Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Saturday, January 22, 2011

Vernon Wells headed to Angels in Mike Napoli trade

WOW.

5:38 PM: We weren’t expecting that! Rosenthal reports that the Angels have traded Mike Napoli to the Blue Jays. No word on the return.  Giving up one of the team’s better bats makes some sense if you can get some good young Rays talent. The Jays system isn’t quite as stocked.  Here’s hoping for Angels fans that they’re getting some value back.

Man. You just never know.

UPDATE: If this trade didn’t surprise you already, this certainly will. According to Ken Rosenthal of FOXSports.com, Vernon Wells is headed to the Blue Jays in the Mike Napoli trade. In a word, woah. More when we get it.

RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 22, 2011 at 12:39 AM | 264 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: angels, blue jays

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 2 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3 > 
   101. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 22, 2011 at 06:24 AM (#3734559)

Remember when everybody on here was kvetching about how there's no way the Red Sox could get Napoli for anything resembling just Ellsbury or the equivalent? And before that, people scoffed when Red Sox fans suggested that they could get Adrian Gonzalez for players not too far from what the team actually gave up?


Yea, GMs the last few seasons are really proving "there is no such thing as a ridiculous trade offer."
   102. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: January 22, 2011 at 06:25 AM (#3734560)
I don't think this trade is behind the Werth signing at all.
   103. DCW3 Posted: January 22, 2011 at 06:29 AM (#3734562)
I don't think this trade is behind the Werth signing at all.

Definitely not. I mean, even if you ignore Napoli--imagine that the Angels had just signed Vernon Wells to an $81 million contract. That sounds worse than Werth's deal, doesn't it?
   104. Depressoteric feels Royally blue these days Posted: January 22, 2011 at 06:31 AM (#3734563)
Really unbelievable. Almost makes want to like the Jays, for having a GM ballsy enough to pull this off. Alex Anthopoulos, I tip my cap to you.

How could this happen? Seriously -- if I were Tony Reagins, how could I make this mistake? How could not, at least, demand *some* sort of substantial salary relief?
   105. Dock Ellis on Acid Posted: January 22, 2011 at 06:32 AM (#3734564)
Meh. It's not like Manny or Damon are really all that at this point (especially Damon). And CF in Toronto is now going to be manned by Rajai Davis. He might make fans wish for Wells back.

I dunno, dude. Tampa Bay beefed up their offense a lot. Manny at 2M could be the steal of our young century, and Damon deepens the roster. Short-term, Toronto may not have gotten appreciably better, but 86M (minus that 5M they're throwing LA's way, if that rumor upthread is true) off the books is nothing to sneeze at.
   106. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: January 22, 2011 at 06:33 AM (#3734565)
The Werth signing probably remains the craziest move of the offseason, but how far behind is this trade?


I've just spent about 10 minutes thinking about this. I don't think I agree with the premise.
   107. Voros McCracken of Pinkus Posted: January 22, 2011 at 06:34 AM (#3734567)
If this traded was accepted in OOTP, someone would send a bug ticket into the website about a bug in the trade AI.

Why would you take this kind of money on AND give up two players with positive Major League value in the process? I mean yes Rivera's not worth what he's making either, but he's not nearly as far off and you're off the hook after this year. This is a real puzzler. Even if you love Wells as a player and think others underrate him, you should have been able to get this done in a better fashion than this.
   108. McCoy Posted: January 22, 2011 at 06:35 AM (#3734568)
Remember when everybody on here was kvetching about how there's no way the Red Sox could get Napoli for anything resembling just Ellsbury or the equivalent? And before that, people scoffed when Red Sox fans suggested that they could get Adrian Gonzalez for players not too far from what the team actually gave up?

Expensive players are the new market inefficiency.
   109. Depressoteric feels Royally blue these days Posted: January 22, 2011 at 06:35 AM (#3734569)
I don't think this trade is behind the Werth signing at all.
Yeah. There is at least some marginal logic to the Werth trade, along the Detroit/Magglio model, plus the fact that the Nationals have massive room in their budget AND didn't have to give anything up except a pick to sign him. Still a remarkably stupid move, but if you squint hard enough and jiggle the antenna, you can almost make it make sense.

But this? This is literally inexplicable. And not in the "hyperbolic, figurative overuse" sense of the word 'literally.'

I love it, because it proves once again that market and informational forces have not fully succeeded in bringing parity to the league yet. GM stupidity is now, and will forever remain, the TRUE market inefficiency.
   110. McCoy Posted: January 22, 2011 at 06:36 AM (#3734570)
Why would you take this kind of money on AND give up two players with positive Major League value in the process?

I'm betting the Angels use Fangraphs to value players.
   111. Depressoteric feels Royally blue these days Posted: January 22, 2011 at 06:39 AM (#3734571)
I'm betting the Angels use Fangraphs to value players.
What, are you kidding me? Based on the evidence of this trade, the Angels have a stronger aversion to WAR than Edwin Starr.
   112. DCW3 Posted: January 22, 2011 at 06:40 AM (#3734572)
And CF in Toronto is now going to be manned by Rajai Davis. He might make fans wish for Wells back.

Rajai Davis really isn't a bad player. He probably projects as an above-average center fielder.
   113. Select Storage Device Posted: January 22, 2011 at 06:41 AM (#3734573)
Remember when everybody on here was kvetching about how there's no way the Red Sox could get Napoli for anything resembling just Ellsbury or the equivalent?


Remember when Red Sox fans practically penciled Napoli into the line-up for the past 1.5 years?
   114. PreservedFish Posted: January 22, 2011 at 06:46 AM (#3734574)
This is literally inexplicable.


Angels are stupid. Consider it explicated.
   115. rr Posted: January 22, 2011 at 06:46 AM (#3734575)
I agree with Eso here. The Werth thing for the Nats...he's a "winner" will give us cred etc. Not a BTF/sabrish move, but I can sort of see it from the Nats' POV.

This I simply can't see, not with two players, one pretty good, the other functional, going the other way. Seems like it is just persoanl bias--the Angels hate Napoli and love Wells.
   116. Boileryard Posted: January 22, 2011 at 06:50 AM (#3734576)
Interesting. With Wells and Werth being almost the same age (Wells is older by six months), I thought the three extra years on Werth's contract and the current state of the Nationals might put that one over the top.
   117. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: January 22, 2011 at 07:02 AM (#3734579)
Interesting. With Wells and Werth being almost the same age (Wells is older by six months), I thought the three extra years on Werth's contract and the current state of the Nationals might put that one over the top.


