PDA

View Full Version : Angels' Ervin Santana?



hippie07
11-19-2007, 03:07 PM
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2007/11/white-sox-trade.html
Mlbtraderumor.com implies that the Angels may be looking to flip Santana for a bat... should the Reds go after him?

I don't really know anything about him... so, I'm just asking. If we do, who do you think we should give up??

mroby85
11-19-2007, 03:16 PM
i believe he had a real rough year last year, i would give him a shot, but i certainly wouldn't trade much for him.

REDblooded
11-19-2007, 03:46 PM
no....he's overrated.

AmarilloRed
11-19-2007, 04:39 PM
I suppose it depends what kind of bat the Angels are looking for. He did have a bad 2007, but he is young and I suspect he will rebound in 2008.

Redsfan08
11-19-2007, 05:17 PM
Freel maybe

ChatterRed
11-19-2007, 05:21 PM
I suppose it depends what kind of bat the Angels are looking for. He did have a bad 2007, but he is young and I suspect he will rebound in 2008.

I agree.

He actually was decent the two previous seasons, and had a bad season last year. Either he's been figured out or it was just one of those things. But he's only 25 years old and has 3 years of experience under his belt.

If you're trying to stockpile potential talent, and don't have to give up much for him, then I'd do it. But no way do I trade Hamilton or Votto or anyone else of that caliber for him. I'd trade Freel or Ross or someone like that. But I doubt the Angels would be interested. It's still worth checking out.

hippie07
11-19-2007, 05:22 PM
My guess is that we'll trade for a pitching prospect/possibility this offseason .. if we could get Santana for cheaper than we could someone like Garza.. which would you prefer?

hippie07
11-19-2007, 05:24 PM
Does anyone know what the Angels have a need for? Are they just looking for prospects or are they looking to add to their current roster? If so, what position? Thanks!

Natty Redlocks
11-19-2007, 06:17 PM
Does anyone know what the Angels have a need for? Are they just looking for prospects or are they looking to add to their current roster? If so, what position? Thanks!

I think the Cabrera trade was a precursor to a Cabrera trade.

REDblooded
11-19-2007, 07:51 PM
Santana gives up the longball like Milton.

Bigredfan#1
11-19-2007, 08:08 PM
I think the Cabrera trade was a precursor to a Cabrera trade.

I think you are right! Nice way with words.

Gandalf the Red
11-19-2007, 08:09 PM
Santana gives up the longball like Milton.

Well, continuity is important. There's a power of tradition to uphold. ;)

hippie07
11-19-2007, 09:39 PM
I don't know about you, but I'd take a healthy Milton at league minimum for the bottom of our rotation... and he's young, so he could get better, I suppose..

That is, of course, considering we wouldn't have to give up too much.

UK Reds Fan
11-19-2007, 10:05 PM
This may be the only time to unload Griffey....pay some of his salary. Angels are begging for some offense. They need a LH bat behind Vlad. Can play LF and DH for Angels. Garret Anderson and Griff can swap in and out for each other as well as provide depth if Vlad or Mathews Jr were to injur.

Plus, when did the Reds become so choosy for starting pitchers...I'd rather run Sanatana out there 30 games this year as opposed to a Shearn, Ramirez or not ready Cueto/Maloney type. And all for the low ball price of $500k.

I'd eat 4Mil and ship Griff for Santana and be done with it.

bigredmechanism
11-20-2007, 01:34 AM
i think people are just infatuated with his last name being the same as the best pitcher in baseball. anaheim, los angeles california of anaheim stadium is way bigger than great american. he would get KILLED, most likely. trade a scrub for him then maybe. i like lizard better than him anyway, as far as crappy dominican pitchers go.

thatcoolguy_22
11-20-2007, 01:42 AM
Ervin Santana is not the answer

Dracodave
11-20-2007, 12:14 PM
Ervin Santana is far from the answer, or part of the answer. He's not having decent years, he's having masked years based on a productive offense, a decent defense and a some luck. He's not a very good pitcher at all. Take a look at his away/home stats and figure out why.

Also when dealing with Santana, remember that if he can be had for cheap and I mean CHEAP, he's a decent pick up..but I wouldnt give up ANYONE OF VALUE for him.

