Boston Herald columnist lists Angels as favorites for Bay AND Halladay over Sox
Granted, it is just one guy's opinion, but an interesting idea that the Jays could find Weaver, Saunders or Santana as a more desirable option than Bucholz, based upon the big-league history of each.
Likewise, he correctly intuits that Arte would increase the payroll for the right player, even though he has a baseline payroll figure to which he would otherwise adhere. Thus, stretching for Bay and/or Halladay isn't beyond the realm of imagination, even knowing the normal Angel payroll constraints.
9 months ago
George Kaplan
57 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
If Bay got signed...
…I’m thinking that would place Rivera MORESO in the position of trade bait in a Halladay deal (even though I would much prefer to see Juan in LF than Bay personally). And I’m starting to question wether or not a Halladay deal would even be a smart move for the team. The Jays will want Wood, like you said George, either Weave, Saunders or Santana (I’d be ok with it if it’s Santana), and a top flight prospect or two (Reckling and Bourjous are the first that come to mind.
If Wood goes, Figgy is a must sign (stretching the payroll even further).
Saunders has been the most consistent of the three pitchers over the last two years and I like WTY’s projectibility over Santana’s, but if one of them go we are still in the same boat with having a 5th starter straight off the farm.
Reckling could be up here in 2 years making a difference (that curveball of his is absolutely disgusting), and with our outfielders getting older and Bourjous being arguably our best outfield prospect with little surrounding him in terms of near MLB ready (some here are not too high on Pettit) just makes the whole idea seem ill-willed.
On top of all that who’s to say, even with a guaranteed window of negotiation with Halladay, that we do lock him up. Then in 2011 we have a rotation of (if I were to have it my way) Weaver/Saunders/Kazmir followed by two of SOS/Bell/Moseley/Reckling or Ortega. And that rotation does not make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
Nick would be proud.
I'd keep Santana over Weaver - or at least think hard about it...
Santana has better stuff than Weaver and in the end, a 95 MPH fastball with movement is a better place to start than a 92 MPH fastball.
I went to Bb-Ref to look around before posting the above and saw that they are only 3 months apart in age, have similar K-rates (7.3 per 9 innings) and Weaver has been more consistent. I was remembering Ervin v. 2008 – which was a full head and shoulders above any Jared Weaver we have seen since 2006. But, Ervin hasn’t shown he can keep that up – so Weaver is really the better asset right now…
2010 is a big year for Ervin – I’d like to see him return to that form and become one of the best 10 starters in the AL.
RIP Nick...
Jim Scully
Jim Scully Home
Santana's inconsistency is exactly why I'd be more willing to let him go in a trade.
Weaver has gotten better each year. Santana has been good, horrible, awesome, mediocre. I’ll give Ervin credt with how he ended last year, showing he can regain his dominant form despite losing a few MPH on his fastball.
Which is another worry of mine. Erv seemed scared to pitch up to capability for a couple months after coming back from his injury. His mechanics were off, and his fastball didn’t have the same explosiveness out of his hand that it always had. It’s late movement seemed all but gone towards the middle of the season and he got a little bit of it back towards the end.
Compare that to Weaver’s 92 MPH fastball which cuts, runs, dives and rises. and that 92 seems like 96 when you factor in the deception in his delivery, his tall body and the length of his stride towards the plate. He takes up valuable feet towards the plate and even more valuable hitter’s wait time when he pitches. Where Ervin has his compact short delivery that, as we’ve all seen, when he’s figured out that day it’s really bad.
If Ervin can return to form next year though, we have four guys who have between them the mentality, the stuff and the smarts to be as dominant a 1-4 as any in the game. Which would render Halladay unecessary. God I hate “ifs.”
Nick would be proud.
by halofan4life on Nov 28, 2009 11:09 AM PST up reply actions
Weaver's 92???
Not sure I remember seeing WTY throw too much 92 recently…oh, you mean his 89-90? ;)
People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring. ~Rogers Hornsby
89-92.
He’ll usually start a game at 91-92 and finish the night at around 88-89 but still able to dial it up to 92 if necessary.
