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! 

     

Harper vs What we actually did


Stradling

Recommended Posts

Ok so we have spent about $35 million this off season on one year deals for Bour, Lucroy, LaStella, Allen, Cahill and Harvey.  So would you rather have these guys that we signed or Bryce Harper and no other moves?  Things to consider, our starting rotation would be Skaggs, Heaney, Barria, Pena and Trop.  Our 6-10 starters would be minor league guys.  Our catching duo would be Briceno and Smith.  Probably would have kept Cowart to be a utility guy.  More at bats for Albert.  Our free agents that we signed don’t have good hair.  We would have far fewer trade assets at the deadline to further build the farm that will be our future.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Your point is very valid. . .on the premise that it was an "or" decision.

I have heard every explanation as to why this is the case.

But I personally reject the idea that I'd had to be "or" instead of "and."

Then feel free to ignore this thread, I guess.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either way you've got a team that needs quite a few things to go right to be in contention for the playoffs but you can say that about probably 30-40% of the teams in the league.  The team as it is now can compete for a wildcard but they need a few of the one year deals to outperform their contracts and guys like Cozart/Calhoun to have bounce back or at least more productive years in 2019.  When Harper is on he's one of the best but he's streaky, has had multiple "off" years and if things aren't going right doesn't seem like the type of guy you want to be stuck paying long term.  The last few years we've seen that teams are becoming a little more hesitant about handing out massive long term contracts and I think that's smart given how the majority of them don't seem to work out.  I'm fine with the direction the team is going and looking forward to the seeing if guys in the system like Adell and Canning will be contributing this year or next.  Like others have said I'm just glad the season is getting close.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Ok so we have spent about $35 million this off season on one year deals for Bour, Lucroy, LaStella, Allen, Cahill and Harvey.  So would you rather have these guys that we signed or Bryce Harper and no other moves?  Things to consider, our starting rotation would be Skaggs, Heaney, Barria, Pena and Trop.  Our 6-10 starters would be minor league guys.  Our catching duo would be Briceno and Smith.  Probably would have kept Cowart to be a utility guy.  More at bats for Albert.  Our free agents that we signed don’t have good hair.  We would have far fewer trade assets at the deadline to further build the farm that will be our future.  

I think from a practical standpoint you'd probably shave some dough off the first year or two of a Harper deal and give yourself a little bit of room to work with.  

Also, if you're going to sign Harper, then you'd have to have a taker for Calhoun.  Even as a salary dump so you're likely shaving another 10m.  

If Harper take 25m in the first year and you move Kole, you're at +15.  So it gives you about another 20m to work with for this year.  

Some would say that adding Harper make Adell expendable.  But instead, when Adell is ready, I think I'd get Bryce that first base glove Boras was talking about.  He's a trash defender and being at 1b could neutralize that.   

Another thing to randomly point out for Harper is that he has a sub .800 ops vs. lefties for his career.  Just thought I'd mention that.  

So overall, in my mind, Harper becomes your 1b of the future.  

Hence the other contingency of signing him would be some sort of indication from Albert that he's done after 2019.  

But I digress.  Back to 2019.  So you're plus 15m so far.  I think you still add Lucroy at 3.35m because you can't go into season with that catching tandem.  +18.35

I definitely would still add one of Harvey or Cahill.  Probably Cahill as he seems a little safer at this point.  +27.35

So then the choice is between Harvey (or someone else) and Allen.  I think I'd choose Harvey.  +38.35.  

Maybe they wouldn't add that much so instead of Harvey you could go with some other starter that will get paid less like a Brett Anderson or  Derek Holland

I think you can still make the La Stella move  and maybe even Bour as well.  If not, I think it increases the chances of going with Ward at 3b to start the season, Cozart at 2b and Fletcher as the util.  I don't think I'd keep Cowart.  

At the end of the day, I think you end up with a 1bman who's a really good hitter but making 35m+ per season for the foreseeable future.   Big 1bman contracts are typically a recipe for disaster.  

And good luck on having any financial resources to supplement the team from 2021-23 if you intend on also keeping Trout and Simmons.  

You just couldn't make the commitment to harper without expanding payroll for his first few years.  Personally, I think that's jumping the gun as it's hard for me to imagine a competent starting staff even with that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I'd use that money to sign Harper, move Calhoun for a pitcher, and somehow try to find a way to fit Lucroy in.  As someone said in another thread it's a transition year.  But all these guys on one year deals aren't helping us 2020.  (Unless we end up trading them for prospects at the deadline)  But signing Harper would be a foundation move.  You do that if you can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Stradling said:

There are no takers for Kole @Dochalo or he would be gone.  Kole would basically be your fourth outfielder and back up first baseman.  

They've got no one to replace him so they probably didn't look to move him.  A team with a low payroll would take him with an eye for moving him at the deadline if he were to bounce back.  It would probably require including some money or a prospect though.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

They've got no one to replace him so they probably didn't look to move him.  A team with a low payroll would take him with an eye for moving him at the deadline if he were to bounce back.  It would probably require including some money or a prospect though.  

