Angels after Cespedes?

[Brent Maguire]

You seem like a good guy ... so let me say it again. If the Dodgers wanted off the hook from a potentially terrible deal ... then they could of easily traded him for a big haul to a lot of willing teams. A bigger haul than Atlanta got for Simmons.

Fair enough. I agree with that premise. Opt outs are not team friendly 99% of the time but this is one rare case where it may actually benefit both parties. It's very rare to see a guy have a career year at his age. 

 

The thing about the opt out clause it it's done in part to give a guy guaranteed money if he wants it but also the option to explore free agency if he so desires. This really doesn't benefit a team most of the time because if the player opts out, he's clearly been valuable enough, if not more valuable, then what he's being paid. If that's the case, then the team loses out on some more good value out of that player for more seasons. And if the player doesn't opt out, there's a good chance it's because he's underperformed or he got hurt. It's generally going to hurt the team because there's not much upside for it to work out.

 

This Greinke thing, like I said above, may be a rare case. Dodgers got 3 great years out of Greinke, they open up payroll for more options, get potentially younger(which they've stated they want to do), and get a draft pick. 

[Docwaukee]

I'm off the cespedes bandwagon and prefer heyward then upton. Not a fan of Gordon.

I don't get how someone could like Gordon and not heyward. They are similar players in terms of skill set yet almost 6 years apart. If you are willing to pay Gordon 100 mil for his age 32-36 seasons then why wouldn't you want to have a slightly better version of him for 100mil for his age 31-35yo seasons AND pay 100 mil for his age 26-30yo seasons.

To me, you want a player who gives you as many of their prime aged seasons over the next 5 years as possible.

If the term scares you, go with upton who is 28-32 over the next 5 yrs. or give Hayward a 5 yr opt out.

It's an odd thing to write, but cespedes is kind of an expensive cop out. You think you are hedging your bets a bit, but all you are doing is increasing the risk that you'll need a lfer again in three years.

You've got to go all in for the next five years.

[Troll Daddy]

you're either trolling as per usual or you're thick.

here's why the opt out during peak seasons is great for both parties. greinke was paid a lot the last few years by the dodgers and the dodgers received great value for their money spent, with no down years on the backend of a contract because greinke opted out. greinke opted out and got a nice big contract. the big winner in this deal is of course greinke. the 2nd biggest winner in this deal is the dodgers. the third biggest winner in this deal and the only one of the parties at any risk is the diamondbacks.

if you can't see that, then whatever.

It's whatever ... Dodgers just lost out on arguably the best pitcher in baseball and all they got is a draft pick. Yea, they just can't wait to give Cueto a big contract.

Yet, in your world you see them as winners and you're calling me thick.

[ukyah]

It's whatever ... Dodgers just lost out on arguably the best pitcher in baseball and all they got is a draft pick. Yea, they just can't wait to give Cueto a big contract.

Yet, in your world you see them as winners and you're calling me thick.

 

 

would you prefer dense? you're either incapable of seeing texture or you're unwilling. in either case, you're the dog barking at the puddle.

 

the dodgers would have prefered to sign him to a 5 year contract, of course. that doesn't change the fact that they were left in a wonderful position of actually having received terrific production for a highly paid player. don't you think the angels would like some of that?

Edited December 6, 2015 by ukyah

[Troll Daddy]

would you prefer dense? you're either incapable of seeing texture or you're unwilling. in either case, you're the dog barking at the puddle.

the dodgers would have prefered to sign him to a 5 year contract, of course. that doesn't change the fact that they were left in a wonderful position of actually having received terrific production for a highly paid player. don't you think the angels would like some of that?

OMG lol

[ukyah]

OMG lol

 

[wopphil]

I don't see how the opt-out benefited the Dodgers in any way. Without the opt-out, they would have had Greinke at another three years and $71 mil, which they would have gladly paid. Because of the opt-out, they had to offer Greinke substantially more money than that, and still ended up losing him to a rival. The opt-out was terrible for the Dodgers.

[nate]

Cespedes should be our #2 option IMO.  I think it goes Heyward > Cespedes > Gordon >>>>>>>>>> Upton

[Jay]

I know I'm in the minority here but I still like Cespedes because ideally he fulfills two of our needs, LF and offense.

