The IF-ARAMIS trade for Vernon Wells
by mattwelch on Nov 3, 2006 9:58 PM PST
Email
PrintMoving this over from the diaries... everyone has an opinion on it, so you may as well read and decide on where you stand... (Rev out)
Let's wargame a second, shall we?
Assume Stoneman signs Aramis Ramirez. What is your next move? I think you have to upgrade like hell at the CF spot most of all, and the two distant seconds are shoring up the back end of the bullpen, and dealing with our oversupply at other positions. In other words, I think you'd have to trade for Vernon Wells.
What do you trade for Vernon Wells? Stoneman has said he'll trade no more than 3 people for 1, and maybe not even that. Let's assume 3. Now, ask yourself two questions -- what does Toronto need, and where are we oversupplied?
On the Major League level, Toronto needs three things most of all -- a shortstop (John McDonald is 32 and sucktastic), rotation depth (it's pretty brutal after Chacin, and the top 4 are injury prone), and catcher (Bengie's a free agent).
What do the Angels have too much of? THE EXACT SAME THINGS.
- Brandon Wood needs to play AAA next year, which means Aybar needs to change positions (and he really shouldn't, with hands that quick) or be the backup in the bigs. If Aybar's the backup, than you can't have both Iztu and Cabrera; someone's gotta go. So ... TRADE ORLANDO CABRERA. His value will never be higher than now.
- Rotation help ... well, I don't want to trade anyone from the rotation. But Adenhart? Arredondo? Anyone else? Sure.
- We have three catchers for two spots. One of them has a known ceiling, and it ain't high, though it's useful for a team (like the Jays) with a good lefty-hitting catcher. TRADE JOSE MOLINA.
- And as a consolation prize, Figgins can go too. Would Toronto trade one year of Wells for the contracts of Cabrera, Figgins and Jose Molina? I'd sure make that trade if I was them. And I'd make it if I were the Angels.
Then close your eyes, and imagine this:
SS Izturis
2B Kendrick
RF Vlad
CF Wells
3B Ramirez
DH G.A. (Mathis against lefties)
LF Rivera
1B Kotchman (Q against lefties)
C Napoli
That team would score a few runs, no? And take the pressure off Kotchman and Napoli. And beat hell out of the division. And allow you to trade D-Mac for relief help.
If that trade's not realistic, let's hear some other nominees to give Toronto what it needs, while offloading what we need to offload....
This Fan-Post is authored by an independent fan. Tell us what you think and how you feel.
197 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Kendry Morales
Unless he's the one traded for some relief help.
I'm a Halo fan...
Just naming Chacin as their best, and the rest brutal, is worthy of riding the short bus. Roy Halladay. The end.
The Jays aren't moving Wells without getting at LEAST two good MLB'ers. OC is one. Mathis or Nap are required by the Canadians before Jose Molina. No way in hell J.P. goes for this.
I'm drunk, so I have nothing intellingent to say. I really just wanted to type "short bus".
Peace.
by Ty Webb on Nov 2, 2006 10:10 PM PST reply actions
"brutal after Chacin"
I'm not even drunk,
Depth is brutal after Chacin
It was the whiskey...
by Ty Webb on Nov 3, 2006 2:46 PM PST up reply actions
This is how I would see the trade:
So for League and for Wells this is what I see:
Juan Rivera, Chone Figgins, Orlando Cabrera and probably Joe Saunders or maybe Adenhart/Arrendondo.
Rivera & Saunders = dealbreakers
matt...
For me, this comes down to money. If Stoneman needs a real starter, not Adenhart, to get Wells, and we can replace a starter with FA money why not?
I wonder how much moolah we're going to get this yer from FOX for hte television contract. What was is? 500 Million over 10 years? It's probably back-loaded like a FA signing, so maybe the Angels get 25 Million bucks this year in gravy????
Good God let's go shopping!
my take on Z:
What about 2007, though?
That leaves the rotation as Lackey, Escobar, Weaver, Saunders, and Colon. If any of them get hurt (likely), we have...Carrasco. If two of them get hurt, well, let's not go there.
The point to signing Zito has NOTHING to do with whether he's better or worse or more expensive than any of the Angels current pitchers. The point is simply that we need pitching depth in 2007 (if we trade for Wells/Jones), and (talent-wise/trading) he costs us nothing but money. Arte's money. And he's got lots of it. If you don't want Zito, that's OK, but PLEASE give us a Plan B for the rotation. For NEXT YEAR.
by johnnyangel101 on Nov 2, 2006 11:53 PM PST up reply actions
Plan B
Weaver
Lackey
Escobar
Santana
Saunders
PLAN B:
Colon = Miracle
Carrasco = Desperation
Bootcheck = 4-Man when OffDays arrive
Moseley = Lastchance
Shell = White Flag
We have five good, healthy starters
Plan B will only become necessary if you convince yourself that you have to trade a good-and-improving cheap young starter & replace him in the rotation with a good-and-declining expensive older starter.
The Angels have surplus elsewhere. Figgins is a valuable and versatile player, Cabrera is a gold glove caliber shortstop who hits 40 doubles a year. Considering that the Jays were so desperate last year that they played Glaus at short on occasion, it would seem they have an itch that those two gents could scratch real nicely. I don't think you have to give up a good cheap young starter to close that deal.
it would seem he has peaked
This is not self-evident?
ad hominem = logical fallacy
I read the post dude, it's about acquiring Wells.
If you want Wells, in my opinion, the Blue Jays are going to want a starter no matter how good Cabrera is. Maybe Matt's right, maybe they look at Cabrera and Figgins and bite. This is not self-evident.
I like goodvibes and Matt's thinking, I hope Stoneman goes in this direction.
Fine
THE ANGELS DO NOT NEED ZITO.
The other problem with this absurdity is that if the Angels bid to get Zito, why, so can the Blue Jays, and then where's your brilliant deal, huh? Zito is a huge waste of resources, betting on the come, and expending team dollars in an area they just aren't needed while weakening the club in a critical area over the long term. Good God, it's just not that hard to understand.
it's a strategy not a blueprint
The point you're trying to make, but not suceeding at is that there is inheirent risk in pursuing a FA if you're not guaranteed you can close the trade. OF COURSE there's no guarantee. There's rsk involved.
It's a STRATEGY. Signing Zito opens other doors besides Wells dude. It lets us play the whole field. Andruw Jones, Tejada, M. Cabrera, etc.
If you have a better strategy share it. Don't resort to ad hominem from the safety of your home office.
Gotcha
So, you don't take your own plan seriously. Neither do I.
Donald Rumsfeld would be proud
Right
What original post are you talking about??????
SORRY I don't subsribe to SCAREDUCK's personal HALOS HEAVEN channel...
Send me your personal HH RSS feed and I'll install it immediately!!!!!!
You were the one whining about ad-homs
I'm done with you. scoreboard.
Talking past one another
I think you're having a hard time understanding...
If we think Cabrera/Figgins or something like that is going to get Wells we're crazy.
If they don't accept Arredadenhart
"Absolutely do not need"
If they DON'T need to trade Santana, you are right - it would be a silly FA signing. I just think most people here are under the assumption that Wells or Jones is going to cost us a ML starter.
Personally, I wouldn't trade any of our starters unless WE were overwhelmed with an offer. I know our offense had issues last year, but we are a 90-95 win team AS IS - AND we have young, cheap pitching...we hold all the cards, so to speak. People should be coming to US, not vice versa. I would prefer to add offense via free agency ONLY or with carefully constructed "position player for position player" trades like Matt is suggesting. If that doesn't get it done, I say "pass"...
by johnnyangel101 on Nov 3, 2006 9:56 AM PST up reply actions
Then the answer is
Read Matt Welch's comments
Not everyone...
Matt,
Right up there with
Edgardo Alfonzo returning to 2000 form
etc.
Mo Vaughn was a pretty good player, once, too. So was Christy Mathewson.
