The Official Angels Hot Stove - Winter Meetings - Rumors thread

[totdprods]

8 minutes ago, Angel Oracle said:

Brandon Moss totally crapped the couch in September (7-83, sub .100 BA).    Beginning of big decline at age 33?   Or just a fluke? 

He wasn't particularly awesome much of the last two years, but his three year run in Oakland between '12-'14 was awesome. 

Only reason I really bring him up is we're still thin on lefty-power, though Espinosa definitely helps, and with the 1B market being so heavy on power guys, someone like Moss may actually be out there late in the offseason for just a couple mil. He can still offer some depth in the OF too. Would really hinge on Albert's progress and whether or not they feel Marte's development will be best on the bench in the bigs or getting everyday reps at multiple positions in SLC. Moss can be easily cut if he's slumping, and Marte would be the first guy up in case of injury.

[beatlesrule]

Do people here REALLY think, like they would bet their own money, that the Arte is going to spend a lot more money?  I see that some people here want Wieters and or Ross.  Both of those guys are gonna want like 10 million a year each.  You HONESTLY think Arte will shell out 20 million a year to get 2 players?  10 million a year to get one of them?  Really?  Despite all the evidence that he doesn't want to pay the tax or come close to it?

[Stradling]

22 minutes ago, beatlesrule said:

Do people here REALLY think, like they would bet their own money, that the Arte is going to spend a lot more money?  I see that some people here want Wieters and or Ross.  Both of those guys are gonna want like 10 million a year each.  You HONESTLY think Arte will shell out 20 million a year to get 2 players?  10 million a year to get one of them?  Really?  Despite all the evidence that he doesn't want to pay the tax or come close to it?

You are right the last time he spent to get the Angels up against the tax was way back in 2016.  

[beatlesrule]

That was to keep people interested and it was in a lost season.  2016 should have been the season he traded away most of this players and retooled.  Instead, once again, he is keeping them just above mediocre and only focusing on 3 million fans.  I know there is nothing I can do about this but I feel sorry for fans that actually think our owner wants to win a championship.

[Stradling]

2 minutes ago, beatlesrule said:

That was to keep people interested and it was in a lost season.  2016 should have been the season he traded away most of this players and retooled.  Instead, once again, he is keeping them just above mediocre and only focusing on 3 million fans.  I know there is nothing I can do about this but I feel sorry for fans that actually think our owner wants to win a championship.

Yep should have traded Trout and everyone else. 

[totdprods]

10 minutes ago, beatlesrule said:

That was to keep people interested and it was in a lost season.  2016 should have been the season he traded away most of this players and retooled.  Instead, once again, he is keeping them just above mediocre and only focusing on 3 million fans.  I know there is nothing I can do about this but I feel sorry for fans that actually think our owner wants to win a championship.

I think Eppler would have loved to trade off some players in '16, but he didn't have anyone to trade. Shoe and Calhoun maybe, but I guarantee no one was ready to pay a premium on Shoe in July, and we had a hard enough time fielding three OF positions last year that taking another one away was straight up impossible. Bedrosian and Simmons could have fetched a good return, but both were a little too crucial for the short-term - and Simmons as well was hurt. I guarantee Escobar and Street were on that list, but Huston was hurt and terrible and there hasn't been a market for 3B in a couple years now.

Obviously, hindsight is 2020, but I still think the time to 'sell' would have been before 2016, by pushing Richards to the Cubs or Res Sox and Calhoun to Cleveland, Kansas City, Detroit, or the Mets. I also would have gone hard on FAs and spent like crazy though, and that would have backfired.

As it stands right now, I think Eppler is in very good position to improve the club midseason in a variety of ways. If things are going south, he has a lot of pending FAs he can flip, and if he wants to nuclear, he can consider guys like Calhoun, Shoe, Cron, Richards, and even Bedrosian, Skaggs, and Simmons.

[beatlesrule]

5 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Yep should have traded Trout and everyone else. 

Yeah, I totally posted that Trout should have been traded.  I mean, when someone posts that most of the players should have been traded, they were obviously referring to Trout.

 

Fact is, Arte has a once in a generation player and doesn't seem to care about surrounding him with the absolute best team he can.  He only cares about money.  Winning a championship is not on his list of priorities. 

