The next Angel shoe to drop?

DMZ · November 20, 2007 at 6:24 pm · Filed Under General baseball 

In the wake of the Cabrera trade, which I thought was kind of baffling, I noted with interest the continuing competition between the Dodgers and Angels to land Miguel Cabrera. From Ken Rosenthal:

The Dodgers stand a better chance of acquiring Cabrera from the Marlins, major-league sources say, if they are willing to part with outfielder Matt Kemp along with third baseman Andy LaRoche and minor-league left-hander Clayton Kershaw.

The teams are in disagreement on only “one piece,” according to a source, who declined to specify what that piece might be. The Marlins are further apart with the Angels, the source said.

The Angels, according to a rival executive, offered a strong package — right-hander Ervin Santana, second baseman Howie Kendrick, right-handed reliever Chris Bootcheck and another player, possibly Class AA right-hander Nick Adenhart. Another source, however, said the Angels did not offer that combination of names.

Oh, those zany sources.

Cabrera to Cabrera! Anyway, that’s a huge, huge haul if it breaks either way — obviously, if you’ve been around here, you’ve heard me rant about Matt Kemp, but wow.

I love this, too —

The Marlins first showed heavy interest in Kemp last spring, but at that time the Dodgers deemed him untouchable. However, the availability of Cabrera — combined with questions about Kemp’s attitude — could lead the Dodgers to alter their stance.

Questions about Kemp’s attitude, fueled about 50-50 from people in the Dodgers clubhouse stabbing him in the back and local media enablers, now mean that he’s going to get punted?

I would, if I were a GM (and I’m not, and should not be) inquire after guys like Kemp every time I could. Jeff Kent sticking knives in the rookie’s back? Allow me to remove the source of the contention… by which I mean the rook, of course.


46 Responses to “The next Angel shoe to drop?”

  1. gwangung on November 20th, 2007 6:37 pm

    Um, are the Dodgers THAT dumb???? Yeah, Kemp and Kent may not have gotten along, but I would think anyone with a working long term memory would have looked at Kent first…

  2. joser on November 20th, 2007 6:39 pm

    Well, I guess one way to placate all the veterans who are getting shown up by rookies is to ship off all the rookies. Not really how you go about building a winning team, but hey chemistry matters, right? Doesn’t Cabrera come with his own questions about his work ethic?

    Joe Torre, were you really thinking straight when you took that job?

  3. 300ZXNA on November 20th, 2007 6:41 pm

    well, I must say that this makes me feel marginally better about Bavasi and crew. At least we aren’t the only team in the league with rockhead upper management who think that “veteranness” and “having been through the wars” usurps talent . . .

  4. cebo04 on November 20th, 2007 6:55 pm

    I agree with all of this. If the Dodgers are getting rid of Kemp for his attitude then hell, we should offer some wiley veteran that they may be interested in!!

    On aside, if the Angels don’t land a top free agent (really only Cabrera in my mind at this point) then their trade of O. Cabrera looks less promising. If they nab Tejada to play third I can’t imagine they’ll be as excited and in turn we should be more excited!!

  5. giuseppe on November 20th, 2007 7:23 pm

    Yes, gwangung, the Dodgers are THAT dumb. Bavasi should be encouraged by anyone with access to him to call Ned Colletti every day of this offseason and see what he wants to get rid of at that particular time. I think it may be one of the only situations where we have an advantage in the trade arena.

  6. MtGrizzly on November 20th, 2007 7:41 pm

    Hmmm…should Bavasi jump in and throw Beltre into the mix with the Dodgers? Kemp and LaRoche would look nice in teal…

  7. HamNasty on November 20th, 2007 7:57 pm

    Why would we want Kemp and LaRoche? MacLaren sits them on the bench to learn all year while Julio Franco and Willie Bloomquist start ahead of them.

    In reality I would love Kemp to fill out our outfield. The Dodgers need Ibanez, Sexson, and Vidro right?

  8. david h on November 20th, 2007 9:58 pm

    I love how the “other player” possibly offered, and impliedly deemed irrelevant to the deal, is perhaps the best prospect in the Angles system.

  9. wokster on November 20th, 2007 10:01 pm

    “Why would we want Kemp and LaRoche? MacLaren sits them on the bench to learn all year while Julio Franco and Willie Bloomquist start ahead of them.”

