Firm no on Dee Gordon

[Dtwncbad]

I am petrified of Dee Gordon the same exact way I was petrified of Carl Crawford.

When so much of your offensive value comes from pure speed, you are playing with fire when these guys are about to be on the wrong side of 30.

Gordon already is nothing to be too excited about in OB%.

Unless taking that contract helps land a better player from Miami in a package, I want no part of this guy.

[UndertheHalo]

Yea I agree with this entirely.  The guy is not a good hitter.  He’s fast.  Speed covers his deficiencies which IMO are significant.  We’re gonna end up being the ones stuck when he loses a step and doesn’t have the actual baseball skill to make up for the lost physical ability.  I’d legit rather just have Cowart at 2b and wait to pick a more opportune spot to upgrade 2b.  And that’s saying a lot because I would really rather not start the season with Cowart as our everyday 2b.

I mean we dodged the Chone Figgins bullet.  So do we really need to make up for that by eating shit with Dee Gordon. 

Edited November 3, 2017 by UndertheHalo

[JustATroutFan]

14 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

I am petrified of Dee Gordon the same exact way I was petrified of Carl Crawford.

When so much of your offensive value comes from pure speed, you are playing with fire when these guys are about to be on the wrong side of 30.

Gordon already is nothing to be too excited about in OB%.

Unless taking that contract helps land a better player from Miami in a package, I want no part of this guy.

And don't forget that he used PEDS and it is likely that he used it in 2015, the year when he won the batting title. Had a .333/.359./.418 slash line that year. Living off of one season. 

[Dtwncbad]

There was like months of heated talk about Crawford and so much speculation on him coming to the Angels and I was like a broken record to steer clear and go for Beltre.

I feel at least as nauseous about Godin as I did about Crawford.

It will be a huge mistake.

Sign Hosmer and trade Cron and a pitcher (or whatever) for a more sustainable skill set 2B.

 

[arch stanton]

He’s signed for 3 years with an team option for a fourth. Probably the best option to fill those years waiting for something else to come along and done by age 33

[Angelsfan1984]

The preferred route would be to trade for Hernandez. I'd be ok with bringing back Howie on a 2 year deal. PIck up either Hosmer or Moustakas and put Valbuena in the other of the 2 positions.

[ettin]

I'll speak more about this in the Primer but the one thing I will say here is that although I too would prefer any number of different 2B, Gordon would probably be the cheapest to acquire out of all of the available options.

[totdprods]

No, Gordon isn't the ideal candidate. I fully agree with the criticisms, but I fully support acquiring him.

You cannot always acquire a perfect player. All of the concerns about Gordon are absolutely dead-on and valid. Cesar Hernandez may check all the boxes that Gordon does (and several more), but if it costs Skaggs or Jones or both, I'd like to explore other options first.

It's all about being opportunistic which is what Eppler has preached.

The Espinosa trade is almost a carbon-copy environment of what a Gordon trade could be - there is talent and a needed skill that is present there and there's a risk the good outweighs the bad, but the cost is not prohibitive, and likely even plays well into the Angels favor, and that's what tilts a favorable light shining onto Gordon.

[Dtwncbad]

1 minute ago, ettin said:

I'll speak more about this in the Primer but the one thing I will say here is that although I too would prefer any number of different 2B, Gordon would probably be the cheapest to acquire out of all of the available options.

Yes but what really matters is what you end up with on the field.

I dont think Gordon is a good enough bet to be good enough on the field to waste any resources pursuing.

I would rather "overpay" for someone else and have a better player.

This team is really only a couple of quality players away from being good.

They need to chase high quality players or what is the point?

[Make Angels Great Again]

2 minutes ago, totdprods said:

No, Gordon isn't the ideal candidate. I fully agree but I fully support acquiring him.

You cannot always acquire a perfect player. All of the concerns about Gordon are absolutely dead-on and valid.

It's all about being opportunistic which is what Eppler has preached.

The Espinosa trade is almost a carbon-copy environment of what a Gordon trade could be - there is talent and a needed skill that is present there and there's a risk the good outweighs the bad, but the cost is not prohibitive, and likely even plays well into the Angels favor, and that's what tilts a favorable light shining onto Gordon.

