2018 Hot Stove League

[TroutField]

3 hours ago, jsnpritchett said:

Cool, so he'd fit right into the Angels rotation, given that all of their starters are going to be between 3.20-3.50.

I mean Skaggs, Heaney, and Keuchel should be right around there. Harvey and Cahill should be low to mid 4s, and Barria/5th starter should be decent. 

 

Not sure who said all out starters were going to have ERAs under 4

[wopphil]

14 hours ago, totdprods said:

Adding Keuchel would make for a for a pretty solid rotation. Would think they could trade an arm for a catcher or infielder 

This is a good point. Perhaps you could then move someone like Barria for someone like Nick Senzel.

[totdprods]

14 minutes ago, wopphil said:

This is a good point. Perhaps you could then move someone like Barria for someone like Nick Senzel.

Maybe the Reds land Realmuto or Grandal, and the Angels could help facilitate by sending Barria/Skaggs and a good prospect or two for Barnhart, Senzel/Suarez. Lot of permutations. Sorta depends on how Realmuto and Grandal play out too. 

I think the Reds, Dodgers, Padres, Marlins, and Angels all could find some common ground to fill some needs. Not in one move of course.

Reds are spending some prospect currency and have need for pretty much any SP. Marlins have a need for MLB-talent for Realmuto. Lotsa options.

[TroutField]

4 minutes ago, totdprods said:

Maybe the Reds land Realmuto or Grandal, and the Angels could help facilitate by sending Barria/Skaggs and a good prospect or two for Barnhart, Senzel/Suarez. Lot of permutations. Sorta depends on how Realmuto and Grandal play out too. 

I think the Reds, Dodgers, Padres, Marlins, and Angels all could find some common ground to fill some needs. Not in one move of course.

I don’t think we have the top of the rotation quality to be trading Skaggs. If it’s Barria I get it but adding Keuchel and selling off Skaggs is going to end poorly 

[totdprods]

1 minute ago, TroutField said:

I don’t think we have the top of the rotation quality to be trading Skaggs. If it’s Barria I get it but adding Keuchel and selling off Skaggs is going to end poorly 

I think it’d depend on who the Angels were getting back. If it was a prospect or Barnhart, yeah, Barria.

If Suarez or Realmuto were involved, could be Skaggs. 

Keuchel doesn’t have Skaggs upside of course, but there’s still good probability he is a more reliable version of Skaggs’ remaining two years of control. 

[Tank]

32 minutes ago, totdprods said:

Keuchel doesn’t have Skaggs upside of course, but there’s still good probability he is a more reliable version of Skaggs’ remaining two years of control. 

Keuchel may not be a big stud like Cole or Verlander, but he's definitely an upgrade for this staff.

as long as the terms are reasonable, I'd sign him.

[totdprods]

9 minutes ago, Tank said:

Keuchel may not be a big stud like Cole or Verlander, but he's definitely an upgrade for this staff.

as long as the terms are reasonable, I'd sign him.

If Keuchel was one of our only SP acquisitions, I wouldn’t be really excited, but with Cahill and Harvey, it isn’t a bad trio of additions. None are aces but that’s a really solid group to add.

[TroutField]

14 minutes ago, Tank said:

Keuchel may not be a big stud like Cole or Verlander, but he's definitely an upgrade for this staff.

as long as the terms are reasonable, I'd sign him.

I don’t think he’s an upgrade over Skaggs, especially with the price tag 

[totdprods]

4 minutes ago, TroutField said:

I don’t think he’s an upgrade over Skaggs, especially with the price tag 

If he actually makes 30 starts of ~3.50 - 4.00 ERA each of the next two seasons, he might be.

Getting a little hard to count on Skaggs staying healthy, and I’ve been in his corner.  Maybe as a result of signing a more durable Keuchel, they use Skaggs in a trade for Realmuto or a good infielder - maybe they use him in a trade to shed Cozart or Calhoun’s salary to let us fill other needs. 

[Tank]

6 minutes ago, TroutField said:

I don’t think he’s an upgrade over Skaggs, especially with the price tag 

Around here, we try to cultivate a sense of family. And as we learned in Godfather 2, never go against the family.

I don't want to have to send you out on to the lake in a rowboat.

[Docwaukee]

Sproles just flipped the ball to Trout after a 37yd screen pass for a touchdown.  

 

[Tank]

Just now, Dochalo said:

Sproles just flipped the ball to Trout after a 37yd screen pass for a touchdown.  

 

It obviously was a "welcome to the phillies!" moment.

[eligrba]

1 hour ago, Tank said:

It obviously was a "welcome to the phillies!" moment.

[Stradling]

2 hours ago, Dochalo said:

Sproles just flipped the ball to Trout after a 37yd screen pass for a touchdown.  

 

There’s a Facebook page saying that Trout was there with Machado.  

[Angelsfan1984]

39 minutes ago, Stradling said:

There’s a Facebook page saying that Trout was there with Machado.  

Made by those birdies?

[beatlesrule]

Despite Mike Trout‘s presence, the Angelsare stuck in no-man’s land as a club that doesn’t look like a clear-cut contender, Buster Olney of ESPN observes (subscription required). As brilliant as Trout has been, the Angels haven’t made the playoffs or won more than 85 games in a season since 2014, leading Olney to note there’s a legitimate argument they should consider a Mariners-esque rebuild. However, the Angels have signed starters Matt Harvey and Trevor Cahill in win-now moves this winter, and Olney concedes it’s unlikely they’ll blow things up in the final two years of Trout’s contract. The 27-year-old Trout “desperately” wants to win, and the Angels are uninterested in trading him, writes Olney. But moving Trout to jump-start a rebuild is something the Angels should at least consider if he’s unwilling to sign an extension, Olney argues.

