Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

Power-ranking the last 20 Angels trades


nate

Recommended Posts

`

Eh, like the author mentioned, these are hindsight and some looked good at the time....I wasn't around for the Wells trade but assume everyone hated it as much as me.

What's tough is those look bad and then you consider the opposite where we hung on to prospects and instead of possible great trades we had McPhearson and Wood or others that didn't pan out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or, to put it in different terms, what does the Angels' 2013 look like if they'd refused to make a trade since 2009? Chatwood and Corbin in the rotation. Santana in the rotation. Skaggs as depth in the minors. Morales DH'ing with Pujols on the shelf. Walden closing games instead of Frieri. Will Smith setting him up. Segura at shortstop. Mathis at catcher. Forget about that last one. It would have been a much, much better team. Good enough to complete with the Rangers and A's? Not sure about that. But a better team.

 

Be careful what you wish for, cause you just might get it.  Remember when we all bitched because Stoneman didn't make deadline deals?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No.

Mathis sucked, Chatwood wasn't very good (ironically pitching in a hitters park), Walden was erratic and booted as the closer, everyone was done with up and down Santana, I don't think anyone cared Skaggs and Corbin were type ins and everyone wanted to argue Saunders but conceeded Haren was better, and Segura would still be blocked.

It's just shitty some of these guys are having good years collectively to put a black eye on the club and trades that so far look like duds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming an average GM and an average team, you would assume that 10 of those trades would work out.

 

 

Not sure that is a fair assumption. Both teams enter into a trade agreement with the belief that they are getting a better deal for themselves. Long run, most trades should work out for both teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The title made me cringe and question whether I'd even read it, as I've had my fill of depressing Angels news lately.  But then I actually started reading the article.  Well played, Grant Brisbee.  

 

"Then Frieri's eyebrow fell off in the dugout one game. He picked it up and ran to the bathroom. Curious teammates followed him, and when they opened the bathroom door, all they found was Carlos Marmol and a makeup kit. No one ever spoke of what they saw."

 

"It's pretty hard to lose a full win in 12 innings, but Enright's kind of an astronaut, exploring new interstellar territory."

 

"But every 10th time you do it, the reliever will turn into a super-reliever, and the starter will go kerflooey. This was the 10th time. If they brought their punch card, maybe they can turn it into a free sandwich."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Haren trade wasn't bad at all. The Angels got a solid #2 who would probably still be good if not for the injury. Having Segura on the team wouldn't improve them because Aybar is likely better. However, the Angels could have used Segura to secure a long-term player instead of a rental.

 

Ya, that's my issue more than anything.

 

I was fine trading Segura, but it sure would have been nice to get more than half a season of a guy(even a guy as good as Greinke) for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*Yawn* - most of them looked and sounded good at the time.  It's people like AO who demand that the Angels FO have 20:20 hindsight. 

 

I would suggest that it is a GMs job to evaluate the potential of a trade 3 years or so later, hence why teams trade for prospects. Evaluating talent may be hit/miss, but this article shows that our GMs mostly just miss... badly.

 

A lot of people point to the Haren trade as one that made sense at the time, but I disagree. At the time, we had little chance of making the playoffs, and should have gone through a rebuild with a top 50 pitching prospect in Skaggs and another nice piece in Corbin. Instead, we trade four pitchers for one (having his worst season) taking the short-term approach hoping to compete the next season. We continued this approach and traded for Wells. You can yawn and point to hindsight, and while that is certainly true, I believe it should be a GM's job to realistically view the situation. In this above example, that would be to realize the team needed to stand pat for two seasons or so.

Edited by HeavenlyHalos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would suggest that it is a GMs job to evaluate the potential of a trade 3 years or so later, hence why teams trade for prospects. Evaluating talent may be hit/miss, but this article shows that our GMs mostly just miss... badly.

 

A lot of people point to the Haren trade as one that made sense at the time, but I disagree. At the time, we had little chance of making the playoffs, and should have gone through a rebuild with a top 50 pitching prospect in Skaggs and another nice piece in Corbin. Instead, we trade four pitchers for one (having his worst season) taking the short-term approach hoping to compete the next season. We continued this approach and traded for Wells. You can yawn and point to hindsight, and while that is certainly true, I believe it should be a GM's job to realistically view the situation. In this above example, that would be to realize the team needed to stand pat for two seasons or so.

 

we went from 3.5gm to 7gm in the span of 7 games prior to the haren trade and proceeded to drop to 10 games back 9 games later.  7.5games lost in two weeks.  The closest we got the rest of the season was 7.5gm.  Then they pissed away a pretty good chance in 2011. So it was helpful for one season.  Not saying it was a great deal, but not sure anyone thought corbin would be anything more than a #3/4.  It's gonna look even worse when skaggs finally starts to hit his potential. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right about Corbin, my point is that it was a short-sighted move at a time when we probably weren't going to compete for the division. A couple future rotation starters and a current back-end guy for a starter having his worst season with a lot of innings behind him. With that said, both Corbin and Skaggs could have never developed and it would be seen as a good move, but its the GMs job to evaluate that situation. We failed to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right about Corbin, my point is that it was a short-sighted move at a time when we probably weren't going to compete for the division. A couple future rotation starters and a current back-end guy for a starter having his worst season with a lot of innings behind him. With that said, both Corbin and Skaggs could have never developed and it would be seen as a good move, but its the GMs job to evaluate that situation. We failed to do so.

I was generally agreeing although we truly did have a very good chance to win the division in 2011.  1.5 games back with a couple of weeks to go and lots of division matchups.  If we get to the playoffs that year then maybe it's worth it. 

My thing about trades is that you either trade players that are redundant for club controlled players that aren't or you give up young players to obtain a player that makes you stronger for the playoffs.  Not one that gives you a slightly better chance of making them when you are 7 games out. 

 

The tex deal was the obvious best trade.  Even if the players traded pan out, you gave yourself a better chance to win in the playoffs. 

The idea of the Kaz trade in 2009 was a good one although they just traded for the wrong guy.   I would have been fine with them giving up a little more to get peavy at the non waiver deadline. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember shrugging my shoulders on haren. I liked getting him, and to be fair didn't know enough about skaggs and corbin, but I remember thinking we needed to replace rivera/abreu/torii as our MOTO. As in we needed offense.

Haren would have been a good move if we had an offense. Grienke backfired, obviously, but had he been the last piece to get us to october, it would have been the right move. Haren was a bad move simply because we eere already on a downslope (and unlike today, it wasn't because of pirching).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Haren trade wasn't bad at all. The Angels got a solid #2 who would probably still be good if not for the injury...

Injury?....Haren just wore out...too many innings....and there were indications of wear and tear when the trade was made....not unsual when you throw as many innings as he has....that said, it was a classic now for later trade....and if we make the playoffs in 2010 or 2011, it looks a lot better....Haren did his part, at least for those 2 years...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...