 

Espinosa wasn't guaranteed nearly $40m like Gordon. Yet Gordon could end up being nearly as bad. Remember, he's never played in the AL like Espinosa hadn't until he came to us.

Gordon's value is going to be inflated in trade because of the SBs.

[ten ocho recon scout]

Im not big on him either, and agree fully (since he was a dodger) that hes all speed with a poor eye, snd that will catch up. But if it were a package of him and stanton id be ecstatic.(and thats not happening).

[totdprods]

7 minutes ago, Make Angels Great Again said:

Espinosa wasn't guaranteed nearly $40m like Gordon. Yet Gordon could end up being nearly as bad. Remember, he's never played in the AL like Espinosa hadn't until he came to us.

Gordon's value is going to be inflated in trade because of the SBs.

It's similar in that it's a player that fits all the needs of the Angels that is becoming completely expendable on another team. It's an extreme sell-low for the Marlins, as it was the Nationals. 

Definitely a chance he hurts his leg or struggles in the AL and tanks, but if you get another year or three out of him that are average out around .290/.325/.350 with 30+ SB speed, good defense, and 2 WAR per year, it's a big win over 2B from years past, and comes without having to deal away Skaggs or Jones or another valuable player. You only need him to maintain a semblance of who he's been for two more years for that deal to be a win.

By netting him for lead-off hitter, it also means you don't have to find a 3B to fit that mold, nor force the issue with Simmons or Calhoun. There is value in that too.

I also like how he's completely different from every other player on this team. You need a diverse blend of offensive skills to have a cohesive offense. We don't have anyone under contract for 2018 with elite speed like Gordon.

[ettin]

17 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Yes but what really matters is what you end up with on the field.

I dont think Gordon is a good enough bet to be good enough on the field to waste any resources pursuing.

I would rather "overpay" for someone else and have a better player.

This team is really only a couple of quality players away from being good.

They need to chase high quality players or what is the point?

The point is that despite the amount of available resources the Angels cannot fill up every single position with  a high quality player. You may be letting your desire for the best possible option get in the way of how the big picture turns out and whether or not Gordon is a significant upgrade despite his potential failings.

Look I am not a Gordon fan I'd rather have someone like Hernandez or Wong for instance but if Eppler applies our resources to upgrade in other areas and we have to settle for Gordon I'm not going to be terribly upset. If our only other addition this season is a 2B and it turns out to be Gordon I won't be thrilled as I think we can do better in the market rather than not using our prospect base to get a better guy.

[Dtwncbad]

Ugh.  I'm already a broken record.  I loathe the idea of relying on this guy to be anything more than a zero WAR player.  Loathe it.

I would put Kole Calhoun at 2B before I felt comfortable relying on Gordon going forward.

[Make Angels Great Again]

I'd rather sign Neil Walker, he's been a pure model of consistency. He'll cost 6ish million more than Gordon will, but you don't have to give up players for him and he's a lot better.

Or you can trade Cron + a prospect or two for Cesar Hernandez. Then you have a total plethora of options to fill that hole at 1B.

[Dtwncbad]

1 minute ago, ettin said:

The point is that despite the amount of available resources the Angels cannot fill up every single position with  a high quality player. You may be letting your desire for the best possible option get in the way of how the big picture turns out and whether or not Gordon is a significant upgrade despite his potential failings.

Look I am not a Gordon fan I'd rather have someone like Hernandez or Wong for instance but if Eppler applies our resources to upgrade in other areas and we have to settle for Gordon I'm not going to be terribly upset. If our only other addition this season is a 2B and it turns out to be Gordon I won't be thrilled as I think we can do better in the market rather than not using our prospect base to get a better guy.

Yes obviously.  So we are on the exact point here.  If the Angels achieve other solid upgrades then a potentially zero WAR guy at second is passable.  Of course.

What I am bellyaching about is the idea that the Angels should pursue Gordon as a player they will need to rely on to be better offensively.

I think that is a terrible bet.

[totdprods]

9 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Ugh.  I'm already a broken record.  I loathe the idea of relying on this guy to be anything more than a zero WAR player.  Loathe it.

