The Stanton Sweepstakes

[Dtwncbad]

Machado and Harper and Kershaw (and Trout either in an extension or as a free agent) will change the market to a new level.

Stanton is very likely going to opt out to join that market.

I very much doubt a guy like Stanton at his opt out age would project to get less than what will be owed on the last 7 years of his current deal.

So to me, the big fear you get stuck with an aging player at a high price on Stanton doesn't quite fit.

 

 

 

[Vegas Halo Fan]

2 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Machado and Harper and Kershaw (and Trout either in an extension or as a free agent) will change the market to a new level.

Stanton is very likely going to opt out to join that market.

I very much doubt a guy like Stanton at his opt out age would project to get less than what will be owed on the last 7 years of his current deal.

So to me, the big fear you get stuck with an aging player at a high price on Stanton doesn't quite fit.

However, if for some reason his production falls way off, he won't opt out and you're paying mega money for a player who isn't producing (not that this has ever happened to the Angels).

[Angelsfan1984]

25 minutes ago, VariousCrap said:

 

Honestly, I think if Stanton ended up on the Dodgers or Angels, I don't think he opts out.  He will finally be where he wants to be.

I agree, making 29 mill  a season exactly where you want to be is worth more than 32 million a year in st. Louis. You don't have a del taco or in n out I don't want to talk to you.

[Jeff Fletcher]

42 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Ok. . .but is it fair to speculate the Angels stayed away from big contracts simply because of having no room for more salary with the lux tax, while now they have room?

Is it fair to solve the Calhoun comment by simply including him or trading him elsewhere?  I get the timing not being perfect to trade him but if the big picture is having Stanton in RF over Calhoun. . .and decision time is today then it is still reasonable to make the move.

You could give the Marlins Calhoun, Hermosillo, Cohart and a throw in live arm lonshot single A pitcher.

All I am really asking is why there is no open speculation.  I accept personal opinion past the speculation but it seems very odd to me to hear 3 talking heads on tv chat out the potential landing spots and nobody even mentions the Angels.

I don't think it's all about the luxury tax. I think what Arte is really concerned about is a huge contract for someone who becomes non-productive. Isn't the Pujols thing a clear enough example of how badly that can go? Yes, Stanton is younger than Pujols at the time the Angels acquired him, but he's also not even close to as good as a player as Pujols was. Do you want to be paying Stanton $30M a year when he's 33-34-35-36?

Honestly, I think Arte would be more included to take Stanton for 2 years and $80M and go over the luxury tax, but know that it was a short term thing and you'd actually get production in the years you're paying him.

The other factor I keep reminding people: The Angels actual payroll is higher than their luxury tax payroll, and that will get more extreme in the upcoming years because of raises for Trout and Pujols. If the Angels luxury tax payroll is $197M but their actual payroll is $220M, I don't think that really fits their budget.

And I don't think Calhoun is the kind of player the Marlins want. He's essentially the OF equivalent of Dee Gordon. If they don't want Gordon, why do they want Calhoun? 

[NorCal Halo]

All very well reasoned Mr. Fletcher.  Bummer though, it would be fun seeing Trout, Upton, and Stanton in the same lineup.  I guess we will have to see that only on PS4.

[VariousCrap]

4 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I don't think it's all about the luxury tax. I think what Arte is really concerned about is a huge contract for someone who becomes non-productive. Isn't the Pujols thing a clear enough example of how badly that can go? Yes, Stanton is younger than Pujols at the time the Angels acquired him, but he's also not even close to as good as a player as Pujols was. Do you want to be paying Stanton $30M a year when he's 33-34-35-36?

If Arte is going to be a bitch about making moves on players whose contracts will include their mid-30's because of Pujols, he is more of a tool than I already think he is.  There have been plenty of players who have performed very well in the their mid-30's.  So does this mean he won't offer Trout a huge deal when he is 30?  That is ridiculous if so.  The Pujol's decline should be considered the exception, not the rule when it comes to mid-30's players in 2017.

While I wouldn't be pissed if the the Angels got Stanton, I don't think they should because I don't want anything to prevent them financially extending Trout.  Extending Trout is priority number one.

