AngelsWin.com Today: Angelswin.com 2018 Primer Series: Finances

[AngelsWin.com]

By Robert Cunningham, Angelswin.com Senior Writer

Edited by Angelswin.com Members Chance Hevia (Inside Pitch) and Jason Sinner (Dochalo)

Now that we have established some of the Angels primary goals, restrictions, and needs we can take a deeper dive into the teams projected finances heading into the off-season.

As it currently stands, if Justin Upton elects to not opt-out and the Angels bring back all of their contractually controlled (including team options), pre-arbitration eligible, and arbitration eligible players and you add in team benefits and any/all payouts (option buyouts, dead contracts, etc.), projected salary (actual) and AAV will be approximately $181.5M and $165.3M, respectively, as seen below:

First of all you may notice that the ‘Payouts’ line is empty heading into the off-season.

This is, of course, due to Josh Hamilton’s contract finally falling off of the books, freeing up a lot of money that can be applied this season.

However the ‘Payouts’ line will probably change slightly once the 2017 season is over because the Angels are unlikely to exercise Huston Street’s $10M team option which will result in a $1M buy-out added to the table above (a net $9M savings). Once this very probable event occurs, it will lower actual and AAV payroll to approximately $172,504,800 and $156,323,848, respectively.

Beyond Street, Ricky Nolasco has a clause in his contract that if he exceeds 400 innings pitched, between 2016 and 2017, his 2018 option becomes a player option. The 2012-2016 version of the CBA, Section E (5) (a) (iii), states that if an option year can potentially be both a team and a player option, that option year will be considered a guaranteed year for the purposes of AAV calculation.

Simply put Ricky’s option year appears to count towards AAV whereas if it was only a club option it would not. Note that the new CBA clearly states that any year in a multi-year contract that is not a guaranteed year shall be treated as a club option year for the purposes of AAV (2017-2021 CBA, Article XXIII, Section E, (5), (a), (i)).

If the Angels elect to decline his option, total AAV will drop by an additional $12.2M. Fortunately, here, when Eppler moved Hector Santiago to the Twins he convinced Minnesota to cover Ricky’s $1M buyout so the Halos will not be on the hook for it if they do part ways with Nolasco. If this happens, the actual and AAV ledgers will decrease to $159,505,800 and $144,123,848, severally.

Additionally if Justin Upton elects to opt-out of his contract, actual and AAV payroll will decrease by an additional $22.125M each, down to $137,379,800 and $121,998,848, with the latter a cool $75,001,152 below the CBT threshold ($197M for 2018).

Several Angels players including Martin Maldonado, C.J. Cron, Garrett Richards, Tyler Skaggs, Matt Shoemaker, Andrew Heaney, Cam Bedrosian, J.C. Ramirez (he appears to have reached Super-Two status), Eric Young Jr., Blake Wood, Jose Alvarez, Shane Robinson, and Blake Parker are all arbitration eligible in 2018.

The projected arbitration numbers, in the table above, were obtained from MLBTradeRumors.com. They publish an annual snapshot of all arbitration controlled players, by team, and their projected salaries. Their system has proven to be reliably accurate over the years and the projected salaries for each of the Angels players, listed above, should not vary too widely, resulting in a negligible impact to this payroll discussion.

Additionally certain players, like Carlos Perez and Jefry Marte, had 2017 salaries that were slightly higher than the league minimum salary, per Baseball-Reference.com. The author has made rough estimates of 2018 increases for those particular players. These estimates, if off, should also have a negligible impact to the payroll discussion.

The league minimum player salary for 2018 is $545,700, a $10K increase over last year. This, of course, applies to most of the pre-arbitration players except for the two listed in the paragraph above. Please remember that any player not on the 25-man roster receives only Minor League pay unless their contract says otherwise. This simply means that the total payroll number, above, will be offset by about $2M-4M due to roster fluctuation throughout the 2018 season so please keep that in mind.