Nick would be proud.
by halofan4life on Nov 28, 2009 1:43 PM PST up reply actions
I still think he sits closer to 90 than 92 - but can dial it up to 92...
RIP Nick...
Jim Scully
Jim Scully Home
Well...
Santana un 2008 was a lot better than Weaver and that had a lot to do with velocity. Santana has better stuff and once these guys start to age that extra 4 MPH will help Santana age more gracefully. That is the point.
Now, if Ervin has lingering elbow problems – it will all be mute. But, if he pitches like he did in 2008 in 2010 then he is an ace. Hands down. Weaver is a good #2 at best. But it depends on this year.
RIP Nick...
Jim Scully
Jim Scully Home
by jimmuscomp on Nov 28, 2009 4:13 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Saunders' 2008 is almost carbon copy when you look at stats.
The only HUGE difference between the two, strikeouts. Ervin is definitely a “K” pitcher, but that didn’t change the fact that both had almost identical stats in ’08
Nick would be proud.
by halofan4life on Nov 28, 2009 4:19 PM PST up reply actions
Jered Weaver average fastball is 88.9 mph according to fangraphs
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
My concern is that Santana will require TJ surgery on the elbow at some point soon
by mustard_man on Nov 28, 2009 11:34 AM PST up reply actions
Weaver's the one with the funky delivery.
Maybe I’m wrong, or oversimplifying, but isn’t it true that the more unorthodox a delivery a pitcher has, the more likely he is to require surgery?
No matter what happens from here on, it has been a great season.
by Rally Manatee on Nov 28, 2009 4:47 PM PST up reply actions
Depends on the mechanics in the delivery.
Weaver’s crossfire style can be dangerous, but he has the right arm action and an easy follow through. It allows his arm to more or less swing across his body with fluidity rather than jerk across his body.
Lincecum has a similar “funky” delivery, but when broken down step by step is actually near perfect for the body type he has.
Nick would be proud.
by halofan4life on Nov 28, 2009 5:01 PM PST up reply actions
What Toronto needs
Interesting that you’d bring up Wood, since the signing in the last 48 hours of Alex Gonzales to play SS means the Jays probably would be less interested in Wood. They have Edwin Encarnacion to play 3B and he is capable of 25+ HR and a BA of .250 to .280 if he can keep his body functioning for the entire season. In addition, the Jays have John MacDonald to back up at SS and 3B, making Wood superfluous to their needs.
The Jays need a 1B, and they won’t get Morales. Does Trumbo have appeal as an option for 2011 or 2012, when Overbay’s deal is up? I don’t know. Trumbo hurt his value with a poor first half last season. Doubtful likewise that they’d make a deal for Halladay with Wood coming in to play 1B, given the paucity of experience he has at that spot.
I don’t think Wood enters into the discussion any longer.
The Jays would want one of the three aforementioned Angel starters to provide some veteran presence in the rotation—not that any of them would match Halladay’s production. They’d ask for Reckling, and Reagins would probably counter with Walden. They’d ask for Burjos, and Reagins would probably counter with Pettit. The Jays could use a catcher and it wouldn’t surprise me to see Napoli on the table, since his bat is arguably more valuable than his leather, and he could give Barajas a breather on day games while working as DH in the Jays lineup. Mathis becomes #1 for the Angels, Wilson or Budde becomes #2, and Conger slides up to SLC.
I don’t think Rivera brings anything to this deal, since the Jays are stuck with Wells and have Snider and Lind, both of whom are cheap and emerging talents.
Thus, I would handicap an offer to be:
Weaver/Saunders/Santana
Napoli
Pettit/Burjos
Walden/Reckling
Two veterans who can help the team now, two prospects who can help the team over the next 6 to 8 years. I think the best choice for the Jays would be Weaver (he would match up well against the AL East teams), but they might prefer the lefty, or want Santana with his deal locked in for the next 3 seasons @ $25M (plus $13M option for 2013). The Angels wouldn’t look forward to losing any of the three, but are in a position of strength to do so if the return is Halladay.
What would this mean to the Angels?
