Do you think that Arte feels snake-bitten with the Pujols move?

[Torridd]

What I mean is, do you feel he won't take any significant chances (spell Harper or Machado) until Pujols contract is paid up? Have we seen the last of that risk-taking face of Moreno where he signed Hamliton and Pujols?

[Dick B Back]

Dumb > snake bit.

[failos]

I couldn’t care less

[red321]

I think Hamilton is probably a bigger issue than Pujols. They knew Pujols was a risky/bad deal in the long run. The idea was to go all out and win (maybe multiple championships) in the first few years and that would make it all worth it. They rolled the dice and it didn't work. Going in on Hamilton was doubling down on that strategy and I think was a bigger slap in the face than Pujols who while not overly productive does actually appear to be trying, even if he's aged on a logarithmic scale.

In part that is what makes the decision not to revamp the bullpen that year so brilliantly stupid...to spend all that money and then go cheap on what was your club's biggest issue the year before. Like buying a sports car and then having them keep the stock radio in it to save a few bucks.

[Angel Oracle]

Frieri (pre-Gas Can) actually was pretty decent in 2012, as were Downs and Jepsen.   They just didn't have much depth beyond them, plus Frieri and Jepsen still had occasional blow ups in 2012 that were costly.  

The bigger issue was the drastic decline in 2012 of Erv and Haren.   If they had their normal seasons that year, the Halos would most certainly have made the post-season.   

[gurn67]

The estimated value of the franchise was $554 million at the end of the 2011 season. The estimated value of the franchise is $1.8 billion today. I wish I was so "snake bit". The real question is why is Arte so obsessed about a few million dollars a year in luxury taxes to try to put a winner around the greatest player this team has ever had (and probably ever will have) on a team that's worth over $1.6 billion more than what he paid for it.

[GrittyVeterans]

He probably needs to get over it if he wants to win in the Trout-era. 

This team is either going to spend a lot of money or they will miss the playoffs the next two years. It sucks Dipoto/Reagins set the farm back as far as they did, but it is what it is at this point

[NJHalo]

I agree that the Josh Hamilton signing is what would influence Arte going forward more than Pujols. He got what he overpaid for with Pujols, who has been a good soldier. He got dick from Hamilton.

[tdawg87]

He is a poor owner if he is. Vlad and Torii were two of the best signings this organization has ever had. Pujols has probably made him money in the long run. As others have said, he got fucked in the ass by Hamilton, but that signing is off the books.

Let's not forget he signed Upton to a pretty hefty deal.

I think he's over it.

[Dtwncbad]

I still think the Angels never really believed they would actually get 10 years of production from Pujols.

I think they figured he could be great for 4, and then good enough for a couple more years.

Hamilton is the contract that bothers them probably more than Pujols.

I don't think they will give a 10 year deal to a 31 year old ever again and I don't thin they will give $125m to a drug addict again.

Other than that, I think they are open to making decisions on a case by case basis.

[eaterfan]

57 minutes ago, GrittyVeterans said:

He probably needs to get over it if he wants to win in the Trout-era. 

This team is either going to spend a lot of money or they will miss the playoffs the next two years. It sucks Dipoto/Reagins set the farm back as far as they did, but it is what it is at this point

What makes you think they can make the playoffs if they spend a lot of money? I'm not joking. The Angels finished 18 games back of a wild card spot. I assume you believe that spending correlates to winning otherwise you wouldn't have saying they should spend or not expect to win. Studies have shown the cost of a win is about $9 million in FA. That translates into $162 million in additional payroll to get those 18 wins. 

No, it doesn't work that way. But even if this team signed the two best FAs (Harper and Machado) they would have wouldn't be a playoff lock. But it's also unreasonable to assume that if they don't sign those guys that they were unwilling to spend money. The Dodgers and Yankees both look like they are going to spend big this off season and both have more resources than the Angels and are more attractive FA destinations if the FA wants to win now. Once you get beyond those two free agents how many guys would it take to realistically increase our win total by the 10-12 games it would even take to make the wildcard? Like if we signed each of FAs 3-10 on the best FA lists would that put us over the top?

[Torridd]

2 hours ago, Dick B Back said:

Dumb > snake bit.

Maybe it's the wrong word?

[Torridd]

24 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

He is a poor owner if he is. Vlad and Torii were two of the best signings this organization has ever had. Pujols has probably made him money in the long run. As others have said, he got fucked in the ass by Hamilton, but that signing is off the books.

