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

Simple Logic on Harper


Dtwncbad

Recommended Posts

1 hour 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 don't disagree with you, and generally feel that the best approach is to build from within, extend your young stars, and use free agency to augment your homegrown team, with the occasional premium signing (e.g. Vlad). So I'm not opposed to signing premium players. What I am opposed to is signing sub-premium players for premium prices, because of scarcity and/or a player is over-valued. For instance, paying Corbin $23 million a year for six years. Or possibly what Eovaldi will get. 

My point was that a savvy GM looks for players that are almost as good but cost much less. But this isn't opposed to occasionally signing a premium free agent; it is opposed to overpaying for sub-premium free agents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

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.     

As said previously any signings we make for offense are assumed to be in addition to pitching, not in lieu of.   We could afford to do both if Arte decides to bite the bullet for a few years. 
Do i think we will, no.     Im simply of the opinion that we could, if we wanted to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, floplag said:

This is to me a very hot take Jeff.  If Trout is the problem per se, how can we possibly retain him and build a winner as hes only going to get even more expensive.   It sounds to me like thats almost a reason to consider a trade to at least re-stock.
He cant simultaneously be the piece we build around and the reason we cant build, one has to give. 

No, Trout and Harper would be the problem.  The issue isn’t having one guy making $35-40 million it is having two.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Floplag, I don't know your age or when you started following the Angels, but from the late 70s into the early 90s, their approach was very much throw as much money at free agents as possible. Their "great" 80s teams were a bunch of rent-a-players, most of whom had their best years before coming to the Angels: Baylor, Jackson, Lynn, Grich, DeCinces, Carew, etc. 

This approached yielded three playoff appearances (79, 82, 86), but never really panned out, or led to sustained contention. At its very worst, in the late 80s to early 90s, they weren't just signing aging stars, they were signing geriatric former stars at the very tail end of their careers.

The franchise went through a transition phase in the early 90s when they started focusing on homegrown talent. This led to the almost-epic 1995 season. That homegrown team never amounted to much, but several of its players formed the core of the 2002 World Series championship. Then we have the Golden Era of 2004-09, which was a combination of homegrown talent and some great to good to not-so-good free agent signings. That era ended as the core aged out and/or left and was replaced by free agents that couldn't fill their shoes. Dipoto tried to rectify the situation by making some big splashes (Wells, Pujols, Wilson, Hamilton), but they all turned out to be belly-flops.

Anyhow, I go into all of this to provide context for what I think (and hope) Eppler is doing: methodically retooling the team to turn it into a perennial contender and organizational powerhouse. This takes time. But he's also doing this with one eye on trying to be competitive now, in the Trout Window, but not at the expense of long-term success. But there's a bit of a "thread the needle" thing going on, because Eppler doesn't want to go into full-on rebuilding mode because of Trout and Simmons, but he also doesn't want to rob the future to pay the present (aka debt).

There are two things that potentially greatly damage long-term success: One is trading away the farm, and the second is over-spending on free agency, and thereby clogging the roster with expensive players on the wrong side of 30. Thankfully Eppler isn't doing either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt it's Harper, but like I said in this thread earlier, they need o get 80-100 more runs and basically just replace the pitching they had lastyear to be in contention. Their pitching actually wasn't awful in 2018 like it was made out to be. They could've blown less saves, and yes, I'd have appreciated 50-100 less runs being allowed, but the vast majority of that was the bottom feeders forced to give them innings like Omar Despaigne and Deck McGuire.

The Angels pitched 1437.1 innings in 2018. Only 805.1 innings came from starters. The pen through 632. That's not good. It's basically a 56/44% Split. The Astros, who had the best pitching in the league threw 1455 innnings, and 955.1 were by the starters. 65.6% of their innings were thrown by the starters, and 499.2 or 34.4% of their innings were by starters.

The Angels top 7 starters by workload threw 731.2 of their 805.1 innings. (Heaney, Skaggs, Barria, Pena, Richards, Tropeano, and Ohtani). That's almost 91% of their innings. These players gave up a total of 349 runs in 133 starts, of the 722 allowed or roughly 48%. The pen allowed 303. That's 652 runs of the 722 runs allowed.

The other 29 games, were started by 9 guys, a few were bullpen games, but those 9 starters, allowed 70 runs in just 73.2 innings. That's an 8.55 ERA, and the reason we weren't in the wild card. Also 73.2 innings/ 29 games = average of 2.5 innings per start. The other 7 guys averaged a still not good 5.5 innings per start.

Of those 7 good starters, 6 are still with the organization, and one will not pitch in 2019, but is expected to in 2020. Of the 9 bad starters, 2 are left in the pen, and one is on the DL.

Eppler needs to replace those 29 starts, and also the starts made by Richards and Ohtani. That's why they need two starters.

