Angels Get Worse
Good news for the Mariners today – the Angels have voluntarily made their team worse, sending SS Orlando Cabrera to the White Sox for RHP Jon Garland.
Despite his reputation, Garland is just a generic #4 starter. I’m not sure there’s a team in the AL that needed Jon Garland less than the Angels, who already have a quality rotation and some good young arms in the upper levels of their farm system. Meanwhile, the Angels don’t have any obvious candiates to replace Cabrera at shortstop – Erick Aybar is probably the frontrunner, but that’s a pretty big downgrade for a LAA offense that already had problems scoring runs at times.
This is a nice move by Kenny Williams, giving his team a legitimate major league shortstop and selling high on Garland, who should be easily replaced by any one of the number of decent backend starters the White Sox didn’t have room for before this deal.
If the Angels are in the market to deal a young arm for a power bat, say Miguel Cabrera, then this is an excellent first step. If they deal pitching later they should add some right now.
Sweet! I saw the deal on Yahoo, and as I came over here to see if it was posted yet, I thought to myself “Angels Get Worse.” I think I’ve been reading this site for too long.
Great minds think alike!
I’ve been puzzling over the same thing; that’s a headscratcher.
Maybe the Angels are trying to clear room on the infield to move A-Rod back to short (phsaw).
Or maybe they don’t understand their own strengths and weaknesses.
Yeah, I wonder if this is the Angels stocking up on a little more pitching with an eye towards putting together a package to get that “one big bat” Moreno has been talking about for years now.
I’m a little terrified they’re cooking up something for Hanley Ramirez. I’m hoping it’s more along the lines of Miguel Tejada.
#1 – this does leave them with only the #5 spot to fill, and they could move Wood, Adenhart, and maybe Santana for Miggy. But I don’t know how deep the Angels are in pitching prospects – would they have much coming through in the next few years if they deal Adenhart? Would they care, since they have Lackey, Weaver, Escobar, and Garland set for a couple years (even if they overvalue Weaver and Garland?)?
Mariners lucked out. Unless the Angels are plannings on putting someone else there. The AL West may not be a lock for the Angels like so many people predict if they keep making moves like this.
I forgot to add, when I saw this post, first thing I thought was “this is a deal the Mariners would’ve most likely have made”. But I was relieved it wasn’t them. Bavasi still hasn’t proven yet that he can outwit another GM in the trading market.
I think this move is a pre-cursor to another, bigger deal for the Angels.
Otherwise, it really is inexplicable.
What this trade implies, I think, is that the Angels are very close to dealing for their main target – Miguel Cabrera. Most likely they anticipate putting him at third base, and so in order to clear the way, they will move Figgins to shortstop, leaving OCab without a place, so why not deal him? Sure its a bad trade overall, but since they don’t need OCab then it probably makes sense for them.
He might not project as a SS, but what about Brandon Wood? Perhaps this move opens SS for him.
Is Brandon Wood not a legit option at SS in 2008?
Brandon Wood is not a shortstop, nor is he major league ready.
@5
Garland’s a FA after ‘08
The image of Kenny Williams in front of a computer, typing “pwned” into his Counterstrike chat console comes to mind.
They have got to have another deal in line. And, they better hope it doesn’t fall through.
Angels sent cash too.
I think everyone is forgetting the Angels probably had a better option to start at SS than Cabrera, Macier Izturis. Is replacing Cabrera with Izturis really a bad move? Seems all this does is make Aybar the new back up middle IFer and give the Angels another option for the rotation.
Not sure how they got worse. Maybe more importantly, we havent done anything to get better.
Well its time to prepare for the worst – The Angels finally getting that power bat that will seal the division next year. Seriously if I am Bavasi and see that the Angels traded Kendrick, Izturis, and Adenhart, for MigCab, its time to play for ‘09.
Ughh the Angels have so much young talent in their organization right now.
Seems like they’re fixin’ to go after A-Rod.
No ARod is signing with the Yankees most likely.
How playable is Chone Figgins at short? The speculation that this is a precursor to a Cabrera blockbuster would seem to depend on the Angels deciding to keep a star fixed at third, while at short they cycle their superutility player with a couple mediocrities, instead of vice versa.
19 – If we’ve learned anything, it’s to not be surprised of anything with a Boras client, or A-Rod. The odds are pretty good at this point that he goes back to New York, but if Moreno for some reason called him with a truck load of cash (which I don’t think will happen) A-Rod would certainly listen. Wouldn’t you?
I just don’t see how the Angels could outbid the Yankees. If the Yankees want A-Rod, they will get A-Rod. Trading their prospects seems to be wiser and more practical for the Angels.
Vladi and A-Rod on the same team should be illegal.
Yay! I couldn’t believe it when I saw it. I too thought the same thing: “Angels get worse.” I like the fact that the Mariner’s get to beat up on Garland more often than eight times a year now. That makes me smile.
