Sign in to follow this  
UndertheHalo

The Angels definitely won the Simmons/Newcomb trade

40 posts in this topic

Sean Newcomb was sent to AAA last night.  Which got me thinking about that trade. Newcomb remains a promising young pitcher with big upside, but keeping him around would have the Angels further away from returning to contention.  It’s tough to imagine what the Angels would have done if they didn’t have Simmons.  Maybe they would have gone after a big FA like Machado.  But they could have used him even with Simmons and didn’t.  So who knows.  Maybe some set of circumstances exists that results in Trout not signing the extension.  What do we think the Angels look like today and in the near future if the trade didn’t happen ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trades aren't necessarily "won" or "lost" because sometimes both teams "win" (or lose).

As for whether or not Simmons is and will be worth more, that remains to be seen. Right now, yes, Simmons has been significantly more valuable. But let's check back in five years. But it is hard to see this ever looking bad for the Angels, unless Newcomb becomes a CY winner.

Not sure why Newcomb was sent down - he had one bad start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

Trades aren't necessarily "won" or "lost" because sometimes both teams "win" (or lose).

As for whether or not Simmons is and will be worth more, that remains to be seen. Right now, yes, Simmons has been significantly more valuable. But let's check back in five years. But it is hard to see this ever looking bad for the Angels, unless Newcomb becomes a CY winner.

Not sure why Newcomb was sent down - he had one bad start.

Ya I don’t mean to say that it’s an entirely black and white thing.  The Braves got a talented player and they’re still in good shape with Albies and Swanson manning the infield.  It’s just that getting Simmons was and is a hugely important thing for the Angels.  They needed this immediate return much more then the Braves did and fortunately they got it.  In that way, in my mind it was a huge “win” for the Angels.  Regardless of whatever happens with Newcomb down the road. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jay said:

I love Simmons but it's not like he was some magical piece that put the Angels over the top. They've had 3 losing seasons in a row with Simmons.

 

 

And I’m not saying that he is that.  My point is the Angels would be way worse off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simmons has put up 17.0 bWAR with the Angels. I think it's likely that number is higher than Newcomb's career war when it's all said an done. Obviously salary matters and the windows of contention. But I think it ends up a pretty good trade for the Angels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He’s had one good start and two bad starts.  Now I completely realize I am calling one of his outings a bad start when he allowed no runs.  However in that start he pitched 4 innings and allowed 10 base runners and threw 91 pitches.  I am guessing if an Angel starter had that kind of stat line we would hardly ignore it when talking about how he has performed so far this year.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

But let's check back in five years.

No, it's been four years already and Newcomb still isn't a MLB quality starter at age 26. Which means it was prudent to trade him for a better, more productive player. Five years from now Newcomb is 31 while Simmons is 34. The valuation would be different then simply by age regression. 

Times up on this discussion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jay said:

I love Simmons but it's not like he was some magical piece that put the Angels over the top. They've had 3 losing seasons in a row with Simmons.

You're right. They would have made the playoffs every season if they kept Newcomb.

Simmons adds a lot of value to this team, as reflected by his WAR. He's the best defensive player in baseball. His performance at the plate has been less than stellar this season, but overall he's been better with the bat than anyone expected him to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jay said:

I love Simmons but it's not like he was some magical piece that put the Angels over the top. They've had 3 losing seasons in a row with Simmons.

 

 

Maybe if you consider the current situation at 2B and 3B you might think differently about the trade.  Eppler solved a gaping hole for the foreseeable future with the best defender in the majors.  Simmons is a magical piece, but not in the way you might want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jay said:

I love Simmons but it's not like he was some magical piece that put the Angels over the top. They've had 3 losing seasons in a row with Simmons.

we should have traded Trout for Andre Ethier years ago because Ethier led the Dodgers to the playoffs every year 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Tank said:

my 20/20 hindsight wishes we would have done the same thing with brandon wood as we did with sean newcomb.

Stoneman’s one downfall was never trading any good prospects away.   Granted, that prevents any bad trades involving a good prospect from happening though (like Andersen for Bagwell and Smoltz for Alexander).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

Not sure why Newcomb was sent down - he had one bad start.

I think mostly they are sending him down as a bit of a soft reset, to let him work on his command.   As many hits as he's given up he's kept the ball in the yard and given how HR happy MLB is these days that's a testament to how heavy his FB is even when he's getting tagged.    Still, anytime you're allowing almost 2 base-runners per inning and posting a BB/9 near 6.0 along with a K/9 under 4.0, you're not doing well.

34 minutes ago, Angel Oracle said:

Stoneman’s one downfall was never trading any good prospects away.   Granted, that prevents any bad trades involving a good prospect from happening though (like Andersen for Bagwell and Smoltz for Alexander).

The flipside of course is that his unwillingness to do that may have extended the window as long as it did -- because the two guys that came in behind him were awfully bad at their jobs while here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I don’t think there’s any flip side to Stoneman refusing to trade Branden Wood and Howie Kendrick for Miguel Cabrera.  As I remember it those were the principle prospects that’s would have been traded.  The Angels were literally right on the door step of a championship, Cabrera may well have pushed them over.  Wood ended up being a massive bust and Kendrick, while a nice player was by no means irreplaceable.  Stoneman made a mistake.  Theres no other narrative. 

There were a bunch of other trades out there as well.  Those years were so incredibly frustrating come deadline time.  Stoneman had his strengths and they were important ones but he genuinely had real weaknesses as a GM as well. 

Edited by UndertheHalo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, UndertheHalo said:

I don’t think there’s any flip side to Stoneman refusing to trade Branden Wood and Howie Kendrick for Miguel Cabrera.  As I remember it those were the principle prospects that’s would have been traded.  The Angels were literally right on the door step of a championship, Cabrera may well have pushed them over.  Wood ended up being a massive bust and Kendrick, while a nice player was by no means irreplaceable.  Stoneman made a mistake.  Theres no other narrative. 

There were a bunch of other trades out there as well.  Those years were so incredibly frustrating come deadline time.  Stoneman had his strengths and they were important ones but he genuinely had real weaknesses as a GM as well. 

Miguel Cabrera trade stalled when Wood, Howie, Mathis and Ervin Santana wasn’t enough and they also wanted Adenhart.  That’s how I remember it.   

Anyone else remember this being the case?   There was also an agreed upon package then they asked for more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Angel Oracle said:

Stoneman’s one downfall was never trading anyone away good prospects away.   Granted, that prevents any bad trades involving a good prospect from happening though (like Andersen for Bagwell and Smoltz for Alexander).

Fixed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Miguel Cabrera trade stalled when Wood, Howie, Mathis and Ervin Santana wasn’t enough and they also wanted Adenhart.  That’s how I remember it.   

Anyone else remember this being the case?   There was also an agreed upon package then they asked for more.

Even as good as he could have been, I still wished this trade had gone down.    Nick would probably still be alive today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • AngelsWin.com Ad-free Membership Options