    First I laughed so hard I spit out the food I was chewing… then i stopped laughing knowing how true it really is…

    Real post: So should the Angels land Cabrera and lose out on Kendrick, is Aybar ready to fill in at second? Are we talking an infield of Cabrera-Izturis-Figgins-Kotchman/Morales?

    Izturis is no slouch at short, but it would be nice seeing those slow rollers get past Cabrera at third 🙂

  10. scareduck on November 20th, 2007 10:37 pm

    There is some talk around Dodger Thoughts that the Kemp-has-an-attitude stories being shopped in the LA media are nothing but cover for a soon-to-be catastrophic move by Ned Colletti. Attitude? How about Jeff Kent?

  11. Grizz on November 20th, 2007 10:44 pm

    Don’t sell yourself short, Maicer, you’re a tremendous slouch.

  12. JSully on November 20th, 2007 10:47 pm

    LaRoche, Kershaw AND Kemp? If that rumor has an iota of truth…wow. Is Ned Colletti going to give Beinfest a foot massage to sweeten the pot? I honestly cannot believe Colletti is so eager to get rid of three excellent prospects. This deal would make Kazmir for Victor Zambrano look pretty even.

  13. thefin190 on November 21st, 2007 12:22 am

    Gah, the similarities between the dodgers and mariners organizations is overwhelming. I am surprised Ned Colletti and Bill Bavasi don’t go out to lunch and hang out together.

  14. SoulofaCitizen on November 21st, 2007 12:46 am

    Should we be trying to get Cabrera from Florida, or is he alread overpriced from the kinds of playered other teams are offering?

  15. joser on November 21st, 2007 1:20 am

    Why should the M’s be trying to get Cabrera? The problems they’re trying to fix aren’t at 3rd base. If they’re going to wipe out the farm system and squander a bunch of prospects, they should be spending them on Santana. And by all reports, to get Cabrera you really would have to clear-cut the system — you’re talking Jones and Clement and Triunfel, probably, and maybe Balentien or Morrow as well. More likely the M’s wouldn’t be able to get a deal from Florida at all because other teams can offer more, including better pitching. Just look at the haul Rosenthal is talking about from the LA teams.

  16. heyoka on November 21st, 2007 2:31 am

    Maybe we can pull off a three way and end up with Kemp and Cabrera….ooh ooh.

    Pat Borders needs to come out of retirement and be a trading piece again…

  17. galaxieboi on November 21st, 2007 9:36 am

    I don’t get this. It’s not as if the Dodgers are a few wins away from being division favorites. Certainly not with the teams Arizona and Colorado have. To say nothing of San Diego. They’re the 4th best team in the NL West right now (which pains me to say) and should stocking up on guys like Kemp. If they can ink Miggy to a long term deal, than this looks better. Still though…

  18. Mike Honcho on November 21st, 2007 10:53 am

    17 – Disagree. The Rockies and D-Backs are hardly juggernauts. The Dodgers are not far away from contention.

    Here’s the rub – Does anyone other than Jeff Kent and Ned Coletti honestly believe that a full season of Kemp, Loney, and Billingsley, coupled with less of Nomar, Pierre, and no more Luis Gonzalez will add a few wins? And don’t forget Andy LaRoche.

    If the Dodgers play the kids, and get a relatively healthy Jason Schmidt back, along with Kershaw perhaps getting to the show in August 2008, the Dodgers have to be the favorites, and would be for a long time.

  19. Mike Honcho on November 21st, 2007 10:54 am

    “will NOT add a few wins?”

  20. Carson on November 21st, 2007 11:44 am

    If I ever find a geenie in a bottle, I may consider using one of my three wishes to know who the “source” is in any transaction rumor.

    Furthermore, I’d love to know how much these sources get paid when they dish out info. Or, are they just big mouths who love to see their spilled beans in the media at no cost?

  21. Grizz on November 21st, 2007 12:21 pm

    “Hey, [Marlins Ass’t GM], this is Ken Rosenthal.”

    “Hey, Ken, thanks for the mention last month that I would make a great GM someday.”

    “No problem. So you guys trading Cabrera or what?”

    “Yeah, we’re close with the Dodgers. We’re asking for Kemp, Kershaw, and the third basemen, with Kershaw as the one piece holding it up right now. So, what are you hearing about the Angels?”

    “I heard your boy is their first choice, but they’re ready to move on Tejada if you insist on both Kendrick and Adenhart.”

    “OK, I got to go. Bill Bavasi is calling from Tokyo about Dontrelle again.”

