Two Questions

[Torridd]

1) Is it possible that Eppler got the okay to sign Machado or Harper, but decided against it? and 2) if all the free agents Eppler signed go bust, is it possible he would be fired for that despite their low cost?

[Angelsjunky]

3 minutes ago, Torridd said:

1) Is it possible that Eppler got the okay to sign Machado or Harper, but decided against it? and 2) if all the free agents Eppler signed go bust, is it possible he would be fired for that despite their low cost?

1) Maybe

2) Unlikely

[Lou]

I don't see how Arte gives the ok unless Eppler asks for it. 

[Torridd]

3 minutes ago, Lou said:

I don't see how Arte gives the ok unless Eppler asks for it. 

Maybe he initially asked him and then decided not to do it?

[Dtwncbad]

Both are players that could help the Angels now and into the future.  They are simply financial decisions that have to be made based on what the market is telling it will take to sign them.

If it looks like it will take 12/400 to land Harper, they pass.

If it looks like you can get either of them in a structure that fits their present and future plan, then so be it.

We just don't know for sure exactly where that line is drawn by Moreno.

We can guess from some hints and quotes and other decisions but we really don't know.

The Angels have been very good at staying quiet in their pursuits and I think that is smart.

I am not saying they are actively chasing either one, but both are plenty good enough (again for both now and the precious future) that I have to believe Eppler at least has an eye on the situation.

[Lou]

16 minutes ago, Torridd said:

Maybe he initially asked him and then decided not to do it?

then I would imagine Arte wouybe supportive of his decision. 

[Troll Daddy]

It depends on their chances of signing Trout to a extension this off season or next off season imo. If they feel likes it’s not going to happen ... then now is a good time to make a run at Harper/Machado. If you can sign Machado around the $250M range then they should go for it. I’m not that big on Harper unless they can get him for a similar deal. 

[stormngt]

2 hours ago, Torridd said:

1) Is it possible that Eppler got the okay to sign Machado or Harper, but decided against it? and 2) if all the free agents Eppler signed go bust, is it possible he would be fired for that despite their low cost?

Some serious speculation!  Is it possible that Trout wanted to sign an extension for league minimum?

[stormngt]

To be honest had Eppler got the ok to pursue Harper or Machada and passed I think the Angel's would have reported it that they tried but too expensive.

[Angel Oracle]

58 minutes ago, Troll Daddy said:

It depends on their chances of signing Trout to a extension this off season or next off season imo. If they feel likes it’s not going to happen ... then now is a good time to make a run at Harper/Machado. If you can sign Machado around the $250M range then they should go for it. I’m not that big on Harper unless they can get him for a similar deal. 

Better to wait a year, and THEN if Trout is not a good bet to re-sign (which would totally suck), then the one guy to bring in as a premium FA over the next 5 years would be Nolan Arenado. 

[Dtwncbad]

10 minutes ago, Angel Oracle said:

Better to wait a year, and THEN if Trout is not a good bet to re-sign (which would totally suck), then the one guy to bring in as a premium FA over the next 5 years would be Nolan Arenado. 

I still don't get why so many think the Angels have to be limited to something like "one guy over 5 years". . .

None of the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, or even much of the next tier think this frugally.  The Phillies were open to signing Harper and Machado.  The Nats have a laundry list of premium expensive players.

The measurement for me is not how many, it is are they the right fit?

If there is one right fit, sign one.  If there are four right fits over 5 years, go for all four.

The Angels are going to have many inexpensive bodies here shortly allowing more spending on other premium "right fit" players.

And yes I agree on Arenado.  So is Harper.  RF now and 1B shortly.  I hope the Angels have Ohtani, Trout, Upton, Simmons, Arenado, Adell, and Harper.

How do you like me now Yankees and Red Sox??

I know.  I'm smoking crack.

 

[Stradling]

4 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

I still don't get why so many think the Angels have to be limited to something like "one guy over 5 years". . .

None of the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, or even much of the next tier think this frugally.  The Phillies were open to signing Harper and Machado.  The Nats have a laundry list of premium expensive players.

The measurement for me is not how many, it is are they the right fit?

If there is one right fit, sign one.  If there are four right fits over 5 years, go for all four.

The Angels are going to have many inexpensive bodies here shortly allowing more spending on other premium "right fit" players.

And yes I agree on Arenado.  So is Harper.  RF now and 1B shortly.  I hope the Angels have Ohtani, Trout, Upton, Simmons, Arenado, Adell, and Harper.

How do you like me now Yankees and Red Sox??

I know.  I'm smoking crack.

 

The Red Sox, Yankees and Dodgers all bring in $100-300 million more in annual revenue than the Angels.   Comparing the Angels to any of those would be similar to comparing the A’s to the Angels.   

[Dtwncbad]

7 minutes ago, Stradling said:

The Red Sox, Yankees and Dodgers all bring in $100-300 million more in annual revenue than the Angels.   Comparing the Angels to any of those would be similar to comparing the A’s to the Angels.   

My bad.  Sign three not four.

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

3 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

If it looks like it will take 12/400 to land Harper, they pass.

I doubt that. He should have taken the Nats offer. I heard it's off the table now.

[Stradling]

41 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

My bad.  Sign three not four.

Ok, they currently have 3.  

[Dtwncbad]

1 minute ago, Stradling said:

Ok, they currently have 3.  

OK time to replace Pujols with Harper.

[Stradling]

1 minute ago, Dtwncbad said:

OK time to replace Pujols with Harper.

Ok, I don’t think that will happen.  The bigger issue than the Pujols contract is having to pay free agents for league average production, or worse because we didn’t have a farm.  If we weren’t paying Kole and Cozart and last year it was Valbuena and Kinsler and we also have the two starters that we are paying $20 million to combined.  Those are the reasons we can’t have nice things.  

[Dtwncbad]

4 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Ok, I don’t think that will happen.  The bigger issue than the Pujols contract is having to pay free agents for league average production, or worse because we didn’t have a farm.  If we weren’t paying Kole and Cozart and last year it was Valbuena and Kinsler and we also have the two starters that we are paying $20 million to combined.  Those are the reasons we can’t have nice things.  

Yes I know. . .and I am just having fun here.

My interest in both Machado and Harper is really all about their volume of prime seasons in front of them which makes the upside of them in a category far different from some of these cases of chasing 30 or 31 or 32 year olds.

If the market is soft here, I would rather sign somebody a year early and have them for an additional year along side Trout.