I've been resisting it, but...we're gonna lose Trout

[Second Base]

8 hours ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

Yeah I agree. 

I don’t think you can look at 2 (Jo Adell and Jordyn Adams) that happen to be athletic center fielders and say it’s a trend. It’s 2 players. He’s just taking the best athletes possible, which could be his way of upgrading the farm system or could be just his overall preference anyway. Either way, it has nothing to do with Trout.

If it were just two, sure. But you didn't mention Marsh, or any of the international prospects like Deveaux, Knowles and Alex Ramirez.

It's more like 6, in two years.

[Jeff Fletcher]

5 minutes ago, Second Base said:

If it were just two, sure. But you didn't mention Marsh, or any of the international prospects like Deveaux, Knowles and Alex Ramirez.

It's more like 6, in two years.

I still think it’s a coincidence. Basically the position players you sign are mostly center fielders and shortstops, so 6 is not a big number. 

[Jeff Fletcher]

6 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

^I understand the logic but at some point positional depth has to come into play. I mean, at this point I'd rather they draft a potential 50 or even 45 FV catcher than a 55 FV center fielder.

Later in the draft is when you start balancing your organization by position because at that point the players are all the same. 

No GM or scouting director would ever use major league positional need as a factor when it comes to one of your top picks. You take the best player, always. 

[CanadianHalo]

BPA > Needs in the early rounds.

That goes for every sport. Now if you had two prospects tied on your board you could use need to break the tie

[Lou]

2 hours ago, Lou said:

you take the best player. needs can change on a yearly basis 

I agree 

[zenmaster]

I realize we all want Trout to stay because we are Angel fans but other than team / city loyalty, what other reason DOES he have to want to stay here? It's a painful truth that perhaps he does have better options if he values winning.

[floplag]

We have no leverage with Trout, its 100% up to him.  If he wants to be here, he will be, and there is no reason left it shouldn't happen before the season starts.   There are no remaining variables, Arenado signing did us a huge favor.  If it does not happen now I think we need  to take a step back and accept that it may not at all.    

However, IF we were to trade him it could only be where he wants to go and the package we get back will simply be whatever we can get. There is no comparison to Ruth as Bos had all the power back then, we have basically none.   If he leaves it will be 100% his choice.  The only thing that changes that is if the organization lowballs the offer.

I wonder though how we go from "no we cant sign this player he doesnt help us enough to matter just to have a better shot at the wild card" to "we can win a WS in the next couple years?   

[YouthofToday]

12 hours ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I don’t buy this. It’s not like he’s going to sign for some discount. He’s going to sign for the largest deal ever, even if he signs now. No one is going to tell him not to take that. The only way he doesn’t take it is if he just doesn’t want to commit to the Angels. 

I also don’t believe the union really pressures anyone to do anything with regard to contracts. It’s not like there’s some union rep involved between the player, the agent and the team. 

Fair point. 

[Docwaukee]

1 hour ago, floplag said:

We have no leverage with Trout, its 100% up to him.  If he wants to be here, he will be, and there is no reason left it shouldn't happen before the season starts.   There are no remaining variables, Arenado signing did us a huge favor.  If it does not happen now I think we need  to take a step back and accept that it may not at all.    

However, IF we were to trade him it could only be where he wants to go and the package we get back will simply be whatever we can get. There is no comparison to Ruth as Bos had all the power back then, we have basically none.   If he leaves it will be 100% his choice.  The only thing that changes that is if the organization lowballs the offer.

I wonder though how we go from "no we cant sign this player he doesnt help us enough to matter just to have a better shot at the wild card" to "we can win a WS in the next couple years?   

well, if that talent isn't currently in the majors......

we targeted certain players like Corbin but not Keuchel.  There's a reason for that.  

I have always contended that this team's biggest issue for 2019 will be SP.  Yes, it's a lot to bank on for 2020, but there are quite a few SP free agents that are better than anyone in this year's class and we will be getting ohtani back (hopefully).  This is a different team with him and another front line starter.  

[floplag]

22 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

well, if that talent isn't currently in the majors......

we targeted certain players like Corbin but not Keuchel.  There's a reason for that.  

