Is being this bad a blessing?

[Ohtaniland]

38 minutes ago, Lou said:

Trout HAS played in the playoffs.

Also, you can't compare Pujols' situation to Trout's. When Pujols left St Louis he had earned a total if $114 million over 11 years. Trout will make $103 million over the last 3 years of his contract. One thing he'll never have to do is chase money. 

When it comes to Trout, don't get too attached. He's going to do whatever he wants to do regardless of the fans.

[Blarg]

6 minutes ago, Stradling said:

I'm with Doc I didn't think we'd be this bad.  The pen is worse and the offense is worse than I personally expected.  Maybe the pen is worse because the starters are worse.  

The bullpen is really only supposed to support 2-3 innings per game. This year they are putting in 4-5 innings for starters that blow through their pitch counts. It over exposes the little talent that is there and takes away any thought of using the bullpen for matchups, they have to eat innings, a lot of innings.

I think you have noticed how many times a bullpen guy gets shuttled back and forth from Salt Lake. It's not that they are pitching down there to work on stuff, they are being rested and a guy with fewer innings is replacing him for a game or two. It's the only way to get a fresh arm out of the pen. Couple this with Smith breaking down taking away the 8th inning guy and Street going on the DL forcing the entire sequence of pitchers to be shifted into roles they are not trained for, yeah, they suck.

But the suckage would probably be less of an impact if they could have a defined role, less innings to cover and the ability to be rested or replaced for a better matchup but that requires 7 innings out of the starters. Only Shoemaker is providing that right now. So the suckage will continue.

[Ohtaniland]

8 minutes ago, Troll Daddy said:

Funny thing is ... everyone here including DocHalo will be begging for Arte to open up his check book in the off season. 

Exactly. Everybody gets pumped up for the winter meetings because we're in on this guy and we're in on that guy.......then it's over. The Big 4 outfielder countdown last offseason was hilarious. 

[Stradling]

7 minutes ago, Blarg said:

The bullpen is really only supposed to support 2-3 innings per game. This year they are putting in 4-5 innings for starters that blow through their pitch counts. It over exposes the little talent that is there and takes away any thought of using the bullpen for matchups, they have to eat innings, a lot of innings.

I think you have noticed how many times a bullpen guy gets shuttled back and forth from Salt Lake. It's not that they are pitching down there to work on stuff, they are being rested and a guy with fewer innings is replacing him for a game or two. It's the only way to get a fresh arm out of the pen. Couple this with Smith breaking down taking away the 8th inning guy and Street going on the DL forcing the entire sequence of pitchers to be shifted into roles they are not trained for, yeah, they suck.

But the suckage would probably be less of an impact if they could have a defined role, less innings to cover and the ability to be rested or replaced for a better matchup but that requires 7 innings out of the starters. Only Shoemaker is providing that right now. So the suckage will continue.

Completely agree that defined roles is how it should go.  For some reason relief pitchers need routine more than just about any other position in sport.  

[Troll Daddy]

56 minutes ago, CALZONE said:

I think worrying about Trout's window is a waste of time. It takes a team to win a championship and it's going to take 3-5 (maybe longer) seasons of suckage to put the pieces in place to get there. Pujols left St Louis when no one thought he would for more money. Mike Trout could choose to do the same so why worry about it. It's all business and Trout will make that decision when the time comes. Let's face it, there are teams out there with a much greater history, better stadium, better management, better farm and a more promising future for years to come. What will Trout's legacy be if he never plays in the playoffs. Trout will chase his money and his ring. Like it or not it may require him to jump ship. 

Sometimes the best teams don't win the WS or even play in a WS. 

Sounds like you're really struggling being a Angels fan. You were right about not spending in the off season and going past the cap. 

The team has close to $93M in guaranteed money for 2017. The team will live close to the lux tax every year. By not spending last off season it has set us up nicely for 2017. 

[Docwaukee]

With all the crap we give Arte, if he decides he wants to keep Trout for beyond 2020, he will make him a tremendous offer.  It won't be a 'this is what we think you are worth over the next 8 years' type of deal that the cards brought to Pujols.  It will be a 'you are our best player in franchise history and a future HOFer.  Here is what we think you'd get on the FA market' type of deal.

