Sox & Angels Talking; Crede/Garcia for Santana/Figgins

[witesoxfan]

He is pretty brutal at 3B, good at 2B, decent in the OF with an average arm.

 

I've heard GG-caliber in LF, while above-average in CF

 

And at this point, I am pretty much for any deal that brings Santana in. That would be solid.

[Chisoxfn]

I've heard GG-caliber in LF, while above-average in CF

 

And at this point, I am pretty much for any deal that brings Santana in. That would be solid.

I'd say thats accurate. Whats important is that we give him a fixed position. Although obviously he has no problem playing all over the place, which is nice if for some reason we have an injury somewhere down the road.

[Vance Law]

I don't see where this is a bad deal for the Angels.

 

Whenever anyone in this thread says they don't see why this is a bad deal for the Angels and then proceeds to rattle of Garcia, Crede, and Santana's career and or '06 numbers they fail to address the very pertinent issue of the # of years the players are under contract and their salaries. Making the argument that "this is Freddie's ERA over the past x years, while Santana's is this, and look at how bad he was on the road," doesn't work if it doesn't also address "and the Angels only get Garcia for 1 year for $10 million and the Sox get Santana for 4 years for x hundred thousand dollars/year. " There are a ton of variables in the equation of this trade: past performance, potential future performance, current salary, # of years under contract, team need, etc., as some people have accurately pointed out in the thread.

 

Either way, it's a crap deal for the Sox, and I'm glad Kenny sees it that way. If it were Santana for Garcia straight up, I'd say yeah, do it please. But throwing in 2 years of Crede and only getting in return a slight upgrade (or possible downgrade) on Podsednik who we've already got if we want, is unacceptable.

[SoxFan562004]

I'd say thats accurate. Whats important is that we give him a fixed position. Although obviously he has no problem playing all over the place, which is nice if for some reason we have an injury somewhere down the road.

nah, I like the Rob Mac plan where they just find a position he struggles at and stick him there a majority of the time

[Rowand44]

I think some of you guys don't realize just how valuable an Ervin Santana is.

[VAfan]

Its simply impossible for people on this board to look at these things objectively. Figgins worthless??? Give me a f***ing break. He stole 50 bases last year, and while is average and OBP are not very good, he is absolutely a better option in left than Pods. What is your suggestion for LF? Ervin Santana is 23, and I remember everyone on this board laughing at the Orioles for turning down a Tejada deal that involved Santana, many saying that the Orioles should have taken the deal straight up. He has better stuff than anyone on our staff (perhaps with the exception of a healthy Jose) and hes signed for a long time....but all this has been said before.

 

Someone should really pull up all the complaints about Freddy lodged during the year, so that people can realize hes really not THAT valuable. He's signed for one year, Crede is signed for two, and we are going to get NO return on either if we keep them, and clubs know that. Lets not forget that Kenny made it somewhat clear that we cant resign Joe, so teams realize that we either move him or lose him for nothing. Up next is the talk about how clubs really want Heath Philips...

 

Would we really rather have Vazquez for some Mets or Rangers arms, or lose Crede and Garcia and gain Crawford and Figgins. That seems to be the real issue here if all this speculation is correct. And I prefer the second option.

 

 

Figgins is worthless. His OBP sucks, and he has no power. In the 2005 ALCS, did he even get on base more than once?? Pods, as bad as he is, played circles around him in 2005.

 

As for Ervin Santana, people are acting like he's Francisco Liriano without elbow troubles. Sure, he has a live arm. And he's relatively cheap because he's just starting out. But is he going to be a dominant starter? Is he a #1 guy? Will he ever be a #1 guy? I don't think so. As bad as Freddie Garcia was last year, he still managed to win 17 games, and lose 9. (Santana was 16-8.) Sure, I'd take Santana for Garcia straight up because of the age difference (though I know the Angels wouldn't make that deal), but I don't think Santana will be that much better of a pitcher over the next 3-4 years, frankly. I think Freddy's arm is going to come back, and he's got enough guile that he will remain a winning pitcher into his late 30's. Mark it down.