For contrast, the Astros top 7 starters pitched 160 of their games, all of them had ERA's under 4. It's a big stretch to compete with them, even if they lose two of these guys to free agency. The Angels need to score more runs, as then they should be able to compete.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

Floplag, I don't know your age or when you started following the Angels, but from the late 70s into the early 90s, their approach was very much throw as much money at free agents as possible. Their "great" 80s teams were a bunch of rent-a-players, most of whom had their best years before coming to the Angels: Baylor, Jackson, Lynn, Grich, DeCinces, Carew, etc. 

This approached yielded three playoff appearances (79, 82, 86), but never really panned out, or led to sustained contention. At its very worst, in the late 80s to early 90s, they weren't just signing aging stars, they were signing geriatric former stars at the very tail end of their careers.

The franchise went through a transition phase in the early 90s when they started focusing on homegrown talent. This led to the almost-epic 1995 season. That homegrown team never amounted to much, but several of its players formed the core of the 2002 World Series championship. Then we have the Golden Era of 2004-09, which was a combination of homegrown talent and some great to good to not-so-good free agent signings. That era ended as the core aged out and/or left and was replaced by free agents that couldn't fill their shoes. Dipoto tried to rectify the situation by making some big splashes (Wells, Pujols, Wilson, Hamilton), but they all turned out to be belly-flops.

Anyhow, I go into all of this to provide context for what I think (and hope) Eppler is doing: methodically retooling the team to turn it into a perennial contender and organizational powerhouse. This takes time. But he's also doing this with one eye on trying to be competitive now, in the Trout Window, but not at the expense of long-term success. But there's a bit of a "thread the needle" thing going on, because Eppler doesn't want to go into full-on rebuilding mode because of Trout and Simmons, but he also doesn't want to rob the future to pay the present (aka debt).

There are two things that potentially greatly damage long-term success: One is trading away the farm, and the second is over-spending on free agency, and thereby clogging the roster with expensive players on the wrong side of 30. Thankfully Eppler isn't doing either.

Yes, i was there.    I started following the team in the mid to late 70s.  I have never once suggested we do anything similar to that time.  What i have stated multiple times is that i am in favor of a balance of both FA and building the farm.

The only place i break with that is this window we are in right now, which is uncharted territory.   

We have 2 years to give Trout a reason to stay or move on from a once in a generation player i dont want to see ever play in another uniform.   Right now, this window, these next 2 years, i am for being a little reckless to try to make that happen.  To be clear that doesnt mean mortgaging the farm and everything on it.   It means spending more than they might otherwise want to more than anything else, maybe 1 trade if we can pull it off without losing critical pieces.  

I dont think thats an unreasonable or crazy opinion.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have always thought we would be in on Harper.  One year at or over the cap, then Albert retires.  Redistribute that money to cover the Trout extension, buy out Calhoun after this season, and we'd be OK.  

We would have to hope Canning and the other young pitchers are the real deal, though.

I think the big splash is Kicuchi and Harper, always have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours 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.

 

 

You are right. The Angels can afford Harper in 2019.

Maybe he’ll take a one year deal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

You are right. The Angels can afford Harper in 2019.

Maybe he’ll take a one year deal. 

What about 2020?  Can you tell me what specific year the multibillionaire owner (whose net worth goes up probably $100-150m per year) can not afford to pay Harper?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

What about 2020?  Can you tell me what specific year the multibillionaire owner (whose net worth goes up probably $100-150m per year) can not afford to pay Harper?

Once again it has nothing to do with the wealth of the owner, if it did the A’s would have a MUCH larger payroll than the Angels instead of crying poverty and actually benefiting from revenue sharing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Once again it has nothing to do with the wealth of the owner, if it did the A’s would have a MUCH larger payroll than the Angels instead of crying poverty and actually benefiting from revenue sharing. 

save your breath. I've been saying this for going on a decade and the Arte is cheap crowd just doesn't get it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Lou said:

save your breath. I've been saying this for going on a decade and the Arte is cheap crowd just doesn't get it. 

I have believe I have said quite a few times over different threads that I have no issue at all with an owner deciding to not pay for this player or that player.

It's their money.

But I am a bit of a stickler for how that is characterized.

Saying they "can't" is 100% different from they won't.

The Angels are not getting Harper.  But it is absolutely not because they "can't" or "can't afford it."

They choose not to, which is perfectly fine.

It would not cause the owner financial damage in any meaningful way.  His expenses would be higher and he would get wealthier a bit slower than he is now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AngelStew43 said:

I have always thought we would be in on Harper.  One year at or over the cap, then Albert retires.  Redistribute that money to cover the Trout extension, buy out Calhoun after this season, and we'd be OK.  

We would have to hope Canning and the other young pitchers are the real deal, though.

I think the big splash is Kicuchi and Harper, always have.

