PDA

View Full Version : Angels rumors


MRM
11-25-2006, 07:05 PM
The two most ridiculous rumors I've seen this offseason involved the Angels and Sox.

First the Garcia for Santana rumor. Garcia is an unrestricted FA after 07 while Santana is not only much cheaper but also under team control for a few more years. Kenny would be a fool not to do that deal.

Second the Crede for Figgins rumor. As lopsided as that first rumor was, this one is even more lopsided only in the other direction. Figgins IS Podsednik. His numbers are VERY close to Pods. Why on earth would the Sox give up Crede in order to get a guy to replace Pods who is his near equal? Seems to me they'd simply offer arbitration to Pods.

If you put the two trades together, they make sense...Garcia and Crede for Figgins and Santana...but on their own they are nothing but wishful thinking from sports writers who have no business doing what they do.

Garcia and Crede will both be unrestricted free agents after this year. Boras represents Crede. There is little chance the Sox would re-sign either one of them. Santana is still under club control for a couple of more seasons. I would be on board for THAT deal, but either of the individual deals the Kalifornia press has presented is ridiculous.

jabrch
11-25-2006, 10:59 PM
Kalifornia press

Ruh Roh....

MRM
11-25-2006, 11:02 PM
Ruh Roh....

That was an intentional misspelling.

munchman33
11-25-2006, 11:39 PM
I hate the offseason.

I don't know what's worse, how much people overvalue players like Podsednik, who have close to zero value, or how much people undervalue other teams players we try to acquire.

Scott Podsednik is not Chone Figgins. Not even close. Figgins is faster. Figgins steals bases. Figgins can play multiple positions. Figgins can hit for a respectable average. Figgins has value. Not to mention, he isn't paid a ton either. In fact, Figgins has a ton of value.

I wouldn't trade Crede for Figgins. But I certainly would look at it as somewhere to start a deal that brings us pitching. Crede's in a free agent year, contracts for free agents are ridiculous, and he's blocking our best prospect. If Figgins is available, you better believe KW is looking at this trade possibility.

caulfield12
11-26-2006, 12:25 AM
The two most ridiculous rumors I've seen this offseason involved the Angels and Sox.

First the Garcia for Santana rumor. Garcia is an unrestricted FA after 07 while Santana is not only much cheaper but also under team control for a few more years. Kenny would be a fool not to do that deal.

Second the Crede for Figgins rumor. As lopsided as that first rumor was, this one is even more lopsided only in the other direction. Figgins IS Podsednik. His numbers are VERY close to Pods. Why on earth would the Sox give up Crede in order to get a guy to replace Pods who is his near equal? Seems to me they'd simply offer arbitration to Pods.

If you put the two trades together, they make sense...Garcia and Crede for Figgins and Santana...but on their own they are nothing but wishful thinking from sports writers who have no business doing what they do.

Garcia and Crede will both be unrestricted free agents after this year. Boras represents Crede. There is little chance the Sox would re-sign either one of them. Santana is still under club control for a couple of more seasons. I would be on board for THAT deal, but either of the individual deals the Kalifornia press has presented is ridiculous.


Ummm....Erwin Santana was in his second full season and made $350,000. Next year, he's still under a million. Only in years 4, 5 and 6 will be entering Joe Crede territory in terms of salary....Crede will be entering full season five and won't be able to become a FA until after the 2008 season.

Garcia is going to be making $10,000,000 to be our 3rd or 4th starter.

I guarantee Santana for Garcia makes less sense to the Angels than Figgins for Crede does to the White Sox.

At least Figgins' rights would be controlled by the White Sox for more than one season....not to mention what the White Sox could do with the differential to make our bullpen one of the best in the AL, if not in all of baseball, heading into 2007.

jabrch
11-26-2006, 12:36 AM
Scott Podsednik is not Chone Figgins.

A is not B. You are right.

Not even close.

Well - actually you are wrong. It is pretty damn close

Figgins is faster.

That's not true. Not when Pods is healthy.

Figgins steals bases.

I'm not sure if you know this or not, but Pods steals bases too. In fact, he steals a lot of them. He's ranked 2nd, 1st, 2nd and 5th in his league in the past 4 years.

Figgins can play multiple positions.

That's one of the most overrated skills in AL play. Who really cares? Let him play one position well. That's fine. You want to bash Pods defense - you'd be right. But the fact that Figgins is an average IF doesn't really excite me much. Ozuna plays a lot of positions too - big freaking deal.

Figgins can hit for a respectable average.

Figgins hit .267 last year. Pods hit .261. You telling me that Figgins was respectable, but Pods wasn't? Pods hit .290 in 2005. Isn't that respectable? I don't have any clue what the hell you are talking about by saying that Figgins can hit for a respectable average if by that you mean that Pods can't.

