Angels Out on Lester

[Docwaukee]

If they are gonna go big, Lester is the guy.  

 

Don't see them even getting involved in the Scherzer sweeps.  Boras client and he'll delay to the very end.  

[Angel Oracle]

Dude you are ALWAYS a breath of fresh air.

Heck knows I have been trying to be a gentler, still critiquing, AO the past two months.

But that post 70Runner made was not that far from the truth regarding FA signings the past few years by this org.

[Stradling]

AO we all know that is the case, 70runner also knows we all know that, but he still has to say it. You see the good and the bad as it relates to the Angels, 70runner, not so much.

Edited December 6, 2014 by Stradling

[Jeff Fletcher]

20 years from now are people going to still think "the Angels are always the surprise team! Look at Pujols and Hamilton"?

Talk about a small sample size.

There are a few reasons this is different.

1. The Luxury tax. They signed those guys without going over the tax.

2. The team is better. They just won 98 games.

3. Lester/Scherzer are pitchers. History shows that giving nine-figure deals to pitchers is much more risky than hitters. With hitters the fear is performance falls off (like Vernon Wells) but with pitchers you have a greater chance also of injury, sticking you with a Mike Hampton or CC Sabathia albatross. Hitters also have the DH option as they get older. That's why I don't think the Angels would be in on these guys even if they were 30M under the CBT.

4. They just in the last 12 months discovered two pitchers who are pretty damn good and cheap (Richards and Shoemaker), reducing the need for a guy like that.

5. Arte and Arte alone pushed for Hamilton/Pujols. Since then Arte has allowed Dipoto to go a whole winter without signing anyone, which led to a 98-win season and Dipoto's option being exercised. I think it's likely that Arte learned his lesson.

So, you can continue thinking "the Angels are always the mystery team" because they were twice. Heck, they may be and I may end up looking like an idiot.

However, I am convinced the Angels are being honest and have zero chance of signing any big name pitcher.

[Blarg]

Vlad was an out of the blue pickup but that was 2003. Torii also could be considered a shocker since it was Thanksgiving at the Taco Bell back in 2007.

 

I don't think the Angels are in the big contract market and as you said, pitchers can not only let you down they can be a disaster like Japanese pitcher Dice K, well hyped and a complete flop and the possibility that Tanaka's elbow may not be able to handle MLB pitching sending him to Tommy John surgery and a loss of over a year.

 

There is also Cliff Lee that now with two years left on his contract just came off his worst year with only 13 starts, making that look like a poor choice considering they never capitalized on his upside years. The Phillies went to the World Series with Lee on the cheap, traded him, then traded to get him back and rewarded him in 2011 with a huge contract and got 3 years value out of it. Now they are stuck with him because of that albatross contract.

 

Sabathia may also be toast but at least the Yankees got 5 years value, a World Series and three subsequent playoffs out of him. Verlander lasted all of one year on his mega deal before his velocity dropped considerably and that contract goes to 2019. The Mets finally got out from under Johan Santana's contract and they also only saw 3 years of value.

 

I'm sure there are plenty more examples but those are the recent ones that seem to be big money crash and burns. That is why if a Tyler Skaggs goes on the table for Tommy John the team isn't dead ducks waiting for a return because 1/4 of the payroll isn't tied up into that tendon.

 

It is also why I'm not sold on buying up any big dollar free agent pitcher. If you have a stud in your own organization then give him the arbitration years plus a few years buyout but don't buy someone else's over taxed arm for those same amount of years.

[Stradling]

Really tough to argue with that logic Eric. That being said we really could be just one ace away from being a Legit contender. Now I realize pitching was the least of our worries against KC, but anything can happen to an offense over 3 games.

[Blarg]

Oakland stockpiled pitching and ended up going nowhere with it and now have to let Lester find a new home. One more ace arm is not the cure to getting to or winning in the playoffs. A well balanced team and spreadsheet is your best chance.

 

Buying up Lester imbalances the spreadsheet for years to come (like going overboard on Pujols and Hamilton) and you are relying on his arm to hold up to bring value to the contract. I'd rather stay on the path we are on and look to giving Weaver an extension if he becomes the next Jamie Moyer and holding aside money to buy up Richards arbitration and free agency if he turns into the next young Cliff Lee.