Wells fWAR bWAR Werth fWAR bWAR
2007  1.5  1.9        3.2  2.8
2008  1.5  2.0        5.1  4.2
2009  0.0  0.3        4.9  3.2
20010 4.0  3.4        5.0  5.2 
   118. Alex_Lewis Posted: January 22, 2011 at 07:07 AM (#3734582)
08:$0.5M, 09:$1.5M, 10:$12.5M,
11:$23M, 12:$21M, 13:$21M, 14:$21M

So the Blue Jays ended up paying Wells $14.5 million for 3 years. He put up 5.5 WAR in those 3 years, so they actually underpaid for his performance. And that’s ignoring any value they get from Napoli and Rivera in the future.


Quoted from a post by Mike Benjamin Hit King on McCovey Chronicles.
   119. Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige Posted: January 22, 2011 at 07:11 AM (#3734583)
I'm betting the Angels use sports radio to value players.
   120. PreservedFish Posted: January 22, 2011 at 07:21 AM (#3734586)
So the Blue Jays ended up paying Wells $14.5 million for 3 years.


Holy ####. They're geniuses!
   121. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: January 22, 2011 at 07:27 AM (#3734587)
So the Blue Jays ended up paying Wells $14.5 million for 3 years.

Holy ####. They're geniuses!


As has been pointed out, this ignores the 25.5m dollar signing bonus.
   122. Boileryard Posted: January 22, 2011 at 07:30 AM (#3734588)
08:$0.5M, 09:$1.5M, 10:$12.5M,

Not quite geniuses, unfortunately. Wells' $25.5 million signing bonus was paid out in three installments of $8.5 million over those three seasons. The Blue Jays paid him $40 million from 2008 to 2010, not $14.5 million.
   123. jyjjy Posted: January 22, 2011 at 07:54 AM (#3734594)
If this traded was accepted in OOTP, someone would send a bug ticket into the website about a bug in the trade AI.

This trade is why fantasy leagues have veto.
   124. Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige Posted: January 22, 2011 at 08:06 AM (#3734595)
This is a reason why there shouldn't be vetoes in fantasy leagues. You want your league to be as 'realistic' as possible.
   125. Alex_Lewis Posted: January 22, 2011 at 08:35 AM (#3734598)

Not quite geniuses, unfortunately. Wells' $25.5 million signing bonus was paid out in three installments of $8.5 million over those three seasons. The Blue Jays paid him $40 million from 2008 to 2010, not $14.5 million.


Good lord that contract is horrible.
   126.     Hey Gurl Posted: January 22, 2011 at 09:14 AM (#3734600)
If you go back to the day it was signed, not a single person questioned the contract at the time. At the time, he was a dead ringer for Torii Hunter, and signed a contract for the exact same AAV. Nobody on this website thought it was anything but a good move. Not Szym, not Jays fans, no-one. That's the thing about contracts like that...sometimes the player continues forward like Torii Hunter, and sometimes they crash and burn like Vernon Wells.
   127. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: January 22, 2011 at 09:19 AM (#3734601)
More bad news for the Angels:
The team has had discussions involving leadoff man Scott Podsednik, an addition that would allow the Angels to use Bobby Abreu at designated hitter. The Angels prefer that route to using Abreu, who turns 37 in March, in the outfield on a daily basis.

Rookie Peter Bourjos could be ticketed for Triple-A or be in a competition with Reggie Willits this spring for a job as the team's fourth outfielder.
Podsednick? REALLY? Wasn't Abreu already ticketed as the full-time DH? And wasn't Bourjos going to be put in CF because of his out-of-this-world defense? It's as if after the Angels failed to get Crawford or Beltre, they panicked and started grasping at whispers of straws. This off-season really could not get worse.
   128. Walt Davis Posted: January 22, 2011 at 09:38 AM (#3734602)
Remember when everybody on here was kvetching about how there's no way the Red Sox could get Napoli for anything resembling just Ellsbury or the equivalent?

a) To quote the eminent MWE "leaving money aside", Ellsbury can't hold Wells's jockstrap.
b) Ellsbury is still coming off injury.
c) The Angels already have their own (likely better) version of Ellsbury in Bourjos.
d) I don't see Ellsbury for Napoli being reported anywhere do you? Or do you think the Red Sox didn't give the Angels a call.

But, yes, there's no accounting for GM taste or pockets. The Padres look like idiots to me in trading Gonzalez for so little and the Angels look like idiots to me for bringing on Wells' contract. The Angels traded Napoli (a player people here say they didn't value at all ... and even I never went that far) for a 3-time AS (incl 2010), 3-time GG who they pretty clearly think is worth $21 M a year. That's just a tiny bit different than Ellsbury.

It's a ridiculous contract but Wells has hit for a 120+ OPS+ 2 of the last 3 years and a 110 OPS+ the last 3. Yes, he's one of the most inconsistent players offensively and, if you believe WAR, defensively in baseball. But he should at least be a league-average LF. We think Wells isn't worth anything near his contract but, as this trade obviously shows, the Angels do.

Jacoby Ellsbury is a player no team really wants. He can't hit, it's not clear he can field and he's coming off injury. And he's now making $2.4 M.
   129. BWV 1129 Posted: January 22, 2011 at 09:38 AM (#3734603)
The Angels have been making awful trades for years. Why should it start being funny now? I think the last good trade they made was Kimera Bartee for Chone Figgins. Hell, that might be the only good trade they've made in the last 25 years.

Bichette for Phillips. The Teixeira trade worked out (thanks to Kendry). There are others.

This trade could ruin the franchise.

Though Rivera is beyond garbage at this point.
   130. BWV 1129 Posted: January 22, 2011 at 09:43 AM (#3734604)
If Podsednik is signed and starts in CF over Bourjos, I may only watch the Jered Weaver starts in 2011.
   131. Ron J Posted: January 22, 2011 at 10:23 AM (#3734606)
If you go back to the day it was signed, not a single person questioned the contract at the time.


Well on the contract front I'm as predictable as Walt Davis is on player evaluations. So even though I can't currently locate any posts commenting on the contract I know I'd have whined about paying for a career year.

And I wouldn't have been alone. He'd had such an up and down career that plenty of people would have been wary of paying a lot for him. And since the signing he's actually had far greater year to year variation in his offensive performance.