I have always contended that this team's biggest issue for 2019 will be SP.  Yes, it's a lot to bank on for 2020, but there are quite a few SP free agents that are better than anyone in this year's class and we will be getting ohtani back (hopefully).  This is a different team with him and another front line starter.  

So, the farm, again, even though theirs is still deeper and better than ours.   OK, well nuff said i guess time will tell. 
 

[Docwaukee]

3 minutes ago, floplag said:

So, the farm, again, even though theirs is still deeper and better than ours.   OK, well nuff said i guess time will tell. 
 

 that's a questionable statement but let's say it's actually true.  Ours vs. theirs doesn't matter as much as the strength of ours and the impending contribution they're going to make at the major league level.  

I also wouldn't worry too much about what a prospects future value designation is.  As an example, Rengifo isn't a top 100 guy because he lacks power and isn't actually a big time burner.  He's also an avg defender.  But take a guy with avg defense who will hit .270 with a .360 obp that can steal 30 bases and get you about 2.5 WAR per year.  Put that guy in our leadoff spot and tell me that's not valuable.  

Or put Canning and Suarez at the back end of your rotation.  Even if they perform as 3/4/5 types.  

Or put Adell in RF next year and let him cut his teeth.  Maybe he only ends up an avg major leaguer and not a superstar in his first year.  

Now take the money you didn't spend on a FA RF, 2bman, and two rotation arms and spend it on something else.  I think that's enough money to grab a guy like Cole, Wacha, Bumgarner, Wheeler, Strasburg, Sale.  Maybe even more than one.  

This team has spent a lot of money on some really bad or injured players the last 3 years.  If a farm system gives you 4 or 5 avg guys that cost you almost nothing then you don't have to shop in the bargain bin for 5 players.  Instead you can go high end on 1 or 2.  

Put together a 90+ win team and good things can happen.  

 

[Angel Oracle]

4 hours ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

Later in the draft is when you start balancing your organization by position because at that point the players are all the same. 

No GM or scouting director would ever use major league positional need as a factor when it comes to one of your top picks. You take the best player, always. 

Generally agree, although if both a position player and a pitcher were both available in the first round at the Halos selection, would it behoove the Halos to select the pitcher?  

[Reveille1984]

7 hours ago, Lou said:

you take the best player. needs can change on a yearly basis 

This.  You can't predict the future, you just prepare for it as best as possible.  Having the most talented players allows better flexibility, especially when so few of these guys actually become contributing big league regulars.  Drafting a worse player because of a potential positional need is hamstringing your talent pool for a guy that might have a 5% chance of ever sniffing the league, let alone becoming good enough to be a full-time, good player.

If it really gets to the point where a hole on the major league roster is that glaring, you supplement with trades and free agency.  

[Docwaukee]

8 minutes ago, Randy Gradishar said:

I doubt any team in the league has 4 guys better than Trout, Ohtani, Upton, and Simmons. So what the Angels need to go from WC to WS is a few 1-2 WAR players to replace the 0 and under guys.

Once the depth catches up to Houston and injuries go down, the Angels are the better team.

I think of the 2014 Angels as the Colin Cowgill team. Rengifo, Bour, etc. could be this year's Cowgill-Navarro.

especially when you might be paying those 0 WAR players a lot.  The key also, is having the depth to replace a poor performer mid season with a solid option even if they only end up below average it's still better than terrible.  

Case in point was the hodgepodge of starters we were using in the second half of the season.  Granted, if we were in a race, they'd have started the clocks of Suarez and Canning like they did Barria.  

[Jeff Fletcher]

1 hour ago, Angel Oracle said:

Generally agree, although if both a position player and a pitcher were both available in the first round at the Halos selection, would it behoove the Halos to select the pitcher?  

They should take the best player. 

[Docwaukee]

1 hour ago, Angel Oracle said:

Generally agree, although if both a position player and a pitcher were both available in the first round at the Halos selection, would it behoove the Halos to select the pitcher?  

you also have to remember that the Angels will have cultivated a relationship with several players they expect to have available in the first round.  So they're likely going to have the one they're more familiar with higher on their board.  They actually had the chance to take a number of pitchers that seemed to 'slip' to them and they still took Adams.  

[WeatherWonk]

7 hours ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

Later in the draft is when you start balancing your organization by position because at that point the players are all the same. 

No GM or scouting director would ever use major league positional need as a factor when it comes to one of your top picks. You take the best player, always. 

