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! 

     

What one move


Hubs

Recommended Posts

If there is one move, out there, that could be done in the Angels Budget AND make them a world series contender, it's adding Bryce Harper. I think he's going to cost more than people think, and arguably, Trout deserves more by at least $5M AAV, so it's not likely that Harper plays next to the only player definitely better than him offensively, but wow, what an offense.

Leadoff is likely Cozart at 2nd/3rd

Then, Trout #2, Harper #3, Ohtani #4, Upton #5 is a legit MOTO for the next 4 years.

I think the Angels are better off adding a C and a platoon RF / 1B, plus two starters for the money that Harper is likely to demand, but it does certainly make an impact for sure.

I saw the Phillies article about trying to sign Harper and Trout, and I was like, well the Angels can do that right now if they wanted. LOL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That ONE move would be exciting but wouldnt solve the Angel problems.  But if you want to pretend the Angels are the Yankees then let's finish the job.

Sign Harper.

Trade Adell in package to get Degrom.

Sign Wilson Ramos.

Trade Canning in package to get Arenado and extend him.

Get Justin Smoak for 110+ games at 1B with some gratuitous starts for Pujols.

Sign Trout extension.

Cozart 2B

Trout CF

Harper RF

Upton LF

Ohtani DH

Arenado 3B

Simmons SS

Smoak 1B

Ramos C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, it would spin off lots of possibilities. 

You can deal Adell for a frontline SP, and he'd make up a bulk of the value. If not Adell, definitely Marsh and/or Adams.
Calhoun would spin off for an even money swap like Teheran, or straight dump him for low-level prospects to save money. 
Can afford to go super cheap to fill 2B and even C if need be...Harper's presence makes that almost a financial necessity, but his production should offset it enough. 

And I don't think it means Mike walks...I actually could see Andrelton being the future big contract that gets squeezed out as a result, with Fletcher stepping in, and Jones or Rengifo getting an everyday job at 2B. I'd hate to do it, but you could probably flip Simba this offseason for a pretty badass SP/prospect package and let Fletcher run with it too. It'd save money and open the door for more pitching additions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kevinb said:

I’d trade Upton and Calhoun to free up payroll to get Harper. 

Upton has a no-trade and honestly, I think we’re better off holding onto him. 

Cahoun would be better served dealt as a salary swap for a pitcher or moved for low level prospects to clear payroll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hubs said:

If there is one move, out there, that could be done in the Angels Budget AND make them a world series contender, it's adding Bryce Harper. I think he's going to cost more than people think, and arguably, Trout deserves more by at least $5M AAV, so it's not likely that Harper plays next to the only player definitely better than him offensively, but wow, what an offense.

Leadoff is likely Cozart at 2nd/3rd

Then, Trout #2, Harper #3, Ohtani #4, Upton #5 is a legit MOTO for the next 4 years.

I think the Angels are better off adding a C and a platoon RF / 1B, plus two starters for the money that Harper is likely to demand, but it does certainly make an impact for sure.

I saw the Phillies article about trying to sign Harper and Trout, and I was like, well the Angels can do that right now if they wanted. LOL.

The Yankees tried the all offense, no starting pitching strategy this year. It wasn’t successful. And they had an amazing bullpen. 

There is no ‘one move’ that makes the Angels contenders.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hubs said:

 

Leadoff is likely Cozart at 2nd/3rd

Then, Trout #2, Harper #3, PUJOLS #4, Ohtani #5, Upton #6 is a legit MOTO for the next 4 years.

I think the Angels are better off adding a C and a platoon RF / 1B, plus two starters for the money that Harper is likely to demand

You're forgetting someone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sean-Regan said:

The Yankees tried the all offense, no starting pitching strategy this year. It wasn’t successful. And they had an amazing bullpen. 

There is no ‘one move’ that makes the Angels contenders.  

It wasn’t successful? The Yankees won 100 games and made it to the playoffs. Sure they didn’t win the ws but to say it wasn’t successful is a lie. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

It wasn’t successful? The Yankees won 100 games and made it to the playoffs. Sure they didn’t win the ws but to say it wasn’t successful is a lie. 

They were clearly a rung down from Boston and Houston. Point is, no matter how good your offense (and bullpen) is, if you skimp on pitching, it’ll come back to bite you. I don’t want to go all out on offense if we’re going to trot the same awful rotation out there this year so we can get excited just for making the playoffs. That is not success. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Sean-Regan said:

They were clearly a rung down from Boston and Houston. Point is, no matter how good your offense (and bullpen) is, if you skimp on pitching, it’ll come back to bite you. I don’t want to go all out on offense if we’re going to trot the same awful rotation out there this year so we can get excited just for making the playoffs. That is not success. 

