More teams jump in on Harper bid

[Capital_Dave]

I would bet that mathematically you could make a case that a ridiculous-sounding $40M 1 year deal would be worth it.  Not that I would *ever* do that with Bryce Fricking Harper, but so many of these long term deals are predicated on the out years being bad deals.  If you have the chance to do a one year deal at a ridiculous AAV, you have to look at it.

I'm really curious what happens with Trevor Bauer.  He insists he's going to do nothing but sign one-year deals.  Should be a fascinating experiment.

 

[Docwaukee]

29 minutes ago, eligrba said:

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

I feel like we're in the talking tree part of LOTR

'some

 

 

of

 

 

 

those 

 

 

 

 

trees

 

 

 

 

were

 

 

 

 

 

my

 

 

 

 

 

friends'

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Pancake Bear]

35 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

I feel like we're in the talking tree part of LOTR

'some

 

 

of

 

 

 

those 

 

 

 

 

trees

 

 

 

 

were

 

 

 

 

 

my

 

 

 

 

 

friends'

 

 

 

 

 

 

Have you signed a contract yet?

We...

 

just....

 

finished...

 

saying hello. 

[halomatt]

Those damn trees were the worst part of the whole story. 

"I get it.You've been around for eons and watched Middle Earth change."

"This is serious shit though.  Kick your shit in gear and make a Facking decision, already!" 

[DMVol]

1 hour ago, gotbeer said:

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

Why is that shady?  If you know Boras is going to squeeze everybody for their last dollar (and you have the money to spend), it sounds pretty efficient to me...

[Angelsjunky]

1 hour ago, Dochalo said:

I feel like we're in the talking tree part of LOTR

I'm actually re-reading LotR with some students right now and just read the Treebeard chapter...you think the movie is bad as far as Treebeard going on, read the book. He says verse in Elvish, sings, and goes on and on about Entish history.

[CanadianHalo]

I really wish Arte would pull an Arte and sign him.

As much as I would love to hold out for Arenado next season; it’s a toss up if he makes it to free agency and he’ll be 29 mid April next season. Harper just turned 26. 

I really just want this team to start winning. I can’t bare another wasted season and as it stands now that’s how I see this one playing out. 

[Angelsjunky]

I'm Harpered out.

Or Bryced out?

[Blarg]

Har-Bro'ed out?

[angelsnationtalk]

6 hours ago, Lou said:

no, we're not.  no team does that. 

Well then my point exactly 

[angelsnationtalk]

6 hours ago, Dochalo said:

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.  

Well then that’s my point. The rest become moveable pieces to acquire that ace in the rotation (or number 2 behind Ohtani) and the prospects who perform are now full time starters that save us money. Hence the entire conversation @floplag and I have been having...

[angelsnationtalk]

6 hours ago, Lou said:

would you give him 10/$300M ?

To be honest, yes. We all hooted and hollered when we signed a 32 year old for 10/$240M. At least with Harper we’d get 6 years of prime years. And Harper could still have a few MVP type years.... Pujols was practically zero years, maybe 1 or 2 at best or decent production.

We could argue that the numbers won’t be there or that it’s a lot of money but honestly I’m just going to say yes, i’d sign him. Specially knowing we have prospects waiting to come up and offset cost once Pujols, Cozart and Calhoun will be off the books in 1-3 years. That’s $52M+ off the books that will be replaced by guys making minimum for 3 seasons. 

[Docwaukee]

It's hard for me to believe that anyone thinks the Angels would overlap Harper at 10/300+ and Trout at 10/400.  

Even if you think Arte has a ton of money burning a hole in his pocket, it's just absurdly unrealistic that he would carry the two largest contracts in baseball history at the same time.

Is that really an argument being made?  700 mil+ in commitments to two players?  

Oh and the other 87 mil of dead money owed over the next three years.  What happens to that?  

How about the 90 mil owed to the guy entering his age 31 season?  

It's both amazing that people think this is realistic but that they'd actually want it to happen.  

[Angelsjunky]

I read somewhere the idea of 6/$216M for Harper, possibly from LAD. Kind of makes sense. I think he wants to play on the west coast, but presumably only the Phillies are offering him 10 years. If he signs with LAD for 6/216M, he gets the higheset AAV (36M) but also gets to free agency again at age 32, still young enough to cash in again. If I were him I'd take 6/216 over 10/330 to play somewhere I actually wanted to be.

[Angelsjunky]

I wouldn't sign him for 10/$300M. First of all, the Angels have tons of organizational depth in the outfield: Adell, Marsh, Adams, Knowles, Deveaux, not to mention Alex Ramirez. Maybe none of those guys turns into a star, but at least one or two should be pretty good - and for far cheaper than Harper. That money can and should be spent elsewhere, in a position of actual need - like SP. Or C or a MOTO corner infielder.

If Harper had more than one 2015 in his record I'd be more inclined to sign him. But you only sign a player like him for 10/$300M if you either have a desperate need for a star outfielder, or you are pretty certain he's got some superstar years in him. The Angels don't have that desperate need and there's no certainly he won't just continue to churn out very good but not great years.