Figgins has value. Not to mention, he isn't paid a ton either. In fact, Figgins has a ton of value.

Nobody said he doesn't have value. But he's not as good as you are painting him out to be. As far as his salary, he made 2.25mm in his first arbitration year last year. Pods, by comparison, made 2.075mm in his first arbitration year. He will go into his second arbitration year this season, so he will not be as much a bargain as you paint him out to be.

Now let's take a more real look at Chone Figgins. He's a .285/.345 hitter with absolutely no power. He plays a lot of positions very average. Big freaking deal. He's no better than Scott Podsednik who is a .275/.342 hitter with the same speed, the same power, and the same cost.

There's no way I'd trade anything for Figgins to have him replace Podsednik. We already have Podsednik who is nearly the exact same player.

Beautox
11-26-2006, 12:38 AM
A is not B. You are right.



Well - actually you are wrong. It is pretty damn close



That's not true. Not when Pods is healthy.



I'm not sure if you know this or not, but Pods steals bases too. In fact, he steals a lot of them. He's ranked 2nd, 1st, 2nd and 5th in his league in the past 4 years.



That's one of the most overrated skills in AL play. Who really cares? Let him play one position well. That's fine. You want to bash Pods defense - you'd be right. But the fact that Figgins is an average IF doesn't really excite me much. Ozuna plays a lot of positions too - big freaking deal.



Figgins hit .267 last year. Pods hit .261. You telling me that Figgins was respectable, but Pods wasn't? Pods hit .290 in 2005. Isn't that respectable? I don't have any clue what the hell you are talking about by saying that Figgins can hit for a respectable average if by that you mean that Pods can't.



Nobody said he doesn't have value. But he's not as good as you are painting him out to be. As far as his salary, he made 2.25mm in his first arbitration year last year. Pods, by comparison, made 2.075mm in his first arbitration year. He will go into his second arbitration year this season, so he will not be as much a bargain as you paint him out to be.

Now let's take a more real look at Chone Figgins. He's a .285/.345 hitter with absolutely no power. He plays a lot of positions very average. Big freaking deal. He's no better than Scott Podsednik who is a .275/.342 hitter with the same speed, the same power, and the same cost.

There's no way I'd trade anything for Figgins to have him replace Podsednik. We already have Podsednik who is nearly the exact same player.

:cheers:

MRM
11-26-2006, 12:39 AM
I hate the offseason.

I don't know what's worse, how much people overvalue players like Podsednik, who have close to zero value, or how much people undervalue other teams players we try to acquire.

Scott Podsednik is not Chone Figgins. Not even close. Figgins is faster. Figgins steals bases. Figgins can play multiple positions. Figgins can hit for a respectable average. Figgins has value. Not to mention, he isn't paid a ton either. In fact, Figgins has a ton of value.

I wouldn't trade Crede for Figgins. But I certainly would look at it as somewhere to start a deal that brings us pitching. Crede's in a free agent year, contracts for free agents are ridiculous, and he's blocking our best prospect. If Figgins is available, you better believe KW is looking at this trade possibility.

Figgins IS Podsplus. There is little difference between them. Both have poor OBP for lead off guys, both strike out way too much for lead off guys neither is very good defensively.

Figgins hits for average? Sure his .267 was MUCH better than Pods .261, right? Granted his 100 strike outs weren't much worse than Pods 96. Must be the on base percentage, I mean Figgins .336 just blows away Pods .330, right? Aren't those the very reasons the Sox are supposedly looking to replace Pods? Poor on base % too many strikeouts? Gonna give up anything of substance to "improve" the lead off hitter so minutely?

Pods has no value while Figgins has a ton of value?

Figgins plays multiple positions? Which one does he play well? He's a liability defensively no matter where you put him. He's just bad in CF, he's worse at 3B. He's a poor fielder no matter how you slice it or where you put him.

Figgins has NO value where the Sox are concerned. Why on earth would the Sox give up ANYTHING of value just to replace Pods with him? You are talking about a VERY slight improvement over a guy the Sox supposedly want to let go because he's not good enough.

Here is all you need to know about Figgins, his strikeout totals the last 3 years: 94, 101, 100. Who the hell wants a leadoff hitter that strikes out that often? Damn sure not me.

Methinks it is you who has overvalued Figgins, here.

jabrch
11-26-2006, 12:40 AM
At least Figgins' rights would be controlled by the White Sox for more than one season....not to mention what the White Sox could do with the differential to make our bullpen one of the best in the AL, if not in all of baseball, heading into 2007.

