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

2019-20 Free Agent Class


jordan

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Lou said:

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. 

Again though, you simply aren't listening to the podcast. You have no idea where they came up with the conclusion that those two guys are worth 8 prospects.

They talk through every trade and give their reasons for them. It's like not reading a movie or video game review and just looking at the score. You have no idea how they ended up with that score.

Same thing goes for this. You have absolutely no idea how they concluded that those two guys are worth 8 prospects. Hence the close-mindedness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, beatlesrule said:

This just goes to show you that you don't remember the podcast. They didn't state which team all these guys go to.

Which means they were just playing a game of make up some bullshit for listeners. 

Aroldis Chapman netted four prospects that year from the Cubs. They went to the World Series with the best reliever in baseball and a proven track record to validate that trade.

Cam had an era of 6.52 and 5.50 the two previous seasons. His 2016 is a gross outlier and I'm pretty sure every team would realize that and offer accordingly. It would not be four prospects. 

Next up, Aliens have landed and are probing cattle for research. I heard it on the radio 15 years ago after midnight. Imagine if we could access that data to see if it could solve global climate change. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Lou said:

I don't give a damn how these 2 random guys came up with their conclusion that those two players would be anywhere near 8 prospects. It's absolutely ridiculous. Their methodology is obviously flawed. 

Their methodology was to simply compare the player to a remotely similar player then cook up a similar deal.   The reasons why those other deals were done wasn't taken into consideration at all, just the actual packages.   They comped Shoemaker to Rich Hill.   They attempted to comp Calhoun to Upton when he was traded TO Atlanta....  The comped Cam to Giles...    They were reaching hard in order to fuel their conversation.  To be fair, one guy seems to just grudgingly agree for the sake of conversation.   Again, there was no talk about what teams would consider those deals much less why...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, beatlesrule said:

@Dochalo you need to listen to the podcast again to refresh your memory. It was done on July 26 2016 and way more guys had value than you are giving them credit for. Cam alone got 4 prospects in return according to them. At the end of the podcast, they stated this is only of course if the Angels have the guts to do it.

I understand people's first impulse though is to stick up for the decision and state everyone sucked. That's not the case though and again, goes to show that Moreno doesn't believe in doing what's best for the team which hasn't worked out for him yet.

Seriously people, just listen to the podcast before stating an opinion. That's like message board 101.

I did listen to the podcast in question just now and think the only thing they got right is that the Angels should’ve sold high on Shoemaker. But hindsight is 20/20. If they had sold him to say the Dodgers that year, they could’ve got back what they Garcia Oakland for Rich Hill. Four prospects would’ve been a reach, but Shoe was having the best stretch of his career at the point of the podcast and the Angels ejected to hold him instead of trading him, probably because so many players had been hurt and needed TJ. That’s why they kept him. They needed good arms and didn’t want to build a rotation out of scraps for 2017. 

They totally missed on Simmons being a 7 WAR player for two years and overvalued Bedrosian as well. But they eventually revised the 4 prospects for Bedrosian to 3, and even then they said it was high. 

But yes if the Angels has traded those two guys then, they arguably could’ve received two quality players maybe someone like Justus Sheffield (moved in the Andrew Miller trade that year) and I’m sure it would’ve been a good Idea. But I think they would’ve moved him had a team offered that. I mean if they had been offered what these guys said they would’ve moved him. 

Nothing else they mentioned made sense or would’ve helped the Angels in 2017, 2018, or 2019. 

But yes looking back, they should’ve absolutely moved Shoemaker, Bedrosian, Calhoun, and Escobar, because those four have contributed little and they would’ve brought back some value. But to think they’d have brought us say Jharal Cotton and Justus Sheffield had they been moved is a little shortsighted. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe I'm doing this but here is an actual review of the retardcast.  

-so the first premise is that they need to have Trout for his whole career.  

-the second premise is whether the Angels could win with Trout in 2020.  

-it's based on getting every other player to .500 and then adding mike Trout.  

- carlos perez - nothing

- CJ Cron - Tumbo comp.  they agreed he had almost no value and then they said he's worth a team's #7 and #25 prospect.  LOL!!  He was worth nothing.

- Giovatella - they actually conceded  a team's #23 prospect.  fucking joke.  he's worth nothing 

- Simmons - it doesn't matter because they just trade for Simmons.  They aren't going to trade him.  

