Pick a trade

[Stradling]

Ok, if you could trade for a starter and you have these three options which do you take.  In this exercise the player mentioned is the key component and the rest of the acquisition cost is low minor league depth and we will assume the same for each guy.  

La Stella for Samardzija and cash
Rengifo for Boyd
Fletcher for Gray

Samargzija had a good year last year, but is older and only one year of control.  
Boyd is good but not great and would be a bit of a project and 3 years of control.  
Gray is the best and 2 years of control.  

Let me know what you would do and why.

[Stradling]

I think I go with option one, the La Stella trade. One year of control for one year of control. 

[tdawg87]

Out of those, the 2nd one. Rengifo has nowhere to play but benchth. 

[Stradling]

1 minute ago, tdawg87 said:

Out of those, the 2nd one. Rengifo has nowhere to play but benchth. 

Yes this year but with Simmons status up in the air, keeping him is something to consider. 

[Justin]

Fletcher for Gray. I would miss Fletcher but I have been hoping for the Angels to acquire Gray for the last month. 

[floplag]

Absolutely 100% #1, year of control for year of control.
WE get someone to slot in at #1 AND we retain young tradable assets for possible deadline deals for an actual ace that isnt a project. 
Its win win.
I do that yesterday.

[totdprods]

Torn between #2 and #3.

I like Samardzija but like La Stella for this team too. I’d rather flip them a middling prospect or Goodwin or someone like Peters. 

Rengifo is fairly expendable and I like the idea of cashing in CJ Cron for an arm of Boyd’s quality, cost, and control. It’s a smart move.

Gray is so damn appealing though. Fletcher is a big price to pay but if he’s the main piece for an arm of Gray’s caliber it’s kind of a no-brainer. 

To me, it *would* come down to the other names involved in the Boyd or Fletcher deals to decide. Also, not sure Colorado has much need for a 2B. 

[Angel Oracle]

I’m not necessarily in favor of any of the three.

LaStella would supply much needed hitting at 1B.   Samardzjia is up and down, more down.

Boyd gives up waaay too many fly balls (nearly 2.0 career FB/GB ratio).

Gray would be great, but Fletcher has a solid chance at being a 3.0 WAR player soon.   Plus the Rockies don’t need an INF, and I don’t want to trade Marsh.

Just take the risk on a one year deal for Alex Wood, hoping that like with Vlad, the back issues disappear.

Edited January 4, 2020 by Angel Oracle

[BackUpTheTruck]

Boyd.

238 strikeouts last year, 3 years of control.

It worries me that Gray pitches better at Coors Field than on the road. Samardzija would be less valuable to the team than La Stella IMO.

[angelsnationtalk]

I agree with the masses of one year of Jeff or one year of Tommy. 
My second option would be Rengifo for Boyd in a heartbeat. The Tigers asked for Marsh so i'd be shocked if they suddenly took just Rengifo.

Let's try this:
La Stella for Samardzija and cash
Rengifo and Adams for Boyd
Fletcher for Gray

Pick one

[Dtwncbad]

I legitimately apologize for not following your premise of just choosing from your choices.

But my answer is. . . The Angels have better trade pieces than the names you put out there, so I reject those specific trades and instead pursue what I can get for Marsh AND one or two of the names you mentioned.

[Stradling]

16 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

I legitimately apologize for not following your premise of just choosing from your choices.

But my answer is. . . The Angels have better trade pieces than the names you put out there, so I reject those specific trades and instead pursue what I can get for Marsh AND one or two of the names you mentioned.

Ok please list players we’ve heard that are possibly available and I’ll vote on your list of trade possibilities.  

[Second Base]

- La Stella can be traded, I do believe that. Samardzija doesn't have the upside you want but brings the innings. The problem is, the Angels already have that in Teheran and Bundy. So I'd have to go with no on this one.

- Rengifo has nowhere to play, but Matt Boyd simply isn't that good. Middling fastball, great breaking ball, so-so change up. I don't see him being successful. But since Rengifo has nowhere to play, I'm kind of meh on this year.

- Jon Gray is the exact sort of starter this team needs. The problem is, David Fletcher is also the exact sort of player this team needs. Young, inexpensive, plays anywhere, great defense, aggressive runner, great contact hitter. Pesky. And he legitimately loves baseball and this organization. I mean he gave up #6 and showed up to Rendon's press conference pumped up and cheering like a fan. Intangibles aside, do I believe Rengifo could replace Fletcher? Yes. But the intangibles are the reason I don't make this trade.

-------

So if I had to choose one, it'd be Rengifo for Boyd. Again, not because it's a good trade. Simply because it replaces a positionally expendable player for a positionally valuable player. 

[BTH]

Option 2: Rengifo for Boyd.

[ksangel]

Option 2 but switch Ward for Rengifo since Tigers signed Schoop to play 2B.

Tigers don't really have a 3B so possibly Ward could fill that hole. Probably Ward's not enough for Boyd so add William Holmes (from Detroit).

See Rengifo replacing LaStella in 2021 and as 2020 infield depth stashed at in AAA in 2020. 

Boyd's another Bundy/Teheran but pushes Sandoval to AAA as needed depth

Ohtani, Boyd, Bundy, Heaney, Teheran and Canning as rotation.