 

But the deal buster would be dumping Joe Crede at this point. You might as well add a half run to the team ERA if we eliminate the vacuum man from 3B next year. Especially if you are talking about replacing him with Josh Fields or Chone Figgins. If you want Joe Crede, you'd have to offer me more than Ervin Santana. We don't have our first WS trophy in 89 years if we don't have Joe Crede at 3B.

 

So far, I haven't seen any deals that make a lot of sense for the Sox. We really need better offensive production from LF, SS, and CF, plus a solidified bullpen, and, most important of all, better production from our starters. But it is not easy to fix any of those issues. Which starters do you keep, and which do you trade? Should we give up on Brian Anderson after only one year -- when he was rushed too soon to begin with? Should we abandon Juan Uribe, whose defense is stellar, and his tremendous SS power?? Is there a good option in LF that costs less than $10 million/year?

[harfman77]

Whenever anyone in this thread says they don't see why this is a bad deal for the Angels and then proceeds to rattle of Garcia, Crede, and Santana's career and or '06 numbers they fail to address the very pertinent issue of the # of years the players are under contract and their salaries. Making the argument that "this is Freddie's ERA over the past x years, while Santana's is this, and look at how bad he was on the road," doesn't work if it doesn't also address "and the Angels only get Garcia for 1 year for $10 million and the Sox get Santana for 4 years for x hundred thousand dollars/year. " There are a ton of variables in the equation of this trade: past performance, potential future performance, current salary, # of years under contract, team need, etc., as some people have accurately pointed out in the thread.

 

Either way, it's a crap deal for the Sox, and I'm glad Kenny sees it that way. If it were Santana for Garcia straight up, I'd say yeah, do it please. But throwing in 2 years of Crede and only getting in return a slight upgrade (or possible downgrade) on Podsednik who we've already got if we want, is unacceptable.

 

I agree, thats why Anaheim needs to include prospects that will update our sytem. Adenhart may be the best pitcher in A ball, but that is a ways from the bigs. They will be more likely to give him up then a major league ready player in Saunders. A lot of us are down on Tracey, but he is still a decent prospect. The way this deal breaks down for me is that the Sox are dealing one of the best big game pitchers in baseball and the best 3rd basemen in the AL last season for a young pitcher with potential to be very good and a utility player. That does not bring enough back for me regardless of contract length.

[SoxFan562004]

lol, got the "board has too many connection" or whatever the exact message is for a few minutes. Thought I was missing out on something!

Edited November 28, 2006 by SoxFan562004

[RockRaines]

For God Sakes do not compare the wins for the pitcher when talking about who is better, thanks

[harfman77]

Whenever anyone in this thread says they don't see why this is a bad deal for the Angels and then proceeds to rattle of Garcia, Crede, and Santana's career and or '06 numbers they fail to address the very pertinent issue of the # of years the players are under contract and their salaries. Making the argument that "this is Freddie's ERA over the past x years, while Santana's is this, and look at how bad he was on the road," doesn't work if it doesn't also address "and the Angels only get Garcia for 1 year for $10 million and the Sox get Santana for 4 years for x hundred thousand dollars/year. " There are a ton of variables in the equation of this trade: past performance, potential future performance, current salary, # of years under contract, team need, etc., as some people have accurately pointed out in the thread.

 

Either way, it's a crap deal for the Sox, and I'm glad Kenny sees it that way. If it were Santana for Garcia straight up, I'd say yeah, do it please. But throwing in 2 years of Crede and only getting in return a slight upgrade (or possible downgrade) on Podsednik who we've already got if we want, is unacceptable.

 

I agree, thats why Anaheim needs to include prospects that will update our sytem. Adenhart may be the best pitcher in A ball, but that is a ways from the bigs. They will be more likely to give him up then a major league ready player in Saunders. A lot of us are down on Tracey, but he is still a decent prospect. The way this deal breaks down for me is that the Sox are dealing one of the best big game pitchers in baseball and the best 3rd basemen in the AL last season for a young pitcher with potential to be very good and a utility player. That does not bring enough back for me regardless of contract length.

[soxpride77]

Figgins is worthless. His OBP sucks, and he has no power. In the 2005 ALCS, did he even get on base more than once?? Pods, as bad as he is, played circles around him in 2005.

