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 comment and join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

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

     

IGNORED

Wil Myers


Jeff Fletcher

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I don’t think you’re hearing what I said about the luxury tax. 

i read it, perhaps i misunderstood, care to clarify?
From what i read you suggested that the team would spend only about 30 mil. 
Considering that as of today we are committed only to about 125M going into next year without about 50 coming off the books pre-arb/raises/etc.. from the current levels of about 174.
30 mil doesnt even get back to current levels, what have i overlooked?

Sources: Sportrac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, floplag said:

i read it, perhaps i misunderstood, care to clarify?
From what i read you suggested that the team would spend only about 30 mil. 
Considering that as of today we are committed only to about 125M going into next year without about 50 coming off the books pre-arb/raises/etc.. from the current levels of about 174.
30 mil doesnt even get back to current levels, what have i overlooked?

Sources: Sportrac

Great point, if true.

Our payroll actually went down last year from 2016, according to Spotrac. Is Arte shooting for this again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, floplag said:

i read it, perhaps i misunderstood, care to clarify?
From what i read you suggested that the team would spend only about 30 mil. 
Considering that as of today we are committed only to about 125M going into next year without about 50 coming off the books pre-arb/raises/etc.. from the current levels of about 174.
30 mil doesnt even get back to current levels, what have i overlooked?

Sources: Sportrac

I think he is saying that the AAV isn't what you should be looking at you should be looking at the actual numbers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, floplag said:

i read it, perhaps i misunderstood, care to clarify?
From what i read you suggested that the team would spend only about 30 mil. 
Considering that as of today we are committed only to about 125M going into next year without about 50 coming off the books pre-arb/raises/etc.. from the current levels of about 174.
30 mil doesnt even get back to current levels, what have i overlooked?

Sources: Sportrac

That's not counting the $20M for 0-3s, benefits, bonuses, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

That's not counting the $20M for 0-3s, benefits, bonuses, etc.

I had allowed for that i thought suggesting 10-20 off the top in my post.  
Taking this into account are you suggesting that plus 30? 50 total.
Assuming the 125 we are currently at that still only beings us back to current levels and still a good 30-40 under the luxury tax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, floplag said:

I had allowed for that i thought suggesting 10-20 off the top in my post.  
Taking this into account are you suggesting that plus 30? 50 total.
Assuming the 125 we are currently at that still only beings us back to current levels and still a good 30-40 under the luxury tax.

Pujols 28

Trout 34

Simmons 13

Upton 18

Calhoun 10.5

Cozart 12.67

Shoemaker 5

Parker 3.5

Alvarez 3

Skaggs 5

Heaney 4

Bedrosian 2

Ramirez 3

Tropeano 1

0-3, bonus: 20

That's about 163. They're going to be around 195-200ish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

Pujols 28

Trout 34

Simmons 13

Upton 18

Calhoun 10.5

Cozart 12.67

Shoemaker 5

Parker 3.5

Alvarez 3

Skaggs 5

Heaney 4

Bedrosian 2

Ramirez 3

Tropeano 1

0-3, bonus: 20

That's about 163. They're going to be around 195-200ish.

So im underestimating how much the arb guys are going to make then by a wide margin then, thats where my math is off. 
Thanks for that.
If the sum total is where you suggest then that answers my question as it would be up against  ht cap with a little wiggle room.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Stradling said:

My point is don’t be surprised if they upgrade the team next year and then give Trout an extension that puts them over the threshold.  

So, this theoretical 30 mil figure might be for upgrades, not counting a Trout extension.

And I suppose we could work a Trout extention that is backloaded and doesnt figure in until Albatross is gone? And maybe actually stay just barely over? We "Bonilla" Trout's extension?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, WeatherWonk said:

So, this theoretical 30 mil figure might be for upgrades, not counting a Trout extension.

And I suppose we could work a Trout extention that is backloaded and doesnt figure in until Albatross is gone? And maybe actually stay just barely over? We "Bonilla" Trout's extension?

I am just guessing, but I actually meant for the following season.  I am just speculating that Arte thinks Trout is the "right person".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Stradling said:

I am just guessing, but I actually meant for the following season.  I am just speculating that Arte thinks Trout is the "right person".

Well, he's the best. But we need more.

I still dont feel we have enough "protection" in the lineup behind Trout. At least Albert is now acknowledged to be inadequate by the organization, and has been moved down.

We need two hitters behind Trout that will make teams pay for walking him 100+ times a year. Or make them pitch to him. Ohtani could be one. I dont know about Upton. Too many Ks and not enough hits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

The 400 million dollar question is does Trout think Arte and the Angels are the right organization.

Does it make sense to suppose that the Angels being competitive is part of being "the right organization"? I think it does. Is Trout just in this for the money, or does he want a shot at a championship? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, WeatherWonk said:

Does it make sense to suppose that the Angels being competitive is part of being "the right organization"? I think it does. Is Trout just in this for the money, or does he want a shot at a championship? 

It has to be. I mean I don't know Trout I've met him a handful of times. But if it were me it would be about winning and money. The last 4 years this team has been garbage and maybe that eventually wears on him or maybe he doesn't care and is comfortable and/or maybe he sees a bright future. What I do know about professional athletes from listening to enough of them talk about stuff. None of them care about minor leaguers or rookies, unless you've done it on the field in the bigs you mean zero to them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tank said:

in 1979 i dated a girl who was making a giant needlepoint of the angels logo for me. broke up with her before she finished it and have no idea what happened to it. 

maybe i shoulda stuck around a couple more months. oh well.

Looks like you were dating some wild women back in the day, you Casanova.

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...