You know what is really expensive?

[Dtwncbad]

4 minutes ago, yk9001 said:

When the Angels signed Pujols to a premium contract and it became apparent a few years in that he was drastically underperfoming, the Angels made no effort for years to find a suitable replacement, because after all, you can't bench Pujols.

So the Angels were stuck with a loaded Depends diaper at first place, nobody on the roster better to replace him, with no thoughts about it every offseason, and the board nutswingers would say, "You can't bench him! Nobody better to replace him!"

It became this weird, circular argument of fail.  The Angels would never upgrade at first, and there would be nobody better to replace him.

 

Bad FA contracts are multi-faceted

Oh, so stay away from BAD free agent contracts.  Hmm.  Just curious, would this revolutionary approach also apply to things like “Don’t have BAD drafts” and “Don’t be BAD at player development” and “Don’t make BAD trades”?

You know, you may really be on to something here.

[yk9001]

6 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Oh, so stay away from BAD free agent contracts.  Hmm.  Just curious, would this revolutionary approach also apply to things like “Don’t have BAD drafts” and “Don’t be BAD at player development” and “Don’t make BAD trades”?

You know, you may really be on to something here.

The Angels don't have to sign the shiniest bauble in hot stove.

[T.G.]

1 minute ago, yk9001 said:

The Angels don't have to sign the shiniest bauble in hot stove.

So... no bald guys.

[tdawg87]

2 minutes ago, yk9001 said:

The Angels don't have to sign the shiniest bauble in hot stove.

When was the last time they did that?

[Stradling]

44 minutes ago, yk9001 said:

A team doesn't have to bite the bullet.  Crap, the Nationals just won a World Series LETTING GO of the shiniest bauble of last offseason.  They signed a FA contract for their third best pitcher on their staff for 6/140 and he was a stud.

The Padres signed the second shiniest bauble of last year's FA list, and the team immediately spent the season in the Missing Persons program.

 

I'm sick of waiting for dead money contracts to come off the books.  I am sick of seeing teams like the Dodgers and Astros and Nationals bring up multiple good young players.

The Angels went the entire decade spending money, and didn't win one frigging playoff game.  I'd love to invest more in the farm.

What you just saw last month of Gerrit Cole is the best you will ever see.  The Angels always seem to pay for the success of a player on another team.

That’s one way to put it.  You could also point out that they had one free agent  pitcher under contract for $210 million, another for $140 million, and still re-signed one of their own for $175 million.  They had an MVP candidate making close to $19 million on the final year of club control.  This owner also gave $100 million to Ryan Zimmerman who was on his team and probably didn’t live up to his contract.  And their a year or two removed from Jayson Werth’s $125 million free agent contract.  
So the results are different but the approach is pretty similar to Arte’s.  

[tdawg87]

If Yk uses the word "bauble" again I'm getting my gun.

[Dtwncbad]

39 minutes ago, yk9001 said:

The Angels don't have to sign the shiniest bauble in hot stove.

Agree.  How about the best player that is the best fit for the greatest need?

Wait, we are talking about the same player I think.

The best player that is the best fit for the greatest need is also the shiny prize of this class of free agents.

Now what?  Stubbornly not sign Cole to prove you have the discipline to avoid the “shiny” player or go ahead and get what you actually need? 

Edited November 6, 2019 by Dtwncbad

[Glen]

31 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

If Yk uses the word "bauble" again I'm getting my gun.

 

[Dtwncbad]

If the Angels sign a bauble, at least they could have a Bauble bobble head night.

[Angel Oracle]

Pujols: Legendary player who nonetheless was a huge candidate to decline drastically thanks to a 10 year contract taking him to age 41 combined with an exaggerated crouched batting stance for many years while having a not so skinny body for those knees and feet to support

Tigers should have taken notes, when giving M-Cab a new deal. 

Cole: Cy Young caliber pitcher the past two seasons, durable pitcher, no outwardly unusual delivery, and still only turning age 30 during the 2020 season and expected to not get more than 7-8 years on new contract.

Two different scenarios

When gauging whether to sign a big money FA, it is good to weigh all things about said FA. 

