Figgins and Santana gone?

Dada · 11-28-2006, 12:35 PM

LA Times reports today that the Angels are close to reaching an agreement with the White Sox. The Sox would get Figgins and Santana and the Angels would get Crede and Garcia.

This is a bad trade for the Angels. Why are they bailing out on Ervin? And Figgins is such a good utility man. I just don't get it.

For Crede and Garcia? Crede doesn't hit for average, has decent power (although Chicago's field is a hitters park) and plays excellent defense. But he is not worth it. If they need a 3B with that can hit, why not go after Huff? And then get Garcia? He is getting old quick, and he has imploded in the past.

I just don't get it.

Laloosh · 11-28-2006, 12:42 PM

I agree that losing Santana would be a blow. But Garcia DID win 17 games last year, and the Angels farm system is pretty pitching-rich.

But I have to disagree that Figgins is a good utility man. For one, he doesn't play any position particularly well. Nor does he have a strong arm. And as a leadoff hitter, he's average at best. I think Crede would fill a hole in the Angels' lineup (i.e., a bat to protect Vlad), and he's a serviceable, natural third baseman. Of course, Crede needs to get those herniated disks healthy (and apparently has opted for rehab over surgery), so that would be a sizable risk to take in acquiring him.

As much as it would hurt to lose Ervin, the team will be better in the long run if this deal happens.

Sawman · 11-28-2006, 01:01 PM

Quote:

As much as it would hurt to lose Ervin, the team will be better in the long run if this deal happens.

No they wouldn't. Santana is as good as Garcia right now. 6 years younger, and millions cheaper. Crede doesn't provide that much of an upgrade to offset the downside of losing several years of Santana. To be completely honest, Crede didn't show much of anything until he was 27, and still only sports a career OPS+ of 98.

Regardless, the LA Times was just quoting a Chicago sportswriter who is grasping. I don't see the Angels trading Santana and Figgins for Crede and Garcia.

punxsy · 11-28-2006, 01:12 PM

The news item on this trade mentioned there would be other players involved; it won't be just 2 for 2.

But who? Chisox are not exactly loaded on prospects.

Crede is too risky and no better than DMac as regards health issues.

The more I think about a Cleveland trade the more it sounds better than this one.

OK, Shields for Trevor Crowe PLUS sounds very intriguing. But alas, we need a 3Bman that is good - to- go; neither Crede or DMac are that.

Laloosh · 11-28-2006, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sawman

Regardless, the LA Times was just quoting a Chicago sportswriter who is grasping. I don't see the Angels trading Santana and Figgins for Crede and Garcia.

I doubt you saw the Angels signing GMJ for 5 years and $50 million, either

. This trade wouldn't be my first choice, but something needs to be done to bolster the offense. Dealing Shields (instead of Santana) and Figgins wouldn't be too painful, and we could get a solid, established bat in return. Just not sure from whom.

Sawman · 11-28-2006, 11:57 PM

Quote:

I doubt you saw the Angels signing GMJ for 5 years and $50 million, either .

Actually, that one was more predictable than you'd think. The Angels liked GMJ from the very beginning, and once Pierre signed his deal, it was only a matter of time...

Quote:

Dealing Shields (instead of Santana) and Figgins wouldn't be too painful, and we could get a solid, established bat in return. Just not sure from whom.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, although Joe Crede is certainly not the established bat that the Angels need. His career OPS+ is 95, lower than even Figgins' 96. He had a nice year in 2006, but he's not what I think the Angels need.

11-28-2006, 12:35 PM	#1 (permalink)
Dada Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 125	Figgins and Santana gone? LA Times reports today that the Angels are close to reaching an agreement with the White Sox. The Sox would get Figgins and Santana and the Angels would get Crede and Garcia. This is a bad trade for the Angels. Why are they bailing out on Ervin? And Figgins is such a good utility man. I just don't get it. For Crede and Garcia? Crede doesn't hit for average, has decent power (although Chicago's field is a hitters park) and plays excellent defense. But he is not worth it. If they need a 3B with that can hit, why not go after Huff? And then get Garcia? He is getting old quick, and he has imploded in the past. I just don't get it.

11-28-2006, 12:42 PM	#2 (permalink)
Laloosh Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Valencia, CA Posts: 43	I agree that losing Santana would be a blow. But Garcia DID win 17 games last year, and the Angels farm system is pretty pitching-rich. But I have to disagree that Figgins is a good utility man. For one, he doesn't play any position particularly well. Nor does he have a strong arm. And as a leadoff hitter, he's average at best. I think Crede would fill a hole in the Angels' lineup (i.e., a bat to protect Vlad), and he's a serviceable, natural third baseman. Of course, Crede needs to get those herniated disks healthy (and apparently has opted for rehab over surgery), so that would be a sizable risk to take in acquiring him. As much as it would hurt to lose Ervin, the team will be better in the long run if this deal happens. Last edited by Laloosh; 11-28-2006 at 12:45 PM.

11-28-2006, 01:12 PM	#4 (permalink)
punxsy Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 30	The news item on this trade mentioned there would be other players involved; it won't be just 2 for 2. But who? Chisox are not exactly loaded on prospects. Crede is too risky and no better than DMac as regards health issues. The more I think about a Cleveland trade the more it sounds better than this one. OK, Shields for Trevor Crowe PLUS sounds very intriguing. But alas, we need a 3Bman that is good - to- go; neither Crede or DMac are that.