Ivan Nova

[Stradling]

Put Cron at third sign Trumbo to be the closer, Sign Turner to play short, move Simmons to 1st, Albert can play 2nd base because someone used to ride a bicycle, and have Cespedes be your number 1 starter. 

[totdprods]

I think Volquez at 1/$8m would be better than Nova at 4/$48m. 180 innings of 4.20-4.50 ERA would be improvement over what we got at the back-end last year. It'd be cheap and he could be flipped at the deadline for a fringe prospect. Keeps room open in rotation for returning injured starters or a FA SP (deep class) in next year's rotation. 

[Second Base]

I think Chavez would provide  similar value as a 5th starter to Volquez. Doesn't seem like Miney well spent.

[totdprods]

19 minutes ago, Scotty@AW said:

I think Chavez would provide  similar value as a 5th starter to Volquez. Doesn't seem like Miney well spent.

I agree that he would likely put up similar value, but I'm still not buying that Chavez was brought in to be a starter. I think he was targeted specifically to be the #6 guy,  the swingman, the dependable MLB-ready, tested safety net if Shoe, Skaggs, or Richards get hurt. Someone who can step into the rotation immediately. Yes, we have numerous AAA starters now that could also do that, but most of those have health issues as well, and have little MLB experience. I think Chavez is there to be a patch if that stable of arms either isn't healthy, is being relied upon in the pen, or still needs AAA work.

Basically, I think they brought him to be what Jhoulys Chacin was last year and saw him as an upgrade over Chacin in '17.

[ten ocho recon scout]

On 11/19/2016 at 9:43 AM, ettin said:

Since his names are like mirror images of themselves he'll probably get paid $69M.

I could see him coming here and sucking for sure

[ettin]

1 hour ago, Scotty@AW said:

I think Chavez would provide  similar value as a 5th starter to Volquez. Doesn't seem like Miney well spent.

 

43 minutes ago, totdprods said:

I agree that he would likely put up similar value, but I'm still not buying that Chavez was brought in to be a starter. I think he was targeted specifically to be the #6 guy,  the swingman, the dependable MLB-ready, tested safety net if Shoe, Skaggs, or Richards get hurt. Someone who can step into the rotation immediately. Yes, we have numerous AAA starters now that could also do that, but most of those have health issues as well, and have little MLB experience. I think Chavez is there to be a patch if that stable of arms either isn't healthy, is being relied upon in the pen, or still needs AAA work.

Basically, I think they brought him to be what Jhoulys Chacin was last year and saw him as an upgrade over Chacin in '17.

He is definitely a swingman and the reason he is here is not only as injury insurance but also to pick up starts for Richards and Skaggs later in the season as both of them will likely have difficulty throwing a full season's worth of starts. Rotation length is a real issue this year (and next year probably as well when Heaney and Tropeano return to the rotation and will have innings limits). The idea that Richards or Skaggs, based on the innings pitched in 2016 (not much for either), can throw 30 starts is pretty outrageous. Having Chavez pick up starts as a 6th starter or rotating Richards or Skaggs in and out of the bullpen is a way to manage innings. That is why Chavez has the conditions in his contract that if he throws at least 10 games he starts gaining an additional $200K every other start. The incentive itself tells the story of why Eppler brought him on. If the Angels are out of the running by the deadline there will almost certainly be a lot of opportunities for him to start and rest Richards and Skaggs arms as needed heading into 2018.

[totdprods]

I think that Chavez is being paid a little extra base salary should he wins up not getting many starts - either because everyone stays healthy or we sign another starter.

If all of our other SP targets this offseason don't work out and he winds up starting the entire year, then he winds up making $8-$10m, or basically what Volquez *should* cost.

He's just an insurance policy.

[Ohtaniland]

We have no idea what Skaggs or Richards will give us. We have no idea how Shoemaker will rebound. We've been shuffling around platoon players for the past couple of seasons and we can't even catch the second wild card spot. I don't see 2017 being any better than 2016. In fact, it might be worse. I think Eppler needs to hit the reset button and dismantle the Dipoto team completely and build something you can count on to compete. With no farm and not another $100M to blow on high expectation players they need to start planning for the future. Like 2020.

