Since Wells is awful, they should probably keep Abreu around.

Well, I think the Angels should trade Vernon Wells.

Abreu needs to stay and enter into a platoon with Trumbo at DH if Morales is not well or productive. Wells needs to be lost after 250 AB's of suck.

Well, I think the Angels should trade Vernon Wells.

Yeah. They should pick up $54M and trade him. That way he will only cost his new team $9M over 3 years, about what he's worth. Then, whatever they will get will have cost them Napoli and $75M just to get rid of Napoli.

Probably the worst trade ever that didn't involve a HOF.

Probably the worst trade ever that didn't involve a HOF.

Its up there. We would have also accepted

David Cone and Chris Jelic for Rick Anderson, Ed Hearn and Mauro Gozzo

Joe Foy for Amos Otis

Jay Buhner for Ken Phelps

Derek Lowe and Jason Varitek for Heathcliff Slocumb

Keith Hernandez for Neil Allen and Rick Ownby

Bartolo Colon for Grady Sizemore, Cliff Lee, and Brandon Phillips

Probably the worst trade ever that didn't involve a HOF.

Probably the worst trade ever that didn't involve Babe Ruth.

In my mind, the most tradeable guy in the OF is probably Hunter -- he's going to be a FA after this season, which means he won't fetch much, and he is making $18 million, so I imagine some contract will have to be swallowed. But Abreu's best days look to be behind him, and (as folks have already mentioned) good luck finding someone willing to bite on the $63 million owed Wells. I like [3]'s notion of using Abreu as a platoon player, though maybe it'd be worth swapping him in for Wells against tough righties. & besides that, Wells is only 32 (!!!), and could very well have one of his pro forma "bounce back" years -- it won't justify his contract by any means, but it'll look just dandy in the bottom 3rd of the Angels order. (This assumes Trout forces the issue w/ a hard-to-ignore Spring Training showing.)

Or they could just wait one year for Hunter & Abreu's contracts to expire, use Trout purely as injury insurance / post-ASB spark plug, and just pencil in Wells / Bourjos / Trout (alignment TK) for 2013.

Joe Foy for Amos Otis

Jay Buhner for Ken Phelps

Derek Lowe and Jason Varitek for Heathcliff Slocumb

Bartolo Colon for Grady Sizemore, Cliff Lee, and Brandon Phillips

In these trades at least, the losing team was trying to acquire a positive-value player. Hernandez doesn't really count, so I think the Cone for three nothings trade is the worst there.

We'll give you Carl Crawford for Torii Hunter.

In these trades at least, the losing team was trying to acquire a positive-value player. Hernandez doesn't really count, so I think the Cone for three nothings trade is the worst there.

Isn't that worse though? The Royals didn't know what they had in David Cone. He seemed like a wild-armed reliever. You can't fault them for swapping him for a decent hitting catcher. The rest of these teams traded pretty good prospects for proven players who sucked.

And how could I forget Scott Kazmir for Victor Zambrano?

Wells is a tricky player because in his good years he can give you adequate production.

In his bad years he kills you.

If stuck with him I wouldn't eat the contract, but I _would_ try to trade him for as much salary relief as I could get. But even there, the problem is that you're trading him when his value is low. IF you can afford to see if he has a hot two or three months, it might be worthwhile to stick him in the lineup to start the year and see if you can get a sucker to take him near the deadline when his value is higher. And as we've seen, there are still GMs out there who will make dumb trades.

Probably the worst trade ever that didn't involve a HOF.

Fred McGriff (and Dave Collins) for Tom Dodd and Dale Murray.

Its up there. We would have also accepted

I think you're forgetting Nathan, Liriano and Bonser for A.J. Yes, the haul didn't quite turn out quite as large as it appeared it was going to for the Twins, but the depth of loathing the entire Giants organization had for Pierogi elevates this above ordinary lopsided trades.

Probably the worst trade ever that didn't involve a HOF.

Well, Roy Campanella is #10 on Napoli's most similar through age 29 list. Posada is #1. None of them are all that similar to him though.

Fred McGriff (and Dave Collins) for Tom Dodd and Dale Murray.

Also bad: Fred McGriff for Melvin Nieves, Vince Moore and Donnie Elliott

Ironically, both the Tim Hudson and Mark Mulder trades could be on that list.

