Two little birdies

[Angel Oracle 13,488]

11 minutes ago, Make Angels Great Again said:

I want to punch Machado in his punky Facking face.

But...

Rengifo

Simmons

Trout

Ohtani

Machado

Upton

Adell

Thaiss

Whoever at catcher

 

Ugh...

Rengifo, Simba, Trout, Ohtani, Arenado, Upton, Adell, Thaiss, Catcher in 2020….Even better

But yeah, more than two huge contracts (Trout and Simba after 2020) is hard for any team to do.

[floplag 3,493]

2 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

Have you considered, and I know you haven't, that Trout winning a championship in Anaheim would satisfy his needs here, this making it easy for him to sign somewhere else?

The Angels winning in 2019/2020 has nothing to do with them winning over the 10 years of his extension. Nothing. Especially if we sacrifice the future to ahh F*ck it.

So youre suggesting winning is a bad thing in trying to extend him?  Well i must admit thats a first.
No, the next 2 years dont have anything to do with the 10 that follow, they have everything to do with whether or not he will be here for that 10 years.  
Literally noone has said sacrifice the future for an oh &*$% it go DiPoto ham session, not once.   What I personally have said is make an effort, spend a little more than they are comfy with over the next couple years till Albert drops off, maybe make one significant trade... thats literally it.  

[tdawg87 32,864]

17 minutes ago, floplag said:

So youre suggesting winning is a bad thing in trying to extend him?  Well i must admit thats a first.

......what?

[Halokingfish 74]

Would rather give Ward/Fletcher a longer look at third this season to see what we exactly have in them before we splurge a big contract on Machado at third. I don’t know if we can even sign him because if someone gives him the opportunity to play shortstop I think he takes that. Should focus on pitching this offseason and next year if we want a franchise changing 3rd baseman we should check in on local kid Nolan Arenado 

[Dochalo 25,607]

19 minutes ago, floplag said:

So youre suggesting winning is a bad thing in trying to extend him?  Well i must admit thats a first.
No, the next 2 years dont have anything to do with the 10 that follow, they have everything to do with whether or not he will be here for that 10 years.  
Literally noone has said sacrifice the future for an oh &*$% it go DiPoto ham session, not once.   What I personally have said is make an effort, spend a little more than they are comfy with over the next couple years till Albert drops off, maybe make one significant trade... thats literally it.  

I don't understand this logic.  

[Inside Pitch 17,498]

13 hours ago, Chuckster70 said:

Told a source of mine that the Angels are in discussion with Manny Machado.

Mind you, this is NOT a source or friend of mine working for the Angels, but rather the agency in which Manny is associated with. Two different sources though. 

Who knows. Could be BS.

Chuck, you can tell us --- the person that told you this was "Incarcerated Birdie", wasn't it?

[Dtwncbad 3,485]

I can't help but try to dream up a contract that is specifically designed to almost force the player to opt out at age 30 or 31.

Everyone has fantasized for 2 years that there was a buyout for Pujols to get out if the back 4-5 years.

So what if you gave a Machado a 10 year deal for $300m, and give him the opt out at age 30 or 31 that gives like a $40m bonus?

So that would be $30m per year for 5 years, and then he gets a $40m bonus to opt out.

The total compensation would be $190m for 5 years (average of $38m per year).

The Angels would be hit with that last $40m happening in one year.

Maybe all the numbers are off in my specific example (the market dictates what the actual numbers end up being), but I am just making a STRUCTURAL illustration.

It would be a revolutionary contract approach to attract a player with an overall amount that is impressive, but would really entice the player to opt out at the beginning of the decline age.

 

[floplag 3,493]

2 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

I don't understand this logic.  

OK, im not sure whats tricky here.  You are expecting him to take a leap of faith that we could win while taking no action to show it.  Hes going to get paid regardless, money alone wont be the end of the discussion.  

[Chuckster70 21,451]

25 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

Chuck, you can tell us --- the person that told you this was "Incarcerated Birdie", wasn't it?

Well if it doesn't come to pass, this acquaintance will be forever named the Incarcerated Bird. 

[tdawg87 32,864]

8 minutes ago, floplag said:

OK, im not sure whats tricky here.  You are expecting him to take a leap of faith that we could win while taking no action to show it.  Hes going to get paid regardless, money alone wont be the end of the discussion.  

He's taking a leap of faith with any team he signs with. Winning isn't guaranteed. 

However if you have a good foundation of young talent and a good farm system it makes it far more likely. Hence why the next two years don't matter. He's here regardless. The Angels need to show that they're going to win the 10 years he's not already here. 

[floplag 3,493]

36 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

......what?

Your words... "Trout winning a championship in Anaheim would satisfy his needs here, this making it easy for him to sign somewhere else?"
 

