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! 

     

So... theres a chance...


floplag

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Tyler said:

I know it's not my money, but you don't pass up on an opportunity to bring in a player like Bryce Harper. You have to sign him, period. 

What will torque me off is if the Pujols contract figures into:

(a) the Angels totally passing on Harper, or

(b) The Angels signing Harper, but being unable to extend Trout because there would still be a year left on Pujols' deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Vegas Halo Fan said:

What will torque me off is if the Pujols contract figures into:

(a) the Angels totally passing on Harper, or

(b) The Angels signing Harper, but being unable to extend Trout because there would still be a year left on Pujols' deal.

it's safe to assume that we wouldn't sign Harper or Machado even if we weren't beholden to the Pujols contract.  Arte isn't going to commit 70+ mil to two players for 10+ years.  The 10+ years is the important part.  They might have individual seasons of guys with a high salary but to commit to that long takes away any flexibility whatsoever.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

it's safe to assume that we wouldn't sign Harper or Machado even if we weren't beholden to the Pujols contract.  Arte isn't going to commit 70+ mil to two players for 10+ years.  The 10+ years is the important part.  They might have individual seasons of guys with a high salary but to commit to that long takes away any flexibility whatsoever.  

I totally disagree with the first sentence of this. Arte commited 50 million to Hamilton and Pujols 5 years ago. What makes you think he wouldn’t commit 70 million (and you have to factor in inflation over the last 5 years) to two superstars under 28 IF he didn’t have the Pujols contract?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, GrittyVeterans said:

I totally disagree with the first sentence of this. Arte commited 50 million to Hamilton and Pujols 5 years ago. What makes you think he wouldn’t commit 70 million (and you have to factor in inflation over the last 5 years) to two superstars under 28 IF he didn’t have the Pujols contract?

He also said for ten years each.  That is more the length of the deal.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Stradling said:

He also said for ten years each.  That is more the length of the deal.  

Fair. But I will point out that Harper is entering his age 26 season and Hamilton was entering his age 32. 

To me, it isn't absurd at all to have two guys Trout/haper's age on long term deals. 

The Hamilton/Pujols situation was absurd for many reasons, which Trout/Haprer have almost nothing in common with

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...