Orenda
11-21-2007, 08:46 AM
Ervin Santana is far from the answer, or part of the answer. He's not having decent years, he's having masked years based on a productive offense, a decent defense and a some luck. He's not a very good pitcher at all. Take a look at his away/home stats and figure out why.

Also when dealing with Santana, remember that if he can be had for cheap and I mean CHEAP, he's a decent pick up..but I wouldnt give up ANYONE OF VALUE for him.

Agree 100%. Any deal for him would be a risky investment, and the fact that the Angels are more than willing to part with him should say something. Although I think he is the type of player that should be on Krivsky's radar, he's young, cheap, and has had some limited success. I'd be interested to see how he would hold-up in the bullpen if the price was right. I'd be willing to give up any veteran quality left-handed bat off the bench for him, just take your pick:)

*BaseClogger*
11-21-2007, 11:45 AM
How is this any different than Matt Clement!?

UK Reds Fan
11-21-2007, 12:11 PM
How is this any different than Matt Clement!?

I tend to agree...Nodoby is advocating dropping Hamilton for Santana, but to part with a Stubbs, Freel, Hatteburg, Griffey (and majority of contract), etc....isn't alot to give up for a guy who could pencil in at one of our starting pitching spots.

Plus, Santana will cost $500k, Clement could easily grab 2 Mil for a one year deal.

Redsnake
11-21-2007, 01:27 PM
A 24/25 year old, former 16 game winner, for 500K......Yeah I can see why he would be a horrible addition. :rolleyes:

The guy endured a classic sophomore slump. He's given up less home runs than Harang over the last 2 season. Not to mention a change to the NL could projuect better numbers.

This is a low risk, low cost, high rewards player. If you get him and still keep Bruce, Cuerto, Bailey, Votto/or Hamilton you would be stupid not too try.

*BaseClogger*
11-21-2007, 02:22 PM
A 24/25 year old, former 16 game winner, for 500K......Yeah I can see why he would be a horrible addition. :rolleyes:

judging a pitcher by wins:(


The guy endured a classic sophomore slump.

not buying it...


He's given up less home runs than Harang over the last 2 season.

struggling here arn't we... did you compare innings by any chance?


Not to mention a change to the NL could projuect better numbers.

ding ding ding ding ding! There ya go!

Bottom line- Ervin Santana costs 1/4 that of Matt Clement and all we may have to give up is a Scott Hatteberg/Ryan Freel... And if they take one of those guys, Santana will actually cost negative money compared to Clement after you account for the loss of Hatteberg/Freel's contract...

roby
11-22-2007, 02:05 AM
judging a pitcher by wins:(



not buying it...



struggling here arn't we... did you compare innings by any chance?



ding ding ding ding ding! There ya go!

Bottom line- Ervin Santana costs 1/4 that of Matt Clement and all we may have to give up is a Scott Hatteberg/Ryan Freel... And if they take one of those guys, Santana will actually cost negative money compared to Clement after you account for the loss of Hatteberg/Freel's contract...


I would do Hatteburg for Santana in a minute! :thumbup:
Just curious, how many of you guys who are down on Ervin were also down on Bronson Arroyo when those trade rumors first came out?

AmarilloRed
11-22-2007, 02:10 AM
One thing that interested me lately was a proposed trade in which Ervin Santana was to be one of a group of players going to the Marlins in a proposed trade for Cabrera, but the Marlins didn't want Santana. This makes me think that Ervin's trade value is rather low, and a team might get him for a cheap price.

Redsnake
11-22-2007, 12:44 PM
judging a pitcher by wins:(



not buying it...



struggling here arn't we... did you compare innings by any chance?



ding ding ding ding ding! There ya go!

Bottom line- Ervin Santana costs 1/4 that of Matt Clement and all we may have to give up is a Scott Hatteberg/Ryan Freel... And if they take one of those guys, Santana will actually cost negative money compared to Clement after you account for the loss of Hatteberg/Freel's contract...

Hey Clogger heres something for you. The first 2 years of Harang career weren't that great. He barely struckout more than he walked. His ERA was in the 5.10 area and he was only 1 win above .500.