Figgins is no better than Pods, no less expensive, and no more productive and would be controlled for the same amount of time. We'd have absolutely no reason to make that move.


And you can't just go out and buy a bullpen. That's never been a successful formula to winning, as relievers are very much hit or miss.

MRM
11-26-2006, 12:42 AM
Ummm....Erwin Santana was in his second full season and made $350,000. Next year, he's still under a million. Only in years 4, 5 and 6 will be entering Joe Crede territory in terms of salary....Crede will be entering full season five and won't be able to become a FA until after the 2008 season.

Garcia is going to be making $10,000,000 to be our 3rd or 4th starter.

I guarantee Santana for Garcia makes less sense to the Angels than Figgins for Crede does to the White Sox.

At least Figgins' rights would be controlled by the White Sox for more than one season....not to mention what the White Sox could do with the differential to make our bullpen one of the best in the AL, if not in all of baseball, heading into 2007.

Guess you better go re-read what I wrote because that's EXACTLY what I said about the rumored Garcia for Santana deal.

Figgins would not be controlled for any longer than Pods is. They have the same MLB service time. AND what differential are you talking about? Pods makes less money than Figgins does. Per last year Figgins - $2.25mil, Pods - $2.15mil both are arbitration eligible. The differential in their pay is pretty well equal to the differential in their value.

Beautox
11-26-2006, 12:48 AM
Figgins is no better than Pods, no less expensive, and no more productive. We'd have absolutely no reason to make that move.


And you can't just go out and buy a bullpen. That's never been a successful formula to winning, as relievers are very much hit or miss.

I agree, with you on all your points.

Chone is a lateral move, yes he plays multiple positions but he doesn't play any of them outstanding, we have a bench for "multiple positions". Did everyone suddenly forget that Scioscia was batting him 9th near the end of the year? Chone Figgins is a non move, esp if we have to give up talent for him.


You have to build a BP from scratch simple as that, often times taking under valued players and making them become very valueable for example: Jenks (overweight, health risk, "character problems, no control), MacDougal (health risk), Thornton (97mph straight as an arrow fastball from the left hand side with no command or control), Aardsma(honestly i don't know what the cubs were thinking, hes 24 and has a history of closing and + stuff, nice move KW :))

munchman33
11-26-2006, 12:58 AM
Jabrch:

Figgins had 16 more steals than Podsednik last year. And he was caught three times less. That's a ton more, and that's a lot better job of not getting caught when you consider how much he ran.

Figgins had a bad year last year at the plate. The three previous seasons he hit .290+ Pods doesn't have a history like that. It's also worth noting that Figgins has had a better slugging percentage than Pods each of the last three seasons. His OBP and OPS were higher in each of those seasons as well.

Figgins may not be stellar defensively, but he's leaps and bounds better than Pods in center and left. He doesn't have an absolute noodle arm. He's poor defensively in the infield. Not the outfield.

Figgins is two years younger than Podsednik, whose legs are obviously on the wrong side of thirty. Don't give me that garbage about Pods being faster when he's not hurt. He's not hurt. He's just older. He isn't going to run like he did in the first half of 2005 anymore.

goon
11-26-2006, 01:20 AM
Don't give me that garbage about Pods being faster when he's not hurt. He's not hurt. He's just older. He isn't going to run like he did in the first half of 2005 anymore.



i don't know if anyone can actually prove that podsednik has lost a step. what? because he got caught stealing more times in 2006 than 2005? that doesn't automatically mean he is slower, he could have been getting worse jumps, had trouble reading the pitchers deliveries, etc.

speed does not always equate into being able to steal bases, it's just that speed is essential for stealing bases. that's the reason pablo ozuna only had six stolen bases last year, his technique is ****.

if anyone truly believes figgins is that much of an upgrade over podsednik, they need to put down the pipe.

munchman33
11-26-2006, 01:40 AM
i don't know if anyone can actually prove that podsednik has lost a step. what? because he got caught stealing more times in 2006 than 2005? that doesn't automatically mean he is slower, he could have been getting worse jumps, had trouble reading the pitchers deliveries, etc.

speed does not always equate into being able to steal bases, it's just that speed is essential for stealing bases. that's the reason pablo ozuna only had six stolen bases last year, his technique is ****.

if anyone truly believes figgins is that much of an upgrade over podsednik, they need to put down the pipe.

Podsednik is noticably slower to the eye.

Are you insinuating that every GM in the game is addicted to weed? Because there isn't one GM out there who wouldn't hands down take a proven producer like Figgins over a one-year wonder like Podsednik.

MRM
11-26-2006, 09:40 AM
Podsednik is noticably slower to the eye.

Are you insinuating that every GM in the game is addicted to weed? Because there isn't one GM out there who wouldn't hands down take a proven producer like Figgins over a one-year wonder like Podsednik.