[floplag 3,493]

Just now, tdawg87 said:

He's taking a leap of faith with any team he signs with. Winning isn't guaranteed. 

However if you have a good foundation of young talent and a good farm system it makes it far more likely. Hence why the next two years don't matter. He's here regardless. The Angels need to show that they're going to win the 10 years he's not already here. 

Well to quote dochalo, i dont understand this logic.  Not when teams already ahead of us already have better farms, its not a logical conclusion to me.  Its going to take a mix of farm and FA to be competitive.  One doesnt have to wait on the other, they are not co-dependent. 
Well just let it go at that as im not going down this road again.  

[krAbs 1,942]

I understand the hate, but an up the middle of Simmons-Machado-Trout would look great. Especially if we added a good looking catcher, and shored up the corners with upcoming prospects.

Edit - assuming he played 2b for us.

[DCAngelsFan 429]

25 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

I can't help but try to dream up a contract that is specifically designed to almost force the player to opt out at age 30 or 31.

Everyone has fantasized for 2 years that there was a buyout for Pujols to get out if the back 4-5 years.

So what if you gave a Machado a 10 year deal for $300m, and give him the opt out at age 30 or 31 that gives like a $40m bonus?

So that would be $30m per year for 5 years, and then he gets a $40m bonus to opt out.

The total compensation would be $190m for 5 years (average of $38m per year).

The Angels would be hit with that last $40m happening in one year.

Maybe all the numbers are off in my specific example (the market dictates what the actual numbers end up being), but I am just making a STRUCTURAL illustration.

It would be a revolutionary contract approach to attract a player with an overall amount that is impressive, but would really entice the player to opt out at the beginning of the decline age.

 

This is an interesting read:  https://www.economist.com/game-theory/2015/12/08/opting-in-to-opt-outs

Even if it does mention Vernon Wells not choosing to opt out - so it's a cautionary tale, too - such an opt-out, would, in Pujol's case, be useless - he'd decline.  (The risk of backloading a contract is also at-play.)  

Maybe it sounds better to the player that it's an "opt-out" instead of a club option with buyout - but the risk in an opt-out is the same whether there's a bonus payment or not - if they've been productive and worth the cost, they'll take the opt-out, if they've been a disaster, they'll stay to the end of the contract.  Not sure how much tying a bonus to them invoking the opt-out will move that needle - but it's worth considering.

 

 

[howie 30]

It’s actually a pretty smart business move if they can sign Machado to a reasonable deal. It sets the market for Harper and thus for Trout also.  Better than waiting for some team to overpay outrageously and then have to pay Trout even more.  

[Chuckster70 21,451]

2 minutes ago, howie said:

It’s actually a pretty smart business move if they can sign Machado to a reasonable deal. It sets the market for Harper and thus for Trout also.  Better than waiting for some team to overpay outrageously and then have to pay Trout even more.  

Yup! 

[Second Base 8,775]

12 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

2019 Playoff Lineup:

2B Rengifo

CF Trout

3B Machado

DH Ohtani

LF Upton

SS Simmons

C Ramos

1B Thaiss

RF Adell

The only way this team is playoff bound in 2019 is if our pitchers or whoever else they bring, absolutely pitched out of their freakin mind and Oakland collapsed. 

[UndertheHalo 11,018]

What are the odds that Machado is going to sign a “reasonable” deal tho.  Seems unlikely to me. 

[KDWells 85]

Machado and Schoop are best buds, I wouldn’t be surprised if they ended up on the same team again.

[True Grich 12,280]

15 minutes ago, howie said:

It’s actually a pretty smart business move if they can sign Machado to a reasonable deal.

[TroutAdell 146]

No to Greinke. The Angels are on his no trade list so to trade for him he will want compensation for dropping his no trade clause. No thanks! 

[Angelsjunky 10,449]

35 minutes ago, Second Base said:

The only way this team is playoff bound in 2019 is if our pitchers or whoever else they bring, absolutely pitched out of their freakin mind and Oakland collapsed. 

The lineup I posted is truly sick, and would be the best lineup the Angels have had in at least a decade.

But yeah, pitching. Buh-bye Eovaldi and Corbin. 

[Second Base 8,775]

I'm trying to see this from a wider view, one that I might have one year from now. 

The Angels main function as a baseball team, is to win.  Arte has enough money as it stands, he doesn't own a professional baseball team because he's hoping to get rich.  He's already rich.  And Arte isn't getting any younger.  Much like Illitch the former Tigers owner, Arte will spend money because you can't take it with you to the after life, and quite frankly, there are a lot of rich people, but there aren't many World Champions.  He's proven time and again that he's willing to spend to build a winner, and Arte has learned a lot along the way.  He's learned not to meddle where he shouldn't, and not be fooled by snake oil salesman (Dipoto). 