I'm a huge Harang fan, but there was a reason the A's didn't keep him. He wasn't even the main target in the trade. The Reds wanted closer prospect Joe Valentine and future ace Phil Dumatrait. My point is Santana is cheap and a high reward player.
For a small market, small budget team these are the moves that will need to happen. The Johan, Peavys of the world will not come here.


dind ding ding ding!!!!

*BaseClogger*
11-22-2007, 02:03 PM
Hey Clogger heres something for you. The first 2 years of Harang career weren't that great. He barely struckout more than he walked. His ERA was in the 5.10 area and he was only 1 win above .500.

I'm a huge Harang fan, but there was a reason the A's didn't keep him. He wasn't even the main target in the trade. The Reds wanted closer prospect Joe Valentine and future ace Phil Dumatrait. My point is Santana is cheap and a high reward player.
For a small market, small budget team these are the moves that will need to happen. The Johan, Peavys of the world will not come here.


dind ding ding ding!!!!

I advocate a trade for ERVIN Santana as long as all we give up is a B prospect or an old vet (so basically nothing)...

My point was just that you said a bunch of stupid things before you made the most important connection- bring in AL pitchers such as Bronson Arroyo and watch them have an extremely successful first season...

Redsnake
11-22-2007, 04:24 PM
I advocate a trade for ERVIN Santana as long as all we give up is a B prospect or an old vet (so basically nothing)...

My point was just that you said a bunch of stupid things before you made the most important connection- bring in AL pitchers such as Bronson Arroyo and watch them have an extremely successful first season...


So me saying that he is 24/25 years old, he only cost 500 K and won 16 was "is a bunch of stupid things"?????
Now that might be the stupidest thing you've said.

I understand an argument can be made about the theory of "sophomore slumps".

*BaseClogger*
11-22-2007, 06:23 PM
So me saying that he is 24/25 years old, he only cost 500 K and won 16 was "is a bunch of stupid things"?????
Now that might be the stupidest thing you've said.

I understand an argument can be made about the theory of "sophomore slumps".

If you wanted to make an argument for why he is a good pitcher, wins was not a good choice, thats all I'm saying... I mean, Jimmy Haynes won 15 games once...

Dracodave
11-23-2007, 12:25 AM
If you wanted to make an argument for why he is a good pitcher, wins was not a good choice, thats all I'm saying... I mean, Jimmy Haynes won 15 games once...


Wins and Loses are team dependent. Look at strike outs, walks, and whip.

Edit
I am agreeing with you on how wins are not a good choice.

*BaseClogger*
11-23-2007, 09:41 AM
Wins and Loses are team dependent. Look at strike outs, walks, and whip.

Edit
I am agreeing with you on how wins are not a good choice.

and home runs

Redsnake
11-23-2007, 01:13 PM
You guys are missing the point.

You tell me what pitcher you would like too see traded to the Reds?

Bip Roberts
11-23-2007, 01:56 PM
You guys are missing the point.

You tell me what pitcher you would like too see traded to the Reds?

joe blanton, jon lester, matt garza, kevin slowey, joe saunders

*BaseClogger*
11-23-2007, 07:01 PM
ian snell

thatcoolguy_22
11-23-2007, 07:56 PM
scott kazmir, erik bedard, clay bucholtz or matt cain to name a few

Redsnake
11-23-2007, 10:29 PM
Snell, Kazmir, Bedard, Cain and Bucholtz all are much better options then E.Santana. But the subject was acquiring Santana(or similar value) without giving up the top prospects. All those names mentions above would command Bruce, Hamilton, Cuerto, Votto and/or Bailey. Now I would love the Reds too get one of those guys. But that dicussions should be addressed through another topic.

hippie07
11-24-2007, 01:04 AM
Yeah, I think the point is... in retrospect, we've shown w/ the recent Cordero signing that we're not afraid to spend money .. (plus, knowing that we have a solid bullpen and a sure-handed closer can only help convice free agents to come aboard) ... why not wait til 09, save our prospects and buy starting pitching in that market.

Meanwhile, if we could land a Garza, E. Santana, Slowey, etc. for some players not named (Hamilton, Bruce, Bailey, Cueto, Votto, EdE) .... then what's the harm in taking a chance .. even on an unpredictable like Santana

I really wish we don't have to give up Hamilton or Bruce ... If we have to trade position players I'd rather it be Votto (move Dunn to 1st) or EdE ... but even those guys, I only give up for the likes of Snell, etc.

