Jonah Keri: The Angels have tweaked their hot stove approach as they try to build a better supporting cast around Mike Trout

[floplag]

14 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Everyone touts how great the A's are by being a competitive low payrol team but nobody seems to want the Angels to follow that business model. 

i personally dont believe they are great.  Yes they have had some results, but as far as im concerned they have become the McDonalds of baseball.  As a fan of the game i hold what they have done in contempt actually.  Who do you root for as a fan of that team?  Why bother investing when you know they wont be there long enough to bother remembering their jersey number? 
 
Why do you think their attendance has sucked.  They were 27th in the league last year in a season they should have been selling out.  In the moneyball era they have not crawled out of the bottom 10, mostly bottom 5 even with putting out some very good teams.  They may have made some money, but they havent made any fans.  Fans dont cheer accountants.   
 

[jessecrall]

2 hours ago, Stradling said:

I compare to how a lot of people think Upton sucks but really like Kole.   Kole looks like he’s trying, Weaver looked like he cared.   I was guilty of it with Escobar.   I still don’t like that guy.   I’m pretty sure Machado would rub me the wrong way as well. 

I remember a scout being quoted as saying Escobar's defensive degeneration (from a good SS to a lousy 3B) appeared to be due entirely to effort rather than age/injury so I don't think there's anything to feel guilty about.

[Docwaukee]

17 minutes ago, floplag said:

The budget is precisely the problem though, you are correct.   The thing is though, Arte has no financial situation.  I get that you choose to believe that this team could somehow even remotely lose money, i do not. 
  
And again, for the umpteenth time, I dont have an issues with the  preserving the future plan, my issues is with sacrificing the present.  The only thing preventing us from having it both ways is the decision not to over spent more than they deem comfortable for a couple years.   That is a choice, not a requirement. 

I don't feel that way at all.  Choice or requirement though, it is what it is.  

[m0nkey]

52 minutes ago, Blarg said:

You are 100% incorrect, Wilson quit on the team like Hamilton, refusing to play his last contract year. 

Machado is an even bigger douche, quitting in the middle of the World Series on plays that could have changed the outcome. If he couldn't come to the table in that situation he certainly isn't going to suddenly see the light at $300 million guaranteed. 

 

CJ Wilson refused to play just like Tyler Skaggs refused to play in 2015

[ten ocho recon scout]

I like the fact they at least mentioned cj wilson had great hair.

But some of the doom and gloomers on here need to read this. Weve signed poorly, drafted and developed just as poorly. But the death of just about every SP weve had the last 4 or so years is whats killed us. (That and not producing our own players).

[ten ocho recon scout]

2 hours ago, Second Base said:

I don't believe that CJ Wilson's contract was a disaster. 3.78 ERA, all-star appearance and logged more than 200 innings twice and 175 innings once. At 17 million a year, they pretty much got what they paid for. That contract worked out better than the Weaver extension, yet everyone still loves Jered. 

Well, weave was from here. 

More importantly, dead arm or not, weaver wanted to be out there. The other guy not so much...

[ten ocho recon scout]

As doc said, one of my biggest "worries" about machado is that once he gets paid, he strikes me as the type who will become a major pain in the ass. Like a manny ramirez (without the talent. Machado is great, the other manny was better).

There are dickheads in sports. Its always a risk once they get paid. But the great ones usually have an ego, want to prove how good they are. Like bonds. Machado strikes me as the kind of guy who would bullsh*t injuries, miss time, etc.

[Docwaukee]

2 minutes ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

As doc said, one of my biggest "worries" about machado is that once he gets paid, he strikes me as the type who will become a major pain in the ass. Like a manny ramirez (without the talent. Machado is great, the other manny was better).

There are dickheads in sports. Its always a risk once they get paid. But the great ones usually have an ego, want to prove how good they are. Like bonds. Machado strikes me as the kind of guy who would bullsh*t injuries, miss time, etc.

or just be in the lineup while not really giving a shit.  

[ten ocho recon scout]

2 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

or just be in the lineup while not really giving a shit.  

The kind of guy who likes missing october, because he has money to spend.

[nate]

1 hour ago, Inside Pitch said:

Worked out better how?   There was a net difference of 10 mil over five years in which Weaver nearly doubled Wilson's bWAR 10.4 .vs 5.5, this despite his two awful final seasons.   Weaver gave them more innings, a better ERA+.   He was awful at the end but those first three seasons he outperformed Wilson by a pretty fair margin.

Yeah, the Wilson signing was a disaster.  Dude fell apart the second he was hit with any adversity.

[Dtwncbad]

1 hour ago, Blarg said:

You are 100% incorrect, Wilson quit on the team like Hamilton, refusing to play his last contract year. 

Machado is an even bigger douche, quitting in the middle of the World Series on plays that could have changed the outcome. If he couldn't come to the table in that situation he certainly isn't going to suddenly see the light at $300 million guaranteed. 