So if the Angels want to win.....Well let's just say that Calhoun, Cozart, Fletcher, random catcher and a 47 year old Pujols aren't going to cut it.  

And he's got this GM, smart as a whip and humble.  He's won before when he was with the Yankees.  And he's done with with money and without money.  The past few years, he's done it without money, and has built up the future of the franchise.  They're in good hands.  Now let's see what he can do with a little more money.  Yet at the same time, Eppler was the one that wanted Cozart in the first place.  So they probably aren't going to get rid of him.  He likes his defense too much, same with Calhoun.  Plus....Eppler wanted to bring Cozart in to play 2B from the start.  The whole 3B thing only came about because of the Kinsler opportunity, which Eppler took because of Cozart's willingness to move, the low price, Kinsler's defensive reputation and the fact that they could flip him for prospects later on if it doesn't work out. 

So Cozart is moving to 2B if Eppler has anything to say about it.  And as far as Eppler's comments to the media, we all know by now that he keeps things tight to the vest and almost always goes in the direction most aren't envisioning, but after further review, they end up being very intelligent, logical moves. 

Manny Machado, well sure, he's a smart move for pretty much every team.  For the Angels, he's their third baseman, middle of the order hitter and willcontinue to be that for the next decade.  And bringing in Machado would allow Eppler the freedom to trade Taylor Ward for the pitching he may need. 

On the other hand, let's be frank, Manny Machado's tantrum bouts do not fit the club that's been shaped around Trout, Simmons, Ohtani and Pujols, which is a very  blue-collar, but FUN approach to baseball.  These guys work harder than anyone else in the game.  Manny has fun, but he just doesn't match the persona of this team.  And Eppler has said that he's going to be letting the kids take over this season.  Plus bringing Machado into the fold creates a very crowded infield situation that has a lot of different options.  If Ward doesn't succeed as a third baseman, Fletcher might as a second baseman, and if that doesn't work out, then Rengifo could end up being the solution, and if that doesn't work, Jahmai Jones looks very promising, and a couple years after that, so does Jeremiah Jackson and Kevin Maitan....

My guess is Manny Machado won't be an Angel.  It doesn't fit with Billy Eppler's philosophy of team building, it's not a perfect fit and would come at a time where money first needs to be allotted for Mike Trout's extension, which is becoming more likely each day. 

This does NOT mean that the Angels won't be spending money, or that Cozart is destined for third base....that all remain true.  The Angels will spend, but Billy Eppler will do it in a more intelligent way.  I think Eppler's going to make a couple splashes in the pitching rotation.  Some blockbuster like Zack Greinke, Robbie Ray, Jake Lamb and 15 million to the Angels for Kole Calhoun, Brandon Marsh, Jahmai Jones, Jose Suarez, Trent Deveaux, and Jose Soriano, and then Arte will top it off with a Trout extension.  It fills many of the holes, only adds about 10 million to payroll for this year. 

That should give Eppler 20-30 million to try and solve the catching situation and find a quality one year option in RF.  He'll probably go get Wilson Ramos at 3 years 40 million, and Nick Markakis, one year 10 million. 

The farm would be considerably weakened, but the MLB team would have more than enough depth up top and the low minors and AAA squad would still be stacked.  Ramos, Lamb and Markakis would be low cost moves that deepen the lineup considerably.  And Grienke and Ray would both be three year solutions.  Bascially, the Angels would be getting Greinke for 3/70 which is probably close to what he'd get in free agency anyway, and it open up the possibility of an Ohtani, Greinke, Ray, Canning, Heaney in 2020, and it would leave the Angels with Thiass at 1B, and Rengifo ready to take over 2B at a moments notice, which are both going to improve the team massively.  It doesn't block Jo Adell either. 

Pretty much a big win. 

[howie 30]

52 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

What are the odds that Machado is going to sign a “reasonable” deal tho.  Seems unlikely to me. 

Reasonable doesn’t mean a bargain or cheap-  it would mean what Arte is willing to pay and Eppler is able to negotiate-  the point is they get to set the market and not be at the mercy of it.   Even if Machado doesn’t sign, I believe it will help them to craft a starting point for the Trout negotiations.  

[floplag 3,493]

2 minutes ago, Second Base said:

I'm trying to see this from a wider view, one that I might have one year from now. 

The Angels main function as a baseball team, is to win.  Arte has enough money as it stands, he doesn't own a professional baseball team because he's hoping to get rich.  He's already rich.  And Arte isn't getting any younger.  Much like Illitch the former Tigers owner, Arte will spend money because you can't take it with you to the after life, and quite frankly, there are a lot of rich people, but there aren't many World Champions.  He's proven time and again that he's willing to spend to build a winner, and Arte has learned a lot along the way.  He's learned not to meddle where he shouldn't, and not be fooled by snake oil salesman (Dipoto).

I think the real question though is WHEN do they plan to try to win.