My Choice would be:
Bailey & Cueto for Kazmir (If we really want to make a splash)
Freel, Hatteberg, Maloney for Garza or Slowey
Stubbs for E. Santana

That should put us in a great position to right the pitching ship for next season, IMO. We'll have a solid 1,2,3 in Harang, Kazmir, Arroyo and I think someone out of the group of Garza (Slowey), Santana, Belisle will come up big next year.
Then in 09 we buy Derek Lowe and trade whomever performs well out of (Garza or Slowey, Santana, and Belisle) to restock pitching prospects (help mend the loss of Bailey and Cueto). Then we'll have a solid 1-4 punch of Kazmir, Harang, Lowe, Arroyo for a number of years ..... seems ideal to me ;-)

BEETTLEBUG
11-24-2007, 06:18 PM
Are you willing to give up Bailey and Cueto to get Kazmir and could that get him? If possible I make all three Trades : pitching pitching pitching.

Bip Roberts
11-24-2007, 07:59 PM
Are you willing to give up Bailey and Cueto to get Kazmir and could that get him? If possible I make all three Trades : pitching pitching pitching.

It would leave us with the smae problem in the rotation. We would still have no 4th or 5th guy that we can trust.

hippie07
11-24-2007, 08:12 PM
It would leave us with the smae problem in the rotation. We would still have no 4th or 5th guy that we can trust.

I don't think you read the post that Beetlebug was commenting on... it said a rotation of:
Kazmir
Harang
Lowe
Arroyo
Belisle/Santana/Garza/Slowey...

how would that be no 4th and 5th guy? That, in fact, might be the best rotation in baseball...

Bip Roberts
11-24-2007, 08:53 PM
I don't think you read the post that Beetlebug was commenting on... it said a rotation of:
Kazmir
Harang
Lowe
Arroyo
Belisle/Santana/Garza/Slowey...

how would that be no 4th and 5th guy? That, in fact, might be the best rotation in baseball...

i did miss his post, and boy if thats what he thinks we can get someone needs a dose of reality.

hippie07
11-24-2007, 10:18 PM
i did miss his post, and boy if thats what he thinks we can get someone needs a dose of reality.

Yeah, I think its clear someone does...

It was actually me that made that suggestion... read up a couple posts and you'll see what makes that rotation possible ...geesh!

AmarilloRed
11-24-2007, 11:34 PM
Bailey and Cueto have the potential to be our #1 and #2 for a long time. I really would prefer that Wayne keep both of them on the Reds and look to sign them to 6 year contracts like the Indians used to do with their no-miss prospects. We could develop our own SP prospects out of Bailey, Cueto, and Maloney and look to a trade to pick up another SP in the meantime. If either Bailey or Cueto looks like they won't fulfill their potential, we could simply buy another SP in 2009.

AmarilloRed
11-25-2007, 01:49 AM
We need a starting pitcher. I think Ervin Santana has the potential to be a low risk/ high reward possibility for Krivsky.

BEETTLEBUG
11-25-2007, 02:51 AM
I agree Amarillo Red Ervin Santana is low RISK high reward.

Bip Roberts
11-25-2007, 11:24 AM
Low Risk in our eyes but the Angels will not let him go for a low risk

Bip Roberts
11-25-2007, 11:25 AM
also around the league im sure people are starting to notice that Wayne has an eye for picking talent from other peoples scrap heap so im sure dealings might not be so easy any more for low risk talent.

AmarilloRed
11-25-2007, 07:07 PM
Ervin's trade value is down because of the bad year he just had. I think we could get him for the likes of Freel or Hatteburg.

Orenda
11-25-2007, 07:30 PM
Im not sure Freel would fly with LAA, because they already have a more supperior player with his skillset in Chone Figgins. I could see Hatte fitting nicely as a bench player/dh for a contending team. His contract adds to his value as well.

Bip Roberts
11-25-2007, 07:50 PM
Ervin's trade value is down because of the bad year he just had. I think we could get him for the likes of Freel or Hatteburg.

Yea not happening sorry its just not.