Fine. Trade Pods for him then. Who else are you willing to give up for such a slight improvement? The talk of Crede for Figgins is nuts. Trade one of the best offensive AND defensive 3B to replace a mediocre LF with a slightly less mediocre LF? All in the name of getting one more stolen base every week and a half?

caulfield12
11-26-2006, 09:44 AM
i don't know if anyone can actually prove that podsednik has lost a step. what? because he got caught stealing more times in 2006 than 2005? that doesn't automatically mean he is slower, he could have been getting worse jumps, had trouble reading the pitchers deliveries, etc.

speed does not always equate into being able to steal bases, it's just that speed is essential for stealing bases. that's the reason pablo ozuna only had six stolen bases last year, his technique is ****.

if anyone truly believes figgins is that much of an upgrade over podsednik, they need to put down the pipe.

Pods, despite more RBI's and clutch hits, looked to be a totally different player. He was just a shell of his former self. He didn't have that "eye of the tiger" aggressiveness....I am going to steal and you can't stop me. If you throw over, I will probably get to 2nd before the 1B can throw the ball over.

Near the end of the season, he looked like Willie Harris...afraid to go, stuck in quicksand. He just wasn't psychologically prepared to steal bases, his confidence was shot, partly due to the fact that he had lost a step or two, which you saw in his SB % the second half of 2005. Now, if he can have a "Rocky Balboa" comeback and believe his groin/hernia issues are behind him and step on the gas again, that would be great. But does anyone really expect it to happen? In fact, I remember distinctly in the Minnesota series at the end of the season that Owens came right back after Pods was thrown out easily and stole a base with less technique, and Owens isn't a true blazer either in terms of pure speed. There's quickness, acceleration...and then there's Jose Reyes or Bo Jackson who are just explosive.

If Pods still had to be moved over to 2nd by sacrifices in late-inning situations, he wasn't doing us much good, was he?

munchman33
11-26-2006, 03:52 PM
Fine. Trade Pods for him then. Who else are you willing to give up for such a slight improvement? The talk of Crede for Figgins is nuts. Trade one of the best offensive AND defensive 3B to replace a mediocre LF with a slightly less mediocre LF? All in the name of getting one more stolen base every week and a half?

The slight improvement would be over 2005 career year pods. Not the real pods.

Crede is gone anyways. If you can get Figgins and some of the Angels top prospects for him, don't you have to take it? Especially if you've got someone like Josh Fields ready to take over?

jabrch
11-26-2006, 04:17 PM
The slight improvement would be over 2005 career year pods. Not the real pods.

The Real Pods? *** are you talking about? The 2003 Pods? The 2004 Pods? The 2005 Pods? How can you tell which is real?

munchman33
11-26-2006, 05:01 PM
The Real Pods? *** are you talking about? The 2003 Pods? The 2004 Pods? The 2005 Pods? How can you tell which is real?

How about the guy he was two of the last three years.

MRM
11-26-2006, 05:11 PM
The Real Pods? *** are you talking about? The 2003 Pods? The 2004 Pods? The 2005 Pods? How can you tell which is real?

There is no other way to say it. Compare their seasons last year or compare their careers. There is VERY little difference between these guys.

OBP Career
.342
.345

Career SB
212SB 65CS 76.5%
163SB 54CS 75.1%

162 game averages:

.275 102SO .342OBP 58SB 18CS 60BB 96R 43XBH
.285 100SO .345OBP 48SB 16CS 59BB 97R 43XBH

Now. Tell me which numbers belong to which player.

It's a statistical DRAW. Either one could replace the other with ZERO difference in offensive production. Defensively both are capable of playing a mediocre CF or LF. I guess Figgins has the advantage in that he *can* play a medocre 3B but who cares? Who the hell wants his numbers from your 3B? Even their salaries and service time are near identical.

When you start talking about giving Crede away in order to replace Pods with his near clone...that's just insanity.

MRM
11-26-2006, 05:20 PM
Pods had injury issues the last year and a half, Figgins didn't, yet their numbers were still remarkably similar.

munchman33
11-26-2006, 06:32 PM
Pods had injury issues the last year and a half, Figgins didn't, yet their numbers were still remarkably similar.

Forgetting how to hit, run, steal bases, and throw the ball isn't an "injury" issue. It's an "I'm not good at baseball" issue.

munchman33
11-26-2006, 06:47 PM
OBP Career
.342
.345


Yeah, except Pods isn't really close to that player. He had a year with a .379 OBP skewing the data terribly. He has been better than .330 OBP once in the last three seasons. That's horrible.


