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

sigh... Trout, Harper, Philly


floplag

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, ettin said:

 

It is a Jayson Stark article, so that should be the grain of salt you should be taking with the read.

Funny how every beat writer people disagree with is a hack though, isnt it?  
I get it they are filling time in a dead space, but that doesnt make it BS.
All im saying is that we dont know Mike personally, we dont know if it matters to him or not, there is no way we can know one way or the other so those that simply dismiss it arent really being on the level.  Hes gonna get paid either way and its becoming somewhat clear we cant afford much more based on the supposed budget so its no a huge leap to think this could easily go south for us as fans. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, floplag said:

there is no way we can know one way or the other so those that simply dismiss it arent really being on the level.

and every writer that pretends to have an inkling of what Trout is thinking aren't being on the level either. writers that try to come across as if they do are hacks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arte can afford Trout at any cost.  What we think we have learned is it is about annual pay out instead of the luxury tax number.  So if Trout goes to $40 million a season that is only $6 million more than he is currently getting paid, or basically it is what the Angels paid for Trout and Jim Johnson last year.  If he costs $45 million a year (which he won’t), that is basically what he paid for Kinsler and Trout last year.  So if he wants to pay him $40 million he replaces Johnson with Buttrey (they have already done this) and if he has to pay him $45 million then he can replace Kinsler with Fletcher (he has already done this as well).  If he has to pay him $50 million (he won’t have to) he would have to pay him what he paid Trout, Valbuena and Johnson and replace Valbuena with Ward, which if you have been paying attention, he has already done this as well.  He won’t be leaving for money.  Arte will budget Trout above anything else.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stradling said:

Arte can afford Trout at any cost.  What we think we have learned is it is about annual pay out instead of the luxury tax number.  So if Trout goes to $40 million a season that is only $6 million more than he is currently getting paid, or basically it is what the Angels paid for Trout and Jim Johnson last year.  If he costs $45 million a year (which he won’t), that is basically what he paid for Kinsler and Trout last year.  So if he wants to pay him $40 million he replaces Johnson with Buttrey (they have already done this) and if he has to pay him $45 million then he can replace Kinsler with Fletcher (he has already done this as well).  If he has to pay him $50 million (he won’t have to) he would have to pay him what he paid Trout, Valbuena and Johnson and replace Valbuena with Ward, which if you have been paying attention, he has already done this as well.  He won’t be leaving for money.  Arte will budget Trout above anything else.  

I know you believe that, and thats fine, but from where I sit IF that were true we wouldnt have a budget problem right now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, floplag said:

I know you believe that, and thats fine, but from where I sit IF that were true we wouldnt have a budget problem right now. 

Who says we have a budget problem?  We have a guy getting $34 million this year, a guy getting $28 million this year, a guy getting $18 million this year, and two guys getting $13 million this year.  What they have is an issue satisfying the way you want the team run.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Who says we have a budget problem?  We have a guy getting $34 million this year, a guy getting $28 million this year, a guy getting $18 million this year, and two guys getting $13 million this year.  What they have is an issue satisfying the way you want the team run.  

Are they spending all they could?  No.  There's your answer.  Whether its a problem or a choice, the end result is the same.
The only way i want the team run is to win, preferably with Trout, how thats a bad plan in your mind is up to you to reconcile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, floplag said:

Are they spending all they could?  No.  There's your answer.  Whether its a problem or a choice, the end result is the same.
The only way i want the team run is to win, preferably with Trout, how thats a bad plan in your mind is up to you to reconcile.