In 1991 the Houston Astros traded Kenny Lofton and Dave Rohde to the Cleveland Indians for Willie Blair and Ed Taubensee.
The Indians gave up 8.8 WAR, meanwhile Lofton finished 2nd in the 92 RoY and was off to the races for a near HoF career

That's a whole lot of ouch, 55 WAR of it or thereabouts.

IIRC, the Astros offered Kenny Lofton to the Royals for Brent Mayne, but the Royals balked because they insisted on getting Al Osuna as well.

I think the Wells trade is a whole new category - it's one thing to deal for a prospect or prospects that pan out (I mean, Larry Andersen was a fine reliever, but that's an overpay for Jeff Bagwell)...

Everyone makes mistakes on prospects -- it happens -- you need a rental, flags fly forever, etc...

I think what we need is a "WTF did you acquire HIM for?!?!" list...

I can't think of anything that comes close to Wells and his salary - while giving up (known) value in return.

Other trades where it was just a dumb idea - and most everyone moving was a more or less known quantity?

Frank Robinson for Pappas and change is the best I can come up with, but while it's lopsided -- Milt Pappas doesn't really fit into a "what do you want HIM for" category?

IIRC, the Astros offered Kenny Lofton to the Royals for Brent Mayne, but the Royals balked because they insisted on getting Al Osuna as well.

Making it Ouch with a capital O

Joe Morgan and Jack Billingham and Cesar Geronimo and Denis Menke and Ed Armbrister for Tommy Helms, Lee May and Jimmy Stewart; the mind boggles.

Zonk,

A terrible Pirates team acquiring Matt Morris for Rajai Davis and a PTBNL at the trading deadline in 2007.

ETA: The below didn't have much(or anything) going the other way, but were still dumbfounding acquisitions:

A bad Rockies team acquiring Sandy Alomar(for Emencio Pacheco) for no reason at the '02 deadline

a 50 win Diamondbacks team signing Jeff Fassero on September 29th(!!) to pitch 1 inning.

A terrible Pirates team acquiring Matt Morris for Rajai Davis and a PTBNL at the trading deadline in 2007.

That's a good one. A definite 'him?' in an Ann Veal sense.

Other trades where it was just a dumb idea - and most everyone moving was a more or less known quantity?

Rangers trading Chris Young and Adrian Gonzalez (both had some ML experience) for Adam Eaton.

One of the most pointless prospect-for-veteran trades I can think of is Juan "Leo Nunez" Oviedo for Benito Santiago. (age 22 for age 39 - has there ever been a case of someone being traded for someone more than twice his age?)

There's the obvious laughability of giving up on someone that you'd invested 5 years in developing through the minors, and sending him to a team that immediately found an MLB use for him, in exchange for someone that you then release on May 8. But specifically Benito Santiago ... a catcher. Presumably the goal was to provide some competition for their young catchers who may not have been working hard enough. But at this point in his career Santiago was not working hard either. And the Pirates had THREE MLB-ready young catchers, Doumit, Cota, and Paulino, so the net effect was just to make sure nobody had any playing time.

Ricky Rincon for Brian Giles. Giles wasn't a regular yet, but he was a really good bench player, and a lot of people thought it was a huge overpay for a LOOGY.

Bret Saberhagen and Bill Pecota for Keith Miller, Kevin McReynolds and Gregg Jeffries. Sabes was inconsistent, but beloved, and the Royals got a malcontent, an over-hyped infielder and a perpetually injured utility player. The trade was hated in KC from day one.

If the Angels wait around to use Trout until July or something, that will be a travesty.

The greater travesty is that now they can do that and it likely won't cost them the division. Blargh.

If the Angels wait around to use Trout until July or something, that will be a travesty.

I don't think giving a 19 y.o. a half-season in AAA (esp. his first time in AAA) is ever a "travesty".

It's not like he set the world on fire in his MLB debut. 220/281/390 doesn't exactly scream that he needs to be in the big opening day.

If the Angels wait around to use Trout until July or something, that will be a travesty.

It's the sensible move given the roster. Let the old guys play, if one needs to be replaced, Trout can come up. If the old guys play well enough, let Trout's clock stand still while the outfield logjam clears itself out at the end of the season.

I also don't think that giving him some more minor league ABs is a bad thing either.

The Angels are probably better off to wait until everyone shows to Spring training and passes their physical before making any moves. Mid March they'll have a better idea what area of the team needs to be bolstered by an acquisition. However, so will their trading partners. If suddenly two weeks into the season LAAAA has several sore armed relievers they may be in a weakened trading position. Yaneverknow.