-Yunel Escobar - they got him for Trevor Gott.  "I'm just kinda picking things out of a hat' is what the guy said.  Then he said you'd get a team's 6th best prospect.  HAHAHAHA!!!!!.  WTF.  are you kidding me?  you trade him for trevor gott and then you get Jose Suarez or Jahmai Jones?   holy shit balls.  He was worth almost nothing.   I am gonna fart right now because that was so hilarious.   At best you are getting a non prospect out of someone's top 30

- Kole Calhoun - they called Calhoun a 3-4 win player.  which means at the time they valued him as a 3.5 win player.  That's funny because he was never that ever.  He was a 3.4 WAR player at best, but lets listen along.  So they comp him to Chris Archer.  and then they give Kole 10 wins over 2017-2019.   HAHAHA.  Justin Upton comp.  OMG!!!  #2, 6, 9.  So would you trade for Calhoun and give up Canning, Adams and Rengifo?  I can't even begin to tell you how unrealistic this is.  Not a team on this planet was going to give up their #2 prospect for Kole without including someone else.  If you got a single top 100 prospect plus another from someone's top 30, you'd have done well

- Albert - nada

- A bunch of guys with nada

- Weaver - nada

- Santiago - comp to Yunel Escobar value.  they gave yunel a #6 prospect.  but they bumped him up to a #6 and #12.  I am losing my mind.  

- Shoe - they called him one of the best pitcher's in the AL.  12 starts.  Do you know why other teams wouldn't buy this bullshit?  because it's bullshit.  Comp is Gio.  I am losing my mind.  So a playoff team would rather have Shoe over Chapman and would give up 2, 4, 12, 20.  

- #45 prospect for Fernando Salas

- Street - he was done.  and then they say he's worth a team's #9 prospect.  That's Rengifo or Rodriguez.  

- Joe Smith.  - they said he'd be worth more than street and possibly a top 7 prospect.  We actually did trade him and got Jesus Castillo.  He was barely the cubs #30 at the time.  Our farm was so awful that he ended up in our top 20.  Now he's on the fringe of our top 30 (out of mine btw,)  This is a really good example of how far off they are.    

- Bedrosian - called him the closer of the future.  80% of ken giles.  The Giles trade was horrible by the way.  3, 10, 25.  The other guy was literally in pain as this was proposed.  He's the only one where at the time he might have been worth more than my perception of him.  maybe a couple of 15-20 guys from a decent system.  

- Skaggs - had one start at the time.  comp was bad bad Jaime Garcia.  #9, 10.  They're even wrong  in the opposite direction on Skaggs.  

They literally forgot about Albert's contract.  

So it's pretty much what I said before I wasted my time on this.  A top 100  for Kole and a few other prospects.  They speculated 4-5 top 100 guys.  lol.  

If Me, IP, scotty, ettin, AJ, Chuck, and whoever else gave the same podcast, you wouldn't know the difference.  We could just change our names so it would carry the same legitimacy.  

In fact, I am actually the main guy in that podcast, and I was just f'n around.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dochalo said:

I can't believe I'm doing this but here is an actual review of the retardcast.  

-so the first premise is that they need to have Trout for his whole career.  

-the second premise is whether the Angels could win with Trout in 2020.  

-it's based on getting every other player to .500 and then adding mike Trout.  

- carlos perez - nothing

- CJ Cron - Tumbo comp.  they agreed he had almost no value and then they said he's worth a team's #7 and #25 prospect.  LOL!!  He was worth nothing.

- Giovatella - they actually conceded  a team's #23 prospect.  Facking joke.  he's worth nothing 

- Simmons - it doesn't matter because they just trade for Simmons.  They aren't going to trade him.  

-Yunel Escobar - they got him for Trevor Gott.  "I'm just kinda picking things out of a hat' is what the guy said.  Then he said you'd get a team's 6th best prospect.  HAHAHAHA!!!!!.  WTF.  are you kidding me?  you trade him for trevor gott and then you get Jose Suarez or Jahmai Jones?   holy shit balls.  He was worth almost nothing.   I am gonna fart right now because that was so hilarious.   At best you are getting a non prospect out of someone's top 30

- Kole Calhoun - they called Calhoun a 3-4 win player.  which means at the time they valued him as a 3.5 win player.  That's funny because he was never that ever.  He was a 3.4 WAR player at best, but lets listen along.  So they comp him to Chris Archer.  and then they give Kole 10 wins over 2017-2019.   HAHAHA.  Justin Upton comp.  OMG!!!  #2, 6, 9.  So would you trade for Calhoun and give up Canning, Adams and Rengifo?  I can't even begin to tell you how unrealistic this is.  Not a team on this planet was going to give up their #2 prospect for Kole without including someone else.  If you got a single top 100 prospect plus another from someone's top 30, you'd have done well

- Albert - nada

- A bunch of guys with nada

- Weaver - nada

- Santiago - comp to Yunel Escobar value.  they gave yunel a #6 prospect.  but they bumped him up to a #6 and #12.  I am losing my mind.  

