2019-20 Free Agent Class

[beatlesrule]

2 minutes ago, totdprods said:

What’s to say that keeping that core in place and at least attempting to rebuild on the fly while stopgapping for a WC couldn’t be the reason they were working on keeping Trout convinced this was the long-term place to be?

Had health been on our side, we would’ve been competitive in recent years, no doubt. And we didn’t destroy Trout’s future in doing so. 

LISTEN TO THE PODCAST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. The podcast also talks about having money available for subsequent free agency years. It would just have been tanking for that half of a year and possibly a bad 2017 while setting things up for a good spending 2017-2018 offseason.

[beatlesrule]

3 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

dude.  I know.  I remember it.  I am saying that them speculating that Cam was worth what he was is bogus.  That's why I essentially asked 'who'.  as in who the hell would do that.  

 

They made a comparison of about 80% of what Ken Giles got in a trade so yes, a team or teams would have made the trade. Hard to know exactly which teams though as Arte wasn't selling at the deadline so Cam wasn't even available.

[beatlesrule]

8 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

They had Shoemaker going for four guys too...

Yup and explained why.

The guts thing just proves what was available if the Angels wanted to do it which goes against the theory that they had no players teams wanted so that's why they weren't selling.

@Stradling

[Stradling]

3 minutes ago, beatlesrule said:

Yup and explained why.

The guts thing just proves what was available if the Angels wanted to do it which goes against the theory that they had no players teams wanted so that's why they weren't selling.

@Stradling

It’s not proving anything.  It’s speculating.  Bottom line is they weren’t trading Simmons and if you look at the stats a lot of bad seasons by that group and I highly doubt they had the value people were giving them.  That year Shoemaker was 4-9 with a 4.45 ERA, I am not sure that is worth four prospects.  Especially when in 2015 Shoe was 7-10 with a 4.46 ERA.  Sorry, he isn’t giving you 4 prospects.

[totdprods]

16 minutes ago, beatlesrule said:

LISTEN TO THE PODCAST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. The podcast also talks about having money available for subsequent free agency years. It would just have been tanking for that half of a year and possibly a bad 2017 while setting things up for a good spending 2017-2018 offseason.

Again, what if that was the exact opposite of what they were trying? I get the point you’re trying to make, but I also see that in Eppler’s time, pretty much every move he has made has accomplished two goals: remaining competitive in the now, and doing literally nothing to subtract from the future, only adding to that stock.

Believe me - I wanted the Angels to cash in on Eppler’s first offseason and sell high on Calhoun and Richards. I thought it was the perfect time as they had great value, were coming off strong seasons, and could have brought in prospects or MLB-ready talent immediately. I still think they should (and probably won’t) listen on Simmons and Skaggs right now for the same reasons.

But he didn’t. And he’s still achieved two goals in the meantime - the team has stayed competitive, health aside, and the only touches on the farm have been positive.

[Inside Pitch]

6 minutes ago, floplag said:

i never said it guaranteed more than a 1 game wild card, i said it guaranteed getting there and gave us a chance for more.  As it stand we need help to even get there.    Ill admit even saying it guaranteed that was silly as nothing guarantees anything, but it would have statistically given us that projection as the favorite as opposed to being the last team to miss the post which is how we project

You're right.... I mistook what you guaranteed.   

So, Prove it....  Who did you just spend 30 mil on that turns the Angels into the favorites for the second wild card....  Give me projected War totals and what you spent.  If youre adding guys like Moustakas then make sure you adjust the playtime and offensive contributions for the players he's displacing because you can't allocate 550 at bats to everyone.  Show your work.  I'll wait.

13 minutes ago, floplag said:

Right now we project to finish outside the wild card, we all know we need help and luck to get there.  Anything can happen but those are facts.

Ummm no.. Projections aren't facts... They are guesses.  Educated guesses but still guesses. 

Those same models had the Twins as the WC favorites last year and the As as a sub .500 team.   The reason you have to temper your statement with a disclaimer like "anything can happen" is because guesses aren't facts...

 

[beatlesrule]

5 minutes ago, Stradling said:

It’s not proving anything.  It’s speculating.  Bottom line is they weren’t trading Simmons and if you look at the stats a lot of bad seasons by that group and I highly doubt they had the value people were giving them.  That year Shoemaker was 4-9 with a 4.45 ERA, I am not sure that is worth four prospects.  Especially when in 2015 Shoe was 7-10 with a 4.46 ERA.  Sorry, he isn’t giving you 4 prospects.

Honestly, I can't reply to you on this anymore until you actually listen to the podcast. They state reasons for why each guy is worth what they believe other teams would give. Shoemaker was pitching well before the deadline. Something they go over on the podcast you keep commenting on that you haven't listened to.

[Inside Pitch]

12 hours ago, beatlesrule said:

Yup and explained why.

The guts thing just proves what was available if the Angels wanted to do it which goes against the theory that they had no players teams wanted so that's why they weren't selling.