[Angelsfan1984]

1 minute ago, VariousCrap said:

If Arte is going to be a bitch about making moves on players whose contracts will include their mid-30's because of Pujols, he is more of a tool than I already think he is.  There have been plenty of players who have performed very well in the their mid-30's.  So does this mean he won't offer Trout a huge deal when he is 30?  That is ridiculous if so.  The Pujol's decline should be considered the exception, not the rule when it comes to mid-30's players in 2017.

While I wouldn't be pissed if the the Angels got Stanton, I don't think they should because I don't want anything to prevent them financially extending Trout.  Extending Trout is priority number one.

I think you're wrong about the exception to the rule regarding Pujols. Its actually the opposite. The outliers who perform well into their mid-late 30's are just that...outliers. In fact most players retire before they reach those ages because of how steep decline can be. How many Barry Bonds have their been? On top of that, how many Barry Bonds have their been doing things legally? Pujols in my opinion is just on the natural progression of decline for a player his age. That contract was all about the first 5 years, the next 5 were spent hoping he didn't decline as quickly as he apparently has.

[Stradling]

2 minutes ago, Angelsfan1984 said:

I think you're wrong about the exception to the rule regarding Pujols. Its actually the opposite. The outliers who perform well into their mid-late 30's are just that...outliers. In fact most players retire before they reach those ages because of how steep decline can be. How many Barry Bonds have their been? On top of that, how many Barry Bonds have their been doing things legally? Pujols in my opinion is just on the natural progression of decline for a player his age. That contract was all about the first 5 years, the next 5 were spent hoping he didn't decline as quickly as he apparently has.

You're right, except Albert's decline was unprecedented for someone as good as he was.  To the normal really good ball player, regression is normal in your mid-thirties.  Albert unfortunately fell off a cliff.  

[Dtwncbad]

16 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I don't think it's all about the luxury tax. I think what Arte is really concerned about is a huge contract for someone who becomes non-productive. Isn't the Pujols thing a clear enough example of how badly that can go? Yes, Stanton is younger than Pujols at the time the Angels acquired him, but he's also not even close to as good as a player as Pujols was. Do you want to be paying Stanton $30M a year when he's 33-34-35-36?

Honestly, I think Arte would be more included to take Stanton for 2 years and $80M and go over the luxury tax, but know that it was a short term thing and you'd actually get production in the years you're paying him.

The other factor I keep reminding people: The Angels actual payroll is higher than their luxury tax payroll, and that will get more extreme in the upcoming years because of raises for Trout and Pujols. If the Angels luxury tax payroll is $197M but their actual payroll is $220M, I don't think that really fits their budget.

And I don't think Calhoun is the kind of player the Marlins want. He's essentially the OF equivalent of Dee Gordon. If they don't want Gordon, why do they want Calhoun? 

I appreciate your 4 full paragraphs of speculation (lots of "I think") why the Angels would not chase Stanton.

I mean that honestly.

But it actually feeds into my original, still unanswered question as to why there is zero speculation by the media toward arguing how the pieces fit, rather than not fit.

It's a fair discussion yet it is not happening.

I get why there is no speculation that the Royals could be a fit.

I just don't see how nobody in the media even considers it, even after our exchange here.

There are easily valid arguments to the points you make.

All your comments belong in the discussion, but the discussion for a Stanto to the Angels deal seems oddly incomplete with zero mention to how he could fit.

 

 

[Jeff Fletcher]

20 minutes ago, VariousCrap said:

The Pujol's decline should be considered the exception, not the rule when it comes to mid-30's players in 2017.

As some others have said, I think the opposite is true, because now they make guys pee in cups.

In 2003, there were 21 guys who had 500-PA, OPS+ 100+ seasons at age 34 or older.

Last year there were 6. (And OPS+ 100 isn't a very high bar. It basically means league average.)

[VariousCrap]

12 minutes ago, Stradling said:

You're right, except Albert's decline was unprecedented for someone as good as he was.  To the normal really good ball player, regression is normal in your mid-thirties.  Albert unfortunately fell off a cliff.  

 

This is exactly what I was meaning.  Of course players will start to show their age as they get older, but the vast majority of them don't fall apart like Pujols has.  Falling apart that like is the exception to the normal standard of decline.  

[Dave Saltzer]

7 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

I appreciate your 4 full paragraphs of speculation (lots of "I think") why the Angels would not chase Stanton.