Per Section XXIII, D.(1)(g) of the new CBA, in 2017 the total Player Benefit Costs were $219,300,000 which equates to $7,310,000 per club. Starting in 2018, and each year thereafter, that total cost will be the higher of either 6% or the annual rate of increase of all player salaries combined from the previous season to the new season per Article XXIII, Section D, (2).

Basically if total player salaries, across MLB, increase significantly from one season to the next it could likely result in a percentage increase to Player Benefit Costs above the standard 6%. We may see evidence of this in 2019 if the 2018-2019 free agent class appreciably increases total player salaries.

For the purposes of this article we will use the 6% number for next season which means $219,300,000 x 6% = $232,458,000 (which equates to $7,748,600 per club).

Based on research in previous Primer series articles, from 2015 and 2016, this appears to be a significant decrease (about 35%-40%) in cost for player benefits. A firm benefits number is a bit nebulous here, due to the new CBA, so it may be slightly higher or lower but the difference is small and will only marginally impact Angels payroll each season and the results of this discussion.

Also the stadium question, posed last year, seems to have been put to rest as Arte Moreno has decided to remain in Anaheim stadium through the 2029 season per their original lease agreement. Instead they will focus on renovations over the next 13 seasons to the tune of an estimated $40 million capital outlay. Essentially Arte has punted this decision way down the line to a time and place where he may not even be the owner of the team.

In the end, though, Billy Eppler should have good to very good payroll flexibility once the current financial year closes on December 2nd, 2017. This will allow him to target virtually any player he likes whether it is in trade or through free agency to help reinforce the 2018 Halos.

As was stated over the last three years, the caveat to this financial discussion is that Arte has consistently and fully funded team payroll during his time as owner so these perceived cash-related issues and thresholds may just be guidelines and could be violated at Moreno’s whim. In fact Arte did go over the Luxury Tax threshold once back in 2004, albeit, by a measly $927,000.

One potential roadblock that could curtail spending is actual team payroll  which is about $15M-$16M higher than AAV. If Moreno does not allow Eppler to go over a specific number, say $190M (versus the CBT threshold of $197M) in actual payroll, then Billy will not be able to fully utilize all of the Luxury Tax space available. On the other hand, Arte probably could authorize and handle a measured increase but by how much is anyone’s guess due to our lack of complete team financial information and insight into Moreno’s economical approach to spending.

Remember that the team pulls in an annual sum of $150M from their cable deal plus an unknown amount from their partial control of the Fox Sports West Regional Sports Network (RSN) in addition to ticket ($104M in 2017) and merchandise sales. Also, in this past year, the team pulled in $68.1M in operating income, per Forbes, continuing a 4-year trend of rising income.

The crux is that a significant increase in payroll, even over a short 3-year period, would, in probably the worst case, make the team break-even, i.e. Arte would likely still profit, albeit in the slimmest meaning of the term, if he makes this aggressive, bold move to spend in this window. After 2020 the Angels can bring payroll back under the CBT threshold and reset their tax rate to avoid the most severe penalties under the new CBA.

In the end Moreno completely controls how far the Angels dive in, but it seems crystal clear that Eppler has set a path that will allow Arte to choose exactly how much money is spent, how many resources are expended and where they are applied, and even how long we stay in the deep-end of the pool, which gives Moreno a great deal of leeway to get involved as much or as little as he desires.

As part of last year’s Primer we discussed, briefly, the opportunity the Angels missed to exceed the CBT threshold in the 2015-2016 off-season. In hindsight that actually proved to be a blessing for the team heading into 2018 as the Angels have shed bad contracts and are better positioned to address the challenges of the new season (and beyond).

To illustrate that here is a snapshot of the guaranteed contractual money owed to Angels players in the coming seasons:

The Angels currently have six guaranteed contracts to pay in 2018 for Trout, Pujols, Upton (if he does not opt-out), Calhoun, Simmons, and Valbuena, totaling $94,494,048. If the Angels do not hand out any more guaranteed deals before Dec. 2nd, 2019 and they decline Luis’ team option, the total guaranteed money owed in that season will decrease to $86,827,381.