Career SB
212SB 65CS 76.5%
163SB 54CS 75.1%


Yeah, except Pods no longer steals at that rate. Last year's steal percentages: Pods 67.7% Figgins 76%

You need to stop talking about Podsednik like last year was an off year. Because 2005 was the off year. His career numbers are skewed. They don't reflect the player he is. Podsednik was Figgins. For one year. 2005. Not last year. And not next year. He isn't close anymore.


Defensively both are capable of playing a mediocre CF or LF.


No, defensively Figgins is fine in left. Great range and a decent arm. Conversely, calling Podsednik mediocre in left is insulting to mediocre outfielders everywhere.


When you start talking about giving Crede away in order to replace Pods with his near clone...that's just insanity.

I don't remember ever suggesting Crede for Figgins straight up. I said Figgins and two of the Angels top prospects. The Angels system is stacked. This deal makes perfect sense.

UserNameBlank
11-27-2006, 05:22 AM
The slight improvement would be over 2005 career year pods. Not the real pods.

Crede is gone anyways. If you can get Figgins and some of the Angels top prospects for him, don't you have to take it? Especially if you've got someone like Josh Fields ready to take over?

Why is Crede gone? He said himself he would like to play here for a long time to come, so what makes you think he won't sign an extension?

Figgins I'd take if I could get him for a couple midlevel prospects, and even then, I'd only want him as an option to replace Mackowiak on the bench. No way in hell is he worth anywhere near what Crede is worth.

If the Angels offer Santana and Figgins for Crede, sure KW should talk about a deal. But for Figgins and another prospect? No way. Crede is much more valuable than that, no matter who the prospect is.

I know its common to undervalue Sox players, but come on. The guy is coming off a silver slugger award, the best offensive season of his career, another gold glove season that people seem to ignore for whatever reason, and he has proven to be one of the better clutch hitters in the AL and a force in the postseason.

If Joe Crede played for the Angels and Chone Figgins played 3rd for the Sox, everyone here would be talking about sending one of our starters and at least one top prospect over to get him. There is no way in hell KW should accept anything less, and even then, he should only make a deal if he really feels like it makes sense. I would have no problem with KW dealing Fields and extending Joe to play 3B for the Sox for the next 5 years.

**edit I see that you said in an above post it should be Figgins and 2 top prospects. No way. KW needs to get at least one young major leaguer with allstar potential PLUS one top prospect for someone with Joe's talent at one of the most important defensive positions in the game. If not, no deal.

If that doesn't sound right, imagine this. What if the Sox had Crede years ago and was dealt to the Angels for some weak hitting defensive liablilty plus Jon Rauch and Joe Borchard. Everyone thought they would be great too, and lots of people would have been calling that trade a steal for the Sox. Well years later they are busts. There is a reason that the Angels want Crede and wanted Konerko last year. They like their prospects but know that proven major league all-star caliber players in their prime are always worth more in reality than what someone else thinks a prospect might do at some point in the future.

ilsox7
11-27-2006, 05:42 AM
Why is Crede gone? He said himself he would like to play here for a long time to come, so what makes you think he won't sign an extension?



It's very realistic that Crede's value is well beyond what the Sox will be able to pay him when he becomes a free agent. That's why some folks think it's best to sell now, getting 100 cents on the dollar as opposed to 70 cents or nothing down the line.

caulfield12
11-27-2006, 08:53 AM
Speaking of busts, maybe McKay Christenson is available still to lead off.

In all seriousness, Garland/Konerko/Crede/Dye/McCarthy and maybe Jenks or Thornton are our most attractive options (in the POV of other teams) for different reasons.

Of course, it's counterintuitive to trade one of your best players...everyone wants to package Pods, Uribe, Riske and Gload/Rogowoski and think that will get you a superstar player in return. Obviously, real life is not "talk radio" or the Cubs' post-game.

If KW can't resign hiim (or Buehrle), then it makes the most sense to investigate all the available options, doesn't it? It doesn't force you to make a trade, but it's always important to have a sense what your players are worth, and I'm sure KW gets offers for Crede every week or so. Maybe one will be good enough (when you figure in "replacement savings" with Fields and the back injury and Boras) for him to trade Joe, we'll see.

Pierzynski 12
11-27-2006, 04:23 PM
Talks are heating up. Crede/Garcia for Figgins/Santana?

CashMan
11-27-2006, 04:46 PM
Talks are heating up. Crede/Garcia for Figgins/Santana?




There has to be something else involved, i would guess money from us and a prospect or 2 from the Angels if not a RP.

whitesoxfan
11-27-2006, 04:50 PM
Talks are heating up. Crede/Garcia for Figgins/Santana?

Supposedly, this was rumored on 670. I guess Kenny isn't confident at all that he would be able to re-sign Crede.

