Proceeds from the ads below will be donated to the
Bob Wuesthoff scholarship fund.
Thursday, January 04, 2007 |
Kenny Williams Twits The Trade-Happy
One of the things that's been supremely frustrating to me about the Angels' offseason is the seemingly teeming throngs itching to trade damn near everything to get Manny Ramirez, say, or who wanted to sign Barry Zito and flip Ervin Santana for some mythical Big Bat. My problems with the latter in particular have been twofold: first, you do not trade cheap, effective, young pitching unless you can get something better. So far, none of the packages I've heard tell of have met that criteria. Second, there's never been an actual deal on the table, rumored or proposed.
I have my beefs with Stoneman, but his unwillingness to trade young talent is not among them. Mike DiGiovanna's December 13 unsourced smear piece, red meat to so many frustrated Angels fans, contained this gem:
Q: If you were at the winter meetings, is there a sense among the other GMs that Stoneman simply doesn't want to make big-name trades? Do they even approach him anymore? Or is it more a, "Well, there's Bill, I guess I'll say hello as I walk to get my coffee and see if he has anything to say this year" thing?But the question in my mind is whether Stoneman's reluctance is unique or merely symptomatic of the industry generally. There's been an increasing recognition, even among the highest-payroll teams in the league, that solid prospects are golden. Even the Yankees and Red Sox are looking to get younger, shed payroll, and move expensive, aging veterans for prospects and younger players (e.g. the Yankees' trade of Gary Sheffield, and the Red Sox' general restocking of their formerly woebegone farm system). So I found it extremely interesting when I listened to this Kenny Williams interview from South Side Sox, which contains the following tell (starting at 6:00, hat tip to The Juice Blog):
Paul Nordlund
A: I was at the winter meetings, and while I didn't canvas the lobby to determine an answer to your question, I have talked to enough front-office executives from other teams to know that Stoneman is extremely difficult to deal with. Not because people don't like him. Stoneman is personable, approachable, respected by his peers, often praised by executives and agents for being a straight shooter. But he tends to overvalue his players and prospects while undervaluing players on other teams, and he seems completely immune to the concept that you have to give up something of value to get something of value. In fact, at least one team official told me this winter that as much as he likes Stoneman, trying to deal with him "is like dealing with Scrooge." I have often wondered whether that first trade Stoneman made as Angels GM, the 2000 deal that sent Jim Edmonds to St. Louis for Kent Bottenfield and Adam Kennedy, scarred him permanently and made him more reluctant to trade.
We went into this offseason with a couple of goals in mind. We wanted to give ourselves a better or equal chance to win a championship in '07, at the same time somehow try to build our pitching staff back up [...] to cover us for the future. Because, believe me, with all the things that are going on in the free agent market and the craziness out there, combined with the lack of talent to be able to trade for, and now [...] because of the market [people] are going to be reluctant to trade. I guarantee you in another year or two years [...] you would have been saying, the White Sox don't have any pitching, they're on their way to a 100 loss season.That is to say, Williams made a deal despite a harsh trade environment, one that won't provide immediate validation, but instead will pay off down the road. The Angels don't have to make deals like that precisely because they've got the young players already in their system. Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, it provides recognition from another GM that Bill Stoneman isn't the only GM in the world who clings hard to his young players. Calling that "overvaluing" is either whining or sour grapes.
Comments:
In general, I agree with what you have been saying. The problem that I have with it, is this is a 7 year deal. Crazy offseason or not, Stoneman doesn't make trades.
Stoneman has said in the past that he would rather deal in free agency because you essentially give up nothing, while in trades you have to give something up in return.
The Angels have had a mediocre offense at best for 5 years now and he really hasn't done anything to improve it. Also, since Arte bought the team, he has spent $153million more in salaries then the A's while the A's have won more games. What kind of a business plan is that?
He has also never addressed the Angels weakness (in a trade) and worked from their strength.
I know a lot of Stoneman supporters will back him by looking at the record of the Angels, personally, I see Stoneman as a 20 game winner with a 5.00 era. The run support being Arte's wallet.
Stoneman has said in the past that he would rather deal in free agency because you essentially give up nothing, while in trades you have to give something up in return.
The Angels have had a mediocre offense at best for 5 years now and he really hasn't done anything to improve it. Also, since Arte bought the team, he has spent $153million more in salaries then the A's while the A's have won more games. What kind of a business plan is that?
