Cargo?

[SDHalofan]

I just read on MLBTraderumors that the Rockies were tryng to get Gausman from the Orioles for Cargo... UMMM let me think, don't we have plenty of starting pitching to trade them for a really good left fielder with pop? What's the holdup?

[Glen]

The Angels are dangling CJ.

[tdawg87]

If we factor in club control, that's essentially the Angels giving up Heaney for CarGo.

 

Fair trade, but I'd rather keep Heaney. The Angels also would be going over the luxury tax if they took on Carlos Gonzalez, if Arte's figure is accurate.

[seenoevil]

started out with too much cargo So I'm glad we got rid of Benedict Arnold

[Second Base]

I think if the Angels were going to exceed the luxury tax, they'd have done it by now. Arte said it has to be the right player, but if they didn't bid on Heyward and are all but ruled out the remaining FA, it's clear the only way the Angels I'll be exceedng the Luxury Tax is if someone like Harper was on the market.

CarGo isn't even close to an option, neither in terms of finances, not prospects.

The Angels are a mid-market team and are at their limit. Their owner would like to win, but ultimately, as it stands with any ridiculously wealthy individual, the profit always comes first. The Angels will have over 40 million come off the payroll next year, and there's no indication the team plans to make any more major bids on free agents.

[AngelsLakersFan]

I think if the Angels were going to exceed the luxury tax, they'd have done it by now. Arte said it has to be the right player, but if they didn't bid on Heyward and are all but ruled out the remaining FA, it's clear the only way the Angels I'll be exceedng the Luxury Tax is if someone like Harper was on the market.

 

If Harper was on the market... AND wanted to give the Angels a $150 million discount...

 

If you don't even bid on Heyward, who are you going to bid on?

[Homebrewer]

Then we could have the 'Cargo Cult' in LF..

This religion, known as the Cargo Cult, held that if the proper ceremonies were performed shipments of riches would be sent from some heavenly place.

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/cargocult.htm

[tomsred]

I think if the Angels were going to exceed the luxury tax, they'd have done it by now. Arte said it has to be the right player, but if they didn't bid on Heyward and are all but ruled out the remaining FA, it's clear the only way the Angels I'll be exceedng the Luxury Tax is if someone like Harper was on the market.

CarGo isn't even close to an option, neither in terms of finances, not prospects.

The Angels are a mid-market team and are at their limit. Their owner would like to win, but ultimately, as it stands with any ridiculously wealthy individual, the profit always comes first. The Angels will have over 40 million come off the payroll next year, and there's no indication the team plans to make any more major bids on free agents.

 

A couple of differing views here - first wealthy individuals don't become wealthy without giving some level of priority to making a profit.  The only other principal ways are through gambling, or inheriting the money in some fashion.  If you start with nothing the primary way of becoming wealthy is through hard work and some level of intelligence, then you are not usually willing to let it evaporate due to poor decision making.  I'm not defending Arte's decision, just trying to explain why he might take the position he has taken.  As much as I hate the decision on this year's free agent class by Arte, I wouldn't classify him as cheap by any stretch of the imagination.  The top three projected payrolls (with regard to the tax limit - see below) are the Dodgers with around $300M+, the Yankees at $241M currently, and the Red Sox at $199M; we are getting real close to to Boston in 2016 ($14M behind them by Arte's calculation).  [these figures are per the MLB Channel on 12/18/15].  Arte is also facing Stadium uncertainties, and he also does a great deal for the community in terms of charitable outreach. 

 

Secondly, if we are discussing not exceeding the luxury tax limit, Weaver and Wilson's AAV is what will be taken off the books at year end 2016.  That's $17M for Weaver and $15.5M for Wilson, or $32.5M total, not $40M.  Pujols and Trout both have AAV's of $24M each in 2016, and Hamilton is at an AAV of $20M.  I think the reason so many different numbers get tossed around as to where we are vs. the luxury tax limit is because many people confuse the actual 2016 salary with their AAV.  We are going to get a break on Trouty, with regard to the luxury limit, in the last three years of his contract when he is due to make $34M plus, but his AAV is going to be $24M.  Same for Pujols as he builds toward $30M in his last contract year.  If I'm wrong about this please someone correct me.

 

Jettisoning Wilson can save a max of $15.5M in 2016 against the luxury limit, not $20M, under the calculation rules.