In the following year, currently Mike Trout’s last season of guaranteed control, the total guaranteed money currently projects to be $78,494,048 if the Angels decline Kole’s team option. It will be $92,494,048 if the team retains Calhoun.

Finally, if Andrelton Simmons is not extended and he departs and the unthinkable happens and Mike Trout leaves, the Angels guaranteed money owed drops to $46,125,000 in 2021, the last year of Albert’s and Justin’s (current) contracts.

The good news here is that the Angels look really sound, financially, heading into this off-season. We have relatively few guaranteed commitments resulting in a reasonable impact to team payroll in terms of AAV.

However it should be noted that the Angels have a large group of qualified players heading into their 2nd year of arbitration control in 2019. This will result in a lot more money being allocated to pay their salaries so although our guaranteed commitments are decreasing, the teams arbitration numbers will rise resulting in a net, but mitigated, decrease.

This situation worsens in 2020 when a lot of these players hit their 3rd year of arbitration which will likely result in Eppler trading one or more of them away for prospects and replacing them with internal, trade, or free agent solutions to assuage payroll concerns.

Despite the arbitration rise, the freedom of those decreasing guaranteed commitments leaves enough room for the Angels to extend Mike Trout, in the next year or two, likely sometime before Opening Day 2019. Frankly there are virtually zero roadblocks in Eppler’s way to re-sign Trout other than Moreno’s willingness to spend which, honestly, has never been an issue.

In particular that potential extension seems most likely to occur after the 2018-2019 free agent market has dolled out record contracts to Bryce Harper, Clayton Kershaw, and Manny Machado. Once they have set the bar, the Angels will know what they have to do to secure Mike for the rest of his career (Hint: It is a mind-bogglingly big number which will be discussed in the Outfield section).

Mike Trout himself is fully aware that the Angels are trying to improve the team to convince him to eventually sign a career-long extension. Jeff Fletcher quoted him in an October 1st, 2017 article, saying, ““It’s going to be a crazy off-season, … We’ve got a lot of money freed up. It’s going to be interesting. I like the direction we’re going.”

The bottom-line is that the Angels are entering the 2017-2018 off-season with solid financial flexibility, a core group of competent players to compliment Mike Trout (and the ability to acquire more), and a rapidly growing farm system to increasingly draw upon as needed in the coming seasons. We may look back and point to this off-season as the turning point for a sustained run over the next several years.

Just remember, as we said above, that Arte Moreno holds all of the cards in terms of how far the Angels push, from 2018-2020, in terms of payroll. Although our actual and AAV payroll numbers posted above could be off by as much as $10M, due to imperfect financial insight and information, in the end Eppler can only go as far as the owner will let him.

Angels fans should temper their most fantastic expectations in 2018 as it is unlikely that the Angels will exceed the CBT threshold this upcoming season in favor of keeping that option open for 2019 and 2020, instead.

Billy will improve the team, for sure, but the Angels will probably stay within their means and under the 2018 CBT threshold of $197M (AAV), probably sitting at an actual payroll of absolutely no more than $195M, if that.

In the next section we will discuss Eppler’s possible off-season strategy.

View the full article

[AngelsLakersFan]

Carrying over the discussion from the intro thread about Stanton, payroll and luxury tax...

I think there are two viable paths forward for this franchise and we are going to see what way Eppler and Moreno decide to go this off season.

The Trout window is real, not just because of Trout but also because of Simmons, Calhoun, Upton if we assume he returns and even Richards. Doubling down on this group is a safe bet for a solid three year run anchored by the biggest competitive advantage on the field patrolling center. We have the money and prospects to add another 10 wins to this club without crippling the future.

Alternatively, we have a modest but real group of young prospects growing in the low minors, and in three or four more years we should be seeing the fruits of this group. Focusing on this group is the safest bet for long term organizational stability, but it also comes with a ton of uncertainty. We don't really have any idea how good this group will be, and we don't know if Trout will stay. We will have a ton of money to supplement them with, but we are unlikely to have two players the caliber of Trout and Simmons at their salary levels.