[totdprods]

1 minute ago, beatlesrule said:

Yeah, I totally posted that Trout should have been traded.  I mean, when someone posts that most of the players should have been traded, they were obviously referring to Trout.

Fact is, Arte has a once in a generation player and doesn't seem to care about surrounding him with the absolute best team he can.  He only cares about money.  Winning a championship is not on his list of priorities. 

Winning a championship brings along a shit ton of money too. 

I think Hamilton humbled him. His ego is a little hurt and he knows a lot off this is his fault, so he's staying away and allowing Eppler ample room to clean it up.

[Stradling]

4 minutes ago, beatlesrule said:

Yeah, I totally posted that Trout should have been traded.  I mean, when someone posts that most of the players should have been traded, they were obviously referring to Trout.

 

Fact is, Arte has a once in a generation player and doesn't seem to care about surrounding him with the absolute best team he can.  He only cares about money.  Winning a championship is not on his list of priorities. 

Listen I am over Arte too but keeping Trout should be very high on the priority list.  As many people have said, guys on the major league team could give two shits about the farm.  So trading away the movable pieces only to surround Trout with prospects sounds like a good way to lose him.  Sure Trade Calhoun and hope you get a player that could be as good as him in 3 years.  Trade Richards while his value is down.  Trade Shoe coming off of brain surgery.  Trade Skaggs while he has little value.  We could trade 26 year old Simmons although he is young and probably a guy you build around along with Trout. Who else could we trade.  

I'd be really interested what you think we could have gotten for those guys. 

[beatlesrule]

How can Eppler clean it up when he can't spend money?  They don't have a deep farm to turn to(worst in baseball) and have one of the most stubborn, can't win in the postseason managers in baseball. How exactly is it possible to build a club that can win the world series with no farm and not being allowed to sign good players?

[totdprods]

3 minutes ago, beatlesrule said:

How can Eppler clean it up when he can't spend money?  They don't have a deep farm to turn to(worst in baseball) and have one of the most stubborn, can't win in the postseason managers in baseball. How exactly is it possible to build a club that can win the world series with no farm and not being allowed to sign good players?

He's spending money. He's not spending stupid money though that will keep him from fixing things again. He knows it's gonna take more than FA to fix this.

[beatlesrule]

21 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Listen I am over Arte too but keeping Trout should be very high on the priority list.  As many people have said, guys on the major league team could give two shits about the farm.  So trading away the movable pieces only to surround Trout with prospects sounds like a good way to lose him.  Sure Trade Calhoun and hope you get a player that could be as good as him in 3 years.  Trade Richards while his value is down.  Trade Shoe coming off of brain surgery.  Trade Skaggs while he has little value.  We could trade 26 year old Simmons although he is young and probably a guy you build around along with Trout. Who else could we trade.  

I'd be really interested what you think we could have gotten for those guys. 

There was already a post to a podcast where 2 experts traded away pretty much all of the Angels and good prospects came back.  Maybe a mod can find it for you.  Why are you putting words in my mouth?  When did I ever type that the Angels should surround Trout with prospects?  Arte has plenty of money to spend. If he was SERIOUS about winning a championship, he can easily fix the farm problem and the Major League problem.  I have already gone over the players that should have been traded.  I am still baffled as to why Street, Escobar and some others are still on the team.  I wanted to trade Shoe before his injury.  Calhoun could have gotten a good haul and Arte could then have just signed Cespedes or even Fowler this offseason. If Arte allowed players to be traded while signing good FA, he would take care of the farm and the big league club.  Here is the list of FA over the last couple of years he could have signed:

 http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2012/10/2013-top-50-free-agents-with-predictions-1.html

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2014/11/2014-15-top-50-free-agents-with-predictions.html

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/11/2015-16-top-50-mlb-free-agents-with-predictions.html

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/11/2016-17-top-50-mlb-free-agents-predictions.html

Look at how many good players he didn't even attempt to sign.  Don't think for even a second that he couldn't afford them.  It's clear he does not want to win a championship.

[Stradling]

Ok I'm done.  When you speak in absolutes you sound like a know it all when in reality you know basically nothing.  