DaveIsHere
11-27-2006, 05:30 PM
Supposedly, this was rumored on 670. I guess Kenny isn't confident at all that he would be able to re-sign Crede.

I heard this on 670 a couple of times on the way home today. Not sure what to think, though I know the rumor was on here about a month or so ago. God bless WSI.:cool:

CPditka
11-27-2006, 06:26 PM
Crede is not an unrestricted free agent after 2007. He has 1 more year of arbitration left after this year. Which means pay increases, but not eligible for free agecy until after the 2008 season.

nodiggity59
11-27-2006, 08:33 PM
I'd like this deal if it went through.

Crede
Garcia
Cash OR top 5 prospect

Figgins
Santana
Donnelly (sp)

Angels fans may cringe, but we can't give up those two guys without big returns.

munchman33
11-27-2006, 08:33 PM
Crede is not an unrestricted free agent after 2007. He has 1 more year of arbitration left after this year. Which means pay increases, but not eligible for free agecy until after the 2008 season.

No, this is his last year of arbitration. You are mistaken. His is a free agent in the offseason. He has 4.12 years of MLB service time, and will have the requisite 5 by the time the year ends.

JDsDirtySox
11-27-2006, 08:40 PM
I'd like this deal if it went through.

Crede
Garcia
Cash OR top 5 prospect

Figgins
Santana
Donnelly (sp)

Angels fans may cringe, but we can't give up those two guys without big returns.

Donnelly is not very good anymore. The Angels are wanting someone to take him off their hands. If you are gonna shoot for another pitcher, lets make it Saunders or Shields.

The Immigrant
11-27-2006, 08:43 PM
No, this is his last year of arbitration. You are mistaken. His is a free agent in the offseason. He has 4.12 years of MLB service time, and will have the requisite 5 by the time the year ends.

http://mlbplayers.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/pa/info/faq.jsp#agency

Q: When does a player become eligible for free agency?

A: A player with six or more years of Major League service who has not executed a contract for the next season is eligible to become a free agent.

JermaineDye05
11-27-2006, 09:15 PM
just out of curiousity IF the deal was in fact what people have been saying Crede/Garcia for Figgins/Santana. IF it went down what are the chances Kenny decides to take Santana and send him to Tampa Bay in a deal for Carl Crawford?

nodiggity59
11-27-2006, 09:34 PM
just out of curiousity IF the deal was in fact what people have been saying Crede/Garcia for Figgins/Santana. IF it went down what are the chances Kenny decides to take Santana and send him to Tampa Bay in a deal for Carl Crawford?

If we got Santana I'd rather see KW flip Vazquez to say the Mets for a package that could get Crawford (maybe with Sox prospects thrown in).

McCarthy and Santana > Vazquez and Garcia, especially financially. Also, if this happened we could keep Figgins arounud to play in either CF or at 3B depending on the rooks.

MRM
11-27-2006, 09:51 PM
just out of curiousity IF the deal was in fact what people have been saying Crede/Garcia for Figgins/Santana. IF it went down what are the chances Kenny decides to take Santana and send him to Tampa Bay in a deal for Carl Crawford?

Zero, I hope.

I like Crawford, alot, but no way you give up a pitcher like Santana who is young, cheap, under club control for several more years (and very good) for Carl. Besides, if you you've got Figgins, what are you going to do with Crawford? Unless you are planning to give up on Anderson as well as Pods or, heaven forbid, make Figgins your every day 3B.

If this deal was done, I'd rather see Vasquez go somewhere for Bullpen help and prospects. I think the Rotation gets much stronger with McCarthy and Santana replacing Garcia and Vasquez.

Or, in my dream world, use the leverage to go after Willis and/or Cabrera from Fla. And since I'm dreaming and the Sox now have Santana, Willis and McCarthy (three guys who should be in their rotation for the next 5+ years) under their control they may as well Ship Buehrle, Garland, and Broadway to the Yankees for ARod.

Would be the perfect plan except I haven't figured out how to get Cabrera and Willis without sending Fla anything in return :D:. Oh well, that's Kennys job, I did the hard part.:D:

samram
11-27-2006, 10:20 PM
Zero, I hope.

I like Crawford, alot, but no way you give up a pitcher like Santana who is young, cheap, under club control for several more years (and very good) for Carl. Besides, if you you've got Figgins, what are you going to do with Crawford? Unless you are planning to give up on Anderson as well as Pods or, heaven forbid, make Figgins your every day 3B.

If this deal was done, I'd rather see Vasquez go somewhere for Bullpen help and prospects. I think the Rotation gets much stronger with McCarthy and Santana replacing Garcia and Vasquez.