@Stradling

They compared him to the haul for Gio Gonzalez, a player they both admitted surpassed Shoemaker on every level.... And Rich Hill.

Maybe you missed it but they essentially just tried to comp players to similar players and what they brought in devoid of any real substance or perspective.  The Trade happy guy was simply trying to push forward with an agenda....the second dude didn't really seem to agree with him on the actual returns as much as he was letting him go through his process.

But sure...  The Angels would have been able to get 80% of the Giles trade and a haul comparable to what the As got for Gio a total of 8 prospects for those two, because this podcast wanted to create a scenario where the Angels traded everyone...

 "Proof!!!!"

Edited January 6, 2019 by Inside Pitch

[floplag]

1 minute ago, Inside Pitch said:

You're right.... I mistook what you guaranteed.   

So, Prove it....  Who did you just spend 30 mil on that turns the Angels into the favorites for the second wild card....  Give me projected War totals and what you spent.  If youre adding guys like Moustakas then make sure you adjust the playtime and offensive contributions for the players he's displacing because you can't allocate 550 at bats to everyone.  Show your work.  I'll wait.

Ummm no.. Projections aren't facts... They are guesses.  Educated guesses but still guesses. 

Those same models had the Twins as the WC favorites last year and the As as a sub .500 team.   The reason you have to temper your statement with a disclaimer like "anything can happen" is because guesses aren't facts...

 

The fact is thats what the projections say, not that they are set in stone, not that they will come to pass, but that as of today that is where we project.  Please dont confuse the two. 
AS ive said anything can happen, its a matter of what should happen.  it doesnt mean it will. 

As far as what i would do its been covered, ad nauseam, and its moot.  Some of them are now no longer possible and the ones that are dont fit in the budget.  And quite frankly im tired of the argument.   The bottom line is that most here seem happy with the wait and pray plan, im not and feel we should have done more to take advantage of the core of this club, its really that simple.   Does it really matter past that at this point?  

[Inside Pitch]

30 minutes ago, beatlesrule said:

LISTEN TO THE PODCAST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. The podcast also talks about having money available for subsequent free agency years. It would just have been tanking for that half of a year and possibly a bad 2017 while setting things up for a good spending 2017-2018 offseason.

Strad you really should listen to it....  You won't come to the same conclusions but it's worth listening to the processes. 

As far as the money goes.... They were talking about money on the books for 2020.... So, the same exact dollars currently budgeted for that season plus Upton.... The difference?  No chance at anything but last place for three years.    

[beatlesrule]

They mentioned having money for the 2017-18 offseason.

[Stradling]

3 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

Strad you really should listen to it....  You won't come to the same conclusions but it's worth listening to the processes. 

As far as the money goes.... They were talking about money on the books for 2020.... So, the same exact dollars currently budgeted for that season plus Upton.... The difference?  No chance at anything but last place for three years.    

Yea I will listen to it when I am not with our grand daughter.  

[ten ocho recon scout]

2 hours ago, Inside Pitch said:

That team was pretty young  though...  

Kendrys and Callaspo were 27, Howie and Aybar, 26... Wood proved unworthy at age 25, Trumbo was 24, Bourjos 23, and Conger was 22.   Rotation wise Weaver and Santana were 27, they had traded for what they had hoped would be a resurgent Kazmir who was 25 at the time...  Even Haren was only 29.   That's a significant number of core guys in their primes.

The failure of that draft was really crippling.

I heard that draft class was pretty weak l, though? Is that accurate or no?

[Lou]

57 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

They had Shoemaker going for four guys too...

so they are saying Cam and Shoemaker could have netted us 8 prospects? 

is that correct? 

[Inside Pitch]

59 minutes ago, floplag said:

The fact is thats what the projections say, not that they are set in stone, not that they will come to pass, but that as of today that is where we project.  Please dont confuse the two. 
AS ive said anything can happen, its a matter of what should happen.  it doesnt mean it will. 

I'm not confusing anything, just pointing out your scenario guarantees nothing other than you spent more money.  I simply wanted you to make MY point...   

59 minutes ago, floplag said:

As far as what i would do its been covered, ad nauseam, and its moot.  Some of them are now no longer possible and the ones that are dont fit in the budget.  And quite frankly im tired of the argument.   

This is a cop out.  The actual budget isn't the baseline in this discussion .... Or are you saying they would need more than the 30 million additional payroll above what they are committed to spending.   Again, I asked you what you would have done with an additional 30 mil... 

I'm not the first person to ask you for concrete answers only to be met with dodges.... It's become a joke...  You may have suggested other options but the only guy you've made clear you'd go after is Moustakas....  I don't know if you have put a price on him and that's fine... But projection wise he's not much of a difference maker over what they already have once you account for the reduction in playtime for others.

Beyond him... pretty much every other signing that's happened you've called an overpay, which leads me to believe that in the real world of Baseball you wouldn't have been able/willing to sign any of them..   So minus actual names and dollar figures; your continued insistence that the team could be improved upon without "going ham" seems to be mostly opinion devoid of any reality.   Given how tired you claim to be of these discussions i don't quite understand why you are so reluctant to point out all these readily available affordable upgrades.  

