Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

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

    Register today to join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

IGNORED

Trades, how far are you guys willing to go?


floplag

Recommended Posts

i've always thought of that big trade as the last piece of the puzzle unless you've got some major surplus of farm guys burning a hole in your pocket.  we surely do not.  Even teams with that luxury have be reluctant to move their young players.  Teams like Atlanta and Minnesota for instance had really good teams this year yet have not been inclined to trade.  That's a good indicator of how valuable prospects are in today's world.  

I will reiterate that we could see a substantial move up in value of several young guys in our system this year.  There's a lot of upside out there.  

and even when you decide to add that last piece in trade, you better be sure it's the last piece, and you better not be wrong.  Especially if that player you acquire has 2 years or less of club control.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, floplag said:

IF you could get him or Ruiz or any other top young catcher without losing any of the top kids, but you take on bloat, do you do it?  Otherwise do you trade some combination of Marsh or Adams/Jones whoever not named Adell.  

We could go into FA and get Grandal for about the same as what we would take on in this case, assuming thats actually an option, so there are many ways to go about this but i think wed all probably prefer a long term solution on the right side of 30.

You just made the case for why you don't take on Myers -- for the same amount owed to him, you can get Grandal and keep Marsh or the rest of the kids...      If you trade for Myers you're adding bad money and a bad player.  There is no upside to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

You just made the case for why you don't take on Myers -- for the same amount owed to him, you can get Grandal and keep Marsh or the rest of the kids...      If you trade for Myers you're adding bad money and a bad player.  There is no upside to it.

Not really when Grandal is significantly older and will require more years to get done.  Myers has i think 3 years, Grandal will likely take 4-5 to sign.  But you are correct the short term AAV is the same but the long term impact isnt.
Again if we take on that contract im assuming we dont give up Marsh unless we get more back.
The money is a wash, but we control Mejia for longer.
Many reasons i dont see it as quite the same aside from the short term AAV. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No thanks to Myers or any other league average player making what he's owed unless it's a salary swap which I don't see happening because the Angels in that scenario have no trade clauses.  I'm not a fan of the team taking on more salary for a young guy they hope pans out.  That's something a team like SD does along with overpaying for FA's which is why they're in the position they're in.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, floplag said:

Not really when Grandal is significantly older and will require more years to get done.  Myers has i think 2 years, grandal will likely take 4-5 to sign.  But you are correct the short term AAV is the same but the long term impact isnt.
Again if we take on that contract im assuming we dont give up Marsh unless we get more back.
The money is a wash, but we control Mejia for longer.
Many reasons i dont see it as quite the same aside from the short term AAV. 

myers has 3/68.5 left.  i think the max Grandal costs you is that spread over 4 years.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, floplag said:

Not really when Grandal is significantly older and will require more years to get done.  Myers has i think 2 years, grandal will likely take 4-5 to sign.  But you are correct the short term AAV is the same but the long term impact isnt.
Again if we take on that contract im assuming we dont give up Marsh unless we get more back.
The money is a wash, but we control Mejia for longer.
Many reasons i dont see it as quite the same aside from the short term AAV. 

Grandal turns 31 this year -- Myers 29...   Not sure I'd classify that as significantly older but I do know he's significantly better and plays a premium position, one of actual need and a current black hole for the Angels   

Myers sports a career OPS+ of 107 -- as a corner OFer/IF -- Grandal 115 as a catcher.    
Myers has managed 9.7 bWAR in his entire career 3145 PAs.   Grandal has compiled 10.7 bWAR between 2016-2019....   2098 PAs.   If you use fWAR career totals -- GRandal has 32.6 to Myers' 9.5    That's a massive disparity.

I don't believe it will take 5 years to sign Grandal -- I've not seen anyone saying it would take more than four -- most think three plus an option gets it done.     

Sorry, I don't see any value in trading for Myers.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

myers has 3/68.5 left.  i think the max Grandal costs you is that spread over 4 years.  

perhaps, but i think well agree it will take at least 4, maybe more so the total monies would still probably be less.
Again the prize here is the catcher, young under control long term solution cost controlled that wont cost us any of our top guys  including Marsh.  

