A bird in hand is worth. . .

[floplag]

32 minutes ago, The Boogie Man said:

Maybe it’s a six game difference, but highly doubtful.   The problem I have is what he did worked last year and didn’t work this year.  But pretending that signing free agents for the pen solves it is just not real life.   You can say, well at least they tried, but trying is expensive if you fail.   Bottom line is they have to develop those guys.  I’d be fine with a trade for Hand or Iglesias or one of the young guys in Miami.  It just makes more sense to get those guys when the prospect cost is less.  

There is literally zero way you can know that, you assume it, just as i do the other side.   I grant that most of the guys we could have gotten havent had stellar seasons, but that doesnt mean they would have done the same here.  We'll never know for sure, but the one thing we do know that we didnt make that effort.  Yes, i think that matters. 
You cant just develop everyone, especially when drafting in the bottom third of the draft as we have been.  There needs to be a mix of both.  
It doesnt really matter whats done is done at this point, its clear Epp isnt going to do squat till the deadline, and unlikely that the team improve enough for him to feel anything necessary considering weve lost ground so far in this critical stretch.  If we dont take at least 4 of these next 6 vs Sea and do the same against the Dogs, were likely sellers. 

[Angelsjunky]

54 minutes ago, True Grich said:

March 23, 2000, Stoneman sent Jim Edmonds to the Cardinals for second baseman Adam Kennedy and starting pitcher Kent Bottenfield.  One of his rare moves.  LINK

 

And a bad one. I know Kennedy was a major part of 2002, but Edmonds went on to be one of the best players in baseball. Consider their WAR after the trade:

Edmonds: 45, 42.8 for Cardinals

Kennedy: 18, 15 for Angels

Bottenfeld: 0.4, 0.3 for Angels

Ouch.

[WeatherWonk]

I wasn't sure where that post was going either. 

We have traded away some good ones too. Segura and Newcomb come to mind. But not very many, actually. We just haven't seemed to generate that many good young players in the last five to seven years. Seems like it's getting better though.

[Angelsjunky]

As for the OP, I don't fully disagree and while I am far closer to Stoneman than I am Dipoto, I also realize that there is such a thing as overly hoarding and missed opportunities (e.g. Miguel Cabrera).

But who to you propose trading? Most of the Angels prospects that are worth trading are either too valuable to the near future of the team (Canning, Suarez, Thaiss), not yet at their peak value in terms of trade (Jones, Rengifo, Marsh, Adell, etc), or way too young and we don't know how good they'll be (Deveaux, Adams, Jackson, Knowles, Soriano, etc).

I suppose they could trade players like Hermosillo, Fletcher, Fernandez, Ward, Walsh, Rivas, etc...but even a lot of these guys have good value for the team in the near future.

In the end it all comes down to what the Angels need vs. what they have in excess. They need relievers and maybe some offense. Their rotation is pretty good going forward, especially with Canning and Suarez on the verge. For trade capital they have some fairly good prospects and, of course, Garret Rchards (if he's heathy). I suppose Kinsler has a bit of value, but probably only for a salary dump and second tier prospect.

Given that we're probably not looking to patch holes for a playoff run, you only go after relievers like Brad Hand, but he's going to be very expensive and the Angels will almost certainly be outbid by a legit playoff contender like the Red Sox. Probably better just to wait until the postseason and build a bullpen with the money freed up by Kinsler, Valbuena, etc departing.

The point being, easier said than done. We can't assume the Simmons trade is the new norm, and don't forget that cost the Angels a very good young pitcher in Newcomb.

[ten ocho recon scout]

7 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

And a bad one. I know Kennedy was a major part of 2002, but Edmonds went on to be one of the best players in baseball. Consider their WAR after the trade:

Edmonds: 45, 42.8 for Cardinals

Kennedy: 18, 15 for Angels

Bottenfeld: 0.4, 0.3 for Angels

Ouch.

To be fair (and it was a horrible deal), we cant really look at what they did career wise qfter, simply because edmonds was a FA at the end of that year anyway. Maybe he left?

And i wouldnt be suprised if he was helped by mcgwire...not accusing, just wouldnt shock me.

