PDA

View Full Version : Angels In Need of Another Arm



*BaseClogger*
03-17-2008, 05:46 PM
Angels In Need Of Another Arm?
At the end of his most recent column Ken Rosenthal posits a nightmare scenario for the Angles, going back to 2001 when the Mariners cracked out to a 20-4 start to seize the AL West crown before May Day. With John Lackey and Kelvim Escobar on the shelf for at least 4-6 weeks, should the Angels be concerned going into 2008? Is a move to pick up an extra starter in order?

The team is looking at filling 14-16 starts. With a surplus of outfielders the Angels are certainly in position to make a move. They could opt for a back of rotation innings eater like the Brewers Chris Capuano or the Reds' Matt Belisle. Or, the team could really make a splash and dive head first into the Joe Blanton sweepstakes. David Bush might fill out the rotation nicely, through April and beyond.

Everyone agrees that there is a need for a catcher, and names such as Mike Napoli and Jeff Mathis have been thrown about. Is Napoli/Mathis for Belisle a fair trade?

M2
03-17-2008, 05:51 PM
Everyone agrees that there is a need for a catcher, and names such as Mike Napoli and Jeff Mathis have been thrown about. Is Napoli/Mathis for Belisle a fair trade?

Sign me up for that.

Highlifeman21
03-17-2008, 05:53 PM
Offer Bailey and keep adding guys like, Freel, Hopper, Gil, Andy Phillips, Valentin, and Gonzalez until they agree. If that list doesn't work, also offer Stubbs, and add guys like Wood, or Vailaka until they agree.

Joseph
03-17-2008, 05:57 PM
Offer Bailey and keep adding guys like, Freel, Hopper, Gil, Andy Phillips, Valentin, and Gonzalez until they agree. If that list doesn't work, also offer Stubbs, and add guys like Wood, or Vailaka until they agree.

You're think that little of Bailey? Wow. Talk about selling low.

Highlifeman21
03-17-2008, 05:58 PM
You're think that little of Bailey? Wow. Talk about selling low.

For Jeff Mathis?

You betcha.

Not selling low, but trading away surplus to address a deficiency. We have pitching (granted not consistently good), and we should explore all options.

KronoRed
03-17-2008, 05:59 PM
If we're offering Bailey and others then get Willits as well.

RedsManRick
03-17-2008, 06:01 PM
Willits would be an awesome solution for CF. .390 OBP and plus defense? Yes please!

BRM
03-17-2008, 06:03 PM
Willits would be an awesome solution for CF.

No need. The Reds already have 3 centerfielders vying for the starting spot. ;)

fearofpopvol1
03-17-2008, 06:25 PM
I don't think Belisle would get it done, but I think Bailey is trading away a bit much. Maybe Belisle and a mid-prospect?

OnBaseMachine
03-17-2008, 06:31 PM
For Jeff Mathis?

You betcha.

Not selling low, but trading away surplus to address a deficiency. We have pitching (granted not consistently good), and we should explore all options.

Again, I'm glad Wayne Krivsky is the GM of the Reds.

A top 10 prospect in all of baseball for a catcher who OPS'ed .671 in a hitter friendly AAA league last season? No thanks. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to have Jeff Mathis but not for Homer Bailey. I'd take Napoli or Mathis for Belisle though.

Jose Arredondo is a power arm I like for the pen if he could be had from the Angels.

redsmetz
03-17-2008, 07:33 PM
Offer Bailey and keep adding guys like, Freel, Hopper, Gil, Andy Phillips, Valentin, and Gonzalez until they agree. If that list doesn't work, also offer Stubbs, and add guys like Wood, or Vailaka until they agree.

Every time we have a trade proposal, someone's always recommending that we let them back up the truck and run away with everything.

http://www.denverbrown.com/07truck.jpg

Falls City Beer
03-17-2008, 08:21 PM
I'm all for getting a catcher, but I don't support trading Belisle away to get one.

*BaseClogger*
03-17-2008, 09:43 PM
I'm all for getting a catcher, but I don't support trading Belisle away to get one.

You gotta give something to get something... Stanton or Castro isn't going to get it done...

Falls City Beer
03-17-2008, 10:07 PM
You gotta give something to get something... Stanton or Castro isn't going to get it done...

Two rookies in the rotation. You're going to need Belisle. Look somewhere else for a catcher.

IslandRed
03-17-2008, 10:32 PM
For Jeff Mathis?

You betcha.

Not selling low, but trading away surplus to address a deficiency. We have pitching (granted not consistently good), and we should explore all options.