I hope Colon comes back
Between hope and faith....
Plan prudently, is all. I think it's prudent to consider Bart your #6, and be pleasantly surprised when he (and everyone else) is healthy. The important thing is to avoid Dustin Rapp making a single start.
Agreed
I also agree with Rev regarding Zito. He would be a nice addition and a good fit, but not at the price he would command. Ultimately, we wouldn't need him, because after Matt's trade we wouldn't have to trade a starter, it seems to me.
Regarding the rotation, I can't help thinking that moving Escobar to the setup role would solve a few problems at once as well, although given his new contract this move seems unlikely.
My observation about my HH brethren:
Everybody covets Vernon Wells.
Most like Aramis, some Soriano.
Everybody wants to keep Ervin.
Everyone seems to think the Rivera of July is the real Rivera (I'm still not sure).
No one wants to go into 2007 with D-Mac/Izzy at 3rd AND Kotchman/Morales at 1b.
That said, what I find confusing is that for the most part, nobody wants Aramis or Soriano (or I presume Lee) for what will likely be the market price in years and annual dollars. Everyone is afraid of another G.A. contract situation in 2-3 years (for good reason, I suppose).
In addition, nobody wants to give up the talent it would take to acquire a bat via trade, either. Since the league is awash in cash, the bidding will be intense for Free Agents. Teams have done a good job for the most part in locking up their talent before they hit the open market. Next year might not be any different. I don't see how we can improve the offense without trading a guy like Santana unless Toronto bites on the scenario above or a Mathis/Aybar/Saunders scenario.
Since the main thing preventing Toronto from re-signing Wells long term is dollars, the above scenario seems unlikley to me. Toronto would be taking on $13 million between Molina, Figgins and Cabrera and that's only a million or 2 off from what Vernon is likely to command. They only shore themselves up at Short/CF for 2 more years with Cabrera and Figgins as their contracts expire in 2008. They already have jettisoned the better Molina too.
Bottom line is people want the big names but are only willing to part with spare parts (Cabrera, Saunders, etc.) This isn't going to get it done. Baltimore already shot down Santana/Aybar for Tejada for God's sake! We could make a move for Crawford, but that'll cost at least Santana, maybe more.
Perhaps Stoneman's (alleged) interest in Matthews stems from the fact that it'll allow him to move Figgins elsewhere, for another bat. If that's the case, it probably won't be Wells as CF would be occupied by Jr. Who then? My guess is he still wants Tejada. Maybe they'll throw Figgins into the mix with Santana for him, who knows?
All I know is that the only way to improve this team short term, without betting the farm on the kids, is to make sacrifices, either in terms of young talent (Santana/Wood/Aybar/Adenhart), or in risking overpaying for mediocrity in the later years of a mega contract. There's no pain-free route to acquiring "Impact" bats. Sure, stud players who hit free agency in their mid/late 20's are less risky at first glance than 30 year olds like Soriano and Lee, but it is mitigated by the fact that they usually get contracts that are 2-3 years longer so you end up in the same boat by the time the contract is in it's last couple years.
I think Bill will make a run at Aramis, Zito, and Matthews, and if he gets them all, he'll move Santana and Aybar for another big stick. If he whiffs on Ramirez and Soriano, they'll likely be more than one big trade. We'll see.
Not "spare parts"
Saunders was just about the best 5th starter in the league last year; certainly better than the meat Toronto threw out there. Good young left-handed starters with cheap contracts, previous Major League success and 93-mph fastballs are not "spare parts," they are rare and coveted pieces.
Chone Figgins has received MVP votes in more years (2) than Vernon Wells (1), credibly plays six defensive positions, and steals tons of bases at high rates. Oh, and his contract is reasonable. How's that a "spare part"?
Your take on the contract size is good; I would add to that mix that Toronto has a CF-in-waiting, in Rios, and want to make room for him. Still, if money's an issue, we could trade Izturis instead of Cabrera, and then Toronto would be saving money and gaining at least one net position in the starting lineup.
They're spare parts for the Angels
They may be valued players by other teams, but they're still spare parts.
By that logic ...
That's an idiotic comparison
Let's see....
Wells has 60 Win Shares the last three years. Figgins? 59. The biggest difference, in terms of being "best position player," is that Wells didn't have Vlad on his team.
So yeah, Wells is totally the awesomest, and Figgins/Cabrera/everybody-short-of-Jered-Weaver all suck ass.
Seriously, I just don't understand this mindset.
I never said they suck ass...
Win shares biggest flaw is the emphasis on wins itself. Ernie Banks win shares might be inferior to O.C. purely based on the fact that his team didn't win much at all.
With it's emphasis on defense and team wins, it's not surprising that O.C. and Figgins would rate comparably to Vernon Wells when playing for back to back division winners and a near miss. Vernon spent the past 3 seasons on a team that finished last in 2004, under .500 in 2005, and improved to 12 games over .500 in 2006. A big part of that is having to play the Yanks and BoSox 38 times each year. How the hell is that Vernon's fault?
Win shares is a useful tool for discerning a particular player's value and role in said team's winning, but a downright lousy one for comparing players from different teams to one another.
Wells is a 5 tool player (or awfully close). Cabrera and Figgins are most definitely not. As for mindsets, maybe I didn't finish my glass of Bill James Kool-Aid. You apparently had seconds.
You don't understand Win Shares
Bill James has demonstrated repeatedly, and convincingly, that this argument holds no water, as logical as it may seem on the surface. If your team sucks, that means the other guys suck, and you are even more disproportionately responsible for what wins you eke out. Put another way, 3 of the top 4 finishers in Win Shares in baseball this year finished on teams with less than 84 Wins. Vladdi earned 26-29 Win Shares a year when his team sucked, and 26-29 a year when his team was good. When Ernie Banks was at his peak, his Win Shares remained pretty constant, even as his team's performance fluctuated.
Schoolyard insults are cute (especially when they come from the Rev.), but they have more impact when you actually know what you're talking about.
Vernon Wells is indeed a five-tool player, and I indeed would love to seem him play center instead of Figgins. But he also spent 2004-05 hitting around .270/.330/.465, in a hitter's park, against a division with weak pitching. He ain't God, man.
What flavor was the Kool-Aid?
Based on Win shares for 2006, Raul Ibanez is the 2nd best OF in the AL and Mike Cameron is the 3rd best OF in the NL. Try selling that one to anyone who knows baseball. Zito, who you don't seem to want, is the 3rd best pitcher in the AL (ahead of John Lackey). Since win shares is infallible, maybe you should reconsider.
Bill James is an interesting guy with a lot of well received (and some controversial) analysis of baseball. I've been reading his stuff for 20 years. But he ain't God either, man.
You're not understanding my English
And I never said it did. What I'm saying is, contrary to your ignorant assertion, Win Shares does not discriminate against good players on bad teams, nor does it inflate mediocre players on terrific teams. This information is not hard to find.
Zito, who you don't seem to want, is the 3rd best pitcher in the AL (ahead of John Lackey).
That seems totally reasonable to me; he had a very good year and pitched a lot of innings. Who would you put ahead of him? Or are do you think you're making some kind of "gotcha" because I don't want to pay $75 million to watch the guy decline, when we already have 6 good pitchers?
Ibanez had a terrific offensive year in a terrible offensive park, and played every day. Dye was better when he was on the field, but he played 13 fewer games (while racking up those numbers in a sweet offensive park). I probably wouldn't rank Ibanez quite as high (not liking the looks of his face), but he had a huge year when many great AL outfielders were having off-years.
Cameron also put up good numbers in a terrible offensive context, while playing his usual incredible CF defense in a park the size of Mississippi. His teams have this uncanny habit of winning, when he's not hurt and playing CF. I don't think the results are ridiculous.
As for Bill James' Kool-aid, I don't understand how being fond of one particular metric of his makes you an uncritical rah-rah boy. I think James' rankings in his Historical Abstract are extremely poorly conceived, I think he's uncorked more junk stats than Ross Porter at a strat-o-matic convention, and he's an inflexible and irritating prick as often as not. And so what?