[Angelsjunky]

1 minute ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

To be fair (and it was a horrible deal), we cant really look at what they did career wise qfter, simply because edmonds was a FA at the end of that year anyway. Maybe he left?

And i wouldnt be suprised if he was helped by mcgwire...not accusing, just wouldnt shock me.

Yeah, I know. He was a very good player for the Angels but became a truly great one for the Cardinals. 

And let's be honest: probably most players in the 90s to mid-00s were juicing.

[Mark68]

Relievers are fungible. However, there are exceptions to the rule.

Brad Hand is an exception (he's proven to be successful over multiple years). Craig Kimbrel might end up challenging Mariano as the most successful reliever of all time. 

The challenge is to find the non-fungible ones. But they aren't THAT hard to find. 

 

Some of them won't cost a lot. Some of them will cost only money (Kimbrel this offseason).

[AngelsFaninGA]

The reason why there's a hoarding mentality is because our farm system is better than it has been for many years. This is the first time in a while that we can get excited about everyone in our top 10-15. Obviously they won't all turn into major league regulars but we shouldn't be using past trades as a barometer. 

[Torridd]

25 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

And a bad one. I know Kennedy was a major part of 2002, but Edmonds went on to be one of the best players in baseball. Consider their WAR after the trade:

Edmonds: 45, 42.8 for Cardinals

Kennedy: 18, 15 for Angels

Bottenfeld: 0.4, 0.3 for Angels

Ouch.

The question is do we win the World Series without Kennedy?

[Torridd]

10 minutes ago, AngelsFaninGA said:

The reason why there's a hoarding mentality is because our farm system is better than it has been for many years. This is the first time in a while that we can get excited about everyone in our top 10-15. Obviously they won't all turn into major league regulars but we shouldn't be using past trades as a barometer. 

Why not? Why is this different from Wood, MacPherson, etc.?

[Angel Oracle]

1 hour ago, Angelsjunky said:

And a bad one. I know Kennedy was a major part of 2002, but Edmonds went on to be one of the best players in baseball. Consider their WAR after the trade:

Edmonds: 45, 42.8 for Cardinals

Kennedy: 18, 15 for Angels

Bottenfeld: 0.4, 0.3 for Angels

Ouch.

Stoneman was conned into thinking that Bottomfield was anything.   He had HALF of a solid 1999 season, and then tanked after that; and was never much otherwise before that.

That said, Edmonds had become a divider in the clubhouse; and AK did contribute a lot here, especially in 2002 (7th in AL batting and ALCS game 5).

[m0nkey]

I thought this thread was going to be about Brad Hand.  Another "Chase for Chase" thread

[Dtwncbad]

1 hour ago, AngelsFaninGA said:

The reason why there's a hoarding mentality is because our farm system is better than it has been for many years. This is the first time in a while that we can get excited about everyone in our top 10-15. Obviously they won't all turn into major league regulars but we shouldn't be using past trades as a barometer. 

I am definitely not excited about all these guys in the top 15.  I think like maybe 3 will be better than average mlb players.

Having replacement bodies is very important to get through injuries, etc.  But I dont want the 2020 Angel lineup to be loaded with these specific players.  It will be a .500 team.  There are not enough premium players.

 

[Inside Pitch]

7 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

Peter Bourjos is again looking for a job after failing again at the major leafye level.

Bourjos is very good example of a guy most Angel fans probably thought would more than adequately fill an everyday role for the Angels.

The Angels have impressively restocked the farm over the last couple if years, but it is important to acknowledge that it is likely that many of the prospects will not end up productive major leaguers.

There are a couple of bodies that are just too athletic with high ceilings to trade away.

But the overwhelming majority of Angels top 20 prospects are a roll of the dice.

I would absolutely welcome packaging some of the gamble prospects for "a bird in the hand" proven everyday regular that is an above average contributor.

I know the Angels are not really in it this year but if at the trade deadline they can acquire someone they can count on beyond 2018, they should do it.

There was no value in hoarding Wood, Kotchman, Greene. . .

This is a good topic that will likely continue to be a conversation as the farm continues improving.