Dave,
I’m curious about the, ‘good young arms in the upper levels of their farm system,’ the Angels have. 2007 was not a great year for Angels pitching ’spects, as even Nick Adenhart looked a lot more hittable. But behind Adenhart, who do you see as MLB quality? Stephen Marek and Nick Green have some GB tendencies, but they give up a hell of a lot of homers. And Arredondo is now a closer. Seems like the Angels are weaker in pitching talent than they’ve been in quite some time, and the drop-off from Adenhart to the #2 guy is just massive.
They have some promise in the midwest league, but that’s years away.
I’d agree that this is a bad deal for the Angels UNLESS it’s stage one of a multi-stage deal. But it might just be that the Angels are legitimately worried about the back of their rotation. I can’t believe that’s the biggest of their worries, but their farm system may not be as helpful in 2008 as it will be in 2009 and beyond.
O-Cab had one of the better all-around seasons in baseball . . . at any position. He was phenomenal. I understand pitching is expensive and age was a factor, but wow. The Angels clearly made this move for a reason . . . and I’m afraid to find out what that might be.
I also wonder if this will give A-Rod something to ponder just before he sells his soul to the Yankees. He could move back to the mellowness of the West Coast, have his choice between SS or 3B . . .
Come on. This is a huge win for the Angels. To suggest that the difference between Garland and Santana is less than the difference between Cabrera vs Izturis/Aybar isn’t an honest evaluation.
Of course, this is a precursor to another trade. The Angels have 6 starting pitchers (Lackey/Escobar/Weaver/Saunders/Santana/Garland), another one that should be ready near the end of 08/early 09 and a few converted starters who could step in (Mosley) if needed. They are definitely flipping one or more pitchers for a big bat.
The White Sox are the big losers in this deal. They turned down a Renteria + other players deal for Garland. Renteria is definitely superior to Cabrera. Getting rid of Uribe at SS is a plus but how in the world are they going to find another pitcher that is 4.00-4.50 and 200 innings?
This deal looks awful on the surface. My question is what they plan on doing with Vlad. I see them moving Vlad to DH at least part time the way he gimps around in right on those Astroturf knees of his.
I am happy to see Cabreras .407 avg and .967 OPS against us last year be gone. Over his career he hit .343 and .852 OPS against the M’s, it is a gift to get him out of the West.
that would be MVP Alex Rodriguez, heading back to the Yanks.
“Rodriguez had 28 first-place votes and 382 points in balloting by the Baseball Writers’ Association of America. Ordonez had two firsts and 258 points, and was followed by the Angels’ Vladimir Guerrero (203) and Boston’s David Ortiz (177).”
Brandon Wood is not a shortstop, nor is he major league ready.
The Angels had Wood at third most of the first half at Salt Lake, but they reversed that as the season went on. So they are pretty likely thinking of him at short at some point.
Oh good, maybe they’ll even be of the mind to take Jeff Weaver back for their #5!
Anything that makes the Angels worse is great in my book. Unless they make some more bad moves, and the Mariners make some good moves, they’re going to run away with the AL West.
Man, I totally agree with you, Dave. When was the last time that happened?
I’m just baffled that the Angels even did this for all the reasons you stated. Was this all about Garland’s rep and the Angels buying into it?
28: Bummer in a way for Mags…if ever he was going to have an MVP season, it would’ve been last year.
ooh! Rex Hudler loves Garland and loves the move
I think everyone is forgetting the Angels probably had a better option to start at SS than Cabrera, Macier Izturis. Is replacing Cabrera with Izturis really a bad move? Seems all this does is make Aybar the new back up middle IFer and give the Angels another option for the rotation.
The Bill James projections posted at fangraphs have Maicer Izturis projected to be better offensively than Cabrera next year, so that’s not a totally unreasonable position.
It seems like the Angels could have gotten a better return, but I can sort of see the logic if they follow this up by acquiring a 3B who can really hit.
33- rex hudler is A) the biggest “homer” in the world and B) an idiot…
#34 Im not a sabermetrician but it seems Cabrera sort of played over his head last year and Izturis repeated the previous year making him a better offensive player.
I dont know what the hype regarding Garland is, but, I’m guessing the Angels see something they like and they have for the most part been pretty good at judging pitchers in recent seasons. I still remember how everyone scoffed at the Escobar signing and someone pointed out they were stupid for signing a guy who only pitched well bvs them.
If he’s their number 4-5 starter next year that gives them a back of the rotation pitcher who managed a better ERA+ of 112 last year. Who among our SPs posted a better figure? Doesnt the move from US Cellular to Edison also likely help him?
Im not as well versed as others here but at worst they got a pretty decent back end of the rotation guy, and at best they may have found filler to pick up the slack should they land Miguel Cabrera.
I just don’t see how they are worse and once again. How are we better? The gap seems to be widening, not closing.