Let's not forget he signed Upton to a pretty hefty deal.

I think he's over it.

I hope you're right.

[Second Base]

I think it's less about feeling "snake-bitten" from one player as much as Arte has a line that he won't move past.  In season's past, it was the luxury tax line, because that was the max of the Angels operating budget.  Now, it'll well below the luxury tax line, because the Angels operating budget simply doesn't reach that high.  

Their high mark is right around the 165 million mark (which typically ends up being closer to 180 by the end of the year because of signings, trades, bonuses, etc...).  

If reports are correct that the Angels will have room to add 30 million in payroll, then yes, they do have the capability of adding a Harper or Machado type.  But when you consider that that 30 million has to cover a new 2B/3B, new catcher, maybe two starting pitchers and a reliever or two, and maybe a new RF, you start to see that the Angels really don't have the room to make that sort of splash.  Not with Mike Trout's inevitable (and hopeful) extension looming around the corner. 

Even if the Angels decide that Fletcher should be the 2B, Cozart the 3B, Arcia/Briceno the catchers, then they still need to spend on a starting pitcher. 

My guess is the Angels will be making a lot of small moves this winter t6o build the roster they need, and they won't be spending big on one player.  Not because they are snake-bitten, but more because they have lots of holes and only so much money. 

 

[Docwaukee]

I think he's appropriately shell shocked.  The Albert move was totally understandable but the long term repercussions have been worse than expected.  Hamilton was a disaster.  And don't forget Vernon Wells.  He kicked off the egregiousness.  

There are other reasons why we aren't signing Machado or Harper though.  He's not gonna commit almost 700 mill to two players (assuming we extend Trout).  I not sure why any owner would have an appetite for that and why we should expect our to.  On top of that, Simmons will need an extension in two year which will draw close to 100m.  

We filleted Arte and called him 'starry eyed' when he spent frivolously.  Now we're bagging on him for having a $170mil payroll and showing a modicum of fiscal responsibility while letting Billy rebuild the farm system and improve the team.   

I think what we're all saying in the end is that the people in charge should pick the right players so the team can be good again.  Well, they're doing that by not getting out in front of themselves like they were before.  Good stuff is coming.  It might not happen in 2019 or even 2020, but let the people in charge continue to do what they do.  It's gonna work.  

[GrittyVeterans]

48 minutes ago, eaterfan said:

What makes you think they can make the playoffs if they spend a lot of money? I'm not joking. The Angels finished 18 games back of a wild card spot. I assume you believe that spending correlates to winning otherwise you wouldn't have saying they should spend or not expect to win. Studies have shown the cost of a win is about $9 million in FA. That translates into $162 million in additional payroll to get those 18 wins. 

No, it doesn't work that way. But even if this team signed the two best FAs (Harper and Machado) they would have wouldn't be a playoff lock. But it's also unreasonable to assume that if they don't sign those guys that they were unwilling to spend money. The Dodgers and Yankees both look like they are going to spend big this off season and both have more resources than the Angels and are more attractive FA destinations if the FA wants to win now. Once you get beyond those two free agents how many guys would it take to realistically increase our win total by the 10-12 games it would even take to make the wildcard? Like if we signed each of FAs 3-10 on the best FA lists would that put us over the top?

No, I'm saying that we have zero chance of making the postseason if we DON'T spend. The chance of making it goes up if we do, although you are right it is not a guarantee

[Torridd]

32 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

I think he's appropriately shell shocked.  The Albert move was totally understandable but the long term repercussions have been worse than expected.  Hamilton was a disaster.  And don't forget Vernon Wells.  He kicked off the egregiousness.  

There are other reasons why we aren't signing Machado or Harper though.  He's not gonna commit almost 700 mill to two players (assuming we extend Trout).  I not sure why any owner would have an appetite for that and why we should expect our to.  On top of that, Simmons will need an extension in two year which will draw close to 100m.  

We filleted Arte and called him 'starry eyed' when he spent frivolously.  Now we're bagging on him for having a $170mil payroll and showing a modicum of fiscal responsibility while letting Billy rebuild the farm system and improve the team.   

I think what we're all saying in the end is that the people in charge should pick the right players so the team can be good again.  Well, they're doing that by not getting out in front of themselves like they were before.  Good stuff is coming.  It might not happen in 2019 or even 2020, but let the people in charge continue to do what they do.  It's gonna work.  