Worst trade at the time or worst trade in hindsight?

Johan Santana for Jared Camp was awful. And, as the intro says, Bobby Abreu for Kevin Stocker.

I think what we need is a "WTF did you acquire HIM for?!?!" list...

Larry Bowa and Ryne Sandberg for Ivan DeJesus. Yeah, OK, I can see wanting to upgrade on the 35 YO Bowa, but they were trading for a 29 YO SS coming off a .194 BA season.

If the Angels wait around to use Trout until July or something, that will be a travesty.

Maybe, but if they do that, Angel fans will be glad they did when 2018 comes around.

Hated the Bartolo trade.
Mike S-rotka for David Wells was a memorably bad one too.

Probably the worst trade ever that didn't involve a HOF.

Fred McGriff (and Dave Collins) for Tom Dodd and Dale Murray.

Willie McGee for Bob Sykes warrants mentioning as well...

The 80s era Yankees just dominate this list.

Cocaine is a hell of a drug.

Mike S-rotka for David Wells was a memorably bad one too.

SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP! THIS NEVER HAPPENED! NEVER HAPPENED!

I suppose the closest thing we have to the Wells trade was the 3-way Hampton trade -- Hampton to the Braves, Charles Johnson and Preston Wilson and some other bits to the Rox, Pierre and bits to the Marlins.

Obviously Napoli had a slightly better season than Johnson. :-) Also there was cash flowing all over the place in the Hampton deal.

That trade looks even stranger in hindsight. As near as I can tell, the Marlins only role in this trade was to provide expensive players to the Rox to help "balance" out the money. The Marlins got a ton of salary relief and a little talent while the Braves and Rox just took on bad, expensive players.

I don't think giving a 19 y.o. a half-season in AAA (esp. his first time in AAA) is ever a "travesty".

It's not like he set the world on fire in his MLB debut. 220/281/390 doesn't exactly scream that he needs to be in the big opening day.

This isn't entirely fair. Trout absolutely tore up AA: .326/.414./.544 with 45/76 BB/K and 33/10 SB/CS. He got an unexpected call-up in July with a rash of injuries, and hit .163/.213/.279 in 47 PA. He was sent back down, and came back up in August, after which he hit .250/.318/.450 in 88 PA. Still not superstar numbers, and obviously small sample sizes, but the numbers back up the narrative: stud prospect, overwhelmed in his first exposure to big league pitching, goes back down and is better prepared for the second call up and acquits himself admirably.

Bear in mind that according to Zips anyway, Trout has the best offensive projection of anyone on the team (besides the $254 million dollar man). This is an OBP-starved lineup outside of Pujols, and the Angels didn't spend 300+ million this offseason to not contend this year. His legit CF glove in LF, with the otherworldly Bourjos in center, makes things a lot easier on the pitching staff as well. The Angels' best lineup for 2012 includes Trout, and they should do whatever they can to play the kid every day.

That trade looks even stranger in hindsight. As near as I can tell, the Marlins only role in this trade was to provide expensive players to the Rox to help "balance" out the money. The Marlins got a ton of salary relief and a little talent while the Braves and Rox just took on bad, expensive players.

It wasn't technically a three-way trade, it was two separate trades two days apart. Jim Callis sums it up here

Marlins saved about $9 million, Rockies saved $26 million, putting the Braves on the hook for the remaining $35 mill for Hampton. The only talent the Marlins really got in the deal was Juan Pierre, who was a nice player back then. So yea, pretty nice move by the Marlins to dump two players they didn't want anymore.

Jason Bay, Josh Reynolds and Bobby Jones for Jason Middlebrook and Steve Reed.

Ah, Charles Johnson. Retired mid-2005. Still the last African-American, non-Latino catcher in MLB?

Joe Morgan and Jack Billingham and Cesar Geronimo and Denis Menke and Ed Armbrister for Tommy Helms, Lee May and Jimmy Stewart; the mind boggles.

I remember way back when Lee May was an Oriole, that he as considered a star (a minor one, but a start nonetheless), basically as an on field player he was Dave Kingman with better press.

You have to remember that back then they really did not understand park factors and OBP.
Oh they knew that parks mattered that the Astrodome was a pitcher's park and the Reds played in a hitter's park
and they knew that a walk was better than an out, but you really had no one acting on any reasoned quantification of those factors

Joe Morgan was coming off a year when he hit .256-13-56 and that was not an atypical looking year for him, this was 1971, if you asked someone what Joe Morgans; most valuable offensive trait was, they would have answered "steals bases" with little hesitation.