This is really a battle for the soul of the team. I was a big fan of the Pujols signing when it happened because I thought it represented a shift in Moreno's thinking about the team as a real big market club. Unfortunately Moreno did not employ a team capable of realizing that goal, and ultimately he seemed to lose his stomach for it. Now Arte once again has to decide whether or not to double down on big market thinking, or play it safe and retrench into mid market, second fiddle suburbia.

I hate to agree with @Blarg and @Calzone on this but we know which one Arte is going to choose, and that is the second option, and he's going to choose it not just because it's the safest bet but because he knows he cannot compete with the Dodgers. There is no longer any upside to his spending. He can spend all he wants but he isn't going to take attention away from the Dodgers right now. As much as he improves the team he still has a younger, cheaper, better in division rival in Houston and a couple of wild cards he will be able to compete for with this team as is. Why take on the huge risk associated with trading some of our top prospects and tying up significant payroll in another player?

 

 

[ettin]

37 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

Carrying over the discussion from the intro thread about Stanton, payroll and luxury tax...

I think there are two viable paths forward for this franchise and we are going to see what way Eppler and Moreno decide to go this off season.

The Trout window is real, not just because of Trout but also because of Simmons, Calhoun, Upton if we assume he returns and even Richards. Doubling down on this group is a safe bet for a solid three year run anchored by the biggest competitive advantage on the field patrolling center. We have the money and prospects to add another 10 wins to this club without crippling the future.

Alternatively, we have a modest but real group of young prospects growing in the low minors, and in three or four more years we should be seeing the fruits of this group. Focusing on this group is the safest bet for long term organizational stability, but it also comes with a ton of uncertainty. We don't really have any idea how good this group will be, and we don't know if Trout will stay. We will have a ton of money to supplement them with, but we are unlikely to have two players the caliber of Trout and Simmons at their salary levels.

This is really a battle for the soul of the team. I was a big fan of the Pujols signing when it happened because I thought it represented a shift in Moreno's thinking about the team as a real big market club. Unfortunately Moreno did not employ a team capable of realizing that goal, and ultimately he seemed to lose his stomach for it. Now Arte once again has to decide whether or not to double down on big market thinking, or play it safe and retrench into mid market, second fiddle suburbia.

I hate to agree with @Blarg and @Calzone on this but we know which one Arte is going to choose, and that is the second option, and he's going to choose it not just because it's the safest bet but because he knows he cannot compete with the Dodgers. There is no longer any upside to his spending. He can spend all he wants but he isn't going to take attention away from the Dodgers right now. As much as he improves the team he still has a younger, cheaper, better in division rival in Houston and a couple of wild cards he will be able to compete for with this team as is. Why take on the huge risk associated with trading some of our top prospects and tying up significant payroll in another player?

 

 

I thought a little more after my back and forth with @Blarg and I do touch on this in other parts in the Primer. Arte did disappoint me and others on this board two years ago so perhaps my optimism combined with my short-term memory (I can turn the page pretty fast when I want too) may have me leaning to far to the side of Moreno spending.

To be clear I had already written a no-exceeding the Luxury Tax scenario in the final section of the Primer, because it is a probable outcome, along with more spending oriented scenarios and I am more likely to be disappointed than @Blarg, @Calzone, and yourself (and @Dochalo too who agrees more with you guys). You can't be disappointed as much if you don't expect as much and I get where you guys are coming from.

Primarily I do see a couple of different paths to signing a superstar but they will require some expenditure of money on Arte's part (not necessarily as much as you would think but it could be significant) and possibly exceeding the Luxury Tax in 2019 and 2020.

For instance in our hypothetical Stanton discussion there has been significant talk that most teams are asking the Marlins to absorb a lot of cash and I suspect that if the Angels are involved they are probably asking for salary relief in 2018, 2019, and possibly even 2020 from Miami (probably the first two years). In return we'd obviously have to send one or more additional prospects. This would help mitigate the actual payroll problem that @Blarg is rightfully concerned about.