     

Edited November 6, 2019 by Angel Oracle

[Dtwncbad]

2 minutes ago, Angel Oracle said:

Pujols: Legendary player who nonetheless was a huge candidate to decline drastically thanks to a 10 year contract taking him to age 41 combined with an exaggerated crouched batting stance for many years while having a not so skinny body for those knees and feet to support

Tigers should have taken notes, when giving M-Cab a new deal. 

Cole: Cy Young caliber pitcher the past two seasons, durable pitcher, no outwardly unusual delivery, and still only turning age 30 during the 2020 season and expected to not get more than 7-8 years on new contract.

Two different scenarios

When gauging whether to sign a big money FA, it is good to weigh all things about said FA. 

     

Can somebody please get us a side by side photo comparison of The Pujols and Cole batting stances?

We definitely want to avoid the same mistakes. 

[Dtwncbad]

I love that you just see humor and don’t take offense.  It was purely for a laugh.

[tdawg87]

2 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

I love that you just see humor and don’t take offense.  It was purely for a laugh.

AO is a chill dude.

[Dtwncbad]

Just now, tdawg87 said:

AO is a chill dude.

Totally.  I try to be that chill but I fail 52% of the time.  Maybe more.  OK, not maybe. 

[T.G.]

AO is AW's Ed McMahon.

 

Edited November 6, 2019 by True Grich

[Angel Oracle]

1 minute ago, True Grich said:

AO is AW's Ed McMahon.

Hey, I moved up from Cliff Claven.   Today is a momentous day.

[Docwaukee]

28 minutes ago, Stradling said:

That’s one way to put it.  You could also point out that they had one free agent  pitcher under contract for $210 million, another for $140 million, and still re-signed one of their own for $175 million.  They had an MVP candidate making close to $19 million on the final year of club control.  This owner also gave $100 million to Ryan Zimmerman who was on his team and probably didn’t live up to his contract.  And their a year or two removed from Jayson Werth’s $125 million free agent contract.  
So the results are different but the approach is pretty similar to Arte’s.  

except they went the extra mile when they saw an opportunity.  3 years in a row of their 40man costing over 200m.  The Nats are a terrible example of being conservative and 'waiting it out' when it comes to money.  

Even the Astros have an anticipated payroll over 200m for 2020 without doing a damn thing.  

Last year Boston was at like 240m.  

The dogs were over 200m

The Yankees over 200m.  

The cubs over 200m.  

When was the last time a low payroll team won a WS?  The Royals?  The blew couple of nuts and went straight back to the kids table.  

The Yankees stopped spending like they used to and have gone 10 years without a WS appearance.  

 

So let's acknowledge the first and most important point.  It's not that fucking easy.  The Astros have had an absolute juggernaut of a team with three 100 win seasons in a row and they've got 1 WS to show for it.  They also had to go through a 6 year period where the averaged almost 100 losses per year.  6 years of almost 100 losses.  

Pretty much every team that spends some time being a winner for awhile makes financial commitments that end up less than savory down the road.  There are a bunch of teams that make those commitments who don't end up winners.  The ones that do have a core of home grown players contributing as well whereas those that don't.  Don't.  

So it's not really about if.  It's about when.  You are gonna have to do it at some point whether its that big contract or that disruptive trade or or that lengthy extension or all of them and you're gonna feel  the pain of that at some point.  

So it ends up being all about timing.  The nats signed Scherzer prior to the 2015 season and proceeded to go 83-79.  This was Scherzer's 5th year with the team.  

The Red Sox came off a 91 loss and then an 84 loss season then signed David Price and traded for Chris Sale.  

You just have to hope you have the right people in place to pick the right guys, pay them the right amount, keep the right guys, and trade the right guys.  

Ask yourself this.  Does you think we have a better chance of winning a WS or even making the playoffs over the next 7 years with Gerritt Cole or without him?

 

[T.G.]

12 minutes ago, Angel Oracle said:

Hey, I moved up from Cliff Claven.   Today is a momentous day.

You've gone from Man yelling at the clouds to Cliff Claven to Ed McMahon. 

[tdawg87]

26 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

except they went the extra mile when they saw an opportunity.  3 years in a row of their 40man costing over 200m.  The Nats are a terrible example of being conservative and 'waiting it out' when it comes to money.  

Even the Astros have an anticipated payroll over 200m for 2020 without doing a damn thing.  

Last year Boston was at like 240m.  

The dogs were over 200m

The Yankees over 200m.  

