Prime Time for Angels to Acquire Longoria

[ettin]

Longoria 2015 OPS+ 111

Heyward 2015 OPS+ 117

If Heyward is worth 250 million, then 100 million for longoria is nothing...

but oh wait heyward is 26..totally worth an extra 150 million.

Poozy why are you trying to compare the act of free agency where the market drives prices to the contract extension market where players generally make lifetime security decisions rather than trying to maximize money.

You do understand they are two completely different arena's yes?

There is a difference between being able to purchase something than to trade for something. Stop being sarcastic please you're better than that.

More importantly you have to project how much of an upgrade Longoria would be over our internal and external options which I don't think anyone other than MLB teams are best equipped to do.

Sure Longoria is a good player but do we want to have him for 7 more years at his current price and his projected rate of decline? It's the same damn question with Heyward except that his price tag is completely in flux and he's starting from a different part of the aging curve.

That's why aging curves exist Poozy. It's also why scouting exists to evaluate players. It's also why statistics exist to evaluate actual performance and show trends.

Longoria is only available to us if a ) the Rays are willing to part with him and b )they will accept the prospects (plural) we would have to send to acquire him.

Heyward only costs us cash which is why many on here are advocating for him. If Longoria was on the free agent market he'd be getting a big contract too and I'm afraid you'd be trying to compare him to some other extension player on some other team.

If Longoria were 26 years old today using his WAR history from 2008-2011 he'd go for $300MM on the open market! You'd be really yelling then based on your inputs to this thread.

They are different animals that require different currency and are effected by different market forces.

[ettin]

Where are you getting the 250 million figure from? That's at least 50 million more than he will actually get. At LEAST.

People need to snap to reality here and understand that free agent prices are going to be expensive this year (again). You also can't compare free agent dollars to extension dollars and you can't compare 2010 dollars to 2015 dollars. There is built in price inflation.

Heyward will get paid:

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/estimating-jason-heywards-next-contract/

Jason had a good season and that is why I believe he will get 10/$250. It's not unreasonable in the free agent market.

[tdawg87]

Not gonna happen. If it does, I'll admit I was wrong. But I don't see him getting more than 200 million. No way.

 

200 million for him is "expensive". Hell 160 million is "expensive". 250 million? That's retarded.

[NrM]

Poozy why are you trying to compare the act of free agency where the market drives prices to the contract extension market where players generally make lifetime security decisions rather than trying to maximize money.

You do understand they are two completely different arena's yes?

There is a difference between being able to purchase something than to trade for something. Stop being sarcastic please you're better than that.

More importantly you have to project how much of an upgrade Longoria would be over our internal and external options which I don't think anyone other than MLB teams are best equipped to do.

Sure Longoria is a good player but do we want to have him for 7 more years at his current price and his projected rate of decline? It's the same damn question with Heyward except that his price tag is completely in flux and he's starting from a different part of the aging curve.

That's why aging curves exist Poozy. It's also why scouting exists to evaluate players. It's also why statistics exist to evaluate actual performance and show trends.

Longoria is only available to us if a ) the Rays are willing to part with him and b )they will accept the prospects (plural) we would have to send to acquire him.

Heyward only costs us cash which is why many on here are advocating for him. If Longoria was on the free agent market he'd be getting a big contract too and I'm afraid you'd be trying to compare him to some other extension player on some other team.

If Longoria were 26 years old today using his WAR history from 2008-2011 he'd go for $300MM on the open market! You'd be really yelling then based on your inputs to this thread.

They are different animals that require different currency and are effected by different market forces.

 

I was mainly responding to the people saying they wouldn't trade for Longoria because he's overpaid.

But yea I understand where you're coming from.

 

I admit to having a negative bias towards NL hitters going over to the AL.

Edited October 14, 2015 by Poozy

[Angelsfirst]

Seriously, I just can't even believe numbers like 10 years and 200-250 million are being thrown around for a player like Heyward. I can't even imagine what kind of numbers Mike Trout will get offered in 5 years.

[tdawg87]

Seriously, I just can't even believe numbers like 10 years and 200-250 million are being thrown around for a player like Heyward. I can't even imagine what kind of numbers Mike Trout will get offered in 5 years.