[totdprods]

Looking at numbers even deeper, there is hardly any difference between '14-'16 Nova, 2016 Volquez, and the eight 'bad' SPs the Angels relied on for 89 starts last year who likely will not be returning - Weaver, Santiago, Chacin, Lincecum, Wright, Oberholtzer, Huff, Rasmus.

PITCHER	IP	ERA	ERA+	FIP	WHIP	H/9	HR/9	BB/9	K/9
The Hateful Eight (2016 Total)	463.2	5.42	70		1.55	10.4	1.7	3.5	6.2
Ivan Nova ('14 thru '16)	276	4.78	88	4.58	1.35	10	1.4	2.2	6.6
Edinson Volquez (2016 only)	189	5.37	81	4.57	1.54	10.3	1.1	3.6	6.2
Volquez 3-yr average ('14-'16)	582.1	3.97	102	4.17	1.36	8.9	0.9	3.4	6.7

Nova showed a lot of promise after being traded to Pittsburgh, but given how comparable his last three years have been to what we dealt with last year, I'd be awfully hesitant committing 3-4 years and tens of millions of dollars for that risk. Obviously, Volquez took a big step backwards last year, but FIP reflects that some of it was poor luck - only his H/9 really went up, and he had no extreme changes in velocity. His '14-'15 campaigns were strong enough that he'd be worth gambling on, I feel, especially if he costs only 1/$8-10m. The other big plus to Volquez, he has averaged just a tick under 200 IP the last three years. If he does that again in '17, he almost halves what we relied on last year with the Hateful Eight, and even if his 2016 line is the new norm, he'd still offer some improvement in the rotation.
 

 

[ELEVEN]

On Saturday, November 19, 2016 at 2:05 PM, ukyah said:

that is a grim f'in picture. 

it just reinforces what i believe. the angels need quality starters. i was disappointed that they didn't sign colon at a very reasonable one year contract.

i like the idea of using some starters as relievers right now, lower the demand on their arm.

it parallels with the general notion that i have that young starters promoted to the majors should be broke in through the bullpen.

You would think Colon would have at least marked for an exclamation point.

[ukyah]

6 hours ago, totdprods said:

I think Volquez at 1/$8m would be better than Nova at 4/$48m. 180 innings of 4.20-4.50 ERA would be improvement over what we got at the back-end last year. It'd be cheap and he could be flipped at the deadline for a fringe prospect. Keeps room open in rotation for returning injured starters or a FA SP (deep class) in next year's rotation. 

i hate the idea of volquez. if we're going to run bums out there still, let's just do it with some rule v guys that actually have growth potential.

[totdprods]

6 minutes ago, ukyah said:

i hate the idea of volquez. if we're going to run bums out there still, let's just do it with some rule v guys that actually have growth potential.

How often do Rule V guys even make a starting rotation, much less last a full season? You're basically describing Daniel Wright, a young SP with enough stuff to appear in the bigs but not good enough to stick on a 40-man. 180 unsexy, average innings would go a long way to stabilizing the rotation and taking significant pressure off the pen. 

[ukyah]

40 minutes ago, totdprods said:

How often do Rule V guys even make a starting rotation, much less last a full season? You're basically describing Daniel Wright, a young SP with enough stuff to appear in the bigs but not good enough to stick on a 40-man. 180 unsexy, average innings would go a long way to stabilizing the rotation and taking significant pressure off the pen. 

listen, i understand your viewpoint and i realize it's the most stable choice. i just can't stand mediocre to bad pitchers. they're the equivalent to me of a hitter with no approach to the situation, the "doesn't get cheated" platitude. i loathe those players.

i don't think daniel wright is a fair comparison to what i was talking about. i'm talking about some prospects with legitimate stuff, that are unprotected because their system is too deep.

i think other than thaiss, i would swap our entire farm system with all the rule v guys if i could. i can't think of another way to inject some serious young talent into this system than through the rule v. keeping them on the 25 is a tough spot, but it's better than running out more expensive dogs. 

btw, i am fully aware that it's not going to happen.

