Signing Justin Upton in FA won't cost a pick

[Second Base]

I was just reviewing the new FA compensation rules under the new CBA which are posted on MLBTR, and I realized that a player that formerly rejected a qualifying offer, can not have a qualifying offer extended to them.

As it stands right now, because the Angels contributed to revenue sharing but did not exceed the luxury tax, if they signed a FA with a QO, they would lose their second round pick (think Jahmai Jones, or Brandon Marsh) as well as a 500k international bonus slot (likely our second best signing, like D'Shawn Knowles).

That's a huge price to pay and for any team that is rebuilding their farm for sustainable success (like we are), it would make you think twice about venturing into free agency.

But since there's nothing attached to Upton, it would seemingly make him a prime candidate to be our starting LF next year.

[TroutField]

He's having a career year, proceed with caution. 

[Jeff Fletcher]

Was this post intended to go up in 2021?

[Catwhoshatinthehat]

18 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

Was this post intended to go up in 2021?

He has a player opt out after this season and most are assuming that he'll use it to get more money and more years than his current contract.

As far as Upton goes I hope the Angels stay away.  He's a good player but I think he's overrated and isn't worth what he'll get. 

[Jeff Fletcher]

16 minutes ago, Catwhoshatinthehat said:

He has a player opt out after this season and most are assuming that he'll use it to get more money and more years than his current contract.

As far as Upton goes I hope the Angels stay away.  He's a good player but I think he's overrated and isn't worth what he'll get. 

My point is I wouldn't assume that. He's got 4 years and $90 million, starting with his age 30 season, right now. And 2 of his last 3 seasons have been very average.

[AngelsLakersFan]

A year ago we were saying we dodged a bullet. To me this is yet another reason I'd love for them to pursue Stanton.

[Jeff Fletcher]

I'm of the belief that the premium (100M+) free agents should be ones you add when you are already good, and looking to be World Series good. They are very risky. Ideally, you'll be covered enough so even if it's a bust, you still have a decent team. I think the Cubs signing Jon Lester is a classic example. They were already a good team and were looking for one piece to put them over the top.

If you're a bad or average team, you can't turn it around with big money free agents because there's too great of a chance of them being busts, and then you can't get out of that hole because you don't have the money to fix the other 24 spots on your roster. Look at the Padres and Marlins and recent years. That doesn't work. The Angels still have too many holes to spend $30M a year fixing just one of them.

I think the Angels' best bet is to take another year of doing what they're doing. Let the farm system grow. Shop internationally. Look for all the Blake Parkers and Parker Bridwells you can find to surprise you. Eventually, you will not only have developed some players, but you'll have some pieces to trade for under-30 everyday pieces from other teams. And then .... you can put the cherry on top with a big free agent.

[floplag]

9 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I'm of the belief that the premium (100M+) free agents should be ones you add when you are already good, and looking to be World Series good. They are very risky. Ideally, you'll be covered enough so even if it's a bust, you still have a decent team. I think the Cubs signing Jon Lester is a classic example. They were already a good team and were looking for one piece to put them over the top.

If you're a bad or average team, you can't turn it around with big money free agents because there's too great of a chance of them being busts, and then you can't get out of that hole because you don't have the money to fix the other 24 spots on your roster. Look at the Padres and Marlins and recent years. That doesn't work. The Angels still have too many holes to spend $30M a year fixing just one of them.

I think the Angels' best bet is to take another year of doing what they're doing. Let the farm system grow. Shop internationally. Look for all the Blake Parkers and Parker Bridwells you can find to surprise you. Eventually, you will not only have developed some players, but you'll have some pieces to trade for under-30 everyday pieces from other teams. And then .... you can put the cherry on top with a big free agent.

Most here agree, and its certainly logical.  Then there are those of us that don't see the team as that far off if the front office was willing to overlook past mistakes and make an effort.  There are 2 sides to the argument, and i for one am not on board with the play it safe ideology when its 100% unnecessary with our TV deal and fan support.  We have the best player in the game, wasting that is a joke to me.  
 

[Catwhoshatinthehat]

49 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

My point is I wouldn't assume that. He's got 4 years and $90 million, starting with his age 30 season, right now. And 2 of his last 3 seasons have been very average.

Nothing is for certain but he's currently on pace for a career year in what is a contract year if he were to opt out.  Teams have shown year after year that they will overpay or take a chance on a player via trade after a good season despite average or flat out bad ones before that, cough Vernon Wells.  Assuming sportrac is accurate the 2018 FA OF class has a few other guys who could cash in like JD Martinez and Jay Bruce but Upton would be in line for a nice payday.  Only time will tell but if he finishes this season out as his current pace there's no reason to believe he couldn't get more guaranteed money by opting out. 