But sure, be tired of the conversation ..... until tomorrow when you again talk up how the team is unwilling to spend and make the same exact claims ..

Edited January 6, 2019 by Inside Pitch

[Inside Pitch]

45 minutes ago, beatlesrule said:

They mentioned having money for the 2017-18 offseason.

They also stated the payroll with just Heaney, Tropoeano, Pujols Trout and someone else as being 75 mil....  So anyone signed would be monies spent above the 75 mil...

Edited January 6, 2019 by Inside Pitch

[Inside Pitch]

15 minutes ago, Lou said:

so they are saying Cam and Shoemaker could have netted us 8 prospects? 

is that correct? 

That's exactly what they had...  They also had Giovatella bringing back a prospect....  Seriously...

[Lou]

18 minutes ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

I heard that draft class was pretty weak l, though? Is that accurate or no?

yes, that is correct.

(which draft are we talking about?)

[floplag]

1 minute ago, Inside Pitch said:

I'm not confusing anything, just pointing out your scenario guarantees nothing other than you spent more money.  I simply wanted you to make MY point...   

This is a cop out.  The actual budget isn't the baseline in this discussion .... Or are you saying they would need more than the 30 million additional payroll above what they are committed to spending.   Again, I asked you what you would have done with an additional 30 mil... 

I'm not the first person to ask you for concrete answers only to be met with dodges.... It's become a joke...  You may have suggested other options but the only guy you've made clear you'd go after is Moustakas....  I don't know if you have put a price on him and that's fine... But projection wise he's not much of a difference maker over what they already have once you account for the reduction in playtime for others.

Beyond him... pretty much every other signing that's happened you've called an overpay, which leads me to believe that in the real world of Baseball you wouldn't have been able/willing to sign any of them..   So minus actual names and dollars figures your continued insistence that the team could be improved upon without "going ham" seems to be mostly opinion devoid of any reality.   Given how tired you claim to be of these discussions i don't quite understand why you are so reluctant to point out all these readily available affordable upgrades.  

But sure, be tired of the conversation ..... until tomorrow when you again talk up his the team is unwilling to spend and make the same exact claims ..

The joke is that ive let you guys keep dragging me into these discussions, Im choosing not to do so anymore.  Every suggestion on what i would do or would like them to do was met with disdain since the beginning of hot stove, why would the result be any different now? 
We had discussion about what would you do with 30M, 50M, all tese options... go back and read it if you want to know im not making any further suggestions, youll have to find your jokes elsewhere 

[Lou]

22 minutes ago, Lou said:

so they are saying Cam and Shoemaker could have netted us 8 prospects? 

is that correct? 

 

6 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

That's exactly what they had...  They also had Giovatella bringing back a prospect....  Seriously...

 

yeah, I'll pass on listening then.

Strad, enjoy your granddaughter.

[Stradling]

On 11/9/2018 at 8:08 AM, floplag said:

I think its a bigger question as 30M isnt enough depending on the goal.  Are we trying to make a run at a possible playoff berth, or simply trying to play 500 ball and keep attendance and profits up to milk the last couple years of Trout in a halo.  
  
30M gives us three options:
#1 get good pitching and weaker bats
#2 get good bats and weaker arms
#3 get mediocre bodies at both.
None of these get us close to the playoffs anytime soon and put the futures on Trout and Simmons in question.

I would almost rather go full rebuild and be done with it than trying to play 500 ball.

This is the closest in the $30 million to spend thread to giving us names.  So which thread do I check next for the names you have offered up?  

[Inside Pitch]

1 minute ago, floplag said:

The joke is that ive let you guys keep dragging me into these discussions, Im choosing not to do so anymore.  Every suggestion on what i would do or would like them to do was met with disdain since the beginning of hot stove, why would the result be any different now? 
We had discussion about what would you do with 30M, 50M, all tese options... go back and read it if you want to know im not making any further suggestions, youll have to find your jokes elsewhere 

The only thing more predictable than you acting like you're done is you playing the victim ....   Again, see you tomorrow when you do this all again in a different thread and you're dodging someone else's questions.

[beatlesrule]

1 minute ago, Lou said:

 

 

yeah, I'll pass on listening then.

Strad, enjoy your granddaughter.

Way to be open minded. Their opinion is different than mine even though they give examples and use war etc so I am going to ignore them.

[Stradling]

On 11/14/2018 at 1:10 PM, floplag said:

im going to sit this one out and read the replies for now, but i thank you for the effort.

Here is your contribution to the $40 million to spend thread.  

[Lou]

7 minutes ago, beatlesrule said:

Way to be open minded. Their opinion is different than mine even though they give examples and use war etc so I am going to ignore them.

Cam + Shoemaker = EIGHT prospects?

it has nothing to do with being open-minded or not. it's a f'n ridiculous claim and I choose not to waste my time on such idiocy.