You're on firmer ground arguing with my arguments, rather than insulting some person who lives in your fantasy-world.
Point taken
If that was not your intention, my bad. I still think win shares is a flawed statistic, but then again, so is batting average and wins.
I also agree about the 6 good pitchers (when Colon is healthy). That fact furthers the argument that Stoneman can trade from strength and improve the team, not hurt it, especially if he replaces the traded player with a top tier free agent.
I'm not gung-ho about Zito in isolation, only if his signing nets an impact bat for the long term.
i agree with welch
i think izturis might have a breakout season, along with rivera. hell, with that lineup we might all finally get sick of hudler's endless synonyms for home run: "big fly", "goin' yard", "dong", etc.
i, for one, can stand one season of that.
I cannot see
I think they will want Rivera, or a major league ready starter (Ervin or Joe) or quite possibly both.
I don't think we'll get him easy. We're not going to be the only team that wants him. Bidding will be intense.
Toronto has corner outfielders out the wazoo
Cat
If they dealt Wells, they could play Johnson/Lind as a LF platoon, Rios in center, Rivera in right.
Reed Johnson really isn't a fulltime player.
Johnson's averaged 139 games the last 3 yrs
Trading Wood
Because he led the Texas League in XBH
Sure
McPherson's problem is his back, not Ks
You misspelled "and"
They don't prevent him from thumping righties
The only "ifs" on McPherson worth talking about are whether he'll stay healthy, and if he'll ever figure out lefties on the Major League level. Strikeouts continue to be a distraction for the distractable.
Preach!
It seems like teams want the world for young proven players who contribute on O and D, so I expect it will take a LOT to get Wells. Probably something like one of our 5 ML starters and Cabrera/Isturis.
Also, Jose Molina mashes LHP like his bro, he can play versus them.
I think they just did
I'd be ecstatic if both can play at or near their 2006 levels for a full season. Don't think its realistic to expect any more.
I liked what Welch said...
by halomatt on Nov 3, 2006 8:11 AM PST reply actions
You need to trade a pitcher to get Wells. Period.
If you have a very nice element that you add into the deal, it will help make the deal happen.
Jose Molina is not a very nice element. And you don't want to trade a good pitcher, instead you say a minor leaguer.
That is simply not going to work.
Sign Zito. Trade Saunders or Ervin, and then you can get Wells.
By the way: It is time to quit the stupid bagging on Barry Zito. He has not "peaked".
220 innings with an ERA under 4 is not exactly all tapped out people. Look, I know he's been an Athletic, but sheesh, get over it. He's a lefty, he's a witch for crying out loud. He's a competitor. Imagine putting him between Lackey and Escobar in the rotation, he would fit in great, give it a rest.
Yes, Santana and Saunders are far cheaper. Just like Kotchman was far cheaper this year than Paul Konerko, or DCrap was much cheaper than Troy Glaus. Blech.
You have to be able to make that trade for Wells, and trading a minor league pitcher for a proven All Star is not realistic. Get realistic.
Nail on the head
While I'm not a huge fan of Zito, I am beginning to think that signing him and subsequently moving Santana will be the key to this offseason.
His numbers will probably be only slightly better than Santana's short term and likely worse in the last 2 years of the contract, but if moving Ervin nets us a player the caliber of Wells, it's worth it.
I, for one was shocked to find that Zito is actually far better outside of the Coliseum. His E.R.A in 2006 at home was 4.71 vs. 2.97 on yhe road. His 2003-2005 E.R.A. was over half a run better away from the coliseum as well. In addition, his E.R.A at Angel stadium was 0.66 last year and 0.76 for the 3 years of 2003-2005! Sure he wasn't facing the '27 Yankees but damn, that's hard to ignore. He could be huge. As Glavine and The Gambler showed this year, a soft tossing veteran lefty can be a huge part of a postseason run. He'd be a nice contrast to Lackey/Weaver/Escobar from the right side and would be shutdown Lefty-Laden lineups.
The thing to remember is that with pitching at such a premium moving a 33 year old Zito 4 years from now would not be difficult if he's even average. If he's degressed some by then, he can still be moved by picking up part of the salary for the last 1-2 years. Hampton looked untradeable several years ago, but Colorado still managed to move him.
Also, a good team with deep pockets can absorb one or 2 bad contracts provided there is sufficient depth in the minors. Look at the 2007 Halos for instance. This team will be competitive with a vastly overpaid G.A. and Colon possibly never throwing another pitch (for us). That's $25-$26 million(25% of total team payroll)that will likely only net us 15 HRs/80 RBIs and maybe 8-10 wins at best, unless Bart is Bart from April on. Considering his less than stellar conditioning, I doubt it.
I still think Shields should be the centerpiece of any big trade since he's gonna be gone to close somewhere after 2008. We can use lesser prospects to trade for bullpen help and sign a F/A releiver or two. If we hadn't lost Jenks, this would be a no-brainer.
I don't understand the logic ...
No contract has been written yet...
The trade-from-surplus position is a strong idea and seems the primary strategy.
What happens though, if the Jays scoff at position players? What are you prepared to do for Plan B?
My plan B
Cabrera or Iztu
McPherson (assuming Ramirez)
Molina
Figgins (but only if we get a Wells-type)
I assume out of that we can, at minimum, shore up the relief corps. And I think we can get a whole lot more.
I wouldn't be
by ineptituderunsamok on Nov 4, 2006 10:28 AM PST up reply actions
By picking whichever
If you can, with all honesty, say that you would rather have Figgins than Wells, then there is no hope for you.
by ineptituderunsamok on Nov 4, 2006 5:43 PM PST up reply actions
Since reading appears to be a problem,
- I'd much rather have Wells than Figgins in CF. That's the point of the post.
- I dispute the characterization of Figgins (or Cabrera) as a "spare part." They're better than that.
- In fact, it is worth noting that Figgins was about as good as Wells in 2005, and demonstrably better in 2004. You can use whatever stats you like to get there; I think I've been pretty consistent on this site in using just a few -- Win Shares, OPS+, RC/27.
- Being willing to accept #3, doesn't change #1.
- I can't fucking believe I have to spell this shit out.
if
2--> He was spare in Colorado, and is spare now. He's a stop gap wherever he goes. If he was a true major leaguer, he might have have less than 6 gloves in his bag. His speed makes him valuable, but ultimately one tool players are expendable.
3--> You used ws to say that Figgins is as good as Wells. If this is truly yuour belief, then why would you rather have Wells.
4--> You believing 3 doesn't mean it's acceptable (or true by anybody elses standards). I enjoy looking at the stats as well. Having said that; if Bill James was in fact the smartest man in baseball-sphere, then he would have a job in baseball more than once every ten years of so. It would be as a GM, not as 'special idiot dumbfuck consultant' to a brnad new GM in Boston either.
5--> I can't fucking believe your myopia is so bad that you can't see what an ahole you're being about it.
I know, you're the only one who gets it, and we're all a bunch of retards for not blindly listening and accepting your feeble arguements. We're all probably 12, and just starting watching the Halos in '02. Hopefully someday we'll all be as smart/knowledgeable (and pompous) as you. Feel free to keep posting on the end of this, but it doesn't make your arguement anymore coherent.
by ineptituderunsamok on Nov 6, 2006 8:08 AM PST up reply actions
Pardon my disregard of brevity, but...
My point is that virtually ALL long term Free Agent signings end up being bad in the sense that you are overpaying for the production you get in the later years. There is only one way to avoid this and that's to NEVER sign free agents.
30 year old (position player) stars tend to get 4-5 year contracts. 28 year olds get 6-7 years, so in both cases you end up paying big bucks (especially with back loaded contracts) for guys who are past their prime and more susceptible to injury (undifferentiated arthritis anyone?). If Vlad breaks down after next season and we are on the hook for $14 million for a guy who doesn't even play in 2008, was that a bad contract? For that season, it sure would be, but not when viewed as a whole. Signing a Zito or Soriano would/could be the same.
