Rosenthal: Angels looking to shed payroll

[Dtwncbad]

2 minutes ago, GrittyVeterans said:

I don't disagree with any of that. I'm just saying if Arte were up front about needing a commitment from Trout before he went past the luxury tax...well, at least you can understand it somewhat. Hiding behind the "we lost money in X, Y, and Z years" to "manage expectations" is really frustrating as a fan.

 

I definitely think we should be going hard after a WS the next 2 seasons.

The only adjustment I would make is I think the Angels should go hard after any improvement that puts the team in a better position to contend now, unless the move clearly disrupts the mid-term and long-term plan to have a healthy farm system to keep feeding the major league roster (or provide trade pieces).

The one thing that makes me go insane is a position that the team just let 2019 happen with obvious holes because "the plan is for 2020 or 2021."

That just ticks me off.  This is a premium franchise in a major market and you have Mike Trout and other players in their prime.  2019 needs to matter a whole lot more than many of the reports we get about how 2019 is viewed.

[floplag]

17 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

I am sorry but don't they have a commitment from Trout for the next 2 seasons?  2 seasons in the prime of his prime?

It is borderline silly to introduce needing "a commitment from Trout" to put the right team on the field.  Trout already signed one extension and IS under contract right now because of his commitment.

Maybe Trout doesn't want to FURTHER commit to a team if they are so delicate that they must have a perpetual 9 or 10 WAR player to building around.

I am an Angel fan first more than I am a Trout fan.  But if I was a 9 or 10 WAR player, I probably want to be on a team where my performance is the difference between 95 wins and 105 wins, not the difference between 74 wins and 84 wins.

The Angels need to figure this out.  I doubt Mike Trout wants to be the guy that kept the Angels "competitive". . .

The Angels would be fools if they are waiting for Trout to FURTHER commit.  All that would do is convince him that the organization is more like the Twins than the Yankees.

Tony Gwynn is a neat story, but he is a bit lost historically compared to a Derek Jeter, isn't he?

Put the team around Trout so he has no choice but to want to stay, so he keeps one jersey AND he wins, and he knows the ownership will stay aggressive in trying to win.

i agree, it making sense was in regard to the the context of the payroll comment, that would make more sense, not that i agree with in outright.   I could see them going to Trout and saying "look, extend and well do what it takes" kind of thing.  Use it as leverage, that would make sense. 

As far as the team goes i agree completely, in fact thats a large part of my position.  Its unforgivable to me for them to waste these next couple years of Trout in his prime.  Even if everything breaks perfectly for the kids and we do somehow extend him and are ready to compete in 21 as some think we will, or at least begin to be, weve wasted years that dont need to be.  That doesnt even include Simmons in his.  Neither is getting any younger and both will eventually decline, we all do. 

[Dtwncbad]

Further, if we have learned anything at all with the Pujols deal, it is likely that a 32 year old Trout will be less productive than a 27 year old Trout.

If Trout signs an extension, he is going to be at least as expensive per year at 32 as he is at 27.

That means the team around him will need to be that much better.  The difference night be ANOTHER 5 WAR player needed. . .

The point is it will not be easier to win with Trout when he is 32 compared to now.

Yes the farm hopefully will be feeding inexpensive players to the roster.  But if they are just serviceable and not All Stars then the answer then is going to be sign the right impact free agents.

Well that is exactly where the team is now with a 27 year old Trout instead of a 32 year old Trout.

Look, you go ahead and buy your 27 year old wife the $300 bikini.  Now is now.  It probably isn't going to look better on her in 7 years.  In 7 years, the $300 bikini now needs a $200 cover up. . .

This offseason should be financially smart but it should clearly show the fans that 2019 matters.

 

 

 

[floplag]

9 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Further, if we have learned anything at all with the Pujols deal, it is likely that a 32 year old Trout will be less productive than a 27 year old Trout.

If Trout signs an extension, he is going to be at least as expensive per year at 32 as he is at 27.

That means the team around him will need to be that much better.  The difference night be ANOTHER 5 WAR player needed. . .

The point is it will not be easier to win with Trout when he is 32 compared to now.

Yes the farm hopefully will be feeding inexpensive players to the roster.  But if they are just serviceable and not All Stars then the answer then is going to be sign the right impact free agents.

Well that is exactly where the team is now with a 27 year old Trout instead of a 32 year old Trout.

Look, you go ahead and buy your 27 year old wife the $300 bikini.  Now is now.  It probably isn't going to look better on her in 7 years.  In 7 years, the $300 bikini now needs a $200 cover up. . .

This offseason should be financially smart but it should clearly show the fans that 2019 matters.

 

 

 

Yep, this is exactly why ive used the term wasting years.  By the time the kids are actually ready, Trout wont be the same Trout he is now

[Lou]

2 hours ago, GrittyVeterans said:

I don't disagree with any of that. I'm just saying if Arte were up front about needing a commitment from Trout before he went past the luxury tax...well, at least you can understand it somewhat. Hiding behind the "we lost money in X, Y, and Z years" to "manage expectations" is really frustrating as a fan.