 

Stay within the organization as much as possible for those players you think are worth 5+ years. Trade for improvements but reward the guys you have a complete history with both in the clubhouse and in the doctors office.

[UndertheHalo]

I would characterize Notti's comments as strong.

[Stradling]

Eric, so pitching wins in the playoffs is a myth? Lester greatly increases your chances to win in the playoffs. I understand the risk involved but for the next three years or so he should still be VERY good. Imagine Lester and Richards going the first two games, and then Weaver or Shoemaker in three and four. I agree you lock up your guys but if Arte decided to sign a Lester type, he isn't going to let that determine whether or not he can give Richards a contract. Just like signing Albert and Josh had no affect on extending Trout.

[Angel Oracle]

Another thing to consider is that an advantage to overpaying to keep your own star pitcher over signing a FA star pitcher is that the org has worked with the former for years and know pretty much all there is to know about how that pitcher should perform after re-signing with that org.

[laagamer]

We're a good baseball team. It's pure luck that some of our best performing players are cost-controlled. This is what has allowed us to remain a well balanced team while overpaying for certain players. Now, I'm sure that the people in charge have a financial plan for this team. It allots only so much wiggling room. If we can sign Lester, we will be a better team next season. But a large contract rarely ever works out for its full extent. And we'll be competitive with him. 

 

We had the best damn record in baseball last season. That isn't a fluke. 

[ten ocho recon scout]

I would love to get hom, and i think (like strad says) he can be the difference maker.

That said, hes going back to boston.

[eligrba]

Need a replacement for C.J and another solid starter. Pitching did not lose the KC series (except with C.J.). It was the lack of offense.... . as if the batters approach to hitting in the playoffs needed to be different.

[SoWhat]

Love Lester, but the Angels should pass. Keep piling up young arms. See if Miami will bite on a Kendrick and Cron package for Andrew Heaney.

The only free agent they should be throwing a lot of cash at is Yoan Moncada.

I'd also like to see them have enough payroll flexibility next year to make a run at Justin Upton.

Edited December 7, 2014 by SoWhat

[AngelStew43]

Where would Upton play?  Keep in mind, he'll want more money than Hamilton.  I'd rather we go over on Lester, if he wants to pitch here.

[SoWhat]

Where would Upton play? Keep in mind, he'll want more money than Hamilton. I'd rather we go over on Lester, if he wants to pitch here.

LF. If Hamilton continues to underperform in 2015, which he most likely will, they'll be forced to eat most of his contract and move him.

I'm not too fond of Lester. I think whoever signs him will regret it sooner than later. His velocity dipped nearly 2 mph to 91.8 which was the lowest of his career. Oliver projects him to have an ERA over 4 .00 from 2015-2018. Who knows, I could be wrong. But giving a huge contract to a pitcher with a ton of milage on his arm along with declining velocity doesn't sound like a wise investment to me.

BTW, sorry if there's a lot of grammatical errors. The phone in using completely blows. I'll never buy an android again,!

Edited December 7, 2014 by SoWhat

[dimitrig]

I am curious why teams don't sign players (especially pitchers) to HUGE contracts but for short periods of time. Why not a 3/$120M contract for instance? When Michael Jordan was making $35-40M per year it was WELL WORTH it to the Bulls because he was performing at a high level and there was little risk because he was year-to-year. That's one reason I don't mind the Hamilton contract so much. It is expensive, but we are already almost halfway through it unlike *cough* Pujols. And, hey, if the guy performs you can extend him when the time comes.

Edited December 7, 2014 by dimitrig

[arch stanton]

That might only be worth doing if the pitcher was willing to accept a big part of that as innings/starts incentives and the player would prefer more guaranteed money.