I mean that honestly.

But it actually feeds into my original, still unanswered question as to why there is zero speculation by the media toward arguing how the pieces fit, rather than not fit.

It's a fair discussion yet it is not happening.

I get why there is no speculation that the Royals could be a fit.

I just don't see how nobody in the media even considers it, even after our exchange here.

There are easily valid arguments to the points you make.

All your comments belong in the discussion, but the discussion for a Stanto to the Angels deal seems oddly incomplete with zero mention to how he could fit.

 

 

I think that the reason why we haven't heard any speculation is that since our big splashes, in which we got burned, we haven't gone on major splashes again. Our owner has talked about staying under the luxury tax. Our MO is to maintain silence about our pursuits. We have several other pressing needs, and most members of the media don't see this as the piece that would fit us (if Stanton played 2B or 3B, it would be a totally different situation).

 

A few years ago, after our big splashes, we were connected with everyone and everything under the sun. We were overhyped and over-connected to players, many of whom we really were not in on as far as I know. 

 

If the media saw us go on another big spending spree again, and, we had room for more financial flexibility, I could see us getting connected to more players again in the future. But right now, circumstances suggest that Stanton isn't the best fit for us, as much as we, the fans, might want it.

[Jeff Fletcher]

11 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

I appreciate your 4 full paragraphs of speculation (lots of "I think") why the Angels would not chase Stanton.

I mean that honestly.

But it actually feeds into my original, still unanswered question as to why there is zero speculation by the media toward arguing how the pieces fit, rather than not fit.

It's a fair discussion yet it is not happening.

I get why there is no speculation that the Royals could be a fit.

I just don't see how nobody in the media even considers it, even after our exchange here.

There are easily valid arguments to the points you make.

All your comments belong in the discussion, but the discussion for a Stanto to the Angels deal seems oddly incomplete with zero mention to how he could fit.

 

 

It seems like your whole issue is why "talking heads" aren't speculating? Who cares what they're speculating if it's uninformed speculation?

I happen to think the lack of speculation is accurate, so I'm not surprised that it's not there.

[VariousCrap]

2 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

As some others have said, I think the opposite is true, because now they make guys pee in cups.

In 2003, there were 21 guys who had 500-PA, OPS+ 100+ seasons at age 34 or older.

Last year there were 6. (And OPS+ 100 isn't a very high bar. It basically means league average.)

There is a huge difference between a standard decline that takes place with age and what has happened to Pujols.  A Pujols size decline is an exception to the standard.

 

 

[Angelsfan1984]

18 minutes ago, Stradling said:

You're right, except Albert's decline was unprecedented for someone as good as he was.  To the normal really good ball player, regression is normal in your mid-thirties.  Albert unfortunately fell off a cliff.  

How many people have been as good as Albert was?

Also it would in my opinion allude to the fact that either he wasn't clean which I don't think is the case or he's actually a couple years older than he's let on. The curve wouldn't look so startling if he was 40 right now rather than 37/38

[Jeff Fletcher]

2 minutes ago, VariousCrap said:

There is a huge difference between a standard decline that takes place with age and what has happened to Pujols.  A Pujols size decline is an exception to the standard.

 

 

True, but Pujols is also starting from a much higher point than Stanton. If Pujols goes from 180 OPS+ to 110 it's pretty bad. So what if Stanton goes from 140 to 95?

[AngelsLakersFan]

1 hour ago, Dochalo said:

I've always felt bringing in Staton would negate the Halos ability to sign Trout long term.  

I think it depends on if Stanton opts out. I can't see Stanton, Trout and Simmons all returning after the 2020 offseason. In this scenario you have to think Trout and Simmons is the combo you bank on, and Stanton potentially not opting out would put the Angels in a very tough position.

That said, things will look a lot different 3 years down the road. If our farm produces we might be ok.

[Dtwncbad]

11 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

It seems like your whole issue is why "talking heads" aren't speculating? Who cares what they're speculating if it's uninformed speculation?

I happen to think the lack of speculation is accurate, so I'm not surprised that it's not there.

Come on Jeff!  What percentage of baseball rumor content during this time of the year is all or part speculation?

To be clear, I watch hot stove coverage on mlb tv and you have whole blocks of conversation that are all speculation.  I like the speculation.  It's fun.