They’ve tried to move him.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have to look beyond 2019, otherwise we're working under an artificial premise: "A bunch of mediocre guys with some upside for $35M, or the only guy who's had a hitting season as good as Trout at his best for the same money." Its more like:

+$35M or

+$35+35+35+35+35+35+35+35...and maybe +35+35.

Now I like Doc's idea to transition Harper to 1B. I'm not saddened by the idea of Thaiss being replaced as the presumptive future 1B, but I do think it silly to spend big at a position that the Angels have ridiculous prospect depth at. Adell, Marsh, Knowles, Adams, Deveaux, Ramirez...that's a lot of outfield talent, which will save the Angels a ton of money for the next decade.

Now I suppose the Angels could sign Harper and then use some of that OF prospect cred to acquire a premier 1B, 3B, or C prospect or two...those are the positions of real need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Stradling said:

They’ve tried to move him.  

really?  I must have missed that.  inside info?  

who were they gonna put in RF?  were they doing a salary dump or did the actually expect something in return?  

and that begs the question of why.  were they trying to clear salary for a bigger FA play?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

We have to look beyond 2019, otherwise we're working under an artificial premise: "A bunch of mediocre guys with some upside for $35M, or the only guy who's had a hitting season as good as Trout at his best for the same money." Its more like:

+$35M or

+$35+35+35+35+35+35+35+35...and maybe +35+35.

Now I like Doc's idea to transition Harper to 1B. I'm not saddened by the idea of Thaiss being replaced as the presumptive future 1B, but I do think it silly to spend big at a position that the Angels have ridiculous prospect depth at. Adell, Marsh, Knowles, Adams, Deveaux, Ramirez...that's a lot of outfield talent, which will save the Angels a ton of money for the next decade.

Now I suppose the Angels could sign Harper and then use some of that OF prospect cred to acquire a premier 1B, 3B, or C prospect or two...those are the positions of real need.

I think we'll trade prospects for an elite player somewhere at some point soon.  I am guessing it will be for a front line starter.  The impact of a 6 WAR pitcher to replace your back end starter seems to give a lot more bang for buck than say paying a similar outlay for a 1bman that'll give you 3-4 WAR when you can get a 2 WAR guy for almost nothing.    

I think we saw that mentality for the C position this year.  Teams going with good enough instead of meeting the Marlins ridiculous asking price for Realmuto.  They didn't even hesitate.  Everyone went elsewhere early and often.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

Your point is very valid. . .on the premise that it was an "or" decision.

I have heard every explanation as to why this is the case.

But I personally reject the idea that I'd had to be "or" instead of "and."

This, and thank you for saying it

However, to be fair within the context of the question the choice is obvious, we did what we had to do we had too many holes, Harper or Machado doesnt make the team better than what they have done.  

I also feel there should have been a third choice to the question something along the tie lines of a middle ground that didnt involve going ham, but still got better upgrades which is of course what i would have voted. This off season was never about Harper/Machado to me, that would have always been gravy after taking the steps to fill the holes, but i did certainly hope for more than we did. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

I think we'll trade prospects for an elite player somewhere at some point soon.  I am guessing it will be for a front line starter.  The impact of a 6 WAR pitcher to replace your back end starter seems to give a lot more bang for buck than say paying a similar outlay for a 1bman that'll give you 3-4 WAR when you can get a 2 WAR guy for almost nothing.    

I think we saw that mentality for the C position this year.  Teams going with good enough instead of meeting the Marlins ridiculous asking price for Realmuto.  They didn't even hesitate.  Everyone went elsewhere early and often.  

 

We've talked about how the Angels prospects, as a group, will have greater trade value in another six months or a year. Next off-season there are two front-line who will be hitting free agency: Cole and Sale. Maybe Eppler goes hard after one of them; if they don't sign with the Angels, then you use some of those prospects to trade for a front-line starter. In other words, I think we're a year away from getting a front-line starter.

I become more and more convinced that 2019 is not as much a "punt year" as it is a "staging year," with 2020 being a nice combination of a prospect swelling and free agency opportunities. While I think we can compete for the wildcard in 2019, we could be a very good team in 2020.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

really?  I must have missed that.  inside info?  

who were they gonna put in RF?  were they doing a salary dump or did the actually expect something in return?  

and that begs the question of why.  were they trying to clear salary for a bigger FA play?  

I am also wondering this. I haven't read anywhere about the Angels trying to trade Calhoun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

We've talked about how the Angels prospects, as a group, will have greater trade value in another six months or a year. Next off-season there are two front-line who will be hitting free agency: Cole and Sale. Maybe Eppler goes hard after one of them; if they don't sign with the Angels, then you use some of those prospects to trade for a front-line starter. In other words, I think we're a year away from getting a front-line starter.

I become more and more convinced that 2019 is not as much a "punt year" as it is a "staging year," with 2020 being a nice combination of a prospect swelling and free agency opportunities. While I think we can compete for the wildcard in 2019, we could be a very good team in 2020.

I agree completely and I like the 'staging year' moniker.  I really think Cole is gonna be a huge target for us.   I also think we'll make a pretty big trade next off season.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

Your point is very valid. . .on the premise that it was an "or" decision.

I have heard every explanation as to why this is the case.

But I personally reject the idea that I'd had to be "or" instead of "and."

google "hypothetical" 

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...