 

In terms of salary spent (again the AAV/luxurytax calculation), we are definitely in the sweet spot, i.e. just below the tax threshold.  I know it's not much consolation to be where we are at when it seems one more step improves our chances a great deal, but there are plenty of teams who would just like one or two more quality players.  Once we signed an Upton/Cespedes/or Gordon we would want to upgrade the bullpen, then we would just be a second baseman away.  Each incremental step seems so necessary, but they all come with some risk, and they all take us deeper into no man's land.  I also don't dispute that we will get a significant tax level relief next year for Wilson and Weaver (who have to be replaced by the way), and that the tax limit will probably rise.  Conservative business executives don't like counting on future events before more is known of future details.  Again, I'm not saying it's right in this circumstance, I'm just explaining.

 

This situation sucks to me, but I can also understand the rationale for digging ourselves out of this problem by being financially conservative and prudent.

Edited December 20, 2015 by tomsred

[Second Base]

Don't forget Smith, who is another 5.5 million off the AAV next year, which brings the number quite literally at 40 million cheaper. No if course arbitration should effect that, but even then, at least 30 million cheaper, and that's being conservative.

The Angels could sign Gordon or Upton, and still have 10 million worth of wiggle room next year.

[Docwaukee]

If Harper was on the market... AND wanted to give the Angels a $150 million discount...

 

If you don't even bid on Heyward, who are you going to bid on?

 

Not sure they think that way.   My guess is that the Angels have done the math here.  They don't feel like any one of these guys is head and shoulders above the rest.  We might feel like Heyward was, but they probably think that the top 4 are somewhat interchangeable relative to the net value they will provide over the next 3-4 years.  Plus, I think they have a good feel for who might go after these guys and so they are going to see what's left toward the end.  Maybe they get Gordon at 4/80, Cespedes at 5/100 or Upton at 6/120.  Maybe not.  

 

They are banking on the fact that there is no market for a couple of these guys without them.  If it doesn't work out, then they stay under the tax.  If it does and they can get one of them on sale because there is no one left willing to spend, then even better.  

 

It will really piss be off if one or more of these guys ends up signing what seems to be a low market deal and we aren't in on it.  If Davis goes to the O's, you've probably got maybe 3 or 4 other teams in the market for these guys and so far, no one has blinked.  

 

Hamilton was signed on 12-15 and he was the only option on the market at the time.  When we signed him it felt like we had outbid no one.  

 

So they get one of these guys at the price they want or they bag it.  Not a bad strategy if it works.  If that is actually their strategy.  

[ScottT]

$2,500,000,000

[tomsred]

Not sure they think that way.   My guess is that the Angels have done the math here.  They don't feel like any one of these guys is head and shoulders above the rest.  We might feel like Heyward was, but they probably think that the top 4 are somewhat interchangeable relative to the net value they will provide over the next 3-4 years.  Plus, I think they have a good feel for who might go after these guys and so they are going to see what's left toward the end.  Maybe they get Gordon at 4/80, Cespedes at 5/100 or Upton at 6/120.  Maybe not.  

 

They are banking on the fact that there is no market for a couple of these guys without them.  If it doesn't work out, then they stay under the tax.  If it does and they can get one of them on sale because there is no one left willing to spend, then even better.  

 

It will really piss be off if one or more of these guys ends up signing what seems to be a low market deal and we aren't in on it.  If Davis goes to the O's, you've probably got maybe 3 or 4 other teams in the market for these guys and so far, no one has blinked.  

 

Hamilton was signed on 12-15 and he was the only option on the market at the time.  When we signed him it felt like we had outbid no one.  

 

So they get one of these guys at the price they want or they bag it.  Not a bad strategy if it works.  If that is actually their strategy.  

 

Actually, I believe that is precisely their strategy.  It also probably cheapens up the next tier a little too, Fowler, Para and Span.

[Second Base]

Actually, I believe that is precisely their strategy. It also probably cheapens up the next tier a little too, Fowler, Para and Span.

In reference to both you and Doc, man I wish I could believe that! But in my mind, Arte is the one who spends the money and thus, the Angels do these things his way.

When has Arte EVER operated in the weeds like that? It doesn't matter who the GM is, the Angels make take it or leave it offers. Arte refuses to be used as part of a bidding process. This happened with Tex, Beltre, Greinke, Pujols, Wilson, and Garza.

