Simple Logic on Harper

[Pancake Bear]

Why they might: Harper is an on-base machine - his worst season was .340 (.340, .368, .344 in his first three seasons), and since 2015, he hasn't gotten on base at worse than .373 (four seasons, two of which were over .400). He's only 26, which means he's still got probably 4-5 years of that level of OBP. 

Eppler loves OBP. A lineup of Harper-Trout-Ohtani-Upton would be as good a top four as you'll see in the league. 

Positionally, Harper *could* fit on the team between RF, 1B, and DH. If the Angels were committed to the idea, they could make it work. 

 

Why they won't: Money. The reality is that you can only afford so many big contracts. To be competitive without massively exceeding your budget every year (which Moreno seems committed to), you have to take advantage of cheap talent (like Adell). Adell almost certainly won't be as good as Bryce Harper, even as inconsistent as Harper has been (fWAR last five years: 1.6, 9.3, 3.0, 4.8, 3.5).

It would be a lot of fun, admittedly. But if you make that move, you probably have to move Adell (settle for Marsh or Adell as Upton's replacement in a couple of years). That gets you a solid pitcher (or Realmuto - although I don't know why we do that with the abomination of a rotation we have if we're signing Harper), which maybe makes you good enough to go all the way, although teams that build on offense and ignore pitching tend to struggle from what I've seen.

[ScruffytheJanitor]

2 hours ago, greginpsca said:

The hitters version of Ervin Santana.

 

So we sign him for next year, then trade him before Trout's extension kicks in?

[Docwaukee]

1 minute ago, floplag said:

Not sure i agree, many teams in many leagues have had multiple stars simultaneously, even more than 2.   Not every team can afford that per se, but i think the Angels could if they wanted to.
All i know is that if we dont plan to build around him as we should, then whats the point of having him?

they're usually a bit more staggered.  even boston, with their massive payroll will have only 55m committed to their two highest paid players.  

washington will have 80m going to Scherzer and Stras, but only because Stras is getting an oddly high amount this year of 38m which is 13m over his aav.  

No other team has two players that are even close to that.  

Trout isn't going to make that much more than what he's getting now.  Harper is going to make within 5m of Trout and gives you less than half the production on avg.  

[Jeff Fletcher]

9 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

especially when one of them isn't actually close to being Trout yet going to be paid very similarly.  

yeah, this is the real point. You can't have two guys being paid at that level.

[Hubs]

13 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

One of the above does not belong. 

Not to nitpick a secondary point, but you think Khris Davis is a better hitter than Arenado, Votto, Bryant, Yelich, Goldschmidt, Freeman, Machado, Rendon, and maybe one or two others?

AL? All of the others are NL hitters, which of course Harper is as well, but I'd think that all of the other guys you put will stay with or wind up with NL teams. Harper I think may end up in the AL, even if not with the Angels, but somewhere.

[Dtwncbad]

15 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

yeah, this is the real point. You can't have two guys being paid at that level.

Right.  So that eliminates Harper from going back to the Nats with Scherzer making $30 mil and them now adding Corbin. (Oh wait, the Nats are in play still?)

And that also means the Dodgers are out since they extended and are paying their homegrown hero in Kershaw. (Oh wait, the are in play still too?)

And that means Philadelphia will have to choose between Machado and Harper because they could never pay two guys. . . (Oh wait, there are articles literally everyday on them getting both?)

 

[Jeff Fletcher]

2 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Right.  So that eliminates Harper from going back to the Nats with Scherzer making $30 mil and them now adding Corbin. (Oh wait, the Nats are in play still?)

And that also means the Dodgers are out since they extended and are paying their homegrown hero in Kershaw. (Oh wait, the are in play still too?)

And that means Philadelphia will have to choose between Machado and Harper because they could never pay two guys. . . (Oh wait, there are articles literally everyday on them getting both?)

 

None of those guys are going to be making $40M a year, as Trout and Harper will be at some point in their deals.

You're also talking about overlaps of 2-3 years, not 10.

[Dtwncbad]

Just now, Jeff Fletcher said:

None of those guys are going to be making $40M a year, as Trout and Harper will be at some point in their deals.

You're also talking about overlaps of 2-3 years, not 10.

Jeff I am merely pointing out tajt teams ansolutely can pay multiple huge contracts at once.

The Angels are paying Trout and Pujols now.

If we want to say the team will likely choose not to, that's fine but I simply cannot agree that they "can't" afford Harper right now.

 

 

[Dtwncbad]

I might also argue that the Angels should probably consider that if they draw some line in the sand on some limit to how they can surround Trout, then Trout might just decide he would prefer to play somewhere else where an owner would treat the roster and finances differently considering the unique opportunity of having Trout AND other elite players at the same time.

