Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    Join The Internet Home for Angels fans today! AngelsWin.com - Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

  • AngelsWin.com's Charity of the Month

More teams jump in on Harper bid


Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Angel Oracle said:

Reggie in his prime wasn't up and down OPS+ wise like Harper has been so far.  Take away Harper's best season so far, and Jackson's OPS+ for the first 6 seasons has Harper's first 6 seasons' OPS+ beat by a decent margin.   

Why on earth would it make sense to do that?

Look I am just saying Harper has star power.  If you switch over to trying to only justify a massive contract on performance we can do that.  Harper's best year was sick.  At his young age it isn't a bad bet he has a few more of these seasons to come, and his "downside" years he still a 4 WAR player that is an on base machine.

Are his numbers alone right now worth the huge 10 year deal?  No and yes.

No because "he hasn't done enough to justify it." 

Yet yes because he is 26 so he has 4 or 5 more prime years in front of him compared to most free agents, you you have the upside of capturing those years.

I think Harper is as good a bet to be a 500 homer guy as exists in baseball.  He is at 184.

The team that signs him is probably getting 350 or more homers on the deal.

The on base prowess, the 350 or more homers to come, and the raw star power make his potential 10 year deal fully worth the commitment.

But that's my opinion.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I am not sick of the Harper talk at all.  The alternative right now would be stories about Puig deciding to bring his 4 pitbulls to Spring Training and how he manages them, or Derek Jeter making an ex

The Bryce Harper saga  is turning into the baseball equivalent of the Hobbit movie........get up the frickin' mountain already!

I can't stand this guy's name anymore. Just sign with a team or stop playing baseball you greedy F*ck.

Posted Images

46 minutes ago, Angel Oracle said:

Regarding a short term deal, think about this.   If he doesn't get very much ST time under his belt before the season begins, how will he fare for the first few months in 2019?

His name is NOT Aaron Donald.

He had better get himself with whatever team and get to ST, STAT.

I think Harper could sign a week before opening day and be pretty much ready. Kimbrel, not so much. But the guy who is really in trouble? Keuchel. The longer this goes, the more likely his whole contract is to be a bust, rather than just the end of it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, floplag said:

Well ive been vocal about my opinion on sacrificing the now for the later and doing something like this checks both boxes which is all ive been asking for. 
On the field i think he puts us in the post with a core of Trout/Harper/Ohtani/Upton if the pitching is even close to what we hope.
Off the field, well thats a different discussion and those who say the money is too much or it isnt value are probably right, but these things rarely if ever are. 
In a "down" year, he put up 34 bombs and a 393 OBP, and hes 26.  Hes a LH bat which would slot perfectly between Trout and Upton.  He still has some growing up to do but could actually get better.   If there is a player worth that risk not named Trout, its him.
Do i think it has any chance of happening, no, but i would be pleased as punch if it did.

I do agree that marketing off the field is a plus as well as production. I don't think we should sacrifice now since we've gone that route in the past and screwed ourselves. All i'm saying is flex the payroll without trading away all of ur talent. Spend to the cap or a bit over like the Dodgers and go for it. Once Pujols comes off the books then Harper's salary would just replace it.... Plus with Calhoun and Cozart gone being replaced by young prospects then the budget is completely adjusted. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ponder this from Tim Dierkes on Bryce Harper:

"However, you have to consider where Bryce wants to be, and it's starting to sound like the West Coast.  So the Dodgers have an advantage.  You'd think the Angels would get in though."

If the feeling that Harper wants to come to the West are true then why aren't the Angels taking a look? Don't tell me money and don't tell me there's no room. Because the Dodgers "threshold and talent speaking" are at those limits....

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if Harper would accept a backloaded contract?  Seems like all we’d need is for him to accept $15-20 million the first couple years until Albert comes off the books.  If that pushes us to a World Series win, it may even prompt Pujols to retire on a high note.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, howie said:

I wonder if Harper would accept a backloaded contract?  Seems like all we’d need is for him to accept $15-20 million the first couple years until Albert comes off the books.  If that pushes us to a World Series win, it may even prompt Pujols to retire on a high note.  

