Eppler: "had converstations with LF FAs 24 hours ago"

[Angel Oracle]

I'm all over signing pre-hip surgery Span.

Post-hip surgery Span is a different animal.

[SlappyUtilityMIF]

Glad to see Hideki and Raul coming back to Cali !!!...

[gotbeer]

If that prediction comes true ... then he would certainly be back in KC.

 

KC was only offering $12-13 million a season.

[Troll Daddy]

KC was only offering $12-13 million a season.

Don't fool yourself ... nothing is final.

That being said ... I think 4yr/80M is closer to the mark. I think he ends up in SF.

[AngelsLakersFan]

They are not always depreciating assets.  Their value is multi-factorial.  Sometimes they are on the left side of the value bell curve.  

 

He'll have one less year of control, but he's entering his prime seasons which means his bat has a good chance of improving.  

 

Take Brandon Crawford as an example.  Pretty pedestrian with the bat at age 25, and 26 and then at age 28 he breaks out.  

 

SS in general is very much like C that way.  Guys get brought up because of their defense because it's typically a defensive minded position.  As long as the bat is serviceable, they hang.  Then the offense creeps up and peaks at 27-30.  

 

Aybar, Rollins, Ian Desmond etc.  All with appropriate peaks at the plate.  

 

The risk is more in the guys you sent in the other direction being worth more than anticipated.  But I think the odds are very good we could recoup the initial cost of simmons or very close to it.  

 

This doesn't make me like the trade, because I don't, but there is value there that actually has as good of a chance to actually go up as it does down.  

 

There is still upside with Simmons for sure, and there is always the possibility of a fluky spike in performance. Player valuation is always a moving target but in general, by age 26 trends are moving down, if only due to the shrinking period of player control. Anything can happen, but the long run expected outcome is for him to slowly decline in value. 

[Docwaukee]

There is still upside with Simmons for sure, and there is always the possibility of a fluky spike in performance. Player valuation is always a moving target but in general, by age 26 trends are moving down, if only due to the shrinking period of player control. Anything can happen, but the long run expected outcome is for him to slowly decline in value. 

I guess that's not how I see it.  player value is usually at it's peak from 26-29.  Most players don't hit free agency till their age 30 season.   Of course it depends on club control, but any player with 3 yrs or more left at a reasonable salary from age 26-29 = peak value.  

 

Maybe for the truly elite does value actually stabilize at a younger age.  Trout, for instance probably had his peak value season last year because of how little he was paid, how good he is, how many years of control he's got left and the sheer fact that it's gonna be hard for him to improve.  

 

Also, I guess it depends on the definition of value.  What can the player bring in trade.  Brandon Crawford, the example use earlier, has way more trade value right now than he did at 25 or 26.  Regardless of his salary.  That's an example btw, and not an outlier.  

 

For most players, it's probably closer to 27 or 28.  Maybe it's splitting hairs, but in the case of Simmons it's an important distinction.  At the end of his 28yo season we'll have had him for 3 years and he'll still have 2 more years of club control.  

 

It's all a crapshoot anyway.  I am basically saying that in 2-3 years we have a very good chance of getting more for simmons than what we paid.  I think you are saying we won't.  Hopefully it won't matter and we will want to keep him because we are winning.  

[Troll Daddy]

I guess that's not how I see it. player value is usually at it's peak from 26-29. Most players don't hit free agency till their age 30 season. Of course it depends on club control, but any player with 3 yrs or more left at a reasonable salary from age 26-29 = peak value.

Maybe for the truly elite does value actually stabilize at a younger age. Trout, for instance probably had his peak value season last year because of how little he was paid, how good he is, how many years of control he's got left and the sheer fact that it's gonna be hard for him to improve.

Also, I guess it depends on the definition of value. What can the player bring in trade. Brandon Crawford, the example use earlier, has way more trade value right now than he did at 25 or 26. Regardless of his salary. That's an example btw, and not an outlier.

For most players, it's probably closer to 27 or 28. Maybe it's splitting hairs, but in the case of Simmons it's an important distinction. At the end of his 28yo season we'll have had him for 3 years and he'll still have 2 more years of club control.

It's all a crapshoot anyway. I am basically saying that in 2-3 years we have a very good chance of getting more for simmons than what we paid. I think you are saying we won't. Hopefully it won't matter and we will want to keep him because we are winning.

This makes a lot more sense than the previous poster.

Good stuff

[Vegas Halo Fan]

"Hey, this is Billy Eppler. Is there any momentum toward you guys signing? I'm asking because there is a thread on our fan board about it. No? Well, good luck to you guys. Hope that you sign soon. Bye."

[Docwaukee]

This makes a lot more sense than the previous poster.

Good stuff

damn.  I guess ALF is right.  

[AngelsLakersFan]

damn.  I guess ALF is right.  

 

ZING!

[AngelsLakersFan]

I guess that's not how I see it.  player value is usually at it's peak from 26-29.  Most players don't hit free agency till their age 30 season.   Of course it depends on club control, but any player with 3 yrs or more left at a reasonable salary from age 26-29 = peak value.  