But circle back to sentence one of this thread.  I am not predicting the Angels sign Harper.

Just saying they certainly could, and the knee jerk reason not to of the Pujols contract ending up lousy is not a valid reason to not consider Harper.

[Lou]

11 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Jeff I am merely pointing out tajt teams ansolutely can pay multiple huge contracts at once.

The Angels are paying Trout and Pujols now.

If we want to say the team will likely choose not to, that's fine but I simply cannot agree that they "can't" afford Harper right now.

 

 

many teams can afford it. however, how many teams have ever had three players on their roster that made a combined $90 million+ ? 

[Dtwncbad]

Just now, Lou said:

many teams can afford it. however, how many teams have ever had three players on their roster that made a combined $90 million+ ? 

I hear you.  So it would be historic and a special circumstance is what you are saying.

Yes it would be.

[floplag]

3 minutes ago, Lou said:

many teams can afford it. however, how many teams have ever had three players on their roster that made a combined $90 million+ ? 

The funny part is that we could potentially do it and still not hit luxury tax.   

[Docwaukee]

2 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

I might also argue that the Angels should probably consider that if they draw some line in the sand on some limit to how they can surround Trout, then Trout might just decide he would prefer to play somewhere else where an owner would treat the roster and finances differently considering the unique opportunity of having Trout AND other elite players at the same time.

But circle back to sentence one of this thread.  I am not predicting the Angels sign Harper.

Just saying they certainly could, and the knee jerk reason not to of the Pujols contract ending up lousy is not a valid reason to not consider Harper.

they've already drawn that line.  Harper would push the nats payroll into the $220-230 range for 2019.  

If it were a situation where going over for a couple years meant vying for a championship, I would say it was possible.  

So they probably could, but they absolutely won't if it means making parallel contracts lasting 10 years with an aav of around 75m.  

It's not the only reason though.  They also have a top prospect that will be ready in a year to take that spot who is essentially free by baseball standards.   AND they have an incumbent making 10m with 1 year left on his contract.  AND the team has a bunch of other holes to fill.  

there are too many long and short term hurdles to jump in order for this to make sense.  

[Docwaukee]

9 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

I hear you.  So it would be historic and a special circumstance is what you are saying.

Yes it would be.

it would be unprecedented.  sometimes there is no precedent for a reason.  

[Blarg]

1 hour ago, Dochalo said:

I'm getting pretty bored of station to station baseball waiting for that 3 r hr. 

Yup.

[Dtwncbad]

2 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Yup.

Lots of fans don't like it.  And it isn"t even waiting for a 3 run homer anymore.  It is everybody swing for the fences and hope for 3 solo homers to get three runs.

It is almost to the point where home runs are boring.  But that is the game now.

Lineups are designed to have the maximum number of players that can hit a mistake over the wall.

[Dtwncbad]

22 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

it would be unprecedented.  sometimes there is no precedent for a reason.  

I know.  The Angels are not getting Harper.  At least while he is a free agent I can allow myself to argue for fun that they could or that it it is remotely possible.

[Angelsjunky]

Someone else will pay more for him. We saw this with Corbin and we'll see this with Harper (and Machado). Premium free agents, well, go for a premium.

Eovaldi will be a similar situation in that someone is going to want to risk that he can at least be a #2 going forward, and give him something like 5/80.

A savvy GM avoids these sorts of contracts and instead looks for guys who can give 80% of the production at 50% of the cost (possibly a Happ).

[Pancake Bear]

1 hour ago, Hubs said:

AL? All of the others are NL hitters, which of course Harper is as well, but I'd think that all of the other guys you put will stay with or wind up with NL teams. Harper I think may end up in the AL, even if not with the Angels, but somewhere.

Khris Davis might well be the most overrated player in baseball. The dude got MVP votes despite having a lower (offense-only) fWAR than Ohtani. It’s hilarious how backwards that is. 

[Dtwncbad]

3 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

Someone else will pay more for him. We saw this with Corbin and we'll see this with Harper (and Machado). Premium free agents, well, go for a premium.

Eovaldi will be a similar situation in that someone is going to want to risk that he can at least be a #2 going forward, and give him something like 5/80.

A savvy GM avoids these sorts of contracts and instead looks for guys who can give 80% of the production at 50% of the cost (possibly a Happ).

That's fine for some transactions but if you are never willing to go after an elite player you just might find your team of "80%" guys get destroyed by the teams with to higher tier players.

I don't think the Angels in this premium SoCal market should necessarily be a team that always goes for the "80% at 50% of the cost."

Some yes.  Certain other players?  Pay the price.