Maybe? I think as long as the dollar value is there then he'd accept it. Specially if it's true he prefers the West Coast. Keep in mind a backloaded contract is good dollar-wise but the AAV value of say a 10 year $300M contract will still be $30M in year one even if Harper only makes $20M. Could still force us to pay the tax...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, angelsnationtalk said:

I do agree that marketing off the field is a plus as well as production. I don't think we should sacrifice now since we've gone that route in the past and screwed ourselves. All i'm saying is flex the payroll without trading away all of ur talent. Spend to the cap or a bit over like the Dodgers and go for it. Once Pujols comes off the books then Harper's salary would just replace it.... Plus with Calhoun and Cozart gone being replaced by young prospects then the budget is completely adjusted. 

Thats been largely my position since the beginning of the hot stove season, but the team has clearly gone another direction and isnt willing to do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

Fully understand that.  And Reggie Jackson had zero MVPs at Harper's age, and finished his career with one.

I am merely saying some players justify more staggering contracts because of their actual star power and not just from stats.

Harper has massive star power.

Totally disagree here.

You cant compare reggie, or someone like him, to literally anyone today. You mentioned above about tv ratings and jersey sales. Well, the tv ratings re more or less fixed anyway. Your media deal doesnt go up and down with the win loss record.

More to the point, whereas reggie and guys from.those days may have gotten people to tune in, those days are gone. The fact is baseball viewership is going downward. No one person, even trout, is changing that. Its just not as popular as the NBA or NFL anymore.

Case in point, Harper is no Lebron. And its not like Laker games are sold out right now. There wasnt a flood to switch to time Warner when he came here.

Theres just too many forms of entertainment these days to say any one baseball player will change the financial outcome of a team. A winning team draws fans, not an individual player.

This isnt a knock on harper. And id love it if we signed him. But its not like his jersey sales would pay for his contract. And if the team is still mediocre, people wont flood the gates to come see him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

Totally disagree here.

You cant compare reggie, or someone like him, to literally anyone today. You mentioned above about tv ratings and jersey sales. Well, the tv ratings re more or less fixed anyway. Your media deal doesnt go up and down with the win loss record.

More to the point, whereas reggie and guys from.those days may have gotten people to tune in, those days are gone. The fact is baseball viewership is going downward. No one person, even trout, is changing that. Its just not as popular as the NBA or NFL anymore.

Case in point, Harper is no Lebron. And its not like Laker games are sold out right now. There wasnt a flood to switch to time Warner when he came here.

Theres just too many forms of entertainment these days to say any one baseball player will change the financial outcome of a team. A winning team draws fans, not an individual player.

This isnt a knock on harper. And id love it if we signed him. But its not like his jersey sales would pay for his contract. And if the team is still mediocre, people wont flood the gates to come see him.

It's actually still more popular than the NBA. Basketball overall is more popular than baseball due to NCAA.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, angelsnationtalk said:

Ponder this from Tim Dierkes on Bryce Harper:

"However, you have to consider where Bryce wants to be, and it's starting to sound like the West Coast.  So the Dodgers have an advantage.  You'd think the Angels would get in though."

If the feeling that Harper wants to come to the West are true then why aren't the Angels taking a look? Don't tell me money and don't tell me there's no room. Because the Dodgers "threshold and talent speaking" are at those limits....

Two completely different situations. The dodgers are built a lot better than we are, their farm is at least as good as ours, and their income is in a different galaxy than ours.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

Fully understand that.  And Reggie Jackson had zero MVPs at Harper's age, and finished his career with one.

I am merely saying some players justify more staggering contracts because of their actual star power and not just from stats.