 

As for Ervin Santana, people are acting like he's Francisco Liriano without elbow troubles. Sure, he has a live arm. And he's relatively cheap because he's just starting out. But is he going to be a dominant starter? Is he a #1 guy? Will he ever be a #1 guy? I don't think so. As bad as Freddie Garcia was last year, he still managed to win 17 games, and lose 9. (Santana was 16-8.) Sure, I'd take Santana for Garcia straight up because of the age difference (though I know the Angels wouldn't make that deal), but I don't think Santana will be that much better of a pitcher over the next 3-4 years, frankly. I think Freddy's arm is going to come back, and he's got enough guile that he will remain a winning pitcher into his late 30's. Mark it down.

 

But the deal buster would be dumping Joe Crede at this point. You might as well add a half run to the team ERA if we eliminate the vacuum man from 3B next year. Especially if you are talking about replacing him with Josh Fields or Chone Figgins. If you want Joe Crede, you'd have to offer me more than Ervin Santana. We don't have our first WS trophy in 89 years if we don't have Joe Crede at 3B.

 

So far, I haven't seen any deals that make a lot of sense for the Sox. We really need better offensive production from LF, SS, and CF, plus a solidified bullpen, and, most important of all, better production from our starters. But it is not easy to fix any of those issues. Which starters do you keep, and which do you trade? Should we give up on Brian Anderson after only one year -- when he was rushed too soon to begin with? Should we abandon Juan Uribe, whose defense is stellar, and his tremendous SS power?? Is there a good option in LF that costs less than $10 million/year?

 

Why do you refer back to 2005 when you talk about Figgins and Podsednik, what does that have to do with anything? At least compare their stats from last year if you are going to compare stats. We already won our first WS trophy in 89 years with Crede, and it's a virtual certainty that we will not want to resign him at the price he is going to command. Notice I said we will not WANT, not we will not be ABLE to sign him. So, why not trade Crede for value now with 2 years left on his contract, instead of a year from now when most teams will view him as a 1 year rental.

[Rowand44]

Once again, having two pitchers like Brandon McCarthy and Ervin Santana in your rotation for years to come is absolutely humungous for any team in the current market. Not to mention Ervin would have been our best starting pitcher last season so it's not just something that deals with the future. Santana is a 23 year old stud who has already proven he's an above average starter, he's under contract for a while and has a fantastic arm, he'd just be absolutely fantastic to get.

Edited November 28, 2006 by Rowand44

[DBAHO]

What is so good about Massest? someone please enlighen me.

Young Power arm out of the pen.

 

Reminds me of Bobby Jenks a lot. Under our control for 5 seasons, so he's the type of guy the Sox would probably target.

[beck72]

Figgins is worthless. His OBP sucks, and he has no power. In the 2005 ALCS, did he even get on base more than once?? Pods, as bad as he is, played circles around him in 2005.

 

As for Ervin Santana, people are acting like he's Francisco Liriano without elbow troubles. Sure, he has a live arm. And he's relatively cheap because he's just starting out. But is he going to be a dominant starter? Is he a #1 guy? Will he ever be a #1 guy? I don't think so.

 

But the deal buster would be dumping Joe Crede at this point. You might as well add a half run to the team ERA if we eliminate the vacuum man from 3B next year. Especially if you are talking about replacing him with Josh Fields or Chone Figgins. If you want Joe Crede, you'd have to offer me more than Ervin Santana. We don't have our first WS trophy in 89 years if we don't have Joe Crede at 3B.

A few things.

 

*Figgins would provide Ozzie with his super sub, while allowing the sox to bring Fields at 3b and Anderson in CF slowly. BA shouldn't need that much time off, though, and Figgins would likely see most of his time in LF and hit leadoff. His OBP was .350 + except for last yr. One series does not detract from what he's done for his career.

 

*Santana's young, has very good stuff, and has room to improve on his 16 win, 4.30 ERA. With the sox need to get younger in the rotation, Santana is a good step toward helping the sox having a strong rotation for years. Maybe he's not a #1. But he's a strong #3, maybe a #2. Also, Santana is more of a strike out pitcher, less reliant on the defense.