Lee May was a masher, he'd hit 38, 34, 39 in consecutive years, and .278-39-98 the year before the trade (and a 147 OPS+ his career high- not that anyone new that then)

People had a vague idea that an "average" hitting 2B (i.e., average overall) had value- perhaps more value than a slightly better hitting 1b- but where that line actually was? No idea.

I have no doubt that the day that trade was made the Astros thought they won because they got the better player.

What, no love to Glenn Davis for Finley, Harnisch, Schilling?

after which he hit .250/.318/.450 in 88 PA

The problem with looking at those numbers is that he was basically a platoon player playing only against lefties in that stretch. He still looked- and the numbers back it up- uncomfortable against RH pitching. The slight improvement in his Zips numbers versus Wells- ignoring the platoon issues and Wells' statistical volatility- isn't worth cribbing Trout's development, burning his service time and nearly guaranteeing a total loss on the Wells deal.

If the team needs him, they can call him up. They should try their other options first.

SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP! THIS NEVER HAPPENED! NEVER HAPPENED!

That was bad, but not quite as legendary as the unnamed shortstop prospect for E------ L-----. Looking at his stats, I have no idea what Ash wanted with that pitcher. It's not that he was bad, he just wasn't that good, even on a superficial level.

The mayo on that shark sandwich was Esteban going to Chicago on a 500K deal so that he could lead the league in strikeouts and finish 2nd in the Cy Young voting.

And while we're on the topic of heartbreaking Blue Jays trades: John Olerud and cash for Robert Person.

I retract my statement about Trout. I was thinking too much of the several astounding things he did and not the whole picture. Some more work in the minors would be fine.

And while we're on the topic of heartbreaking Blue Jays trades: John Olerud and cash for Robert Person.

Hey, Robert Person was pretty good for 3 years ... after you traded him for Paul Spoljaric.

None of these trades touch the Angels dumping Napoli for Wells. Hindsight is always 20/20. Aside from Reagins and Jeff Mathis's mother, there probably wasn't a single baseball fan who thought this was a good trade the day it was made. Napoli was arguably the best hitting catcher in the AL for ##### sake.

Johnny Damon and Mark Ellis for Roberto Hernandez, AJ Hinch and Angel Berroa. Ugh.

Bobby Bonilla for Jose DeLeon

Napoli was arguably the best hitting catcher in the AL for ##### sake.

Napoli was traded for Frank Francisco. He was viewed as a poor catcher defensively with health issues that would keep him from even being that. And his offense in 2010 produced about half as much value as Vernon's did.

The trade was horrible because the Angels picked up all of Well's deal. Trading Frank Francisco (while dumping Juan Rivera's salary) for the right to do that is dumb, but not even close to the dumbest part of the effort.

And his offense in 2010 produced about half as much value as Vernon's did.

He had an OPS+ of 122 from 2008-10. The fact that Scioscia didn't give him playing time isn't his fault.

Over that same period, Wells put up a 109, as a LF pretending to be a CF, and one of the highest paid players in the game. Wells was 31, Napoli was 28. Even if TO had covered the majority of Wells's salary it would have been retarded on the Angels' part.

I cursed the Francisco trade the day it happened, and I will curse it for the rest of my days.

Mike S-rotka for David Wells was a memorably bad one too.

That was bad, but not quite as legendary as the unnamed shortstop prospect for E------ L-----.

And while we're on the topic of heartbreaking Blue Jays trades: John Olerud and cash for Robert Person.

Hey, Robert Person was pretty good for 3 years ... after you traded him for Paul Spoljaric.

So what we're really saying is that Gord Ash sucks.

I have no doubt that the day that trade was made the Astros thought they won because they got the better player.

No doubt, that's why Houston had to throw Billingham, Menke and the rest into the deal to make it "even". If the Astros GM had been some random guy off the street during that era instead of Spec Richardson they would have been a lot better off. Ol' Spec's ability to evaluate the talent he had and the talent he was getting (not only in this trade but in others as well) put Houston pretty far behind the curve. The only thing that kept some other team from getting the Astrodome in one of his deals was that it was too big to pack and ship.

Aramis Ramirez and Kenny Lofton for Jose Hernandez, Bobby Hill and Matt Bruback was pretty awful.