I understand the point you're making but Bourjos is a poor example of someone that was held on to given he was traded along with an actual prospect for a mediocre 3Bman and Fernando Salas (Grichuk) -- it's also worth pointing out that part of the reason they moved him was a dude named Josh Hamilton.  It's hard to argue they wouldn't have been better off keeping PB and never having wasted their time with Hamilton.   More on topic... the hoarding you speak of meant that when Wood flamed out, Erick Aybar was still there -- it also meant they had Alexi Amarista, Alexi Casilla, and Alberto Callaspo, all of whom were traded away to try to help the MLB team.  They kept two and traded away three of what had been 5 Shortstops in the system.  Like Bourjos, Kotchman was actually traded in a go for it now deal -- but again, the hoarding meant that Trumbo and Morales were both in place when they came up empty in 09 and Teixeira went to NYC that winter.  Todd Greene was a long time ago and it's hard to argue with the success of that generation of Angels prospects -- Salmon, Edmonds, Anderson, Glaus, Erstad....   If Greene is an example of a missed opportunity then the others all serve as examples of why building from with within should be the ultimate goal.... 

IMO...  based on what we have seen, I doubt Eppler is against using his farm to upgrade the major league roster.  We have seen him spend prospect currency in both the Simmons and Upton deals, less so in the Kinsler trade.  My frustration is less about them not making trades than it is about them failing to jettison certain players in favor of those guys that could possibly help.

 

Edited July 3, 2018 by Inside Pitch

[Griffey's Corner]

1 hour ago, Mark68 said:

Relievers are fungible. However, there are exceptions to the rule.

Brad Hand is an exception (he's proven to be successful over multiple years). Craig Kimbrel might end up challenging Mariano as the most successful reliever of all time. 

The challenge is to find the non-fungible ones. But they aren't THAT hard to find. 

 

Some of them won't cost a lot. Some of them will cost only money (Kimbrel this offseason).

Hand has a career ERA of 3.85.... all of that in the NL with no DH. His ONLY good years have been with the Padres at Petco..... the most pitcher friendly park in baseball. The DH alone would cause his ERA to rise from half to a full run.

 

Sounds like a poor man's Huston Street. I would not give jack sh... for him. For the reading comprehension impaired.... let me clarify and say that I would give up very little for him.

[Inside Pitch]

15 minutes ago, Griffey's Corner said:

Hand has a career ERA of 3.85.... all of that in the NL with no DH. His ONLY good years have been with the Padres at Petco..... the most pitcher friendly park in baseball. The DH alone would cause his ERA to rise from half to a full run.

Sounds like a poor man's Huston Street. I would not give jack sh... for him. For the reading comprehension impaired.... let me clarify and say that I would give up very little for him.

I'm not one that sees Hand as the answer to everything hurting this team but you're offbase with with a few things. 

Petco isn't close to the most pitcher friendly park in MLB, not since they redid the OF dimensions and certainly not in any of the three years he's been a Padre.  His first year in SD, Petco ranked 12th in most runs scored, this year it ranks as the 5th best.   Also pointing to his ERA ignores that prior to becoming a Padre he was still being used as a SP -- which he proved he couldn't handle.   The move to the pen saw his K/9 rate double... that alone essentially changed who he was and none of which could be attributed to any park effects even if there had been any (there aren't).   

He's a world better than his career ERA and any argument that starts with raw ERA is blind to facts.

Edited July 3, 2018 by Inside Pitch

[tdawg87]

12 minutes ago, Griffey's Corner said:

Hand has a career ERA of 3.85.... all of that in the NL with no DH. His ONLY good years have been with the Padres at Petco..... the most pitcher friendly park in baseball. The DH alone would cause his ERA to rise from half to a full run.

 

Sounds like a poor man's Huston Street. I would not give jack sh... for him. For the reading comprehension impaired.... let me clarify and say that I would give up very little for him.

His ERA+ with SD is 153, which is excellent. His peripherals are also quite good. 

I agree with IP that he's not "the answer" but he would unquestionably help this bullpen. 