I have to believe this is a move before “the move.” The Angels have a lot of chips to move and I have to believe it means they are going to make a big push for Miggy. If that’s the case, I would rather have O. Cabrera on the Angels. I’ve always like Orlando but I don’t think this move is as bad as it seems to be.
I don’t think the issue with this move is the move itself so much as the reasoning behind it. Was there really a need for the Angels to acquire Garland at the expense of O.Cabrera? Not really, not with the solid young arms in their org.
It also seems if your making a second move you would rather have Cabrera then Garland as one of your trading pieces, unless you are going after M. Cabrera. H. Ramirez is the shortstop down in FL until they get rid of him, so it makes sense to stock up on pitching cause your not trading O. Cabrera to the Marlins for any worth.
I’m thinking this deal is how they create space for MCab… Izturis goes to SS, Garland becomes their #5 starter (and they like knowing what they’re going to get and how much he’ll cost), Kendrick/Wood/SP prospects go to Florida for MCab, Figgins moves to 2B and they’re even better.
Who are these solid young arms, outside of Adenhart? Seriously?
They have some good talent in the MWL, but that’s years away. Are we talking about Bootcheck/Saunders/Moseley?
I am afraid that this is just the precursor for the Angels landing M. Cabrera or Tejada. I think Garland is just filler for a year, so they can trade Saunders or Santana in a package.
They have had a log-jam in the middle infield and probably weren’t going to resign O. Cabrera, anyway. Plus, O. Cabrera just had a career offensive year which he won’t repeat. Also, I’m pretty sure that Brandon Wood came up through the minors as a shortstop and was recently converted to a third-baseman. Wood, and Izturis could both be better offensive shortstops than Cabrera.
My point is, the Angels aren’t losing that much at short and this is a set-up for a bigger trade. If it help them land a big bat (which unfortunately i think it will) this trade is bad news. I think saying “Angels Get Worse” is just wishful thinking. Lastly, Rex Hudler sucks.
Couple of thoughts. How do you “sell high” on a pitcher that was 12 and 13 last year with a 4+ ERA? How does the Angels getting worse make YOU any better? Angels are flying to Florida right now to lock up Cabrera, sign A-Rod and trade for Santana. Alright, maybe just the first one, but that’s the only one you should care about because it puts them so far ahead you won’t catch them. How many years left on the Washburn deal?
Keith Law and Rob Neyer have pretty much the opposite optinion.
Unfortunately, both are only accessible to those with an Insider subscription.
Law: http://tinyurl.com/2hfo74
Neyer: http://tinyurl.com/yqr762
Are we talking about Bootcheck/Saunders/Moseley?
A 2007 Comparison:
Garland 11.1% K/PA, 6.5% BB/PA, 42% GB%, 4.23 ERA, 4.44 FIP
Bootcheck 16.9% K/PA, 7.3% BB/PA, 45% GB%, 4.77 ERA, 4.17 FIP
Saunders 14.6% K/PA, 7.2% BB/PA, 47% GB%, 4.44 ERA, 4.34 FIP
Moseley 13.1 K/PA, 7.0% BB/PA, 49% GB%, 4.40 ERA, 4.28 FIP
Even considering that Moseley (8 GS) and Bootcheck (0 GS) were relievers, and Bootcheck is not exactly young (2008 will be his age 29 season), they should count as solid, cheap arms.
hmm. though he didn’t make it onto the Cy Young ballot, JJ rec’d some MVP votes.
The Angels have one hitter who outperforms his positional average, and now they’re actively filling their rotation with flotsam.
If Seattle or Oakland doesn’t find a way to win this division, Selig should just disband it. We suck.
Evan, you are assuming (a) neither Howie Kendrick, Casey Kotchman, nor any of the other young players will improve at all, (b) the Angels do not make any additional moves, and (c) the pitching staff reverts to league average.
To put it another way, there would be no shame in losing to a team of Vlad, Kendrick, Kotchman, six Randy Winns (version 2004), and the current Angels pitching staff.
2008 ZiPS says they don’t surpass their position average.
Their pitching is still very good, but guys like Garland make it worse. That’s my point – they’re downgrading their one real strength.
Garland is only a no. 4 starter, but he is not a downgrade. He likely will outperform what the Angels got out of the Colon/Santana spot in the rotation.
As for ZIPS, Kendrick and Kotchman outperformed positional averages last year as 23 and 24 year olds, and had to deal with injuries (the arch enemy of projection systems), so let me be the first to take the over on them.
I think that’s about right, Grizz. They get a likely upgrade over the likes of Chris Bootcheck, though it may be something of a push w/Dustin Moseley.
And I’d agree that I’d rather have Moseley than, oh, Cha Baek, but really – I don’t know that i’d argue that having the likes of Saunders/Moseley/Bootcheck is a good reason NOT to make this move. They’re decent and cheap, and the price they paid was too much. But if you’re the type who values what Garland brings to the table (luck, a hot wife), then I understand it. (If they had a good OF it would be even more understandable…)
Still, Garland can regress a bit and still be a big improvement at #4. This also allows them to use Moseley full time at #5 if Ervin Santana keeps sucking.