[Docwaukee]

Arte is probably the most disciplined owner in all of baseball.  He's had every opportunity to go over budget and he hasn't.  He's got the best player in baseball.  He had a team that won 98 games in 2014 and dropped to 85 wins because 2b and LF performed at or below replacement.  Both weren't really fixable prior to the season without getting really lucky.  But entering 2016 with Giavotella at 2b and a platoon of Nava and Gentry in LF after winning 85 games tells you everything you need to know.  Did he show restraint because the options were few and he didn't believe in the players available?  Or was it because the budget was at it's max and every dollar spent would have come from his pocket?  

There were plenty of options beyond Heyward or Upton (two of my personal top choices) that could have improved the team.   Just because a bunch of board members at AW were wrong, doesn't mean the GM of a professional baseball team would have been.  It's their job to be right when we're not.  Was it fortuitous that we didn't sign anyone and it worked out because we were decimated by injury?  Absolutely.  Was that anticipated in any way shape or form?  Well, we tried to bring in Tim Lincecum so the obvious answer is no.  There were right answers among the failures in Heyward, Upton and Gordon that would have been.  Like Cespedes and Murphy and Zobrist and Cueto, and Asdrubal Cabrera, and Dexter Fowler and Ian Desmond and Nori Aoki, and Rajai Davis, and David Freese and Sean Rodriguez.  But there were no chances taken.  

An incomplete team with a mild chance to win has been chosen over spending to fill holes.  Has been chosen over trusting your baseball people to make proper decisions.  Why?  Monetary discipline.  Not shell shock or fear or intelligence.  Numbers. Bottom line numbers.  

Think of it this way.  Our GM does not have the capacity to go to Arte and say 'After considerable research, this move will really help our team win and I think we should do it'.  Instead it's Arte saying 'This is our budget.  Stick to it.  Go ahead and do whatever you want as long as you don't go over this number'.  

We work backwards from a number on a spreadsheet instead of looking at the team and finding a way to make the numbers on the spreadsheet work.  

[Angel Oracle]

I am hoping that the budget will grow each season by a few million starting a year from now, as the yearly tv revenue grows each season.   Nothing earth shattering, but combined with freeing up at least Hackilton's and Escobar's salaries, a year from now may see some change in how FAs are pursued.

The biggest change should take place 5 years from now, when Pujols' salary is off the books.

Just as long as Arte continues to stay out of the player scouting part of the business, it will be fine with Eppler at the helm.

[Dtwncbad]

I have never really bought into idea that the Pujols contract is a problem.  He is a decent player with a big name.  He underperforms the dollars, yes.  But the contract is not an obstacle.

The Angels are financially limited by Arte's newly found discipline.  They are not limited by the existence of the Pujols contract.

[DMVol]

15 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

I have never really bought into idea that the Pujols contract is a problem.  He is a decent player with a big name.  He underperforms the dollars, yes.  But the contract is not an obstacle.

The Angels are financially limited by Arte's newly found discipline.  They are not limited by the existence of the Pujols contract.

Mostly agree....we are (and will be) somewhat limited by it but it shouldn't be a total albatross....we are getting, and hopefully will continue to get, at least decent production from Pujols, though certainly not worth the dollars.

Now Hamilton, that is another story........but even that can be overcome with good decisions by Eppler and more willingness by Arte to spend, not recklessly but wisely....Maybin, Espinoza and Revere fit that criteria....it may not be enough but it seemingly is good decision making...going over the luxury tax in a modest (not reckless) way doesn't seem too much to ask of an owner who contributed, maybe caused, the problems we have....

[AngelStew43]

Next offseason there will be better players available in the free agent market, and the team will have at least 32 million dollars more to spend than it has now. That is the amount of the Hamilton and Escobar contracts off the books.  Factor in a sizeable increase for Trout, and its a bit less.  But Nolasco and others also come off. 

Patience will work in our favor.  Eppler knows what he's doing.

[Stradling]

2 minutes ago, AngelStew43 said:

Next offseason there will be better players available in the free agent market, and the team will have at least 32 million dollars more to spend than it has now. That is the amount of the Hamilton and Escobar contracts off the books.  Factor in a sizeable increase for Trout, and its a bit less.  But Nolasco and others also come off. 

Patience will work in our favor.  Eppler knows what he's doing.

