WS rings can make a team do that.
But after the 2008 season began, he fired his agent and hired Boras, which seemed like a strange move, given the fact that Manny was lined up for certain-to-be-exercised team options of $20M each for 2009 and 2010—why would he need an agent if his professional employment was very lucratively taken care of for two more seasons?
It was after he hired Boras that Manny began acting even more boorishly than what had become usual for him. He badmouthed the Red Sox organization repeatedly and assaulted the team’s traveling secretary, and then took on the fans as well. He made his behavior so intolerable that the Red Sox had to move him and in doing do, void the last two option years.
Are we to believe that it was purely coincidence that Manny signing Boras as his agent happened at the same time Manny out-Manny-ed himself and got his option years voided? After all, there is no commission for Boras if Manny takes a 2009 and 2010 option exercise from the Red Sox.
This is not a good tandem, and I fail to see why Angel fans would wish this dog-and-pony show upon their team.
by George Kaplan on Jan 2, 2009 11:03 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
One last thought on Boras/Manny
I wonder if Boras and the Manny situation last season is the reason the Red Sox had zero tolerance for the negotiation stance taken for Teixeira by Boras—basically not just calling his bluff but implying that less than honest negotiations were taking place, an idea echoed in the Angels’ withdrawal from their quest for Teixeira—and by their cursory look at Boras client Derek Lowe, followed by a curt “not interested”, even though Lowe figures to be a good fit on a return to Boston and wants to pitch for an East Coast team?
The Red Sox will continue to do business with Boras in the future—he represents current Sox JD Drew, Dice-K and Jacoby Ellsbury—but I get the impression Henry and Epstein are not interested in what he’s selling at the moment.
by George Kaplan on Jan 2, 2009 11:57 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

by 






