  22. Mo Vaughn Is My Hero on November 21st, 2007 1:29 pm

    21. Let’s continue that story a bit, shall we?

    “Hey [Marlins Ass’t GM], you’re shopping Willis, right?”

    “That’s right Bill.”

    “So I was talking with Mac and we think we came up with a good deal for him.”

    “Okay Bill, let me hear it.”

    “Ichiro, Felix, Putz, Beltre, Jones, Clement, and Balentien for Willis and Olson.”

    “Are you serious Bill?!”

    “Sure am, [Marlins Ass’t GM].”

    “…[Muffled laughter is heard] [Marlin’s Ass’t GM clears throat.] Okay Bill, let me run that by Michael and we’ll get back to you, but I think you’ve picked a winner.”

  23. joser on November 21st, 2007 1:29 pm

    Actually, it’s probably more like:
    Rosenthal sits alone in his office, sweating a little, glancing at the clock. Nobody is returning his calls. What the hell, he thinks, and starts to type. His phone rings. It’s his editor.
    “So, Ken, got a story?”
    “Yeah, uh, no… well, I’m doing a trade piece”
    “Oh. Nobody returning your calls, eh? Ok, standard “unnamed sources” bit then? So who’s getting traded?”
    “Well, it’s Cabrera to the Dodgers, for, I don’t know, Matt Kemp and Andy LaRoche….”
    “Hmm, that’s a little obvious. Better throw in one obscure name to make it sound more believable.”
    “Ok, let me look through the Dodgers’ minor leauge system…. How about, oh, Clayton Kershaw?”
    “Great name. Never heard of him. That’s how you earn the big bucks, Ken. So that sounds good. Throw in something about the Angels with a counter offer, maybe a Torre rumor to fill it out. ”
    “You want me to try to check with the Angels?”
    “What, and stop when you’re on a roll? This is Foxsports, Ken, not frickin’ Entertainment Tonight. We’re not checking facts like we’re the New Yorker or something. Just cite a ‘rival executive’ and stick something in there. Deadline is close, so wrap ‘er up.”

  24. DMZ on November 21st, 2007 1:40 pm

    Nah. Ken Rosenthal knows enough people. Here’s the thing — if you’re a beat reporter, you know all the people in your front office, and they’ll give you quotes and confirm/deny rumors, and if probably you’ll know people from teams you’ve also covered, people who moved from org to org, and so on.

    Guys like Rosenthal, with a national beat, there are probably eight really good sources they can call on in the Angels/Dodgers org who are happy to comment, and if that fails, there are a ton of other people – agents, sources in other organizations – who’ll give a quote.

  25. msb on November 21st, 2007 1:44 pm

    speaking of what “one NL executive says”, Stark rumbles on about the potential trades this offseason, with input from ‘executives’ and ‘officials’, of course.

  26. Mike Honcho on November 21st, 2007 2:08 pm

    Guys, honestly – I don’t get why there’s all this skepticism about writers who don’t name sources. It’s a staple of the news media and has been for a long time.

    There are plenty of good reasons why sources aren’t named. Just because Ken Rosenthal or Jayson Stark haven’t named their sources doesn’t mean they are less-reputable writers/reporters.

    Now, if Joe Schmuck from claimed to have info from an unnamed source, I’d be skeptical. But that isn’t the case here.

  27. tgf on November 21st, 2007 2:37 pm

    I don’t get why there’s all this skepticism about writers who don’t name sources. It’s a staple of the news media and has been for a long time.

    For trade rumors, sure, who cares. But in general it’s a huge problem. Go back and read some of Judith Miller’s columns leading up to the Iraq war, for example.

  28. Grizz on November 21st, 2007 2:47 pm

    The skepticism should apply to (1) the statements made by the source and (2) statements not attributed to any source (e.g., “one deal that makes sense”). The latter point has been covered here previously, but the former probably needs more explanation.

    As Mike points out, there is little doubt that Rosenthal or Stark accurately quoted what, say, a team executive actually told him (more or less anyway — even Woodward and Bernstein famously misinterpreted one of Deep Throat’s confirmations). But the executive may only have one side of the story — Rosenthal’s story is accurate if a Marlins executive told him they were asking for Kemp/LaRoche/Kershaw, even if the Dodgers have no intention of doing that particular deal.

    Similarly, the source may have other motives for making the statement — the hypothetical Marlins executive may have floated the four named Angels players in an effort to induce the Dodgers into improving their offer. This is especially true when agents are the source (e.g., the recent Kuroda is a “No. 1 starter” who throws “96 MPH” articles).