He has also never addressed the Angels weakness (in a trade) and worked from their strength.
I know a lot of Stoneman supporters will back him by looking at the record of the Angels, personally, I see Stoneman as a 20 game winner with a 5.00 era. The run support being Arte's wallet.
# posted by 
: 1/04/2007 09:29:00 AM
: 1/04/2007 09:29:00 AM
i've always been a firm believer of us holding onto our youth. very firm.
but i had an interesting conversation with my friend over Labor Day weekend at Del Mar. they've been in the horse racing business for years - quite successful you might say - one of their horses was one of the few that have won back-to-back Breeders Cup races in its class as well as the Eclipse Award for same horse two years running (they also won the feature race that weekend at Del Mar so we got to go down to the winners cricle which is a pretty cool thing).
So they do a lot of breeding and trading needless to say, and know how hard it is to make a profit in that sport. They were gearing up to head to the Keeneland yearling sale last fall, intent on auctioning off their best prospects. i was a little surprised, since isn't the goal to own a winner - a big winner? Nope, he said, the trick is to sell them as young as you can - the older they get, the harder it is to make $$$ with them or sell them. The younger you can sell them, the better.
Immediately i thought about the Angels hoarding of prospects, and remember this is Labor Day after the less than stellar debuts of most of all our prospects. So it got me thinking - even though its two completely different sports, there might be an analogy in there.
I'm not advocating we "sell'em as young as we can", but i'm now a little less angry with deals like Callaspo.
Just an interesting analaogy and perspective; some food for thought.
but i had an interesting conversation with my friend over Labor Day weekend at Del Mar. they've been in the horse racing business for years - quite successful you might say - one of their horses was one of the few that have won back-to-back Breeders Cup races in its class as well as the Eclipse Award for same horse two years running (they also won the feature race that weekend at Del Mar so we got to go down to the winners cricle which is a pretty cool thing).
So they do a lot of breeding and trading needless to say, and know how hard it is to make a profit in that sport. They were gearing up to head to the Keeneland yearling sale last fall, intent on auctioning off their best prospects. i was a little surprised, since isn't the goal to own a winner - a big winner? Nope, he said, the trick is to sell them as young as you can - the older they get, the harder it is to make $$$ with them or sell them. The younger you can sell them, the better.
Immediately i thought about the Angels hoarding of prospects, and remember this is Labor Day after the less than stellar debuts of most of all our prospects. So it got me thinking - even though its two completely different sports, there might be an analogy in there.
I'm not advocating we "sell'em as young as we can", but i'm now a little less angry with deals like Callaspo.
Just an interesting analaogy and perspective; some food for thought.
He has also never addressed the Angels weakness (in a trade) and worked from their strength.
Appier for Vaughn, and from a Grand Scheme of Things perspective, Edmonds for Kennedy/Bottenfield, but I'll grant you that few of his have worked well for the Angels.
Appier for Vaughn, and from a Grand Scheme of Things perspective, Edmonds for Kennedy/Bottenfield, but I'll grant you that few of his have worked well for the Angels.
Ahem - I'd give up a boatload of prospects to get Manny....
Obviously, there's no right or wrong answer to this one, but unless Brandon Wood is GUARANTEED to give us 40 homers and a 400 OBP (like Manny is, for at least 3 and probably longer years), I'd consider sticking him in a deal.
And projecting baseball players is pretty tough, and pretty inexact....so going for guarantees is always nice....! (IMHO)
Obviously, there's no right or wrong answer to this one, but unless Brandon Wood is GUARANTEED to give us 40 homers and a 400 OBP (like Manny is, for at least 3 and probably longer years), I'd consider sticking him in a deal.
And projecting baseball players is pretty tough, and pretty inexact....so going for guarantees is always nice....! (IMHO)
# posted by : 1/05/2007 08:23:00 AM
: 1/05/2007 08:23:00 AM
And there are the Mariners, who believe that any post-30 year old vet possesses valuable intangibles, while any young player lacks for not having been established himself at the MLB level.
"Guarantees"? What, the guarantee of decline from veterans? The guarantee of decreased playing time and increased ineffectiveness thanks to injuries that take ever-longer to recover from?
What do the Mariners have anything to do with the Angels offseason?
# posted by : 1/05/2007 11:15:00 PM
: 1/05/2007 11:15:00 PMNewer› ‹Older
 |
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.