 

My position on Wilson is squarely on one thing.  I dont think his contract was a mistake.  That's it.  It was a five year deal and the Angels got what I would expect out of a five year contract with a starting pitcher.

Anybody that expects five good healthy years out of a five year contract with a starting pitcher is misguided.

So I personally think the Wilson deal gets "thrown in" to the pile of other bad deal for misguided reasons.

Was it fantastic? No.  The point is it was within the range of my expected outcomes.

[ten ocho recon scout]

8 minutes ago, nate said:

Yeah, the Wilson signing was a disaster.  Dude fell apart the second he was hit with any adversity.

Like when the conditioner ran out, but the shampoo still had like 2 weeks left. Do you buy new conditioner?...and face the same disaster next month?

CJ problems.

[Angelsjunky]

I agree with t

24 minutes ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

As doc said, one of my biggest "worries" about machado is that once he gets paid, he strikes me as the type who will become a major pain in the ass. Like a manny ramirez (without the talent. Machado is great, the other manny was better).

There are dickheads in sports. Its always a risk once they get paid. But the great ones usually have an ego, want to prove how good they are. Like bonds. Machado strikes me as the kind of guy who would bullsh*t injuries, miss time, etc.

Yep, this is is my view of Machado as well. He could very easily go from a .290/.900, 35 HR, 6 WAR star to a .270/.800, 25 HR, 3-4 WAR borderline star making $30 million a year. The attitude issues that Doc highlighted make him a no-brainer not to sign. Same with Harper. Save that money on extending Trout, Simmons, Ohtani, etc.

[Docwaukee]

9 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

My position on Wilson is squarely on one thing.  I dont think his contract was a mistake.  That's it.  It was a five year deal and the Angels got what I would expect out of a five year contract with a starting pitcher.

Anybody that expects five good healthy years out of a five year contract with a starting pitcher is misguided.

So I personally think the Wilson deal gets "thrown in" to the pile of other bad deal for misguided reasons.

Was it fantastic? No.  The point is it was within the range of my expected outcomes.

we could apply similar logic to the Pujols contract.  

just because I expect it to suck at some point doesn't mean it wasn't a mistake.  

I get why they did it though.  They were going for it.  It was just a misguided effort. 

[floplag]

42 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

I don't feel that way at all.  Choice or requirement though, it is what it is.  

Agreed, but one is much easier justified than the other.   There is a difference to me between not being able to spend, and choosing not to.   Choosing not to be can of course still be justified pending circumstances, im just not sure i buy into what those might be at this time. 

[floplag]

1 minute ago, Dochalo said:

we could apply similar logic to the Pujols contract.  

just because I expect it to suck at some point doesn't mean it wasn't a mistake.  

I get why they did it though.  They were going for it.  It was just a misguided effort. 

Im curious, misguided in what sense? 

[Dtwncbad]

10 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

we could apply similar logic to the Pujols contract.  

just because I expect it to suck at some point doesn't mean it wasn't a mistake.  

I get why they did it though.  They were going for it.  It was just a misguided effort. 

I didn't think the Pujols contract was a mistake at the time of signing as long as my theory of the ten year term was correct.  My theory was that the ten year term was not an expectation of him being good for ten years but rather just basically "financing" a 6 or 7 year deal with him over ten years (expecting acceptable production for 6 or 7 years).

Pujols delivered less than what I hoped over the 6 or 7 years, but the answer to whether or not the contract was a mistake really comes now in how they (both the team and Pujols) handle these last 3 years.

So far I see a hint of the team turning the page with comments about earning playing time.  What I really wanted to see (and still do) is the team turn the page financially.  If the original deal was an expectation of 6 or 7 years of productivity just "financed over ten" then I want to see them not have the Pujols contract be an element at all in their spending decisions now.

 

 

[Angelsjunky]

It is hard to assess the Pujols contract in hindsight. We were all excited, even if some of us looked at his age and signs of decline and thought it was an overpay. But at the time, he was an inner circle Hall of Famer who was still very good and with a good chance to bounce back and at least be an All-Star for the first half of the contract. No one could have expected what we got.

On the other hand, you've got to think that the Angels put some detailed analysis into it - or should have. Did they scour his numbers for any sign of decreased bat speed or whatever might foretell greater doom to come? Analytics have advanced even in just the last six or seven years, so would that contract have been signed today? My guess is not. But Pujols was Pujols, and the Angels--well, perhaps particularly Arte Moreno--were excited about getting a Latino megastar to increase ticket sales and break records. Alas.

[Stradling]

1 hour ago, Blarg said:

Everyone touts how great the A's are by being a competitive low payrol team but nobody seems to want the Angels to follow that business model. 

This is such a great post.  Where’s the outrage for the A’s not building off of last season?   

[Halodays]

4 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

What is also misguided is the notion that, after disasters spending on 32 year olds and drug addicts, they should be afraid to spend on 26 year olds that are not drug addicts.