1) While replacing Lackey with Halladay, the team would need a new #5-level starter. Whether this comes from promoting someone from SLC or by signing a cheap FA like Harden or Sheets, the hole could be filled relatively easily and economically. The resulting rotation would still be headed by Halladay, then feature Weaver, Saunders and Santana (subtract one), and Kazmir and a #5. Arguably, the best in either league, regardless of which of those three starters is dealt.
2) Wood remains with the Angels, which seals Figgins’ exit. That means a payroll swing of at least the $6M Figgins earned in 2009 to the MLB minimum Wood will earn. That (plus Lackey’s 2009 salary) balances out the assuming of Halladay’s 2010 contract, and Wood’s inexpensive cost provides a counterbalance to what Halladay will command in his extension over the following 3 or 4 seasons.
3) While the Angels take on Halladay, they also decline to bid on the two priciest of their free agents, Lackey and Figgins. That provides an opportunity to either (A) sign Vlad to a one-plus-option deal to DH, a contract rich in incentives but with a low base guarantee, or (B) go all out and try to sign Bay. That’s an either/or situation, since signing Bay moves Abreu to DH and Rivera to RF.
I have resisted this whole idea of Halladay, largely because Ricciardi was asking for the moon. Now, as I look at where this could take the Angels, I am much more interested in the concept. I think the Angels could deal the players above and provide the Jays with quality in return, plus the salary relief that would come from taking Hallday off their payroll. Some of that $16.5M he is slated to earn in 2010 could be repurposed to a free agent who can fill another big void for the team, and bring them to a more competitive level than they were in 2009, when they nearly slid below the Orioles in the AL East.
As for the Angels, it is instructive to remember that it wasn’t their offense which let them down in the ALCS. True, Figgins and Abreu slumped, but that was partially offset by the unexpected burst of offense from Mathis. Vlad and Hunter both delivered. I would expect more from Morales the next time he is faced with a championship-level game.
No, it wasn’t the offense but the defense which turned much of that series around. That is atypical of Scioscia teams and should not be expected to recur in 2010. Thus, adding Bay wouldn’t hurt the team offensively, but I don’t see it as a crucial acquisition to make, either. The team’s pitching should be well-set (with or without Halladay), the bullpen will see the welcome return of Shields and (one hopes) a return to form from Arredondo, and the offense still has some pop, with an expected continued improvement from Aybar and Kendrick as part of that engine.
"He's not a Rhodes Scholar to begin with''~Theo Epstein, talking about Papelbon
by George Kaplan on Nov 28, 2009 2:38 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I concur with much of what you stated
And thats why I feel that adding Bay would be a good thing.
Halladay, however, is SO challenging. Your right, Wood is probably untouchable now that Figgins, I believe, is walking. But they still want a bat and giving up one of our talented and growing pitchers really sucks. We will have four pitchers Halladay or not. That’s why I would be hesitant in trading for him.
Also, it really would suck to give up Napoli. I think Napoli would have a MVP type year (.300+ AVG, 40 HR) with a season of 500+ ABs. I really don’t care how much he sucks at catching, I still would rather trade Mathis.
It sucks we have to give up so much for a pitcher we would have to sign sooner or later anyway.
Damn George.
Now that I’ve taken taken notes and prepared my book report I think I can respond.
Weaver/Saunders/Santana
Napoli
Pettit/Burjos
Walden/Reckling
If it went:
Santana
Naps
Bourjos (now that I’ve reviewed the stats myself I’d rather keep Pettit)
Reckling
I could live with that. I think Walden is going to end up a bullpen arm with how violent his delivery is. I’d rather give up Santana then Saunders because A.) I like lefties, and B.) Saunders is more consistent. I like Reckling but they’ll need a top of the ladder organization prospect to make it happen.
But what still remains is if Halladay is willing and able to be locked up after a trade like this a la Johann Santana. If we can be guaranteed a window of negotiation with him, might as well go for broke. However, if he wants to test the market next year and we are getting a one year rental for some really good talent, no thanks.
Nick would be proud.
by halofan4life on Nov 28, 2009 4:04 PM PST up reply actions
Already allowed
But what still remains is if Halladay is willing and able to be locked up after a trade like this a la Johann Santana. If we can be guaranteed a window of negotiation with him, might as well go for broke.
