Gordon tied to Stanton?

[KDWells]

Any Stanton/Gordon deal that doesn’t involve giving up Adell and Barria is a total win in my eyes.

[Docwaukee]

3 hours ago, JarsOfClay said:

He's too inconsistent.  A 2 war player one year and a 5 war player the next.  I dont think you should guarantee 25m a year for that kind of a player.  Also resigning him after a monster year where he can opt out is stupid.   He's 30 years old now and this is likely his last contact.  What does he have left to play for now? He can stuff crack up his nose tomorrow and the angels are on the hook for the next 5 years.  It's a sucker's deal and the angels bit.

When was the last time the angels did something right in anyone's eyes?  lol

But to answer your question:  Billy Eppler.

we signed him at 5/106.  That's 21 mil per.  Not 25.  

[JarsOfClay]

4 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

we signed him at 5/106.  That's 21 mil per.  Not 25.  

Didn't he get an 8m signing bonus?

 

[ettin]

12 minutes ago, JarsOfClay said:

Didn't he get an 8m signing bonus?

 

That is part of the $106 number and it is spread evenly across his contract in determining his AAV of $21.2M.

[ten ocho recon scout]

3 hours ago, Scotty@AW said:

 

The Angels are immediately World Series contenders 

Disagree. I want stanton as much as anyone here. But the pitching is still suspect.

But i think a trout, stanton, upton, simmons is the core of a contender for sure.

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

10 hours ago, DMVol said:

It doesn't make financial sense...too much Pujols money left on the books...

In theory anyway, you could solve 1b with Calhoun, he's played a little there...Erstad was a good defensive OF'er who played a passable 1b....

Darin Erstad won a GG at 1B in 2004 in 124 games.

[Angel Oracle]

This team needs unequivocally a reliable mid-rotation starting pitcher who logs at least 180 innings yearly.    Other than maybe Shoe, who do they have that has pitched that many innings at ANY time in the past 2 seasons?  GRich has done it only once in his pro/MLB career (2015).   None of the others already here has ever done it.

Take on Stanton’s and Gordon’s full salaries, along with re-signing Petit, and you can waive acquiring a solid mid-rotation starting pitcher good-bye.   Unless Calhoun is included in the deal?

Now, if you are willing to sacrifice 2018 and hope these pitchers are ready to pitch 160-180 innings each in 2019 which should make this team a true contender, then that’s a different story and a Stanton/Gordon full salary acquisition could make sense.

[wopphil]

The Angels may have far more leverage here than we know, given that Stanton may want to play in southern California and may use his veto power accordingly. Thus, even if a team like the Cardinals was willing to take on the entire deal, it wouldn't matter without Stanton's approval. The Cardinals could literally take on all of Miami's dead money and give up their entire farm, and it wouldn't be enough without Stanton's approval.

If the Angels are truly interested in Stanton, they should make a solid offer (Stanton/Gordon/40 mil to the Angels for Calhoun/Jones/Griffin) and leak their interest to the press (to make sure Stanton knows they are pursuing him). 

[Warfarin]

10 hours ago, Scotty@AW said:

I don't think I agree with that. There is surplus value to Stanton and Gordon. Not a ton, but they are worth their respective contracts, and then a little more.

Not just that, look at it from the Marlins perspective. They have these great players, they aren't going to let them go for nothing. It works from a financial standpoint, but not from a baseball standpoint. They're rebuilding and they need financial freedom and prospects to do it.

Stanton wants to be on the West Coast, so we don't have worry about his NTC, but we do need to find something that works for both organizations. 

Sending Kole Calhoun opens a spot in our outfield and but also lessens the financial burden we take on, but also doesn't give the Marlins what they want. We need to add players and prospects that make it worth it. 

Jam Jones is a prospect you can feel comfortable stepping into a role like Yelich has which makes this more intriguing. Then if we add Matt Thaiss to the deal, it's one that works for both sides. And to get Gordon, Rodriguez is a local Miami product with huge upside and Castillo gives them a mid-back end option. They undoubtedly accept that deal.

So while it's a ridiculous amount to give up, it's also a ridiculous amount to get back.

The Angels are immediately World Series contenders and will remain so for the next 3 years at minimum, possibly more. The Marlins have the building blocks and financial freedom to compete 5 years from now.

You make some good points, and I guess the true unknown factor is how "picky" Stanton is with his no-trade clause.  If he truly tells the Marlins he will only play for a California team, then the leverage entirely belongs to the Angels, Giants, Dodgers.  This in turn helps reduce the amount of talent they need to give up to relieve the Marlins of their financial burdens.