 

[VariousCrap]

7 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

True, but Pujols is also starting from a much higher point than Stanton. If Pujols goes from 180 OPS+ to 110 it's pretty bad. So what if Stanton goes from 140 to 95?

 

And what if he doesn't? 

The Angels shouldn't let the Pujols collapse prevent them from making moves with players who will enter their mid-30's during the time of the contract.  And I'm not even concerned with Stanton as I don't think the Angels are interested at all, but Trout's next contract is going to take him through his mid-30's to his upper-30's and Pujols body falling apart at a drastic rate better not be a reason the Angels decide to not extend Trout.

[AngelsLakersFan]

53 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I don't think it's all about the luxury tax. I think what Arte is really concerned about is a huge contract for someone who becomes non-productive. Isn't the Pujols thing a clear enough example of how badly that can go? Yes, Stanton is younger than Pujols at the time the Angels acquired him, but he's also not even close to as good as a player as Pujols was. Do you want to be paying Stanton $30M a year when he's 33-34-35-36?

I mean, that is kind of the deal with top tier free agents. Are you saying that the Angels are no longer interested in pursuing top tier free agents?

Stanton's contract is below market value on an AAV basis, and takes him to an age that is younger than the majority of top contracts. Pujols' 10 year deal takes him to an age 5(?) years beyond Stanton's contract, and Giancarlo has got to be a much better bet to stay healthy than Albert was. There are few buys on the FA market that could be as good as Stanton.

[AngelsLakersFan]

25 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

As some others have said, I think the opposite is true, because now they make guys pee in cups.

In 2003, there were 21 guys who had 500-PA, OPS+ 100+ seasons at age 34 or older.

Last year there were 6. (And OPS+ 100 isn't a very high bar. It basically means league average.)

That is a pretty crazy stat.

[Dtwncbad]

We don't get to know, but the angle of actual cash expense for salaries versus accounting for the luxury tax I doubt is an obstacle.

I could write five fat paragraphs on why but the main point is. . . businesses like this have financial tools to conquer cash flow challenges, more options than they need.

[Jeff Fletcher]

3 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

I mean, that is kind of the deal with top tier free agents. Are you saying that the Angels are no longer interested in pursuing top tier free agents?

Stanton's contract is below market value on an AAV basis, and takes him to an age that is younger than the majority of top contracts. Pujols' 10 year deal takes him to an age 5(?) years beyond Stanton's contract, and Giancarlo has got to be a much better bet to stay healthy than Albert was. There are few buys on the FA market that could be as good as Stanton.

https://sports.yahoo.com/four-reasons-mlbs-hot-stove-lukewarm-022841950.html

"Teams are smarter now. They know how terrible free agency is."

I think most teams avoid pursuing most "top tier" free agents.

[Tank]

1 hour ago, Dtwncbad said:

Machado and Harper and Kershaw (and Trout either in an extension or as a free agent) will change the market to a new level.

Stanton is very likely going to opt out to join that market.

I very much doubt a guy like Stanton at his opt out age would project to get less than what will be owed on the last 7 years of his current deal.

So to me, the big fear you get stuck with an aging player at a high price on Stanton doesn't quite fit.

if stanton is winning championships, he really wouldn't have any reason to opt out to join those guys. he's already in an elite pay grade.

[AngelsLakersFan]

1 minute ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

https://sports.yahoo.com/four-reasons-mlbs-hot-stove-lukewarm-022841950.html

"Teams are smarter now. They know how terrible free agency is."

I think most teams avoid pursuing most "top tier" free agents.

Interesting... there is a similar article on fangraphs.

Obviously the implication here is that you believe FA contracts will go down, rather than the traditional slow move upward.

There are two issues at play here, one is that there just isn't all that much worth spending money on in the FA market. Lots of older and mediocre players who are bad bets in general. The other is that teams are flush with cash... they are practically printing it right now.

So what happens when teams have tons of money and nothing to spend it on? IMO it means the guys who are 'worth it' will get monster contracts, while everyone else has trouble finding work. Guys like Harper and Trout are gona get insane money, because teams are holding back the cash they would've spent on mediocre talent like Moustakis. Someone like Stanton, with lots of prime years left should hold his value.