[eligrba4ever]

A bird in the hand is worth ... ??

It depends on the mess it leaves behind when it flits away. It is a bird, after all. And it could get messy.

[floplag]

3 hours ago, AngelsFaninGA said:

The reason why there's a hoarding mentality is because our farm system is better than it has been for many years. This is the first time in a while that we can get excited about everyone in our top 10-15. Obviously they won't all turn into major league regulars but we shouldn't be using past trades as a barometer. 

it isnt even past trades that the determining factor, its past drafts and more importantly draft positions.

Past trades are an issue, yes, but honestly, how many would anyone want back right now, one (Segura), anyone else?    How many guys have we traded away that went on to be anything more than an average replaceable player.   Now, how many did we refuse to trade that failed to even become average regulars?  Compare that ratio, you have a pretty clear picture of what happens when you over value prospects.
  
Everyone talks about the Hou / Chi model, but lets remember, they were drafting top 10 guys, we are not.   if they got 5 or 6 quality MLers from a decade of drafting in the top 5-10, how many are we going to get from drafting somewhere in the bottom third?   Its not an apples to apples discussion when you are talking about top 20 overall prospects versus top 100, all prospects are not created equal.  AS people here are so quick to point out regarding otehr possible trade scenarios, our top 10 guys are not the same as other orgs top 10 guys.

Out of our entire top 15, how many are projected to be anything more than average major leaguers?    Im not counting Barria or Fletcher in that as to me they are here to stay at this point.   Of whats left on the farm, who would you put in that list?  i can think of maybe 4 that i actually have hopes of being more than replacement level.  

[ten ocho recon scout]

3 hours ago, Torridd said:

The question is do we win the World Series without Kennedy?

Of we acquired a capable 2B, yes. I loved AK. Actually know him in "real life". He was great, and a mainstay Angel for years. But i dont think he was a lynchpin to the WS team. Gil probably played as much, just didnt have the big game vs twins.

[Stradling]

2 minutes ago, floplag said:

it isnt even past trades that the determining factor, its past drafts and more importantly draft positions.

Past trades are an issue, yes, but honestly, how many would anyone want back right now, one (Segura), anyone else?    How many guys have we traded away that went on to be anything more than an average replaceable player.   Now, how many did we refuse to trade that failed to even become average regulars?  Compare that ratio, you have a pretty clear picture of what happens when you over value prospects.
  
Everyone talks about the Hou / Chi model, but lets remember, they were drafting top 10 guys, we are not.   if they got 5 or 6 quality MLers from a decade of drafting in the top 5-10, how many are we going to get from drafting somewhere in the bottom third?   Its not an apples to apples discussion when you are talking about top 20 overall prospects versus top 100, all prospects are not created equal.  AS people here are so quick to point out regarding otehr possible trade scenarios, our top 10 guys are not the same as other orgs top 10 guys.

Out of our entire top 15, how many are projected to be anything more than average major leaguers?    Im not counting Barria or Fletcher in that as to me they are here to stay at this point.   Of whats left on the farm, who would you put in that list?  i can think of maybe 4 that i actually have hopes of being more than replacement level.  

Last year we drafted Adell, he is now MLB.coms 13 ranked prospect in all of baseball.  He was drafted 10th.  We currently have 4 other guys, none of them drafted in the top ten, that are all in MLB.coms top 100.  So we have 5 of the top 100 prospects.  There is value to what Eppler is doing.  He is building a sustainable team, that when they have a need can call someone up instead of paying for it in free agency.  

Now if we want to go way back and complain we didn’t trade Brandon Wood or Mathis or Adenhart or McPherson, that is fine we can complain about that, but honestly if we traded them, it is no way close to guaranteed those players would still be here.  Brandon Wood was 8 or 9 years ago.  We haven’t had a farm good enough or ranked high enough to help the major league team.  

I have no idea what Marsh, Canning, Maitan, Adell, Suarez, Thiass, Fletcher, Ward, or any other guy will turn in to.  I just don’t know if trading them for relievers is the way to go.  Sure they may not pan out to be anything, but if we trade the wrong one for anything other than a long term player, I just think we are going the wrong way.  If it does work out, well then we can either create a team around Trout or we can survive his exit.  