Yea I think it's closer to $55 million.  Escobar, Hamilton, Street, Maybin and Nolasco.  Obviously we get zero return on investment with Hamilton, but the other three will need to be replaced at some level.  

This would have been the season to solve the bullpen piece, just too many good pieces to not get one.  

[Angel Oracle]

Still hopeful of signing one reliever in January 

[totdprods]

43 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

I have never really bought into idea that the Pujols contract is a problem.  He is a decent player with a big name.  He underperforms the dollars, yes.  But the contract is not an obstacle.

The Angels are financially limited by Arte's newly found discipline.  They are not limited by the existence of the Pujols contract.

Another factor that goes overlooked here a lot is Mike Trout's contract. He's affected our situation as much as Pujols and Hamilton, if not more, purely because his production warranted a very necessary extension, one that Arte/FO probably were not anticipating. Especially if we're operating under the belief that Arte goes by a very specific budgetary figure. Adding a $150m contract to a pre-arb player wasn't something they likely predicted.

[Docwaukee]

36 minutes ago, totdprods said:

Another factor that goes overlooked here a lot is Mike Trout's contract. He's affected our situation as much as Pujols and Hamilton, if not more, purely because his production warranted a very necessary extension, one that Arte/FO probably were not anticipating. Especially if we're operating under the belief that Arte goes by a very specific budgetary figure. Adding a $150m contract to a pre-arb player wasn't something they likely predicted.

that's a good point.  Trout would be entering his final arb year right now though and making at least the 20 mil he's slated for.  But that additional 34.1mil per following that is certainly an important payroll consideration.  The bump is only 8 mil more than what hammy is getting this year.  Or 12 mil less than what Trout and hamilton are being paid right now.  We're at about 165 this year.  We probably have about 110 committed for next year when you factor in arb numbers and I would like to think that Arte could take payroll to $170 in 2018.  Giving the team about 60 mil to spend for next year, but there are some considerable arb raises to allow for in 2019 and 2020 if we keep the same guys intact.  By 2020 - Shoe, Skaggs, Heaney, Cron, Bedrosian, and Calhoun will all be arb 3 or 4.  That has to be considered.  

[Docwaukee]

so to follow up on that, you really only have about 20-30mil to spend if you are going to have similar payroll limits for 2020.  Certainly a lot can happen by then, but as long as we keep the same guys, 2020 is the limiting factor.  Then you have to extend Trout and/or a number of your other arb guys if possible.  Not to be a buzzkill, but I think the idea of bringing in some big name free agents in the pre 2019 off season isn't looking good.  

[Tank]

17 hours ago, beatlesrule said:

Fact is, Arte has a once in a generation player and doesn't seem to care about surrounding him with the absolute best team he can.  He only cares about money.  Winning a championship is not on his list of priorities. 

glad you shared this insight about him. there's no legit reason to think that an owner who has invested billions into a project would want to see any kind of sustained success from that project, you know, the kind of success that generates a profit and gets more and more people interested in the product he's created.

[totdprods]

15 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

that's a good point.  Trout would be entering his final arb year right now though and making at least the 20 mil he's slated for.  But that additional 34.1mil per following that is certainly an important payroll consideration.  The bump is only 8 mil more than what hammy is getting this year.  Or 12 mil less than what Trout and hamilton are being paid right now.  We're at about 165 this year.  We probably have about 110 committed for next year when you factor in arb numbers and I would like to think that Arte could take payroll to $170 in 2018.  Giving the team about 60 mil to spend for next year, but there are some considerable arb raises to allow for in 2019 and 2020 if we keep the same guys intact.  By 2020 - Shoe, Skaggs, Heaney, Cron, Bedrosian, and Calhoun will all be arb 3 or 4.  That has to be considered.  

Even if he hadn't signed the extension, I doubt their payroll projections anticipated what Trout would be earning when they were working on budgeting in Pujols, Wilson, and Hamilton. It just so happens that his production has been far worth it. 

I imagine one or two of those names you mentioned at the end get dealt within the next couple of years. Who goes depends on what their return is and who we have to replace internally, but I think Eppler's clean peanut strategy and focus on rebuilding the farm ties in with moving one or two of those guys at a strategic point to finish that approach off. I think it will also be necessary to subtly maintain a flexible payroll. I also anticipate Eppler buying some costlier FAs as soon as next offseason.