The only time I can think of when the Angels made an impact signing late in the offseason was Bobby Abreu, and that wasn't initiated by the Angels. Abreu's agent contacted the Angels and said Bobby would take a cheap one year contract and named their price, and the Angels accepted.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

Then we could have the 'Cargo Cult' in LF..

This religion, known as the Cargo Cult, held that if the proper ceremonies were performed shipments of riches would be sent from some heavenly place.

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/cargocult.htm

 

I'm still hoping for Los Bastardos.

[stormngt]

A couple of differing views here - first wealthy individuals don't become wealthy without giving some level of priority to making a profit. The only other principal ways are through gambling, or inheriting the money in some fashion. If you start with nothing the primary way of becoming wealthy is through hard work and some level of intelligence, then you are not usually willing to let it evaporate due to poor decision making. I'm not defending Arte's decision, just trying to explain why he might take the position he has taken. As much as I hate the decision on this year's free agent class by Arte, I wouldn't classify him as cheap by any stretch of the imagination. The top three projected payrolls (with regard to the tax limit - see below) are the Dodgers with around $300M+, the Yankees at $241M currently, and the Red Sox at $199M; we are getting real close to to Boston in 2016 ($14M behind them by Arte's calculation). [these figures are per the MLB Channel on 12/18/15]. Arte is also facing Stadium uncertainties, and he also does a great deal for the community in terms of charitable outreach.

Secondly, if we are discussing not exceeding the luxury tax limit, Weaver and Wilson's AAV is what will be taken off the books at year end 2016. That's $17M for Weaver and $15.5M for Wilson, or $32.5M total, not $40M. Pujols and Trout both have AAV's of $24M each in 2016, and Hamilton is at an AAV of $20M. I think the reason so many different numbers get tossed around as to where we are vs. the luxury tax limit is because many people confuse the actual 2016 salary with their AAV. We are going to get a break on Trouty, with regard to the luxury limit, in the last three years of his contract when he is due to make $34M plus, but his AAV is going to be $24M. Same for Pujols as he builds toward $30M in his last contract year. If I'm wrong about this please someone correct me.

Jettisoning Wilson can save a max of $15.5M in 2016 against the luxury limit, not $20M, under the calculation rules.

In terms of salary spent (again the AAV/luxurytax calculation), we are definitely in the sweet spot, i.e. just below the tax threshold. I know it's not much consolation to be where we are at when it seems one more step improves our chances a great deal, but there are plenty of teams who would just like one or two more quality players. Once we signed an Upton/Cespedes/or Gordon we would want to upgrade the bullpen, then we would just be a second baseman away. Each incremental step seems so necessary, but they all come with some risk, and they all take us deeper into no man's land. I also don't dispute that we will get a significant tax level relief next year for Wilson and Weaver (who have to be replaced by the way), and that the tax limit will probably rise. Conservative business executives don't like counting on future events before more is known of future details. Again, I'm not saying it's right in this circumstance, I'm just explaining.

This situation sucks to me, but I can also understand the rationale for digging ourselves out of this problem by being financially conservative and prudent.

I don't have a problem with staying cheap and under the tax. My problem is lack of strategy. If they were staying under the cap we should have moved on Kim. Gone with Kubitza or Cowart at 3b. Traded for a best 2b you can get with our excess at starting pitching. And improved the pen.

Instead we traded our pitching depth for a position we were solid in for 2016. Traded an effective 7th inning pitcher for 3b.

Eppler probably was given mixed signals by Arte. The Simmons trade made sense if we were making a play for Heyward or Upton. This is on Arte for no strategy.

[tomsred]

One thing I believe is that Arte is a terrible public communicator.  I would hope he operates better with his staff, and organization.  He's really quick about inserting his foot in his mouth in public.  Sometime the circumstances and timing of when he says things stink.  Audiences many times like his outspoken attempts at letting it fly.  Think back when he came to the AngelsWin Fan Fest a few years ago.  In my mind we have a wealthy owner, whose heart is in the right place, but who creates messes (big and little) that his staffs have to clean up.  Tim Mead must be ready to pull out his hair at times, if not really looking forward to retiring.