If all it takes is sending one of our OF prospects, Matt Thasis (who I don't see as having much of a future role), and a projected backend starter to them, then that's fine.  I would be reluctant to give up Jones, but I suppose if we get Stanton, then our OF is ideally set for the next 3-5 years, making Jones somewhat unnecessary.

Unfortunately, adding Stanton + Gordon will eat up about 35 million per year, which leaves us about 10 million at most to fill the rest of the holes on our team.  Given the holes on our team, I'd rather not trade for Gordon in the deal, and give up a little more talent to acquire Hernandez, who is younger and cheaper.

So we can propose Stanton + 50 million (5 mil per yr for the next 10 years) for Jones, Thasis, Castillo?  Then trade Skaggs + low-level minor leaguer for Hernandez.

That adds 25 million of payroll (Stanton + Hernandez, subtracting the 5 mil as well), which also gives us about 15-20 million to fill the rest of the gaps we have (RP, possible starter, possible utility infielder, possible 4th OF), and we'd have:

2B Hernandez (S)

CF Trout (R)

RF Stanton (R)

LF Upton (R)

1B Calhoun (L)

DH Pujols (R)

3B Valbuena / Marte

SS Simmons (R)

C  Maldonado (R)

 

 

[AngelStew43]

I would take Gordon, because of the obvious need at 2B, and Ziegler too, if we could land Stanton.  Always can find a use for another experienced BP arm.

[stormngt]

15 hours ago, artesmustache said:

He's there for the taking and I have to believe we'd be one of the few places he'd waive his no-trade clause for. 

Stanton in right

Calhoun to first

Anybody at seond

Valbuena/Cowart at third

Non-tender Cron or swap for a bullpen piece

Move in the fences and have these guys just launch. Our pitching sucks anyways so we may as well be entertained

 

Calhoun would be in Miami if Stanton is in right.

[stormngt]

14 hours ago, DMVol said:

It doesn't make financial sense...too much Pujols money left on the books...

In theory anyway, you could solve 1b with Calhoun, he's played a little there...Erstad was a good defensive OF'er who played a passable 1b....

If not mistaken Erstadt won a gg at first.  He was better than passable.

[stormngt]

12 hours ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

What if miami says trout for stanton? Then we dont have to worry about trout leaving in 3 years, and it opens up number 27 again. 

Then Miami trades trout because they can't afford the 35 million price tag not to mention the pending FA in three years.

[Second Base]

8 hours ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

Disagree. I want stanton as much as anyone here. But the pitching is still suspect.

But i think a trout, stanton, upton, simmons is the core of a contender for sure.

I think we have more pitching talent than we are being given credit for...here and elsewhere. Richards is an ace. Heaney' proven  to be a capable #2/3 starter. Skaggs has #1/2 upside and so far has been a solid #4. Shoemaker has been a #2/3 starter for long stretches (and also a #5). Tropeano has been a #3/4, Bridwell too. Barria and Castillo are both solid prospects that could figure somewhere in the middle as well.

We have the talent, we've recently lacked the health which is why we need the depth.

[tdawg87]

3 minutes ago, stormngt said:

Then Miami trades trout because they can't afford the 35 million price tag not to mention the pending FA in three years.

We could probably take on his entire contract without giving up anything.

It's the perfect crime.

[Warfarin]

4 minutes ago, Scotty@AW said:

I think we have more pitching talent than we are being given credit for...here and elsewhere. Richards is an ace. Heaney' proven  to be a capable #2/3 starter. Skaggs has #1/2 upside and so far has been a solid #4. Shoemaker has been a #2/3 starter for long stretches (and also a #5). Tropeano has been a #3/4, Bridwell too. Barria and Castillo are both solid prospects that could figure somewhere in the middle as well.

We have the talent, we've recently lacked the health which is why we need the depth.

While I think we have the talent, I don't think it's to the extent you are suggesting.

Richards, to me, is a #2 when he's healthy.  When I think of ace, I think of Kershaw, Scherzer, Syndergaard, etc.  I don't think Richards is in that category.  That said, when healthy, he can definitely pitch like a #2, which is fine.

Heaney, in my opinion, can't be counted on to be a #2/#3 for now.  He had a good first year, but you never know how a player will recover from that kind of injury.  I give him a pass last year, and while I am heavily rooting for him, I don't know if I'd pencil him in for that kind of production this year.  If he can pitch like a #3, I'd be super thrilled.

I don't think Skaggs has #1 upside at all.  I think the best we could see from him is #3 upside.  Which, again, is fine.

