Three-way Trade?

[Stradling]

Source: Medical concerns in Bruce deal involved #BlueJays minor leaguer, not Saunders. Player presumably was going to CIN. Trade off for now

-Ken Rosenthal

I have a feeling this deal will still get done.

[DMVol]

I have a feeling this deal will still get done.

Well yippie ky yay....thrilling....

[floplag]

Just when you think this club cant look worse for its actions and lack of action, we get in the middle of something we have no business in which blows up and we get more egg on our faces.  
I dont know if half the stuff in this thread is true or not but IF they even considered going over the cap for this friggin guy and didnt for the plethora of real help, i simply dont have the words to even express my shock at such utter stupidity. 

[zenmaster]

If this happens it is embarrassing. Are we collecting random crap players for the fun of it?

[nando714]

If this happens it is embarrassing. Are we collecting random crap players for the fun of it?

Yes

[Docwaukee]

sounds like it's still on and that the medicals were a problem with one of our minor leaguers.  

 

Makes me wonder if it was Mcgowin and his elbow.  

 

edit:  i'm incorrect.  it's a jays prospects that is the problem.  

Edited February 23, 2016 by Dochalo

[Angelfaninidaho]

Can't wait for this 100 loss season.

 

You seem fun.

[CanadianHalo]

Asked official involved in three-team Bruce discussions if deal could revive in another form. Response: “Hard to say. Doubtful.”

https://twitter.com/ken_rosenthal/status/702162302355775488

Some good news

[Stradling]

Just when you think this club cant look worse for its actions and lack of action, we get in the middle of something we have no business in which blows up and we get more egg on our faces.

I dont know if half the stuff in this thread is true or not but IF they even considered going over the cap for this friggin guy and didnt for the plethora of real help, i simply dont have the words to even express my shock at such utter stupidity.

What a total over reaction flop. There is no problem going after a guy like this if the medicals Coke back fine. I have no idea if the Angels would be over the cap, but I'd have to assume the answer is no. Maybe they would be if we kept all three of Nava, Gentry and Saunders, but realistically why would we keep them all? Nava and Gentry have non-guaranteed contracts. Secondly Eppler must see something and obviously the cost is minimal or else we wouldn't be even be involved. Now if it comes back that the guy from our minor leagues is a real name then I'll gladly eat crow. When your owner doesn't spend money any more and your system is void of talent these are the type of players you trade for. It's hardly worth getting angry or excited over.

[Angelfaninidaho]

So the injured player was a minor leaguer going from the Jays to CIN, we have no idea who the Angels were going to trade, if anyone, or if any cash was coming back or going out, and the trade didn't happen anyway, and this is a HUGE embarrassment to the franchise?  Give me a ****ing break..  Start the ****ing season already.

[DMVol]

.....When your owner doesn't spend money any more and your system is void of talent these are the type of players you trade for. It's hardly worth getting angry or excited over.

^^^This^^^.....

[floplag]

What a total over reaction flop. There is no problem going after a guy like this if the medicals Coke back fine. I have no idea if the Angels would be over the cap, but I'd have to assume the answer is no. Maybe they would be if we kept all three of Nava, Gentry and Saunders, but realistically why would we keep them all? Nava and Gentry have non-guaranteed contracts. Secondly Eppler must see something and obviously the cost is minimal or else we wouldn't be even be involved. Now if it comes back that the guy from our minor leagues is a real name then I'll gladly eat crow. When your owner doesn't spend money any more and your system is void of talent these are the type of players you trade for. It's hardly worth getting angry or excited over.

 

Perhaps, but i DO have a problem going after a guy like this who bring almost nothing in terms of improvement or potential to the club. 

This guys i literally not better than what we have even assuming he can actually stay healthy.  There is no likelihood that the team wins even one more game with this guy over Nava/Gentry even giving him that benefit of the doubt.  

In fact he may be a downgrade as the most recent productive season from Saunders/Nava was 2014 and Nava had a better WAR and has had more better seasons.  It is more likely that Nava will perform better.

This simply makes no sense... zero, none.  Give up more prospects for literally nothing gained.   It almost doesnt matter who the prospects are... giving them up for a zero sum gain is simply madness. 

[Stradling]

So the injured player was a minor leaguer going from the Jays to CIN, we have no idea who the Angels were going to trade, if anyone, or if any cash was coming back or going out, and the trade didn't happen anyway, and this is a HUGE embarrassment to the franchise? Give me a ****ing break.. Start the ****ing season already.

Exactly. Somehow in flops head he thinks that because the deal fell through on the part that had nothing to do with the Angels it somehow embarrasses the Angels. Someone might be a tiny bit sensitive.

[Stradling]

Perhaps, but i DO have a problem going after a guy like this who bring almost nothing in terms of improvement or potential to the club.

This guys i literally not better than what we have even assuming he can actually stay healthy. There is no likelihood that the team wins even one more game with this guy over Nava/Gentry even giving him that benefit of the doubt.