The fact that Scioscia didn't give him playing time isn't his fault.

In the years you cited he was the Angels' primary catcher, and caught more games in each of those years than he did in the past year. His GP numbers were suppressed because of DL trips and constant injuries much more so than Scioscia's management of Napoli's playing time. In 2010, he became a full-time player and was a pretty pedestrian one at that. And you're ignoring that he was basically incapable of catching at the end of 2010 because of his shoulder problems which were thought to limit his ability to catch going forward. His perceived value last year at this time wasn't far off from where it's likely to be next year at this time.

If Napoli gets an extension from Texas to be their primary catcher in the next couple of months based on his production last season, there's a good chance you'll spend the next few years thanking AA for not sticking your squad with that deal.

Napoli was arguably the best hitting catcher in the AL for ##### sake.

Are you talking perception coming into the 2011 season? Or what they did in 2011? Coming into the year, there is no way anyone would have had Napoli ahead of Joe Mauer among AL catchers. Not even close. But on actual performance not only was Napoli the best hitting catcher, by far, in all of baseball, he was tied for 3rd in OPS+ among all players with 400+ plate appearances.

I meant coming into 2011. I knew I was forgetting someone, and it was Mauer of course.

Even if Napoli became a DH with TO and put up a 120 OPS in 400 PA, he would have been worth more than 50 innings of Francisco.

Kinda funny that regarding bad trades, no one has directly cited the lead-in.

Even if Napoli became a DH with TO and put up a 120 OPS in 400 PA, he would have been worth more than 50 innings of Francisco.

Probably true. But keep in mind, Napoli cost twice as much. Given their respective track records and Napoli's health concerns, they were pretty close to equal in value per dollar. Close enough that positional needs and financial concerns made it (or could make it) reasonable to swap one for the other.

Did Milwaukee really pay Eric Gagne 10mill for one year? I was going to snark on the David Murphy, Engel Beltre, whoever for Gagne trade and saw that.

Probably true. But keep in mind, Napoli cost twice as much. Given their respective track records and Napoli's health concerns, they were pretty close to equal in value per dollar.</blcokquote>But how serious were Napoli's injury concerns? He was banged up at the end of last season, but it didn't seem to be anything chronic, like a back injury or anything. And the Angels clearly didn't check Napoli's shoulder prior to making the trade — they were going to trade him whether he was healthy or not.

<blockquote>In 2010, he became a full-time player and was a pretty pedestrian one at that.

His "pedestrian" 2010 included a 115 OPS+. The other catcher had a an OPS+ of 37. The Napoli trade was bad not only because the Angels took on Wells' contract, but because it opened up the catcher spot for Mathis to get even more playing time, with no other fallback option. Not only that, but they couldn't confirm that Morales was coming back. Napoli was the backup 1B, and the only fallback was a young guy who couldn't tell balls from strikes. Not only that, but they knew — THEY KNEW! — they had an 18-year-old that just lit the up the Midwest and California leagues, and they still went ahead and took on contract that was guaranteed to block either Trout or Bourgos.

There are so, so, so many reasons why the trade was a bad idea. There's no justifying it. It's impossible. Don't even try.

The other catcher had a an OPS+ of 37.

The Angels didn't think Napoli could play catcher for health reasons. Accordingly, keeping him would not have done anything to change the Mathis situation in that scenario. They also assumed Conger (or Wilson) could handle the spot- he wasn't ready (Wilson's not good enough.) Not getting a replacement catcher has little to do with trading away a guy who they didn't think could play catcher.

Additionally, the young guy who couldn't tell balls from strikes put up basically the same season that the Napoli put up in 2010. At a 6 million dollar savings.

Finally, it would have been totally unreasonable to expect Trout to be ready to play in 2011. He is only going to be 20 next year. The way the outfield contracts lined up, a spot was available for Trout to kick off 2013, which was a perfectly reasonable time to expect him to be ready. No contending team is banking on players to fill crucial spots as 20 year olds- and with good reason for the team and the player.

There are many reasons why the trade was a bad idea. Losing Frank Francisco isn't amongst the top 30 million of them.

"The Angels didn't think Napoli could play catcher for health reasons."

They only started talking about that well after the fact. It's a cover their ass argument. And if they believed it then it's one more knock against their judgement. Even if Napoli was too banged up to catch at the end of 2010, there would have been much more reason to expect him to be OK 6 months later than to expect Morales to be back. Besides, a Napoli who can't do anything more than roll the ball back to the pitcher is still better than Mathis.