I would put Kole Calhoun at 2B before I felt comfortable relying on Gordon going forward.

What evidence is there that he will become a zero WAR player in 2018, or even in 2018 and 2019? If we get a positive WAR player for 2 of his 3 remaining years, I'd be thrilled. 

I get that he's risky and reliant on really just one skill, but he stole his second-most SB mark last year with 60, so his speed/SB aren't declining. He'll be 30 next year - not young, but not ancient. 

WAR:
'14: 2.4
'15: 4.9 
'16: 0.8 - missed half the season
'17: 3.1

I'd say pretty safely he'd be a 2-3 WAR player in '18 and '19 at least.

[totdprods]

14 minutes ago, Make Angels Great Again said:

I'd rather sign Neil Walker, he's been a pure model of consistency. He'll cost 6ish million more than Gordon will, but you don't have to give up players for him and he's a lot better.

Or you can trade Cron + a prospect or two for Cesar Hernandez. Then you have a total plethora of options to fill that hole at 1B.

Skaggs and Jahmai Jones have both been mentioned as not being enough, and the Phillies are already stocked with slugging 1B types. 

Walker is a good option but you pretty much have to pair him with a solid UT IF like Pennington or better, because there's a good chance he gets hurt, so there's extra cost associated there.

[ettin]

14 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Yes obviously.  So we are on the exact point here.  If the Angels achieve other solid upgrades then a potentially zero WAR guy at second is passable.  Of course.

What I am bellyaching about is the idea that the Angels should pursue Gordon as a player they will need to rely on to be better offensively.

I think that is a terrible bet.

I have to agree with @totdprods here there is absolutely no evidence that he will be a zero WAR player based on his 3-year running average of 2.9 WAR. You can say that potentially about any player as well it is an opinion not based in any rudimentary statistical analysis.

Could he produce zero WAR? Sure! Is it probable? No.

[DMVol]

57 minutes ago, ettin said:

The point is that despite the amount of available resources the Angels cannot fill up every single position with  a high quality player. You may be letting your desire for the best possible option get in the way of how the big picture turns out and whether or not Gordon is a significant upgrade despite his potential failings.

Look I am not a Gordon fan I'd rather have someone like Hernandez or Wong for instance but if Eppler applies our resources to upgrade in other areas and we have to settle for Gordon I'm not going to be terribly upset. If our only other addition this season is a 2B and it turns out to be Gordon I won't be thrilled as I think we can do better in the market rather than not using our prospect base to get a better guy.

Economics are going to play a role in it....if we sign Moustakas or another high dollar guy, I doubt we're taking Gordon....if we decide to stick with Valbuena at 3b and Cron at 1b (yikes), we've got more money to spend and might take Gordon...

[totdprods]

1 minute ago, ettin said:

I have to agree with @totdprods here there is absolutely no evidence that he will be a zero WAR player based on his 3-year running average of 2.9 WAR. You can say that potentially about any player as well it is an opinion not based in any rudimentary statistical analysis.

Could he produce zero WAR? Sure! Is it probable? No.

And if you can get him for 75-85% of his contract and maybe a fringe prospect or too, it's a perfectly reasonable gamble. 

Even Danny Espinosa managed 1.2 WAR a year before the Angels got him, and he cost us two fringe relief prospects.

[UndertheHalo]

We don’t need a high quality player.  We need to avoid massive red flags.  Gordon definitely falls into that category.  We’re better off with just about any other low risk option.  

Unless Miami is just giving him away this will turn out badly for the Angels. 

[totdprods]

7 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

We don’t need a high quality player.  We need to avoid massive red flags.  Gordon definitely falls into that category.  We’re better off with just about any other low risk option.  

Unless Miami is just giving him away this will turn out badly for the Angels. 

Urgh...that's the thing...Miami may very just be giving him away though, and if thats the case, he's worth the risk and likely the very modest price associated with it.

No one here is suggesting it would be a good idea to trade prime players or prospects for Gordon. 

[Docwaukee]

not my first choice, but I'd be cool with it on a salary dump.  

[totdprods]

Also, big difference in Crawford 7/$142m (!!!) deal and Gordon's remaining guaranteed 3/$39m