A surplus-for-deficiency trade works best when the talent is reasonably equal going in both directions. And I'm even okay with losing a trade in a strict talent sense if it meets the club's needs. But it's selling low when you're just flat giving a guy away, and that's what Bailey for Mathis would be. Mathis is no longer a young rising star; he's a 25-year-old who's never going to be more than a backup unless he finds the bat that's been AWOL for two years. We ought to be able to get someone like that for a lot less. Or, to turn it around, trading Bailey for a catcher ought to fetch a much better catcher.

*BaseClogger*
03-17-2008, 10:34 PM
Two rookies in the rotation. You're going to need Belisle. Look somewhere else for a catcher.

This is why I was so skeptical on the catcher thread of how serious most of you guys are about getting a catcher--nobody is giving up a major league-ready catcher for prospects, and at this point I don't see a surplus to trade from (other than fifth outfielders :p:). I'm looking towards 2009 as well, where Napoli/Mathis will likely be more valuable than Belisle...

Falls City Beer
03-17-2008, 10:40 PM
This is why I was so skeptical on the catcher thread of how serious most of you guys are about getting a catcher--nobody is giving up a major league-ready catcher for prospects, and at this point I don't see a surplus to trade from (other than fifth outfielders :p:). I'm looking towards 2009 as well, where Napoli/Mathis will likely be more valuable than Belisle...

MLB-ready starting pitchers--even 4/5 guys like Belisle are worth more than backup catchers like Mathis.

*BaseClogger*
03-17-2008, 10:42 PM
MLB-ready starting pitchers--even 4/5 guys like Belisle are worth more than backup catchers like Mathis.

well I should have made that specifically Napoli...

mth123
03-18-2008, 06:26 AM
I'd rather have Napoli than Mathis, but Hank Conger is the guy on the way for the Angels and he now has a torn labrum. I don't see them making a trade at that position.

I'd try and give them one of the dubious pen arms on the roster. They are going to fill the rotation with Dustin Mosely or maybe Nick Adenhardt or even Darren Oliver. They only have one LH in the pen (Oliver) and probably would not be averse to taking on a guy like Stanton or at minimum Coutlangus. They have some nice spare parts and may be a team to get a guy for AAA while paring the roster down.

I like OBM's Jose Arrondano suggestion.

Redhook
03-18-2008, 09:55 AM
MLB-ready starting pitchers--even 4/5 guys like Belisle are worth more than backup catchers like Mathis.

Exactly. Even if Belisle doesn't make the starting five I still expect him to start around 20 games this year. He is a valuable commodity for this team.

remdog
03-18-2008, 11:15 AM
Belisle for Napoli---yes. Bailey for Mathis---no.

Rem

Falls City Beer
03-18-2008, 11:22 AM
How about Fogg for Mathis? After all, the Angels are hoping to get Lackey back in 4 weeks or so.

Belisle isn't excess; he's a necessity, especially when you're counting on two rookies to carry starters' loads. Fogg is excess, fungible.

OnBaseMachine
03-18-2008, 11:24 AM
Can Fogg be traded right now? He was just signed in February. If he can, I'd absolutely deal Fogg for Mathis, but would the Angels?

PuffyPig
03-18-2008, 11:28 AM
Can Fogg be traded right now? He was just signed in February. If he can, I'd absolutely deal Fogg for Mathis, but would the Angels?

I don't think Fog can be traded until, at least, the middle of May.

remdog
03-18-2008, 11:44 AM
Belisle isn't excess; he's a necessity


Necessity for what? If the rookies collapse the Reds are swimming upstream for 5th place in the division. If the rookies succeed the Reds are ???

Dumping Belisle isn't pivotal to the Reds winning the division. And one could certainly argue that adding Napoli isn't pivotal either. But, personally, I'd rather take my chances on Napoli than Belisle. (shrug)

Rem

membengal
03-18-2008, 11:50 AM
I consider him a necessity, IF he is the one in long relief, as being crucial to helping to keep pitch counts and innings manageble for Cueto (and Volquez). Heck, for Arroyo too. Either Fogg or Belisle will be important to this club in that role.

blumj
03-18-2008, 11:59 AM
Can Fogg be traded right now? He was just signed in February.
He can be, it's just his choice, like a temporary no trade clause. And, it does happen. If his contract isn't fully guaranteed until the end of ST, if it looks like he might get cut or relegated to the bullpen, accepting a trade would often be preferable to the player than those alternatives.

Highlifeman21
03-18-2008, 12:04 PM
Again, I'm glad Wayne Krivsky is the GM of the Reds.

A top 10 prospect in all of baseball for a catcher who OPS'ed .671 in a hitter friendly AAA league last season? No thanks. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to have Jeff Mathis but not for Homer Bailey. I'd take Napoli or Mathis for Belisle though.

Jose Arredondo is a power arm I like for the pen if he could be had from the Angels.

Arredondo is definitely an interesting target.

