How disappointed will you be if the Angels don't sign Gerrit Cole?

[UndertheHalo]

12 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Consider the source. 

I know I’m just saying, for some reason it’s still surprising to read shit like that here. 

[Rally Gorilla]

10 minutes ago, Duren, Duren said:

I wouldn't be disappointed, because it would be too big a commitment to a pitcher through his decade of the thirties. A power pitcher who already had arm problems.

You might get a few good years from him at the beginning, but the odds are that his value decreases over time. 

And even if he is great in the next couple of seasons, much more is needed to transform the team into a top contender.  

Money sent his way should be smartly spread between different positions of need. Of course starting pitching is the top priority, but catching, a power hitting third baseman, and depth elsewhere will be necessary.

It doesn't have to be totally 'moneyball' designed, but the Angels have to be smart and not get carried away by emotion and hype. They have been burnt more than enough times by chasing after the biggest hyped free agent of the moment. 

ESPN did have a story earlier in the week saying the Angels are the front runners for Cole. And getting him would certainly be a major upgrade. But it's a 162 game season, and at most he plays about 20% of those. 

This!

[Lou]

16 minutes ago, Duren, Duren said:

ESPN did have a story earlier in the week saying the Angels are the front runners for Cole. And getting him would certainly be a major upgrade. But it's a 162 game season, and at most he plays about 20% of those. 

with all due respect, this is such a ridiculous argument. Cole played in 33 games last year. Thaiss played in 53.  Who would you say had more if an influence on their team's season? 

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

3 hours ago, Erstad Grit said:

Depends on what we do instead. If we got Stras and Wheeler I'm fine with no Cole. If we got hamels and Miley........

Nats will re-sign Strasburg, maybe Rendon as well...

[tdawg87]

23 minutes ago, Duren, Duren said:

I wouldn't be disappointed, because it would be too big a commitment to a pitcher through his decade of the thirties. A power pitcher who already had arm problems.

You might get a few good years from him at the beginning, but the odds are that his value decreases over time. 

And even if he is great in the next couple of seasons, much more is needed to transform the team into a top contender.  

Money sent his way should be smartly spread between different positions of need. Of course starting pitching is the top priority, but catching, a power hitting third baseman, and depth elsewhere will be necessary.

It doesn't have to be totally 'moneyball' designed, but the Angels have to be smart and not get carried away by emotion and hype. They have been burnt more than enough times by chasing after the biggest hyped free agent of the moment. 

ESPN did have a story earlier in the week saying the Angels are the front runners for Cole. And getting him would certainly be a major upgrade. But it's a 162 game season, and at most he plays about 20% of those. 

I would be happy if he's acquired because he will be an immediate difference maker. But not distraught if goes elsewhere. 

Fair point, but...Cole had arm problems? Also, you know who were also power pitchers who got paid well into their 30's and "had arm problems"? Max Scherzer, Justin Verlander, and Zack Greinke. 

I'd say the odds are just as good he gets better.

You're right that it shouldn't be Cole or bust, but he alone transforms this team quite significantly. Throw in Ohtani and another solid pitcher and we're starting to look like a legit playoff team on paper.

The risk is there, but I'd rather take that risk when we can than get cold feet and watch Cole become the next Scherzer for another team.

Edited November 9, 2019 by tdawg87

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

2 hours ago, Catwhoshatinthehat said:

I really don't have any expectations.  Maybe Cole signs early or maybe he signs later while Boras tries to drive his price up.  If it's the latter any team waiting on him is likely to be let down as they miss out on other players.  I hope the FO is aggressive with their plan whether it's FA, trades or a combination of both.  All they can do is try but I really hope we don't end up with a couple of peanuts like last off season. 

Last year a lot of FA had to wait until Harper, and Manny were sign before they were considered as consolation prizes.

[Rally Gorilla]

2 minutes ago, Lou said:

with all due respect, this is such a ridiculous argument. Cole played in 33 games last year. Thaiss played in 53.  Who would you say had more if an influence on their team's season? 