What we do have is a lot of depth.  We don't have anyone who is a #1 in my eyes, but we do have a #2 and a lot of mid to backend rotation starters.  This is okay with me, especially if we pulled off the upset and got someone like Stanton, because we'd have one of the best offenses, a top 3 defensive team, and a strong bullpen.  It's hard to build a team that has EVERYTHING, so invariably, you will have areas of weakness.  I am okay with our SP being mediocre, as long as the other facets of the team are strong and can make-up for the SP deficiencies.  

[ten ocho recon scout]

Another point Ill add is that while stanton (or any other large contract) would preclude us from fixing holes elsewhere (that we also need fixed), he would be a long term solution. Simmons wanst "needed" either when we got him. And we sacraficed our one pitching prospect to get him.

Tbe smart move is to save the money and fix 2B, 3B, get a pitcher etc. But thats the smart move in the short term. The only long term options ive seen are hernandez, eho theres no proof we can get him anyway, and moose, who has his own risks.

The other options weve talked on here are short term and mediocre.

So again, stanton may screw us short term moneywise, but he could also be a venius move 2 years down the road.

I have a feeling if he were to be landed, hed opt out when possible anyway and restructure a la upton. Maybe im daydreaming, but if he was able to come "home", and have the option of playing long term with trout, i could see both and the FA coming up with a solution to keep both. (Not to mention shortly after that upton and pujols would come off the books, and the luxury tax will be higher)

[Second Base]

1 hour ago, Warfarin said:

While I think we have the talent, I don't think it's to the extent you are suggesting.

Richards, to me, is a #2 when he's healthy.  When I think of ace, I think of Kershaw, Scherzer, Syndergaard, etc.  I don't think Richards is in that category.  That said, when healthy, he can definitely pitch like a #2, which is fine.

Heaney, in my opinion, can't be counted on to be a #2/#3 for now.  He had a good first year, but you never know how a player will recover from that kind of injury.  I give him a pass last year, and while I am heavily rooting for him, I don't know if I'd pencil him in for that kind of production this year.  If he can pitch like a #3, I'd be super thrilled.

I don't think Skaggs has #1 upside at all.  I think the best we could see from him is #3 upside.  Which, again, is fine.

What we do have is a lot of depth.  We don't have anyone who is a #1 in my eyes, but we do have a #2 and a lot of mid to backend rotation starters.  This is okay with me, especially if we pulled off the upset and got someone like Stanton, because we'd have one of the best offenses, a top 3 defensive team, and a strong bullpen.  It's hard to build a team that has EVERYTHING, so invariably, you will have areas of weakness.  I am okay with our SP being mediocre, as long as the other facets of the team are strong and can make-up for the SP deficiencies.  

I think we can agree to disagree on pitcher evaluation. 

Thr one thing the Angels under Eppler have been quite good at is playing defense and that has to help our pitchers out big time. Trout-Upton-Calhoun can prevent a lot of runs. Maldonado controlling the game and stopping the opposing running game is huge. Simmons at SS is a rare treat. 

Our defense makes our pitching much better. Now if we could just put up some crooked numbers to support their performance.

[Warfarin]

2 minutes ago, Scotty@AW said:

I think we can agree to disagree on pitcher evaluation. 

Thr one thing the Angels under Eppler have been quite good at is playing defense and that has to help our pitchers out big time. Trout-Upton-Calhoun can prevent a lot of runs. Maldonado controlling the game and stopping the opposing running game is huge. Simmons at SS is a rare treat. 

Our defense makes our pitching much better. Now if we could just put up some crooked numbers to support their performance.

Okay, I can agree to that, too.

But yeah, that's a great point you just made about our defense.  It's why I feel our starters' "talent" isn't as good as it may appear, as undoubtedly our defense is helping it quite a bit.  I also think acquiring Maldonado was a huge move, as he has proven to be a great pitch-framer.  It's hard for me to exactly ascertain the extent to which pitch-framing boosts our pitching results, but if I look at Maldonado's impact, as well as the impact the DBacks' catching moves made last year (if you compare their pitching results in 2016 vs 2017), it's clear to me that an elite pitch-framer/defensive catcher has a huge impact on pitching results.

So with that said, I hope we can keep an eye out on acquiring another elite-pitch framer, even if it means having to carry a fairly poor offensive catcher.  The impact catchers have on the game is absolutely tremendous, and a great one can turn an average rotation into a significantly above average one, along with the presence of a strong defense (which we already have).

[ten ocho recon scout]

Remember when we all laughed at mathis and CERA? Makes you wonder now.