Payroll has to viewed as a whole and not in isolated examples. If the Angels sign Soriano and put him in CF, they'd be paying over $40 million dollars for the outfield alone assuming G.A. is in left. That seems a bit ridiculous, but if we have Weaver, Saunders, and Santana averaging 15 wins for a combined $1-$1.5 million, and Kendrick, Napoli, and Kotchman at the same figure, it all makes sense. Arte wants to win not laugh all the way to the bank. The best way to take advantage of the younger, cheap players is to surround them with high priced stars who are known quantities and try to win now and still have a plan for the future.
Would this team have won back to back division titles were it not for signing Colon? We're probably only going to get 2 good (actually, 1.5) years out of him in the end. Would you rather have had Bootcheck out there all this time? I wouldn't.
Edmond's contract was bad the last 2 years but without him, the Cards might not be champions. Detroit was 3 wins away from a championship they wouldn't have been close to without I-Rod and Ordonez's bad contracts.
Erstad hasn't earned his salary since 2002, and the same can be said for the $20 million paid to Salmon in 04/05 when he hardly played a game, but without those contracts there is no WS flag in the outfield or trophy in the team store window.
I'm happy we finally have an owner who is willing to spend the money to win. If we would've signed Konerko last season we'd have been in the postseason this year and 1B would be set for several years. We also would've ended up with a 34/35 year old guy with no speed, waning bat speed and 1 tool (power) for the last 2 years of said contract, as will the ChiSox now.
This isn't KC. Spend the money where you can to shore up weaknesses, and play to win now AND long term. Sure, there are risks, but doing nothing is the riskiest thing of all.
I agree with you that Shields is a superb value. There is no denying it. There is also no denying the fact that he'll be gone after 2008 since someone will pay him bigger bucks to be their closer than we could justify setting up for K-Rod. If he spares Santana, it's worth it since Ervin is under club control thru 2011.
Disagree
We have a good, winning organization that people like to play for. My impression is that Shields enjoys the set-up role very much. As long as he's under contract, we have a perfectly fine chance of extending him.
You are wrong
Scot is a great guy and a trooper for taking the high road and not becoming a malcontent for his less glamorous (and far less compensated) setup role.
He isn't stupid though and will jump at the chance to setup himself and his family for life at first chance. He knows he can close, he's stated he wants to close, we have the be best young closer in the game. The writing's on the wall, all you have to do is read it.
But,
3 year - 4 Million per year for another team
2 year - 5 Million incentive laden contract from the Angels?
He knows they're about to win again.
I've heard things constantly
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Nov 4, 2006 9:56 AM PST up reply actions
You're right that the front office isn't stupid...
He's as good as gone in 2 years. He enjoys playing for a winner, sure. But teams that make runs for closers tend to be teams that are contenders. K.C. or Tampa aren't going to throw big money at closers since they won't make a big enough difference on a bad team.
The only question would be...
Then there's the chance he could get hurt or have a poor season and hurt his value. It may be more prudent to move him now, especially while we need said bat, now.
It's definitely a tradeoff though, as are most things in baseball and in life.
Since bullpen shallowness has been a problem
Pure chutzpah
Barry Zito will get signed to one, whichever "winner" gets him. A $70M/5 year deal for a pitcher already tossing a low 4's ERA and entering his 30's is not any kind of a deal. And then there's this:
30 year old (position player) stars tend to get 4-5 year contracts. 28 year olds get 6-7 years
Outside of Hall-of-Fame lock Albert Pujols, when was the last seven year deal done? Heck, when was the last six year deal done?
Dear Dodger fan
My point about Zito is that since there are only 3 impact hitters on the market and 2 of them play LF, there is the very likely possibility that Stoneman will land only one, or possibly none. That leaves him with only ONE possible option to acquire an impact hitter, and that's via trade. While we can all cross our fingers and hope our "expendables" like O.C., Figgins, D-Mac, Mathis, Aybar, et al will get it done, it may very well not. Then Stoneman would be forced to move a Santana or Shields as the centerpiece for said bat. If that happens, replacing him with a Zito makes sense.
Times are changing. Payroll flexibility isn't as important as it once was, save for mid market and small market teams. The reason for this is that there simply isn't much talent hitting the market anymore since they are being locked up long term by their teams. Even the small market teams are signing their players and keeping them off the market. The days of Montreal, KC, Milwaukee, etc. acting as de facto farm systems for the rest of the Major Leagues are over now that revenue sharing has taken root. Teams like SF, Houston, Cubs, etc. have loads of cash to spend but nobody to spend it on assuming they can't land one of the 4-5 marquee guys and with both LA and NY teams, plus Philly, Texas, ChiSox, and O's ready to open their checkbooks, more teams are going to be left in the cold than otherwise.
As for the last 7 year deal? It was only 2 years ago. He plays in Shea stadium. You figure it out. The market changes all the time. In 2000-2002 there were lots of big multiyear deals dished out. Less so in recent years, but with diminishing supply, record attendance and record revenues, the spending will return. Simple economics.
High comedy
Well, so what? I just about guarantee that the Angels will get better production from any of the proposed tradees out of the rotation than they would from Zito. Period. That means you're (1) making the team older, and (2) more expensive, so you can do ... what again? Sign an aging Vernon Wells? Brilliant.
Payroll flexibility isn't as important as it once was,
Baloney. The only thing that's changed is people have forgotten what happened the last time this dance went on. Just wait for the Mets to come rolling backwards once their high-dollar long-term signings of guys like Pedro Martinez and Carlos Beltran come back to kill them, as it will. And it's not going to be all that far into the future, either. Billy Wagner and his lame shoulder -- and $10.5M/year -- are on the books through 2009. Martinez is a going deal through 2008. Beltran is a liability through 2011.
As for your assertion that six-year deals are common, let's hear about more than just one. They're still pretty unusual. The market is changing, alrighty, but long-term free agent deals lasting five years or more aren't one of its principle features.
When the hell did I say they were common?
They aren't common simply because 27/28 premier free agents aren't common. Part of that is for the reasons I stated, teams are LOCKING THEM UP. The other is that in order to be a free agent at age 27, you would have to have begun your first full year in the bigs at 21!
Since only truly elite prospects make that grade, it's far from common, but at the same time, these elite types are the ones who get the mega contracts. Maybe you haven't been paying attention. My point about the risk of regression at the back end of these contracts remains the same. In both scenarios, the players will be in their mid thirties in the final year/years of the contract and likely have slipped noticeably in production. The risk at the end is the same, but you get more prime years from the younger player, at much greater cost to boot.
I never made the assertion that Zito would be more productive or a better value than Santana, merely that he would be the best possible replacement (that would not cost more young talent) available if a guy like Ervin had to be moved to acquire a bat.
As for the Mets, they'll be fine. They can absorb contracts like Martinez's and Wagner's if they get (or stay) hurt. They've got deep pockets and cheap young talent to balance things out. Just like Arte's Angels.
And if Beltran is a liability, I hope we end up with a couple liabilities just like him.
I sure do wish
Oddly...
by ineptituderunsamok on Nov 6, 2006 8:52 AM PST up reply actions
Someone who can't even read his own posts
Sure looks like the implication is that this is commonplace.
I should have clarified that Beltran will be a liability at the end of that contract; my guess is for about the last four years of it.
The Mets have young talent? Besides David Wright, where? Baseball America ranked their system dead last in their 2006 Prospect Handbook! Your ignorance is earth-shattering in both its scope and detail...
So Beltran is going to be a liability
You convienently forgot to mention Jose Reyes, by the way. And yeah, the Mets are dead last, but probably more for a lack of depth. Their system is top heavy. Guys like Milledge, Maine, Pelfry, Humber, and hell, even Oliver Perez is an amazing young pick-up...even if he's not a prospect, he's freakin' 25.