Let's be honest here. Had Hamilton came over and put up numbers like he did in Texas, Angels management and fans would have been a lot more forgiving. Maybe they should ask for a random piss test to any free agent they show interest in, just to ease their minds.

[Angelsjunky]

12 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

I didn't think the Pujols contract was a mistake at the time of signing as long as my theory of the ten year term was correct.  My theory was that the ten year term was not an expectation of him being good for ten years but rather just basically "financing" a 6 or 7 year deal with him over ten years (expecting acceptable production for 6 or 7 years).

Pujols delivered less than what I hoped over the 6 or 7 years, but the answer to whether or not the contract was a mistake really comes now in how they (both the team and Pujols) handle these last 3 years.

So far I see a hint of the team turning the page with comments about earning playing time.  What I really wanted to see (and still do) is the team turn the page financially.  If the original deal was an expectation of 6 or 7 years of productivity just "financed over ten" then I want to see them not have the Pujols contract be an element at all in their spending decisions now.

 

No. The contract is an unmitigated disaster no matter how they handle the next three years - unless, of course, Pujols parties like its the Aughties and leads the Angels to a WS. Then all will be forgiven. But that's about as likely as the possibility that the next knock at my door is going to be Amber Heard, saying she needs a place to crash for a few days.

When the contract was signed, the worst-case reasonable scenario was that 2011 (.299/.366/.541, 37 HR, 147 wRC+, 4.0 fWAR) was the new norm for him - that he was no longer one of the best in the game, but stilly really good. And that he would do that for another half decade before further but slow decline into oblivion. What ended up happening is that Pujols had the worst season of his career in 2012, which ended up being his best season as an Angel - and then jumped straight to oblivion.

Pujols averaged 2 fWAR in his first four seasons as an Angel. In other words, he was the definition of "average ballplayer." His 8.1 fWAR over those four years was lower than three of his single seasons as a Cardinal. Over the last three years he has totalled -1.4 fWAR; in other words, he shouldn't be playing major league baseball anymore. 2016 was understandable, but without that mega-contract he wouldn't have had a starting job in 2017. But the Angels keep rolling hiim out there, and will do again on Opening Day.

As of now he is, at best, a replacement level player. 

And his legacy as an Angel? So far 6.7 fWAR in seven years. That's now worse than nine of his ten individual seasons as a Cardinal.

[2112]

2 hours ago, Blarg said:

He went south the fourth year of the contract, not completing the season and they got nothing the fifth year as he sat out, sucking up $20 million in payrol. It was a bad signing. 

Agreed.

I was one of the ones arguing that he was worth his contract - until the Angels received nothing from him the 5th year of the contract.

[floplag]

29 minutes ago, Stradling said:

This is such a great post.  Where’s the outrage for the A’s not building off of last season?   

Why would there be any?  They have made it very clear to those few fans they have left that they are not going to do anything different.  They are the Sterling Clippers on MLB.
 

[Angelsjunky]

Re: Wilson, don't be afraid to use WAR. In his four years as an Angel, he accrued 7.6 fWAR, or 2.2, 3.2, 0.7, 1.5. He was paid 77.5M, so it ends up being a little over $10M per WAR. Not good, but not absolutely horrible - and for the first couple years he was earning his salary. Or we can compare:

Not so good...

Wilson: 7.6 fWAR for $77.5M, or $10.2M/win

To really bad...

Pujols: 6.7 fWAR for $240M (so far), or $35.8M/win

To just plain awful...

Hamilton: 2.4 fWAR for $125M, or $52.1M/win

To sheer apocalyptic....

Wells: 0.5 fWAR for $73.3M ($87.2M minus $13.9M paid by Yankees), or $146.6M/win (!!!!)

 

vs. how a big free agent contract should look. Good to very good...

Hunter: 15.9 fWAR for $90M, or $5.7M/win

I wouldn't call Hunter a bargain, but he earned his contract. For a great deal, we can go back to...

Vlad: 21.3 fWAR for $82M, or $3.8M/win

Now that was 2004-09 when contracts were lower and WAR value thus higher, but still.

[Docwaukee]

30 minutes ago, floplag said:

Im curious, misguided in what sense? 

they chose players the didn't come close to supporting the money they were being paid.  It's one thing to get a little less production than expected.  It's another thing to get almost nothing.  When you have a finite budget and are making a donation of $25m per year, that is a disastrous use of resources that leads to Joyce, Ortega, Nava/Gentry, and Maybin/Revere.  

The other misguided component was the player development failure.  Every last resource went into the major league club.   There was no room for error and there is always error.  The biggest problem over the last 4 years has been injuries.  The second biggest problem is having no depth to overcome those injuries.  It's replacing Richards and Ohtani and Shoe and Heaney and Skaggs with Lincecum, and Oberholtzer, and Bridwell, and Troy Scribner, and Daniel Wright, and Felix Pena and JC Ramirez, and Deck McGuire and so on and so forth.