EDIT: I may be the only person to admit it, but I thought the Braves over-paid for Maddux the first time around. IOW, consistent doesn't mean invariably correct -- or anything close.
   132. The NeverEnding Torii (oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh) Posted: January 22, 2011 at 10:24 AM (#3734607)
They're serious about Podesednik?! Now this is starting to give me early-'90s flashbacks, where the Angels would just give up decent players and money for 'solid' name guys who were clearly past their prime every other damn month. It really does feel like Tony Reagins read too many Halos Heaven posts and said "Well, we have to do something". If they were so desperate to get a 'power bat' and 'do something', just bring Vlad back. He's not asking for much (relatively speaking) and even if he cripples himself on a 2-year deal, Angel fans love that guy and everyone would say "Well, he had a great 2010 and took Texas to the WS, ya can't blame 'em for that one".
   133. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: January 22, 2011 at 10:34 AM (#3734608)
They traded Jose Guillen for Maicer Izturis and Juan Rivera back in 2004. That worked out well. Trading Saunders and prospects for Dan Haren is probably going to look pretty good. Trading Moo Vaughn for Kevin Appier in 2002 worked out, mostly through subtraction.

I can't think of any other good trades the Angels have made this century.
   134. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: January 22, 2011 at 10:38 AM (#3734609)
If they were so desperate to get a 'power bat' and 'do something', just bring Vlad back. He's not asking for much (relatively speaking) and even if he cripples himself on a 2-year deal, Angel fans love that guy and everyone would say "Well, he had a great 2010 and took Texas to the WS, ya can't blame 'em for that one".
Abreu's getting $9 million to DH, so they won't go after Vlad. Vlad looks like he's headed to Baltimore.
   135. Greg K Posted: January 22, 2011 at 10:39 AM (#3734610)
If you go back to the day it was signed, not a single person questioned the contract at the time. At the time, he was a dead ringer for Torii Hunter, and signed a contract for the exact same AAV. Nobody on this website thought it was anything but a good move. Not Szym, not Jays fans, no-one. That's the thing about contracts like that...sometimes the player continues forward like Torii Hunter, and sometimes they crash and burn like Vernon Wells.

Bwhaa?
Maybe I wasn't around for that thread but me and most Jays fans I talk to didn't like it from the get-go. Not that I thought it was a disaster, but between trading him to the Angels then (which was the rumour) and extending him I thought the trade was very much the better option.
   136. Swedish Chef Posted: January 22, 2011 at 10:46 AM (#3734611)
If you go back to the day it was signed, not a single person questioned the contract at the time.

That's a broad claim that doesn't hold up all that well.

The Transaction Oracle Wells thread
   137. Greg K Posted: January 22, 2011 at 10:49 AM (#3734612)
Prescience from the thread in 136!

My Moose Tacos (AG#1F) Posted: December 16, 2006 at 03:35 PM (#2263310)
I think this will be a very good deal from 2007-2010, and then an albatross afterwards, but hey, JP probably won't be around for that, so let someone else clean it up!
   138. Swedish Chef Posted: January 22, 2011 at 10:59 AM (#3734613)
Just to show off my archive navigation skills:

The original Wells newsblog thread
   139. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: January 22, 2011 at 11:34 AM (#3734617)
The Angels remind me in a vague way of the Cards from the late 60's and early 70's. You had a long-time manager in Red Schoendienst who was greatly respected, team had won it all early in his tenure, the team stayed competitive and then for reasons unknown management began to slowly erode the talent base as if there was some weird experiment in seeing how many games Red could win with as few good players as possible.

All kinds of flaws in the comparison as posters like Walt will likely tear apart.

But that is the team that struck me. And of course the Cards eventually went kersplat, hired Vern Rapp, and boy did things get interesting then.
   140. Zach Posted: January 22, 2011 at 11:37 AM (#3734618)
Man, 2006 was a different time:

40. Vaux, A.B.D. Posted: December 19, 2006 at 03:34 AM (#2264845)
Inflation is going through the roof, especially for property. If you peeled off $5 million for me right now, I'd be surprised if it lasted me and my direct offspring. A house that cost $50,000 in suburban Virginia in 1975 costs $300,000 now. Imagine what it will cost in 2035--at least $2,000,000. Hell, that house in the Bay Area costs almost a million now. Meanwhile, salaries in most professions haven't even doubled since then.
   141. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: January 22, 2011 at 11:51 AM (#3734619)
Remember when Red Sox fans practically penciled Napoli into the line-up for the past 1.5 years?


Remember when AROM insisted that the Angels front office knew perfectly well how good Napoli was, and it was all down to Scioscia's poor decision-making that he didn't play all the time? I said at the time that that idea came straight out of the dream factory, and I think this trade pretty much proves me right.
   142. Ron J Posted: January 22, 2011 at 12:45 PM (#3734624)
#141 Doesn't precisely follow Voxter. If you accept that this move didn't come from the front office, then the front office's opinion of Napoli doesn't enter into it.

And I can't imagine that the front office instigated this deal. Regardless of what one thinks of Napoli or Rivera, nobody who is going to have to operate on a budget would think Wells (with the contract) is a good use of resources.
   143. Swedish Chef Posted: January 22, 2011 at 12:58 PM (#3734626)
and I think this trade pretty much proves me right.

Did you ever claim that the Angels thought Napoli was worth -50 million dollars?
   144. formerly dp Posted: January 22, 2011 at 01:11 PM (#3734628)
In honor of JP's whining about being stuck with oppressive contracts when he came on, AA should have a brief statement along the lines of 'this loudmouth cried about salaries yet left me with this live grenade to deal with. Difference is that I actually did something about it. That's how it's done, clown.'

JP did manage to move Raul Mondesi's contract. That was pretty impressive at the time...
   145. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: January 22, 2011 at 01:44 PM (#3734631)
If you accept that this move didn't come from the front office, then the front office's opinion of Napoli doesn't enter into it.


I'm not sure I see any evidence of that, either. It's a crappy trade by a GM who has taken the best team in his division and run it to third place despite the fact that it's located in Los Angeles. I don't think one needs conspiracy theories about its genesis to explain it.
   146. AJMcCringleberry Posted: January 22, 2011 at 01:57 PM (#3734634)
Trading Saunders and prospects for Dan Haren is probably going to look pretty good.

I have zero recollection of this, and figured it must've happened in the last few weeks and I just overlooked it. But apparently it happened in July, it's weird that I have no memory of it.
   147. mathesond Posted: January 22, 2011 at 02:40 PM (#3734639)
JP did manage to move Raul Mondesi's contract. That was pretty impressive at the time...

As I recall, the Jays picked up a good chunk of the remaining tab for Mondesi, and only got Scott Wiggins in return.