 

[Stradling]

Plus he could probably make the same money on a team more equipped to compete, not saying that's the Angels.  

[AngelsLakersFan]

1 hour ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I'm of the belief that the premium (100M+) free agents should be ones you add when you are already good, and looking to be World Series good. They are very risky. Ideally, you'll be covered enough so even if it's a bust, you still have a decent team. I think the Cubs signing Jon Lester is a classic example. They were already a good team and were looking for one piece to put them over the top.

If you're a bad or average team, you can't turn it around with big money free agents because there's too great of a chance of them being busts, and then you can't get out of that hole because you don't have the money to fix the other 24 spots on your roster. Look at the Padres and Marlins and recent years. That doesn't work. The Angels still have too many holes to spend $30M a year fixing just one of them.

I think the Angels' best bet is to take another year of doing what they're doing. Let the farm system grow. Shop internationally. Look for all the Blake Parkers and Parker Bridwells you can find to surprise you. Eventually, you will not only have developed some players, but you'll have some pieces to trade for under-30 everyday pieces from other teams. And then .... you can put the cherry on top with a big free agent.

I think this is sound strategy, but it also doesn't appear that the Angels follow an optimal path. The team should've rebuilt after the 2009 season, or at least during 2010. It was painfully obvious. Instead we bought and went for it long term, and the results are apparent. We don't rebuild 'we reload' is the phrase people were using. We had the cash to spend so we might as well spend it and spend we did - on losers like Vernon Wells and Josh Hamilton. 

Have they learned from it, I don't know, but two things are clear, they haven't spent when the team needed help, and they haven't sold when the team wasn't quite good enough. It's been said on here many times over the last couple of years, that the worst place you can be is in the middle. Rebuilding isn't 'in our DNA' so that's off the table. We have a decent core, the best player in baseball, and a lot of money coming off the books - so fucking spend it.

Alternatively we could wait around, see how guys develop, stock up prospects and cross our fingers in the hopes that 3 of them turn into Kole Calhoun's. If that happens then we will have successfully replaced Trout's production as he walks off to another team, leaving us with a similar team, and a whole lot more cash in Arte's bank account. Of course he could also stay, and be insanely more expensive, and probably less productive (since he'll be entering his 30's) which will negate a lot of the advantage we have right now.

[stanick88]

35 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

I think this is sound strategy, but it also doesn't appear that the Angels follow an optimal path. The team should've rebuilt after the 2009 season, or at least during 2010. It was painfully obvious. Instead we bought and went for it long term, and the results are apparent. We don't rebuild 'we reload' is the phrase people were using. We had the cash to spend so we might as well spend it and spend we did - on losers like Vernon Wells and Josh Hamilton. 

Have they learned from it, I don't know, but two things are clear, they haven't spent when the team needed help, and they haven't sold when the team wasn't quite good enough. It's been said on here many times over the last couple of years, that the worst place you can be is in the middle. Rebuilding isn't 'in our DNA' so that's off the table. We have a decent core, the best player in baseball, and a lot of money coming off the books - so fucking spend it.

Alternatively we could wait around, see how guys develop, stock up prospects and cross our fingers in the hopes that 3 of them turn into Kole Calhoun's. If that happens then we will have successfully replaced Trout's production as he walks off to another team, leaving us with a similar team, and a whole lot more cash in Arte's bank account. Of course he could also stay, and be insanely more expensive, and probably less productive (since he'll be entering his 30's) which will negate a lot of the advantage we have right now.

I couldn't have said it any better. As we have shown against some of the upper echelon teams, when we are hot, we can beat anyone. If we can spend and get another piece or two, who knows what can happen in the playoffs. Rarely the best overall team wins the World Series. It's usually the hottest and healthiest team who plays with good chemistry and leadership that wins.  

[Second Base]

1 hour ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I'm of the belief that the premium (100M+) free agents should be ones you add when you are already good, and looking to be World Series good. They are very risky. Ideally, you'll be covered enough so even if it's a bust, you still have a decent team. I think the Cubs signing Jon Lester is a classic example. They were already a good team and were looking for one piece to put them over the top.

If you're a bad or average team, you can't turn it around with big money free agents because there's too great of a chance of them being busts, and then you can't get out of that hole because you don't have the money to fix the other 24 spots on your roster. Look at the Padres and Marlins and recent years. That doesn't work. The Angels still have too many holes to spend $30M a year fixing just one of them.