#46– and the general feeling seems to be this is a preliminary move to getting a bat, either Cabrera or Tejada.
I would expect better analysis from this site on the deal. How about comparing the VORP (or similiar stat of your choosing) between Jon Garland and the difference between Macier Izturis and Orlando Cabrera (using 2008 projections) and see which is greater.
My guess is that…
Jon Garland is greater than… Orlando Cabrera – Macier Izturis.
Cabrera vs Izturis
Izturis definitely wins on the offensive ledger and Cabrera on the defensive ledger.
My wag at this is that the Angels traded depth at SS for Jon Garland. Take a look at the Zips projections for Izturis and Cabrera.
vr, Xei
But that’s not the only way to look at it, 53.
The question is, what’s the difference between Garland and Moseley/Bootcheck?
I don’t really know, but it’s probably not a very big number.
Now compare that to the Orlando Cabrera – Maicer Izturis figure.
Then throw in the roughly $2m that Los Angeles needs to pay (Garland salary – OCab salary), plus whatever they gave Chicago.
The only way this works out is if the Angels *really wanted* to make a push for a free agent pitcher (like Carlos Silva), and figured they could save some money by making a trade instead. They’re probably right that they save a bit of money and a lot of risk (Garland’s contract expires after 2008) this way, but then, if the only way it works out is in comparison to a hypothetical acquisition of Carlos Silva, then it may not be a very good deal.
54. That’s fair, but my swag based on 2008 projections (Zips, Bill James etc…), is that…
M.Izturis > O.Cabrera
-AND-
J.Garland > Mosecheck
Izturis makes a similiar salary to Mosecheck. The Angles throw in a little cash to make up for getting the better of the deal. I just don’t see how this deal should get a blog entry title of “Angels Get Worse”. To me, it’s at worst a “wash” for the Angels.
This also may just be the beginning of a larger deal, which makes this topic moot, but for now…
vr, Xei
I agree with xeifrank…this really seems to be a wash. Yeah, the Angels as of today do not need Garland, but the Angels also traded / sold high on Cabrera, and the Angels do have Izturis, Wood, Figgins, and etc… However, the Angels got stronger in an area that most of the league needs now especially – starting pitching, so the BIG news comes when the next deal falls.
Yeah, the Angles could have gotten more for Cabrera, but they may get more later, which really scares me.
Either way though, the Angels did not get significantly worse today.
While it’s entirely possible that there’s another deal in the works that this might be a setup for, I don’t know that yet and neither do you.
So it’s pointless to evaluate the move made today based on what else might happen.
The discussion of performance and projections seems to neglect the single most important indicator of shortstop value: his ability to turn balls in play into outs. According to the
fans’ scouting report, Cabrera is above average here. That needs to be considered alongside offensive projections. (Unless I missed that part of the discussion, in which case, never mind.)
He likely will outperform what the Angels got out of the Colon/Santana spot in the rotation.
It doesn’t matter what they got out of that spot in the rotation in 2007. What matters is what they would get out of that spot in the rotation if they didn’t get Garland, and how that compares to what they gave up to get Garland.
That’s an important point, 58, as Bootcheck/Moseley are GB pitchers. Izturis, based on his THT fielding stats, looks like a worse fielding SS than Cabrera, so the value of guys like Moseley takes a hit.
But something similar may happen w/Garland: The angels OF was below average, and was worse than LAA’s last year – that means Garland might take a BABIP hit. On the other hand, Edison reduces HRs, so the Angels may believe Garland can continue his HR/FB rate.
On balance, it seems like you’re paying $10m for a guy that every team (incl. Los Angeles) has a lot of – a FB guy who doesn’t walk many and doesn’t strike out anyone. We have Cha Baek, who I like a lot, but not $10m worth. The Angels could go w/GB pitcher Moseley who also doesn’t strike anyone out, but costs nothing. Moseley isn’t worth much, but there’s an opportunity cost here.
I’ll agree with you that it doesn’t do a whole lot to the Angels chances one way or the other. I just think their DER on the whole may go down, though they may also be a lot more consistent at the back of the rotation. Can’t tell which effect is bigger at this point.
I would expect better analysis from this site on the deal. How about comparing the VORP (or similiar stat of your choosing) between [...]
My guess is that…
Hee hee hee.
On Izturis, Orlando Cabrera is an average to above average major league shortstop, while I am not sure Maicer Izturis is a major league shortstop. ZIPS is almost a wash (274/328/364 v. 273/346/378). Izturis would also need a platoon partner against LHP (career v. LHP: 236/322/320) if he was to play full-time, which the ZIPS projection does not appear to take into account.