I am not going to reconcile anything.  You know that spending money guarantees nothing, you’ve said it yourself.  You are having an off season where you just aren’t happy, despite the fact that no one has a contract yet of any value.  We are all running off the narrative that the team is going to spend about $30 million, but it doesn’t mean Arte won’t take advantage of a situation if he sees one.  If free agency turns into what it was prior to last year, then we know you are going to be paying top dollar and acquiring a huge amount of risk.  I am no different than you in this regard in the fact that I want them to try and win, while not mortgaging the future.  But I am willing to accept less risk and I am willing to trust Eppler, something you seem unwilling to do.  I am not sure why you think this off season will be different than the other ones Eppler has had.  In three years he has acquired 3 very good players for this team.  I see no reason to believe he won’t be doing that again, without over paying with the farm.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Stradling said:

I have no idea if Trout wants to play close to home, or if he likes the separation, I only know what I have heard.  That being said, Harper is from out this way, so the entire notion that players want to be close to home is basically torn to shit by the fact that they could both be in the same outfield.  Players choose where they play based on a ton of different things, one would be playing close to home, however we have no indication if that is priority one or priority 10. 

The only player I can remember in recent years citing anything close to wanting play close to home was Mark Teixera, and that was mostly because of his wife. There may be other examples, but there really aren't very many of them, and I think that really nullifies this whole argument for Trout going to the Phillies/Yankees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Players who want to play "close to home" are big fuckin babies and need to grow the shit up. You spend half the year traveling anyway so what does it really matter? They spend their off-season at home with their friends and family. How much time would they spend with them even if they play close by? And it's not like they play 81 games all at once at home. They play a week and then travel 1500 miles. And then travel another 1000 miles. Oh and let's not forget ST. Does Trout want to be out east because Florida is only a 2 hour flight from NJ?

Most of these guys can fly all their friends and family out to every game anyway so it's an entirely moot point. 

After this much time, Anaheim is more Trout's home than Philly or New York. What has Philly done for him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, floplag said:

Are they spending all they could?  No.  There's your answer.  Whether its a problem or a choice, the end result is the same.
The only way i want the team run is to win, preferably with Trout, how thats a bad plan in your mind is up to you to reconcile.

Look at the payroll from 2010 through 2017. That exorbitant spending got them 1 playoff appearance. 

They don't have a budget problem. They have a "spending money on the wrong players" problem. 

Could they spend more? Of course. Arte could hit his head and decide a $300 million dollar payroll is smart. But like any organization, he operates on a budget. A budget that's been near the top of the league every year he has owned the team. 

They don't need to spend more. They need to spend wiser.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've literally had one conversation with Mike Trout, and it had to do with the time, the weather and Hank Conger. So I'm not an expert on things that make him tick. In fact, of the current team, I think the players I've spoken to most are probably Matt Shoemaker and Kole Calhoun. 

From what I'm told regarding Trout, he pays attention to the minor leagues and the prospects, but not nearly to the degree most of us here do. He'll ask Billy about them every once in a while, or even watch them take BP on the back fields sometimes. So he's aware of the system as a whole and how it has improved and what Eppler's plans are for it, he even knows about the bigger name guys like Adell, Marsh and Canning. But I don't think the Angels prospects will factor into his decision. 

I'm also told that he likes playing on the West Coast, and definitely likes his vacations to be on the East Coast. Whether he ever want to live and play back East or not, I do not know. The fact that I'm a dad, and moved back "home" and started a family makes me think that he might someday want to do the same but I don't know. 

I know Trout doesn't care for speaking to the media much at all, and doesn't want to the spotlight, but that he's definitely in his environment when he's around other player that take their job seriously, but also want to have fun. And the main thing is, he just wants to play baseball, and win. His dad and agent both made it clear to the Angels when they signed him for such a small bonus coming out of high school that they'll end up paying more later because of it, whatever that means. 

I also have heard that he was seeking a lifetime contract from the Angels when his agent was negotiating and extension with the Angels, and if that's true, it definitely means he wants to remain playing here. 

My guess is, at the recommendation of his agent, Trout and his representation are not going to negotiate an extension with the Angels until they see the going price that Harper and Machado got. Trout doesn't care about being the highest paid player in baseball so much as he cares about being the best player in baseball. That doesn't mean he'll play for free, but if it's fair and he likes it, he'll take the deal.

My guess is Trout signs an extension with the Angels, either in Spring Training, or next winter, and it'll probably be something like 11 years, 390 million, with a full no trade clause and opt outs in years 3, 6 and 9.