 

Hopefully we are discussing the numbers being offered to him in 3 years instead.

[Angelsfirst]

As for Longoria, I wouldn't be opposed to it considering the need at third base and his history, though admittedly his last two seasons have been sub-par by his standards.

There are indeed a number of factors that could have contributed to his regression the past two years. Then again, he might just be declining. I haven't even heard that he was on the block, but if he could be had within reason, I think it's something you have to consider.

[Angelsfirst]

Hopefully we are discussing the numbers being offered to him in 3 years instead.

I hope so.

[ettin]

Not gonna happen. If it does, I'll admit I was wrong. But I don't see him getting more than 200 million. No way.

200 million for him is "expensive". Hell 160 million is "expensive". 250 million? That's retarded.

Look I don't disagree with the idea that it is an insane amount of money but he will breach $200MM.

Let me put it a different way:

Say the free agent price per WAR is $7MM. Look around the Internet and you'll see that number is quoted as an approximate figure for this coming offseason. I actually think it's closer to 7.7MM but I digress.

Let's also say that Heyward signs a 10 year contract. Also let's assume he is worth 5 WAR in year 1, 4.5 WAR in year 2,.... all the way down to .5 WAR in year 10.

Doing simple math: $7MM*5WAR+$7MM*4.5WAR+....$7MM*.5WAR = $192MM

That equation does not take into account year to year free agent price increase for $/WAR which has been rising over the last 5 years at about 10% per season (so next year instead of $7MM per WAR it's $7.7MM per WAR).

It also doesn't account for actual monetary inflation.

Also this assumes that Heyward will immediately peak in his first year and decline at the standard rate of .5 WAR per year. I find it hard to believe that Heyward will be only producing .5 WAR at age 36.

Every way I look at tdawg it screams to me $250MM. I sincerely hope I'm wrong and I sincerely hope the Angels sign him. The scariest part is that so many teams are flush with cash. If any of them decide to go hard after Heyward Arte will have no choice to break the Luxury Tax (and I talk about this in my Primer series coming up).

I really hope I'm wrong and the Angels pick him up.

[ettin]

I was mainly responding to the people saying they wouldn't trade for Longoria because he's overpaid.

But yea I understand where you're coming from.

I admit to having a negative bias towards NL hitters going over to the AL.

Okay sorry it sounded harsher in my mind when I read it.

[tdawg87]

I understand that the market is going up and revenues are going up as well, which equates to salaries going up. And I don't know any more than you do about what some random team decides Heyward is worth. But I just can't for the life of me see Jason Heyward becoming the 3rd highest paid player in MLB history.

 

I mean, all it takes is one owner to decide he is worth that but I just really can't fathom that happening. If it happens I'll gladly admit I was wrong but I really don't think it will.

[TroutField]

Creative way of building an offense. Trade for Longo, sign Zobrist, sign Span.

1. Span LF

2. Zobrist 2B

3. Trout CF

4. Pujols 1B

5. Longo 3B

6. Calhoun RF

7. Cron DH

8. Aybar SS

9. Perez C

BENCH: Gia, Murphy, Navarro, Bandy, Robertson (FA 4th outfielder)

[ettin]

I understand that the market is going up and revenues are going up as well, which equates to salaries going up. And I don't know any more than you do about what some random team decides Heyward is worth. But I just can't for the life of me see Jason Heyward becoming the 3rd highest paid player in MLB history.

I mean, all it takes is one owner to decide he is worth that but I just really can't fathom that happening. If it happens I'll gladly admit I was wrong but I really don't think it will.

Please understand that I am just saying the numbers are adding up in a way where I, personally, see Heyward making big money. As I told the other guy I'll happily eat crow but the only way his salary will be limited to $200MM is if MLB teams use comparison player models only and make some arbitrary GROUP (meaning all 30 clubs) decision that a player cannot exceed the previous waterline by more than XXXX%.

Either way I hope we get him and I hope we don't have to pay as much as I am envisioning.

[floplag]

people are bagging on this like its even possible... who the hades would we actually trade that they would take?

this is going to be a very long off season. 

