Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

IGNORED

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


floplag

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, floplag said:

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. 

I look at how they handled Greinke.  They weren’t close apparently.  They made their offer and that was it.  Machado is a great player but if you look at the Dodgers.  Do they really need to dump money into Manny Machado ? They’ll be getting Seager back.  They’re already committed to Turner.  I just wonder if they’ll go all out for a player that arguably, they don’t need.  Especially when you consider how they handled Greinke.  Which sort of gives you a precedent to look at. I know not a perfect one, but it’s something. 

Edited by UndertheHalo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, UndertheHalo said:

I look at how they handled Greinke.  They weren’t close apparently.  They made their offer and that was it.  Machado is a great player but if you look at the Dodgers.  Do they really need to dump money into Manny Machado ? They’ll be getting Seager back.  They’re already committed to Turner.  I just wonder if they’ll go all out for a player that arguably, they don’t need.  Especially when you consider how they handled Greinke.  Which sort of gives you a precedent to look at. I know not a perfect one, but it’s something. 

Greinke wasnt Machado.  Manny loves the spotlight and the pressure, Greinke didnt.   While otherwise correct, i think they viewed Grienke as a rental and thought it would be nice to keep him on the cheaper, but werent going over the top for him.   I could be wrong of course just my 2 cents 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

This is less then I’d expect.  I’d defer to your opinion on this though. 

It is a general prospect value for a guy of his caliber with one year left on his deal.

However, it's probably not enough for this particular player from this particular team because they don't want to trade him. The Rosenthal item about Arenado was his opinion that they should consider trading him, rather than citing any source who said they were interested. (Teams don't trade good players unless they are rebuilding and/or have financial reasons, neither of which applies to the Rockies/Arenado. Also why the Angels aren't going to trade Trout.)

You'd need to overpay in prospects to get Arenado, because he's not available. You'd also need to overpay in salary to get Machado, because he wants to play SS. Also, I can't see the Angels signing anyone to that kind of deal while they still hope to sign Trout to that kind of deal.

As the OP stated in the title of this thread, it's a theoretical debate between two things that aren't happening, which means there's a point at which it's really no longer worth debating.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

 

As the OP stated in the title of this thread, it's a theoretical debate between two things that aren't happening, which means there's a point at which it's really no longer worth debating.

 

hell, if that's the case Chuck should probably just shut down the website!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Really?  For Arenado, a possible MVP caliber player?  Are you telling me no other team would offer more than that half a scoop of melted artificially flavored vanilla ice cream?

Come on Jeff.

It's probably not enough, but it's tough because there are no comps for this kind of deal because guys like him don't get traded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

It's probably not enough, but it's tough because there are no comps for this kind of deal because guys like him don't get traded.

Exactly.  This whole thread is somewhat comical to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, True Grich said:

Exactly.  This whole thread is somewhat comical to me.

People are trying way, way too hard to find a reason to not pursue Machado, who actually will be available.

I suppose there are probably some Cubs fans out there talking about not pursuing Bryce Harper as a free agent because they would rather trade for Trout.

A Cubs fan not wanting Harper in isolation is one thing, but saying don't sign Harper because they would rather trade for Trout makes the conversation pretty peculiar.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

It's probably not enough, but it's tough because there are no comps for this kind of deal because guys like him don't get traded.

The Machado trade this year would probably be a starting point. For almost half a season Baltimore received a top 100 prospect in Yusniel Diaz, along with Dean Kramer a 45 pitcher (some might rate as a 50), Zach Pop a solid relief prospect, Bannon a borderline 3B prospect, and a throw in Valera

 

Based on that a similar trade would probably be Marsh, Luis Pena, Jose Rojas, and Hanewich

But it would be for an entire year so if I had to guess  Marsh, Suarez, Ward, and Gatto

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, floplag said:

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. 