I want Bailey to develop and succeed for the Reds, but if he can be traded to address a bigger team weakness, then I think he's a more attractive trading chip than Belisle. I'd want more than just Napoli/Mathis for Bailey, I guess I failed to articulate that point in my earlier thoughts.

Dan
03-18-2008, 12:33 PM
What about Freel to the Rays, a pitcher from the Rays to the Angels, and Mathis to the Reds?

PuffyPig
03-18-2008, 01:09 PM
I'd want more than just Napoli/Mathis for Bailey, I guess I failed to articulate that point in my earlier thoughts.


Well, since you originally said you would trade Bailey plus about 12 others for Mathis alone, you can see why we jumped to the "wrong" conclusion.


IMO, if Bailey is to be traded for a catching prospect, he would have to be a premium, major league ready catching prospect.

Falls City Beer
03-18-2008, 01:17 PM
Necessity for what? If the rookies collapse the Reds are swimming upstream for 5th place in the division. If the rookies succeed the Reds are ???

Dumping Belisle isn't pivotal to the Reds winning the division. And one could certainly argue that adding Napoli isn't pivotal either. But, personally, I'd rather take my chances on Napoli than Belisle. (shrug)

Rem

Wherever the Reds end up in the division, they're going to need depth. Someone's going to have to throw all those innings, and removing Belisle means the task will fall to younger and younger pitchers--those whose arms probably aren't physically up to the task.

OnBaseMachine
03-18-2008, 01:37 PM
There are only two catching prospects I would consider dealing Homer Bailey for: Jeff Clement and Matt Wieters. Wieters would have to be a PTBNL since it hasn't been a full year since he signed...and I would still need another top prospect in return considering Wieters has never played pro ball except for a handful of games in the Hawaiin League. Jeff Clement is a guy I like a lot. I think he's going to be one of the top two or three hitting catchers in the game for a while.

Another trade idea, and this one is way out there. The Reds could use a lefty in the rotation and the Rays have a few good looking lefties (Kazmir, McGee, Howell). Why not call up the Rays and offer up Homer Bailey for Jacob McGee? Bailey is ranked the 9th best prospect by Baseball America while McGee is #14. Bailey's ceiling is a little higher than McGee's but both pitchers are in the same boat right now: They lack the command necessary to reach their full ceilings. Here's what BA had to say about McGee:

Weaknesses: McGee is still working on mastering his secondary pitches, though both have the makings of becoming plus offerings. He was erratic with his changeup early last season and doesn't fully trust it. He struggles with the command of his slider and also has trouble locating his fastball when he overthrows.

That sounds awful familar doesn't it?

Why do the Reds do this deal? They deal the guy with a higher ceiling but in turn land a lefty with #2 starter potential.

Why do the Rays do this deal? Quite simply, they land the higher ceiling arm in the deal.

*BaseClogger*
03-18-2008, 01:41 PM
Necessity for what? If the rookies collapse the Reds are swimming upstream for 5th place in the division. If the rookies succeed the Reds are ???

Dumping Belisle isn't pivotal to the Reds winning the division. And one could certainly argue that adding Napoli isn't pivotal either. But, personally, I'd rather take my chances on Napoli than Belisle. (shrug)

Rem

This is what I am thinking. I believe Napoli still has four years under team control, while Belisle has three. Belisle will start to get more expensive in arbitration, and Napoli fills a huge need for this team in 2008 and beyond. I'm with Rem--keeping Belisle is not the difference between this team winning the division this year or not. Either the young guns swim and we have a chance, or they sink and it won't matter what we have waiting in the bullpen...

*BaseClogger*
03-18-2008, 01:41 PM
Wherever the Reds end up in the division, they're going to need depth. Someone's going to have to throw all those innings, and removing Belisle means the task will fall to younger and younger pitchers--those whose arms probably aren't physically up to the task.

Tom Shearn :D

*BaseClogger*
03-18-2008, 01:43 PM
What about Freel to the Rays, a pitcher from the Rays to the Angels, and Mathis to the Reds?

me likes, although we may have to toss a prospect in with Freel...

OnBaseMachine
03-18-2008, 02:33 PM
Speaking of catchers, according to today's game thread, Marty says he's heard from other organizations that the Reds are targeting Rangers C Gerald Laird in a trade.

Highlifeman21
03-18-2008, 03:58 PM
Well, since you originally said you would trade Bailey plus about 12 others for Mathis alone, you can see why we jumped to the "wrong" conclusion.


IMO, if Bailey is to be traded for a catching prospect, he would have to be a premium, major league ready catching prospect.

The group of others I suggested are chaff. Trade bait, at best.

I think Bailey could be one of our more valuable trading chips, and we should kick the tires on his value and see what could be fetched for him. Depending on the return determines the fate of Homer Bailey. I'm sure I come across as wanting to trade him just to trade him, but I only feel that way about Wood and Stubbs.