[ABC]

Poozy why are you trying to compare the act of free agency where the market drives prices to the contract extension market where players generally make lifetime security decisions rather than trying to maximize money.

You do understand they are two completely different arena's yes?

There is a difference between being able to purchase something than to trade for something. Stop being sarcastic please you're better than that.

More importantly you have to project how much of an upgrade Longoria would be over our internal and external options which I don't think anyone other than MLB teams are best equipped to do.

Sure Longoria is a good player but do we want to have him for 7 more years at his current price and his projected rate of decline? It's the same damn question with Heyward except that his price tag is completely in flux and he's starting from a different part of the aging curve.

That's why aging curves exist Poozy. It's also why scouting exists to evaluate players. It's also why statistics exist to evaluate actual performance and show trends.

Longoria is only available to us if a ) the Rays are willing to part with him and b )they will accept the prospects (plural) we would have to send to acquire him.

Heyward only costs us cash which is why many on here are advocating for him. If Longoria was on the free agent market he'd be getting a big contract too and I'm afraid you'd be trying to compare him to some other extension player on some other team.

If Longoria were 26 years old today using his WAR history from 2008-2011 he'd go for $300MM on the open market! You'd be really yelling then based on your inputs to this thread.

They are different animals that require different currency and are effected by different market forces.

 

What is his current rate of decline? He actually increased his OPS by 40 points from 2014. Maybe he is heading back up for a few years.

[ABC]

people are bagging on this like its even possible... who the hades would we actually trade that they would take?

this is going to be a very long off season. 

 

This offseason is going to be enjoyable. There is a ton of talent hitting the market that matches the Angels need.

[Adam]

Hmmm he's played 322 games over the past two years. I'm surprised

[tdawg87]

Please understand that I am just saying the numbers are adding up in a way where I, personally, see Heyward making big money. As I told the other guy I'll happily eat crow but the only way his salary will be limited to $200MM is if MLB teams use comparison player models only and make some arbitrary GROUP (meaning all 30 clubs) decision that a player cannot exceed the previous waterline by more than XXXX%.

Either way I hope we get him and I hope we don't have to pay as much as I am envisioning.

 

Oh I'm not saying you are wrong. You're basing your assumption on facts and statistical analysis. I'm basing mine on a gut feeling.

 

So basically you are the Dipoto in this argument to my Mike Scioscia. If you are thin this works on multiple levels.

[ettin]

What is his current rate of decline? He actually increased his OPS by 40 points from 2014. Maybe he is heading back up for a few years.

CF8 please note the question mark I had at the end of the sentence. Unless you or I have spent the time, like a MLB club, to create a detailed model and projection system no one knows the answer.

The only thing I did wrong there was using the word decline where I should have used aging curve or something similar.

Anything can happen dude.

[ettin]

Oh I'm not saying you are wrong. You're basing your assumption on facts and statistical analysis. I'm basing mine on a gut feeling.

So basically you are the Dipoto in this argument to my Mike Scioscia. If you are thin this works on multiple levels.

Well then I'm not Dipoto.

And I should just stop now because I will lose the argument in that analogy. Good day sir.

[nate]

I wasn't saying Freese was worth it. I was saying you are paying a ton of money for basically Freese with a better glove.

[Adam]

As scarce as third baseman are even a declining, aging one with a big contract is going to cost a lot. Probably better to just bring freese back

Edited October 14, 2015 by Adam

[Chuck]

If all Longoria costs is Santiago, Cron and and Kubitza or Cowart, I would do it.

[floplag]

This offseason is going to be enjoyable. There is a ton of talent hitting the market that matches the Angels need.

 

Perhaps, but we have no significant tradeable assets and are unwilling to hit luxury tax, how do you propose we get any of them under those circumstances? 

I hope I'm proven wrong i truly do cause if I'm right then the next couple of seasons are going to be very bleak as well, but i don't see it.

[Stradling]

Perhaps, but we have no significant tradeable assets and are unwilling to hit luxury tax, how do you propose we get any of them under those circumstances?

I hope I'm proven wrong i truly do cause if I'm right then the next couple of seasons are going to be very bleak as well, but i don't see it.

So despite quotes from Moreno himself about willing to go over the tax threshold you still don't believe he is?