*BaseClogger*
11-25-2007, 11:51 PM
Yea not happening sorry its just not.

I agree. The Angels have a ton of young spare sparts and probably arn't looking for older, more expensive spare parts (Freel, Hatteberg). We would have to give them prospects in my opinion for Ervin Santana... Therefore I don't think this is a viable option for us. I will say it again: HAMILTON + STUBBS/MALONEY FOR IAN SNELL

AmarilloRed
11-26-2007, 12:02 AM
Read the first part of the thread. The Angels are looking for a positional player, and the first part of the thread seemed to suggest we could get him for an established vet. Why trade away better players if you can get him for a better price. I suggested earlier that Ervin's trade value was lowered because of his bad year, and the Marlins recently rejected a trade of Cabrera to the Angels because Ervin Santana was included in the deal, We do not have to trade a top prospect to get Ervin Santana, but we might have to trade a younger player to get him.

*BaseClogger*
11-26-2007, 12:12 AM
Read the first part of the thread. The Angels are looking for a positional player, and the first part of the thread seemed to suggest we could get him for an established vet. Why trade away better players if you can get him for a better price. I suggested earlier that Ervin's trade value was lowered because of his bad year, and the Marlins recently rejected a trade of Cabrera to the Angels because Ervin Santana was included in the deal, We do not have to trade a top prospect to get Ervin Santana, but we might have to trade a younger player to get him.

thats what i said, a prospect, possibly a Sean Watson type, Which I would not approve of...

Jay Bruce
11-26-2007, 12:19 AM
Read the first part of the thread. The Angels are looking for a positional player, and the first part of the thread seemed to suggest we could get him for an established vet. Why trade away better players if you can get him for a better price. I suggested earlier that Ervin's trade value was lowered because of his bad year, and the Marlins recently rejected a trade of Cabrera to the Angels because Ervin Santana was included in the deal, We do not have to trade a top prospect to get Ervin Santana, but we might have to trade a younger player to get him.

I believe that the Marlins rejected the trade because they want Nick Adenhart, one of the the top pitching prospects in baseball, included in the deal. Instead, the Angels tried countered with Santana, a lesser asset. It's not that the Angels and Marlins see him as chopped liver, just not as good as Adenhart.

Santana has had his struggles, but he is still young, and has had some moderate success at the major leauge level before last year. It would take more than a Freel or Hatteberg to obtain Santana from LA.

5DOLLAR-BLEACHERBUM
11-26-2007, 12:26 AM
How bout Carlos Santana, because he's so cool.:cool:

Bip Roberts
11-26-2007, 12:42 AM
Ervin Santana isnt going be traded for our spare parts.

hippie07
11-26-2007, 01:51 AM
I can't believe that people would object to acquriing Santana for one or two minor prospects (not part of the big prospect group)... he's a solid 4/5 with potential to be better....

Last time I checked we were the Reds .. in dire need of pitching help and hoping against hope that we can still hang onto our core top prospects.... if WK can pull this off w/o dipping into our top prospects... I'd be elated!

757690
11-26-2007, 03:20 AM
I agree. The Angels have a ton of young spare sparts and probably arn't looking for older, more expensive spare parts (Freel, Hatteberg). We would have to give them prospects in my opinion for Ervin Santana... Therefore I don't think this is a viable option for us. I will say it again: HAMILTON + STUBBS/MALONEY FOR IAN SNELL

I can guarantee that if that trade is made, it will make the Frank Robinson trade look like a brilliant move.

Hamilton, when he was healthy, looked like the second coming of Mickey Mantle. Why trade him now for a pitcher whose potential is still unknown?

Why not wait and see what happens to Hamilton in a full season? GM's are concerned about his health, so he will not get top value in return. If he does turn out to be brittle, the Reds won't get less for him then they will get right now.

I also see no need to get another #1 or #2 starter. With Bailey, and Cueto coming up, they really just need solid back of the rotation guys who can eat up innings.

thatcoolguy_22
11-26-2007, 04:27 AM
I can't believe that people would object to acquriing Santana for one or two minor prospects (not part of the big prospect group)... he's a solid 4/5 with potential to be better....