I think the Angels' best bet is to take another year of doing what they're doing. Let the farm system grow. Shop internationally. Look for all the Blake Parkers and Parker Bridwells you can find to surprise you. Eventually, you will not only have developed some players, but you'll have some pieces to trade for under-30 everyday pieces from other teams. And then .... you can put the cherry on top with a big free agent.

I think much of that is dependent upon how you view the Angels.  Are we simply an average team?  Or are we more than that with Heaney, Richards, Skaggs (and eventually Tropeano) back and the recent acquisition and development of guys like Bridwell, Ramirez and Meyer?  

The way I'm viewing the Angels is based on Eppler's ability to find quality pitching in unexpected places.  He really hasn't missed yet, and with our upside guys getting healthy, I think half of the equation has been solved.  In the most basic term necessary, they need offense.  Pujols has his peaks and valleys, Simmons is having a career year, but beyond that, I don't see a lot production.  

I think guys like Upton and even Dee Gordon in a trade scenario would put the Angels in a better position to win now and in the near future.

[ettin]

41 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

I think this is sound strategy, but it also doesn't appear that the Angels follow an optimal path. The team should've rebuilt after the 2009 season, or at least during 2010. It was painfully obvious. Instead we bought and went for it long term, and the results are apparent. We don't rebuild 'we reload' is the phrase people were using. We had the cash to spend so we might as well spend it and spend we did - on losers like Vernon Wells and Josh Hamilton. 

Have they learned from it, I don't know, but two things are clear, they haven't spent when the team needed help, and they haven't sold when the team wasn't quite good enough. It's been said on here many times over the last couple of years, that the worst place you can be is in the middle. Rebuilding isn't 'in our DNA' so that's off the table. We have a decent core, the best player in baseball, and a lot of money coming off the books - so fucking spend it.

Alternatively we could wait around, see how guys develop, stock up prospects and cross our fingers in the hopes that 3 of them turn into Kole Calhoun's. If that happens then we will have successfully replaced Trout's production as he walks off to another team, leaving us with a similar team, and a whole lot more cash in Arte's bank account. Of course he could also stay, and be insanely more expensive, and probably less productive (since he'll be entering his 30's) which will negate a lot of the advantage we have right now.

Wait, what?

[Second Base]

3 minutes ago, ettin said:

Wait, what?

When I read that I quickly skipped over it and convinced myself it wasn't written.  

[floplag]

58 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

I think this is sound strategy, but it also doesn't appear that the Angels follow an optimal path. The team should've rebuilt after the 2009 season, or at least during 2010. It was painfully obvious. Instead we bought and went for it long term, and the results are apparent. We don't rebuild 'we reload' is the phrase people were using. We had the cash to spend so we might as well spend it and spend we did - on losers like Vernon Wells and Josh Hamilton. 

Have they learned from it, I don't know, but two things are clear, they haven't spent when the team needed help, and they haven't sold when the team wasn't quite good enough. It's been said on here many times over the last couple of years, that the worst place you can be is in the middle. Rebuilding isn't 'in our DNA' so that's off the table. We have a decent core, the best player in baseball, and a lot of money coming off the books - so fucking spend it.

Alternatively we could wait around, see how guys develop, stock up prospects and cross our fingers in the hopes that 3 of them turn into Kole Calhoun's. If that happens then we will have successfully replaced Trout's production as he walks off to another team, leaving us with a similar team, and a whole lot more cash in Arte's bank account. Of course he could also stay, and be insanely more expensive, and probably less productive (since he'll be entering his 30's) which will negate a lot of the advantage we have right now.

A lot of folks will give you grief for the Trout comment, but as for me i think they are kidding themselves to think he wants to play 500 ball for his career.   If we dont get better, he will walk, as soon as possible, you can bank on that.

 

[AngelsLakersFan]

12 minutes ago, ettin said:

Wait, what?

Let's be real here. If we focus on rebuilding the farm over the next few years and continue to hover around the 75-85 win mark I'm confident he will leave. But that isn't the only consideration. His contract still has a reasonable AAV, once he hits the FA market even if he does re-sign he is going to become the highest paid player is sports history. He will then be our big free agent splash, and he'll be entering the back half of his career. 

We have 3 more seasons where we get maximum value out of Trout - 3 more seasons where his WAR contract value is $60 million north of his AAV. It will take a very healthy farm system to surpass that.

