MLB radio discussions

[Dtwncbad]

I don't know who the hosts were but I find some of their comments almost embarrassing.

For example last night they said the reason why the Angels can't consider signing Machado is because if they extended Trout they would have two guys making over $60m per year.

Yeah I guess that is completely impossible for the Angels, except they are doing that right now with Trout and Pujols.

And two seconds later they talk about how the Phillies might still sign both Harper and Machado.

I don't know why these guys annoy me so much but they do.

 

[floplag]

Ive long ago given up on expecting the media to actually know anything about all but a handful of teams.  These guys are in the media, if people dont listen they dont get paid, so they cater to the larger markets to gain that listenership.  If its the dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs... heck even the Mets, they are 10 times more knowledgeable than those teams that dont have that rabid fan base. 

[UndertheHalo]

Should have called in and bitch slapped them. 

[Hubs]

It is an issue having three guys making over 30M, unless your payroll is over 200M.

Right now, the top three paid players on the Angels are Trout, Pujols and Upton. They make around 80-85M. But the AAV is closer to 70.

The Angels can function like this, but adding a guy like Machado now hurts them unless they are willing to go over the salary cap for 2019, 2020, and 2021. Even if they pay him drastically less for the first three years, like $15M-$18M per, the 32M AAV hurts them.

They might be able to swing it, because Calhoun comes off in 2019, and Cozart in 2020, hopefully Adell and Fletcher/Ward/Renfigo have those spots locked down for 2020 and beyond.

 

 

 

 

[Hubs]

Actually they have 112M IN actual payroll and 100M in AAV payroll for 2020, so they'd be able to squeeze in Machado for 2019, then they'd definitely be under for the 2020 year...

They'd likely be right against the tax threshold in 2019, with an add like that, and presumably a catcher like Grandal or Realmuto.... then definitely under in 2020 even with bigger salaries for the arbitration guys, and with Calhoun likely gone, and Harvey and Cahill also FA who could be resigned. Then when they resign Simmons and Trout for 2021, they would be in danger of going over again, but likely not, with Cozart likely off.

It's doable, for sure. But the Phillies have an easier time, because their payroll is 145 AAV in 2019, and then drops to 83 AAV in 2020. So they'd have an easier time, but it would still be a burden.

 

[Dtwncbad]

The only possible way signing Machado "hurts" the Angels is if other moves put them over the luxury tax.

And I very much doubt this team is going to go very far over the tax.  Let's say they go $20m over.

So this "hurt" to the team is purely financial and their tax penalty is $4m.

Let stop right there and digest that.  Signing Machado doesn't interrupt the development of the farm.  He doesn't cost a draft pick.  He improves the team immediately and he is plenty young enough to be at the core of the team success well into this precious "future."

One argument says be modest for 2019 and try to show Trout the excellent future ahead to extend him.  Signing Machado does something even better.  It shows Trout that the owner will do everything in his power to be competitive every year AND will make the future ahead inviting for Trout to commit to.

Only one team is going to win the WS in 2019 and it is 99% not going to be the Angels with or without Machado.

But there is no question the team would be better.  If they want Trout to stay, they should be showing him the maximum amount if fun (winning as many games as you can) in the meantime AND showing him good reasons to stay in the Angel lineup in 2 years.

Machado helps do that.

Trout should feel like the Angels are still willing to surround him with quality in all the years he will be an Angel.  You don't want Trout to think the Angels are a a team that will be cyclical in terms of their willingness to load talent around him.

When Trout decides on a 10 year deal, won't it matter that he sees Arte will stick a Machado behind him in the lineup in year like 2019 when he tries to imagine what the next 10 years will be like for him?  I think it will.

Now let's go back to the $4m lux tax penalty.

In 30 years when people talk about the magical Trout years, does this organization want to be remembered for trying to save a couple million here and there and passing on an opportunity to have a Machado in the lineup with Trout, or do they want to be remembered as the organization that viewed the Trout years to be so special that they were willing to step up a bit and make sure he had the bats around him to maximize his career?

The Red Sox had Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz together for 6 years.  Can you imagine if they had decided to not have that incredible duo to save a couple million?

I think Arte needs to step up.  Treat Trout like the legitimate legend that he is.