Or, in my dream world, use the leverage to go after Willis and/or Cabrera from Fla. And since I'm dreaming and the Sox now have Santana, Willis and McCarthy (three guys who should be in their rotation for the next 5+ years) under their control they may as well Ship Buehrle, Garland, and Broadway to the Yankees for ARod.

Would be the perfect plan except I haven't figured out how to get Cabrera and Willis without sending Fla anything in return :D:. Oh well, that's Kennys job, I did the hard part.:D:

Then why the hell would LAA give him up?

palehozenychicty
11-27-2006, 10:28 PM
Then why the hell would LAA give him up?


This is what I find intriguing. He proved that he can throw in the postseason in '05 against the Yanks after Colon predictably crapped the bed. They may know something we don't yet......

The Immigrant
11-27-2006, 10:33 PM
Then why the hell would LAA give him up?

Because you can't get something for nothing? :cool:

The Angels already have Weaver and Saunders in their rotation next year, in addition to Lackey, Colon and Escobar. Maybe they like Weaver and Saunders better than Santana.

samram
11-27-2006, 10:38 PM
Because you can't get something for nothing? :cool:

The Angels already have Weaver and Saunders in their rotation next year, in addition to Lackey, Colon and Escobar. Maybe they like Weaver and Saunders better than Santana.

I guess then that they would move Garcia after they got him. I guess it just doesn't make a lot of sense to me from LAA's payroll perspective, since they seem to be desperate to add a bat after the Cubs saved them from Ramirez and signed Soriano.

Edit: And by "add a bat", I'm not referring to Joe Crede.

SABRSox
11-27-2006, 10:53 PM
As far as any trade with the Angels goes, we'd better be getting Brandon Wood, Erick Aybar, Howie Kendrick, or Kendry Morales back in return.

Bobbo35
11-28-2006, 06:45 AM
Did anyone hear yesterday on the score that the Sox are possibly going to make a trade of Crede and Freddy to the Angels for Figgins and Erwin Santana? I did not see that posted.

DiGiSyKo
11-28-2006, 06:48 AM
Right here...
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=81571

What's The Score?

OzzyTrain
11-28-2006, 02:37 PM
That's not true. Not when Pods is healthy.


Yeah, when will he be back to being healty. I would take Figgins over Pods right now, seems like a lot of people are living in the past.

UserNameBlank
11-28-2006, 05:10 PM
We had better be getting a heck of a lot more than Figgins and Ervin Santana back from Crede and Freddy.

Santana may be cheap, but he hasn't proven jack in the postseason and big games in his career. Freddy has.

Figgins may be cheap and fast, but we already have a guy like that.

I wouldn't trade Crede straight up for Santana and I wouldn't trade Garcia straight up for Figgins either. Throw in the Angels 2 top proespects or 1 top prospect and Shields/K-Rod and we have a deal. Otherwise no way in hell.

If the Sox are going to do something stupid I'd rather see them do nothing at all. Just trade one starter (Vazquez) and use whatever pieces from that deal and/or what we have in the minors to net 2 solid, veteran bullpen arms. Bring back the exact same team and watch the Sox win the division.

munchman33
11-28-2006, 05:48 PM
We had better be getting a heck of a lot more than Figgins and Ervin Santana back from Crede and Freddy.



Seriously. You people need a wakeup call. Ervin Santana is young, cheap, and has explosive stuff. He has more value than any player on our roster. He probably has more value than any two players on our roster. In fact, Santana alone for Crede and Freddy is probably as far as the Angels are willing to go, given how cheap he is and how much the other two would cost. That's a lot of salary to take on, and both players are nearing free agency. Santana is not. If we want Figgins too, we'll probably have to send them some prospects.

Getting Santana and Figgins for Crede and Garcia would be an absolute steal for us.

A. Cavatica
11-28-2006, 06:06 PM
When and why did this thread move to the clubhouse? Did a trade happen?

munchman33
11-28-2006, 06:29 PM
When and why did this thread move to the clubhouse? Did a trade happen?

I was just thinking the same thing.

Cuck_The_Fubs
11-28-2006, 07:02 PM
Seriously. You people need a wakeup call. Ervin Santana is young, cheap, and has explosive stuff. He has more value than any player on our roster. He probably has more value than any two players on our roster. In fact, Santana alone for Crede and Freddy is probably as far as the Angels are willing to go, given how cheap he is and how much the other two would cost. That's a lot of salary to take on, and both players are nearing free agency. Santana is not. If we want Figgins too, we'll probably have to send them some prospects.

Getting Santana and Figgins for Crede and Garcia would be an absolute steal for us.