Now I personally think Harper has some more superstar years in him. But again, it is too much of a risk, and a risk the Angels don't need to take. As much as I was leery of Machado, he would have made more sense. If the Angels didn't go after Machado, there's no way they go after Harper.

In the end I'm happy with the Eppler Plan and look forward to a strong homegrown core around Trout for the next decade.

[arch stanton]

It's like they want to pay $35 mil a year for Cody Bellinger with a little extra plate discipline and a little less speed

[Docwaukee]

8 minutes ago, arch stanton said:

It's like they want to pay $35 mil a year for Cody Bellinger with a little extra plate discipline and a little less speed

and way worse defense.  I was looking at Bellinger vs. Harper today.  

teams that would pay Harper or Machado an extra 8-10 mil per year for their current production do so because they need fans to come to games.  Whether they're worth that is another story.  

[Lou]

1 hour ago, angelsnationtalk said:

Well then my point exactly 

you said: "We're betting our chips that our prospects are ALL going to make a massive impact."

that was your point. 

[Docwaukee]

16 minutes ago, Lou said:

you said: "We're betting our chips that our prospects are ALL going to make a massive impact."

that was your point. 

exactly.  they lose that bet but then make another bet.  if you don't hear Kenny Rogers, then you're not listening.  

[Inside Pitch]

7 hours ago, Dochalo said:

It's hard for me to believe that anyone thinks the Angels would overlap Harper at 10/300+ and Trout at 10/400.  

Even if you think Arte has a ton of money burning a hole in his pocket, it's just absurdly unrealistic that he would carry the two largest contracts in baseball history at the same time.

Is that really an argument being made?  700 mil+ in commitments to two players?  

Oh and the other 87 mil of dead money owed over the next three years.  What happens to that?  

How about the 90 mil owed to the guy entering his age 31 season?  

It's both amazing that people think this is realistic but that they'd actually want it to happen.  

The "it's not my money" crowd have short memories....    

[angelsnationtalk]

8 hours ago, Dochalo said:

It's hard for me to believe that anyone thinks the Angels would overlap Harper at 10/300+ and Trout at 10/400.  

Even if you think Arte has a ton of money burning a hole in his pocket, it's just absurdly unrealistic that he would carry the two largest contracts in baseball history at the same time.

Is that really an argument being made?  700 mil+ in commitments to two players?  

Oh and the other 87 mil of dead money owed over the next three years.  What happens to that?  

How about the 90 mil owed to the guy entering his age 31 season?  

It's both amazing that people think this is realistic but that they'd actually want it to happen.  

I think some of us have the assumption of Pujols retiring and deferring his money out of the payroll. But if we're paying Pujols 30M at some point and Trout $34 then the $30M and $40M really isn't too far fetched. 

[Dtwncbad]

9 hours ago, Dochalo said:

It's hard for me to believe that anyone thinks the Angels would overlap Harper at 10/300+ and Trout at 10/400.  

Even if you think Arte has a ton of money burning a hole in his pocket, it's just absurdly unrealistic that he would carry the two largest contracts in baseball history at the same time.

Is that really an argument being made?  700 mil+ in commitments to two players?  

Oh and the other 87 mil of dead money owed over the next three years.  What happens to that?  

How about the 90 mil owed to the guy entering his age 31 season?  

It's both amazing that people think this is realistic but that they'd actually want it to happen.  

For clarity, I agree that it is probably unrealistic that Arte WOULD sign Harper for the reasons you mentioned.  I think 99% of fans agree on this.

For me, I talk about it because there is a huge difference between would and could.

There is zero question in my mind that all of these major market teams could spend another $60-70m per year and still have a thriving business investment.

They don't because they have carefully negotiated themselves into a CBA (and more importantly a culture based on the CBA) that has fans and players accepting that they don't spend that extra money.

Having Trout and Harper at the same time?

That will not happen because Arte (and other owners) don't WANT the sport to go that way.

It is not because they can't.

As a fan, it is no crime to to talk about what they absolutely CAN do (but won't).

Edited February 26, 2019 by Dtwncbad

[Buttercup]

11 hours ago, Dochalo said:

Is that really an argument being made?  700 mil+ in commitments to two players?

And what about keeping Ohtani around? I realize it’s a few years out but the longer you wait the more expensive he may become. If he can be healthy, which is a big if still. He may break Trouts (upcoming) record for highest annual salary. It’s a long ways out but I’m sure the front office is thinking that far ahead when looking at Harper and Trout contracts. 

[IEAngelsfan]

1 hour ago, Buttercup said:

And what about keeping Ohtani around? I realize it’s a few years out but the longer you wait the more expensive he may become. If he can be healthy, which is a big if still. He may break Trouts (upcoming) record for highest annual salary. It’s a long ways out but I’m sure the front office is thinking that far ahead when looking at Harper and Trout contracts. 

Good point.  They have to have a long term strategy.

[Angel Oracle]

12 hours ago, Dochalo said:

and way worse defense.  I was looking at Bellinger vs. Harper today.  

teams that would pay Harper or Machado an extra 8-10 mil per year for their current production do so because they need fans to come to games.  Whether they're worth that is another story.  

Including running into fences, inviting another Pete Reiser (or more recently, Aaron Rowand) like career shortening