That's too long for me to wait, Doc.

[tdawg87]

6 minutes ago, Torridd said:

That's too long for me to wait, Doc.

You sure about that? I assume you've been a fan for a longer time than 2 years. 

Look where our system was in 2016 compared to now. In just two years, we could have a top 5 farm system AND be in the mix for the AL West race. The future is bright if you can look straight ahead.

[Angel Oracle]

1 hour ago, Dochalo said:

I think he's appropriately shell shocked.  The Albert move was totally understandable but the long term repercussions have been worse than expected.  Hamilton was a disaster.  And don't forget Vernon Wells.  He kicked off the egregiousness.  

There are other reasons why we aren't signing Machado or Harper though.  He's not gonna commit almost 700 mill to two players (assuming we extend Trout).  I not sure why any owner would have an appetite for that and why we should expect our to.  On top of that, Simmons will need an extension in two year which will draw close to 100m.  

We filleted Arte and called him 'starry eyed' when he spent frivolously.  Now we're bagging on him for having a $170mil payroll and showing a modicum of fiscal responsibility while letting Billy rebuild the farm system and improve the team.   

I think what we're all saying in the end is that the people in charge should pick the right players so the team can be good again.  Well, they're doing that by not getting out in front of themselves like they were before.  Good stuff is coming.  It might not happen in 2019 or even 2020, but let the people in charge continue to do what they do.  It's gonna work.  

Guilty

That said, agree with the post Doc.

[eligrba]

4 hours ago, red321 said:

I think Hamilton is probably a bigger issue than Pujols. They knew Pujols was a risky/bad deal in the long run. The idea was to go all out and win (maybe multiple championships) in the first few years and that would make it all worth it. They rolled the dice and it didn't work. Going in on Hamilton was doubling down on that strategy and I think was a bigger slap in the face than Pujols who while not overly productive does actually appear to be trying, even if he's aged on a logarithmic scale.

In part that is what makes the decision not to revamp the bullpen that year so brilliantly stupid...to spend all that money and then go cheap on what was your club's biggest issue the year before. Like buying a sports car and then having them keep the stock radio in it to save a few bucks.

+1 for using logarithmic scale correctly in a post. Well done. Dilly dilly.

[beatlesrule]

Considering that he has been wasting Trout by not spending enough and going all in(we're doing the best we can) I would say that yes, he does feel that way.  I liken it to the Lakers not signing Shaq or trading for Gasol and all the other moves they made while they had Kobe. Just imagine the Smush Parker years were the norm.  I know basketball is different but you get my point.  He is simply fine with getting 3 million fans and giving them the illusion of a competitive team.  If he really wanted to make the playoffs every year and win now with Trout, things would be way different. Oh well.

[Angelsjunky]

No one could have predicted how steeply Pujols would decline, which is one of the worst trajectories for a great player in baseball history. Couple that with the fact that Harper and Machado are entering their age 26 seasons (vs. "32" for Pujols at the time of his contract), and I think Arte probably realizes there is a difference. Chances are Machado's and Harper's next five years will be as good or better than their last; in Harper's case, maybe much better.

I tend to veer towards the Stoneman conservative side of things: hoard prospects, build from within, go to free agency or trade opportunistically and as supplement to the homegrown core. But I'm slowly warming to the idea of Machado or Harper, but only if Trout is already in the bag. I'd rather have Harper, but Machado--if he plays 3B-- does more to improve this team. Plus I think that Arte would prefer to have a Latino superstar. While I think it probably won't happen, I wouldn't be surprised if Arte swoops in and hands Machado a massive check.

[Pancake Bear]

Considering the value of the team and how much he's made, I think it's disingenuous for Arte to pretend he hasn't made a boatload of money on the team and to use that as an excuse to curb spending. It's one thing to take more care how you rebuild, but to claim that the team would be losing money if he spent more than the current payroll is laughable. Arte said he was concerned about Pujols' legacy. Guess what: Arte will be the guy remembered for flushing Trout's best years down the toilet. 

[Lou]

32 minutes ago, Sean-Regan said:

 I think it's disingenuous for Arte to pretend he hasn't made a boatload of money on the team and to use that as an excuse to curb spending. 

umm, what?

[halomatt]

Yes.