[Lou]

if we trade Rengifo, we better extend Simmons 

[wopphil]

Great thread Strad.

Hard call for me. I probably go option 3, because I like Gray the most, but parting with Fletcher would be the hardest. Option 2 is good because it is easier to part with Rengifo, and Boyd has 3 years of control. But I don't know if Boyd has Gray's upside.

I really can't decide between 2 and 3. Probably 3.

[tdawg87]

If someone wants Rengifo we should probably be willing to give him up because he's our backup infielder.

[Glen]

Probably #2, but since you asked a specific question with established parameters, let me now modify it...

Just kidding.  I hate that shit.  

[floplag]

Just to add to the above, One of the biggest reasons i chose the Samardzija option is that it takes the desperation away.   

Yes, we need a better options at the top of the rotation, but honestly, aside from what would likely be bad or unbalanced trades, it would seem that time has gone.  Boyd, Gray, many others... these are not guarantees, have issues or concerns, or are projects... and are going to hurt cost wise.   Its simply too big a risk in my opinion.

I see Samardzija as a potential 2 for 1 deal... we make that move now for what is an expendable part and retain options for moves in season that could land a Stroman or someone like that who is not available now, over the myriad of question marks who are.

If i had my choice thats exactly the kind of deal we make now to take the pressure off, and keep our options open.  If we make a deal for a Boyd or Gray and they dont work out, were toast.

[Stradling]

2 minutes ago, floplag said:

Just to add to the above, One of the biggest reasons i chose the Samardzija option is that it takes the desperation away.   

Yes, we need a better options at the top of the rotation, but honestly, aside from what would likely be bad or unbalanced trades, it would seem that time has gone.  Boyd, Gray, many others... these are not guarantees, have issues or concerns, or are projects... and are going to hurt cost wise.   Its simply too big a risk in my opinion.

I see Samardzija as a potential 2 for 1 deal... we make that move now for what is an expendable part and retain options for moves in season that could land a Stroman or someone like that who is not available now, over the myriad of question marks who are.

If i had my choice thats exactly the kind of deal we make now to take the pressure off, and keep our options open.  If we make a deal for a Boyd or Gray and they dont work out, were toast.

Yea, the reason I chose these trade ideas is none of them are desperate.  Losing any of these guys isn’t going to have a long term affect on the team.  If you lost Fletcher it would absolutely sting, but he’s never going to be amazing, just a very useful part.  We would be bringing in other very useful parts that even if they weren’t the saviors (which they aren’t) they would be solid starting pitchers.  

[Dtwncbad]

11 hours ago, Stradling said:

Ok please list players we’ve heard that are possibly available and I’ll vote on your list of trade possibilities.  

I don’t know who is available.  None of us do.  I am just saying I don’t think the trades you mention really accomplish what needs to be accomplished.  So I would not want to make one of these trades and then end up with one or two fewer trade piece I could have used to get a better pitcher.

I don’t think voting “none of the above” is out of bounds, if I am explaining clearly that I don’t think these trades you list, in my opinion, get the Angels what I think they need.

Warren Buffet just passed on buying the jeweler Tiffany’s.  He is sitting on a record amount of cash with massive buying power.  He is fine holding on to all of his buying power and waiting for something that is a better fit, and nobody is asking him to specifically name what company he is buying instead right now to explain why he is passing on Tiffany’s.

Edited January 4, 2020 by Dtwncbad

[floplag]

7 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Yea, the reason I chose these trade ideas is none of them are desperate.  Losing any of these guys isn’t going to have a long term affect on the team.  If you lost Fletcher it would absolutely sting, but he’s never going to be amazing, just a very useful part.  We would be bringing in other very useful parts that even if they weren’t the saviors (which they aren’t) they would be solid starting pitchers.  

Perhaps, I guess that depends on how you qualify it.  If the idea is that we must make a deal NOW, they look much more desperate to me.
 

[Stradling]

5 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

I don’t know who is available.  None of us do.  I am just saying I don’t think the trades you mention really accomplish what needs to be accomplished.  So I would not want to make one of these trades and then end up with one or two fewer trade piece I could have used to get a better pitcher.

I don’t think voting “none of the above” is out of bounds, if I am explaining clearly that I don’t think these trades you list, in my opinion, get the Angels what I think they need.

Warren Buffet just passed on buying the jeweler Tiffany’s.  He is sitting on a record amount of cash with massive buying power.  He is fine holding on to all of his buying power and waiting for something that is a better fit, and nobody is asking him to specifically name what company he is buying instead right now to explain why he is passing on Tiffany’s.

I missed the Warren Buffet/Tiffany’s thread.  Link?

[Dtwncbad]

14 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Yea, the reason I chose these trade ideas is none of them are desperate.  Losing any of these guys isn’t going to have a long term affect on the team.  If you lost Fletcher it would absolutely sting, but he’s never going to be amazing, just a very useful part.  We would be bringing in other very useful parts that even if they weren’t the saviors (which they aren’t) they would be solid starting pitchers.  

By the way, I think you have put together some fair trades.  I thought Shark would have been a smart play for depth behind a true front line starter.  But I don’t really want to trade more players now to get him after already getting other depth.