The cubs over 200m.  

When was the last time a low payroll team won a WS?  The Royals?  The blew couple of nuts and went straight back to the kids table.  

The Yankees stopped spending like they used to and have gone 10 years without a WS appearance.  

 

So let's acknowledge the first and most important point.  It's not that Facking easy.  The Astros have had an absolute juggernaut of a team with three 100 win seasons in a row and they've got 1 WS to show for it.  They also had to go through a 6 year period where the averaged almost 100 losses per year.  6 years of almost 100 losses.  

Pretty much every team that spends some time being a winner for awhile makes financial commitments that end up less than savory down the road.  There are a bunch of teams that make those commitments who don't end up winners.  The ones that do have a core of home grown players contributing as well whereas those that don't.  Don't.  

So it's not really about if.  It's about when.  You are gonna have to do it at some point whether its that big contract or that disruptive trade or or that lengthy extension or all of them and you're gonna feel  the pain of that at some point.  

So it ends up being all about timing.  The nats signed Scherzer prior to the 2015 season and proceeded to go 83-79.  This was Scherzer's 5th year with the team.  

The Red Sox came off a 91 loss and then an 84 loss season then signed David Price and traded for Chris Sale.  

You just have to hope you have the right people in place to pick the right guys, pay them the right amount, keep the right guys, and trade the right guys.  

Ask yourself this.  Does you think we have a better chance of winning a WS or even making the playoffs over the next 7 years with Gerritt Cole or without him?

 

Somewhere, Claude's alarm is on fire.

[Stradling]

1 hour ago, Dochalo said:

except they went the extra mile when they saw an opportunity.  3 years in a row of their 40man costing over 200m.  The Nats are a terrible example of being conservative and 'waiting it out' when it comes to money.  

Even the Astros have an anticipated payroll over 200m for 2020 without doing a damn thing.  

Last year Boston was at like 240m.  

The dogs were over 200m

The Yankees over 200m.  

The cubs over 200m.  

When was the last time a low payroll team won a WS?  The Royals?  The blew couple of nuts and went straight back to the kids table.  

The Yankees stopped spending like they used to and have gone 10 years without a WS appearance.  

 

So let's acknowledge the first and most important point.  It's not that fucking easy.  The Astros have had an absolute juggernaut of a team with three 100 win seasons in a row and they've got 1 WS to show for it.  They also had to go through a 6 year period where the averaged almost 100 losses per year.  6 years of almost 100 losses.  

Pretty much every team that spends some time being a winner for awhile makes financial commitments that end up less than savory down the road.  There are a bunch of teams that make those commitments who don't end up winners.  The ones that do have a core of home grown players contributing as well whereas those that don't.  Don't.  

So it's not really about if.  It's about when.  You are gonna have to do it at some point whether its that big contract or that disruptive trade or or that lengthy extension or all of them and you're gonna feel  the pain of that at some point.  

So it ends up being all about timing.  The nats signed Scherzer prior to the 2015 season and proceeded to go 83-79.  This was Scherzer's 5th year with the team.  

The Red Sox came off a 91 loss and then an 84 loss season then signed David Price and traded for Chris Sale.  

You just have to hope you have the right people in place to pick the right guys, pay them the right amount, keep the right guys, and trade the right guys.  

Ask yourself this.  Does you think we have a better chance of winning a WS or even making the playoffs over the next 7 years with Gerritt Cole or without him?

 

With

[Inside Pitch]

2 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

If the Angels sign a bauble, at least they could have a Bauble bobble head night.

This was awful... Still I have it a 10.

Well done

[Blarg]

A Bauble bobblehead bauble?

[Mark68]

5 hours ago, tdawg87 said:

He also paid premium dollars for Vlad Guerrero, Bartolo Colon, and Kelvim Escobar. Not to mention Mike Trout, but that's not really a fair comparison.

The point is, everyone remembers the signings that didn't work out, but forget the ones that did.

Torii Hunter, anyone?

[tdawg87]

3 minutes ago, Mark68 said:

Torii Hunter, anyone?

That too.

[tdawg87]

Also, while Weaver and Wilson ended up being disappointing after signing their contracts, I wouldn't call them bad.

We've actually had decent luck with big contracts, all things considered. I'd also argue that Arte would do the Pujols contract again if he could.