 

So predicting where he really stands at any given moment on issues like we have been discussing here is fruitless, if not agonizing.  Scotty, I can't think of a situation where he has operated in the weeds like that, but once he locks onto a particular player or situation he seems to love the challenge.  I think there are many compelling arguments that can be made for signing a strong Left Fielder, and one important financial one for not, especially if it violates a line Arte has drawn in the sand.  He's pretty stubborn about his past decisions and principles.  Eppler has his hands full, but we know that already.

[tdawg87]

Don't forget Smith, who is another 5.5 million off the AAV next year, which brings the number quite literally at 40 million cheaper. No if course arbitration should effect that, but even then, at least 30 million cheaper, and that's being conservative.

The Angels could sign Gordon or Upton, and still have 10 million worth of wiggle room next year.

 

I'm on the same page, but we are both assuming Wilson and Weaver will be easily replaceable with in-house options. While I'm perfectly OK going into 2017 with a rotation of Richards, Heaney, Santiago, Skaggs, and Tropeano, the Angels might not be.

 

What scares me is they may want to fill one of those two rotation spots by dipping into the extremely weak pitching market that year. Think Andrew Cashner and his 4.35 ERA outside of Petco getting the contract Samardzija got.

[Freezer]

The Angels are a mid-market team and are at their limit. Their owner would like to win, but ultimately, as it stands with any ridiculously wealthy individual, the profit always comes first. The Angels will have over 40 million come off the payroll next year, and there's no indication the team plans to make any more major bids on free agents.

I could be wrong, but someone posted a new topic not too long ago about team finances and whatnot. In the article, that was posted in that topic, it had the Angels as the 4th or 5th best team at bringing in income. I believe that the Angels bring in a bit over $300 mill/year.

I would go out on a limb and say that would not make the Angels a mid market team, but above that quite a bit.

I am going off memory, but I believe that to be correct.

[Freezer]

Yeah, in the topic "Angels raking in the cash" the Forbes article, linked, shows the Angels with $304 mil revenue. 5th best in baseball. Behind the Yanks, Sawx, Dogs, and Giants.

[Second Base]

I could be wrong, but someone posted a new topic not too long ago about team finances and whatnot. In the article, that was posted in that topic, it had the Angels as the 4th or 5th best team at bringing in income. I believe that the Angels bring in a bit over $300 mill/year.

I would go out on a limb and say that would not make the Angels a mid market team, but above that quite a bit.

I am going off memory, but I believe that to be correct.

You very well may be correct. But if the Angels operate with a payroll around the 8th highest in MLB, I think that pretty much makes them a mid-market spender. That lucrative TV deal the Angels signed has to add to all of it. Given their market a likely profit, there's no reason why the Angels shouldn't be far away from the Top 5 in payroll along with the Dodgers, Yanks, Sox, Phils, Cubs and Giants.

[arch stanton]

CarGo may be more the right player than you think. He's a reasonable 2 year commitment that,assuming no major changes in the CBA, gets you a draft pick for a QO. He's got LH power and excellent defense. He can be everything Hamilton was supposed to be.

[Docwaukee]

CarGo may be more the right player than you think. He's a reasonable 2 year commitment that,assuming no major changes in the CBA, gets you a draft pick for a QO. He's got LH power and excellent defense. He can be everything Hamilton was supposed to be.

and costs us major league talent plus that we can't afford to give up.  Not having six more years of a club controlled Andrew Heaney would be a huge issue.  

[Vegas Halo Fan]

[tdawg87]

He would certainly be an upgrade, but not enough to be worth giving up Heaney+.

 

Consider that he's played just one season of 150+ games in his entire career. Not to mention he's just a .255 hitter away from Coors.

[TroutField]

I keep seeing the Braves are shopping Inciarte. That would be an awesome get for the Halos. Perfect lead off hitter, lefty, good defense, that can push Escobar to 2nd and Calhoun down to 5th or 6th

1. Inciarte LF

2. Escobar 3B

3. Trout CF

4. Pujols DH

5. Cron 1B

6. Calhoun RF

7. Perez C

8. Gia 2B

9. Simmons SS

I was thinking Santiago, and Joe Gatto could go the Braves way. The Braves would have a good pitcher for cheap while they rebuild and at the deadline could sell high on Santiago. Gatto adds another high upside arm to their farm system. We get our perfect left fielder and stay under the luxury tax.

Just a thought, Inciarte may demand a bigger return than I'm envisioning.