[Warfarin]

1 minute ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

Remember when we all laughed at mathis and CERA? Makes you wonder now.

Yup, exactly.  If you look at the drafting / trade pattern of some analytically-driven teams, they seem to be stocking up on elite pitch-framing / defensive catchers.  The Dodgers used Grandal as their primary catcher most of the season, but then switched to Barnes in the playoffs.  Offensive struggles aside, I remember reading an article that delved into this, showing that Barnes' pitch-framing monthly progression was significantly trending upwards, such that he was clearly superior to Grandal by the end of the season.  Obviously the Dodgers' agreed and supplanted Grandal with Barnes throughout the playoffs.

I suspect Eppler is a proponent of this, and this is probably why he made the trade to acquire Maldonado to begin with.  I am curious how Taylor Ward is progressing with regards to this, too.  I know people project him to be average or somewhat below average offensively, but if he can prove to be elite defensively, then we might be good to go in the future.

[WeatherWonk]

I'm trying to think of a team that made it to the World Series (admitted, a rather lofty standard) that only had mediocre pitching, scored fewer than league average runs BUT their defense put them over the top. I dont think it exists, since I've been following baseball. Separating the effects of good defense from purely pitching related stats is not easy,  of course.

The '82 Cardinals came to mind, at first? In looking them up, they might qualify. 14th in team ERA, 14th in runs scored (out of only 26 teams back then) yet 2nd in team defense. But that is a rare combination.  Usually a team has to rate really high in pitching and/or hitting to make it to the WS. 

It's gonna take a substantial increase in our run production, that's for sure. Our pitching has a better chance of being mediocre to good (from within), PROVIDED THAT WE SOLVE THE CLOSER SITUATION. We still dont have a proven closer, IMO. Bedrosian has been given a few chances and he has failed. Not miserably, but he hasnt been close to lock-down. Most all WS teams have that.

But we have to acquire more run production. 

I know, I know, baby steps at first. Just make the playoffs.................

[Warfarin]

9 minutes ago, WeatherWonk said:

I'm trying to think of a team that made it to the World Series (admitted, a rather lofty standard) that only had mediocre pitching, scored fewer than league average runs BUT their defense put them over the top. I dont think it exists, since I've been following baseball. Separating the effects of good defense from purely pitching related stats is not easy,  of course.

The '82 Cardinals came to mind, at first? In looking them up, they might qualify. 14th in team ERA, 14th in runs scored (out of only 26 teams back then) yet 2nd in team defense. But that is a rare combination.  Usually a team has to rate really high in pitching and/or hitting to make it to the WS. 

It's gonna take a substantial increase in our run production, that's for sure. Our pitching has a better chance of being mediocre to good, PROVIDED THAT WE SOLVE THE CLOSER SITUATION. We still dont have a proven closer, IMO. Bedrosian has been given a few chances and the has failed. Not miserably, but he hasnt been close to lock-down. Most all WS teams have that.

But we have to acquire more run production. 

I know, I know, baby steps at first. Just make the playoffs.................

Well, if we actually acquired Stanton, then I suspect with the 2-3-4 of Trout-Stanton-Upton, we would almost assuredly not score "fewer than league average runs," barring significant injury.  Those 3 alone will make us a pretty good offense.

[Second Base]

58 minutes ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

Remember when we all laughed at mathis and CERA? Makes you wonder now.

I think there's just such a huge difference between Mathis and Maldonado though. Mathis was athletic, but not great defensively. He had an arm but couldn't put the ball on the bag, and the offense was simply laughable. He also had Napoli as an alternative who could actually be a dangerous bat, which created a negative narrative regarding playing time.

Comparing Mathis and Maldonado defensively is like comparing Aybar and Simmons. Sure....Aybar was decent, but he's not in the conversation for best ever like Simmons is. Not even close. 

Martin is ten times the catcher Jeff was. 

[Second Base]

23 minutes ago, Warfarin said:

Well, if we actually acquired Stanton, then I suspect with the 2-3-4 of Trout-Stanton-Upton, we would almost assuredly not score "fewer than league average runs," barring significant injury.  Those 3 alone will make us a pretty good offense.

I wrote an article a few years back analyzing the single offensive factor of World Series winning teams, abc the one number every team but one since 2002 is a team OBP of .340.

Every World Series winter of the last 15 years except one has had a team OBP north of .340. 

This doesn't just mean get a bunch of guys that get on base and you win, but it tells you how good your offense must be.

Trout, Simmons and Upton aren't enough. Not nearly enough. 

Adding Stanton, Gordon and LoMo though..,..then your offense is good enough and you can start worrying about pitching talent.