I misspoke about the prolific FA class being 2018.  It's actually after 2018 so for the 2019 season.   That's the one that has Harper, Machado, Kershaw, AJ Pollock, McCutchen, Brantley, Kimbrel, Andrew Miller, Richards, Fernandez, Shelby Miller etc.  

I think this actually makes it better for improving the team by 2020.  But that changes the thought process of what to do with Shoe, Calhoun and Simmons in my view.  

For the record TD, relative to where we are right now, I would be against spending any money in the offseason. 

[Troll Daddy]

7 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

With all the crap we give Arte, if he decides he wants to keep Trout for beyond 2020, he will make him a tremendous offer.  It won't be a 'this is what we think you are worth over the next 8 years' type of deal that the cards brought to Pujols.  It will be a 'you are our best player in franchise history and a future HOFer.  Here is what we think you'd get on the FA market' type of deal.

I misspoke about the prolific FA class being 2018.  It's actually after 2018 so for the 2019 season.   That's the one that has Harper, Machado, Kershaw, AJ Pollock, McCutchen, Brantley, Kimbrel, Andrew Miller, Richards, Fernandez, Shelby Miller etc.  

I think this actually makes it better for improving the team by 2020.  But that changes the thought process of what to do with Shoe, Calhoun and Simmons in my view.  

For the record TD, relative to where we are right now, I would be against spending any money in the offseason. 

Ok ... what should they do with the money not being spent?

[Ohtaniland]

6 minutes ago, Troll Daddy said:

Sometimes the best teams don't win the WS or even play in a WS. 

Sounds like you're really struggling being a Angels fan. You were right about not spending in the off season and going past the cap. 

The team has close to $93M in guaranteed money for 2017. The team will live close to the lux tax every year. By not spending last off season it has set us up nicely for 2017. 

When Arte signed Pujols he had to believe in his heart that Albert was going to take this team to a championship or at the very least some WS appearances. That never happened and they never even got close. I can see why Arte is apprehensive about stacking more shit on top of shit. When you invest big money on players that puts you near the threshold and you're chasing many less spending teams it has to be a wake up call. Arte the yachtsman is wide awake now. He now knows that paying a player more money doesn't make him play better.

[Troll Daddy]

18 minutes ago, CALZONE said:

When Arte signed Pujols he had to believe in his heart that Albert was going to take this team to a championship or at the very least some WS appearances. That never happened and they never even got close. I can see why Arte is apprehensive about stacking more shit on top of shit. When you invest big money on players that puts you near the threshold and you're chasing many less spending teams it has to be a wake up call. Arte the yachtsman is wide awake now. He now knows that paying a player more money doesn't make him play better.

I agree with you. I don't anticipate Arte signing anymore $200M contracts unless it's  for Trout. 

I do expect him to keep the payroll close to the cap. 

[Docwaukee]

27 minutes ago, Blarg said:

The bullpen is really only supposed to support 2-3 innings per game. This year they are putting in 4-5 innings for starters that blow through their pitch counts. It over exposes the little talent that is there and takes away any thought of using the bullpen for matchups, they have to eat innings, a lot of innings.

I think you have noticed how many times a bullpen guy gets shuttled back and forth from Salt Lake. It's not that they are pitching down there to work on stuff, they are being rested and a guy with fewer innings is replacing him for a game or two. It's the only way to get a fresh arm out of the pen. Couple this with Smith breaking down taking away the 8th inning guy and Street going on the DL forcing the entire sequence of pitchers to be shifted into roles they are not trained for, yeah, they suck.

But the suckage would probably be less of an impact if they could have a defined role, less innings to cover and the ability to be rested or replaced for a better matchup but that requires 7 innings out of the starters. Only Shoemaker is providing that right now. So the suckage will continue.

Agree and disagree.  We are 7th in reliever innings but within 5 innings of 14th (out of over 250ip), so we are not a significant outlier in that regard.  The over exposure has come in the form of AJ Achter, Greg Mahle, and Deolis Guerra pitching meaningful innings.  Mahle and Achter have been bad, but Guerra has been good.  