I don't care if the Angels win 84 games this year and dont make the playoffs with Macahado.  That isn't a waste.  It us a waste if they don't sign Machado.

I want Trout to be surrounded by the best.  That doesn't mean trading Adell and Canning for DeGrom because then you wont be surrounding him with the best 3 years from now.  Machado is different.  He is young and it doesn't disrupt the future and the only "hurt" to the team is potentially a few million bucks.  Big deal.

[floplag]

1 hour ago, Hubs said:

It is an issue having three guys making over 30M, unless your payroll is over 200M.

Right now, the top three paid players on the Angels are Trout, Pujols and Upton. They make around 80-85M. But the AAV is closer to 70.

The Angels can function like this, but adding a guy like Machado now hurts them unless they are willing to go over the salary cap for 2019, 2020, and 2021. Even if they pay him drastically less for the first three years, like $15M-$18M per, the 32M AAV hurts them.

They might be able to swing it, because Calhoun comes off in 2019, and Cozart in 2020, hopefully Adell and Fletcher/Ward/Renfigo have those spots locked down for 2020 and beyond.

 

 

 

 

i think its highly probable that one way or another this is Alberts last year, pending a huge renaissance.  
I think it will be on his terms and he will announce his retirement and take his victory lap so to speak, but if not and he does not put up real numbers it will be it.

Also dont forget our "budget" is some 25M UNDER the luxury tax cap.  The cap isnt out issue, its the comfortable budget.  They could easily add another 25-30M player without cap issues either way. 

[Hubs]

23 minutes ago, floplag said:

i think its highly probable that one way or another this is Alberts last year, pending a huge renaissance.  
I think it will be on his terms and he will announce his retirement and take his victory lap so to speak, but if not and he does not put up real numbers it will be it.

Also dont forget our "budget" is some 25M UNDER the luxury tax cap.  The cap isnt out issue, its the comfortable budget.  They could easily add another 25-30M player without cap issues either way. 

The max budget AAV style is around 16-18 M under the 206 number. Not 25. And actually cap and real payroll number is pretty close.

Right now, they're at around 161 there, with 161 also at in 25-Man "real"  payroll according to Cots. So it's pretty even, because the difference in AAV vs real payroll is about the equal to the benefits and 15 non-active roster guys at 120k each.

The past 2-3 years they've run a 176-188-ish 40-man payroll for AAV, which includes roughly $14M for benefits, and the roughly 150k average of the 15 guys on the 40-Man roster who aren't on the active roster. (around 2.25M).

They may be able to add one or two more pieces at a max of $12-15M total dollars. Technically they can add $45M in contracts AAV, so it's possible that they add

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JJEzXDdi1FoAVCxpssrNq04unxs39JIJg6CRn-IPM1c/pubhtml

That's the cots baseball spreadsheet which is a great resources for salaries.

I can see them adding Grandal and a reliever.

 

[Angel Oracle]

As long as no one else with a major salary long term is added, do they still have the money to sign Arenado in a year? 

Trout, Simba, and Ohtani by 2024 could be making $90-$100 million between them alone.

Now, if they did sign Arenado in a year, could that be an indication that they expect to see Trout or Simba sign elsewhere after 2020?

And yes, Arenado >>> Machado.

[Dtwncbad]

7 minutes ago, Angel Oracle said:

As long as no one else with a major salary long term is added, do they still have the money to sign Arenado in a year? 

Trout, Simba, and Ohtani by 2024 could be making $90-$100 million between them alone.

Now, if they did sign Arenado in a year, could that be an indication that they expect to see Trout or Simba sign elsewhere after 2020?

And yes, Arenado >>> Machado.

Why are we so programmed to believe this team can't have a truly excellent team that costs money?

Moreno said a number of times he would go over for the "right" player.  How is Trout not the right player?  (Meaning if the Angels were over the luxury tax by an amount up to whatever they pay Trout, then they are over the lux tax for him.)

[beatlesrule]

1 hour ago, Dtwncbad said:

The only possible way signing Machado "hurts" the Angels is if other moves put them over the luxury tax.

And I very much doubt this team is going to go very far over the tax.  Let's say they go $20m over.