I hope you all enjoy the rest of the series, this whole discussion has been more of my personal take on where I think we are going, it is not reflective of the series as a whole.

[AngelsLakersFan]

36 minutes ago, ettin said:

I thought a little more after my back and forth with @Blarg and I do touch on this in other parts in the Primer. Arte did disappoint me and others on this board two years ago so perhaps my optimism combined with my short-term memory (I can turn the page pretty fast when I want too) may have me leaning to far to the side of Moreno spending.

To be clear I had already written a no-exceeding the Luxury Tax scenario in the final section of the Primer, because it is a probable outcome, along with more spending oriented scenarios and I am more likely to be disappointed than @Blarg, @Calzone, and yourself (and @Dochalo too who agrees more with you guys). You can't be disappointed as much if you don't expect as much and I get where you guys are coming from.

Primarily I do see a couple of different paths to signing a superstar but they will require some expenditure of money on Arte's part (not necessarily as much as you would think but it could be significant) and possibly exceeding the Luxury Tax in 2019 and 2020.

For instance in our hypothetical Stanton discussion there has been significant talk that most teams are asking the Marlins to absorb a lot of cash and I suspect that if the Angels are involved they are probably asking for salary relief in 2018, 2019, and possibly even 2020 from Miami (probably the first two years). In return we'd obviously have to send one or more additional prospects. This would help mitigate the actual payroll problem that @Blarg is rightfully concerned about.

I hope you all enjoy the rest of the series, this whole discussion has been more of my personal take on where I think we are going, it is not reflective of the series as a whole.

I think you are taking the right approach for the series. I think it's a fair assumption to make that the Angels will spend near but not all the way up to the tax threshold and that Eppler will hold back a little money for a 'rainy day.'

I personally think that Upton is the 'big splash' for the offseason and that any other moves Eppler makes will involve significantly less financial outlays. If he does trade prospects it will be for a cost controlled or under market value player who is at least a league average starter. 

I love the idea of adding another star player, specifically Stanton. I think I was one of the first people on here who pointed out that it was a very doable proposition. The problem is, we've seen that Moreno is not willing to do certain big market things, like going above a certain payroll number, borrow money, or lose money. We have been waiting three years for money to come off the books to allow us to find real major league players for 2nd and LF. He let the pitching staff rot in 2014 because he gave all that money to Hamilton.

Part of adding a superstar player is knowing that you still need to add supplemental pieces around them. It's knowing that some moves won't work out as expected and still having the flexibility to pivot and move forward competitively. Moreno has proven he is unwilling to do that. So in that sense, adding a player like Stanton makes little sense, because we know it will preclude us from adding pieces we need elsewhere, and if by chance we do add those pieces it will prevent us from filling other needs as they arise. 

[Ohtaniland]

I think Arte already has a number in his head that he will commit to for next season. It will slightly exceed what he committed to spend last season but fall quite a bit short of fan expectations.

I do believe that he will leave some financial wiggle room for a pull the trigger type move at next year’s deadline if he’s convinced that it will make a difference. I believe Arte’s number will be somewhere around $175M - $178M

[Second Base]

So you're saying our opening day lineup in 2018 will be Trout, Harper, Stanton, Machado, Altuve...

[Tank]

7 hours ago, AngelsWin.com said:

Per Section XXIII, D.(1)(g) of the new CBA, in 2017 the total Player Benefit Costs were $219,300,000 which equates to $7,310,000 per club. Starting in 2018, and each year thereafter, that total cost will be the higher of either 6% or the annual rate of increase of all player salaries combined from the previous season to the new season per Article XXIII, Section D, (2).

i don't quite understand this part about player benefit costs, specifically what it is/means. can you explain it a little more? thanks.

good article. looking forward to the next one.

 

Edited October 31, 2017 by Tank

[ettin]

4 minutes ago, Tank said:

i don't quite understand this part about player benefit costs. can you explain it a little more? thanks.

good article. looking forward to the next one.

