Twins acquire Santiago

[IEAngelsfan]

1 minute ago, Lou said:

that was you?

Yeah, he was the one sitting left of the recliner.

[Lou]

6 minutes ago, IEAngelfan said:

Yeah, he was the one sitting left of the recliner.

that was a guy?

[IEAngelsfan]

4 minutes ago, Lou said:

that was a guy?

Let's ask sneakyflute.

[Lou]

@Dochalo you are correct. We are decisional oddsmakers.

Based on the meltdown here after the Street and Simmons trades, odds are this will end up being a good trade for us. 

Go Halos! 

[Lou]

5 hours ago, Dochalo said:

I don't understand the logic that it was a good trade because no one was going to sell the farm for Hector.  Of course they weren't.  It's not that black and white.  

Santiago's value is what it is.  It's Alex Meyer and Ricky Nolasco.  It's Ariel Miranda. But it's also some collection of prospects in the low to mid minors who are 2-3 years away of which we will never know.  

I was hoping we'd find out what the latter was because my feeling is that it's better than what is being assumed.  

The value attached to a 'major league ready' arm is the game changer.  I would have rather mitigate some risk in exchange for that.  

Did you mean to say: " i THINK it MAY HAVE BEEN a collection of prospects..."

you undoubtedly know better than I do, so which contending teams could you have seen trading for Santiago? 

[Blarg]

Every game Simmons makes a play Aybar couldn't and I think,  damn those guys in Atlanta are stupid. 

[Jeff Fletcher]

I think any of my colleagues questioning this trade haven't talked to Eppler about it. 

Obviously he's biased, but he's also the only guy who really knows what his options were. 

Everyone else can say "oh he could have gotten X, Y and Z." I know that pretty much all he's been doing for weeks is talking to other GMs about what he could have gotten. 

My impression were the choices were a deal like this or a deal like Angel Miranda. They could have also gotten a couple A ball kids but that's a risk too. Those guys rarely make it and anyone who looks good enough in A ball to be considered even a 50-50 bet to being a major leaguer is way too good a prospect to trade for Hector Santiago. Those are top 50 prospects  

This is a gamble that they'll know quickly if it worked or didn't. 

Also, if it fails, what have they lost? They lost the chance to have Angel Miranda? They lost the 3 extra games in 2017 (maybe) that is the difference between having Nolasco and Santiago?

 

Edited August 3, 2016 by Jeff Fletcher

[beatlesrule]

It's not just about the bad Santiago trade. It's about the bigger picture of having a delusional owner and a stubborn manager/GM.  Eppler is commanded to give the illusion of having a competitive team even though pretty much any other owner would have gotten good prospects to replenish the barren farm with and would spend the money to put the best possible team on the field. I don't put any blame on him. He knew his role before he was hired.

Look at what Cashman was able to do because his boss understands how to run a badeball team. Escobar, Santiago, Shoemaker and Calhoun could easily have gotten even better prospects and at least 1 or 2 major league players in return.  Yankees are still gonna play decent baseball despite what they gave up.  It's just a flawed mentality Moreno has.

[Lou]

9 minutes ago, beatlesrule said:

It's not just about the bad Santiago trade. Is about the bigger picture of having a delusional owner and a stubborn manager/GM.  Eppler is commanded to give the illusion if having a competitive team even though pretty much any other owner would have gotten good prospects to replenish the barren farm with and would spend the money to put the best possible team on the field.

Look at what Cashman was able to do. Escobar, Santiago, Shoemaker and Calhoun could easily have gotten even better prospects and at least 1 or 2 major league players in return.  Yankees are still gonna play decent baseball despite what they gave up.  It's just a flawed mentality Moreno has.

Wait, so we should have traded four Major Leaguers for one or two and some prospects? 

Pretty much any other owner would spend the money to put the best possible team on the field? That's crazy talk.

And I would hope the yankees would still be able to pkay decently sering as their payroll is over $220 million

Edited August 3, 2016 by Lou

[ten ocho recon scout]

6 minutes ago, beatlesrule said:

It's not just about the bad Santiago trade. It's about the bigger picture of having a delusional owner and a stubborn manager/GM.  Eppler is commanded to give the illusion of having a competitive team even though pretty much any other owner would have gotten good prospects to replenish the barren farm with and would spend the money to put the best possible team on the field. I don't put any blame on him. He knew his role before he was hired.

Look at what Cashman was able to do because his boss understands how to run a badeball team. Escobar, Santiago, Shoemaker and Calhoun could easily have gotten even better prospects and at least 1 or 2 major league players in return.  Yankees are still gonna play decent baseball despite what they gave up.  It's just a flawed mentality Moreno has.

I'm more on your side of the argument, but the problem with trading a Calhoun or a shoemaker is what are you getting back for them? The odds we could have replaced them in a trade, and gotten something else of value is probably less than wed like to believe.

[beatlesrule]

The Angels are in a huge market so I would assume the billionaire owner that changed their name to Los Angeles wouldn't be so gun-shy about a stupid tax. Again though, his delusional mentality about not rebuilding just goes beyond comprehension. Couple that with giving the manager what seems like a lifetime contract and wasting the best player in baseball who comes around once in a generation, you have a recipe for disaster.

[beatlesrule]

3 minutes ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

I'm more on your side of the argument, but the problem with trading a Calhoun or a shoemaker is what are you getting back for them? The odds we could have replaced them in a trade, and gotten something else of value is probably less than wed like to believe.