Not quite as bad as Gord Ash trading Olerud (and paying $5M of the $6.5M remaining on his deal) for Robert Person
   148. formerly dp Posted: January 22, 2011 at 03:02 PM (#3734642)
As I recall, the Jays picked up a good chunk of the remaining tab for Mondesi, and only got Scott Wiggins in return.

You're recalling wrong if you think this was anything but a great deal at the time. Everyone was stunned by it, and it came as a result of Steinbrenner being embarrassed by a couple of bad throws from RF the weekend before the trade, IIRC. The Yanks paid the rest of his salary in 2002, and $7 M of it in 2003. So effectively, the team saved $12 M in that deal, and it cleared the way for them to call up Josh Phelps.

BTF thread

EDIT: In retrospect, that might have been one of the best moves JP made during his team at the helm. At the time, I thought it was a sign of shrewd things to come...
   149. RollingWave Posted: January 22, 2011 at 04:15 PM (#3734668)
Wow.... what the hell?


I guess Impossible is nothing is the new MLB slogan
   150. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 22, 2011 at 05:33 PM (#3734707)
Remember when AROM insisted that the Angels front office knew perfectly well how good Napoli was, and it was all down to Scioscia's poor decision-making that he didn't play all the time? I said at the time that that idea came straight out of the dream factory, and I think this trade pretty much proves me right.

This deal is completely about a misvaluation of Wells, not Napoli.

Even if you thought Napoli was Kevin Cash, the deal doesn't make sense.
   151. OCF Posted: January 22, 2011 at 06:43 PM (#3734741)
The Angels remind me in a vague way of the Cards from the late 60's and early 70's. You had a long-time manager in Red Schoendienst who was greatly respected, team had won it all early in his tenure, the team stayed competitive and then for reasons unknown management began to slowly erode the talent base as if there was some weird experiment in seeing how many games Red could win with as few good players as possible.

Who's playing the part of Napoli in that comparison? Jose Cruz, maybe?

The Cardinals kept some of the Certified Heros of the glory years until they got old, notably Gibson and Brock, but they fairly aggressively traded some of the others. Trading Cepeda got them Joe Torre - that's not eroding the talent base. Trading Flood and McCarver got them Dick Allen (and also set in motion a whole other process involving Flood, but that's another story.) If there's one trade to mention to get the Cardinal fans howling at the moon, it's Steve Carlton for Jerry Reuss.

Schoendienst's last team of his primary run was in 1976; that was the first year they really fell off to being bad. That team had a 22 year old Keith Hernandez and a 26 year old Ted Simmons, so there was certainly a talent base to work with. They had a 20-year-old Garry Templeton - his career didn't work out the way his early hype might have suggested, but he was a pretty exciting player at the time. They had Reggie Smith having a terrible (hurt?) year; Smith wasn't done and would be great the next year for another team. Heity Cruz was in the starting lineup with a "slugger of the future" tag - OK, that might not have been the best talent evaluation.
   152. Darren Posted: January 22, 2011 at 06:46 PM (#3734742)
This deal is completely about a misvaluation of Wells, not Napoli.


Because you said so?

The Angels have repeatedly started a lousy player ahead of him. Now they've traded him for a lousy contract. There is plenty of "misvaluation" to around.

It's funny how these things play out. One poster say "Hey, my team should trade for player X. Maybe player Y and a prospect will do it." Then a chorus of posters will shout back, "No! You're a fanboy. No way you get player x without your 2 best young players and your 2 best prospects. That's a starting place. The other team doesn't need to make a trade--they hold all the cards. You're wishcasting!" Then player X gets traded and, of course, it's never for nearly as much as the chorus claims.

You'd think the next step would be the chorus saying "Well, we wrong." But that usually doesn't happen. It's instead some conspiracy or other explanation.
   153. Greg K Posted: January 22, 2011 at 06:50 PM (#3734746)
You'd think the next step would be the chorus saying "Well, we wrong." But that usually doesn't happen. It's instead some conspiracy or other explanation.

For some reason the visual I got was someone hiring a church choir to sing their apology to the person they had wronged. I think that would be a nice change of pace from early modern shaming and humiliation punishments.
Instead, reward the victim with a glorification, at the cost of the perpetrator.
   154. Swedish Chef Posted: January 22, 2011 at 06:57 PM (#3734747)
You'd think the next step would be the chorus saying "Well, we wrong." But that usually doesn't happen. It's instead some conspiracy or other explanation.

But it is impossible to know how the Angels valued Napoli in this deal. It would have been insane for them to take Wells without giving up Napoli.

That they thought he was worth Napoli too makes it a bit more insane. But it is impossible to know how much of that is from the Wells insanity (which is already demonstrated) or from any insanity regarding Napoli.

The fact that Boston failed to trade for Napoli when he was a perfect fit suggests that the insanity is Wells-related.
   155. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 22, 2011 at 07:23 PM (#3734752)
Because you said so?

The Angels have repeatedly started a lousy player ahead of him. Now they've traded him for a lousy contract. There is plenty of "misvaluation" to around.


No, because there is no possible valuation of Napoli that makes the trade make sense. The Angels could think that Napoli was worse than Bill Bergen, and it still doesn't make any sense to trade him for Vernon Wells (who is charitably worth half his contract).

If you thought Napoli was worth -$40M, you cut him, you don't trade him for a player/contract with -$40M in value. If the Angels really wanted to move Napoli, they could have shopped him and gotten much better offers.

All evidence points towards the Angels valuing Wells as an ~5 WAR player (i.e. last year's offense is his true talent, and he's a plus CF (~+5) who's therefore worth ~$25-30M p.a. If that's your valuation, and you think Napoli's a 2-2.5 WAR player, the surplus value sort of works out.

There is literally no valuation of Napoli that cause this deal to make sense if you properly value Wells.
   156. Silencio Posted: January 22, 2011 at 07:26 PM (#3734754)
The Angels should have at least asked for Jose Molina back as well. That way they would be able to get Mathisesque performance everyday!

Good job from AA for holding out on trading Molina so they can get Segura or Walden for him once Scioscia decides he doesn't want to play Conger either.
   157. BWV 1129 Posted: January 22, 2011 at 07:29 PM (#3734756)
No one has any idea if the trade is about overvaluing Wells or undervaluing Napoli. But I think that one thing we're overlooking is the overvaluing of Mathis vis-a-vis Napoli, essentially due to their respective CERAs. Now you and I might know that CERA is limited at best and bullshit at worst, but the Angels seem to think it means something.