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Nov 6, 2006 8:13 AM PST up reply actions
Okay, Reyes
You should know better
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Nov 6, 2006 9:34 AM PST up reply actions
If I understood
by ineptituderunsamok on Nov 6, 2006 8:48 AM PST up reply actions
I looked through
If you look at his vorp (I know, stats don't tell the whole tale) It would appear that he was the most valuable CF in the NL last year. It would look like at this point he has not become a liability. Financial irresponsiblity perhaps, but not liability.
It would be interesting to look at vorp/$ by position and see what type of team could be created for superiority and for fiscal responsibility. I wonder if any of the players would be the same.
by ineptituderunsamok on Nov 6, 2006 9:05 AM PST up reply actions
Maybe you need to pull that Dodger Dog
Beltran is not going to be a "liability" for the Mets. He's not going to be 36/37 years old. Sure he won't be earning his contract likely, but as I have stated repeatedly, that's the norm with signing Free Agents, not the exception. He won't be a liability simply because he will still produce and NY has the money to find someone younger and flashier at the time to complement him with.
Where did I say the Mets had the best farm system in baseball (or a even a mediocre one)?. All I stated is that they have enough young talent to balance 1 or 2 less than desirable contracts in terms of pay/performance. Last I checked the entire left side of their infield was under 24 AND All-Stars. They also have the BA #9 ranked prospect (Milledge), and a guy ranked one spot behind Zumaya and 1 spot above Papelbon going into this season(Pelfrey). Yes I too own BA's prospect handbook, they didn't just sell it to you.
In case you haven't noticed, weak farm systems don't seem to stop the NY teams from fielding contenders, bad contracts and all. Granted, the Mets have been underachievers with a big payroll for several years, but that was before the emergence of Reyes/Wright.
Your negativity is what's truly earth-shattering. If the Halos were the '27 Yankees, you'd complain that Ruth wasn't worth the money he cost, that he was too fat and eating himself into becoming a liability, and that you'd rather have No, No, Nanette.
About what I'd expect from a guy who bleeds Dodger Blue.
NOTE: Blue and Red make purple when mixed together. Maybe you should be a Laker fan instead. Think of the hate and negativity you could throw at Kobe!
Since you asked...
Manny Ramirez - 8 years/Age 28
Carlos Delgado - 4 years/Age 29
2002:
Jason Giambi - 6 years/Age 30 - but this is Yankees we're talking about.
2004:
Miguel Tejada - 6 years/Age 27
2005:
Carlos (Mr. Liability) Beltran - 7 years/Age 27
Magglio Ordonez - 5 years/Age 31
J.D. Drew - 5 years/Age 29
2006:
Paul Konerko - 5 Years/Age 30
I'm not even counting the 10 year deals in 2001 for A-Rod and Jeter. Sure, you have examples such as Vlad 5 years(plus team option) at age 28, and Beltre, 5 years at age 26, etc. That's why I said "tend to" and not "always".
i like it
Santana is probably the bait that it is gonna take to land the player we all desire..
Adding another SP is the key to getting what we need, because we are gonna be loosing an SP
And Leo's getting LARGER.....
And K-Rod was far cheaper than Percy. And Jered Weaver was far cheaper than Jeff. And Kendrick is far cheaper than Kennedy. And Napoli was far cheaper than Bengie. And Santana was far cheaper than Sele. And Lackey was far cheaper than Schoeneweis. BLEEEECCCCHHH!!!
Kotchman and McPherson got hurt; shite happens. Using their injuries to justify paying Zito $15 million for production Saunders might some day provide for $500,000 is bizarre. Doing so while telling a fella to "get realistic" is downright curious.
I'd be curious to see the price for Wells-caliber All-Stars in the last year of their contract with teams that have replacements. I'd wager that it's less expensive than you think.
According to an article
Sarge Jr could also be a ploy by Stoneman
Agree
by halomatt on Nov 3, 2006 12:39 PM PST up reply actions
Preferably...
Throw loads of dinero at Aramis and get Sarge Jr to play center and leadoff and call it a day. Taht would be best case scenario.
Why ALL Zito-for-pitcher X flip deals are bogus
In other words, whatever benefit the Angels derive from signing him for 2007 is subtracted twice over because of (a) age and decline, and (b) the lingering side-effects of overpaying over the course of his remaining contract. The "oh, we have to give up something" crowd is quick to point to pitching, but the bottom line is that none of the people advocating the Zito flip have factored into their calculations what happens when Colon turns up lame next year, as he almost certainly will.
Moreover, the problem with the proposed ensuing pitcher X (sometimes Saunders) for Vernon Wells trade is that it all rests on whether Wells wants an extension! What if the Jays don't let the Angels talk to Wells before the deal? What if he doesn't want an extension with the Angels, preferring instead to play for the Rangers, near his home?
In short, the Angels get stuck with a guy who has a $15M/year contract for the next four years, with an ERA closer to 5.00 than 4.00, and maybe only one year of Wells. Pass, thanks.
If you HAD to..
Would you hope that Colon can make it through a season, rely on Mosely or Shell, or would you turn to the bullpen? How about a fifth guy like Meche or Lilly? Won't cost as much and maybe we get two good seasons from them until Adenhart is ready.
What would you do?
by halomatt on Nov 3, 2006 3:44 PM PST up reply actions
I WOULD NOT DO THE DEAL
Clarifying
Adenhart is still far removed from the majors. His stint in the Cal League was okay, but his K numbers there is a story of decline.
Cut the kid some slack.
He fanned 99 batters in 106 innings at Cedar Rapids and proceeded to fan 46 in 52 1/3 innings in the Cal league. Double that high A figure and it's 92 in 104 2/3 innings. That's a very small variance in anyone's book, (.5 k per 9 innings pitched) especially in light of the fact that he made a significant jump in terms of competition and average age of opponents and the latter sample size is less than half as big.
Why not point out the positives? He gave up only ONE homerun in the (extremely hitter friendly) Cal league after giving up only 2 in low A in double the number of innings. His walks increased some but his wild pitches dropped significantly. He's a stud and he ceiling is at least as high as Santana's. I'd move Shields over Adenhart any day of the week.
Did you actually see him pitch?
I saw him pitch in Rancho 2 times...
Is he perfect? Of course not. Keeping the ball in the park and fanning just under 8 batters per nine is impressive for a 20 year old kid immediately following a promotion.
If you don't like Nick, who the hell DO you like?
Who I like
You don't like anybody
My point is that the decline is statistically insignificant especially given the sample size AND the increased competition level. All you managed to do was reiterate what I said myself, the "decline" amounted to .5 k per 9 innings pitched. The pall of negativity which you seem to thrive on is misplaced here. I happen to agree with you half the time. This time I don't, and I doubt many others would see the same storm clouds in this statistic, either. 8ks per 9 vs 8.5, I'd gladly take either number any day of the week.
Win Shares ARE based on wins, at least in terms of Pythagorean expectation. I'm far from the only guy who thinks having wins as the basis for such analysis is somewhat flawed. Would Albert Pujols be worse if the Cardinals won 10 fewer games than expected next year due to injury or other circumstance? No.
Interesting
by johnnyangel101 on Nov 3, 2006 10:48 PM PST up reply actions
Speaking for scareduck...
Other improvements to the offense:
- 1B will be much more productive, guaranteed, on account of Casey not having the death-mono, and Morales being better no matter what.
- 2B will be better, because Kendrick will play there.
- CF will be better, because nothing in Figgins' history indicates that he will hit as badly as he did last year, and everything else indicates that he's a .290/.345/.400 guy.
Good point
I too think the offense will be better. The team on paper would be fantastic. Of course, we thought the same thing this year.