- Shoe - they called him one of the best pitcher's in the AL.  12 starts.  Do you know why other teams wouldn't buy this bullshit?  because it's bullshit.  Comp is Gio.  I am losing my mind.  So a playoff team would rather have Shoe over Chapman and would give up 2, 4, 12, 20.  

- #45 prospect for Fernando Salas

- Street - he was done.  and then they say he's worth a team's #9 prospect.  That's Rengifo or Rodriguez.  

- Joe Smith.  - they said he'd be worth more than street and possibly a top 7 prospect.  We actually did trade him and got Jesus Castillo.  He was barely the cubs #30 at the time.  Our farm was so awful that he ended up in our top 20.  Now he's on the fringe of our top 30 (out of mine btw,)  This is a really good example of how far off they are.    

- Bedrosian - called him the closer of the future.  80% of ken giles.  The Giles trade was horrible by the way.  3, 10, 25.  The other guy was literally in pain as this was proposed.  He's the only one where at the time he might have been worth more than my perception of him.  maybe a couple of 15-20 guys from a decent system.  

- Skaggs - had one start at the time.  comp was bad bad Jaime Garcia.  #9, 10.  They're even wrong  in the opposite direction on Skaggs.  

They literally forgot about Albert's contract.  

So it's pretty much what I said before I wasted my time on this.  A top 100  for Kole and a few other prospects.  They speculated 4-5 top 100 guys.  lol.  

If Me, IP, scotty, ettin, AJ, Chuck, and whoever else gave the same podcast, you wouldn't know the difference.  We could just change our names so it would carry the same legitimacy.  

In fact, I am actually the main guy in that podcast, and I was just f'n around.  

 

A person has to listen to it to see how ridiculous it was.   The only thing funnier than how ridiculous their trades were is the knowledge someone on this board legit believes they had a chance of actually being the representative value of those players.  I too wasted my time listening but am glad I did it for no other reason I had to hear to believe it.

@Hubs the Shoemaker talk was pie in the the sky stuff..   

The As packaged Hill and his career 108 Era+ along with Josh Reddick for four guys, for them to argue Shoe and his sub 100 career Era+  on his own would get that type of a return is ludicrous.  Even your notion that Shoemaker could have returned someone like Sheffield, a guy who was the headliner for James Paxton is a bit of a reach.  Paxton owns a career era+ of 117... Shoemakers hot stretch wasn't enough to make people believe he was anything more than a league average SP....  Those guys have value no doubt but not four guys including a top 30 in MLB prospect type.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You didn't listen to the end of the podcast. The other guy reminded him about Albert's contract. They also stated that the FO probably wouldn't have the guts to do what they just suggested. These guys are from Fangraphs which is a well respected site. Even if their returns were higher than what they really could have gotten, the Angels still could have gotten prospects.  Maybe instead of 21 they get 15. That's WAY better than what they ended up getting for them.

Again, you can state NOW about how wrong they were or what the Angels should or shouldn't have done but at the time, this is the assessment they gave these guys. They deal with prospects and inside info more than we do. Back at the 2016 deadline, teams WERE asking the Angels about players that the Angels didn't want to trade because then that illusion of a winning team would be gone. Arte is still paying for that mistake and I don't just mean 2016. Hell, the Miguel Cabrera trade was also screwed up by him. The Angels history would be a lot different if they would have just given the Marlins what they wanted.  Cabrera himself even thought he was gonna be an Angel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow.  Just read through this whole thing and it's a true train wreck.  There are clearly some folks here that pessimistic toward the Angels as an organization. 

 

My questions is this:  If you don't like the team, and you don't like the minor leagues, and you don't like the owner, and you don't like the business direction of the franchise...why do you continue to be a "fan?"  (This is a serious question, not snark.)  It would  seem that this hobby should bring you joy and if it does not, why do you continue to let it make you frustrated and morose?  Why not find another hobby?

Life is too damn short to be miserable about something that perhaps you once loved and now is an endless source of stress and anger for you. 

(I got married yesterday to the love of my life.  It's my second marriage. Hope it puts my comments into context.)

Have a great day all!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, beatlesrule said:

You didn't listen to the end of the podcast. 

You keep saying that but the responses are a blow by blow analysis of what was said. 

5 hours ago, beatlesrule said:

These guys are from Fangraphs which is a well respected site. 

That doesn't legitimize a dumb conversation that wasn't supported by facts.