The Angels didn't think Napoli could play catcher for health reasons.

But again, there was no indication that Napoli's shoulder problems were going to be chronic. They didn't trade him until the end of January, plenty of time to find out how his shoulder was rehabbing. If you look back at at the trade columns from last winter, not one of the teams that traded for him questioned whether Napoli would still be able to catch, not the Jays or Rangers, no reporters, no bloggers that I could remember. If you find a report from last January saying Napoli couldn't catch because of injuries, I'd love to see it. As far as I know, the only questions about his catching pertained to his ability, not his health.

But even if we stipulate that the Angels believed Napoli couldn't catch for health reasons, so what? It was apparent the organization wasn't sold on Conger, either. When Conger was actually hitting early in the season, he still had to split equal time with Mathis, and as soon as he hit a slump, Mathis started taking more playing time; by July Mathis was catching nearly every game. It's obvious that the Angels chose Mathis over Napoli despite Mathis' total lack of offense, and were confident that whatever defensive gains they got, along with Wells' offense, would off-set ~80 points of OPS+. And they were willing to pay Wells $86 million over four years.

That's stupid. The entire rational for moving Napoli for Wells was stupid.

Additionally, the young guy who couldn't tell balls from strikes put up basically the same season that the Napoli put up in 2010. At a 6 million dollar savings.

You know what would have saved some money? Not trading for Vernon Wells. A healthy Trumbo basically hit as well as an injured Napoli. And hurt Napoli did outhit Trumbo: a 2.2 oWAR in 2010 vs. Trumbo's 1.9 oWAR from last year. Would you have bet on Opening Day 2011 that Mark Trumbo would outhit Napoli? I wouldn't have. Would you bet that Trumbo outhits Napoli in 2012? I wouldn't. (They didn't plan on using Trumbo at all; they'd assumed Morales would be at 1B.)

Finally, it would have been totally unreasonable to expect Trout to be ready to play in 2011.

Who said anything about 2011? Wells' contract goes to 2014, and it's reasonable to expect the #2 prospect in baseball in 2010 to be ready for a shot in 2012.

There are many reasons why the trade was a bad idea. Losing Frank Francisco isn't amongst the top 30 million of them.

I didn't name Francisco as a part of any of my reasons.

They only started talking about that well after the fact.

Terry Smith, the Angels radio play-by-play guy, was talking about Napoli's future as a catcher in September of 2010 when Napoli became unavailable to play catcher. And Napoli's health had always been a problem (including last year) and will likely be a problem next year if he catches more than 50 or so games. More importantly, if you want to argue that Napoli wasn't hurt, and was perceived as a catcher who was healthy enough to play 100+ games behind the plate, you have to explain why a guy with his offensive history was given away for Frank Francisco. I don't see how anyone is going to be able to do that.

Obviously, I can't know for certain what the Angels were thinking, but after Napoli's 2010- which featured a ruthian .316 OBP in over 500 PAs when he could no longer be platooned- and AA's subsequent trading of him, we can make a reasonable estimate as to Mike Napoli's perceived value around the league. And it doesn't appear to have been very high. I'm willing to bet it will be the same way next year. Particularly if he gets a big extension before then.

there would have been much more reason to expect him to be OK 6 months later than to expect Morales to be back

I don't understand why that would be so. Morales had a fluke foot injury. Napoli had consistently fought injury problems. Why would you have expected Morales to be less healthy than Napoli going forward in December of 2010?

In the years you cited he was the Angels' primary catcher, and caught more games in each of those years than he did in the past year. His GP numbers were suppressed because of DL trips

Yes and no. When both were healthy, Napoli was used at about a 90-start pace and Mathis at about a 72-start pace.

And the Rangers viewed Napoli in a very similar vein to the Angels:

April: 17 games out of 27; 14 starts, 6 at C; 58 PA
May: 21 games out of 28; 18 starts, 10 at C; 75 PA
June (injured): 8 games out of 11; 7 starts, 4 at C; 30 PA

So through June 11 (66 team games), he had 163 PA and only 23 starts at C. That's not substantially more PA and fewer starts at C than Scioscia was giving him. In contrast, through June 11, Moreland had 213 PA and Torrealba had 174.

Napoli returned on July 4. For July he appeared in 18 of 24 games with 16 starts, 10 at C. He had 68 PA. Over that period, Moreland had 79 PA but Torrealba only 59.

