Comments on: Angels Get Worse

By: terry

terry — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 13:37:20 +0000

well if baseball america said it….. it’s amazing how being drunk on pitchin impairs the intellect…

By: bermanator

bermanator — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 20:04:29 +0000

From Baseball America:

Even after trading away Cabrera the Angels have several options at shortstop with Erick Aybar, Maicer Izturis and Brandon Wood. To pick up a middle-of-the-rotation starter like Garland is an impressive haul. The White Sox pick up Cabrera just a week and a half after signing incumbent Juan Uribe to a one-year deal. The Cabrera trade means that Uribe will either be moving to second base or will become a trade chip for a future deal.

By: C. Cheetah

C. Cheetah — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 04:37:03 +0000

Ya know, for us wanna-be GM’s, this is a really a good exercise.
I fully admit that I have not been able to find any good info (not small sample size) on the defense ability at SS for Figgins, Wood, Izturis, Aybar, or Kendrick…but I can not imagine that some combination of these guys – possibly with the addition of a Wilson Valdez type who can be found cheap – would be cost more than 3 wins per year versus having O. Cabrera at SS. Now is Garland worth 3 wins over Moseley or whoever would have been the 4th starter…certainly not.
HOWEVER, if you can now package a young pitcher or three with one or more of the position players above and get M.Cabrera or H. Ramirez or even a J. Santana or Kazmir or other young stud pitcher…I think you have improved your team a lot more than 3 wins…

By: Grizz

Grizz — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 03:46:27 +0000

Even if the Garland deal is a precursor, it is still a bad deal. If you sell your old car because you plan on getting a new car but only get 75% of its value in return, it is a bad deal no matter how good of a deal you get on the new car.

By: terry

terry — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 03:44:12 +0000

To me this just screams of deciding that Colon isn’t coming back and making replacing him with another “proven” name a top priority. In other words, the Angels overvalued Garland and created another hole in the mistaken belief they were plugging one that everybody seems to believe is the most important in the universe…

By: terry

terry — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 03:40:35 +0000

I don’t get this depth angle….are we to believe that because the Angels added depth to their back end, they can now afford to trade an arm from the top of their rotation?

By: George Kaplan

George Kaplan — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 02:57:55 +0000

The reference to Uggla was based upon a story from one of the Miami-area papers, which said that the Marlins might put Uggla in the deal if it improved the quality/increased the number of players being offered by the Angels. Since Kendrick is a must-have for Florida (so the stories state), Uggla would then replace Kendrick in the lineup at 2B. This is not to value him on a par, just to keep track of all the many moving pieces in a proposed deal like this one.

Since the Garland trade, the Angels now have a surplus of starters, and either Santana or Saunders is considered attractive to the Marlins who need another strong starter, and this might take the number of players from 4 in exchange down to 3.

The Angels could also trade for Tejada for less given up in talent, since the Angels would be taking Tejada’s contract in the deal, saving the Orioles a ton of money for the next two years. Put Figgins at third and Tejada at short, or Tejada at third and Aybar at short. Wood stays in the organization, as does Kendrick, which makes the cost (Adenhart and Saunders or Santana for Tejada) easier to swallow for the long term.

As for OC, he was beloved as an Angel, but realistically he wasn’t expected to repeat his 2007 season and I doubt he was going to be re-signed by the team. This was his maximum value, and as such represents a chance to make a series of moves which lead to adding other players to the team.

By: cb526

cb526 — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 02:57:32 +0000

As an Angel fan, I wouldn’t be a big fan of this deal if I wasn’t convinced that it was done to set up the acquisition of a power bat that we desperately need, namely either Cabrera or Tejada.

I’d love Cabrera, but feel given his conditioning issues and the steep price we’d have to pay for him that it might not be the best move. That said, I’d be happy to have him on the team.

However, the new depth in pitching would allow us to deal for Tejada (a definite offensive upgrade from Cabrera) while holding on to Kendrick at second, who would certainly be lost in a trade for Cabrera. Furthermore, we’d probably be able to deal pitching to the Orioles and may even be able to hold on to Wood too. Tejada is signed for a reasonable amount and only for two more years. Such a move would not only infuse some power into the lineup, it would give the offensive prospects the Angels have more time to develop. It’s also worth noting that Tejada was injured last year (broken wrist) and that may or may not have affected his performance. Of course, the cloud of possible past steroid use hovers over Tejada.

Whatever the case may be, I feel the O Cabrera-Garland trade is a precursor to a larger deal, one that will definitely improve the Angels lineup.

By: marc w

marc w — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 01:52:44 +0000

I’d agree with that.
I guess we can add baseball think factory to the group who thinks the Angels clearly ‘won’ the deal, and a big part of the reasoning there is that Cabrera actually isn’t a great defensive SS at all, and that his Gold Glove led the Sox to overvalue him. Interesting theory.

It’s a bit uncomfortable to have to rely on the defensive metrics to buttress a case, though at least UZR and RZR agree (for once).

Shocking to see just how much Bill James’ projections like Saunders/Santana, too. Wonder which of them gets the fifth spot in the rotation next year? Wonder if we can pry Moseley from ‘em…

By: Grizz

Grizz — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 01:21:07 +0000

Yeah, Marc, this deal is not a disaster for the Angels. Garland gives them a perfectly fine back of the rotation starter, and assuming either Vlad or Anderson play DH next year, the move to Anaheim should somewhat alleviate the impact of the fly balls. The Angels also have some depth at SS, so it is not like Wilson Valdez will be their opening day starter.

That said, the Angels overvalued Garland and should have done better than a No. 4 starter for Cabrera, or at least filled a bigger need. With Lackey/Escobar/Weaver, the Angels’ first three rotation spots are set, which before the trade left the last two spots to Santana and Saunders. Garland is not much of an improvement over either one, if at all. (Santana posted a fine K/BB rate, but got burned by a high HR/F rate and low LOB%, which are a good bet to normalize next year). And yeah, this might lead to another deal, but in that case, the Angels really have to come out ahead just to tread water overall.