[Tank]

8 hours ago, OHTANILAND said:

We’ve definitely seen our share leafye type players in 2018. 

cofevfe.

[arch stanton]

I think I’d rather wait until we’re truly a player or two away before trading away top 15 prospects unless it’s a Simmons like trade giving us an everyday player with 5 years of control 

[Inside Pitch]

12 minutes ago, floplag said:

How many guys have we traded away that went on to be anything more than an average replaceable player.   Now, how many did we refuse to trade that failed to even become average regulars?  Compare that ratio, you have a pretty clear picture of what happens when you over value prospects.

And both these scenarios fail to consider the value the team got out of keeping their players.   Salmon, Glaus, Molina, Shields, Erstad, Glaus, Edmonds, Anderson, Napoli, K-Rod, Kendrick, Aybar, Morales, Lackey, Weaver, Washburn, Percival, Trout were all home grown talents that essentially made for the core of the team for almost two decades.   How many of those guys were over-valued?   

17 minutes ago, floplag said:

Everyone talks about the Hou / Chi model, but lets remember, they were drafting top 10 guys, we are not.   if they got 5 or 6 quality MLers from a decade of drafting in the top 5-10, how many are we going to get from drafting somewhere in the bottom third?   Its not an apples to apples discussion when you are talking about top 20 overall prospects versus top 100, all prospects are not created equal. 

Is everyone really talking about the Hou/Chi model?  I ask because is there anyone that actually believes the Angels are following that model??   

But since you bring it up...  look at the names I mentioned above.   All of two of them were top 10 picks -- Glaus and Erstad.   Tim Salmon was a 3rd rounder.  Anderson a 4th.  Edmonds 7th.  Kendrick a 10th, Napoli 17th round, Molina went undrafted out of college.  Washburn was a 2nd rounder.  Lackey was a 2nd rounder.  Shields 28th round.  Percy 6th.  Trout 1st round (26th), Weaver 1st (12th.     The bulk of the Angels golden era came from players taken outside of the top 10.   The strength of the system was it's depth -- when first rounders like Kotchman, Wood, Mathis, failed to live up their draft status the guys picked behind them were able to fill those roles.   
 

36 minutes ago, floplag said:

Out of our entire top 15, how many are projected to be anything more than average major leaguers?    Im not counting Barria or Fletcher in that as to me they are here to stay at this point.   Of whats left on the farm, who would you put in that list?  i can think of maybe 4 that i actually have hopes of being more than replacement level.  

Forest for the trees time..   How much better would the Angels be right now with Major league average performances from 1B, 2B, 3B, RF, and the bullpen?   Players don't have to be superstars to be quality MLB players.   

I'm sure there are people here that are overvaluing our farm system, but let's not pretend everyone is delusional - there are many who are smart enough to understand that due to attrition, simply getting four MLB average players out of the top 20 would be considered a win for the farm system.  If one of them ends up being an all star level player it's a massive win.
 

[Inside Pitch]

32 minutes ago, The Boogie Man said:

Now if we want to go way back and complain we didn’t trade Brandon Wood or Mathis or Adenhart or McPherson, that is fine we can complain about that, but honestly if we traded them, it is no way close to guaranteed those players would still be here.  Brandon Wood was 8 or 9 years ago.  We haven’t had a farm good enough or ranked high enough to help the major league team.  

I have no idea what Marsh, Canning, Maitan, Adell, Suarez, Thiass, Fletcher, Ward, or any other guy will turn in to.  I just don’t know if trading them for relievers is the way to go.  Sure they may not pan out to be anything, but if we trade the wrong one for anything other than a long term player, I just think we are going the wrong way.  If it does work out, well then we can either create a team around Trout or we can survive his exit.  

As you have pointed out - the Angels greatest failing post Stoneman has been the lack of organizational currency.   This team is only now getting close to being where it was in 2007-8 depth wise.   It's a good topic and there are definitely two different mindsets of how to move forward, but I do hope whatever they do they don't set themselves back to try to improve their short term desires.