[ukyah]

I am curious why teams don't sign players (especially pitchers) to HUGE contracts but for short periods of time. Why not a 3/$120M contract for instance? When Michael Jordan was making $35-40M per year it was WELL WORTH it to the Bulls because he was performing at a high level and there was little risk because he was year-to-year. That's one reason I don't mind the Hamilton contract so much. It is expensive, but we are already almost halfway through it unlike *cough* Pujols. And, hey, if the guy performs you can extend him when the time comes.

 

why would you pay someone 3/120, when you could pay the same guy 5 or 6/120? the dollars are the same.

Edited December 7, 2014 by ukyah

[Lou]

LF. If Hamilton continues to underperform in 2015, which he most likely will, they'll be forced to eat most of his contract and move him.

I'm not too fond of Lester. I think whoever signs him will regret it sooner than later. His velocity dipped nearly 2 mph to 91.8 which was the lowest of his career. Oliver projects him to have an ERA over 4 .00 from 2015-2018. Who knows, I could be wrong. But giving a huge contract to a pitcher with a ton of milage on his arm along with declining velocity doesn't sound like a wise investment to me.

BTW, sorry if there's a lot of grammatical errors. The phone in using completely blows. I'll never buy an android again,!

I use an android and am complimented on my grammar regularly.

[Blarg]

I am curious why teams don't sign players (especially pitchers) to HUGE contracts but for short periods of time. Why not a 3/$120M contract for instance? When Michael Jordan was making $35-40M per year it was WELL WORTH it to the Bulls because he was performing at a high level and there was little risk because he was year-to-year. That's one reason I don't mind the Hamilton contract so much. It is expensive, but we are already almost halfway through it unlike *cough* Pujols. And, hey, if the guy performs you can extend him when the time comes.

 

Michael Jordan's highest salary from the Bulls was $33 million for one single season and the NBA created a salary cap because of it. Coincidentally that was the year he "retired" (was suspended by the NBA for gambling) so it's not really the high water mark for you to base a completely ridiculous argument on.

 

Unless you happen to be Scott Boras trolling Angelswin, then pontificate away.

[Erstad Grit]

I am curious why teams don't sign players (especially pitchers) to HUGE contracts but for short periods of time. Why not a 3/$120M contract for instance? When Michael Jordan was making $35-40M per year it was WELL WORTH it to the Bulls because he was performing at a high level and there was little risk because he was year-to-year. That's one reason I don't mind the Hamilton contract so much. It is expensive, but we are already almost halfway through it unlike *cough* Pujols. And, hey, if the guy performs you can extend him when the time comes.

 

Why pay someone for 3 /120 when you can get them for 5/125? 

[Lou]

Why pay someone for 3 /120 when you can get them for 5/125? 

 

are you crazy?

that extra $5 million for 2 years would the deal breaker for me

[Guest]

I am curious why teams don't sign players (especially pitchers) to HUGE contracts but for short periods of time. Why not a 3/$120M contract for instance? When Michael Jordan was making $35-40M per year it was WELL WORTH it to the Bulls because he was performing at a high level and there was little risk because he was year-to-year. That's one reason I don't mind the Hamilton contract so much. It is expensive, but we are already almost halfway through it unlike *cough* Pujols. And, hey, if the guy performs you can extend him when the time comes.

This is because luxury tax is based on the average annual value of a contract. Angels would be a lot better off paying Pujols $24M average per year for more year than $40M/year for fewer years, even if they only expect him to play at a high level for a portion of the 10 year deal.

Edited December 7, 2014 by ScottLux

[dimitrig]

This is because luxury tax is based on the average annual value of a contract. Angels would be a lot better off paying Pujols $24M average per year for more year than $40M/year for fewer years, even if they only expect him to play at a high level for a portion of the 10 year deal.

 

This is the first reponse that is not ridiculous.

 

Why is the luxury tax based on annual average value instead of the value in every given year? If that's the case then why not sign guys to a long-term contract at fewer $$$ per year? To me, it still makes sense to have the flexibility rather than locking into a shitty contract for more years. That long contract will hamstring a team forever. For the same amount of $$$ I would rather get it over and done with.

 

 

It's cute to say: "Why pay someone for 3 /120 when you can get them for 5/125?" but that's not the argument.

 

What if you can get them for 3/$100?