Who is saying give away 19, why not wait a year for Arrenado and trade the package it would cost to get him to upgrade in other places for 2019?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Who is saying give away 19, why not wait a year for Arrenado and trade the package it would cost to get him to upgrade in other places for 2019?

because waiting until (insert name here) becomes a free agent has never worked 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DeGrom's numbers are there to be a true ace, and he's had just 1 year where he missed 8 starts and otherwise been healthy since being first called up to the Mets 4.5 years ago. 

He would only be 30 when the 2019 season starts, only has some 900 career MLB innings under his belt, and isn't a FA until after 2020.

I, too, am warming up to that kind of trade, not totally there yet.   He does check off the great majority of the boxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Stradling said:

I have no idea, but I certainly don’t believe a package of Suarez and Ward gets Arrenado.  I am warming to the idea of trying to use prospect currency to get DeGrom.  

We have 12 SP, how is that an area of need over other spots?
I get it you think hes an ace and all, but thats not fixing holes as you suggested previously thats adding in a place we kinda dont need and still leaving holes. 
A true ace would be nice, as the last piece, not the first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, floplag said:

We have 12 SP, how is that an area of need over other spots?
I get it you think hes an ace and all, but thats not fixing holes as you suggested previously thats adding in a place we kinda dont need and still leaving holes. 
A true ace would be nice, as the last piece, not the first.

It doesn’t matter what position you fill first as long as you fill those positions.  That would be like saying Trout is a nice player to have, but why would you commit to giving him $350 million when you have so many other holes.  If you can get an Ace, you get the Ace, you don’t worry about who is going to be the catcher or the closer.  Sign them or trade for them.  I’d rather have an Ace than almost anything else that we don’t have.  I would rather have DeGrom than Realmuto.  Also DeGrom isn’t so expensive that we couldn’t sign a Donaldson to a one year deal that would allow him to establish himself as a stud third baseman again.  We could trade for DeGrom and still sign the 2nd baseman from the Rockies or sign Grandall or sign Daniel Murphy.  There are tons of ways to play this, it is about upgrading the team.  We can go into next year saying, we don’t need a starter because we have 12 of them, and then be exactly where we were this year.  The upgrade between DeGrom and whoever is penciled in as our #5 starter is larger than the upgrade between Ward and Machado or Arrenado.  But once again, it is about upgrading all over the field.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Stradling said:

It doesn’t matter what position you fill first as long as you fill those positions.  That would be like saying Trout is a nice player to have, but why would you commit to giving him $350 million when you have so many other holes.  If you can get an Ace, you get the Ace, you don’t worry about who is going to be the catcher or the closer.  Sign them or trade for them.  I’d rather have an Ace than almost anything else that we don’t have.  I would rather have DeGrom than Realmuto.  Also DeGrom isn’t so expensive that we couldn’t sign a Donaldson to a one year deal that would allow him to establish himself as a stud third baseman again.  We could trade for DeGrom and still sign the 2nd baseman from the Rockies or sign Grandall or sign Daniel Murphy.  There are tons of ways to play this, it is about upgrading the team.  We can go into next year saying, we don’t need a starter because we have 12 of them, and then be exactly where we were this year.  The upgrade between DeGrom and whoever is penciled in as our #5 starter is larger than the upgrade between Ward and Machado or Arrenado.  But once again, it is about upgrading all over the field.  

And limited resources to do it, if you blow the best ones on a SP it limits what else we can do.
Again im ok with it as long as other moves are made, thats always been my position, im just not sure i would do it first or lose the best chips in the process. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, floplag said:

And limited resources to do it, if you blow the best ones on a SP it limits what else we can do.
Again im ok with it as long as other moves are made, thats always been my position, im just not sure i would do it first or lose the best chips in the process. 

You lose the best chips to bring in the best player or the best upgrade.  I totally understand the belief that UnderTheHalo has where he wouldn’t trade positional prospects for pitching, but regardless if you can solve one problem with a trade and another with free agency, then it really doesn’t matter which one is which.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...