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

2018 Hot Stove League


greginpsca

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, beatlesrule said:

It is pretty insane that the Angels have a chance to pair Trout with a player like Machado or Harper and they don't want to do it.

You can make similar comparisons about just about any team and most of the other teams aren’t paying Albert $30 million a season as well.  I don’t know why guys ignore the fact that giving Machado $30 million would mean that we would have $130 plus million (after Trout extension) wrapped up in Trout, Upton, Albert, Simmons and Machado.  So the other 20 players would get to share $70 million.  The more you ignore that the more you allow yourself to be upset.  Hell they may still consider it, but if they don’t it is pretty easy to figure out why they wouldn’t.  Hell the Dodgers aren’t bringing him back nor are the Yankees pursuing him and both of those teams bring in $200-300 million more in revenue than the Angels.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I can't. Trout is the best player in baseball. These guys are top 5. You keep bringing up more revenue but the fact remains the Angels could sign one of those guys. Moreno just doesn't want to. This isn't a Pujols or Hamilton situation. These guys are younger and better. Seems like such a waste but I'm just a fan.

 

Also, the Yankees and Dodgers have better players and don't have a pressing need like the Angels do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, beatlesrule said:

No I can't. Trout is the best player in baseball. These guys are top 5. You keep bringing up more revenue but the fact remains the Angels could sign one of those guys. Moreno just doesn't want to. This isn't a Pujols or Hamilton situation. These guys are younger and better. Seems like such a waste but I'm just a fan.

 

Also, the Yankees and Dodgers have better players and don't have a pressing need like the Angels do.

There’s a reason most teams are staying away from Machado and it isn’t money.  I never claimed it was an Albert situation but it’s easy to compare it to Hamilton, in terms of gigantic red flags.  Also wouldn’t it make more sense to add the finishing piece in Machado if you’re one of those teams rather than adding $30 million for one guy when you still have a bunch of holes to fill.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, beatlesrule said:

No I can't. Trout is the best player in baseball. These guys are top 5. You keep bringing up more revenue but the fact remains the Angels could sign one of those guys. Moreno just doesn't want to. This isn't a Pujols or Hamilton situation. These guys are younger and better. Seems like such a waste but I'm just a fan.

 

Also, the Yankees and Dodgers have better players and don't have a pressing need like the Angels do.

Beatles, take my advice, drop it.  Its not worth the bullshit headache you'll get from some quarters.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, beatlesrule said:

This isn't a Pujols or Hamilton situation. These guys are younger and better. 

Neither Harper nor Machado were remotely close to as good as pujols when he hit FA. Yes, they are younger than pujols was, but in 2011 nobody thought of things like that. 30 wasnt considered old, and pujols was as sure a bet as anyone to continue dominance for years.

As for hamilton, id say he (at the time) was a pretty close match to harper. Harper didnt come with the baggage, but id say machados is close.

Either way, neither machado or harper are signing for 125 mill. If hamilton was seeking the money these two are, no way would we have signed him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Stradling said:

You can make similar comparisons about just about any team and most of the other teams aren’t paying Albert $30 million a season as well.  I don’t know why guys ignore the fact that giving Machado $30 million would mean that we would have $130 plus million (after Trout extension) wrapped up in Trout, Upton, Albert, Simmons and Machado.  So the other 20 players would get to share $70 million.  The more you ignore that the more you allow yourself to be upset.  Hell they may still consider it, but if they don’t it is pretty easy to figure out why they wouldn’t.  Hell the Dodgers aren’t bringing him back nor are the Yankees pursuing him and both of those teams bring in $200-300 million more in revenue than the Angels.  

Probably closer to 30 players sharing that $70 m. The 40 man roster guys in AAA also get paid when they are brought up. I think the team used something like 25 different pitchers last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Stradling said:

There’s a reason most teams are staying away from Machado and it isn’t money.  I never claimed it was an Albert situation but it’s easy to compare it to Hamilton, in terms of gigantic red flags.  Also wouldn’t it make more sense to add the finishing piece in Machado if you’re one of those teams rather than adding $30 million for one guy when you still have a bunch of holes to fill.  

You are really reaching with this. The lack of hustle is bad but it's no where in the stratosphere of 32 year old drug addict Hamilton who was always going to be a sniff away from going off the deep end again. Lack of hustle isn't going to cause Machado to deteriorate production-wise.

The age difference between the players we're discussing and Hamilton alone makes it a pretty silly comparison on its own. You'd likely be getting about 5 of Machado's best years and then maybe 3-4 not-so-good. Hamilton/Pujols were both past their primes during year 1 of those disasters. 

The financial argument is one thing, but not adding one of these two players because they were burned by Hamilton and Pujols is a pathetic loser mentality that's out of touch with the actual situation.