With a contract like that, it'll ensure he's making 35 million a year, which is near the top of the league, he won't be taking any sort of a pay cut, he'll still be able to opt out for another contract at age 30 if he wants, and he won't have to be a burden on his team at the end of the contract the way he's seeing Albert Pujols is right now. He signs to play until he's 38, which is good. And for the Angels, it's agreeable because he wouldn't hurt them toward the luxury tax too much, should they ever decide to encroach upon it, which all signs point to no. And with Pujols' deal coming off the books soon, they'd have money freed up to extend Simmons as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, floplag said:

So many players we hear so often about  playing closer to home when we read their free agency preferences, its hard to ignore.

 

Jeff Fletcher, who has talked to players, agents and teams regarding this issue has said numerous times, this rarely comes into play when a player makes a decision where to sign.  For most, it is about money and winning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most ball players are from California, Texas, Arizona, Atlanta and Florida.  I wonder how many of those players that reach free agency go and play where they are from?  

Albert was at home in St Louis. 

Ohtani isn’t in Japan

Kershaw could have gone to Texas

A report came out last year after Moustakas signed with KC for $5 million that he was offered $45 million from the Angels (which I don’t believe is true) but if it is true, why didn’t he accept it, since he is a Chatworth guy.  

I am sure there are countless others.  My guess is at least one free agent we will see return to home is Corbin.  I think he will play for the Yankees, but I could be wrong.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Winning and money I imagine are two of the biggest factors in free agency. Money being first and foremost. As humble as Trout seems to be from the outside. There is 0 chance that he signs for less then Machado and Harper do this offseason. His agent would be fired on the spot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

Winning and money I imagine are two of the biggest factors in free agency. Money being first and foremost. As humble as Trout seems to be from the outside. There is 0 chance that he signs for less then Machado and Harper do this offseason. His agent would be fired on the spot. 

Who would fire his agent?  Maybe he doesn’t care to be the highest paid player.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Who would fire his agent?  Maybe he doesn’t care to be the highest paid player.  

Let’s make a bet. We can either PayPal or donate to your favorite charity. I’ll say Trout signs for biggest contract in MLB history. You say he signs for cheaper than that? $100? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

Let’s make a bet. We can either PayPal or donate to your favorite charity. I’ll say Trout signs for biggest contract in MLB history. You say he signs for cheaper than that? $100? 

No it’s a stupid bet.  I took issue with your notion that he’d fire his agent, it’s stupid.  Why would it ever come to that?  Trout still has to accept the deal.  So if he is given a contract to sign, I’m guessing he will know the dollar value, right?  So if he signs an undervalued contract, who’s to blame?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Stradling said:

No it’s a stupid bet.  I took issue with your notion that he’d fire his agent, it’s stupid.  Why would it ever come to that?  Trout still has to accept the deal.  So if he is given a contract to sign, I’m guessing he will know the dollar value, right?  So if he signs an undervalued contract, who’s to blame?  

The contract is negotiated by the Agent. Of the agent can’t get a better deal and the only deal he gets is less than Harper or Machado. The agent will not be continuing to work for Trout. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kevinb said:

The contract is negotiated by the Agent. Of the agent can’t get a better deal and the only deal he gets is less than Harper or Machado. The agent will not be continuing to work for Trout. 

Ok then here’s the bet.  If Trout signs a contract that is less than either of them, then if he fires his agent within a week I’ll give you $100, if he doesn’t you donate $100 to the Slave2Nothing foundation.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Ok then here’s the bet.  If Trout signs a contract that is less than either of them, then if he fires his agent within a week I’ll give you $100, if he doesn’t you donate $100 to the Slave2Nothing foundation.  

Not as fun of a deal. Let's just bet if he signs for less than Machado or Harper or not? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somehow I think these conversations will never end.  If Trout signs an extension, then the narrative will be on how he pissed away a winning legacy staying with the Angels.  If Trout leaves,  the narrative will be how the Angels suck because they lost a once in generation player.

This has turned into a zombie baseball topic......

the walking dead zombie GIF

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...