Did you see the haul that Cashman got back for 2 RP and a 39 year old DH?  Marte, Petit and Robinson would take his place. Not as good but serviceable enough for this year with the prospects helping the farm.  The offseason has some decent OF.

[Oz27]

5 minutes ago, Lou said:

Pretty much any other owner would spend the money to put the best possible team on the field? That's crazy talk.

And I would hope the yankees would still be able to pkay decently sering as their payroll is over $220 million

The Yankees were smart enough to realize their chances of short-term success were low enough that they should make a significant sacrifice now to be much better in the long run - and they did an incredible job of that. We, on the other hand, did not.

[arch stanton]

3 minutes ago, Oz27 said:

The Yankees were smart enough to realize their chances of short-term success were low enough that they should make a significant sacrifice now to be much better in the long run - and they did an incredible job of that. We, on the other hand, did not.

The Yankees traded away 2 of the best relief arms in the game and a guy having an all star season. The Angels don't have that to trade.

[beatlesrule]

1 minute ago, hangin n wangin said:

Well....to be fair, those were the two best relief pitchers in the game.

Chapman is a rental. Miller has 1 more year I believe. Escobar is cheap for 1 more year, Calhoun, Shoe and Santiago are under control. Calhoun and escobar are everyday players.  Shoe and Hector are starting pitchers. Three of them are younger than Chapman and Miller. Those four would have definitely gotten you better players.

[Stradling]

7 minutes ago, beatlesrule said:

Did you see the haul that Cashman got back for 2 RP and a 39 year old DH?

Ok so who could we have traded that would have given us that type of return?  I'll tell you who, Mike Trout.  Nice list for you there.  That's the entire list.  The Yankees aren't good but they had two of the very best bullpen arms in the business.  We have no one that is as good at what they do as those two are at what they do, except Trout.  Not even Calhoun gets us those packages, because shut down arms in the pen are at a premium at the deadline.  Go ahead and pretend you know they could have gotten more for Kole or Simmons, but it simply isn't true it's at best speculative.

[Stradling]

3 minutes ago, beatlesrule said:

Chapman is a rental. Miller has 1 more year I believe. Escobar is cheap for 1 more year, Calhoun, Shoe and Santiago are under control. Calhoun and escobar are everyday players.  Shoe and Hector are starting pitchers. Three of them are younger than Chapman and Miller. Those four would have definitely gotten you better players.

No

[Lou]

2 hours ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

Of course not, that would be stupid.

That being said, thanks to "autopsy" on HBO I now accuse people of murder whenever their aunt dies "naturally".

I won't invite a stranger into my roach-infested motel room whenever i'm in Louisville or Memphis, thanks to The First 48.

Don't even get me started on the Pork 'n Beans in Miami 

[Docwaukee]

44 minutes ago, Lou said:

Did you mean to say: " i THINK it MAY HAVE BEEN a collection of prospects..."

you undoubtedly know better than I do, so which contending teams could you have seen trading for Santiago? 

The word 'collection' was used in the very loose sense as in anywhere from 1-3 players .... or so.  

I liked him for Detroit, Miami and the Dodgers.  

I guess my biggest hangup on this is my own perception that the target was a major league ready player.  Which certainly changes the dynamic of what you can get.  

[Oz27]

3 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Ok so who could we have traded that would have given us that type of return?  I'll tell you who, Mike Trout.  Nice list for you there.  That's the entire list.  The Yankees aren't good but they had two of the very best bullpen arms in the business.  We have no one that is as good at what they do as those two are at what they do, except Trout.  Not even Calhoun gets us those packages, because shut down arms in the pen are at a premium at the deadline.  Go ahead and pretend you know they could have gotten more for Kole or Simmons, but it simply isn't true it's at best speculative.

Calhoun, Simmons, Shoemaker, Escobar, Bedrosian, Skaggs etc all have value. Those guys, minus Skaggs and Escobar, actually have pretty huge value.

[Lou]

15 minutes ago, Oz27 said:

The Yankees were smart enough to realize their chances of short-term success were low enough that they should make a significant sacrifice now to be much better in the long run - and they did an incredible job of that. We, on the other hand, did not.

They traded players that a lot if players were drooling over. It doesn't even begin to compare with our situation.

[Oz27]

Just now, Lou said:

They traded players that a lot if players were drooling over. It doesn't even begin to compare with our situation.

We had plenty of valuable assets we chose not to sell.

[beatlesrule]

I already gave you the list. I named four players that could have gotten it done.   It doesn't matter though because our owner is delusional and it's criminal that he's wasting Trout.  Let's not forget his love for 10-22.

[Stradling]

4 minutes ago, Oz27 said:

Calhoun, Simmons, Shoemaker, Escobar, Bedrosian, Skaggs etc all have value. Those guys, minus Skaggs and Escobar, actually have pretty huge value.

None of them have the value at the deadline as Miller and Chapman.  

[beatlesrule]

2 minutes ago, Stradling said:

None of them have the value at the deadline as Miller and Chapman.  

 I already went over why they are actually more valuable but it doesn't really matter because they didn't get traded and the Angels weren't trying to get what Cashman got.

By the way, look at the prospects that Cashman traded to get Chapman and then look at the prospects he got in return for Chapman.