Willing to trade Canning?

[Dtwncbad]

He is without a doubt the best pitching prospect the Angels have, and the most valuable pitching prospect the Angels have in terms of trade value.

I think this guy has a great future.  But, we really don't know his ceiling.  Some say #3 and some say borderline #1.

My question is. . .would it be wise or foolish to trade him in a package to land a proven young starter with years of control?

It is hard to trade your "crown jewel" pitching prospect but is our possessive emotional attachment to him simply due to scarcity in the system, where he is overvalued?

Is it possible we are all coveting this guy because to some degree he stands alone in the system?

He is listed at 6'1".  That almost certainly means he is no taller than 6'.  A right handed pitcher with a modest frame at best that throws in the low 90s.  The control is there, but doesn't this really pencil out as "reliable mid-rotation" guy?

He is no doubt my favorite Angel pitching prospect but is that partly just by default?

My heart says "Keep him!"

My brain says "Probably the correct body to move for the rigjt player in return."

So I am not going to be upset if he gets traded in a package for a proven #2 or better that is controllable for multiple years.

How about you?

 

[Tank]

No, not at all right now.

we need quality pitchers and he looks to fit that bill.

[Dtwncbad]

3 minutes ago, Tank said:

No, not at all right now.

we need quality pitchers and he looks to fit that bill.

How do you view him? Future #3ish or future #1ish?

And tell me what year does he reach that level?

Does he get hammered his first year in the majors?

[jordan]

I’m not as familiar with the scouting report or potential of the minor leaguers like many of you, but I would say that if the Angels can get a #3 at league minimum for several years, that opens up money for other spots. If Canning can bring that, then I say we keep him. 

[UndertheHalo]

He appears to be a safe bet to be a strong mid rotation starter.  Definitely upside to be better then that. He’s extremely valuable to the Angels obviously because of the talent but also because he’s cost controlled.  They should not trade him unless they’re getting a long term asset back. 

Edited November 25, 2018 by UndertheHalo

[Dtwncbad]

Let's say Canning's first year is a little rough as he cuts his teeth in the majors.

Then he delivers #3 level production for three years.  Then is a #2/#3 guy for the last two years of control.

Would you trade that for say 3 years of #2 production? (I know it would cost more than Canning alone).

Keep in mind that by that time Canning is settled in and delivering his best numbers he is going to be warning arbitration numbers, just like an acquired player would be.

[Stradling]

In a package for a very good #2 with 3 plus years of control, I might consider it.  Would I do it for an oft injured dude with upside, probably not.  Would I do it for 2 years of an expensive guy, probably not.  If we come up to the trade deadline and we are killing it, would I consider trading him in a package for a guy like DeGrom with only 1.5 years of control, probably. 

[totdprods]

To me, it's actually a pretty simple decision.

If the Angels are really determined to make the playoffs and compete for a WS in '19 and '20 while Trout is guaranteed to be here, you move him if necessary if it brings in a frontline SP for those years. 

If the Angels are more inclined to just be good enough to be in the WC mix, make do with stopgaps and hope to get lucky, and are more concerned about building a strong team in a potential post-Trout world, you keep him, and round the rotation with guys like Sonny Gray and Gio Gonzalez. 

Canning might be close to MLB-ready, but there's still no guarantee he will produce right away. He didn't exactly light up AAA, and by all accounts, his ceiling is still that of a #2-#3. Even if he does contribute to the MLB club in '19, will it be that level? More realistically, he pitches like a #4 at best the first year or two, maybe with flashes of brilliance, maybe a AAA trip or two. Either way, it isn't likely that his contribution pushes the team to a WS title, whereas someone like Kluber or deGrom would. Trevor Bauer needed several seasons before he put it all together, so we would be foolish to think Canning is going to make a dramatic difference for the next two years.

It's kind of easy to forget, but the Angels are sitting on some lower-level arms that do profile to have high ceilings - Rodriguez, Soriano, possibly Yan, and Molina and Aquino - and Bradish, Hernandez, and most of last year's draft still to enter the system. A big season on the pitching front on the farm like what we saw from the hitters this season could change the complexion of our pitching depth in trades entirely. 

I also imagine that rival clubs are probably also considering that leap of progress the Angels made too. Who knows which clubs undervalued Adell, Jones, Ward, Suarez in trade discussions a year or two ago and are now wondering if they missed out on something special. That may lead them to be a little quicker to bite this time around. They also see the progress we're making.

[tdawg87]

I'd feel a little nervous if a team was willing to give up 2-3 years of control of a guy like Kluber for Canning. 

I'd rather sell high on Skaggs. 

[totdprods]

16 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

I'd feel a little nervous if a team was willing to give up 2-3 years of control of a guy like Kluber for Canning. 

I'd rather sell high on Skaggs. 

For a team like Cleveland that is operating on something of a budget, has a dearth of strong pitching already, and really doesn't have much competition in the immediate future, it makes a ton of sense to get some value back right now for a pitcher like Kluber or Carrasco and save the money. They've gotten plenty of fantastic production and value from them over the years, no sense not cashing in now before anything goes wrong...and that doesn't necessarily imply anything will go wrong either. They're just cashing out now while they're in the lead and it's completely safe. 

