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

Just gonna leave this here....


floplag

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

so you'd like our FO and Arte to be stupid?  

additional commentary withheld. 

No, but i would like them to be aggressive and spend. 

They recognize the depth and quality of this FA class, they plan to get knee deep in it, even in the face of a third place finish behind a consistently good veteran team and a great young one this year above them.  Meanwhile we are cutting payroll.  :)  

Especially considering this will also potentially affect Trout issues on top of everything else.   I know you dont believe that, and thats fine. 

I'm pretty sure all he meant was spending more than they are comfortable with, not spending it stupidly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, floplag said:

No, but i would like them to be aggressive and spend. 

They recognize the depth and quality of this FA class, they plan to get knee deep in it, even in the face of a third place finish behind a consistently good veteran team and a great young one this year above them.  Meanwhile we are cutting payroll.  :)  

I consider this FA market to be mediocre if you aren't in on the top guys.  If they are going to spend 'stupid' money on guys that are known for not hustling or flipping their hair, then they can have at it.  

there's a difference between shedding some unwanted contracts and actually cutting payroll.  

I would like to see them increase the budget a little as long as it's strategic and not spending 60m on Donaldson.  

The FA pitchers are going to be overpaid.  They always are and there isn't anyone elite to go after.  

There are some players that can help us at the right price.  

16 minutes ago, floplag said:

Especially considering this will also potentially affect Trout issues on top of everything else.   I know you dont believe that, and thats fine.

I'm glad you're fine with common sense.  It boggles my mind that you'd think he'd sign an extension for 2021-2030 based on what happen in 2019.  

 

16 minutes ago, floplag said:

I'm pretty sure all he meant was spending more than they are comfortable with, not spending it stupidly.

there you go again taking something someone said and trying to make it different than what it is based on your own narrative.  

if you're not comfortable with it, then you shouldn't do it and if you do, you're stupid.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

I consider this FA market to be mediocre if you aren't in on the top guys.  If they are going to spend 'stupid' money on guys that are known for not hustling or flipping their hair, then they can have at it.  

there's a difference between shedding some unwanted contracts and actually cutting payroll.  

I would like to see them increase the budget a little as long as it's strategic and not spending 60m on Donaldson.  

The FA pitchers are going to be overpaid.  They always are and there isn't anyone elite to go after.  

There are some players that can help us at the right price.  

I'm glad you're fine with common sense.  It boggles my mind that you'd think he'd sign an extension for 2021-2030 based on what happen in 2019.  

 

there you go again taking something someone said and trying to make it different than what it is based on your own narrative.  

if you're not comfortable with it, then you shouldn't do it and if you do, you're stupid.  

I'm not getting back into the petty squabbles, we see some of it differently and most of it the same.  I dont think either one of us changes his mind on our "narrative" so theres little point in arguing it again.   
The only one ill comment on is i find it equally boggling that you can ignore what happens in the next 2 years as a factor in whether or not Trout extends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, floplag said:

I'm not getting back into the petty squabbles, we see some of it differently and most of it the same.  I dont think either one of us changes his mind on our "narrative" so theres little point in arguing it again.   
The only one ill comment on is i find it equally boggling that you can ignore what happens in the next 2 years as a factor in whether or not Trout extends.

no one is ignoring the next two years. 

it's doesn't make a difference as to whether trout extends.  

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...