[totdprods]

24 minutes ago, ukyah said:

listen, i understand your viewpoint and i realize it's the most stable choice. i just can't stand mediocre to bad pitchers. they're the equivalent to me of a hitter with no approach to the situation, the "doesn't get cheated" platitude. i loathe those players.

i don't think daniel wright is a fair comparison to what i was talking about. i'm talking about some prospects with legitimate stuff, that are unprotected because their system is too deep.

i think other than thaiss, i would swap our entire farm system with all the rule v guys if i could. i can't think of another way to inject some serious young talent into this system than through the rule v. keeping them on the 25 is a tough spot, but it's better than running out more expensive dogs. 

btw, i am fully aware that it's not going to happen.

And I also understand your viewpoint - there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. Ideally, that's the way it would work. It's just that Rule 5 guys so rarely pan out as is, and of those that do, it's even rarer that they are pitchers, rarer still starting pitchers. Even heralded top pitching prospects rarely make it through a full season in their first year. There's a reason guys like Morton, Weaver, Pelfry, Volquez, etc. still get work. You could put a Rule 5 guy in the rotation and there's a good chance you're hurting your team early in the season, losing the player in May, and then needing to replace that player, and as we saw with Lincecum and Chacin last season, doesn't work too well. I would like the Angels to at least try and compete when 2017 kicks off, and their best bet to do that is simply stabilizing the rotation. Our current rotation has way too many question marks and health concerns, and our AAA depth has just as many.

Signing a medioce innings-eater prevents that. If said pitcher is truly bad, cutting him loose on a one-year deal doesn't really hurt anyone. By that time, a Rule 5 draftee will have gotten some MLB exposure working in the pen, and may be ready for his first few starts. One of our many #5 SP candidates in AAA may be pushing for a gig. If this mediocre vet pitcher is actually pitching decently or even good - look at what Nolasco did - and the team isn't performing, he becomes an easy guy to ship off for someone midseason. You won't get but a fringe prospect for him, but sometimes those fringe prospects are guys like Mike Clevinger. Virtually any minor-leaguer we acquire these days automatically makes our Top 30 MLB prospects, so even fringe guys are helpful.

in an attempt to get back on topic, that's why I pitched Volquez over Nova. Less commitment. Much easier to cut our losses on a 1/$8m than a 4/$48m, even if Nova could be a lot better. And I get that we're operating on a budget too, but the Angels can afford a player like that, and honestly as of right now there isn't much else out there on the FA market that they should be spending it on, short of another reliever and an outfielder. But they can afford all three.

[ettin]

3 hours ago, totdprods said:

Looking at numbers even deeper, there is hardly any difference between '14-'16 Nova, 2016 Volquez, and the eight 'bad' SPs the Angels relied on for 89 starts last year who likely will not be returning - Weaver, Santiago, Chacin, Lincecum, Wright, Oberholtzer, Huff, Rasmus.

PITCHER	IP	ERA	ERA+	FIP	WHIP	H/9	HR/9	BB/9	K/9
The Hateful Eight (2016 Total)	463.2	5.42	70		1.55	10.4	1.7	3.5	6.2
Ivan Nova ('14 thru '16)	276	4.78	88	4.58	1.35	10	1.4	2.2	6.6
Edinson Volquez (2016 only)	189	5.37	81	4.57	1.54	10.3	1.1	3.6	6.2
Volquez 3-yr average ('14-'16)	582.1	3.97	102	4.17	1.36	8.9	0.9	3.4	6.7

Nova showed a lot of promise after being traded to Pittsburgh, but given how comparable his last three years have been to what we dealt with last year, I'd be awfully hesitant committing 3-4 years and tens of millions of dollars for that risk. Obviously, Volquez took a big step backwards last year, but FIP reflects that some of it was poor luck - only his H/9 really went up, and he had no extreme changes in velocity. His '14-'15 campaigns were strong enough that he'd be worth gambling on, I feel, especially if he costs only 1/$8-10m. The other big plus to Volquez, he has averaged just a tick under 200 IP the last three years. If he does that again in '17, he almost halves what we relied on last year with the Hateful Eight, and even if his 2016 line is the new norm, he'd still offer some improvement in the rotation.
 

 

The primary reason you'd go after Nova or Volquez over most of the 'Hateful Eight' is that they both have high ground ball rates with strong pull percentages to the left side of the infield (Simmons). Also there are some options in trade, particularly left-handers, that might be more appealing pitchers from an Average Annual Value point-of-view. Volquez or Nova would certainly be the type of pitcher Eppler is looking for it may just not be the ones he ends up with!