I know we've had many of these articles before but it seems like they are never going to end until there is a resolution one way or another.

[ettin]

2 minutes ago, beatlesrule said:

Despite Mike Trout‘s presence, the Angelsare stuck in no-man’s land as a club that doesn’t look like a clear-cut contender, Buster Olney of ESPN observes (subscription required). As brilliant as Trout has been, the Angels haven’t made the playoffs or won more than 85 games in a season since 2014, leading Olney to note there’s a legitimate argument they should consider a Mariners-esque rebuild. However, the Angels have signed starters Matt Harvey and Trevor Cahill in win-now moves this winter, and Olney concedes it’s unlikely they’ll blow things up in the final two years of Trout’s contract. The 27-year-old Trout “desperately” wants to win, and the Angels are uninterested in trading him, writes Olney. But moving Trout to jump-start a rebuild is something the Angels should at least consider if he’s unwilling to sign an extension, Olney argues.

I know we've had many of these articles before but it seems like they are never going to end until there is a resolution one way or another.

Yes.

Olney also made one of the most clearly obvious statements you can make there without providing anything new, so it is just a regurgitation of the same old nonsense. Still seriously feel we will sign Trout to a career extension closer to Opening Day. I am not worried about this subject I feel very comfortable that Moreno, Eppler, and the entire front office understand the urgency and are ready to execute it and Mike is ready to accept.

[Angelsfan1984]

45 minutes ago, Stradling said:

There’s a Facebook page saying that Trout was there with Machado.  

Made by those birdies

[ettin]

13 minutes ago, Angelsfan1984 said:

Made by those birdies

Craig'ing yourself in the same thread is so 2018!

[tdawg87]

37 minutes ago, beatlesrule said:

Despite Mike Trout‘s presence, the Angelsare stuck in no-man’s land as a club that doesn’t look like a clear-cut contender, Buster Olney of ESPN observes (subscription required). As brilliant as Trout has been, the Angels haven’t made the playoffs or won more than 85 games in a season since 2014, leading Olney to note there’s a legitimate argument they should consider a Mariners-esque rebuild. However, the Angels have signed starters Matt Harvey and Trevor Cahill in win-now moves this winter, and Olney concedes it’s unlikely they’ll blow things up in the final two years of Trout’s contract. The 27-year-old Trout “desperately” wants to win, and the Angels are uninterested in trading him, writes Olney. But moving Trout to jump-start a rebuild is something the Angels should at least consider if he’s unwilling to sign an extension, Olney argues.

I know we've had many of these articles before but it seems like they are never going to end until there is a resolution one way or another.

Speaking of "hacks".

[Angelsjunky]

The Angels won't trade Trout with two years left on his contract. Maybe one, and only then if there is no sign of improvement in 2019 and Trout makes it clear he wants to leave.

Hopefully this will all be avoided when the Angels make him an offer he can't refuse, after Harper and Machado sign. Unfortunately they'll have to sweeten it with an opt out, but hopefully they can keep it to 4 years (after 2022).

[Docwaukee]

whether we extend Trout or trade him, Eppler is setting up this franchise to succeed in the future either way.  

[stormngt]

1 hour ago, beatlesrule said:

Despite Mike Trout‘s presence, the Angelsare stuck in no-man’s land as a club that doesn’t look like a clear-cut contender, Buster Olney of ESPN observes (subscription required). As brilliant as Trout has been, the Angels haven’t made the playoffs or won more than 85 games in a season since 2014, leading Olney to note there’s a legitimate argument they should consider a Mariners-esque rebuild. However, the Angels have signed starters Matt Harvey and Trevor Cahill in win-now moves this winter, and Olney concedes it’s unlikely they’ll blow things up in the final two years of Trout’s contract. The 27-year-old Trout “desperately” wants to win, and the Angels are uninterested in trading him, writes Olney. But moving Trout to jump-start a rebuild is something the Angels should at least consider if he’s unwilling to sign an extension, Olney argues.

I know we've had many of these articles before but it seems like they are never going to end until there is a resolution one way or another.

Olney says the Angel's "should seriously consider trading Trout if he is unwilling to sign an extension "

 

Uh....No Shit!

[failos]

Buster Olney is a cocksucker.

[Second Base]

Trout's the sort that wants to win, and will be looking to play for an organization that he has a connection with in the players and front office personnel, and then of course, one that pays what he's worth AND surrounds him with other talent to maintain a perennial winner. And finally, he's looking for a low key environment where he doesn't need to be the center of attention.

Thats an incredibly specific list of teams that will likely be involved.

Financially, that narrows it down to the Angels, Astros, Twins, White Sox, Red Sox, Yanks, Nats, Phils, Mets, Cubs, Cards, Dodgers, Giants. That's 13 teams. Then we can narrow it by likelihood of spending, because others will have expenditures of their own that they'll need to take care of. So now it's Angels, Twins, White Sox, Red Sox, Yanks, Nats, Phils, and Giants. So now 9 teams. Then there's the continual media circus he'll want to avoid, which eliminates the Yanks and Sox, so 7 teams. And then we go with winner that can be sustained, which requires at least a decent farm system and a team with a plan and solid core to build around at the major league level. 

So now it's the Angels, White Sox, Nats and Phils. 

The last part....I can't say for sure which teams he actually knows the players and personnel of. Just a guess, but probably the Angels, and the Phils because Klentak was around when he was in the minors and his first few years in the majors.

So Angels vs Phils. Staying home vs going home. 

Trout wins either way.