 

*Joe would be tough to give up. But he's likely around for only 2007. Figgins and Santana will be around for 3 yrs and 5 respectively. While the sox IF defense might not be as strong, the OF would be. The Sox needed the strong defense in 2005 because the offense wasn't as strong. With an improved O and better pitching, the sox can live with the dropoff of Fields and Figgins at 3b.

[southsideirish71]

Figgins is worthless. His OBP sucks, and he has no power. In the 2005 ALCS, did he even get on base more than once?? Pods, as bad as he is, played circles around him in 2005.

 

As for Ervin Santana, people are acting like he's Francisco Liriano without elbow troubles. Sure, he has a live arm. And he's relatively cheap because he's just starting out. But is he going to be a dominant starter? Is he a #1 guy? Will he ever be a #1 guy? I don't think so. As bad as Freddie Garcia was last year, he still managed to win 17 games, and lose 9. (Santana was 16-8.) Sure, I'd take Santana for Garcia straight up because of the age difference (though I know the Angels wouldn't make that deal), but I don't think Santana will be that much better of a pitcher over the next 3-4 years, frankly. I think Freddy's arm is going to come back, and he's got enough guile that he will remain a winning pitcher into his late 30's. Mark it down.

 

But the deal buster would be dumping Joe Crede at this point. You might as well add a half run to the team ERA if we eliminate the vacuum man from 3B next year. Especially if you are talking about replacing him with Josh Fields or Chone Figgins. If you want Joe Crede, you'd have to offer me more than Ervin Santana. We don't have our first WS trophy in 89 years if we don't have Joe Crede at 3B.

 

So far, I haven't seen any deals that make a lot of sense for the Sox. We really need better offensive production from LF, SS, and CF, plus a solidified bullpen, and, most important of all, better production from our starters. But it is not easy to fix any of those issues. Which starters do you keep, and which do you trade? Should we give up on Brian Anderson after only one year -- when he was rushed too soon to begin with? Should we abandon Juan Uribe, whose defense is stellar, and his tremendous SS power?? Is there a good option in LF that costs less than $10 million/year?

 

You are the one who wants to consistantly stay with what we have, throw the bones and hope for the best. So We Willie Harris got into scoring position for the series clinching run. Should we have kept him, what about Geoff Blumm. If you want Joe to stay, give him a call and tell him to fire boras and take a decent offer. As far as resigning these people, LOL.

 

How much money do you think we have. We are already at over 100 million dollars. Lets put this in whats going to happen.

 

 

Freddy and his fastball will still get a lot of money no matter how bad he is. Crap is getting 8 mill a year this offseason.

 

Joe Crede will run towards FA, like the titanic sailed towards the iceberg. Nothing will change it. He will get jackpot prices. And Mr. Boras doesnt believe in a hometown discount. So kiss him goodbye. See you.

 

How much will Jermaine Dye get next year.

 

Gooch is gone after this year.

 

So again, how are we keeping these guys all together. Oh yeah, we trade some people who are near the end of their contract so we can infuse the team with new talent. This is how the WS was won in the first place. We traded Carlos Lee, whom Scotty Pods couldnt hold his jock with the bat. Magglio who is a nice hitter, he gone. Jose Valentstatche is also gone. This is called turnover. It happens.

[103 mph screwball]

Curious. Could the Sox ask for a player to be named later that is contingent upon if Freddie signs an extension or resigns with the Angels next off season? Might a deal be worked out with Freddie renegotiating his contract before the trade? Freddie would be far more valuable to the Angels if they knew he was going be with them for more than one year. KW was willing to give up quite a bit for Freddie because he had a hunch that he would stick around.

 

Also, if hypothetically rumors do come true, who would be the better CF Figgins or Crawford and who would lead off?

 

Anyone know how to make a hot stove smile?

[southsideirish71]

Curious. Could the Sox ask for a player to be named later that is contingent upon if Freddie signs an extension or resigns with the Angels next off season? Might a deal be worked out with Freddie renegotiating his contract before the trade? Freddie would be far more valuable to the Angels if they knew he was going be with them for more than one year. KW was willing to give up quite a bit for Freddie because he had a hunch that he would stick around.

 

Also, if hypothetically rumors do come true, who would be the better CF Figgins or Crawford and who would lead off?

 

Anyone know how to make a hot stove smile?