[Docwaukee]

9 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

That's fine for some transactions but if you are never willing to go after an elite player you just might find your team of "80%" guys get destroyed by the teams with to higher tier players.

I don't think the Angels in this premium SoCal market should necessarily be a team that always goes for the "80% at 50% of the cost."

Some yes.  Certain other players?  Pay the price.

that's why you build a farm.  so you can get 120% of production for 5% of the cost.  

[floplag]

53 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

Someone else will pay more for him. We saw this with Corbin and we'll see this with Harper (and Machado). Premium free agents, well, go for a premium.

Eovaldi will be a similar situation in that someone is going to want to risk that he can at least be a #2 going forward, and give him something like 5/80.

A savvy GM avoids these sorts of contracts and instead looks for guys who can give 80% of the production at 50% of the cost (possibly a Happ).

Funny thing about 80% of production, it tends to get 80% of the wins too.  Some might call that savvy, others would call it cheap and a problem with priorities. 

 

45 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

That's fine for some transactions but if you are never willing to go after an elite player you just might find your team of "80%" guys get destroyed by the teams with to higher tier players.

I don't think the Angels in this premium SoCal market should necessarily be a team that always goes for the "80% at 50% of the cost."

Some yes.  Certain other players?  Pay the price.

i could not agree more with this sentiment.  Though in defense of that we have spent which is part of the problem, were paying Pujols and Trout, if you add them together were probably getting our moneys worth as Trout is perhaps over producing while Pujols... isnt.      Regardless thats dead money, its already spent.  If thats holding us back then were literally dead in the water for 3 more years and will likely lose Trout.  If that money is preventing us from spending more, we might as well start making trades and clearing house for a run in 22.  I know thats not a popular view but watching Trout play for another year or two will not ease the sting of watching him walk for a draft pick should that come to pass.

 

1 hour ago, Dochalo said:

it would be unprecedented.  sometimes there is no precedent for a reason.  

How many of those times did any team have a once in a generation player?     




Dont get me wrong, i dont think it happens as they would need to be willing to not only blow the "comfortable" budget but possible even approach the tax cap, 2 things i dont think they will do.    

[gotbeer]

Go for Harper now.  Because there is no guarantee that Trout will sign with the Angels later.  The Angels have Trout and Pujols now.  If it means 2 (Trout gone) or 3 (Trout stays, Pujols gone) years of going over the cap, then you have to put on your big boy pants.  If signing Harper means Trout doesn't want to play here or will be asking for even more money (we already know he's going to get paid well).  Then Trout isn't the man I thought he was.

On the flip side.  Harper is Mr. Glass and the Angels are cursed with injuries.

But IMO, taking a chance on a 26 year old (giving him the option to opt out when he is in his low 30's) is worth the risk.

[ksangel]

Red Sox will have 9 players making over $11M with four over $20M.

Angels could afford both Trout and Harper it's just a matter of Artie doing it. Three years over the cap then Pujols contract is gone and Adell, Jones, Canning and Ward should be regulars at league minimum.

Have a good chance to grab a wild card spot next year but not with Calhoun in RF if Fletcher is at 2B and Cozart at 3B...come on Artie go for it!

[Docwaukee]

35 minutes ago, floplag said:

Funny thing about 80% of production, it tends to get 80% of the wins too.  Some might call that savvy, others would call it cheap and a problem with priorities. 

 

i could not agree more with this sentiment.  Though in defense of that we have spent which is part of the problem, were paying Pujols and Trout, if you add them together were probably getting our moneys worth as Trout is perhaps over producing while Pujols... isnt.      Regardless thats dead money, its already spent.  If thats holding us back then were literally dead in the water for 3 more years and will likely lose Trout.  If that money is preventing us from spending more, we might as well start making trades and clearing house for a run in 22.  I know thats not a popular view but watching Trout play for another year or two will not ease the sting of watching him walk for a draft pick should that come to pass.

 

How many of those times did any team have a once in a generation player?     




Dont get me wrong, i dont think it happens as they would need to be willing to not only blow the "comfortable" budget but possible even approach the tax cap, 2 things i dont think they will do.    

none.  That still doesn't make it logical or even ultimately improve the team enough to satisfy the intent of paying a guy like Harper.  

is Bryce Harper really the savior for this team?  can he pitch?  I'm all for expanding payroll some as long as it doesn't have long term consequences and actually complete the needs of the team. 

you know what else adding a guy like Harper does?  It would mean that we'd essentially take ourselves out of the free agent market for the next 2-3 years and would essentially limit spending for however long you'd have that duo on the team.  

it's already unlikely that Arte is going to expand payroll.  it's zombie apocalypse unlikely that he commits three quarters of a billion dollars to two players.