  29. Carson on November 21st, 2007 2:50 pm

    Derek (24) – Makes sense, though I’d still like to know why a guy is coughing said information up. Is he getting paid? Wants to stick it to his boss? Getting free plugs like Grizz suggests?

    I’m sure anything we can come up with would be speculation, and there could be a mixture of all the above.

  30. DMZ on November 21st, 2007 3:21 pm

    Sometimes they’re trying to advance the team’s agenda, or their own. But nobody’s getting paid off. Doesn’t happen. Rosenthal’s not calling someone in the Marlins up and saying “there’s $200 if you can verify you’re asking for Kemp.”

  31. Grizz on November 21st, 2007 3:23 pm

    The overt free plug was an exaggeration. It is more about building goodwill with relatively influential members of the media, who also may be good sources for information going the other way. It may not manifest in a job plug, but if, say, Rosenthal is going to write a piece critical of you or your team, he is more inclined to present your side of the story if you are on good terms.

  32. Mike Snow on November 21st, 2007 4:07 pm

    Another reason for skepticism with an unnamed source is that it can take away the natural correction process. Suppose the “NL executive” who’s your source reads the story after it comes out. You’ve somehow garbled what he said or drawn the wrong conclusions from his hints. Normally he’d let you know, but he may not realize he’s ostensibly the source for that information. After all, you have lots of other contacts who fit the description and might have been the source.

    This kind of stuff is probably responsible for some of the apparently contradictory reports that make it into the press. Like the Richie Sexson was/was not claimed on waivers thing, possibly.

    But yes, reporters generally don’t make things up out of whole cloth. Nor do they need to pay people to tell them things.

  33. mln on November 21st, 2007 4:42 pm

    Joe Torre loves those proven veterans maybe just as much as John McLaren. There was a rumor that Bernie Williams was thinking about trying to sign with the Dodgers, since Torre got hired there.

  34. scraps on November 21st, 2007 5:04 pm

    Except, wasn’t Torre the guy who benched Bernie Williams in the first place?

  35. Mike Honcho on November 21st, 2007 5:10 pm
  36. mln on November 21st, 2007 5:13 pm

    Torre benched Bernie well past his “expiration date” and after it had been obvious to many that he should no longer be a regular.

    I remember reading on various blogs the complaints from Yankee fans about Torre’s over attachment to Williams. The NY Times ran an interesting profile of Torre/Williams’ relationship comparing them to an old couple who still hold a deep affection for each other.

  37. msb on November 21st, 2007 7:07 pm

    #35– not really unexpected, is it?

    details of the trip in all the local papers.

  38. Mike Snow on November 22nd, 2007 12:35 am

    Well, another shoe has dropped, but it’s Torii Hunter. If that’s all, it’s good news, but you still have to wonder how many shoes the Angels have in their closet.

  39. msb on November 22nd, 2007 12:35 am

    well, something that was unexpected …

    Torii Hunter to the Angels, 5/$80-90M

  40. Sports on a Schtick on November 22nd, 2007 1:13 am

    Too many Angels in the outfield. With Vlad holding down DH there’s Hunter, Matthews, Rivera, Anderson and Willits.

  41. shortbus on November 22nd, 2007 1:17 am

    Well at least the M’s will avoid that land mine. But wouldn’t an outfield of Jones (LF), Jones (CF), Ichiro (RF) look pretty good? This article suggests that Andruw Jones isn’t drawing much interest thus far and might be a reasonable pickup for a team that could use outfield defense and left-handed hitting. Is there a chance Andruw could return to form next year?

  42. saltydawg05 on November 22nd, 2007 1:30 am

    except that jones is right handed and a terrible fit at safeco

  43. shortbus on November 22nd, 2007 1:39 am

    I would have sworn to jebus he was left-handed. Comment withdrawn.

  44. dnc on November 22nd, 2007 2:16 am

    The lesson, as always, never swear to jebus.

  45. scott19 on November 22nd, 2007 2:54 am

    Bummer in a way, I always kinda liked Torii Hunter, too. Now, I have no choice but to razz him since he sold his soul to the Angels…lol! 😮

  46. terry on November 22nd, 2007 7:26 am

    I’m confused. Looking toward ’09, why would you invest >$45M in a three player platoon of below average LFers (Anderson, MAthews, Hunter).


Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.