When and why did this thread move to the clubhouse? Did a trade happen?
1st thing's first: munchman, i 100% agree with you. Santana is much younger than most people his numbers compete with. Santana not only impresses me, but think about what this kid will have in the next year or 2? IMO, he's the next Garland, and he's only going to get better.

2nd thing: I really don't know why, but the only thing i could think of is because it is one of the biggest sox rumors ever since baseball ended.

Lillian
11-28-2006, 09:04 PM
Wouldn't you think that if a trade like this is made, that there would also be another deal. We still would probably look to move one of the other starters, and that is where we might get our impact player for center. You know which guy I covet!!!!!

Did I hear Tampa Bay calling?

DickAllen72
11-28-2006, 10:06 PM
Wouldn't you think that if a trade like this is made, that there would also be another deal. We still would probably look to move one of the other starters, and that is where we might get our impact player for center. You know which guy I covet!!!!!

Did I hear Tampa Bay calling?

As I posted elsewhere, the Sox make this trade then flip Santana along with Fields and Anderson to the Marlins for Miguel Cabrera. Cabrera plays third while Sweeney takes over in CF. Figgins plays LF.

Domeshot17
11-28-2006, 10:07 PM
you have a better chance at getting carl winslow to play CF then carl crawford.


you guys have it all wrong. Crawford wont be dealt

however, they do have an OF who would be perfect for us, leading off, his name is Rocco Baldelli

Lillian
11-28-2006, 10:19 PM
As I posted elsewhere, the Sox make this trade then flip Santana along with Fields and Anderson to the Marlins for Miguel Cabrera. Cabrera plays third while Sweeney takes over in CF. Figgins plays LF.

Do you really think that K.W. would even want to do that, if he could?
I personally believe that Santana is a high priority for him. He wants a younger, and inexpensive starter.

Lillian
11-28-2006, 10:21 PM
you have a better chance at getting carl winslow to play CF then carl crawford.


you guys have it all wrong. Crawford wont be dealt

however, they do have an OF who would be perfect for us, leading off, his name is Rocco Baldelli

To the contrary, the Devil Rays know that they won't be able to afford Crawford when his contract is up, in 3 years. That is just when all of their young guys should gel together. I read somewhere that they want a young, inexpensive starter, and we all know that they have a surplus of outfielders.

A. Cavatica
11-28-2006, 11:47 PM
As I posted elsewhere, the Sox make this trade then flip Santana along with Fields and Anderson to the Marlins for Miguel Cabrera. Cabrera plays third while Sweeney takes over in CF. Figgins plays LF.

I really don't see the Sox trading away two third basemen to get Cabrera, while leaving themselves no better in CF and LF.

Man Soo Lee
11-29-2006, 12:30 AM
As I posted elsewhere, the Sox make this trade then flip Santana along with Fields and Anderson to the Marlins for Miguel Cabrera. Cabrera plays third while Sweeney takes over in CF. Figgins plays LF.

If Santana and prospects were enough to get Cabrera, he'd already be an Angel.

Cuck_The_Fubs
11-29-2006, 05:24 AM
If Santana and prospects were enough to get Cabrera, he'd already be an Angel.
Wouldn't our deal seem much better in comparison though? Joe Crede offers solid defense in the hot spot while Garcia just dominates in Angel Stadium?

chaerulez
11-29-2006, 09:23 AM
I do not want Figgins. He is basically a Podsednik who can play more positions. And although he isn't as bad of a hack as Pods in the OF, I still don't want him. There is a reason the Angels have him slated to bat ninth if they don't deal him. The Sox should throw in Vazquez who looks like a steal right now at 2 years/18 million and ask that the Angels then throw out Figgins and add in Shields and either Erick Aybar or Howie Kendrick. And ask for Jeff Mathis and Reggie Willits. It might seem like a robbery for the Sox, but the Angels would have to be intrigued they could throw out a rotation of Weaver, Garcia, Vazquez, Lackey and Colon. Given Colon's injury history, they also have Escobar as a backup option. Escobar could also go into the relief role he thrived under in the 2005 playoffs until the dropped ball incident.

I would rather have Kendrick than Aybar. Kendrick has 30/30 potential and hits better for average. Aybar does have amazing speed and defense, but Kendrick would be ready to step in 2007 after Iguchi's contract is up. Willits is underrated as a prospect, his OBP and defense would help the team, he could either be a reserve OF or compete for the vacant LF position (I'm assuming Pods is gone). I think it isn't too out of the question to ask for Aybar, Kendrick, Mathis and Willits. Giving up a stud everyday 3B and two above average starting pitchers that are making less than market value right now. Of course the trade is a risk because we don't know how anyone would really end up besides Santana and Shields, but the White Sox future would be set if the young talent panned out.