Therefore, the fact that Mathis hits a punchless .195 or whatever is mitigated because he "saves runs" through his "handling of pitchers." And while Napoli is obviously a good hitter (they put him at 1B as a regular, for goodness sakes, and I'm pretty sure they noticed that he led the team in home runs), he costs the team runs behind the plate, by this formulation.

So they consider offense from a catcher a bonus, and they consider Mathis a good defensive catcher because of his CERA. With Kendry back, there's no room for Napoli at first, so the only place to play him is DH. Well, you put him at DH, and you have Abreu or Rivera in LF, and if you have Abreu or Rivera in LF, you're ####### over your two best pitchers (who are extreme flyball guys), and Jered Weaver will (justifiably) murder you before the All Star Break. So you want Abreu/Rivera to DH.

So you need a new LF. You have two catchers -- the defensive catcher and the offensive catcher. You think defense is more important, and the offensive guy is leagues more valuable as a trading chit. So you trade the offensive guy and one of your LF and get a guy who is (1) probably about as good a hitter as the catcher you're trading and (2) can play LF and even move to CF if Bourjos collapses and Hunter gets hurt.

Once you accept the premises, the move is actually somewhat sound in terms of team need and roster construction (the salary considerations are still nonsensical, however). The problem is that the premises are awful. Yeah, Mathis is a better defender than Napoli, but the difference is tiny compared to the huge offensive difference. Yeah, we wanted Wells years ago, and he's had some solid years, but why pay him the kind of money that could have been used for the younger and better Crawford or the older and better(?) Beltre?

HOW THIS TRADE CAN WORK: if Wells basically turns into Torii Hunter and runs off a few years in the 120-130 OPS+ range while being a solid defensive LF, and if Hank Conger makes a huge leap ASAP. You've still made a huge financial mistake that may cripple you, especially when it comes time to extend Weaver (and if you don't, barring some huge injury by the time that time comes, #### YOU), but at least you'll have good players on the field and should be competitive.

Anyway, Mike Napoli is a great hero and I wish him the best.
   158. Silencio Posted: January 22, 2011 at 07:33 PM (#3734757)
Nothing the Angels have ever done with Napoli suggests that even their front office valued him correctly. They could have traded or cut Mathis, forcing the hand for Napoli to play more, and they didn't. They could have told Mike S to play him and they didn't. They could have traded Napoli for a player who's trade value wasn't negative and they didn't. They definitely over value Wells, but its also extremely likely that they under value Napoli as well. He very likely could have been gotten cheaper than you guys suggested in the Red Sox threads from earlier in the off season.
   159. Greg K Posted: January 22, 2011 at 07:37 PM (#3734759)
Anyway, Mike Napoli is a great hero and I wish him the best.

As a Jays fan I feel I should mention that Wells has always seemed like a classy guy and I wish him nothing but the best in Anaheim.
   160. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 22, 2011 at 07:38 PM (#3734761)
Nothing the Angels have ever done with Napoli suggests that even their front office valued him correctly. They could have traded or cut Mathis, forcing the hand for Napoli to play more, and they didn't. They could have told Mike S to play him and they didn't. They could have traded Napoli for a player who's trade value wasn't negative and they didn't. They definitely over value Wells, but its also extremely likely that they under value Napoli as well. He very likely could have been gotten cheaper than you guys suggested in the Red Sox threads from earlier in the off season.

They either undervalue Napoli, or vastly over-value Mathis, but again, none of that makes this trade make sense.

If the trade had been Napoli for Vernon Wells and $40-50M, you could say, well they only think Napoli is a 1.5 WAR player, and that's their mistake.

But there is no possible way they think Napoli is worth -$40M over the next 2 years.
   161. The kids disappeared, now Der-K has too much candy Posted: January 22, 2011 at 07:52 PM (#3734766)
I came over here to defend you, snapper - then your #161 anticipates most of what I was going to say.
   162. BWV 1129 Posted: January 22, 2011 at 07:53 PM (#3734767)
I don't think the Angels think players are "worth" money. I think they think, "Do we want this player? If so, can we afford him?" They wanted Wells, they had the players to get him, and they had the money because they couldn't sign anyone else.

I don't know that -- but I'm struggling to come up with another explanation.
   163. rLr Is King Of The Romans And Above Grammar Posted: January 22, 2011 at 07:55 PM (#3734768)
I don't know that -- but I'm struggling to come up with another explanation.

Tony Reagins is a knucklehead?
   164. Matthew E Posted: January 22, 2011 at 07:55 PM (#3734769)
If you go back to the day it was signed, not a single person questioned the contract at the time.


I did. I can't prove that I did but I did. I mean, I was happy that Wells was going to be around, but a) it was a lot of money, and b) I figured there was no way Wells would be any kind of worthwhile player in the last few years of the contract. (Which obviously is still up in the air.)

I like Wells a lot as a player, and I will miss him. But it was a very worthwhile trade for the Jays.
   165. Silencio Posted: January 22, 2011 at 07:55 PM (#3734770)
Is it even possible to overvalue terrible hitting catchers who are decent with the glove without undervaluing offence first catchers? Either way your going to end up giving more playing time than whats warranted to the Mathis types which in turn would take it away from the Napolis of the world.

And no one besides Reagans can know how he truly valued Napoli, but if you look at his actions its very hard to make a good argument that he valued him correctly. He obviously overvalued Wells, but its likely that he undervalued Napoli as well.
   166. Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman Posted: January 22, 2011 at 07:57 PM (#3734771)
why pay him the kind of money that could have been used for the younger and better Crawford or the older and better(?) Beltre?

Because they missed out on Crawford and Beltre. I know that's pretty obvious, but given the amount of analysis of this as a WAR/$ value-in-vacuum transaction, it bears repeating. Once those guys signed, the value of pretty much every player who is or could possibly be mistaken for elite just went up, just based on the dearth of talent in next year's FA class.[edit:.. and on the size of the Werth/Crawford/Beltre contracts--doesn't justify paying Wells 20+/year, but makes it a bit less of an outlier.]
   167. BWV 1129 Posted: January 22, 2011 at 07:59 PM (#3734774)
Because they missed out on Crawford and Beltre. I know that's pretty obvious, but given the amount of analysis of this as a WAR/$ value-in-vacuum transaction, it bears repeating. Once those guys signed, the value of pretty much every player who is or could possibly be mistaken for elite just went up, just based on the dearth of talent in next year's FA class.

Sure, but acquiring no one is better than doing this.
   168. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: January 22, 2011 at 08:00 PM (#3734775)
I honestly thought that the Mets and Angels should have worked out a deal for Beltran. I would have been happy if the Mets ate half his contract in 2011 and didn't get much in return.
   169. Greg K Posted: January 22, 2011 at 08:00 PM (#3734776)
the Napolis of the world.