In my opinion, you offer Machado what you think is fair (personally I'd say 8 years, 240) as a take it or leave it scenario. If he takes it, cool, you got another prime star at a position you desperately need. If he says no you can carry on like it never happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

Neither Harper nor Machado were remotely close to as good as pujols when he hit FA. Yes, they are younger than pujols was, but in 2011 nobody thought of things like that. 30 wasnt considered old, and pujols was as sure a bet as anyone to continue dominance for years.

As for hamilton, id say he (at the time) was a pretty close match to harper. Harper didnt come with the baggage, but id say machados is close.

Either way, neither machado or harper are signing for 125 mill. If hamilton was seeking the money these two are, no way would we have signed him.

Pujols was 32 (at youngest) during year 1 of that deal, not 30. It was a complete catastrophe from day one.

The only thing remotely comparable to that deal is the contracts dished out for Miggy and Cano in recent years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, GrittyVeterans said:

You are really reaching with this. The lack of hustle is bad but it's no where in the stratosphere of 32 year old drug addict Hamilton who was always going to be a sniff away from going off the deep end again. Lack of hustle isn't going to cause Machado to deteriorate production-wise.

You're right, it's not the same and yet you're kidding yourself if you think the lack of hustle can't possibly manifest itself in a deterioration in production.  This is a that guy didn't see any reason to push himself when he was still looking to get paid and his team was gunning for the biggest prize in MLB..... I can't think of anyone else that's done that in MLB history.  While I agree with you that Machado is a good bet to continue to perform I believe he's a bad bet to keep from being a headache.  Would it really be shocking to see the guy start to loaf, or act like he's above the trivial "Johnny Hustle" stuff once his future has been secured?  Say what you will but that could be all kinds of bad for a team looking to go on a youth movement even with veterans like AP and Trout on board.

Anyway, I'm with Doc on this one... I think the guy comes across like a bad seed and I think he stands a chance of being a distraction or problem child....  That being said, I don't think it would take more than 8 years, and I'd be willing to bet on the front half of that easily being above average performances -- throw in an opt out after year four and it's a pretty solid chance the dude goes away on his own to try to get more money should he continue to perform at a similar clip.  

Seems pretty obvious right?  You'd think most teams would look at the player he's been and consider it a no brainer and yet it's not materialized.  There has to be a reason for that -- one that we haven't made privy to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

You're right, it's not the same and yet you're kidding yourself if you think the lack of hustle can't possibly manifest itself in a deterioration in production.  This is a that guy didn't see any reason to push himself when he was still looking to get paid and his team was gunning for the biggest prize in MLB..... I can't think of anyone else that's done that in MLB history.  While I agree with you that Machado is a good bet to continue to perform I believe he's a bad bet to keep from being a headache.  Would it really be shocking to see the guy start to loaf, or act like he's above the trivial "Johnny Hustle" stuff once his future has been secured?  Say what you will but that could be all kinds of bad for a team looking to go on a youth movement even with veterans like AP and Trout on board.

Anyway, I'm with Doc on this one... I think the guy comes across like a bad seed and I think he stands a chance of being a distraction or problem child....  That being said, I don't think it would take more than 8 years, and I'd be willing to bet on the front half of that easily being above average performances -- throw in an opt out after year four and it's a pretty solid chance the dude goes away on his own to try to get more money should he continue to perform at a similar clip.  

Seems pretty obvious right?  You'd think most teams would look at the player he's been and consider it a no brainer and yet it's not materialized.  There has to be a reason for that -- one that we haven't made privy to.

That’s fair. 

I would definitely bet on him being worth the money for at least 4 years though. And in the Angels current situation, that’s a huge win. I have minimal faith in Ward/Fletcher at 3B. Again, I wouldn’t give him a 10 year deal under any circumstance. I think 7-8 years is totally reasonable for him

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, GrittyVeterans said:

That’s fair. 

I would definitely bet on him being worth the money for at least 4 years though.

I think so too -- that's why wonder WTF it is that's made so many teams say no thanks.   On the surface it seems like a no brainer.   There has to be a lot of stink attached to him or the owners really are playing games...   I can't even think of a guy that was as obviously a good player being shut out the way during the collusion years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GrittyVeterans said:

Pujols was 32 (at youngest) during year 1 of that deal, not 30. It was a complete catastrophe from day one.

The only thing remotely comparable to that deal is the contracts dished out for Miggy and Cano in recent years.

And fielder. And arods second. 

I think if anything, arod manny and ortiz were what you could expect sith pujols, at least at the time.

But the point being, pujols had a far better track record than either machado or harper. 

Pujols was a HOF when we signed him. Are harper or machado there yet? Their age is the biggest selling factor, not their production. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GrittyVeterans said:

Pujols was 32 (at youngest) during year 1 of that deal, not 30. It was a complete catastrophe from day one.

The only thing remotely comparable to that deal is the contracts dished out for Miggy and Cano in recent years.

Everything I've been seeing lately about the "death of the long term big money contract" uses Pujols as example#1 in the reason they are not going to be something we see again.

It's great being on the cutting edge, aint it? 

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...