T Minus 1 Hour and Tex is Gone--What Now?

I was getting pretty excited about a Stoneman trade for Mark Texiera over the weekend, even though it meant giving up a great 1B (albeit for something better) and one of the stop-gaps in our hole-y rotation. The benefits outweighed the costs, to be sure. Unfortunately, Texas is idiotic (or not, depending on how you think they should view inter-division trading) and decided to except much less for him from Atlanta. Atlanta, too, is rather stupid in this deal, as they're essentially renting Tex for a year and a half, and I haven't seen any particular evidence that he's going to do well in the National League.
So here's what I love about our General Manager--I posted this on Halos Heaven last night, so for readers from over there, please forgive the repeat:

"Is that he finally realizes something needs to be done, only after watching a month and a half of ineptitude. Then he gets ONE big trade stuck in his mind, and when that falls through he essentially gives up, saying "we're good enough as is," after ONE excellent series, taking confidence in 3 games and ignoring the other 30 that preceded, and banking on the wish that we'll miraculously return to May form and win every single one of the last 58 games. He then completely closes up shop just in time for us to start sucking again."


Now, the question may be asked (and HAS been asked by astute HH readers every time I pose this complaint), "What would you have him do? It's not as though there are any other options out there." Wrong. Part of the reason generic fans are not general managers is that they don't have HALF the resources someone like Bill Stoneman and his staff have. It's his JOB to get CREATIVE every now and then--we clearly need something, and that doesn't necessarily mean "shuffling bodies around" as Stoneman seems to think it does (http://losangeles.angels.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20070730&content_id=2119293&vkey=news_ana&fext=.jsp&c_id=ana).

So. I've thought through this a bit, and here's a few trades that have been rumored, and that would make a great deal of sense for the Angels. Note that some of these guys are already off the market due to other trades, but in their cases it seems pretty clear that Stoneman didn't even think to pursue them.

1. Mark Texiera. Obvious, and we don't need to go here. This, again, is the one trade Stoneman actually DID try, and he put forth a good effort. Part of me has to wonder, however, if he simply threw his hands in the air and gave up after Texas tried for one of Nick Adenhart or Howie Kendrick. THINK, Bill--didn't you just give up our best defensive catcher for a pitching prospect that's going to do jack for the Angels, but would be a great asset for the Rangers pen sometime in the future?? Don't you have a surplus of SS prospects in AA and AAA-ball? Have you even heard of Sean Rodriguez and Statia? No? How about Terry Evans?

LIKELIHOOD: The Rangers are idiots and the Braves too desperate. Might I add that the Braves are now the offseason Cubs of the 2007 trading deadline?

2. Mike Piazza. I really, really like this idea though it will probably never happen. The negative is that Piazza would be taking up the DH spot, but that's just about the only bad thing for this deal. Think about it: Piazza has KILLED the ball at Angel stadium this year (BAA over .400, I think)--true, he might just see the ball exceptionally well off of Angel pitching, but I still believe it's worth something. He would certainly provide a good degree of protection behind Vlad. Additionally, he can still make appearances behind the plate when necessary--and wouldn't you rather have a lock for the Hall of Fame backing up Jeff Mathis while Napoli is out indefinitely (those hamstring injuries are a real pain, apparently), as opposed to Ryan Budde? He's also got an OPS+ of 112, which is not fantastic per se, but very solid. I imagine a package of middle relief/set-up prospects (Arredondo?) or a future Bobby Crosby replacement (Sean Rodriguez?) would work for Beane. As an added bonus, Piazza'll be gone into Free Agency by the time the other Mike is fully recovered. And won't we get the compensatory draft picks for him?

LIKELIHOOD: Possible, if Stoneman hasn't completely closed shop by now, which he probably has.

3. Jermaine Dye. Not a huge fan of this one. True, he's been hitting better recently and can have a monster OPS+ when on the top of his game, but where do we put him? I don't want him replacing Willits in LF, and he likely can't DH. Perhaps we could put Vlad at permanent DH duties for the rest of the year and stick Jermaine in right. The other question, of course, is who would we have to give up for him?

LIKELIHOOD: Seemed that there was some possibility of this happening, but the Red Sox have effectively quashed that.

4. Troy Glaus. This would be a FANTASTIC trade, were it to go down. I imagine a package similar to what we put together for Texas would work here, perhaps with the addition of another A or AA level pitching prospect. True, Stoneman would perhaps look weak to the fans on this (for having let Troy go in the first place), but a General Manager's job is to make his (or her, to be completely PC here) team better, not to worry about what the fans are going to think of him for a particular deal (and no, that's not ironic in this context).

LIKELIHOOD: Fairly likely, if Stoneman gets his shit together within the next hour.

5. Jon Garland. This would nicely plug the hole in our rotation and provide a quality upgrade to the DL'd Bartolo Colon and, yes, Ervin Santana. Moseley's done an admirable job so far in his spot starts, but we really do need something more long term than that--and Dustin's better out of the bullpen than in the back of the rotation. Still, I don't see this happening. I think a package of Morales and Aybar, maybe with Terry Evans, could get this done.

LIKELIHOOD: For some reason, I really don't see this happening. Garland's not really the Angel type.

6. Morgan Ensberg. Would definitely be a cheap pick-up, and could provide a much needed SLG boost at third if he's healthy and returns to form. Still, I'd be very wary of displacing the streaking Chone Figgins for a guy who may turn out like Shea Hillenbrand. This would be a smart move if earlier in the season.

7. Carl Crawford. Another smart move, but there's really no place for him to go. Essentially a Willits with slightly more power.

So that's basically it. I will concede here that Stoneman is essentially right, to a degree--the team we have RIGHT NOW is probably good ENOUGH to get to October. But we're not going ANYWHERE in October unless teams that we're likely to face similarly don't do anything. And let's see, Bill--who are we likely to face? The Red Sox, Tigers, Mariners (it could happen if they win the Wild Card), Indians, Dodgers, and Braves. All of whom have made SIGNIFICANT moves at the deadline that have significantly STRENGTHENED them. I don't know about you, Bill, but I want to win the WS, and I certainly do NOT want a repeat of the debacle that was the 2004 ALDS sweep at the hands of the Red Sox.

It's go time.