 

I definitely think we should be going hard after a WS the next 2 seasons.

Arte, or any other owner, would never publicly put a player on the spot like that. Ever.

To even think that would be a good idea is utterly ridiculous. 

[Erstad Grit]

Eppler made his big splash last year. Cozart, Ohtani, Upton, and Kinsler. 

[kevinb]

Ohtani yay! By the time the angels are trying to compete again in 2021 and further Upton will be on the downside of his career. 

[Stradling]

I love how the narrative is they aren’t going to try to compete until 2021.  I swear some people here are just gigantic pussies.  

[Lou]

1 minute ago, Stradling said:

I love how the narrative is they aren’t going to try to compete until 2021.  I swear some people here are just gigantic pussies.  

it's f'n ridiculous 

[floplag]

just ... lol

[Stradling]

Yes lol.  

[Lou]

f'n lol 

[floplag]

Define irony, people who basically coined the 21 plan to begin with, calling people names for referring to it.     

[Stradling]

Just now, floplag said:

Define irony, people who basically coined the 21 plan to begin with, calling people names for referring to it.     

I called the names, I never once coined the 21 plan.  I even started a thread talking about how you would spend $30 million.  If they spend virtually no money, and simply let the kids play or they trade what they have at the major league level then they are probably playing for the future.  They are playing for now, while not mortgaging the future.  They also aren’t going to go “all in” this off season, nor in my opinion should they.  I will continue to call people names that act like that name.   

[Dtwncbad]

1 hour ago, Stradling said:

I love how the narrative is they aren’t going to try to compete until 2021.  I swear some people here are just gigantic pussies.  

Be honest.  How many times has an idea for 2019 been openly mocked because 2019 happens before Adell and before they escape the Pujols money, and because "might as well just see what guys like Ward and JMF can do" and "cant catch the Astros anyway", "they are not one player away". . .all as a point regarding some magical 2020 or 2021.

Come on.  It's been in almost every thread regarding possible offseason moves.

[Lou]

2 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Be honest.  How many times has an idea for 2019 been openly mocked because 2019 happens before Adell and before they escape the Pujols money, and because "might as well just see what guys like Ward and JMF can do" and "cant catch the Astros anyway", "they are not one player away". . .all as a point regarding some magical 2020 or 2021.

Come on.  It's been in almost every thread regarding possible offseason moves.

I believe you just proved Strad's point. 

[Stradling]

5 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Be honest.  How many times has an idea for 2019 been openly mocked because 2019 happens before Adell and before they escape the Pujols money, and because "might as well just see what guys like Ward and JMF can do" and "cant catch the Astros anyway", "they are not one player away". . .all as a point regarding some magical 2020 or 2021.

Come on.  It's been in almost every thread regarding possible offseason moves.

Thank you

[floplag]

10 minutes ago, Stradling said:

I called the names, I never once coined the 21 plan.  I even started a thread talking about how you would spend $30 million.  If they spend virtually no money, and simply let the kids play or they trade what they have at the major league level then they are probably playing for the future.  They are playing for now, while not mortgaging the future.  They also aren’t going to go “all in” this off season, nor in my opinion should they.  I will continue to call people names that act like that name.   

This is one of the better soft shoes ive seen lately, bravo...   i guess. 

[Stradling]

3 minutes ago, floplag said:

This is one of the better soft shoes ive seen lately, bravo...   i guess. 

You spelled “Stradling you are correct” wrong.  

[Dtwncbad]

6 minutes ago, Lou said:

I believe you just proved Strad's point. 

Help me understand.  I am being sincere.  It seems to me that many people have basically argued that 2019 is a punt year (and I will argue againstvthat because I dont think there us any reason to punt 2019).  Wasn't one huge point in the like 5 pages of Arenado vs. Machado was that there is no point in pursuing Machado for 2019 when Arenado' s free agency was better timing for some "plan" with other pieces?

My question isn't about Machado it is sincerely about my perception that some Angel fans view 2019 as not worthy of being "aggressive" in trying to win.

What am I getting wrong?

I don't mind being wrong.  I just want to know what I am missing.

[Lou]

1 minute ago, Dtwncbad said:

 It seems to me that many people have basically argued  that 2019 is a punt year

Right, and Strad called them pussies for doing so. 

[floplag]

11 minutes ago, Stradling said:

You spelled “Stradling you are correct” wrong.  

No it was intentional i assure you. 

[Stradling]

You are a horrible speller.  

[floplag]

6 minutes ago, Stradling said:

You are a horrible speller.  

its ok my mom loves me. 

[UndertheHalo]

5 minutes ago, floplag said:

its ok my mom loves me. 

I love you flop.