So this "hurt" to the team is purely financial and their tax penalty is $4m.

Let stop right there and digest that.  Signing Machado doesn't interrupt the development of the farm.  He doesn't cost a draft pick.  He improves the team immediately and he is plenty young enough to be at the core of the team success well into this precious "future."

One argument says be modest for 2019 and try to show Trout the excellent future ahead to extend him.  Signing Machado does something even better.  It shows Trout that the owner will do everything in his power to be competitive every year AND will make the future ahead inviting for Trout to commit to.

Only one team is going to win the WS in 2019 and it is 99% not going to be the Angels with or without Machado.

But there is no question the team would be better.  If they want Trout to stay, they should be showing him the maximum amount if fun (winning as many games as you can) in the meantime AND showing him good reasons to stay in the Angel lineup in 2 years.

Machado helps do that.

Trout should feel like the Angels are still willing to surround him with quality in all the years he will be an Angel.  You don't want Trout to think the Angels are a a team that will be cyclical in terms of their willingness to load talent around him.

When Trout decides on a 10 year deal, won't it matter that he sees Arte will stick a Machado behind him in the lineup in year like 2019 when he tries to imagine what the next 10 years will be like for him?  I think it will.

Now let's go back to the $4m lux tax penalty.

In 30 years when people talk about the magical Trout years, does this organization want to be remembered for trying to save a couple million here and there and passing on an opportunity to have a Machado in the lineup with Trout, or do they want to be remembered as the organization that viewed the Trout years to be so special that they were willing to step up a bit and make sure he had the bats around him to maximize his career?

The Red Sox had Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz together for 6 years.  Can you imagine if they had decided to not have that incredible duo to save a couple million?

I think Arte needs to step up.  Treat Trout like the legitimate legend that he is.

I don't care if the Angels win 84 games this year and dont make the playoffs with Macahado.  That isn't a waste.  It us a waste if they don't sign Machado.

I want Trout to be surrounded by the best.  That doesn't mean trading Adell and Canning for DeGrom because then you wont be surrounding him with the best 3 years from now.  Machado is different.  He is young and it doesn't disrupt the future and the only "hurt" to the team is potentially a few million bucks.  Big deal.

So far, the answer is yes. Arte has shown he's perfectly comfortable not surrounding Trout with the best team possible and giving the illusion of contending as long as it fits within his budget. So far, he is content wasting Trout's magical years.

[TroutField]

On 12/21/2018 at 1:48 PM, beatlesrule said:

So far, the answer is yes. Arte has shown he's perfectly comfortable not surrounding Trout with the best team possible and giving the illusion of contending as long as it fits within his budget. So far, he is content wasting Trout's magical years.

You’re an idiot if you think it was a simple as throwing more Free Agent money at the major league club to get back into contention. The only thing that was going to fix this franchise was time, focusing back on the minor league system, and Billy Eppler apparently.

[beatlesrule]

Oh yeah getting Adrian Beltre would have been completely idiotic. 

[Lou]

3 minutes ago, beatlesrule said:

Oh yeah getting Adrian Beltre would have been completely idiotic. 

ha

where did this come from?

[Blarg]

Eight years ago. 

[tdawg87]

6 hours ago, beatlesrule said:

Oh yeah getting Adrian Beltre would have been completely idiotic. 

[Stradling]

If they signed Beltre then they would have brought up Trout to build around Beltre.  The only thing signing Beltre does is probably prevent us from signing Hamilton.  I highly doubt they don’t go after Albert.  

I recently read some articles from that off season, it was prompted by reading a tweet saying Beltre begged the Angels to sign him or some shit.  As I was reading it I got pissed.   I read an article saying Beltre and Boras we’re seeking a five year deal.   Then I read the Angels had a five year offer for Beltre.  Then he signs with Texas for six years.  I don’t care much for revisionist history.  

[GrittyVeterans]

48 minutes ago, Stradling said:

If they signed Beltre then they would have brought up Trout to build around Beltre.  The only thing signing Beltre does is probably prevent us from signing Hamilton.  I highly doubt they don’t go after Albert.  