 

Maybe for the truly elite does value actually stabilize at a younger age.  Trout, for instance probably had his peak value season last year because of how little he was paid, how good he is, how many years of control he's got left and the sheer fact that it's gonna be hard for him to improve.  

 

Also, I guess it depends on the definition of value.  What can the player bring in trade.  Brandon Crawford, the example use earlier, has way more trade value right now than he did at 25 or 26.  Regardless of his salary.  That's an example btw, and not an outlier.  

 

For most players, it's probably closer to 27 or 28.  Maybe it's splitting hairs, but in the case of Simmons it's an important distinction.  At the end of his 28yo season we'll have had him for 3 years and he'll still have 2 more years of club control.  

 

It's all a crapshoot anyway.  I am basically saying that in 2-3 years we have a very good chance of getting more for simmons than what we paid.  I think you are saying we won't.  Hopefully it won't matter and we will want to keep him because we are winning.  

 

The market is weird, and because of that you could be right. In terms of Simmons the fact that he has 5 years left of control is a big deal. If he sees a big upswing in offensive performance in the next two seasons then I think we could definitely get as much back for him, if not more, than we gave up. He's still young enough that it could happen, but I don't think that should be the expectation. If he doesn't really improve, which is the most likely outcome, and we try to trade him in a couple of years, with 3 years left on his contract logically we shouldn't expect the same return, since we already used up 3/5ths of the expected performance. 

 

Of course we could always try and trade him to the DBacks, which negates everything I just said, lol.

 

Hopefully the need to trade him doesn't materialize. That said, even if it does I have real doubts about us doing that. Much like Aybar we'll hold on to him until his value is minimal and he can be a throw in in another deal.

[ten ocho recon scout]

Give me Denard Span, don't blow over the threshold, keep the draft pick, slide Escobar down to the #2 spot, give Trout two guys to get on base in front of him. I don't think Upton/Cespedes/Gordon is happening. I'd be happy with Span.

part of me agrees with this. Id still preder someone with some pop, but span on an affordable deal would still be a nice boost.

[Angel Oracle]

Does anyone even know how Span's hip surgery went?

[gotbeer]

Does anyone even know how Span's hip surgery went?

 

If he signs with the Angels, not very well. 

[Glen]

If he signs with the Angels, not very well.

I LOLed because it's true.

[bloodbrother]

Does anyone even know how Span's hip surgery went?

 

 

Well, he tweeted this a couple days ago

 

https://twitter.com/thisisdspan/status/684047970493403136

 

 

We now know that Span can hop around

[Docwaukee]

I guess we now know what Eppler's conversation was about.  

[Jay]

just noticed the thread title says, "conver-stations"

 

that's all I got

Edited January 6, 2016 by Jay

[Angel Oracle]

With our luck, Span would be signed and then reinjure the hip while doing those exercises.

[QuinlansMinion]

We better sign someone. If not this offseason will make 0 sense. We basically traded our best prospects for a defensive specialist, only to follow up with putting bad defenders at 3rd, 2nd, and 1st, and not upgrading LF. While our rotation has a ton of question marks and very little upside and we traded Newcomb just to be an average team defensively.

Its the latino star theory. Look at the guys we traded and look who we brought back, a latino star shortstop (defensively). Arte really goes all out to get latino stars and allocated most of his money to them.

[Docwaukee]

We better sign someone. If not this offseason will make 0 sense. We basically traded our best prospects for a defensive specialist, only to follow up with putting bad defenders at 3rd, 2nd, and 1st, and not upgrading LF. While our rotation has a ton of question marks and very little upside and we traded Newcomb just to be an average team defensively.

Its the latino star theory. Look at the guys we traded and look who we brought back, a latino star shortstop (defensively). Arte really goes all out to get latino stars and allocated most of his money to them.

I didn't realize that CJ Wilson, Josh Hamilton, Mike Trout, Jered Weaver, and Huston Street were latino.  

[QuinlansMinion]

I didn't realize that CJ Wilson, Josh Hamilton, Mike Trout, Jered Weaver, and Huston Street were latino.

Street was a midseason trade thanks to a Jedi mind trick. Trout fell in Arte's lap. Weaver took a hometown discount. Wilson and Hamilton were offered ridiculous contracts, back when we had money to spend.

[Stradling]

Wilson's contract wasn't ridiculous. Street trade was widely criticized as an overpay on here. I'm guessing Latinos don't look at Simmons as one of them.

[Docwaukee]

Street was a midseason trade thanks to a Jedi mind trick. Trout fell in Arte's lap. Weaver took a hometown discount. Wilson and Hamilton were offered ridiculous contracts, back when we had money to spend.

we've allocated a ton of resources to all of those guys whether via trade and/or money.   

 

pretty much every team has resources allocated to latin players.  your theory is horse crap. 

[Blarg]

We better sign someone. If not this offseason will make 0 sense. We basically traded our best prospects for a defensive specialist, only to follow up with putting bad defenders at 3rd, 2nd, and 1st, and not upgrading LF. While our rotation has a ton of question marks and very little upside and we traded Newcomb just to be an average team defensively.

Its the latino star theory. Look at the guys we traded and look who we brought back, a latino star shortstop (defensively). Arte really goes all out to get latino stars and allocated most of his money to them.

Oh please just **** off.