There is only one Napoli!

Unless you count the city in Italy, and I'll be damned if Jeff Mathis is going to take anything from there!
   170. BWV 1129 Posted: January 22, 2011 at 08:01 PM (#3734777)
Moving back to the under/overvaluing business, it's worth noting that Napoli's situational ("clutch") stats are routinely terrible, and the Angels like to think those stats have meaning.
   171. BWV 1129 Posted: January 22, 2011 at 08:03 PM (#3734778)
There is only one Napoli!

Unless you count the city in Italy, and I'll be damned if Jeff Mathis is going to take anything from there!


Napoli (the city) is a den of thieves, a wretched hive of scum and villainy, and the site of the worst driving experiences I have ever had in my life. Driving in Naples is worse than this trade.
   172. rLr Is King Of The Romans And Above Grammar Posted: January 22, 2011 at 08:04 PM (#3734779)
Napoli (the city) is a den of thieves, a wretched hive of scum and villainy, and the site of the worst driving experiences I have ever had in my life. Driving in Naples is worse than this trade.

Your application to the Lega Nord is APPROVED.
   173. BWV 1129 Posted: January 22, 2011 at 08:07 PM (#3734780)
The North is a lot better.
   174. rLr Is King Of The Romans And Above Grammar Posted: January 22, 2011 at 08:09 PM (#3734782)
The North is a lot better.

This has been true since (what?) 1250 or so. Pretty much since the Hohenstaufen ran out of steam.
   175. Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman Posted: January 22, 2011 at 08:15 PM (#3734785)
Sure, but acquiring no one is better than doing this.

From a rational GM's perspective, sure. From Moreno's perspective, not necessarily, after he promised to spend this offseason.

Yeah, it's a bad deal. But it's a bad deal that reflects an impulsive owner and a limited pool of talent rather than just poor valuations.
   176. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 22, 2011 at 08:31 PM (#3734789)
   177. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: January 22, 2011 at 08:44 PM (#3734793)
GM stupidity is now, and will forever remain, the TRUE market inefficiency.


As others have noted, it's probably owner stupidity.

I'm betting the Angels use Fangraphs to value players.


Maybe Reagins does, but Moreno mustn't.

Rajai Davis really isn't a bad player. He probably projects as an above-average center fielder.


FWIW, he was 24th of 27 eligible CF-ers in WAR per Fangraphs. Last year Wells was 9th. And fans have an annoying habit of what-have-you-done-for-me-lately.

Remember when Red Sox fans practically penciled Napoli into the line-up for the past 1.5 years?


We don't know why a trade never happened. It might have had nothing to do with Napoli, given this bizarro deal.

They're serious about Podesednik?!


He'd be an okay pickup as Bourjos-shitting-the-bed insurance. But for all we know, Moreno might insist that Pods start.

It's funny how these things play out. One poster say "Hey, my team should trade for player X. Maybe player Y and a prospect will do it." Then a chorus of posters will shout back, "No! You're a fanboy. No way you get player x without your 2 best young players and your 2 best prospects. That's a starting place. The other team doesn't need to make a trade--they hold all the cards. You're wishcasting!" Then player X gets traded and, of course, it's never for nearly as much as the chorus claims.

You'd think the next step would be the chorus saying "Well, we wrong." But that usually doesn't happen. It's instead some conspiracy or other explanation.


Agreed. Consider this an opportunity to learn a lesson.
   178. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 22, 2011 at 08:52 PM (#3734796)
And education and dialogue.
   179. Cat Named Manny Posted: January 22, 2011 at 09:07 PM (#3734803)
I don't know how you could go about researching this*, but the Angels have to be in the running for Worst Offseason, Non-Firesale Division. It's one thing to have a terrible offseason by not spending extra money on players like Crawford and Beltre. But it's quite another to compound that by spending the money to make a terrible trade like this.

*It would be easy enough to find the worst trades and signings but much harder to find situations like the Angels had (twice!), where they were seriously pursuing players who would obviously fit their needs yet ultimately did not make the deal.
   180. rr Posted: January 22, 2011 at 09:26 PM (#3734812)
It's funny how these things play out.


You skipped #128, it appears.

#158 is very good.
   181. formerly dp Posted: January 22, 2011 at 09:27 PM (#3734813)
Wells would play CF and Pods would play LF. I was about to say what's wrong with him and that capacity, but then I saw his overall numbers last year- other than the BA, not pretty. He was good with the Royals though.
   182. rr Posted: January 22, 2011 at 09:32 PM (#3734815)
it's worth noting that Napoli's situational ("clutch") stats are routinely terrible, and the Angels like to think those stats have meaning.


Indeed. Matt Welch wrote an article in THT a few years ago about the Angels' "Program." Making contact in these situations and BA/RISP are big things for them, IIRC. Also, I recall Napoli's being interviewed late last seasons and talking about how Scioscia was on his ass about his defense and handling of pitchers.
   183. Depressoteric feels Royally blue these days Posted: January 22, 2011 at 09:48 PM (#3734819)
I highly recommend everyone click through on the link provided by AG#1F in #177. The Word Clouds (one from Halos Heaven, one from Blue Bird Banter) are HILARIOUS and AWESOME. The author had to edit out the largest, most prominent word for HH's word cloud, which no doubt was "F**K".

My favorite from the HH wordcloud: "Pearl Harbor."
My favorite from the BBB wordcloud: "Jedi-like." Also: "Hahahahaha."
   184. Tripon Posted: January 22, 2011 at 09:48 PM (#3734820)

Indeed. Matt Welch wrote an article in THT a few years ago about the Angels' "Program." Making contact in these situations and BA/RISP are big things for them, IIRC. Also, I recall Napoli's being interviewed late last seasons and talking about how Scioscia was on his ass about his defense and handling of pitchers.


The great part of this is that Mathis kinda sucks on defense too. He's certainly not the defensive God that the Angels, especially Scioscia claim he is. If anything, this is the ultimate test on Scioscia, does he still start Mathis despite having a backup just as good as him, (Bobby Wilson), and a probably better player in Hank Conger? If so, the Angels might as well sign Mathis to a long term deal and get it over with.
   185. Walt Davis Posted: January 22, 2011 at 10:01 PM (#3734827)
I agree completely with Snapper.

First, if the Angels didn't want Napoli or thought he'd be hugely over-valued at the $5 M or so he'd get in arb, they could have non-tendered him. They didn't. They might have felt he'd be overpaid at that price but they clearly didn't think it was so outrageous as to dump him in trade or non-tender.