That money is guaranteed unless Albert purposely refuses to take it, which is not unprecedented but unlikely to occur. Not sure if the Angels took insurance out on his contract and can point to a real medical issue (his knees for instance) that would allow them to collect on that policy (unlikely too).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

I have believe I have said quite a few times over different threads that I have no issue at all with an owner deciding to not pay for this player or that player.

It's their money.

But I am a bit of a stickler for how that is characterized.

Saying they "can't" is 100% different from they won't.

The Angels are not getting Harper.  But it is absolutely not because they "can't" or "can't afford it."

They choose not to, which is perfectly fine.

It would not cause the owner financial damage in any meaningful way.  His expenses would be higher and he would get wealthier a bit slower than he is now.

Ok then can’t is a word no fan and no owner should use about signing any player.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Stradling said:

Ok then can’t is a word no fan and no owner should use about signing any player.  

Well that might be a little extreme.  Not sure how we got here but I don't think it is out of line to simply make the distinction periodically.

Moreno is getting wealthier by the second.  It isn't outrageous to acknowledge he absolutely can sign Harper and still get wealthier everyday.

I really don't see how pointing that out for clarity is such an issue.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way that Harper or Machado happens is if: 1 ) Moreno really opens up the wallet and exceeds the CBT threshold significantly, 2 ) One of Harper and Machado even wants to sign with us, 3 ) Harper plays 1B and/or OF or Machado plays 3B, 4 ) Either one of them accepts a contract that contains one or more opt-outs after the 1st (2019) or 2nd (2020) year, and 5 ) the Angels weight those 1st and 2nd years with high salary ($40M+) that will encourage either one of them to accept the opt-out to relieve team payroll.

Even if something happened to convince either one of them NOT to opt-out after 2019 or 2020, the Angels would be on the hook for less money in succeeding seasons overall and Pujols will come off the books in terms of salary after 2021 so the Angels would not be in the penalty box for long. If Moreno does authorize a much larger payroll budget there would be nothing blocking us from still filling up other holes around the diamond too. Eppler will just have to be blatant and possibly creative in his acquisitions.

All of those events happening above will take real will on the part of Moreno and I think it is pretty unlikely, despite my desire to see him push in hard on 2019.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

I have believe I have said quite a few times over different threads that I have no issue at all with an owner deciding to not pay for this player or that player.

It's their money.

But I am a bit of a stickler for how that is characterized.

Saying they "can't" is 100% different from they won't.

The Angels are not getting Harper.  But it is absolutely not because they "can't" or "can't afford it."

They choose not to, which is perfectly fine.

It would not cause the owner financial damage in any meaningful way.  His expenses would be higher and he would get wealthier a bit slower than he is now.

who has stated that Arte can't afford a certain player? 

also, my issue is more with people saying other teams/owners can't afford higher payrolls because of the market they are in. it's complete bullshit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Well that might be a little extreme.  Not sure how we got here but I don't think it is out of line to simply make the distinction periodically.

Moreno is getting wealthier by the second.  It isn't outrageous to acknowledge he absolutely can sign Harper and still get wealthier everyday.

I really don't see how pointing that out for clarity is such an issue.

 

Every owner is making a choice to not sign a guy to a $400 million contract.  I wonder what owner has bought a team and that team is now worth less than what they paid for it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

I have believe I have said quite a few times over different threads that I have no issue at all with an owner deciding to not pay for this player or that player.

It's their money.

But I am a bit of a stickler for how that is characterized.

Saying they "can't" is 100% different from they won't.

The Angels are not getting Harper.  But it is absolutely not because they "can't" or "can't afford it."

They choose not to, which is perfectly fine.

It would not cause the owner financial damage in any meaningful way.  His expenses would be higher and he would get wealthier a bit slower than he is now.

my question to you is why should he?  Winning?   

Are you saying that because he has so much money that he should piss it away on making questionable business decisions?  

can't and won't are arbitrary distinctions for every single one of these owners.  Every business owner draws a line in terms of expenses.  

when you try to make your case that his net worth would accumulate more slowly, that's just word smithing that he'd have to take money from his pocket to fuel someone else's agenda.  

So whether he can't are won't doesn't matter.  

F spending it on Harper or any other free agent, Arte should just give me a big bag of cash.  But he's not gonna.  Regardless of whether he can't or won't.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Every owner is making a choice to not sign a guy to a $400 million contract.  I wonder what owner has bought a team and that team is now worth less than what they paid for it.  

I wonder what billionaire decides to take part of their fortune and give it away with very little opportunity to get it back and then some?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dochalo said:

I wonder what billionaire decides to take part of their fortune and give it away with very little opportunity to get it back and then some?  

The only billionaire I know is incredibly generous, but she makes a pretty good living and the money she makes seems to increase year over year.  

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...