So basically I was a little surprised because last year team benefits were about $13M give or take and I expected it to be about $14M-15M this year.

However when you read the new CBA rules it is pretty clear cut that for the 2017 season they settled on a total benefits amount of $219,300,000 which, when you divide by all 30 teams, is $7,310,000 per team.

In each succeeding year through 2021 one of two things will make Benefit costs rise. The standard increase is a flat 6%.

The second one is that if total player salaries rise by a percentage higher than 6% from one year to the next, Benefits will rise by the percentage increase between 6% or the percentage increase that player salaries rise, whichever is higher.

So say total player salaries is $7,000,000,000 in 2017. The following year, in 2018, total player salaries add up to $7,490,000,000. That represents a 7% increase in total player salaries which means that Benefits will go up by 7%, not the standard 6%.

It is sort of a Benefits cost management "rising" tool to keep total player salaries and Benefits in some odd proportional inflation rate. It is weird but that is what is clearly detailed in the new CBA.

That is why in the 2018-2019 off-season we should see evidence of this when Kershaw, Harper, and Machado sign their mega-contracts and probably Trout signing an extension. It will probably be a large % increase at the end of that season.

Player Benefits cover medical, compensation and other odds and ends and must be shared equally by all 30 teams per the current rules.

[Tank]

thanks, robert.

[tdawg87]

Yeah thanks Robert Cunningham 

[ettin]

1 hour ago, tdawg87 said:

Yeah thanks Robert Cunningham 

You're welcome Toby

[tdawg87]

That's my slave name.

[AngelsLakersFan]

11 hours ago, tdawg87 said:

That's my slave name.

Right... your name.

[Angel Oracle]

Thank you Ettin, bonus points for Jimmy Neutron reference

[Angel Oracle]

12 hours ago, tdawg87 said:

That's my slave name.

"Your name is Toby!   Say your name!"

[Tank]

"Why you care what that white man call you? You know who you be."

[Ohtaniland]

19 hours ago, tdawg87 said:

That's my slave name.

and your Gambian given name is what?

[Angelsjunky]

I thought @tdawg87's real name was Reek.

[oater]

On 10/30/2017 at 9:45 PM, ettin said:

So basically I was a little surprised because last year team benefits were about $13M give or take and I expected it to be about $14M-15M this year.

However when you read the new CBA rules it is pretty clear cut that for the 2017 season they settled on a total benefits amount of $219,300,000 which, when you divide by all 30 teams, is $7,310,000 per team.

In each succeeding year through 2021 one of two things will make Benefit costs rise. The standard increase is a flat 6%.

The second one is that if total player salaries rise by a percentage higher than 6% from one year to the next, Benefits will rise by the percentage increase between 6% or the percentage increase that player salaries rise, whichever is higher.

So say total player salaries is $7,000,000,000 in 2017. The following year, in 2018, total player salaries add up to $7,490,000,000. That represents a 7% increase in total player salaries which means that Benefits will go up by 7%, not the standard 6%.

It is sort of a Benefits cost management "rising" tool to keep total player salaries and Benefits in some odd proportional inflation rate. It is weird but that is what is clearly detailed in the new CBA.

That is why in the 2018-2019 off-season we should see evidence of this when Kershaw, Harper, and Machado sign their mega-contracts and probably Trout signing an extension. It will probably be a large % increase at the end of that season.

Player Benefits cover medical, compensation and other odds and ends and must be shared equally by all 30 teams per the current rules.

The agreed player benefit costs per team of $7,310,000 for 2017 cover only the benefits described in Article XXIII, subsections D (1)  (b) through (g) of the CBA.  However the total player benefit costs also include the contributions to the MLB  Player Benefit Plan (described in subsection D (1) (a)).  I don't have a current figure for this component, but MLB contributions were $143 million in 2014.  So, after allowing for payroll increases since 2014, on a per team basis, this will add another $5-6 million to the player benefit costs.  This will make the total player benefit costs close to $13,000,000 per team.

 

 

[Docwaukee]

Nice job Robert.  As always.  