Anthopoulos has already said the team would allow this.
"He's not a Rhodes Scholar to begin with''~Theo Epstein, talking about Papelbon
by George Kaplan on Nov 28, 2009 4:36 PM PST up reply actions
Then I'm all in.
The window is crucial as far as I am concerned. Now the question is, does our talent stack up to what the other teams mentioned (Yanks, Sox, Phils).
The report on the Yanks is that it would start with Chamberlain/Hughes and probably include when of their hotshot catchers in the minors. The Sox would have to include Bucholz. Last year the Phils didn’t want to part with both J.A. Happ and Kyle Drebek, but are the willing to lose one of them?
I think the list of players you and I have put up can easily compete with this deal (although I’ve heard Drebek is a stud). I don’t know how fluent you are with those teams minor league systems or what they could offer, I am most certainly not.
Nick would be proud.
by halofan4life on Nov 28, 2009 4:43 PM PST up reply actions
I wish
…someone from the Blue Jays board would read this stuff and tell me where I’m wrong.
"He's not a Rhodes Scholar to begin with''~Theo Epstein, talking about Papelbon
by George Kaplan on Nov 28, 2009 5:33 PM PST up reply actions
I wish
There was a way to see extensive video on prospects other than Angel ones so I could discern more easily our prospects vs. a rival teams. That way when I make a trade proposal I don’t sound like an idiot.
Nick would be proud.
by halofan4life on Nov 28, 2009 8:20 PM PST up reply actions
Wood staying doesn't mean Figgins is leaving.
I agree with you about most stuff. However, as I’ve said before, and I think it is important to consider, Wood and Figgins can both be on the 25 man. We are most likely not going to re-sign Quinlan, God bless him. So,it is possible to keep Wood and Figgins. However, that scenario means Wood still wouldn’t play much.
No matter what happens from here on, it has been a great season.
by Rally Manatee on Nov 28, 2009 5:02 PM PST up reply actions
Nope
He’s gone. He didn’t sign when the Angels had their exclusive, which means he thinks he can get a better offer elsewhere.
"He's not a Rhodes Scholar to begin with''~Theo Epstein, talking about Papelbon
by George Kaplan on Nov 28, 2009 5:10 PM PST up reply actions
"I don’t think Wood enters into the discussion any longer."
I don’t know, George. This sounds more like the wishful thinking of someone who’d rather retain Wood than actually assess Toronto’s needs. If you follow the Jays’ farm system, you know they have no clear long term option at third base who has emerged yet.
Encarnacion is on the final year of a two-year contract, and the Jays have been pretty clear that they view him as a serious defensive liability. It’s one of the reasons they re-signed John McDonald, to act as a defensive replacement. Plus, Encarnacion is coming off wrist surgery — likely to be ready for spring training, but no sure thing offensively in 2010. Overbay is as good as gone, and they’ve discussed moving Lind to 1B, which would open left field again.
Take all that into consideration, and then you’ll see that both Wood and Rivera are very much still in play. In fact, Wood’s ability to play both corner infield slots could be very useful to Toronto, long-term. He’s still young, he’s a power threat, he has defensive upside, and he can play several positions.
Also, given the relative shortness of Encarnacion’s contract, you shouldn’t count out the possibility of him coming back to the Angels as a spare part in a Halliday trade. He’s getting paid $5M this season, and Toronto is looking for payroll flexibility. If you say “yuk” to that idea, then you’re halfway to understanding why Encarnacion is not a long-term solution for Toronto at 3B.
I suppose
If you follow the Jays’ farm system, you know they have no clear long term option at third base who has emerged yet.
On the other hand, if you read the article then you’d know the three players listed will all below the AA level in 2010. Ahrens was drafted two years ago, so no sane person expects him to be playing in Toronto sooner than 2012. For that reason, Encarnacion is a good fit since he doesn’t become a free agent until 2012. If Ahrens (or Scott Campbell) is ready to contend for the job, then the Jays are in good shape.