On Garland, the Angels already had Santana and Saunders to fill out the last two rotation spots, plus Moseley and Bootcheck in the bullpen and Adenhart potentially ready later in the year if injuries or ineffectiveness hit. That is a fair amount of depth, and Garland is a modest upgrade at best.
Evan: Your point that I was refuting was your statement that “[t]heir pitching is still very good, but guys like Garland make it worse.” Adding Garland did not make the Angels pitching worse. But I agree with Dave’s original point (and your follow up comment) that the addition of Garland at the cost of Cabrera makes the team worse overall.
61. yeah, hee hee. Just trying to be modest.
vr, Xei
I know how that is, when you’re all trying to be modest, expressing disappointment in Dave for not using stats and then offering even less substantial analysis of your own… it’s certainly a great service to those people who might for whatever reason look to your comment for something worthwhile.
Yes, yes, that’s needlessly sharp, I know.
64. I left a modest analysis. If you can’t take constructive criticism put in a very nice and polite way, then you are doing yourself a dis-service. vr, Xei
There’s a giant article on the left side that deals with pitching analysis. VORP sucks at it, and it’s not in there for a reason. I didn’t ignore VORP out of ignorance – I ignored it because I know better.
If that’s your idea of modest analysis, I’d hate to see your idea of superficial. Or why you’d complain about the original article.
Orrr… why am I even arguing this?
Dave, Brandon Wood IS a SS. He came up in the organization as a SS. It was only this past season that the Angels moved him to 3B, because that was seen as the fastest route to the bigs (since OC was doing well at SS).
He may well wind up in a trade for Miguel Cabrera, but if not he could be the SS for the Angels. He hit 40+ HR at A-level ball but not as many since then. Still, he could be good for 20+ HR at the SS position, something the Angels haven’t had since ever.
One more thought: A trade for Miguel Cabrera may also bring Dan Uggla. Uggla then replaces Kendrick at 2B, which gives up BA but adds 20+ HR to the lineup in replacement.
I would be very surprised if this is all there is to the Angel moves. Winter meetings are next week and there should be one or two more surprises.
I’m not sure what I’m missing here, but I don’t see ANY analysis of the trade in the blog entry. Dave, I am just pointing out that there wasn’t any analysis, just a quirky comment that the “Angels Got Worse”, then a bunch of cheerleading in the comments. I was surprised to read something like this from this blog. There are some great things written here. DMZ is in attack-dog mode. Not sure what the point of that is.
Moving on…
vr, Xei
Why the White Sox made this deal I cannot begin to fathom, however the ‘Angels get worse’ is hogwash. The only thing the Angels get out of this deal is deeper at the most sought after commodity in Baseball…Starting Pitching.
It is being thrown around in this thread that this is the prelude to a bigger deal for the Angels and that makes perfect sense. The Marlins will want pitching in return for Miguel Cabrera and the Angels added depth to that group. A loss of Jered Weaver isnt as much of a burden for the rotation this year with the addition of Garland.
But what did the Angels lose? A guy coming off his career year, and will be hard pressed to duplicate, that has replacements readily available within the organization whom are paid substantially less.
If this deal is indeed a prelude to another deal then the M’s will continue to be in trouble until the farm truly begins producing numerous quality players.
I’m looking forward to 2010!
Okay, but those replacements are going to be substantial downgrades from Cabrera, whether or not they’re paid less.
And as for the whole Starting Pitching thing… I just don’t get it. If the Mariners traded, say, Ichiro for Garland and paid the salary difference, that wouldn’t be a good move, was it?
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, whatever.
I don’t see why this is such a bad trade for the Angels, either. They traded from a position of strength and depth for a #4 starter. Bringing in a #4 starter is not a glamorous move, but #4 starters have significant value. Seems like a decent move for both sides to me.
I figured they were making room for Brandon Wood…is he ready?
Brandon Wood as an ML-ready shortstop? Replacing Kendrick with Uggla? Jon Garland is a valuable player? This thread is weird.
DMZ
Substantial downgrade!? No. Potential downgrade. Yes. Cabrera is coming off of a career year and would most likely not repeat those numbers therefore representing a downgrade from himself. Izturis is not a ’substantial downgrade’ especially if you offset his loss with a Miguel Cabrera gain.
Ichiro is one of the best players in the game and Cabrera is not. I dont see how you can compare the two in your hypothetical.
And why would the M’s pay money?
And why would the M’s pay money?
Exactly. Why did the Angels?
This thread makes me confused, then angry, then sad.
There are a lot of people expressing confusion, sadness, and the like. So far, DMZ, Dave and Jeff S have all come in and acted like the conclusion of Dave’s post is so obvious that no analysis is necessary. My gut reaction is that both Cabrera and Garland will be league-average players, but it isn’t always easy to compare pitchers and hitters. Here’s one analysis:
Garland has thrown 200+ innings each of the past three years, with an average ERA+ of 115, with an ERA+ of 100 being an average major leaguer. That is, he has been well above average each of the past three years, and in the aggregate, using ERA+ as the metric, and he has been an “innings eater”. Garland is 28 years old.