And we were hit with 3 surprises
- Kotchman's mono
- Figgy's disappearing O
- Scioscia's more-terrible-than-expected lineup selection
I'll give you 1 and 3
I still say he's a great number 9 hitter and a shitty leadoff guy. In addition, he loses a lot of his value when he's not roving, which he won't be doing in a more stable lineup. His K rate is simply atrocious for a guy with little power and his value is hurt further by his low walk rate and total inability to bunt successfully. For a speed guy, that's an unpardonable sin.
He is cheap though.
He was so consistent 2003-05 ...
But Barry's 28
Zito's not bad
But a pitcher with an ERA around 4 just flat out isn't worth 15 million. Pass.
Any trade involving Wells
Where you all been?
Anyway what we need to keep in mind is to improve by the most runs at the most reasonable cost. It's hard to improve at positions of strength as players better than the ones we have are mighty expensive. It's pointless and crazy to go after players who we have covered with a cheap good players for the next several years (2b, SS, C). Obviously we would all love to get a stud at our weak positions. (Just remember a fast guy does not necesarily make a good CF, otherwise we could just sign some track star.)
If we have to trade one of our SP, and if Zito is available at a reasonable yearly salary, it might make sense. How many AL pitchers are as healthy and as good as he is? I figure it has to only be around 10 guys for 70 AL rotation spots. If you're going to pay big money at least get real quality.
P.S. I love it when one of our competitors is suckered into overpaying in years and $$$ for some dude. A 4 year deal for Sarge Jr. could kill Texas for years.
I can name that tune in one word...
by ineptituderunsamok on Nov 3, 2006 6:33 PM PST up reply actions
Matt Brown
Is Kotchman in the AFL
I don't know if anyone else has mentioned this yet
PS - I have reason to believe CaLiKrAzY, pattimelt and ladybug are all dead.
i have reason to believe
As for CaLiKrAzY, well, anybody with a handle that annoying to type is on his own,,,
link
Not sure if this is where it belongs, but interesting nonetheless.
by ineptituderunsamok on Nov 4, 2006 10:34 AM PST up reply actions
Uh oh,
play
by ineptituderunsamok on Nov 4, 2006 10:36 AM PST up reply actions
Back to Wells
Just a Thought. Forgive me if this has already been brought up because I didn't feel like reading all 123 posts.
by Rex DaKine Budler on Nov 4, 2006 12:56 PM PST reply actions
Not going to happen
The only bids Zito will be considering are for unreasonable salaries. The 15 million/year kind.
He's good but not worth it.
A couple things:
And by the way, why isn't Kotchman playing right now, to prepare for next year? If he's so healthy right now, I'm guessing that since he hasn't swung in a game for six months that he could use the reps? What's he doing, resting on his laurels? From what I see at this point, the first thing I DON'T think of when I think of Kotchman is work ethic. I think this guy has a huge sense of entitlement. I'll say this: if he does play first he better perform, especially if we don't go after Wells. Because if he doesn't everybody on this site will be sick and tired of me reminding everyone about these discussions we're having right now.
If anyone thinks that only getting Ramirez will remove the pressure from Kotchman to hit is flawed in their thinking. First base is a position historically requiring power and run production. Kotchman does not get a pass or an exception from this rule. We are extremely weak in power and run production. We need a first baseman who drives in 100 and hist 25 dongs minimum.
The idea of Figgins starting in CF and hitting leadoff in 2007 is truly nausea inducing. He's the poster child for our mediocrity. Please go look at any of his numbers, offensive and defensive, in comparison with the other CF's in the AL in 2006, and explain to me how fabulous he is.
Starting off the new campaign with Figgins in CF and Kotchman at 1b is unacceptable. Period.
Believe me, I'm all for trading OCab and Figgins to Toronto for Vernon Wells. Unfortunately I live in the real world. At this point in time that's an absolutely stupid deal for the Jays to make. OCab is entirely replaceable at short. He is competent, that's about it. Figgins is a little less than that.
I respect anybody that says they don't like Vernon Wells and wouldn't trade for him. That's fine, but don't come in and say that you'd trade our flotsam and jetsom for Vernon Wells. Why waste everyone's time with that weak garbage?
About Zito. Somebody please explain "the decline has already started". Honestly, I'm the first to admit that I'm not a stathead, and I'm ignorant when it comes to analysis of the numbers. But I need help with that, because when I look at Zito's last three years, I just don't see that decline. Here are the last three years:
W-L: 11-11, 14-13, 16-10 looks like improvement.
ERA: 4.48, 3.86, 3.83 looks like improvement.
IP: 213, 228.1, 221 8 more ip than 2yrs ago.
BAA: .263, .221, .257, better than 2 yrs ago.
WHIP: 1.39, 1.20, 1.40 is that huge?
Earned Runs: 106, 98, 94, improvement.
Somebody please explain to me how looking at these numbers it's so amazingly obvious that Zito is over. I have to admit I'm too blind to see it.
I guess I'm to take it that there aren't any pitchers out there worth signing. If Zito's numbers show he's weak, I won't bother with Schmidt's or Matsazuka's, because they don't measure up to even Zito's. Particularly Schmidt, whose earned runs has been going up, IP has been going down, ERA going up, etc.
For those that don't want Wells, where do you want the money to go, and what trade would you make? Plese tell me, what deal do you make for another big bat? Because it needs to happen. And please don't tell me you'd be willing to trade Figgins and Jose Molina for Albert Pujols. Get real.
Everyone should go take a look at Mathews Jr.'s production numbers and look at the same for Wells. These two guys are similiar type players, only Wells is a bonafide producer, hitting for far more power, generating far more total bases and runs batted in. Mathews doesn't even run better than Wells, not good if we're counting on Sarge to lead off.
As I've said earlier, I'm ok, grudgingly so, with Mathews, as long as we land Aramis for sure, but it's quite a step down in quality. I think everybody knows we can do better than Mathews. He's settling. But he's a FA, so it's a compromise management may be willing to make.
One other thing: all this talk about Santana has made it very clear to me: next year he will be looked at with a magnifying glass. If we keep him, here's hoping he really comes through. Otherwise he could be the scapegoat for 07, if we didn't move him when we could have. I hope he comes through if he's kept.
Uh.
You expect him to be this power slugging first baseman but you forget that nobody expected him to hit 50 HR's this year, even before going on the DL. It's a slow progression, this was going to be his first full year in the Majors, but it was cut short. I don't think there was any illusions as to his probability of slumping & surging. And you also forget that the guy is only 23 years old. If he starts to get into his groove by 24/25, you're looking at anywhere from 5-10 years of consistent productive baseball from a foul pole to foul pole hitter.
As for Barry Zito, look at these numbers and see how he's about to shit out a brick.
SEASON TEAM G GS CG SHO IP H R ER HR BB SO W L SV HLD BLSV ERA
2000 Oak 14 14 1 1 92.2 64 30 28 6 45 78 7 4 0 0 -- 2.72
2001 Oak 35 35 3 2 214.1 184 92 83 18 80 205 17 8 0 0 -- 3.49
2002 Oak 35 35 1 0 229.1 182 79 70 24 78 182 23 5 0 0 -- 2.75
2003 Oak 35 35 4 1 231.2 186 98 85 19 88 146 14 12 0 0 -- 3.30
2004 Oak 34 34 0 0 213.0 216 116 106 28 81 163 11 11 0 0 -- 4.48
2005 Oak 35 35 0 0 228.1 185 106 98 26 89 171 14 13 0 0 -- 3.86
2006 Oak 34 34 0 0 221.0 211 99 94 27 99 151 16 10 0 0 -- 3.83
That's just it.
I DO have all kinds of expectations that a starting first baseman in the major leagues should be an offensive weapon that is a major run producer.
Slumping and surging...so I guess you're thinking at least another couple of years of rebuilding. That sucks. We already went through that all year this year.
Those Zito numbers: yeah man, he's horrible.
138 comments worth of wasted time
Also, sweet call on predicting Kotchman's mono.