Harper has massive star power.

not at his age, but he had one in his 6th full season in the majors and 4 top 5 MVP finishes in his first 8 seasons.  he also led his team to 3 consecutive WS titles in his first 7 seasons. 

i'm sorry, but Harper doesn't have nearly the star power that Reggie had during his career. he was a national icon. he was national news on a daily basis, and that was before the onslaught of 24-hour sports networks and before Al Gore invented the interwebs. seriously, how often do you really hear about Harper during the season?

Reggie had a candy bar named after him!

Ps  Reggie won his first MVP when he was 27 years old 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Lou said:

not at his age, but he had one in his 6th full season in the majors and 4 top 5 MVP finishes in his first 8 seasons.  he also led his team to 3 consecutive WS titles in his first 7 seasons. 

i'm sorry, but Harper doesn't have nearly the star power that Reggie had during his career. he was a national icon. he was national news on a daily basis, and that was before the onslaught of 24-hour sports networks and before Al Gore invented the interwebs. seriously, how often do you really hear about Harper during the season?

Reggie had a candy bar named after him!

It isn't an argument over who is the bigger star.

I used Reggie as an obvious example to make the point that star power does matter, and Harper absolutely has star power.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Lou said:

not at his age, but he had one in his 6th full season in the majors and 4 top 5 MVP finishes in his first 8 seasons.  he also led his team to 3 consecutive WS titles in his first 7 seasons. 

i'm sorry, but Harper doesn't have nearly the star power that Reggie had during his career. he was a national icon. he was national news on a daily basis, and that was before the onslaught of 24-hour sports networks and before Al Gore invented the interwebs. seriously, how often do you really hear about Harper during the season?

Reggie had a candy bar named after him!

Ps  Reggie won his first MVP when he was 27 years old 

 

14 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

It isn't an argument over who is the bigger star.

I used Reggie as an obvious example to make the point that star power does matter, and Harper absolutely has star power.

Reference Lous post. I think the days of any one guy being a huge name are pretty much over. Even Trout...other teams fans know him, but non baseball fans dont. But back in the old days, pretty much all the big names were known to the public, simply because there wasnt a ton else to pay attention to.

In the reggie days, aside from the lakers and celtics, no one watched basketball. Hockey didnt exist. Then you had a small number of celebrities that were more or less in every movie. Network TV stars and news anchors were household names.

Now were flooded with "celebrities". I just dont think any one player, especially in baseball, has the same impact (in viewership, revenue) that it used to.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, floplag said:

Thats been largely my position since the beginning of the hot stove season, but the team has clearly gone another direction and isnt willing to do so.

We're betting our chips that our prospects are ALL going to make a massive impact. I'd honestly say Canning, Adell, Fletcher and MAYBE Thaiss will ever make significant impact. Marsh, Rengifo, Jones, Ward, Suarez and Barria are all bench or very average players to me. I do think shying away from a big name like Harper is embarrassing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, angelsnationtalk said:

We're betting our chips that our prospects are ALL going to make a massive impact. I'd honestly say Canning, Adell, Fletcher and MAYBE Thaiss will ever make significant impact. Marsh, Rengifo, Jones, Ward, Suarez and Barria are all bench or very average players to me. I do think shying away from a big name like Harper is embarrassing. 

they're not betting on all of them.  That's an absurd statement.  Part of the point of having a good farm system is that you don't have to rely on all of them.  

But as an example what if Canning, Adell, Fletcher and Thaiss could achieve the value of Harvey, Calhoun, Cozart, and Bour.  You'd have almost an additional $40 mil to spend.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Boras is playing everyone like a fiddle.  Dodgers trade their entire outfield early in the offseason.  Everybody is saying the Dogs are going hard after Harper.  Then radio silence.  All the while teams make a run at Harper.  From San Francisco to San Diego to Philly to Washington and everyone in between.  It looks as if he finally is going to make a decision in Philly, then all of a sudden the Dodgers are back in it?  

This sounds like one of those shady backroom deals where the Dodgers said, see what you can get, then come back and see us.  

Link to post
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...