The A's, Padres, Royals, Braves, Astros, Orioles, Rockies are all within 3ip of the halos pen and are all performing very well to help their team

I agree that Smith melting down and then getting injured as well as Street's injury and poor performance has been an issue, but those two things have nothing to do with having to pitch more innings.  If those two were healthy, it could be argued that they would be more exposed and have more innings of poor performance.  It has essentially meant that Alvarez, Morin and Salas have sucked up their innings yet those guys performances are about equal to Street and Smith.  

We have 1 pen arm in the top 30 for ip (Alvarez at 28th), 2 more in the top 60, and no others in the top 120.  

Increased pen exposure isn't a problem when you have talent.   I agree that the pen seeing more innings than they should is a bad thing, but it hasn't made them much worse than they would have been had we seen less of them.  They lack talent.  Rolling into a season with who we had as starters should have been an indication to make the bullpen a strength.  Not something you worry about if you see more of them.   

[Troll Daddy]

1 hour ago, Lou said:

Completely different scenario. Texas was a last-place team in 2014 due to the ungodly amount of injuries. Between 2009 and 2015, they finished lower than 2nd place only that one time. 

It's not a exact science Lou ... just a reference. 

Btw the Angels had the best record in baseball (many forget) a season and a half ago. The team finished one game shy of the playoffs last season and in case you haven't noticed the team as been devastated by injuries this season. 

 

[Docwaukee]

17 minutes ago, Troll Daddy said:

Ok ... what should they do with the money not being spent?

If they are going to spend, it should be on 1 or 2 year deals that have the potential to net us some sort of return via trade.  No sense in committing to players for 4 or 5 years when 2 or 3 of those years aren't likely to net us a playoff run.  Or maybe a couple of smaller deals to fill some gaps where we don't have anyone that might benefit from getting a reasonable look ie, let's see what we got with Cowart, Smith, Johnson etc.  

They aren't recovering from those injuries in 2017 so that devastation isn't isolated to one season.  

Honestly, relative to recent history, they are more likely going to try and spend money or prospects on supplementing the team for 2017.  I just don't think its going to amount to anything.  

[Troll Daddy]

12 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

If they are going to spend, it should be on 1 or 2 year deals that have the potential to net us some sort of return via trade.  No sense in committing to players for 4 or 5 years when 2 or 3 of those years aren't likely to net us a playoff run.  Or maybe a couple of smaller deals to fill some gaps where we don't have anyone that might benefit from getting a reasonable look ie, let's see what we got with Cowart, Smith, Johnson etc.  

They aren't recovering from those injuries in 2017 so that devastation isn't isolated to one season.  

Honestly, relative to recent history, they are more likely going to try and spend money or prospects on supplementing the team for 2017.  I just don't think its going to amount to anything.  

Appreciate the response but you really didn't answer my question ... did you? The lux cap limit was $189M in 2016 ... according to you we should spend a few million here and there ... yet the team has about $40M or so to spend. 

Maybe Arte can get that new yacht he always wanted.

 

 

[Lou]

53 minutes ago, Troll Daddy said:

It's not a exact science Lou ... just a reference. 

Btw the Angels had the best record in baseball (many forget) a season and a half ago. The team finished one game shy of the playoffs last season and in case you haven't noticed the team as been devastated by injuries this season. 

 

I've noticed all of that, and our injuries don't compare 

[Lou]

where are you getting $40 million?  from what I can tell, including Escobar, we're @ about $100 million for 6 players. 

[CanadianHalo]

7 hours ago, California Cajun said:

If this team were healthy this year I think it could had made the postseason but not win the postseason.

 

Not even close. This team was terrible on paper coming into this season. Yes they've had some sh*tty luck with injuries but don't get it confused, this team was never going anywhere

[Lou]

2 hours ago, CALZONE said:

When it comes to Trout, don't get too attached. He's going to do whatever he wants to do regardless of the fans.

this has absolutely nothing to do with my comment  

[Troll Daddy]

1 hour ago, Lou said:

where are you getting $40 million?  from what I can tell, including Escobar, we're @ about $100 million for 6 players. 

Correct amundo ... that leaves close to $90M to spend without going over the cap, I believe. Weaver, Wilson, Smith, Salas, and Soto were paid around $51M combined in 2016. Even with arbitration raises for Calhoun, Richards,  and Santiago we're looking pretty good.