 

5 hours ago, beatlesrule said:

Maybe instead of 21 they get 15.

My wife will shop at the .99 cent store and comes back with a lot of stuff for a couple bucks. It doesn't mean that stuff holds present or future value.

At best these trade scenarios, if based upon true player value and comps, would only net a couple guys that could make the majors but absolutely no top 10 players. 

It would not spark a rebuild or fill the holes created. When you trade a player from the major league roster, that position has to be filled by someone. If you hadn't noticed we've already seen the patchwork game for the last three years, waiting for prospects to move up through the system. These trade scenarios don't accelerate that, they exacerbate it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What it comes down to is beatlesrules is disappointed with the Angels so he allows the negative narrative to be facts.  I love the Angels and probably value a lot of their players much more than most.  That being said there is NO WAY Shoe was ever worth 4 prospects.  It also could not have been a real thing at that point of time.  He was bad to start that year, bad the previous year and over all was just not good enough to get you 4 prospects.  Now I remember Cam that year and us thinking he could bring back a nice haul.  Call it balls or guts, either way it is wrong.  They had a plan, part of that plan was to build the team around guys like Trout, Simmons and Kole.  They weren’t being traded. Now we are at a place I know far too well, beatlesrule is so entrenched on his side of the argument that he is arguing logic with the most respected guys on here as it relates to our farm and prospect value.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Inside Pitch said:

A person has to listen to it to see how ridiculous it was.   The only thing funnier than how ridiculous their trades were is the knowledge someone on this board legit believes they had a chance of actually being the representative value of those players.  I too wasted my time listening but am glad I did it for no other reason I had to hear to believe it.

@Hubs the Shoemaker talk was pie in the the sky stuff..   

The As packaged Hill and his career 108 Era+ along with Josh Reddick for four guys, for them to argue Shoe and his sub 100 career Era+  on his own would get that type of a return is ludicrous.  Even your notion that Shoemaker could have returned someone like Sheffield, a guy who was the headliner for James Paxton is a bit of a reach.  Paxton owns a career era+ of 117... Shoemakers hot stretch wasn't enough to make people believe he was anything more than a league average SP....  Those guys have value no doubt but not four guys including a top 30 in MLB prospect type.

They had a point that Shoemaker was on a major hot streak and quite possibly the best starter in the AL, he had a limited amount of time in the majors, and Hill remember had major injury concerns and is older, had less control, and was what one and half seasons from the angels cutting him from their pen? Anyway  I think he and Calhoun could’ve pulled the Hill/Reddick return, but that basically meant they would’ve gotten Jharel Cotton, which ok is nice but...not a franchise changer

the Indians traded a much better package that year including Sheffield for Andrew Miller, maybe the Angels could’ve gotten that package or one close to it for Bedrock and Shoe.

But overall I agree it’s nonsense. They totally missed on why the Angels gave up so much for Simmons, didn’t see his offensive outbreak on the horizon.

Prospects are not sure things. Would Sheffield look good in our 2019 rotation sure, especially since Shoe is gone now after two injury plagued seasons. But they don’t have a time machine and neither do we.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, beatlesrule said:

You didn't listen to the end of the podcast. The other guy reminded him about Albert's contract. They also stated that the FO probably wouldn't have the guts to do what they just suggested. These guys are from Fangraphs which is a well respected site. Even if their returns were higher than what they really could have gotten, the Angels still could have gotten prospects.  Maybe instead of 21 they get 15. That's WAY better than what they ended up getting for them.

Again, you can state NOW about how wrong they were or what the Angels should or shouldn't have done but at the time, this is the assessment they gave these guys. They deal with prospects and inside info more than we do. Back at the 2016 deadline, teams WERE asking the Angels about players that the Angels didn't want to trade because then that illusion of a winning team would be gone. Arte is still paying for that mistake and I don't just mean 2016. Hell, the Miguel Cabrera trade was also screwed up by him. The Angels history would be a lot different if they would have just given the Marlins what they wanted.  Cabrera himself even thought he was gonna be an Angel.

I heard all of that.  I just made note that at one point, Albert contract was forgotten to further point out the insanity of their details.   The one guy had to remind him and they were like 'hahaha'.  

Yes, they could have gotten a few prospects.  But you are missing so many things from your premise to make it realistic.  I have the 'we only know 10%' conversation with a lot of people and that's really something everyone has to take to heart.  @Jeff Fletcher often comes to our discussions and just destroys them with actual facts and he will tell you flat out that there is a ton of info that he's not privy to.  In the land of the blind, the sportswriter with one eye is king. 