Well, maybe that explains why we are so deficient at catcher in the system. The best player, if by that you mean athlete, is never a catcher.

Yet, the case could be made for the catcher being the most important position player on the field. And it isnt necessarily an easy position to learn when you've been an IF/OF into your 20s. Seems like a catcher should be an exception to this thinking.

[Angel Oracle]

I can't say I'm unhappy with taking Adams over those pitchers, as he does have a huge upside with his athleticism and maturity.

At some point then, if the Halos are still a little thin pitching, will they eventually take a pitcher in the first round?  

And a question: is every MLB team approaching the catcher's spot like the Halos are now, a much lower priority in finding and developing them?   

[Docwaukee]

12 minutes ago, Angel Oracle said:

I can't say I'm unhappy with taking Adams over those pitchers, as he does have a huge upside with his athleticism and maturity.

At some point then, if the Halos are still a little thin pitching, will they eventually take a pitcher in the first round?  

And a question: is every MLB team approaching the catcher's spot like the Halos are now, a much lower priority in finding and developing them?   

catchers are like pen arms.  The really really good ones cost a shit ton.  Otherwise, you are probably just as good trying to get one on the cheap.

[Angel Oracle]

1 minute ago, Dochalo said:

catchers are like pen arms.  The really really good ones cost a shit ton.  Otherwise, you are probably just as good trying to get one on the cheap.

I'd settle for finding another Bob Boone.   Excellent behind the plate and with handling pitchers, and saved his best hitting for the post-season. 

[Angelsjunky]

7 hours ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

Later in the draft is when you start balancing your organization by position because at that point the players are all the same. 

No GM or scouting director would ever use major league positional need as a factor when it comes to one of your top picks. You take the best player, always. 

I question "always." What if it is close? What if one player is a toolsy high school outfielder who projects to be a 60 FV prospect, while another is a 55 FV college catcher who could be major league ready in a couple years? The Angels already have a bunch of such outfielders but no such catchers. And as Angel Oracle pointed out, teams do at least take into account pitching vs. hitting depth. 

And I'm not only talking about major league positional need, but organizational depth. 

[Lou]

48 minutes ago, Angel Oracle said:

I'd settle for finding another Bob Boone.   Excellent behind the plate and with handling pitchers, and saved his best hitting for the post-season. 

way to aim low, buddy 

[Jeff Fletcher]

1 hour ago, WeatherWonk said:

Well, maybe that explains why we are so deficient at catcher in the system. The best player, if by that you mean athlete, is never a catcher.

Yet, the case could be made for the catcher being the most important position player on the field. And it isnt necessarily an easy position to learn when you've been an IF/OF into your 20s. Seems like a catcher should be an exception to this thinking.

Actually I don’t mean best athlete. I mean best player. 

[Jeff Fletcher]

32 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

I question "always." What if it is close? What if one player is a toolsy high school outfielder who projects to be a 60 FV prospect, while another is a 55 FV college catcher who could be major league ready in a couple years? The Angels already have a bunch of such outfielders but no such catchers. And as Angel Oracle pointed out, teams do at least take into account pitching vs. hitting depth. 

And I'm not only talking about major league positional need, but organizational depth. 

As I said in the beginning of the post you quoted, later in the draft you do that. But with your top picks, you go for the best player. 

[Docwaukee]

1 hour ago, WeatherWonk said:

Well, maybe that explains why we are so deficient at catcher in the system. The best player, if by that you mean athlete, is never a catcher.

Yet, the case could be made for the catcher being the most important position player on the field. And it isnt necessarily an easy position to learn when you've been an IF/OF into your 20s. Seems like a catcher should be an exception to this thinking.

It is.  Premier catchers that are legit on both sides of the ball go within the top 5 picks.  

Since the june draft became a thing in 1965, there have been 3 players draft in the first round as a C with more than 25 WAR for their career as a C that weren't taken with a top 5 pick.  

Ted Simmons (1967) - 10th overall
Jason Kendall (1992) - 23rd overall
Mike Scioscia (1976) - 19th overall

There's actually only 10 guys over the last 20 years or so who have put up more than 20 WAR behind the dish.  

The moral of this story is that you shouldn't waste an early pick on a catcher unless you are picking in the top 5.