Theoretical (not likely to happen) question... Machado/Arenado

[floplag]

2 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Smo.  King.  Crack.

Yes cause everyone pays premium for one year rentals.  well see i guess but im certain it wouldnt cost Adell or any of the top 3-5

[Jeff Fletcher]

4 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

You presented Arenado as less risk.  The difference is so miniscule the comment at best isn't worth mentioning unless it was to underscore a positive for both players being low risk.

There is much less risk in getting Arenado for one year than Machado for 10 years. 

Again, I’m not talking about a theoretical world in which both are free agents. It seems that’s how you are comparing them.

[UndertheHalo]

Just now, floplag said:

not for next year he wont, he has a year left on his deal at half of what machado will get.  
After that i expect they will be comparable, but thats a year off and possibly by then maybe albert realizes its time

Ya but you’re going to trade essentially multiple years worth of prospects for this 1 year discount.  And on top that Arenado may not sign ! It doesn’t make sense man. 

[Mark68]

All else being equal, Arenado >> Machado. 

But in this scenario, not all is equal. 

I would rather have Arenado for the long term, but the trade would only be for one year...although he's a SoCal guy, so you just can't assume he'd sign elsewhere. 

But for the purposes of this discussion, Machado. 

But if given this scenario, I choose option 3: Donaldson. He'll cost less than Machado.

[GrittyVeterans]

10 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

It’s hard for me to accept an argument where trading for Arenado is ideal vs. signing Machado.  Machado gives the team certainty for the forseeae future and does not impact the farm system.  Last year aside, he’s an excellent young player.  I’d be thrilled to have him on the Angels. 

Arenado will cost multiple of our best prospects and there’s no guarantee that we’d be able to sign him.  If the hypothetical world existed where the Angels got their choice of a trade for Arenado or a FA signing of Machado and it was entirely up to them.  Getting Machado it seems obvious to me is the safer and correct bet.  

Also, the idea that Arenado will cost half whatever Machado signs for is ridiculous.  Arenado is going to get a similar deal.  He’s arguably the best player in the NL. 

Yep, this is the answer. Arenado is going to ask for exactly what Machado signs for, the difference is he will be a couple years older when he gets that deal. I'd rather get Machado, not have to give up prospects, and have him for next season too

[floplag]

3 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

Ya but you’re going to trade essentially multiple years worth of prospects for this 1 year discount.  And on top that Arenado may not sign ! It doesn’t make sense man. 

That depends 100% on who the prospects are and whether or not the goal is to win in 19 or not.  These things dont live in a vacuum man, its a big picture thing, not a simple one to one thing

[UndertheHalo]

5 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

There is much less risk in getting Arenado for one year than Machado for 10 years. 

Again, I’m not talking about a theoretical world in which both are free agents. It seems that’s how you are comparing them.

There’s risk in everything though Jeff.  I think the Angels really set themselves back trading the package that would be necessary for Arenado.  I mean how many years would it take them to replace those prospects ? At least if they traded for Realmuto it’s because legitimately there are no comparable alternatives.  Here we have a clear alternative in Machado.  Signing Arenado and then giving him a huge deal the next year is the same risk that comes with Machado. Or not less so in a meaningful way.  I don’t think taking a look at Arenado for 1 year is really that instructive In predicting what we’d get over a long term contract. 

Edited September 17, 2018 by UndertheHalo

[Troll Daddy]

4 minutes ago, floplag said:

what makes you think he would accept a short term deal at this point? 

I don’t know ... a one year deal would be nice. My preference is to wait on Arenado until he becomes a FA. 

[Dtwncbad]

10 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

There is much less risk in getting Arenado for one year than Machado for 10 years. 

Again, I’m not talking about a theoretical world in which both are free agents. It seems that’s how you are comparing them.

OK.

That's a different argument and yet I still think you are wrong.

Arenado will be very expensive to acquire in terms of minor league talent.

You worry Machado might fade in a 10 year deal. (Let's be real, he is signing something with an opt out at 3 or 4 years but whatever.)

Why ignore the drop in production from trading away quality minor leaguers?

Having Machado and keeping your prospects seems to be less risk that getting Arenado for a year and then facing that dent in your pool of prospects.