Cabrera’s triple slash stats over the past 3 years:
.257 .309 .365
.282 .335 .404
.301 .345 .397
He had the 15th best OPS in baseball last year, the best offensive year of his career. He was 12th in OPS in ‘06 and 16th in ‘05. He’s 32 years old. He has been a great defender and a great base runner over the past three years. Cabrera is clearly an above average shortstop, although, at his age, he can be expected to decline, in offense and in defense. The Angels appear to be trading him at his peak.
While we could quibble over the stats I used (and I’m sure we will), it seems to me that the most obvious thing about this trade is that it is not obvious which team won. Any non-dickish comments?
CCW-
ERA+ is a useful stat only in that it tries to adjust for park factors. It still based on ERA, a faulty formula as everyone who reads this blog knows, and the park factors used are for run scoring environment, not pitcher specific stuff (I think). So saying that Garland an above average pitcher based on that is not very convincing.
The things that are pointed out by the authors are that Garland is a) very much a flyballer and b) has one of the lowest K rates in the league. These are not a recipe for future success.
Cabrera on the other hand is a good defensive SS who can hit. He’s not as good as 07 showed but good enough. Maybe a back end starter is of about equal value to a good SS, but when you consider the Angels specifically, they are adding a little to their greatest strength while taking away from their greatest weakness.
Not to speak for Dave, but I don’t see him arguing that Cabrera is much better than Garland and therefore the Angels got fleeced, but rather that the Angels traded something that they needed for something they already have, which would make their roster weaker if the season started today. It’s not a question of who’s better, it’s a question of which player could be expected to have a greater impact on the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, California, USA roster.
I can’t really remember another deal where Dave came down stridently on one side of a trade, and Neyer/Law did the same thing on the other. But I expect that the next shoe dropping will be the Angels moving Santana somewhere.
To be fair, 79, he’s a FB pitcher who’s going from a park that increases HRs to one that suppresses HRs. You could make a case that the Angels are getting a guy who’s much better suited to his new park.
Of course, that’s what the M’s said about Washburn.
As to the idea that they’re adding to their greatest strength, yeah, but then the org obviously believes that they’re trading from depth at SS as well. We can quibble with that, but they’re clearly better off at that position than most teams.
And while the rotation was a strength, it clearly had its problems. Colon was ineffective (deceptively so, but still) and Santana really pitched poorly. They’re obviously hoping to reduce their runs allowed by replacing one of those slots with Garland. It will probably work, though of course the question is what’s the upgrade over just using Dustin Moseley there. I’m not sure it’s a huge deal, but just because three of their 5 starters were excellent doesn’t mean they shouldn’t try and upgrade 4 and 5. You can argue with the way they’ve done so (and I’d agree with you), but I don’t see that ‘adding to their greatest strength’ is an indictment of the deal.
Oh, and I’d mentioned earlier that Garland would get about $10m next year (as opposed to $8m owed to Cabrera). Uh, make it $12m. The money really makes this a head scratcher.
Exactly.
The Angels didn’t need another back of the rotation starter; they already had multiple guys that can do what Jon Garland does, at about the same level.
They don’t have any immediate replacement for Cabrera that can add the same value at the position he played.
Trades are normally done from a position of strength, to shore up a weakness; this went in the opposite direction, which is why the title of the post is Angels Get Worse.
Another thing – Cabrera should be a type a FA come next winter, but I don’t think this will be true of Garland. Am I wrong here? Are the rankings biased toward positional averages or is a starter who can go 200 innings automatically type A, while a position player who does not hit 20 bombs automatically type B?
it’s simple really…this trade alone makes the angels worse and the chisox better…but it’s just being done to bring in cabrera or tejada to play third…i just hope they give up a ton to get it and ruin their farm system…and i’m just glad i don’t have to hear hudler barking about “OC” any more…now if we could get him to shut up about “supervlad” or “big daddy vladdy”…that guy makes the Ms-Angels games unbearable…
Currently Cabrera’s a type-A and Garland’s type-B.
83 – I’m not really sure who’ll be more likely to get the Type A tag, and the rankings won’t be determined until after 2008, so it’ll depend on how both guys do next year.
The rankings ARE based on position – Cabrera would need to be in the top 20% of MLB SS, and I just don’t see how he can do that with so many guys ahead of him (Rollins, Ramirez, Jeter, probably Tejada, maybe Tulowitzki, Mike Young, Carlos Guillen, Jose Reyes, etc.). How the ‘top 20′ are counted is the product of negotiations btwn MLB and the players union, and resulted in Mike Young being the #1 most valuable player going into 2007 – ahead of A-Rod (tejada was second). So…it’s a little weird.