In fact he may be a downgrade as the most recent productive season from Saunders/Nava was 2014 and Nava had a better WAR and has had more better seasons. It is more likely that Nava will perform better.

This simply makes no sense... zero, none. Give up more prospects for literally nothing gained. It almost doesnt matter who the prospects are... giving them up for a zero sum gain is simply madness.

I'll let the guy paid to make that decision decide whether it's a gain or not. We literally have only a handful of guys that project to be major leaguers in the minors. We aren't trading a future anything for this guy.

[Second Base]

The only part here other than if we actually paid the price of a worthwhile prospect is the fact that by some measures, we'd exceed the luxury tax.

The team has said multiple times that they'd exceed the luxury tax for the right player. So if they exceed it here, they're basically saying that Michael Saunders is the right player, yet Heyward, Cespedes, Gordon, Upton, Fowler and Jackson aren't.

The logic of it dictates that this team is effing stupid.

[Stradling]

There's also a difference between going $10 million over and $100k over. But like I said Scotty, can you come up with a scenario where you keep Nava, Gentry and Saunders? Releasing one of them puts you under the tax.

[nikkachez]

The only part here other than if we actually paid the price of a worthwhile prospect is the fact that by some measures, we'd exceed the luxury tax.

The team has said multiple times that they'd exceed the luxury tax for the right player. So if they exceed it here, they're basically saying that Michael Saunders is the right player, yet Heyward, Cespedes, Gordon, Upton, Fowler and Jackson aren't.

The logic of it dictates that this team is effing stupid.

Because there's a big difference between $2.9 million and north of $20 million. 

[Mark68]

If this happens it is embarrassing. Are we collecting random crap players for the fun of it?

Just to get a rise out of AW. And, damn, is it not working its magic?

[Troll Daddy]

Any fan here who believes the team is going over the luxury tax for Saunders ... let's just say that there effing dumb as rocks.

[totdprods]

I still don't understand why so many people on this board fixate on the luxury tax. 
If the Angels went literally a couple mil over the tax for one season for any player, it would not be unreasonable, even to Arte. 

 

His statements have clearly shown his hesitations lie in long-term, big-money commitments with the luxury tax implications those signings would bring, and how they would affect his ability to meet the budget that he's set internally. And yes, even to him signing someone like Fowler for 1-3 years for $10m/yr are apparently beyond those boundaries. He admitted in that OCR interview that those players would be an improvement over what we have, but obviously doesn't feel any of those options bring the certainty of improvement that is worth the money they command, and when you look at Hamilton, Wells, Pujols, and Wilson, it's pretty hard to disagree with him there. 

 

The only gripe I have is that there hasn't been any public acknowledgment that there will be more investment in scouting/farm/international FAs.

 

Moreno, however, steadfastly denied that the luxury tax was a hard cap on his spending, refuting a belief that’s even held within the Angels clubhouse. On Thursday, Wilson said there is a clearly a limit the Angels refuse to exceed with their payroll.

“It has never been about that,” Moreno said. “It has never been with the threshold."

[Second Base]

Because there's a big difference between $2.9 million and north of $20 million.

Put it like this, had we not signed Nava or Gentry, you're looking at being a solid 5-6 million under the luxury tax. Right now, it's looking like Fowler will command 10-12 million a year, meaning we'd exceed the luxury tax by 5-6 million, the penalty of which would be under a million dollars.

So the difference we're seeing here is Michael Saunders/Nava/Gentry, or for 6 million more, Fowler.

I take Fowler every single freakin time.

So no, the difference isn't 20 million, it's more like 6 million.

[Second Base]

There's also a difference between going $10 million over and $100k over. But like I said Scotty, can you come up with a scenario where you keep Nava, Gentry and Saunders? Releasing one of them puts you under the tax.

Why trade for Saunders if there's a solid chance you end up releasing him? You'd have spent 3 million and given away prospects for nothing. And if we keep Saunders, then Nava would be released, making the 2.5 million we spent on him a waste.

Either way, trading for Saunders will result in a waste of money or prospects. They're almost forced to keep Gentry as he's the only one that can pinch run and play CF.

[Stradling]

Why trade for Saunders if there's a solid chance you end up releasing him? You'd have spent 3 million and given away prospects for nothing. And if we keep Saunders, then Nava would be released, making the 2.5 million we spent on him a waste.

Either way, trading for Saunders will result in a waste of money or prospects. They're almost forced to keep Gentry as he's the only one that can pinch run and play CF.

The narrative on Nava and Gentry on here is that neither has a guaranteed contract. I assumed that was the reality. If not then I'm not sure why they would add a fifth guaranteed contract to the outfield

[Glen]

My take: EpPler had a stiffie for Saunders when Ep was with the Yankees, and jumped at the opportunity to get him. Then he did some work and checked the physical, and realized he was a bum.

I hope I'm wrong but that looks like the case.

[LightTheHalo]

Most unsatisfying three-way ever?