You have three options:
#1.  Spend in FA only  (Grandal)
#2.  Trade prospects for prospects (Marsh for Mejia)
#3.  Eat bad contract to get the target for at worst the same money and not lose the kids
Or to be fair, i guess also #4.  Roll with what we have.
Insert whatever names you want in that, which is preferable? 

All this assume we address the starting pitching as well of course.   So start with Cole/Wheeler or whatever, then what?   Thats kinda where im going with this, assuming we do the others things, what would people be willing to do for the not so obvious one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Inside Pitch said:

Grandal turns 31 this year -- Myers 29...   Not sure I'd classify that as significantly older but I do know he's significantly better and plays a premium position, one of actual need and a current black hole for the Angels   

Myers sports a career OPS+ of 107 -- as a corner OFer/IF -- Grandal 115 as a catcher.    
Myers has managed 9.7 bWAR in his entire career 3145 PAs.   Grandal has compiled 10.bWAR between 2016-2019....   2098 PAs.

I don't believe it will take 5 years to sign Grandal -- I've not seen anyone saying it would take more than four -- most think three plus an option gets it done.     

Sorry, I don't see any value in trading for Myers.

 

i was referring to the difference between Grandal and Mejia, not Myers. 
Im not suggesting Myers would be a great acquisition, hes not the target, hes the cost of doing business.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, floplag said:

i was referring to the difference between Grandal and Mejia, not Myers. 
Im not suggesting Myers would be a great acquisition, hes not the target, hes the cost of doing business.  

But it's not simply Grandal .vs Mejia ...  It's a question of whats the best usage of 65 million dollars.  Whatever plus there is to trading for the younger catcher it's obliterated by the addition of Myers.   You're also losing a player.

THAT is the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, floplag said:

perhaps, but i think well agree it will take at least 4, maybe more so the total monies would still probably be less.
Again the prize here is the catcher, young under control long term solution cost controlled that wont cost us any of our top guys  including Marsh.  

You have three options:
#1.  Spend in FA only  (Grandal)
#2.  Trade prospects for prospects (Marsh for Mejia)
#3.  Eat bad contract to get the target for at worst the same money and not lose the kids
Or to be fair, i guess also #4.  Roll with what we have.
Insert whatever names you want in that, which is preferable? 

All this assume we address the starting pitching as well of course.   So start with Cole/Wheeler or whatever, then what?   Thats kinda where im going with this, assuming we do the others things, what would people be willing to do for the not so obvious one?

the net effect is Mejia not being cost controlled if you take on Myers contract.  

as far as getting that young catcher we could certainly use, I feel like defense is still undervalued and therefore you can get a decent deal on the FA market.  If they think Mejia is going to truly be one of the elite players at the position, then it makes some sense.  If they think he'll be pretty good then I'd rather go the FA route.  

If I had to spend prospect capital on a trade, I'd rather target that elite SP with a ton of control.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

But it's not simply Grandal .vs Mejia ...  It's a question of whats the best usage of 65 million dollars.  Whatever plus there is to trading for the younger catcher it's obliterated by the addition of Myers.   You're also losing a player.

THAT is the issue.

Yes but who are we losing?  If its not Marsh and becomes someone lower down the ladder... You save that chip.
If you have another way to get a cost controlled young top catcher that doesnt cost us Marsh/Adell etc... im all ears, lets hear it? 
If youd rather spend on Grandal that fine, Im ok with that too, this is just an alternative option i wondered about.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

I feel like this should just be the cut and past answer to pretty much anything arguing in favor of taking on Myers' contract.

only it isnt.. again the only way i would lose Marsh in that is if we got more back. 
If they get Marsh we got more than Mejia and Myers, thats a given.  Marsh for Mejia would be a straight up this or close to it, Myers isnt in that conversation 
You take Myers in order to NOT lose Marsh etc... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, floplag said:

Yes but who are we losing?  If its not Marsh and becomes someone lower down the ladder... You save that chip.
If you have another way to get a cost controlled young top catcher that doesnt cost us Marsh/Adell etc... im all ears, lets hear it? 
If youd rather spend on Grandal that fine, Im ok with that too, this is just an alternative option i wondered about.  

it's not cost controlled if you take on another contract.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Padres sign Strasburg, I'm certain they would be desperate to get rid of the Myers contract.