Not sure how it’d work for Garland, but his big 2005 might not be included in the ‘analysis.’ So most likely, they’re both type B.
How’s Cabrera a type A?
Are all players at a position included, or just those who qualify for the batting title?
could you please ID which Cabrera you are talking about when arguing? both Miggy & Orlando are being referenced.
new mailbag is up.
If that actually happens, though, THIS trade would have still made the Angels worse, it would be the subsequent move that may or may not make them better.
It’s a fine point, but an important one.
OK, found the rankings, which DO show Cabrera as a type A, and he’s got quite a cushion.
The rankings are based on the previous two years, and with his solid 2007, and with whatever bizarre calculations they do to rank Mike Lowell and Robby Cano ahead of A-Rod, Cabrera has a good chance of being Type A again in 08.
Given Garland’s 07, the odds on becoming a Type A can’t be very good at all. Of course, Javier Vazquez was a type A for 2007, coming off two losing seasons, with average ERAs, so I really don’t know what they’re doing.
Wow…
Gotta love the analysis found here from the folks that think the Angels got fleeced in this trade.
** From 72 **
Okay, but those replacements are going to be substantial downgrades from Cabrera, whether or not they’re paid less.
**
The numbers don’t show this. The numbers show that Macier Izturis will be a better hitter in 2008 than Orlando Cabrera, with one heading towards his prime and the other heading away from his prime.
** and this doozy also from 72 **
If the Mariners traded, say, Ichiro for Garland and paid the salary difference, that wouldn’t be a good move, was it?
**
wow, talk about comparing apples and oranges.
** From 85 **
it’s simple really…this trade alone makes the angels worse and the chisox better…
**
I will give that comment a USSMariner hee hee.
vr, Xei
where’s the stats analysis, Xei? I expected more from you.
Teasing aside though, there’s no reason to expect more from Itzuris than from Cabrera. If you’re going to insist on stats based analysis, perhaps you ought to offer some numbers yourself, no?
Orlando Cabrera is a Major League-caliber defensive shortstop. Maicer Izturis is not.
Right! It’s become fashionable to argue that second base has become more of a hitter’s position and by extension defensive doesn’t matter there (which is kind of silly IMHO) but really, it’s pretty tough to argue similarly about shortstop. It takes ALOT of offense to trump plus defense at the middle infield positions.
Xei, you might want to look at the ZIPS projections again. ZIPS gives Izturis a narrow advantage in batting lines (274/328/364 v. 273/346/378), but when you factor in the extra bases from Cabrera’s advantage in net SB (15 to 5), the lines are essentially a push. The other problem with ZIPS is that based on the number of ABs, Izturis would continue to play in a part-time role, where his inability to hit LHP (236/322/320 career) is minimized.
Almost an equal component to offense is defense at SS, where Cabrera has a large advantage. Per UZR, Cabrera was the second best SS in the AL last year (+6), with a similar score for 2003-2007 (+5). THT also scores Cabrera as an average to above average fielder. Izturis, on the other hand, had a 0 UZR at SS for 2003-2007 (he apparently played too little SS for a 2007 score), with -13 at 3B despite +20 at 2B. THT also had Izturis below average at SS. It appears that Izturis does not have the skill set to play on the left side of the infield on a regular basis.
As for the pitchers, from a defensive-neutral perspective, Garland was outpitched by Saunders, who the Angels already had and makes the league minimum.
The Angels gave up a lot of defense for essentially no offensive improvement, and acquired a pitcher who is essentially no better than their existing options. That is how you make your team worse.
You’re right, Grizz – the offensive projections are essentially a push, and the defensive hit means the Angels would give up more runs.
Izturis is bad enough at SS (according to RZR), that they can’t seriously expect him to be the everyday guy. It’s gotta be either Aybar or Rodriguez or both, probably rotating around with Izturis (when Garland pitches!) and Figgins.
Still, that’s a hell of a lot of options, even if no combination of them quite equal what Cabrera would likely contribute. The point though is that the Angels are actually doing OK at SS in the high minors, without even bringing Izturis into the equation.
Similarly, Saunders probably has the inside track at a rotation spot as well. The Angels need to improve two spots, not just one. I know, I know, I would’ve gone with Saunders/Moseley/OCab and tons and tons of cash. But I’m saying I understand the Angels thought process here, and if Garland uses Edison to maintain a low HR/FB, it might even work out OK for them.
Yeah, Marc, this deal is not a disaster for the Angels. Garland gives them a perfectly fine back of the rotation starter, and assuming either Vlad or Anderson play DH next year, the move to Anaheim should somewhat alleviate the impact of the fly balls. The Angels also have some depth at SS, so it is not like Wilson Valdez will be their opening day starter.
