Angels Rumors: Teixeira, K-Rod, Uggla

What a gut wrenching night. The whole season boiled down to a botched bunt. Absolutely awful.

I don't think this is the case but what if the Angels are being ambivalent to K-Rod as a means to lower his price. If teams like the Mets are starting to lose interest who else is going to step up and pay big bucks? I would like K-Rod back - but only at the right price.

Has Uggla played 3B before? After Kendrick's postseason performance, I would have to think they'd be looking at Uggla there too.

The Angels are notorious for holding on to their prospects until it's too late and no one wants them anymore. I'm guessing that will keep them from trading for Uggla.

Dan Uggla, IMO, does not fit the "Angels style" of baseball. Mediocre offense, lots of "small ball" (Uggla's a high power, high K type guy). I just don't see the Angels and Marlins clicking on a deal.

cmac1973 - can you please provide concrete examples of when the Angels foolishly held on to young talent. If they are "notorious" for doing so it should be really easy to come up with a few examples.

This last off-season the Angels were involved in several potential trades. The names being bandied about include All-Star pitchers Joe Saunders and Ervin Santana. Howie Kendrick and Brandon Wood and Mike Napoli were also mentioned. I, for one, am glad we held onto all those players.

Finally, please understand that the Angels play their kids. Starting in 08 they had home grown talent at C, 1B, 2B, SS, 3B and LF. 4 out of their starting 5 in the rotation and their back-end bullpen are all products of the Angel farm system.

There were a couple pieces, at the time, that I thought we should have moved. Both Kendry Morales and Reggie Willits. But those would have been minor moves and holding on to Morales was probably the right thing to do.

"What a gut wrenching night. The whole season boiled down to a botched bunt. Absolutely awful."

You should hear some of Lackey's comments about the series. He was a freaking cry baby.

Why exactly would the Red Sox make a run at Tex? They have first, third, and the corner outfield positions locked in. Angels seem like the most logical destination for him. After a loss like that they might overpay him to stay.

Purrple, I've been wondering that myself. Youk, Ortiz, and Lowell are all more than solid at their respective positions, so why invest 20m+ per year on an additioanl guy. Especially with lars anderson coming up sooner rather than later.

As a yankee fan, I'm torn about pursuing him. On one hand he'll be a great addition to the 2009 yankees at 20m+ a year but on the other, will he be a good addition to the 2013-2014 yankees at 20m+ a year.

Whitesox have Swisher and Konerko and hate Boras, so they don't have interest in Tex.

kendrick and aybar are awesome young talents but they are also INexperienced and inexperience can manifest itself as crucial mistakes come playoff time.

angels' lineup mix seems to be soft in the middle. by middle i mean mid-career types. who was their best hitter? tex. but they waited one or two years too many to add him to the mix.

the question now: he's a great fit, but at the expected price?
i'm thinking they could add bats like a brad hawpe, or jorge cantu (in a package for morales?)
at this point, i'd go for sabathia instead

Also... the Red Sox prospects are even less experienced than Kendrick and Aybar, and guys like Lester, Lowrie & Masterson appeared to perform much better under the pressure of the post-season. On top of that, Kendrick has had an impossible time in 2 seasons now staying healthy and on the field. It's time to at least consider moving him, while he still has some value.

Robert Down, I have to agree with you.

There is no way the Angels can stretch $36M to cover the top offensive free agent, and the top pitching free agent. They might not even end up with either, leaving them $36M to blow on other players.

At the end of the day, the Angels and their fans are overreacting and think that shelling out big money will make them contend.

To show that this doesn't work, see the Mariners... 117M payroll, 101 losses.

Sure it's dreaming, but one should be able to dream a little the day after a heartbreaking defeat.

I agree with the sentiment that high priced free agents aren't the entire answer. But they are a piece of a complicated puzzle.

As I said, I'm in favor of stock-piling Type A compensation picks and going aggressively above slot on immediate impact prospects. Risky, but less so than paying for top drawer free agents.

Of the 3 free agents mentioned (add KRod as the 4th), I'd go all out to land Teixiera. From what I saw, and I saw pretty much every one of his Angel at-bats, he was exactly as advertised. Very few bad at-bats, consistent from both sides of the plate, gold glove defense, and his presence in the lineup helped almost everyone around him (most importantly Guerrero).

As much as I love Lackey, I don't think he's a top-tier pitcher....Lester showed him up twice... and all the scouting reports say Santana has better stuff. I want to keep him, but at #2 type money... which is not $18m-$20m a year.

Truth is, the Yankees - with $80m plus in freed-up salary, will be able to sign anyone & everyone if money is the bottom line (and when isn't $$ the bottom line), so we'll need a plan B.

Plan B, I think, is that the Angels can afford to "rebuild" a little and still stay competitive in a very weak division.

But wouldn't it be nice to have Sabathia and Teixiera in Angel Red?