[floplag]

Just now, Troll Daddy said:

I don’t know ... a one year deal would be nice. My preference is to wait on Arenado until he becomes a FA. 

even if it means giving away 19?  thats what i dont want to do.  otherwise i would agree.  
We have had a losing record the second half with the roster we have now, and thats including Ohtani going off and Calhoun coming back, something has to be done to expect 19 to be an improvement. 

[UndertheHalo]

3 minutes ago, floplag said:

That depends 100% on who the prospects are and whether or not the goal is to win in 19 or not.  These things dont live in a vacuum man, its a big picture thing, not a simple one to one thing

I think we can agree it would be 2 or more significant prospects.  The Angels have some nice players now, but it starts really thinning out after the top 12 or so.  We don’t have that much depth in the farm system.  In some areas we have none.  Catcher for example.  If we’re going to do a trade like this it needs to be for a player that we have zero alternatives for.  I’ve mentioned Realmuto before.  

You’re right that that it’s not simple. And nothing happens in a vacuum. 

[Jeff Fletcher]

2 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

OK.

That's a different argument and yet I still think you are wrong.

Arenado will be very expensive to acquire in terms of minor league talent.

You worry Machado might fade in a 10 year deal. (Let's be real, he us signing something with an opt out at 3 or 4 years but whatever.)

Why ignore the drop in production from trading away quality minor leaguers?

Having Machado and keeping your prospects seems to be less risk that getting Arenado for a year and then facing that dent in your pool of prospects.

I don’t know how significant the prospect cost would be for Arenado because it’s just for one year. I don’t think it would wreck the system by any means. 

There’s certainly no slam dunk answer either way. 

I happen to think Arenado is a better player on the 2019 Angels anyway, even if you ignore all the costs and go on a picking-in-the-playground method. 

 

[floplag]

1 minute ago, UndertheHalo said:

I think we can agree it would be 2 or more significant prospects.  The Angels have some nice players now, but it starts really thinning out after the top 12 or so.  We don’t have that much depth in the farm system.  In some areas we have none.  Catcher for example.  If we’re going to do a trade like this it needs to be for a player that we have zero alternatives for.  I’ve mentioned Realmuto before.  

You’re right that that it’s not simple. And nothing happens in a vacuum. 

 On that I agree, and i would be for a Realmuto deal, but hes gonna cost more than i think Arenado will.  2 more years or arb versus one contract year?    Not exactly apples to apples again. 
2 significant prospects, as long as they are not named Adell, isnt an exuberant price for one of the top 3B in the game.  Especially if we think we can sign him long term.   It comes down to which ones of course. 

[UndertheHalo]

2 minutes ago, floplag said:

 On that I agree, and i would be for a Realmuto deal, but hes gonna cost more than i think Arenado will.  2 more years or arb versus one contract year?    Not exactly apples to apples again. 
2 significant prospects, as long as they are not named Adell, isnt an exuberant price for one of the top 3B in the game.  Especially if we think we can sign him long term.   It comes down to which ones of course. 

It’s not apples to apples you’re right.  That’s an interesting discussion to be honest.  How would Realmuto be valued vs. Arenado ?  I don’t know.  Both are very valuable. 

Edited September 17, 2018 by UndertheHalo

[Dtwncbad]

We don't know the cost of Arenado in a trade other than it would be significant.  We don't know what other teams the Angels will be competing with which will have an effect on which players need to be included.  We dont know if Arenado would then only be here for a year and a half and then be gone. We also don't even know if the Rockies will trade him at all.

What we do know is the cost for Machado is a cost of cash only, the Angels keep every one of their prospects, he is available now and would certainly be here for a minimum of 3 years (there will likely be an opt out in a free agent contract for a 26 year old.)

The argument is 2019 matters, and having Machado AND keeping prospects is a better plan to improve the Angels 2020 and beyond.

 

[UndertheHalo]

Why are we certain that Colorado won’t just sign Arenado btw ? Seems weird to me that they’re finally starting to get some SP together some of their young prospects up.  Dump a ton of money into the bullpen.  And then walk their best player ?  I suspect they will go hard after an Arenado extension. 