And I'll make sure & tell the 2004 Red Sox, 2002 Angels, 2001 D-Backs, 2000 Yanks, '97 Marlins, '92 Jays, '91 Twins, '90 Reds and on and on that you can't win a World Series without your first baseman going 25/100.
Really, I think the important thing to do is to give up on as many young players as possible. After all, it worked so well for the 1990s Dodgers and 1980s Angels....
I predicted his mono.
Who the hell said anything about giving up on him?
Is anyone seriously thinking that there's no chance of him coming into the spring being sick, ill, or injured?
I'm thinking, "who will be out first with an injury or an ailment, Casey Kotchman or Dallas MacPherson"? I'm not thinking "Hey, our power and production problems are over in 07, because we'll have Casey Kotchman and DAllas MacPherson".
So I take it from your comments you don't want Ramirez either, since that would block MacPherson, indicating we've given up on him.
I take it from your argument about first baseman that you prefer a first baseman that hits for average rather than produce runs, like a Mark Grace type. I guess my thought is that we have too many guys in our lineup that are that same kind of player, who don't drive in runs or hit for power. Plus, we just ran Erstadt out of town because he was a first baseman who couldn't hit for power, and it was pretty much agreed that a first baseman who hit 8 home runs and drove in 50 runs wasn't necessarily the optimal strategy for striking fear into the hearts of anybody.
Where is the power supposed to come from?
You do realize
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Nov 5, 2006 2:40 AM PST up reply actions
He doesn't show up.,
- All i hear about is that Kotchman has a wrist injury, it's impacting his hitting.
- The guy is our number 1 prospect to have an impact with the big club going into the 2006 season. He appears absolutely fine in spring training, the mono didn't seem to be affecting him at all then. Then the season starts and the guy can't make contact. Oh yeah, he has mono.
If everybody in the stadium knows a breaking ball is coming, because you've failed to hit one in 3 weeks, and more breaking balls do come, and you're still incapable of coming within 6 inches of contact, I guess I'm supposed to take it that I'm looking at a bonafide future hall of famer.
Apparently the mono also causes you to leave the organization completely in the dark about what you're doing about fighting the mono. Based on Stoneman's discussion with the media on September 16th, in which he clearly states he, the general manager of the club, has zero idea what is going on with Kotchman, that he's had zero contact with him for months, and that while the club is struggling to figure out its path, Kotchman isn't available for anything.
Then, 10 days later, instead of being down in Arizona working on his game, which you'd think anyone in the world who is "100 percent healthy and ready for 07" would be doing, working, since he hasn't played in any meaningful action since 05, we won't include him swinging at anything and everything all April, the guy instead shows up and suddenly pronounces that he's perfectly healthy and ready to start at first base in 07.
Nice of him to show up.
Kotchman is definitely one of the figures I will always think of when i think of the 06 season. He's right up near the top of the list, along with Jeff Weaver, DCrap, and Figgins.
He's side by side with MacPherson. I think I've heard about those two guys being the future more than any other players in the organization. Many Angel fans happily watched Troy Glaus walk away from the organization, a guy who was a devoted Angel, the MVP of the world series for crying out loud, and he watched him get sent packing, all because Dallas MacPherson hit a bunch of home runs in Salt Lake City. Obviously there are many, many Angel fans here who are still big fans of MacPherson. I guess it puzzles me. Glaus has hit nearly 80 home runs, in both leagues, since he was told to hit the road. But he wanted too much money. Now, here we go again, only now with Kotchman. Fans all winter last year were singing praises that Konerko didn't sign with us, because, don't worry Goodvibe, we'll have Casey Kotchman playing first base and raking in 2006. There is no way we'll suck as bad on offense in 06, because Casey Kotchman will be playing first base.
I'm glad to see the Casey Kotchman bandwagon is as strong as ever. I concede, the guy is Willie Stargell.
I've been hearing about the guy for at least four seasons now. I guess I will just have to learn to live with the guy, as it sounds from everybody here in the know that he'll be around for several more years, everybody still obviously thinks he's the man, and he gets a pass because he's still only 23 years old or whatever.
The guy is immune from criticism i guess.
With young players
McPherson, who has a chronic injury, has (in my view) worn out his welcome as a player a winning team can depend on. Kotchman, whose problems have been one-offs, has (in my view) not.
It's possible to hold such a position without believing that Kotchman is "immune from criticism," or that he's the "next Willie Stargell."
Wow.
"Out of touch for months"? Wasn't he on a rehab assignment (after working his way back into playing shape, I presume) for Salt Lake and then was shut down after having bouts of dizzyness?
Wasn't he told to come in on (or about Septmeber 26) for medical clearance to work his way back in to playing shape for winter league baseball? Didn't the Angels's physicians do a complete blood work up to determine if he had the virus still? I believe he was given a go to get in to shape and hopefully, he will be on a winter league team soon.
I can understand and sympathize (empathize?) about Glaus, McPherson, and Kotchman and it has been very frustrating not being able to rely on those two, but really it's water under the bridge, especially with Glaus.
Glaus was an expensive gamble that Stoneman didn't take. McPherson was a cheaper gamble that he did. Didn't work out. I'm all for Aramis Ramirez and totally willing to trade McPherson to a team that will give him the time he needs to get his career back on track.
by halomatt on Nov 5, 2006 1:58 PM PST up reply actions
Immune from criticism, no.
Do you know what mono is/does? Quick list of symptoms:
* Fever, which may range from 101 °F(38.3 °C) to 104 °F(40 °C), and chills.
* Sore throat, often with white patches on the tonsils (which may resemble strep throat).
* Swollen lymph nodes all over the body, especially the lymph nodes in the neckClick here to see an illustration..
* Swollen tonsils.
* Headache or body aches.
* A lack of energy and fatigue.
* Loss of appetite.
* Pain in the upper left part of the abdomen, which may indicate that the spleen has become enlarged.
So yeah, I can see exactly where swinging at bad pitches or not seeing what is coming being a problem. He's exhausted constantly, he can't concentrate, he has practically no energy, and he's basically going to be in a consistent state of weakness and discomfort. Does it excuse every mistake he made? No, but it certainly makes explains a hell of a lot. You have a major leaguer with about 200ABs of MLB experience, unable to concentrate and unable to work with the peak of his strength, facing off against seasoned veteran pitchers...of course he's going to look bad and chase bad pitches. Basically all he did was make rookie mistakes that were accentuated to look twice as bad because he couldn't swing a bat full strength.
You're so quick to dismiss what he did for the club when he was at full strength. What about his 1 1/2 months of play of play with .302/7/22 play? How about that he'd be pretty much the only freakin' Angel besides Napoli that knows how to draw a walk? Or the fact that he has great plate discipline in general, like his 15 pitch ROOKIE at-bat against Pedro? And I could be wrong, but didn't he shatter a team record for the longest start to a career without striking out? And what about his stellar defensive capabilities at first? And let's not forget that he's still a freakin' 23 year old (24 at the start of the season). And, of course, he was by far the Angels' best hitter in spring training '06. Isn't he only a couple years removed from being one of the top minor leaguers in all of baseball? You want no part of that for some piss-on league minimum salary?
His mono is no mystery anymore, and it's a legitimate explanation as to what happened. If he mishandled his approach to it wih management, that's unfortunate, and it was a mistake. But what is he doing right now? Working himself up to get back into shape so that he can play winter ball, and be ready for the 2007 season completely. He's not some injury prone 3rd baseman with a balky back, he's a 23 year old, sweet swinging 1st baseman with a power stroke, solid glove, veteran plate discipline, and low strikeout numbers. If you have a problem plugging a guy like that into the #7 hole in your lineup for next to no pay, and freeing up countless millions for positions where there is a REAL need, then you have a problem with common sense.
Save your energy for a McPherson debate, there might be some concessions from the rest of us on that one.
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Nov 6, 2006 6:58 AM PST up reply actions
Yes, I know what Mono is: I was diagnosed with it.