 

The idea that Arte vacillates between big market and mid market is where I think many don't understand Arte.  The only difference I see from Arte then and Arte now is his influence on player personnel decisions.  But where there is no difference is in the fact that the budget is set.  It's not and never has been 'do what it takes to win'.  Not prior to 2012 when we signed Albert and CJ nor the next year when we signed Josh.  He said 'payroll is x for this year.  y for this year.  z for this year.  Let's get this guy or let's get that guy.  Now he says the same thing but tells Billy 'do what you want to x, y or z.  

Here's where Arte being Arte can actually help the Angels get Stanton.  If anyone thinks he's going to roll over to the Dogs as it pertains to market share then I think they've misjudged the man.  Stanton is a name and he theoretically fits payroll.  He's also from socal.  That sounds like an Arte marketing trifecta.  

But as AJ mentioned, Stanton limits what the team does otherwise.  There is never going to be a 'window' where Arte busts through his payroll ceiling.  He's already had multiple opportunities under multiple different constructs and he's cited economics.  

So bear in mind a very important point.  We might get Stanton, but that could preclude keeping Trout.  

 

the other thing I would like to mention is that even though I enjoy following prospects, the high end guys rarely work out as well as anticipated and the 'throw in's' end up being better than you'd have expected.  

 

One more thing.  I would stay away from Dee Gordon.  Unless taking on his salary in a Stanton deal means giving up very little in return talent.  But adding Stanton, Gordon and Prado followed by some creating trades of Calhoun and Cron,for pitching etc. could make the team very good for 2018-2020.  

That would be fun to watch.  

[ettin]

Based on today's transactions (Signing of Upton, the decline of Street's and Nolasco's options, and Deolis Guerra outrighted off the roster):

 

 

[Ohtaniland]

9 hours ago, ettin said:

Based on today's transactions (Signing of Upton, the decline of Street's and Nolasco's options, and Deolis Guerra outrighted off the roster):

 

 

So with the huge free agent class (much better selection of talent) coming out next offseason would it be wise for Arte to tie up too much future money this offseason?

My point is that we need to build sustainable team that will win like we did 2002-2009. Rome wasn’t built in a day so to speak. I see a lots of post with high expectation wish lists this offseason.

I still don’t think Arte is going to go much beyond $175M this offseason. Thoughts?

[Erstad Grit]

14 minutes ago, Calzone said:

So with the huge free agent class (much better selection of talent) coming out next offseason would it be wise for Arte to tie up too much future money this offseason?

My point is that we need to build sustainable team that will win like we did 2002-2009. Rome wasn’t built in a day so to speak. I see a lots of post with high expectation wish lists this offseason.

I still don’t think Arte is going to go  much beyond $175M this offseason. Thoughts?

Approx 30 more mil to spend sounds right.  I could see signing moustakes or frazier and walker for about 25 aav. Then get petit for 5.  Also I don't want EYJ at 1 mil. 

[Stradling]

21 minutes ago, Calzone said:

So with the huge free agent class (much better selection of talent) coming out next offseason would it be wise for Arte to tie up too much future money this offseason?

My point is that we need to build sustainable team that will win like we did 2002-2009. Rome wasn’t built in a day so to speak. I see a lots of post with high expectation wish lists this offseason.

I still don’t think Arte is going to go much beyond $175M this offseason. Thoughts?

To me that’s risky.  At any time in the next year any of those guys could sign extensions.  

[tdawg87]

28 minutes ago, Calzone said:

So with the huge free agent class (much better selection of talent) coming out next offseason would it be wise for Arte to tie up too much future money this offseason?

My point is that we need to build sustainable team that will win like we did 2002-2009. Rome wasn’t built in a day so to speak. I see a lots of post with high expectation wish lists this offseason.

I still don’t think Arte is going to go much beyond $175M this offseason. Thoughts?

The most successful era in Angels history was "built" in one offseason when Arte took over the team and went past the threshold by signing Vlad, Escobar, and Colon.