In August, he finally became full-time with 28 starts in 28 games but still only 12 at C. Sept saw 19 starts in 25 games (probably some resting up for the playoffs) and he grabbed 16 starts at C.

Anyway, through July, the Rangers were not using Napoli any differently than the Angels had except they were giving him less time at C and more time at 1B/DH.

The Wells trade is not hard to "explain" at all because there is only one explanation that fits all the facts and behaviors -- the Angels believed Wells to be a very good player worth about $18 M a year (or whatever the final $$s worked out to after deducting Rivera/Napoli and the small amount of cash from the Jays). Yes, they seem to have been the only people in all of baseball who believed that but there you have it. If all they wanted to do was get rid of Napoli, all they had to do was non-tender him. Instead they signed him for over $5 M. That's a funny thing to do if you're trying to get rid of a guy.

Who said anything about 2011? Wells' contract goes to 2014, and it's reasonable to expect the #2 prospect in baseball in 2010 to be ready for a shot in 2012.

Bourjos has never been blocked and never will be. Vernon's contract isn't going to block Trout after 2012 because there are 3 outfield spots and there will be only be one signed outfielder at that point not named Trout or Bourjos. That leaves only 2012 as a year with a legitimate logjam concern. On that note, if Trout should play this year- which is still a healthy if- if history is any indication, the Angels will bench or DFA whoever is in the way and move on. Kazmir got one start last year. Rodney got one save op. Tori got moved from his spot two years ago. Abreu got benched last year. Dumping or moving poorly performing vets has not been an issue for this team in recent years. Moreno may take on too many sunk costs, but he doesn't normally force them onto the field if they don't belong there.

You know what would have saved some money? Not trading for Vernon Wells.

Yes I know that, that's why I wrote that. It's also a separate discussion from whether or not trading Napoli was reasonable.

I didn't name Francisco as a part of any of my reasons.

Frank Francisco is all that Mike Napoli was and all that it was reasonable to assume he would be without the benefit of hindsight. And there's solid evidence on that point from 28 MLB GMs- unless you think AA refused to talk to anyone about Napoli except Texas. Trading either of Francisco or Napoli for Vernon Wells wouldn't have been the problem. At least not the biggest one. The problem was eating the deal. The Angels were desperate for a LF and ended up with 3 catchers on the opening day roster- two of whom were not named Mathis. Trading depth at 1B/DH for a LF who put up a 4WAR offensive season the previous season could have been reasonable for the Angels had they not eaten virtually the entire deal in the process.

Yes and no. When both were healthy, Napoli was used at about a 90-start pace and Mathis at about a 72-start pace.

I've tried to piece it together a couple of times and, IIRC, ended up with about 100-60, but it's a tough thing to nail down exactly and I'd normally trust your math-fu over mine.

Let me ask you this Walt, if you were running Texas, do you extend Napoli at this point? Or make him play one more good season before doing so? If it's the former, what would you think is a reasonable deal?

More importantly, if you want to argue that Napoli wasn't hurt, and was perceived as a catcher who was healthy enough to play 100+ games behind the plate, you have to explain why a guy with his offensive history was given away for Frank Francisco. I don't see how anyone is going to be able to do that.

In Napoli's own words,

I always felt like I was looking over my shoulder to see if I was doing things right. I had 'bad hands.' I was so worried about my setup and the mechanics all the time. I learned a lot. I learned a lot of what I do there, but playing there just wasn't much fun.

and added elsewhere

Scioscia is hard on catchers. I feel freedom now and I can catch how I want. I solely worry about my game calling instead of worrying about how I gotta be perfect on the setup, or if I'm moving too early, or I'm in the wrong stance. I'm thinking about being on the same page with the pitcher.

Why did Toronto trade him? They had a bunch of young catchers in the pipeline. Why did the Angels trade him? Because the Angels simply didn't think very much of his defense and thought they could do better. This is why the Angels were stupid.

EDIT: And really, Toronto's big gain wasn't Napoli, but the shedding of Wells' contract. Shedding Napoli's arb-eligible contract was just a bonus to them.

More importantly, if you want to argue that Napoli wasn't hurt, and was perceived as a catcher who was healthy enough to play 100+ games behind the plate, you have to explain why a guy with his offensive history was given away for Frank Francisco. I don't see how anyone is going to be able to do that.