I missed at least 3 or 4 classes during the week in which the friggin thing hatched and took off inside me. I felt pretty tired for a couple weeks, but life pretty much had to go on, if I wanted to continue being in college, since I was living on my own and was paying my own way through school. It felt more or less like a pretty bad case of the flu, with a fever, a sore throat, and other flu like symptoms.
Don't worry, I have no doubt that everyone will immediately tell me how much worse Kotchman's mono was than mine. Or my brother's, who had it shortly after I did. He was down for nearly a whole week, and it was rough because his infant daughter needed a healthy daddy to keep a roof over her head and all.
Don't worry, there is no humanly possible way I could ever forget that Kotchman is only 23 years old. I think that information has been shared here more than any other piece of information in the history of halosheaven in the past few days.
No, I definitely haven't forgotten about Kotchman hitting for a month a couple years ago. And with the number of AB's he had, it's interesting that you mention Napoli. Their careers eerily mirror each other, only Napoli has now had more playing time. He also took off in his first 130 AB's or so, even more than Kotchman, busting out a pile of home runs and hitting over .300. And, just like Kotchman, his productivity took a nose dive after major league pitchers started to become a little more familiar with him.
Yes, Kotchman has definitely shown he is our best hitter in spring training. And I have little doubt that Mr. March will lay all my doubts to rest when he goes off next Spring against all the AA pitchers down there.
As I stated earlier, yes, I've given up on this debate, because everybody here has convincedme that Kotchman is Lou Gehrig. (It's hard not to insert a sick joke here, like perhaps Kotchman will have a particular strain on Mono named after him some day, or something like that, but I will stay strong).
Consider me now officially one of the converted regarding Kotchman. He is obviously the answer, not one of the questions regarding our roster. And we don't have to consider whether there's anything we can do to improve first base for the next 6-10 years or so.
I got it.
So perhaps now that we all agree that Kotchman is our first baseman, and he's only 23 years old, perhaps we should then logically move to who we trade Kendry Morales for, since he obviously is blocked forever by Kotchman and serves no purpose. First base is locked up until at least 2016 or so, rendering Kendry meaningless. Perhaps he's part of a package for a middle reliever? Along with MacPherson, who we won't need either if Ramirez is signed, because with Kotchman entrenched at first DCrap has no future at either corner. With mighty Casey in tow, neither of these guys are necessary.
Your sarcasm blows
It's as if you just go about being as sarcastic and exaggerated as possible to completely avoid talking about any single bit of upside the guy has. Again you ramble about lofty comparisons that no one is making. All anyone says is that he is a HIGHLY capable 1st baseman with enormous upside and a contract that frees up money for real needs. All you've managed to do thus far is complain about people turning him into a hero (which no one does), while not offering any real solutions. OK, you don't like Kotchman. What do you do? He's gonna be a stud for someone for a few years, so how do we handle that? Deal him off now for the corn dogs he'll be worth in a trade, or give him a chance to get back to health and hit .300 for us? Train Kendry to play another position, or throw him to the DH slot. What makes you think Kendry is somehow vastly more capable than Kotchman? Hell, by your standards, he had a "nose-dive", too. 94 at-bats of Mendoza flirting...that's 15 more than Kotchman! And that's without mono! He's doomed! He'll never be the great Cuban assassin the Angels thought he'd be. Trade him now before he kills the entire team with .230 batting!
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Nov 6, 2006 9:15 AM PST up reply actions
Seriously though:
First and foremost
A) Make him valuable (and cheapcheapcheap) trade bait
B) Assert himself as DH, or perhaps give his glove a shot at (3rd???).
I'd love to see both of them get a chance, but I don't THINK it has to be one or the other.
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Nov 6, 2006 10:28 AM PST up reply actions
Shouldn't you guys switch screennames now?
I love Kotchman
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Nov 6, 2006 12:34 PM PST up reply actions
Not at all
However, once we got into September and we didn't get it done, I've been angry ever since.
I'm pretty disappointed that we didn't get it done this year, seeing that there were no superb clubs and that we weren't even good enough to get into the tournament.
There are many holes to fix in the club, many shortcomings, many problems, and I'm not gonna stand idly around saying everything is ok when it clearly isn't. I already had to put up with that ridiculous wave of "wow, isn't it great to be watching Angel baseball, isn't it wonderful how hard we're still playing" crap that was going on around here the final week of season after we'd been eliminated. The mode of thought seems to be to be happy with the way things all played out, shut up and be a good boy.
When we win the division, and advance in the playoffs, like we're supposed to, it will be nothing but extremely GOODVIBES, count on it.
I agree with not being content with
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Nov 6, 2006 1:27 PM PST up reply actions
Blow jobs all around?
At last Casey, the truth about the Mono has surfaced! Knock that shit off.
It's all good my friend.
It's all good.
On the other hand...
The more we insult each other the more money Rev makes.
cocksuckers...
Is this really a paying gig???
How is there any revenue generated with no ads?
Check your pocket
TA-DA !
(real answer is - in theory the blog makes money off of advertising, in practice it has been a labor of love - lucky my career as a professional poker player has coincided with so many BAD poker players making the same decision)
You do know...
S-l-o-w-l-y
- I have said over and over and over again that signing Ramirez should be priority #1 this off-season. In fact, you'll note that this post assumes the signing of Ramirez, is happy with it, and speaks of trading McPherson for a reliever. I have also said over and over and over again that depending on both McPherson and Kotchman to be catastrophe-free is unacceptable with a team of our talent & payroll.
- My argument isn't about which type of first baseman I "prefer," it's about how to react to the talent in front of you. Dumb organizations look at talented players and focus on what they can't do, smart ones see whether their cans are valuable enough. Particularly when the players are young, affordable, have unlimited upside, and are better than anything else you have at the moment.
- We don't have a single "Mark Grace type" (high average, medium power, lots of walks) in our lineup, or indeed our entire organization, as far as I know. That fact actually makes Kotchman more valuable, not less. What we have a glut of is guys who hit .280 with single-digit homers and not enough walks.
- Kotchman had more power in one-quarter a season in 2005 than Erstad did all year. They're not remotely comparable.
- The power is supposed to come from signing Ramirez, playing Kendrick instead of Kennedy, hopefully trading for Wells, having Kotchman instead of the 12 musketeers, and having Napoli play a full season. That's a significant power upgrade.
The entire post...
Kotchman...
As for Figgins, the only thing that need be done to transform him from an albatross to a swan is drop him 8 spots in the order and get a middle of the order presence or 2 to back up Vlad. If he raises his average .15 - .20 points and walks 5 more times, he's one of the best 9 hole guys in all of baseball.
Seriously
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Nov 4, 2006 8:25 PM PST up reply actions
Kotchman
That being said, I am also wondering when he is going to play winter ball. I remember reading somewhere that he was going to try and get in baseball shape and then hit the winter circuit. Hope he gets there soon and gets the timing back.
by halomatt on Nov 4, 2006 8:45 PM PST up reply actions
Article:
It's from September 27th, but it's a helpful read.
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Nov 4, 2006 9:51 PM PST up reply actions
He just
by ineptituderunsamok on Nov 4, 2006 9:19 PM PST up reply actions
Should that "allegedly"
didnt read all the comments for lack of time
Vernon Wells for Ervin and Aybar (and possibly Mathis)
by SoCalSoxFan @ Halos Heaven on Nov 6, 2006 9:40 AM PST reply actions
A-Rod didn't make an error today
gotta admit,
by SoCalSoxFan @ Halos Heaven on Nov 6, 2006 6:06 PM PST up reply actions
this trade wouldn't shock me
I would really, really hate to see Santana go, but imagine having a legit middle of the lineup guy and a stud CF all in one trade.
(Still take Ramirez as an FA and a middle tier guy like Sarge JR and keep our rotation though)
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
- Eric Hosmer redefines the Baltimore chop with infield double (Video)
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