Agree on Skaggs. Only two years of control left, no guarantee the Angels can maximize on those years, and he showed more than enough promise last year for a team like Atlanta, NYY, Houston, Philly, or the Dodgers to see him as a great add in the middle of their rotation. If he pitches at his ceiling, they look like geniuses. If he continues to have durability issues, they have the SP prospects to mitigate that. If he just eats innings, they still have other guys at the top. The Angels can redirect those millions into someone maybe less upside, but more reliability, and perhaps even use him as a driver to deal Calhoun's salary too, if they're really looking to clear some dough.

[Second Base]

I wouldn't trade Canning. He's just so much better than fans even realize right now. The fastball, curve and change up are all plus pitches and the kid knows how to pitch. He's very "cerebral". Some folks would trade him for a mid rotation starter with a couple years of control, but I think he's already capable of being a mid-rotation starter with six years of control. 

[Blarg]

19 minutes ago, Second Base said:

I wouldn't trade Acnning.

I agree.

[Dtwncbad]

19 minutes ago, Second Base said:

I wouldn't trade Acnning. He's just so much better than fans even realize right now. The fastball, curve and change up are all plus pitches and the kid knows how to pitch. He's very "cerebral". Som folks would trade him for a mid rotation starter with a couple years of control, but I think he's already capable of being a mid-rotation starter with six years of control. 

I have not heard one fan say they would trade Canniing for a mid rotation starter.

[AngelsLakersFan]

I don't really see a reason to trade him. He'll probably be contributing in some way sometime this year, he has 6 years of control and is exactly what this team needs. Whether or not he's a solid 3 or a true 1 doesn't really matter in this context since we need both. Trading him is just taking on unnecessary risk.

[floplag]

How we view him isnt the issue, frankly even most GMs dont know every prospects on other clubs, they go off scouts reports.  These scouts are those who get paid to do this, to project how these guys look and where they might eventually slot.

Canning to my knowledge nowhere ive read projects to be an ace.  Most ive seen at most suggest good mid to upper rotation  guy.  Not great, but good.  If someone has seen anything other than that id like to read it.  As i recall he was somewhere in the bottom 50 of the top 100.

Are there  players i would trade him for, yes, but a mid rotation guy isnt one of them.  If im going to lose my top pitching prospect, it has to be for an obvious upgrade that is higher than he himself projects. 

Obviously this would mean intending to win sooner than he would be ready, otherwise these is no point to making the trade at all.

[Second Base]

16 minutes ago, Blarg said:

I agree.

My new tablet is giving me fits right now. 

[Second Base]

16 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

I have not heard one fan say they would trade Canniing for a mid rotation starter.

 

3 hours ago, jordan said:

I’m not as familiar with the scouting report or potential of the minor leaguers like many of you, but I would say that if the Angels can get a #3 at league minimum for several years, that opens up money for other spots. If Canning can bring that, then I say we keep him. 

I was going to quote @Stradling but I misread his post.  I thought he said 2 years of a #3, now i realize he said 3 years of a #2. 

[eligrba4ever]

The Angels ran nearly 40 different pitchers into MLB games in 2018. Teams with that difficulty don't go around unloading young arms that offer even a hint of strong MLB productivity.

[ettin]

I think the Angels are more likely to keep Canning due to his cheap long-term control and the fact that they need to replace Shoemaker at some point, probably after this season, as his arbitration salary will likely increase if he pitches even a modicum of innings in 2019, forcing the Angels from a budgetary standpoint to move him and fill his spot in the rotation (with Canning presumably).

[Stradling]

29 minutes ago, Second Base said:

 

I was going to quote @Stradling but I misread his post.  I thought he said 2 years of a #3, now i realize he said 3 years of a #2. 

I agree, I’m smart, and not a coward.  

[Lou]

1 hour ago, Second Base said:

He's very "cerebral"

of course he is 

[ten ocho recon scout]

2 hours ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

I don't really see a reason to trade him. He'll probably be contributing in some way sometime this year, he has 6 years of control and is exactly what this team needs. Whether or not he's a solid 3 or a true 1 doesn't really matter in this context since we need both. Trading him is just taking on unnecessary risk.

Right there towards the end is key. We need multiple pitchers right now and going forward. If we make no moves this winter, were still looking at skaggs at heaney being free agents in the not too distant future.

Canning and suarez are the only two names i know in the minors who are close and project well. I dont think we should be trading either.

[tdawg87]

3 minutes ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

Right there towards the end is key. We need multiple pitchers right now and going forward. If we make no moves this winter, were still looking at skaggs at heaney being free agents in the not too distant future.

Canning and suarez are the only two names i know in the minors who are close and project well. I dont think we should be trading either.

Sandoval but your point stands.

[Tank]

6 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

How do you view him? Future #3ish or future #1ish?

And tell me what year does he reach that level?

Does he get hammered his first year in the majors?

I see him as a #2/3.

i think he's there within three years.

the first year will have its normal amount of adjustments for a rookie learning major league hitters. 

Ive been keeping tabs on him here with everyone else. Would like to see him pitch in person.

[Vlad27Trout27]

I would not trade Canning, there is too much upside here and cheap control. We are looking at a guy with a 60 Fb, 60 on both change and curve, while having really good command.