[ettin]

1 minute ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

Let's be real here. If we focus on rebuilding the farm over the next few years and continue to hover around the 75-85 win mark I'm confident he will leave. But that isn't the only consideration. His contract still has a reasonable AAV, once he hits the FA market even if he does re-sign he is going to become the highest paid player is sports history. He will then be our big free agent splash, and he'll be entering the back half of his career. 

We have 3 more seasons where we get maximum value out of Trout - 3 more seasons where his WAR contract value is $60 million north of his AAV. It will take a very healthy farm system to surpass that.

No I'm strictly and exclusively focusing on the part where 3 Kole Calhouns = 1 Mike Trout. I don't concur with that, that's all ALF.

[AngelsLakersFan]

9 minutes ago, floplag said:

A lot of folks will give you grief for the Trout comment, but as for me i think they are kidding themselves to think he wants to play 500 ball for his career.   If we dont get better, he will walk, as soon as possible, you can bank on that.

 

I think Trout wants to stay... or at least I tell myself that. From an outsiders perspective I can't believe that anyone else is suggesting that to him besides Pujols. The organization needs to give him a reason to stay - a reason to relax his FOMO.

[AngelsLakersFan]

1 minute ago, ettin said:

No I'm strictly and exclusively focusing on the part where 3 Kole Calhouns = 1 Mike Trout. I don't concur with that, that's all ALF.

Well I almost said 4, lol. But if we had 3 Calhouns the last 4 seasons they would've put up war totals of 11.1, 11.4, 12, and sadly 3 this year. You get the idea.

[Second Base]

1 hour ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

Let's be real here. If we focus on rebuilding the farm over the next few years and continue to hover around the 75-85 win mark I'm confident he will leave. But that isn't the only consideration. His contract still has a reasonable AAV, once he hits the FA market even if he does re-sign he is going to become the highest paid player is sports history. He will then be our big free agent splash, and he'll be entering the back half of his career. 

We have 3 more seasons where we get maximum value out of Trout - 3 more seasons where his WAR contract value is $60 million north of his AAV. It will take a very healthy farm system to surpass that.

Not everyone wants a spotlight on them. Not everyone wants to be a Dodger, Yankee, Red Sock, etc...

To me, I think it's us or the Phillies, and I wouldn't blame him for any decision he makes.

[Jeff Fletcher]

1 hour ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

Let's be real here. If we focus on rebuilding the farm over the next few years and continue to hover around the 75-85 win mark I'm confident he will leave.

I don't think this is a "few years" process. The Angels are a .500 team right now. If a couple of their prospects develop and a couple (not even all) of their injured pitchers come back healthy, and they make some wise (not extravagant) FA purchases with the money freed up right now, they could be 6-9 games better just next year. Then 2018-19 is the big FA year. Trout is signed for 2019 and 2020.

And it's not like the Angels have to win the World Series by 2020 to make Trout want to stay. They just have to contend regularly and get to October once or twice in the final four seasons (including this one).

[eligrba]

I believe both Trout and Moreno will regret it if Trout does not play his entire career with the Angels. 

Take the Yankees as an example. They have had many great players but the ones that are held in the highest regard by the organization and fans are players who were Yankees for their entire career.

Trout strikes me as someone who understands the concept of being an organization legend while Moreno strikes me as someone who understands marketing. Seems like a perfect match.

[Dtwncbad]

6 hours ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

Was this post intended to go up in 2021?

Jeff I would bet almost any amount he opts out.

If nothing else I bet he can get another year added to his contract.

He can also choose to go to another team on the rise rather than being stuck in Detroit now.

The only reason he would not opt out is if he honestly believes nobody out there will give him 4/88.

Upton will opt out.  I'll even pay odds.

 

 

[floplag]

4 hours ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

Let's be real here. If we focus on rebuilding the farm over the next few years and continue to hover around the 75-85 win mark I'm confident he will leave. But that isn't the only consideration. His contract still has a reasonable AAV, once he hits the FA market even if he does re-sign he is going to become the highest paid player is sports history. He will then be our big free agent splash, and he'll be entering the back half of his career. 

We have 3 more seasons where we get maximum value out of Trout - 3 more seasons where his WAR contract value is $60 million north of his AAV. It will take a very healthy farm system to surpass that.

playing 500 ball for three years inst going to build a solid farm.  Thats a pipe dream.  Look how long the Astros or Cubs were terrible with top 10 picks?  5 years in the bottom half of the draft?  thats barely going to make a dent.