[totdprods]

I know I'm in the minority here but I still like Cespedes because ideally he fulfills two of our needs, LF and offense.

Also no loss of a draft pick, plus plus arm, good defense, and can play CF in a pinch. He has his risk and downsides, as do all these options, but I'd be fine if he was the one we signed.

In fact, I'm really pretty good with any of the big 4 at this point, it's the additional moves that will happen around one of the big 4 that will make or break the offseason.

Edited December 6, 2015 by totdprods

[greginpsca]

The only thing i can see about Cespedes over the other 3 is that there is no draft pick attached to signing him. I am not sure how much a team with the worst farm system values that pick.

[tdawg87]

Cespedes seems like an Arte move. All along I thought he was the guy the Angels would go hard after more than any other. But he's also the one they really shouldn't.

[Redondo]

Cespedes seems like an Arte move. All along I thought he was the guy the Angels would go hard after more than any other. But he's also the one they really shouldn't.

 

This is how I see it also

[Troll Daddy]

Exactly

I don't see how the opt-out benefited the Dodgers in any way. Without the opt-out, they would have had Greinke at another three years and $71 mil, which they would have gladly paid. Because of the opt-out, they had to offer Greinke substantially more money than that, and still ended up losing him to a rival. The opt-out was terrible for the Dodgers.

Angels would gladly let Pujols opt out if he wanted too. Red Sox would gladly let Handley opt out if he wanted too ... etc.

Point is ... you don't need a clause if you want the player to opt out. What you need is to banish the no trade clause instead.

Giving the player a obscene amount of money, opt out clause, and a no trade clause is Freakin Insane!

Edited December 6, 2015 by Troll Daddy

[Troll Daddy]

I prefer Gordon over Cespedes.

[tomsred]

The only thing i can see about Cespedes over the other 3 is that there is no draft pick attached to signing him. I am not sure how much a team with the worst farm system values that pick.

 

Well it's not like it's a top ten pick.  Where the heck are we picking, 20 something, right?  Yeah, we could snag another Trout, but that's getting pretty difficult these days.  The available information field is pretty level between teams now.

[laagamer]

Cespedes should be our #2 option IMO.  I think it goes Heyward > Cespedes > Gordon >>>>>>>>>> Upton

 

Why the Upton hate? 

[seenoevil]

Holy shit!

[AngelArcher]

Why the Upton hate?

I'm with Nate, although I wouldn't call it hate. He stikes out too much and from what I understand, he had a pretty bad attitude when in AZ.

[NorCal Halo]

If we sign him, I hope we can attach his right arm to Trouts, thereby making Trout the greatest player to ever live.

[Mark68]

I know I'm in the minority here but I still like Cespedes because ideally he fulfills two of our needs, LF and offense.

What part of his offense fulfills an actual need the Angels don't have?

 

He has power, which the Angels already have. He doesn't get on base, and the Angels have plenty of those types of players.

Edited December 7, 2015 by Mark68

[tdawg87]

If we sign him, I hope we can attach his right arm to Trouts, thereby making Trout the greatest player to ever live.

 

Yeah but he'd have a smelly, brown arm.

 

Eww!

[totdprods]

What part of his offense fulfills an actual need the Angels don't have?H

He has power, which the Angels already have. He doesn't get on base, and the Angels have plenty of those types of players.

If he was the sole acquisition I would be bummed.

If a top of the order infielder and OBP bench player was added in addition to Cespedes, would be okay with it

He still has the benefits of no draft pick, good defense, and a shorter contract. Not my top choice but I don't think he would be a disaster.

Edited December 6, 2015 by totdprods

[nate]

Why the Upton hate? 

 

Dude has had mental issues in the past.  AZ cut ties with him because of attitude and effort issues.  No need to give a guy like that a big contract.

[ten ocho recon scout]

Dude has had mental issues in the past. AZ cut ties with him because of attitude and effort issues. No need to give a guy like that a big contract.

link?

And im not debating that, ive kind of suspected it, but have never actually read it anywhere