As I stated before, I think Encarnacion will be good for decent production from 3B so long as he can stay healthy for the entire season. He had a very good year in 2008 with the Reds when he was able to play the whole season (.251/.340/.466 with 26 HR), and it isn’t unrealistic to believe this is achievable in 2010.
"He's not a Rhodes Scholar to begin with''~Theo Epstein, talking about Papelbon
by George Kaplan on Nov 28, 2009 9:30 PM PST up reply actions
I think if you look at the total games of the two players.
It’s a push. Most people are gonna look at the offensive numbers and Bay has the advantage there. However, in the field, Bay wasn’t even close to Rivera last year in terms of deffensive efficiency, and Rivera’s no slouch at the dish either.
Nick would be proud.
by halofan4life on Nov 28, 2009 9:45 AM PST up reply actions
Nope
Rivera is a much better defender and a more well rounded player. The only area he’s barely behind Bay in is power but half of that probably comes from where he hits in the lineup more than anything.
"Well make more fuckin' money. This is America. You don't make money, then you're a fuckin' douchebag." - Mr French "The Departed"
"You gotta have nuts." - Torii Hunter
by Commander_Nate on Nov 28, 2009 12:48 PM PST up reply actions
Im pretty sure Bay and Rivera's power doesn't come from where they hit in the lineup
and I’d love to hear your logic as to why you think this is the case.
Bay hits more home runs because he’s a walk/K guy like Ryan Howard. He tries to hit the ball hard when its a pitch he likes hence high power and high strike outs.
Rivera is a free swinger/contact hitter who has natural power and therefore can pop 20ish homers a year. He’ll never approach the 36 Bay hit last year nor the 94 walks.
RIP Nick Adenhart
by ihearhowie2.0 on Nov 28, 2009 1:02 PM PST up reply actions
Pitchers throw different pitches
To different spots in the lineup. A playing hitting in the #1 or #2 spot are going to see a lot more fastballs than hitters in the meat of the order.
Also, pitchers will pitch differently when runners are on, which runners tend to be on more for hitters in the middle to the bottom of the lineup.
not buying it
obviously pitches change in different spots but I think the idea that this is the only difference between Bay and Rivera’s power is preposterous
RIP Nick Adenhart
by ihearhowie2.0 on Nov 28, 2009 4:28 PM PST up reply actions
I don't know why. Bay and Rivera had almost identical value in 2009.
Bay — RAR: 34.9 WAR: 3.5
Rivera — RAR: 33.6 WAR: 3.4
Bay added 33.7 fielding runs with his bat, but subtracted 13 with his glove, whereas Rivera was one of the best defensive left fielders in baseball, particularly under the threat of his arm, where he prevented many baserunners from taking the extra base.
Look at the complete picture, then compare salaries. Rivera carries a lot of value, given his low cost.
The problem with this...
…..is that we’re all thinking about the Rivera that was transparent during the play-offs and not the Rivera from the regular season.
Bay and Rivera seem pretty interchangeable from my perspective. The corner outfield position that really concerns me is right field. I love Abreau’s bat, but his glove scares the hell out of me.
Signing Bay would be we absolutely have to move GMJ
….not that anybody’s gonna cry about that. But it will also signify the end of the Vlad Guerrero run in Anaheim.
I think we’d be fine with Bay, Rivera, Hunter and Abreu in the OF/DH rotation, with Willits and probably Evans coming off the bench. The defense takes a bit of a hit, but there’s some power to be had on the offensive side.
Thank you, Nick Adenhart. You will always be remembered. #34
Despite all of his offensive upside,
Having Bay over Johnny Rivers is not an improvement defensively, and, just as halofan4life pointed out, Rivera’s no slouch in the line up himself. And given the money it will take to sign him, i’d rather focus on shoring up our ‘pen. As for Halladay, i’ll believe that when I see it.