Last time I checked we were the Reds .. in dire need of pitching help and hoping against hope that we can still hang onto our core top prospects.... if WK can pull this off w/o dipping into our top prospects... I'd be elated!




Year Ag Tm Lg W L G GS CG SHO GF SV IP H R ER HR BB SO HBP WP BFP IBB BK ERA *lgERA *ERA+ WHIP
+--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+--+------+----+----+----+---+----+----+---+---+-----+---+---+-----+-----+----+-----+
2005 22 LAA AL 12 8 23 23 1 1 0 0 133.7 139 73 69 17 47 99 8 4 583 2 0 4.65 4.23 91 1.392
2006 23 LAA AL 16 8 33 33 0 0 0 0 204.0 181 106 97 21 70 141 11 10 846 2 2 4.28 4.56 107 1.230
2007 24 LAA AL 7 14 28 26 0 0 1 0 150.0 174 103 96 26 58 126 8 7 675 3 0 5.76 4.56 79 1.547

Santana and his 1.5 whip is still young enough to risk a flyer on and throw into the #5 spot on your rotation. I wouldn't offer anything better than "B" prospect and some of our MLB salary dump players. I know that the Angels wouldn't accept that for Santana which lets me sleep at night...

However our back end of the rotation would then be belisle, santana and, bailey. I will be killing insurgents not in protection of my country but in anger over my baseball team all summer...

AmarilloRed
11-27-2007, 01:41 PM
Mike DiGiovanna of the L.A. Times has the latest on the Angels' ongoing talks with the Marlins about superstar third baseman Miguel Cabrera.

The two teams have hit a snag about the combination of players, according to Giovanna. It's not that the Angels view any of Howie Kendrick, Jeff Mathis, Ervin Santana, Joe Saunders, Nick Adenhart, Reggie Willits, or Brandon Wood to be untouchable (previously it had been said that the inclusion of Adenhart was an issue). It seems that the Angels will give up certain combinations of the above-named players (probably three of them) but the two teams can't quite match up.

It seems a possibility that Ervin might be moved as part of a Cabrera trade with the Marlins; but the teams simply cannot agree on the players the Angels would give up.

TN Red Fan
12-01-2007, 12:53 AM
The Angels are getting worked over in these Cabrera talks.

What happened was that they had a deal worked out that would send one of their starters (probably Saunders or Santana) to Florida, among a host of others, for Cabrera.

So, in order to fill that spot in the rotation, they traded Orlanda Cabrera for Jon Garland. The plan was that they'd move Chone Figgins over from 3B to SS to replace O.Cabrera, which would open up third for Miguel Cabrera.

Problem is, once they made the trade, the Marlins knew they were committed to getting M.Cabrera, because otherwise the Angels would have left themselves without a 3B and also with an extra starting pitcher. Once they were committed, the Angels lost all their leverage, so the Marlins upped their demands.

What does this mean for the Reds?

Well, if the Cabrera talks end up falling through (which I don't think they will), the Angels are going to be left without a 3B, without the power hitter they were looking for, and with an extra starting pitcher.

At that point, the Reds could swoop in to save the day, offering Encarnacion and Dunn, for a quality starter (like Weaver or Garland) plus a host of prospects.

Not that it will happen, though. Like I said, the Angels have committed themselves to getting Cabrera, and in the end, that's what's going to happen. It's just that now they're going to have to pay a lot more than they would have if they hadn't made the O.Cabrera for Garland trade.

Overall, upping their demands was a pretty sharp, if somewhat sheisty, move by the Marlins.

AmarilloRed
12-01-2007, 01:56 AM
The Angels are a bit frustrated in the Miguel Cabrera dealings. According to Jayson Stark, they've told the Marlins to come swing by their suite whenever they're ready to give a little on their demands.

In the deal for sure: Howie Kendrick and Jeff Mathis. One of Ervin Santana, Joe Saunders, and Nick Adenhart would be included as well. However, the Fish want two of those starters. The Halos won't do it, but might be able to give one starter plus Reggie Willits. Either way it's going to be a major haul.

It wouldn't be impossible to get Cabrera for three players, but they'd have to be damn good ones. It's always fascinating to watch the Marlins replenish their system.

It looks like the deal will fall through, unless the Marlins bend a little.