I recently read some articles from that off season, it was prompted by reading a tweet saying Beltre begged the Angels to sign him or some shit.  As I was reading it I got pissed.   I read an article saying Beltre and Boras we’re seeking a five year deal.   Then I read the Angels had a five year offer for Beltre.  Then he signs with Texas for six years.  I don’t care much for revisionist history.  

It does really sting though that we could have had Beltre for 6 years probably and instead settled on the far inferior player Vernon Wells for 4 years. Imagine if they signed Beltre, traded Napoli for pitching 

ugh

 

[Stradling]

3 minutes ago, GrittyVeterans said:

It does really sting though that we could have had Beltre for 6 years probably and instead settled on the far inferior player Vernon Wells for 4 years. Imagine if they signed Beltre, traded Napoli for pitching 

ugh

 

I agree.  I just hated the narrative that he practically begged the Angels to sign him.  Ok here’s five years, see ya sucka I got six. 

[beatlesrule]

From what I've read and heard, the Angels wouldn't match that 6th year option. I agree that if he really wanted to be an Angel, the 6th year wouldn't have mattered but it was also a huge mistake not to offer it. Why you wouldn't want one of the best third baseman of all time for an extra year is mine bottling to me but I'm not Arte Moreno. 

He most certainly could have solved some of these teams problems through free agency but chose not to because of his stupid ass budget. I really really wish we had an actual baseball fan owner that wanted to win a World Series rather than a businessman. We are nothing but little ants to him though. The Angels are his plaything.

It is beyond comprehension and completely pathetic that the best player in baseball and one of the greatest of all-time has only been to one playoff series in his 8 year career given the market he plays in.

[Stradling]

2 hours ago, beatlesrule said:

From what I've read and heard, the Angels wouldn't match that 6th year option. I agree that if he really wanted to be an Angel, the 6th year wouldn't have mattered but it was also a huge mistake not to offer it. Why you wouldn't want one of the best third baseman of all time for an extra year is mine bottling to me but I'm not Arte Moreno. 

He most certainly could have solved some of these teams problems through free agency but chose not to because of his stupid ass budget. I really really wish we had an actual baseball fan owner that wanted to win a World Series rather than a businessman. We are nothing but little ants to him though. The Angels are his plaything.

It is beyond comprehension and completely pathetic that the best player in baseball and one of the greatest of all-time has only been to one playoff series in his 8 year career given the market he plays in.

For starters he wasn’t considered “one of the best third baseman of all time” prior to going to Texas.  

There also were the “down” years in Seattle.  There were people who thought he was a contract year player   

Oh and having Beltre May have changed that but we’d still be where we are now more than likely. Unless success from a few years ago would have Arte extending the budget of today.  

[Stradling]

He had a 101 OPS+ in Seattle.  My understanding is that park adjusted.   So once again it’s revisionist history to pretend he was one of the all time best when he became a free agent.  

[beatlesrule]

He was far and away better than anything the Angels had since Glaus left and the Angels probably make the playoffs more than once with his bat in the lineup. Oh well. I'm just airing a grievance.

[Docwaukee]

Comparing the Beltre signing to what it would take to get Machado is not even in the same ballpark.  Beltre got 6/96 or and aav of 16m.  Machado stands to get double that for almost double the term.  Missing out of Beltre sucked, but it was nowhere near the same commitment it would be for Harper or Machado.  

We've been through this discussion before.   Even if Arte were willing to go over the lux tax, adding an additional player at more than 30m per season aav essentially negates any opportunity for the Angels to fill gaps with free agents in the future if you extend Trout and Simmons on top of that.  

If Arte does decide to go over, how many years do you expect him to do it?  you'd almost be guaranteed to do so in 2020 and 2021.  Then in 2022 you've got about 120m allocated to 4 players (assuming you extend Trout and Simmons on top of having Machado and Upton).  Skaggs and Heaney are gone at that point btw.  Are they going to spend another big chunk of money on the pitching staff and go over again?  Doesn't that make it more likely they'd have to go over the cap again in 2023?  

Do you think it's realistic to go over 5 or 6 years in a row?  If not, then you're talking about piecing together a pitching staff in order to get back under.  

the math just doesn't work.  I'd rather hold off and grab a couple of good free agents a couple years from now so we can actually target a couple of areas of deficiency.  

 

[tdawg87]

Not my money.