Also Lackey is a top tier pitcher. The two runs he gave up were because Howie didn't turn the double play.

To those who said that the Redsox younger prospects stood up.

Pedroia (1-14)
Masterson Opponent Batting Avg over .420
Lester-Unreal good
Lowrie- Didnt even start fulltime.

Idk about that for Lackey, he has been really good the last 3 or 4 years, and by the standards we have, he will be a top starter in Free Agency if he gets there in a year.

And na, i think they would look better in Dodger Blue :)

Make Loney a third baseman :D

Now that's a dream, haha.

also, didnt realize scioscia was the Angel's GM.

"BK - The Angels have only had better teams than the Dodgers in recent years. The team with far more history, the Dodgers, the team that is better suited to win, the Dodgers."

The reason the Dodgers have more history is because they have been around much longer... They were in Brooklyn before. the Angels have only been around since early '60s and it wasnt until Scioscia became manager that the Angels actually figured out the most consistent way for their organization to compete. Angels are gonna consistently win for years and years!

"Also, you are dumb. Mike Scioscia doesn't SIGN players. The general manager does. And if he GM thinks Manny is the key to winning, he's going to sign him, whether or not Scioscia likes it or not.."

You are dumb... Scioscia, Reagins and Arte get together at seasons end and go over a game plan for the offseason... This includes free agent signings, trades and inner organization options. Yes the GM signs the players but together they discuss what players to go after. No way either Scioscia or Reagins agrees to go after Manny... NO WAY.

"The Dodgers are not a fad, we have fans that stick with us through the tough times, while the Angels barely had a fan base before 2002, now suddenly you have all of these "die hard" fans. Give me a break."

Were those the same Dodger die-hard fans that weren't filling the stadium pre-Manny? Could have sworn during that 8 game losing streak there were plenty of empty seats showing on t.v.

"As much as I love Lackey, I don't think he's a top-tier pitcher"

You have apparently not been paying attention then. Lackey's numbers last year would have won the Cy Young if he played in a different time zone.

"I wouldn't extend Vlad at more than he's currently making"

Let me get this straight. You wouldn't extend the team's best player at a rate more than that of Torii Hunter?

rex, look at the numbers before you start judging players that you only saw during the all star break. yeah it was a bad game, for him but the truth is, that him actually a good fielder.
uggla yea has 13 errors so does utley, a highly regarded fielder. And had a .981 fielding percentage, 7th best in the MLB. stoped talking sterotype based on one game haters, because he a hard worker, who was a true contender for the MVP award for half of the year.
furthermore, isnt vlad, hunter, and anderson free-swingers. Not as much, but remember that it a arb. year for him, and people hr's numbers and SO's numbers to get more money

AA

Haha, the Loney thing was not really serious, he would be terrible at 3b, i cant imagine how goofy he would look.

Ok, so being horrible for 40 years until scioscia came is ok because he made them a winner, which makes them better than the Dodgers with their 4 ws in the same time span.

Ok, good to know.

"There were some good years in there."

Yes there were some good years in there, but they weren't consistent until recently. That's my point.

"Ok, so being horrible for 40 years until scioscia came is ok because he made them a winner, which makes them better than the Dodgers with their 4 ws in the same time span."

Scioscia brought the winning mentality and the Angels players believed in it! That's why they are consistent and that's why they will continue to win! I never argued the fact that the Dodgers had the better history.

"You said the reason the Dodgers have more history is because they have been around longer, and I showed you the dodgers have 3 more WS titles in the same amount of time."

And the reason why they had 3 WS titles in that amount of time is because they were around before the Angels... It takes an organization many years to become consistently competitive. It took the Angels a little longer than most other organizations but they finally figured it out when they brought in Scioscia. The time that the the Dodgers had before the Angels were created was enough time for them to figure out an organizational method to win and they did consistently. So while the Angels were searching for the winning game plan, the Dodgers were out consistently winning.

the 1997 marlins would like to talk to you next, even though they are a bit different, because they sold off their team that probly could have contended for more years if they had stayed together.

The Dbacks won it all in 4 years after becoming a team, and then contended for division titles until 04, and then got competetive again in 07 and 08.

"The "It takes an organization many years to become consistently competitive" is so far off."

Of course there are exceptions... There's exceptions to everything... I shouldn't have to explain that! But yes it does take years for organizations to become competitive. You dont come into the league with a game plan that immmediately wins (but yes, there are some exceptions but very rare). Organizations begin with an idea about how to win but it takes years to find the exact pieces for consistent success.

"What Robert Down (Ivdown) is saying is that the Dodgers have had better run teams, which leads to more successful teams, which leads to more champions in the same amount of time that the Angels have had."

I know you two are probly butt-buddies, but I really dont care what his name is. As for the Dodger history thing... You guyz are arguing about nothing. My arguments are not about that. I agreed with you! Im arguing for the Angels fact that it took about 40 years to consistently become winners.