Edited September 17, 2018 by UndertheHalo

[floplag]

1 minute ago, UndertheHalo said:

It’s not apples to apples you’re right.  That’s an interesting discussion to be honest.  How would Realmuto be valued vs. Arenado ?  I don’t know.  Both are very valuable. 

Yes they are, but personally i think Realmuto would cost FAR more due to his actual cost contract wise.  They are roughly the same type of player, one of the best at their spot, but spots hard to get  quality at, but 17 Mil for one year versus 2 arb years isnt comparable in terms of value to a franchise 

[Dtwncbad]

5 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I don’t know how significant the prospect cost would be for Arenado because it’s just for one year. I don’t think it would wreck the system by any means. 

There’s certainly no slam dunk answer either way. 

I happen to think Arenado is a better player on the 2019 Angels anyway, even if you ignore all the costs and go on a picking-in-the-playground method. 

 

Give me your spitball estimate of what package gets Arenado.  Honestly.

[GrittyVeterans]

2 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

Why are we certain that Colorado won’t just sign Arenado btw ? Seems weird to me that they’re finally starting to get some SP together some of their young prospects up.  Dump a ton of money into the bullpen.  And then walk their best player ?  I suspect they will go hard after an Arenado extension. 

Agreed. People will say they have Brendan Rodgers coming and Story already there, which is true, but they could just as easily plug Rodgers at 2B and have a great infield for years

[floplag]

Just now, GrittyVeterans said:

Agreed. People will say they have Brendan Rodgers coming and Story already there, which is true, but they could just as easily plug Rodgers at 2B and have a great infield for years

I think the issue here is much like our dilemma with Trout, does he WANT to be there.  I think Col knows what their chances are, and i think the Dodgers getting Machado may have helped us if he would prefer to be closer to home.  
I think the Dogs go hard to keep Manny, they didnt trade for a rental.   and they can afford more than we can. 

[UndertheHalo]

2 minutes ago, floplag said:

Yes they are, but personally i think Realmuto would cost FAR more due to his actual cost contract wise.  They are roughly the same type of player, one of the best at their spot, but spots hard to get  quality at, but 17 Mil for one year versus 2 arb years isnt comparable in terms of value to a franchise 

I agree that he’d cost more.  I’m just saying that if we’re going to trade prospects it should be in that kind of deal.  If we are wanting to sign a 3B and miss on Machado we can take a run at Arenado next year.  I don’t think he’s the 1 missing piece. 

[Jeff Fletcher]

3 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Give me your spitball estimate of what package gets Arenado.  Honestly.

Something like Ward and Suarez. 

[UndertheHalo]

4 minutes ago, floplag said:

I think the issue here is much like our dilemma with Trout, does he WANT to be there.  I think Col knows what their chances are, and i think the Dodgers getting Machado may have helped us if he would prefer to be closer to home.  
I think the Dogs go hard to keep Manny, they didnt trade for a rental.   and they can afford more than we can. 

The Dodgers and Machado is really interesting. They have their own guys they need to sign.  They have Kershaw potentially opting out.  The Dodgers under Friedman have never shown themselves to be the highest bidder.  I think that the Machado bidding is going to be wild and I’m just not sure the Dodgers will do that.  Just because we haven’t seen them do it.  

It think they’ll make him a significant take it or leave it offer.  I’m not sure if it’ll be enough.  But maybe it will.  I think it’s 40% they keep him. 

Edited September 17, 2018 by UndertheHalo

[floplag]

Just now, Jeff Fletcher said:

Something like Ward and Suarez. 

i would do that today, without a second thought 

[floplag]

2 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

The Dodgers and Machado is really interesting. They have their own guys they need to sign.  They have Kershaw potentially opting out.  The Dodgers under Friedman have never shown themselves to be the highest bidder.  I think that the Machado bidding is going to be wild and I’m just not sure the Dodgers will do that.  Just because we haven’t seen them do it.  

It think they’ll make him a significant take it or leave it offer.  I’m not sure if it’ll be enough.  But maybe it will.  I think it’s 40% they keep him. 

i think this is different than most of the Dodger signings, hes marquee, hes a draw, they didnt bring him in as a rental im certain of it.  
They do have an interesting situation, but money solves all problems, and they have a printing press.