But even if you think they thought he was a true zero but were willing to risk eating $5 M for him anyway then, at most, they have to value Vernon Wells at something like 4/$75 (the Angels' total "savings" by getting rid of Napoli's (purely optional) salary and Rivera's salary).

You might value Ellsbury more than Vernon Wells and his contract. It is obvious that the Angels highly value Vernon Wells because they think he's worth that contract.

On Mathis vs. Napoli -- when both were healthy, Napoli has always received a slight majority of the starts, roughly a 9/7 split. The Angels, as an organization, undervalued Napoli but not to the extent they gave Mathis more playing time. Their treatment of this scenario is perfectly consistent with how teams have usually handled the situation where they have one catcher with good defense who can't hit and one catcher with lousy defense who can hit. When, due to injury, they had the chance to put his bat in the lineup everyday without the cost of his (perceived) flawed defense, they did so.

I think there's plenty of evidence that the Angels undervalued Napoli; I think there's zero evidence they think he had no value. They viewed him as a useful but flawed player.

Meanwhile there are somewhere between 75 and 88 million pieces of evidence that the Angels think Vernon Wells is an extremely good baseball player.

It's simply not that hard to understand what perspective leads to this trade -- the Angels view this as trading two good bench players for an above-average (or better) full-timer at a position they need. They just required a second Torii Hunter which, since they seem perfectly content with the Torii Hunter they already have, doesn't seem that strange.

The alternative explanation is that the Angels so under-valued Napoli -- A PLAYER THEY COULD HAVE NON-TENDERED -- that they'd rather waste $80 million than have him on the team.

If your perception is so flawed that you can't see that the Angels value Vernon Wells highly then your perception can't be trusted to tell us how they valued Napoli.

Call the Angels idiots for not realizing they could have gotten the Jays to throw $20 M or so into this deal. Call them nincompoops for thinking Wells is worth all that dough. Call them morons for not giving Napoli 120 starts a year rather than 80-90.

But don't pretend they're so insane that they think Napoli was worth -$40 million.

Did the Angels just trade a reasonably-priced useful player for one of the worst contracts in baseball, wasting somewhere in the range of $30 to $60 million? Yep, I think they did.

Did the Angels just KNOWINGLY trade a reasonably-priced useful player for one of the worst contracts in baseball, wasting somewhere in the range of $30 to $60 million? Obviously not.
   186. BDC Posted: January 22, 2011 at 10:26 PM (#3734831)
As a Ranger fan, I am mostly concerned with what's fixing to happen in 2011. If Wells is a more valuable ballplayer than Napoli over the next ten months, then I'm distressed. (Money aside – it's not my money. And three or four years down the road is too hypothetical to think about. The world might end in 2012, or baseball could be repealed by Congress, or anything.)

So what are the odds that Wells, in 2011, improves the Angels on the field? I'd reckon somewhere between possible and slim, rather than between slim and none ...

Wells is on one of the more pronounced year-on year-off cycles I've ever seen. I always wonder why a team acquires a player who's heading into one of the off-years of such a cycle. At least if you get Javier Vazquez for 2011 you have the hope that the pattern continues (and you've gotten him at a "discount," as the Marlins have done). But if Wells has his usual odd-numbered year in '11, he'll hit .240 with 12 home runs. And you don't need any data more sophisticated than his baseball card to tell you that.
   187. Steve Sparks Flying Everywhere Posted: January 22, 2011 at 10:49 PM (#3734835)
Apparently Los Angeles finally got Vernon...but the wrong one.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/dec/30/local/la-me-vernon-20101230
   188. Greg K Posted: January 22, 2011 at 11:05 PM (#3734842)
The city of Vernon and some of its businesses are mounting a concerted and potentially expensive campaign against a bill in the state Legislature that would disincorporate the industrial city and put it under the purview of Los Angeles County.

Purview? where do they think they are? a ####### Jane ####### Austen novel?
   189. Darren Posted: January 22, 2011 at 11:06 PM (#3734843)
The alternative explanation is that the Angels so under-valued Napoli -- A PLAYER THEY COULD HAVE NON-TENDERED -- that they'd rather waste $80 million than have him on the team.


No, it's not. They might think he's worth exactly his contract. Or they might think he's worth a tiny bit less and just kept him because, well, it's just a one year deal and he's alright. Or they might think he's a 1.5 WAR player and therefore a very slight bargain. Meanwhile, everyone here seems to agree that Napoli is a lot more like a 3-WAR player. That's why people were saying that the Red Sox would never get him on the cheap and that's why Red Sox fans wanted to acquire him.

The most obvious conclusion from this trade is that the Angels undervalued Napoli AND overvalued Wells. To proclaim that it's all about Wells, just because the Wells part of it is so glaring, is to ignore years of evidence of how they feel about Napoli.


On Mathis vs. Napoli -- when both were healthy, Napoli has always received a slight majority of the starts, roughly a 9/7 split. The Angels, as an organization, undervalued Napoli but not to the extent they gave Mathis more playing time.


You've mentioned this before, but I can't remember ever seeing the math on it. Do you have it handy?

Jacoby Ellsbury is a player no team really wants.


At least one team does. I mean, by golly, the Red Sox signed him and he is a player A PLAYER THEY COULD HAVE NON-TENDERED!
   190. BFFB Posted: January 22, 2011 at 11:06 PM (#3734844)
They either undervalue Napoli, or vastly over-value Mathis, but again, none of that makes this trade make sense.


Or the manager over values Mathis vis a vis Napoli and the manager due to time in position and other factors has more clout than the front office.
   191. Sonic Youk Posted: January 22, 2011 at 11:26 PM (#3734852)
Remember when Ellsbury was overrated? That crazy train is running in a whole different direction now.
   192. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 22, 2011 at 11:32 PM (#3734855)
The most obvious conclusion from this trade is that the Angels undervalued Napoli AND overvalued Wells. To proclaim that it's all about Wells, just because the Wells part of it is so glaring, is to ignore years of evidence of how they feel about Napoli.

Technically yes. But we're talking about a ~$2-5M p.a. undervalue on Napoli (given that they didn't non-tender they must think he's at least a 1.5 WAR player), combined with a Mathis overvalue, vs. a $15-20M p.a. overvalue on Wells.

The Wells overvalue is so large relative to the Napoli undervalue that the Napoli undervalue become irrelevant in understanding the decision making process. It's missing the forest for the trees.