YOU DON'T KNOW THE POWER OF THE DARKSIDE.....
i think the organization might budge a little on the need for great defense
we have great defense and still ARE NOT getting into the world series. what has prevented us from getting to the big dance is either a lack of offense or a true ace pitcher. with that said i don’t see us putting horrendous defenders on the field but the fact is there really aren’t players out there that we can get that are both studs at the plate and in the field.
true
the yankees marched to a title with nick swisher, damon, posada, jeter, etc. in the field. Not great defenders
RIP Nick Adenhart
by ihearhowie2.0 on Nov 28, 2009 1:04 PM PST up reply actions
At least one intimidating starting pitcher,
A great closer, and a potent offense gets you to the world series. There have been exceptions but not many.
Have to disagree
2002 was the best defensive Halo squad I’ve ever seen. Of course the offense was crazy hot, as well, but without that great D I don’t think they win it all that year. Each of that last two years you can legitimately blame the defense for costing us runs in the playoffs, and this year it may have cost us the series. I think the D has to be better next season or we’re going to suffer a similar fate.
last season all over again?
Were we not in the running for a certain first baseman last season for awhile? And didn’t the Red Sox talk like this before?
Bay sucks
Please, no.
http://inplaynoouts.blogspot.com/ - A blog about teams I like, written by me.
#34
Granderson is available
Aybar is a nowhere man, Sitting in his Nowhere Land, Making all his nowhere plans for nobody.
by princeton11loveshalos on Nov 28, 2009 1:44 PM PST up reply actions
Just to tie in
some additional fun and excitement to George Costanza’s fanshot — LA Times columnists op-ed and add T-Rea’s comments:
Reagins also has a bit of a wild card up his sleeve: Owner Arte Moreno has often said that he is willing to go over his budget for a potential “franchise” player, so if the Angels have to push the payroll beyond $113 million to add an arm such as Halladay or a bat such as Bay, they might do it.
“We have a few different scenarios we’re working with,” Reagins said. “There are ways to get to where we want to be, and we’re going to go through all of them. It’s a challenge, but this is a fun time of year. It’s exciting.”
Anyway, our hearts go out to Tiger at this time of intense brainstorming and damage control — we love you, man!
by Big Daddy OB GYN on Nov 28, 2009 5:39 PM PST reply actions
It's not Halliday "and/or" Bay. It's Halliday OR Bay.
The reports have not suggested that Arte is going to bust his bank for franchise players (pl), but would consider exceeding his target for a franchise player (sing). When has it ever happened that this team bought both/all of the priciest players on the market? The Halos are not the Yankees, with 200M to blow. 120M max.
I think it’s pretty clear from the Herald article that the Angels could be a legit player in both the Halliday and Bay races, but there’s nothing to suggest that they would acquire both.
For a guy who's possibly
the most talented writer on this website, you really blew Roy’s last name, my friend. Or were you referring to Matt? Again, either way…
As an aside, any chance you’d ever agree to copy-editing a few of Rev’s posts?
by Big Daddy OB GYN on Nov 28, 2009 6:49 PM PST up reply actions
If they got both players that would be huge additions,but what are you losing for HALLADAY…
What price does Bay come at and where does that leave Juan Rivera ???
I am personally a huge Rivera fan,he hits the ball hard,and he should hit the 100 RBI mark next season..That is my prediction,maybe hitting 5th or 6th he could do that..
Either way I trust management and am excited to see what they come up with.
Rivera
What price does Bay come at and where does that leave Juan Rivera ???
Assuming the team acquired Bay, the general idea is that Bay would play LF, Rivera would play RF and Abreu would DH.
As far as the price is concerned, it would be more than $15M/yr for 4 yrs, since that is what he turned down from the Red Sox.
"He's not a Rhodes Scholar to begin with''~Theo Epstein, talking about Papelbon
by George Kaplan on Nov 29, 2009 1:20 PM PST up reply actions
it's not price i'm worried about
it’s the years. i’d ratchet up the price if it meant fewer years.
"come on, eileen."
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Rangers fall after Young gets touchy feely with third base coach
- Tony La Russa vs. Colby Rasmus: Who ya throwing overboard?
- Marlins say they won't honor Bobby Cox during today's game
- We're Going Streaking! Paul Konerko assures us he's not done
- Rejected! Cardinals fan throws back Brandon Phillips' foul ball
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