That said, the Angels overvalued Garland and should have done better than a No. 4 starter for Cabrera, or at least filled a bigger need. With Lackey/Escobar/Weaver, the Angels’ first three rotation spots are set, which before the trade left the last two spots to Santana and Saunders. Garland is not much of an improvement over either one, if at all. (Santana posted a fine K/BB rate, but got burned by a high HR/F rate and low LOB%, which are a good bet to normalize next year). And yeah, this might lead to another deal, but in that case, the Angels really have to come out ahead just to tread water overall.
I’d agree with that.
I guess we can add baseball think factory to the group who thinks the Angels clearly ‘won’ the deal, and a big part of the reasoning there is that Cabrera actually isn’t a great defensive SS at all, and that his Gold Glove led the Sox to overvalue him. Interesting theory.
It’s a bit uncomfortable to have to rely on the defensive metrics to buttress a case, though at least UZR and RZR agree (for once).
Shocking to see just how much Bill James’ projections like Saunders/Santana, too. Wonder which of them gets the fifth spot in the rotation next year? Wonder if we can pry Moseley from ‘em…
As an Angel fan, I wouldn’t be a big fan of this deal if I wasn’t convinced that it was done to set up the acquisition of a power bat that we desperately need, namely either Cabrera or Tejada.
I’d love Cabrera, but feel given his conditioning issues and the steep price we’d have to pay for him that it might not be the best move. That said, I’d be happy to have him on the team.
However, the new depth in pitching would allow us to deal for Tejada (a definite offensive upgrade from Cabrera) while holding on to Kendrick at second, who would certainly be lost in a trade for Cabrera. Furthermore, we’d probably be able to deal pitching to the Orioles and may even be able to hold on to Wood too. Tejada is signed for a reasonable amount and only for two more years. Such a move would not only infuse some power into the lineup, it would give the offensive prospects the Angels have more time to develop. It’s also worth noting that Tejada was injured last year (broken wrist) and that may or may not have affected his performance. Of course, the cloud of possible past steroid use hovers over Tejada.
Whatever the case may be, I feel the O Cabrera-Garland trade is a precursor to a larger deal, one that will definitely improve the Angels lineup.
The reference to Uggla was based upon a story from one of the Miami-area papers, which said that the Marlins might put Uggla in the deal if it improved the quality/increased the number of players being offered by the Angels. Since Kendrick is a must-have for Florida (so the stories state), Uggla would then replace Kendrick in the lineup at 2B. This is not to value him on a par, just to keep track of all the many moving pieces in a proposed deal like this one.
Since the Garland trade, the Angels now have a surplus of starters, and either Santana or Saunders is considered attractive to the Marlins who need another strong starter, and this might take the number of players from 4 in exchange down to 3.
The Angels could also trade for Tejada for less given up in talent, since the Angels would be taking Tejada’s contract in the deal, saving the Orioles a ton of money for the next two years. Put Figgins at third and Tejada at short, or Tejada at third and Aybar at short. Wood stays in the organization, as does Kendrick, which makes the cost (Adenhart and Saunders or Santana for Tejada) easier to swallow for the long term.
As for OC, he was beloved as an Angel, but realistically he wasn’t expected to repeat his 2007 season and I doubt he was going to be re-signed by the team. This was his maximum value, and as such represents a chance to make a series of moves which lead to adding other players to the team.
I don’t get this depth angle….are we to believe that because the Angels added depth to their back end, they can now afford to trade an arm from the top of their rotation?
To me this just screams of deciding that Colon isn’t coming back and making replacing him with another “proven” name a top priority. In other words, the Angels overvalued Garland and created another hole in the mistaken belief they were plugging one that everybody seems to believe is the most important in the universe…
Even if the Garland deal is a precursor, it is still a bad deal. If you sell your old car because you plan on getting a new car but only get 75% of its value in return, it is a bad deal no matter how good of a deal you get on the new car.
Ya know, for us wanna-be GM’s, this is a really a good exercise.
I fully admit that I have not been able to find any good info (not small sample size) on the defense ability at SS for Figgins, Wood, Izturis, Aybar, or Kendrick…but I can not imagine that some combination of these guys – possibly with the addition of a Wilson Valdez type who can be found cheap – would be cost more than 3 wins per year versus having O. Cabrera at SS. Now is Garland worth 3 wins over Moseley or whoever would have been the 4th starter…certainly not.
HOWEVER, if you can now package a young pitcher or three with one or more of the position players above and get M.Cabrera or H. Ramirez or even a J. Santana or Kazmir or other young stud pitcher…I think you have improved your team a lot more than 3 wins…
From Baseball America:
Even after trading away Cabrera the Angels have several options at shortstop with Erick Aybar, Maicer Izturis and Brandon Wood. To pick up a middle-of-the-rotation starter like Garland is an impressive haul. The White Sox pick up Cabrera just a week and a half after signing incumbent Juan Uribe to a one-year deal. The Cabrera trade means that Uribe will either be moving to second base or will become a trade chip for a future deal.
well if baseball america said it….. it’s amazing how being drunk on pitchin impairs the intellect…