Even if LAA had valued Napoli like we do (~3 WAR), they still would have made this deal given their valuation of Wells. They just would have asked for $10M or so.
   193. Swedish Chef Posted: January 22, 2011 at 11:33 PM (#3734856)
That's why people were saying that the Red Sox would never get him on the cheap and that's why Red Sox fans wanted to acquire him.

Well, they didn't get him on the cheap. Either it wasn't easy to get him or Theo is a bumbling idiot that can't shoot fish in a barrel. Maybe you should join karlmagnus on the barricades.

I find it rather more plausible that Boston simply didn't have such a super awesome player as Wells to trade.
   194. formerly dp Posted: January 22, 2011 at 11:37 PM (#3734858)
Wells is on one of the more pronounced year-on year-off cycles I've ever seen. I always wonder why a team acquires a player who's heading into one of the off-years of such a cycle. At least if you get Javier Vazquez for 2011 you have the hope that the pattern continues (and you've gotten him at a "discount," as the Marlins have done). But if Wells has his usual odd-numbered year in '11, he'll hit .240 with 12 home runs. And you don't need any data more sophisticated than his baseball card to tell you that.

Yeah, except you can always explain away an off year. Wells is a pretty extreme case, but would it come as a huge shock to you if he repeated his 2010? It wasn't wildly out of line with his career numbers.
   195. cseadog Posted: January 22, 2011 at 11:51 PM (#3734864)
Who is this Mike Napoli I'm reading about? According to B-R, there is a Mike Napoli who played for the Angels last year. At age 28, for first time last year had over 500 plate appearances. He hit 238/316/468. He also struck out a lot-- 1/3.7 plate appearances.

I also read some newspaper articles and it appears he's not a good catcher and is a mediocre first baseman.

Is there another Mike Napoli?
   196. Swedish Chef Posted: January 23, 2011 at 12:14 AM (#3734869)
I also read some newspaper articles and it appears he's not a good catcher and is a mediocre first baseman.

See, there's your problem, you should quit reading newspapers.
   197. The District Attorney Posted: January 23, 2011 at 12:17 AM (#3734871)
Please don't make the same post in multiple threads. Thanks in advance!
   198. Darren Posted: January 23, 2011 at 01:45 AM (#3734889)
Who is this Mike Napoli I'm reading about? According to B-R, there is a Mike Napoli who played for the Angels last year. At age 28, for first time last year had over 500 plate appearances. He hit 238/316/468. He also struck out a lot-- 1/3.7 plate appearances.


Scroll down.

That's why people were saying that the Red Sox would never get him on the cheap and that's why Red Sox fans wanted to acquire him.

Well, they didn't get him on the cheap. Either it wasn't easy to get him or Theo is a bumbling idiot that can't shoot fish in a barrel. Maybe you should join karlmagnus on the barricades.


It's quite possible for Theo to have made offers that were relatively cheap and the the Angels preferred a deal for Wells. It's also possible that Theo didn't like her as much as many of us do.

I find it rather more plausible that Boston simply didn't have such a super awesome player as Wells to trade.


Well, they probably didn't have one that LA liked better.
   199. Johnny Tuttle Posted: January 23, 2011 at 02:44 AM (#3734903)
Is it possible that there's another Wells thread than that one from 2006 that only had 40 some posts in it? And it's shocking to see John's posts now when you're not expecting them.

The general take on Wells's contract from then (as I remember it as a Jays fan) was that it was too much but possibly better then losing him. Jays fans were collectively shaken by Delgado's departure, but we were all scared by the % of payroll Wells's deal would occupy (in so far as I can talk about the feelings of a very loosely-defined group). Even Jays fans then rarely tried to say that Wells was much better than slightly above average.

I might be confusing here for Batters Box. It was a long time ago.

My official reaction to the deal isn't intellectual yet, by the by. Right now I'm still yelling this out of open car window while doing donuts on main street:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I mean, Vernon seemed nice, but I know I'm nice, and I don't deserve a gajillion billion dollars to field CF horribly. Sheesh.
   200. The District Attorney Posted: January 23, 2011 at 02:56 AM (#3734906)
Maybe the Red Sox got this scouting report from Bill James (posted today in his mailbag):
Napoli certainly has upside as a hitter, and there have been times in the past when I liked him a lot. He's a frustrating player; he's an awful defensive catcher, and it's not really clear that he can stay at that position, so then he HAS to hit to stay in the lineup.
Page 2 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Adam M
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT - November 2014 College Football thread
(553 - 1:35am, Nov 23)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogDeadspin: Curt Schilling’s Son Accidentally Brings Fake Grenade To Logan Airport
(11 - 1:29am, Nov 23)
Last: Dock Ellis on Acid

NewsblogESPN Suspends Keith Law From Twitter For Defending Evolution
(98 - 1:25am, Nov 23)
Last: Famous Original Joe C

NewsblogOTP Politics November 2014: Mets Deny Bias in Ticket Official’s Firing
(4166 - 12:35am, Nov 23)
Last: bobm

NewsblogRays name managerial finalists: Cash, Ibanez, Wakamatsu | Tampa Bay Times
(12 - 12:17am, Nov 23)
Last: rLr Is King Of The Romans And Above Grammar

NewsblogCashman in wait-and-see mode on retooling Yanks | yankees.com
(17 - 11:55pm, Nov 22)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - November 2014
(965 - 11:50pm, Nov 22)
Last: steagles

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-21-2014
(48 - 11:13pm, Nov 22)
Last: Sweatpants

NewsblogBraves shopping Justin Upton at a steep price | New York Post
(28 - 11:04pm, Nov 22)
Last: Squash

NewsblogFemale Sportswriter Asks: 'Why Are All My Twitter Followers Men?' | ThinkProgress
(134 - 10:49pm, Nov 22)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogMike Schmidt: Marlins' Stanton too rich too early? | www.palmbeachpost.com
(24 - 10:32pm, Nov 22)
Last: Moeball

NewsblogFriars show interest in dealing for Bruce | MLB.com
(19 - 10:19pm, Nov 22)
Last: Moeball

NewsblogPirates DFA Ike Davis, clear path for Pedro Alvarez - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
(4 - 10:00pm, Nov 22)
Last: jingoist

NewsblogMLB.com: White Sox Land Adam LaRoche With 2 Year/$25M Deal
(19 - 8:03pm, Nov 22)
Last: boteman

NewsblogKemp drawing interest, raising chance he's the Dodgers OF dealt - CBSSports.com
(9 - 7:26pm, Nov 22)
Last: PreservedFish

Page rendered in 1.0126 seconds
53 querie(s) executed