I think trading for Myers is out of the question if we sign Gerrit Cole and/or another expensive starting pitcher in FA.

However, it may not be a bad plan B to take Myers off their hands if we can get a couple of quality pitching prospects in return, which they have plenty, and a catcher to boot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

it's not cost controlled if you take on another contract.  

I get what your saying, and your right to a point.
But as said, if you have another way to fill the need thats available and realistic im all ears?
I would prefer something like Marsh for Mejia straight up personally and allocate the funds elsewhere, but im not sure that happens or is considered.
The perfect deal isnt out there, no one wants to trade what it would take, what else do we do? 
Oh well, it would seem i have my answer, thanks for playing all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, floplag said:

Yes but who are we losing?  If its not Marsh and becomes someone lower down the ladder... You save that chip.
If you have another way to get a cost controlled young top catcher that doesnt cost us Marsh/Adell etc... im all ears, lets hear it? 
If youd rather spend on Grandal that fine, Im ok with that too, this is just an alternative option i wondered about.  

Flop -- you're adding 65 million on a bad player.   Does it matter who you are losing when the gains are washed out by adding a negative?  Moving the black hole from C to one of the OF spots where we already have two guys making premium dollars does what?   This doesnt fix things, it simply moves them around and creates a different problem.   

As far as what I'd do -- I've already given you an example of a player I'd prefer to target that I believe is more easily available.  The Dodgers have Smith starting ahead of Ruiz and Diego Cartaya in the pipeline behind him.  Their catcher situaiton is not unlike our OF situation.  In all honestly I'm in the same boat as Doc -- the catcher situation is more of a luxury to me, the pitching is a major need.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, floplag said:

Oh well, it would seem i have my answer, thanks for playing all.

It's a good discussion and Im sure people will have different opinions on this.  You're asking for people's opinions -- so, it's not a right or wrong thing.  This isnt the first time Myers has been brought up -- so, it's not like you are alone in looking at him as a tool to get something else.   Unfortunately Myers is now in the fat portion of his contract and it's an ugly one.

But, seriously -- it's a solid discussion.   So, kudos.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Inside Pitch said:

Flop -- you're adding 65 million on a bad player.   Does it matter who you are losing when the gains are washed out by adding a negative?  Moving the black hole from C to one of the OF spots where we already have two guys making premium dollars does what?   This doesnt fix things, it simply moves them around and creates a different problem.   

As far as what I'd do -- I've already given you an example of a player I'd prefer to target that I believe is more easily available.  The Dodgers have Smith starting ahead of Ruiz and Diego Cartaya in the pipeline behind him.  Their catcher situaiton is not unlike our OF situation.  In all honestly I'm in the same boat as Doc -- the catcher situation is more of a luxury to me, the pitching is a major need.

 

I said assume the pitching gets done, this comes after, like three times now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

It's a good discussion and Im sure people will have different opinions on this.  You're asking for people's opinions -- so, it's not a right or wrong thing.  This isnt the first time Myers has been brought up -- so, it's not like you are alone in looking at him as a tool to get something else.   Unfortunately Myers is now in the fat portion of his contract and it's an ugly one.

But, seriously -- it's a solid discussion.   So, kudos.  

Thank you, what can i say slow Thu, lol 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, floplag said:

I said assume the pitching gets done, this comes after, like three times now.

That's great.   So in your scenario -- the Angels have added pitching and that's been answered.   Does Myers cost less than 65 million dollars now?    That's the mountain that needs to be overcome in your scenario.


 

Link to comment
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...