I don’t care how they get there as long as the Angels get to the post season. Yankees had a terrific bullpen. Sure they weren’t as good as the 108 win Red Sox but no one was this year. Yankees won 100 games. I’d settle for 100 wins every year I’m sorry that is unacceptable to you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

I don’t care how they get there as long as the Angels get to the post season. Yankees had a terrific bullpen. Sure they weren’t as good as the 108 win Red Sox but no one was this year. Yankees won 100 games. I’d settle for 100 wins every year I’m sorry that is unacceptable to you. 

I prefer 2002 to 2014. Apparently you’re satisfied with 2014. I have higher ambitions. That’s not a knock on the Yankees, btw - they didn’t blow the bank to go all-in. But in order to do what is being proposed (sign Harper),  the Angels would be wrecking their chances of contending because they wouldn’t be able to afford pitching unless Arte said, “Screw the budget”. It should be obvious to anyone by now that that isn’t ever going to happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the only way to make us a contender in one move is to not only add to our team, but subtract from another contender. Like, Adell+Canning+Marsh+Suarez+Jones+Rengifo+others in top 30 to HOU for Verlander, Altuve, Correa

1B Thaiss/Pujols 2B Altuve 3B Correa SS Simmmons LF Upton CF Trout RF Hermosillo/Calhoun C Briceno DH Ohtani

Verlander Skaggs Heaney Barria Pena

 

That probably makes us a "contender" in the west in theory in one move...until like 1-2 years max when HOU has all their talent on top of Adell/Canning/Jones breaking through and destroy us for years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Sean-Regan said:

I prefer 2002 to 2014. Apparently you’re satisfied with 2014. I have higher ambitions. That’s not a knock on the Yankees, btw - they didn’t blow the bank to go all-in. But in order to do what is being proposed (sign Harper),  the Angels would be wrecking their chances of contending because they wouldn’t be able to afford pitching unless Arte said, “Screw the budget”. It should be obvious to anyone by now that that isn’t ever going to happen. 

For reference 

Boston #1 offense

876 runs

Yankees #2 offense

851 runs

Boston #8 pitching 

3.75 era

Yankees #10 pitching

3.78 era

Yankees weren’t much different than the Red Sox this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a 162 game season you can simply "out offense" teams.  In a playoff series, it is a lot tougher to do that.  It happens, but not as often as you would think.  Then if you are the Yankees, they had a ton of strike outs on offense.  They had 5 guys strike out over 100 times and they had another at 97 and yet another at 94, that is almost 900 strike outs for 7 guys in their line up.  So in a short series, facing better pitching, yea, you aren't going to out offense a lot of teams when they pitch better and strike out less.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Stradling said:

For a 162 game season you can simply "out offense" teams.  In a playoff series, it is a lot tougher to do that.  It happens, but not as often as you would think.  Then if you are the Yankees, they had a ton of strike outs on offense.  They had 5 guys strike out over 100 times and they had another at 97 and yet another at 94, that is almost 900 strike outs for 7 guys in their line up.  So in a short series, facing better pitching, yea, you aren't going to out offense a lot of teams when they pitch better and strike out less.  

What? Look at the stats above they are basically mirror images 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

For reference 

Boston #1 offense

876 runs

Yankees #2 offense

851 runs

Boston #8 pitching 

3.75 era

Yankees #10 pitching

3.78 era

Yankees weren’t much different than the Red Sox this year.

I had some dude on here tell me that about Cleveland late in the season. Both of those teams folded in the playoffs when playing high powered offenses every game. 

Riddle me this: If NY’s pitching is so amazing, why are they reportedly replacing 3 spots this offseason? Answer: It isn’t as good as it looks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sean-Regan said:

I had some dude on here tell me that about Cleveland late in the season. Both of those teams folded in the playoffs when playing high powered offenses every game. 

Riddle me this: If NY’s pitching is so amazing, why are they reportedly replacing 3 spots this offseason? Answer: It isn’t as good as it looks. 

Their pitching was .03 worse than Boston. Boston was the better team. But wasn’t by much. What’s a better indicator of a teams success 7 games or 162?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kevinb said:

What? Look at the stats above they are basically mirror images 

Who do you have more faith in in a short series, Severino or Sale?  Also there is a big difference in ERA from the Red Sox starters and the Yankee starters.  Boston starters are at a 3.77 ERA and the Yankees were at a 4.05.  The Yankees had the advantage in the pen, where they had a 3.38 ERA while the Sox were basically the same as their starters, they were at 3.72.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m not arguing Boston wasn’t better. They were clearly. But how often over the last 10 years did the best team win the World Series? Angels won in 02 and we were the wild card game. We’ve all said that once you get into the playoffs it’s a crap shoot. Betts and JD Martinez were the Sox best players. Which one of them won the WS MVP? People get hot. No one thought Franky was going to carry the Angels to a WS title. 

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...