Can I make a suggestion to you without being condescending?  You can't re-write the past.  Stop trying to.  Every player and coach and manager and gm and owner and franchise makes a ton of mistakes.  Every. single. one.  We can look through the retrospectoscope at major decisions that could have changed fates had they gone a different way.  

Regret is a thief like fear of the future.  

This franchise is currently in good shape.  We've got some good players.  We've got a good farm system to give us more good players.  We've got a good GM.  We've got a good owner despite what people think.  He doesn't hand us bags of cash but there's plenty to do what needs to be done.  

If your expectations are that every decision is going to be the right one, then this is the wrong sport for you.   If not getting Beltre, or Cabrerea or the Wells trade or failures of Wood and Mcpherson or Arte not spending or spending too much or anything that has been done poorly consumes you and keeps you from thinking about Mike Trout and Andrelton Simmons, and possible improvements of Skaggs and Heaney and the coming of Jo Adell and Rengifo, and Jones and Canning and others and a Bour rebound or Buttrey becoming a dominant reliever,  or any other thing that makes baseball fun when you're not winning as much as you'd hoped.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't just say "Player A is worth X amount of prospects." X for team 1 is different than team 2 or 3 or eleventy. Shoe might haul in 4 unranked prospects in a shitty system. But why would anyone do that? The Angels would take 1 or 2 ranked prospects. Quality is far more important than quantity. 

Arguing over just how valuable those prospects would be is seemingly pointless. Shoe was worth maybe a single C-level prospect. Two if you get lucky. Not enough to move the needle.

I think the fact remains, our system would be barely marginally better if all this shit happened. 

This seems like a bunch of running in circles to get a point proven. Although I'll give beatles credit for actually providing a source for his argument, instead of dodging the questions, saying he's gone over it ad nauseum, and then flop'ing out after nailing himself to the cross.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Hubs said:

They had a point that Shoemaker was on a major hot streak and quite possibly the best starter in the AL, he had a limited amount of time in the majors, and Hill remember had major injury concerns and is older, had less control, and was what one and half seasons from the angels cutting him from their pen? Anyway  I think he and Calhoun could’ve pulled the Hill/Reddick return, but that basically meant they would’ve gotten Jharel Cotton, which ok is nice but...not a franchise changer

Shoemaker had 373 innings of league average ERA under his belt through the first half of 2016 -- he had in fact posted an ERA of 4.45 that first half -- his established level of performance was that of a league average SP, no 12 game hot streak before the deadline was going to make people believe he had morphed into the best pitcher in baseball.

The Hill/Reddick deal included Frankie Montas too, so there was value there, but Calhoun and Shoemaker, two guys under club control for that return would have been a bad return for the Angels -- Reddick and Hill were rentals.   Ultimately it was their suggestion that Shoemaker could bring back four players that was completely delusional IMO....     He had value, just not the sort of value they were pinning on him.

As went on to say, most of what they proposed was nonsense.   People listening to that podcast and believing half of what they were suggesting had a snowball's chance in hell of happening are not at all living in the real world.

13 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

Although I'll give beatles credit for actually providing a source for his argument, instead of dodging the questions, saying he's gone over it ad nauseum, and then flop'ing out after nailing himself to the cross.

Agree with this 100%.   I appreciated him taking the time to post the link so that anyone reading could come to whatever conclusions they wanted.  

Edited by Inside Pitch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya @Inside Pitch it was mostly a prospect lovers wet dream. Prospects build a successful teams success, but 1 in 3 if you’re lucky turns into what you hope he’ll be. That’s one reason why veterans free agents are more expensive — because they come with proven track records.

Also, Calhoun and Shoemaker at that point would have commanded a nice package. Hill only had half a season of his track record. And Shoemaker and he were equivalent because of the control. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

we don't know what a player's trade value is until they're actually traded.   

 

And when it is our team that makes the trade we either gave up too much to get a player or didn’t get enough for the player we traded.  The only trade I think we were happy with at the time was Trumbo because we got two pitchers, but then later found out we could have had Skaggs and Eaton, but Dipoto wanted Santiago from Chicago.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Stradling said:

And when it is our team that makes the trade we either gave up too much to get a player or didn’t get enough for the player we traded.  The only trade I think we were happy with at the time was Trumbo because we got two pitchers, but then later found out we could have had Skaggs and Eaton, but Dipoto wanted Santiago from Chicago.  

I've been decently happy with a bunch of trades and upset about others.  It's been about 50/50  whether those have worked out in our favor.  

the only trade I've called in recent memory was the Kinsler for Buttrey trade.  

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...