[Lou]

2 minutes ago, Vladdylonglegs said:

No MLB player has to chase money but they all do. You're saying Pujols had to go to the highest bidder because he only made $114,000,000 up until he was a FA?

no

[kingsosha]

2 hours ago, Troll Daddy said:

Ok ... what should they do with the money not being spent?

build a state of the art strip club in the RF pavillion

[Lou]

14 minutes ago, Troll Daddy said:

Correct amundo ... that leaves close to $90M to spend without going over the cap, I believe. Weaver, Wilson, Smith, Salas, and Soto were paid around $51M combined in 2016. Even with arbitration raises for Calhoun and Santiago we're looking pretty good.

you forgot Richards, who'll make more than those 2 guys.Still no LFer, catcher ( I say give the job to Bandy), BP and a very suspect (and fragile) starting rotation. 

I'm not so sure I'd go as far as saying "we're looking pretty good" 

[Troll Daddy]

37 minutes ago, Lou said:

you forgot Richards, who'll make more than those 2 guys.Still no LFer, catcher ( I say give the job to Bandy), BP and a very suspect (and fragile) starting rotation. 

I'm not so sure I'd go as far as saying "we're looking pretty good" 

Actually, I corrected my post before I saw yours. Richards is a interesting subject ... does he get much of a raise? If he gets TJ surgery there's no guarantee that he will be ready to go at the start of 2018 or be the same pitcher. He will also be a free agent in 2019. Is it wise to pay him $7_10M in 2017 and pay him again in 2018?

Even after paying Richards there's a ton of money left to spend. ... looking good financially. Even better after Hamilton's contract expires.

[Docwaukee]

3 hours ago, Troll Daddy said:

Appreciate the response but you really didn't answer my question ... did you? The lux cap limit was $189M in 2016 ... according to you we should spend a few million here and there ... yet the team has about $40M or so to spend. 

Maybe Arte can get that new yacht he always wanted.

 

 

put it into player development and international signings.  As of July 2017, our restrictions come off.  I would like to see them do some strong work and make a run at some high end guys from that pool.  Your payroll estimates are off.  I don't think we have the room you are indicating.  I was actually pretty clear otherwise though.  If we are going to spend in 2017, it should be for 1yr or 2yr deals on guys that might have some trade value going forward.  No big name guys for 9 figure deals.  There are no players in the 2017 FA class I would want unless we somehow piece together a rotation which I don't think is feasible.  If I were to spend in 2017, it would be on Kenley Jansen who will probably command a similar deal to Andrew Miller.  I think he'll maintain his trade value.  

There are always guys who misjudge their value that are left at the end of the offseason.  That would be my target area for 2017.  

[kevinb]

5 hours ago, Troll Daddy said:

Funny thing is ... everyone here including DocHalo will be begging for Arte to open up his check book in the off season. 

Only the people who don't realize how it works. Opening your check book to sign 30 plus year old free agents don't work. Ask the Yankees how it's been working for them. There are no free agents we should go after next year for more than a 1 year deal that you could trade at the deadline. This team needs a full a complete rebuild 

[Troll Daddy]

11 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

put it into player development and international signings.  As of July 2017, our restrictions come off.  I would like to see them do some strong work and make a run at some high end guys from that pool.  Your payroll estimates are off.  I don't think we have the room you are indicating.  I was actually pretty clear otherwise though.  If we are going to spend in 2017, it should be for 1yr or 2yr deals on guys that might have some trade value going forward.  No big name guys for 9 figure deals.  There are no players in the 2017 FA class I would want unless we somehow piece together a rotation which I don't think is feasible.  If I were to spend in 2017, it would be on Kenley Jansen who will probably command a similar deal to Andrew Miller.  I think he'll maintain his trade value.  

There are always guys who misjudge their value that are left at the end of the offseason.  That would be my target area for 2017.  

You're plan is on the same path as the Oakland A's.  It's not a terrible idea but we are the LA Angels. A large market team with a insane TV deal in hand. The team needs to stay at the cap regardless if you rebuild.

Spending money in player development and international signings should be done regardless.