 

 

I have seen some deals where they have a window to negotiate with the player and the deal is contingent on that. But maybe they just need fastball Freddy for this year and this year only. They could have a stud ready to go in AAA, and just dont want to have a hole in their rotation. They could see if his fastball rebounds before resigning him. I dont think Freddy is the key to this deal.

[RockRaines]

Also, if hypothetically rumors do come true, who would be the better CF Figgins or Crawford and who would lead off?

In that situation I would have Figgy lead off, Craw-daddy bat #2 and have both of them stealing every base they could see.

[beck72]

I think some of you guys don't realize just how valuable an Ervin Santana is.

Santana's very valuable. Either he can be in the sox rotation for yrs, or help net the sox a stud OFer locked in at the top of the order for yrs [Crawford]. More likely the rotation

[ptatc]

For God Sakes do not compare the wins for the pitcher when talking about who is better, thanks

 

I still do I know we've has these discussions but pitchers who know when they need to turn it on and when they can take it easy are good veteran pitchers. None of the stats tell the whole story but I don't discount pitchers wins.

[soxpride77]

In that situation I would have Figgy lead off, Craw-daddy bat #2 and have both of them stealing every base they could see.

 

Looking at Crawfords splits, he doesn't have great numbers leading off anyway. How unbelievable would that be to have the top two base stealers at the top of the order, followed up by our power at 3-4-5? It would be unbelievable. Hopefully KW can find a way to make this all happen, and still hold onto Santana AND McCarthy in the process.

Edited November 28, 2006 by soxpride77

[southsideirish71]

Looking at Crawfords splits, he doesn't have great numbers leading off anyway. How unbelievable would that be to have the top two base stealers at the top of the order, followed up by our power at 3-4-5? It would be unbelievable. Hopefully KW can find a way to make this all happen, and still hold onto Santana AND McCarthy in the process.

 

 

With our lineup you dont need speed guys. You need someone on base period. Give me a line drive with a high OBP over a speed guy, who's OBP is mirrored with his BA and doesnt walk a lot.

 

We need guys to get on, and we need our thumpers to drive them in. And that doesnt mean try and hit homers all the time. Just drive the ball. If we do that we are fine. I still think Mack in LF and leading off over Pods and we win a crapload more games last year than having him out there to be an out.

[GIOin08]

With our lineup you dont need speed guys. You need someone on base period. Give me a line drive with a high OBP over a speed guy, who's OBP is mirrored with his BA and doesnt walk a lot.

 

We need guys to get on, and we need our thumpers to drive them in. And that doesnt mean try and hit homers all the time. Just drive the ball. If we do that we are fine. I still think Mack in LF and leading off over Pods and we win a crapload more games last year than having him out there to be an out.

 

 

I agree... I think with our lineup the ideal target should be Michael Young.

[103 mph screwball]

Figgins leading off was my first thought. I wonder how Crawford would like putting down the sac bunt? Maybe Crawford should lead off and smack a double, steal 3rd, then Figgins squeezes him home and beats it out for a single. Ozzie loves speed.

 

Well I wonder which side will give in and add a piece to the puzzle. I usually would put my money on KW, but I think he will be more patient trading a pitcher he worked so hard to get. If this deal is holding up future plans, he may cave in to set his master plan in motion. The more I think about it, with borass, tricky back, and huge cash contract (even for a fair home town discount it would be big bucks), suck um up Joe is being shopped. If the Angels were willing to pay more than the cubs for Aramis, I'm sure they would love Crede who actually would try every game. I'd almost rather see Joe go this way if he has to go. I don't want to see an Ordonez situation where it becomes a pissing match in negotiations.

[103 mph screwball]

3rd base in 2007 if this went down? Figgins? I hope not. Put him in left or center. Mackowiak? Mackowiak/Fields platoon? Cintron? Fields and accept that he may struggle? Uribe to 3rd and Cintron at Short? Free agent like Aurillia or Lugo? Trade for Ensburg? Blaylock? Vizquel, MCAB!! Why not, the Sox would have cash?

 

You know those fantasy things that the Sox do like reading the lineup and going out on the field for batting practice stuff. I would pay to see KW's 3 year board right now. I'd sign a non disclosure agreement first of course.