That the Jays followed up an awesome trade with a terrible trade doesn't make the awesome trade any less awesome. The general consensus all over this site was that (from the Blue Jays point over view) the Wells-Napoli trade was genius, and that the Napoli-Francisco trade was idiocy. Which is indeed how it all worked out.

Why did Toronto trade him? They had a bunch of young catchers in the pipeline.

That doesn't explain the return. If we are discussing what the Angels should have received for Mike Napoli in trade, we have to look at what Mike Napoli's perceived value was. And we have a pretty good idea based on the fact that he was subsequently dealt. Why would we assume that the Angels could have gotten anything more than Frank Francisco? That would appear to be the relevant consensus as to what Mike Napoli was worth, no?

Did Milwaukee really pay Eric Gagne 10mill for one year? I was going to snark on the David Murphy, Engel Beltre, whoever for Gagne trade and saw that.

This is right up there as a candidate for the worst trade Epstein ever made as Red Sox GM... solely because it gave us Gagne.

That doesn't explain the return. If we are discussing what the Angels should have received for Mike Napoli in trade, we have to look at what Mike Napoli's perceived value was.

Donde, you're assuming that there's a good reason for these series of moves. I think Squash makes the point: it was a bad trade. Not as bad as the Angels trading Napoli, but it wasn't great. Obviously Toronto, having shed Wells' contract, went ahead and shed Napoli's contract as well; Wells + Napoli - Francisco == ~$28 million dollars. Perhaps the Toronto was too eager to shed a few more bucks, or maybe they really thought they needed a bullpen guy. I don't know, but you can look back at the Oracle discussion from when this trade was made. People were baffled.

Why would we assume that the Angels could have gotten anything more than Frank Francisco? That would appear to be the relevant consensus as to what Mike Napoli was worth, no?

No. At the very least, the Angels could have shopped him around some more. We know Boston was eager to get their hands on Napoli — they tried to claim him on waivers — so that's at least one other team in the bidding.

We also know that the Angels had missed the postseason for the first time in four years. Then in the winter meetings they lost out on two huge free agent signings, getting beat on both Crawford and Beltre. They were ready and eager to spend money on big names, and unhappy at not being able to do it. There was pressure from ownership to do Something Big. That, coupled with how little they regarded Napoli despite his offensive history, pushed them towards something stupid.

Yes and no. When both were healthy, Napoli was used at about a 90-start pace and Mathis at about a 72-start pace.


The problem with this poor logic is twofold:

1. Much of that was early in the year, when Napoli wasn't outplaying Torrealba, and the expectation coming into the year was that Torrelaba was the better defender.
2. Texas has over the last couple of years tried to give guys rest. Napoli hadn't handled a very full catchers load before, and they wanted to make sure Napoli was capable of playing every day at catcher if they needed him to in the playoffs.

Donde, you're assuming that there's a good reason for these series of moves.

Absolutely. AA had just traded a horrid contract and got an impossibly good- since it didn't contain anthrax- return for it. I don't have reason to think he's unreasonable generally and have little reason to think that he flips back and forth between genius GM and incompetent GM. Your argument, as I understand it, is that there was a better return out there, but AA just didn't bother to go after it. Is that the argument? Why would I assume that instead of assuming that AA went and got the best that he could possibly get for Napoli. The latter claim seems a lot more reasonable.

People were baffled.

Here's the thread. I think baffled is a stretch, but fair enough, there is definitely some head scratching in that thread. My point however, is that such a limited return- indeed the bafflement you're speaking of- is testament to the fact that Napoli, for whatever reason, was perceived as having limited value throughout the league. It could be that no one in baseball recognizes what a catcher with a 120 OPS+ is worth, but it seems to me that the more reasonable explanation is that he wasn't viewed as a catcher. Or, at least, not likely to be much of a catcher. Had he been viewed around the league as even a decent catcher, AA gets more for him.

I agree with your last paragraph. Every part of it (save possibly for the Beltre part, I was never sure how interested the Angels actually were.) I just don't agree that only getting limited value for Napoli was stupid. It was all that he was worth at the time. The fact that they got negative value, and lots of it, is stupid- industrial strength stupid- but the fact that they didn't get good value was unavoidable. What they were trading wasn't perceived as all that valuable around the league.

was about to say 3 bucks for 3 years is more like it, but the guy did smack 25.

howd that go again..

we need to get somebody to pay this bum we've got.
what?
only if we take Napoli?