That's just it though.    Cole has started a high number of games his entire career  (if you throw out his rookie season) and that still comes out to something less than 20% of the season.     He's in his prime now, but someone is going to pay him huge money for seven or eight more seasons....and it would be really unusual  for him to remain effective and pitch that many games a year as he ages.    And throwing an average of 170 innings per season for seven straight years could raise concern by itself, that's a lot of miles on the elbow.

[Lou]

you missed the point

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

2 hours ago, floplag said:

We do need an ace, no question, but the closer he gets to Trout money the lower my interest gets. 
If it comes down to we could get 2 good guys for the same money i might have to look at that and maybe put the bigger money in a bat. 

Isn't that the logic that cost us Nolan Ryan?

[Rally Gorilla]

Does anyone else find it interesting that the Astros  only offered Cole a qualifying offer he was sure to refuse?     Unless they have a real surprise up their sleeves, they are just going to sit back and let someone else take the risk....and pick up a draft pick outa the deal.   

[tdawg87]

2 minutes ago, Rally Gorilla said:

Does anyone else find it interesting that the Astros  only offered Cole a qualifying offer he was sure to refuse?     Unless they have a real surprise up their sleeves, they are just going to sit back and let someone else take the risk....and pick up a draft pick outa the deal.   

Not really. Cole was obviously going to test free agency. So they offered him the QO so if he signs elsewhere they get compensation.

[Pancake Bear]

Ask me again at Spring Training. It will entirely depend on the whole of the offseason. I’ll be disappointed regardless, but the degree will vary depending on who they do acquire. 

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

2 hours ago, redoctober2002 said:

If the Angels ended up getting one of Odorizzi/Wheeler/Strasburg and one of Gibson/Hamels/Keuchel I would be okay on missing out on Cole. I don't like Bumgarner's home away splits to justify the money he'll command and Ryu's injury is worrisome considering how many injuries the pitching staff has experienced. Strasburg is more worth the risk since he's much more productive despite the injury concerns. 

Strasburg is second only to Cole, and will command nearly as much AAV as Cole. Odorizzo/Wheeler are second tier pitchers. Lumping Strasburg with the other two is doing him an injustice.

[Rally Gorilla]

8 minutes ago, Lou said:

you missed the point

You mean your point about Cole being potentially more impactful that Matt Thais next season?   I didn't see the OP making that argument.     I'm not  making that argument.   A huge $$$ pitcher in his prime is very likely to have more impact than a guy coming off a so-so rookie season.     

[Rally Gorilla]

4 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

Not really. Cole was obviously going to test free agency. So they offered him the QO so if he signs elsewhere they get compensation.

Right.   So, they weren't willing to take the risk of giving him the huge contract.  They just played it safe and will take the pick.

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

20 minutes ago, Vladdylonglegs said:

He turns 30 next season. His prime is behind him. Pitchers have a huge tendency to nose dive right around now. 

Tell that to Verlander and Grienke... So Trout is only 1 year younger so next year his prime will be behind him?

Edited November 9, 2019 by Ace-Of-Diamonds

[Dick B Back]

6 minutes ago, Rally Gorilla said:

Right.   So, they weren't willing to take the risk of giving him the huge contract.  They just played it safe and will take the pick.

They can’t afford to offer him a huge contract.

[tdawg87]

4 minutes ago, Rally Gorilla said:

Right.   So, they weren't willing to take the risk of giving him the huge contract.  They just played it safe and will take the pick.

Not necessarily. Why offer him a huge contract when he's 100% going to test free agency and you have no idea how the market is going to play out for him? The QO is just a safety net. 

Obviously the Astros have a budget. Their payroll is $200 million as-is. 

[Lou]

9 minutes ago, Rally Gorilla said:

You mean your point about Cole being potentially more impactful that Matt Thais next season?   I didn't see the OP making that argument.     I'm not  making that argument.   A huge $$$ pitcher in his prime is very likely to have more impact than a guy coming off a so-so rookie season.     

you missed it again.

[Rally Gorilla]

Just now, Lou said:

you missed it again.

Ok, please enlighten me.   

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

17 minutes ago, Rally Gorilla said:

Does anyone else find it interesting that the Astros  only offered Cole a qualifying offer he was sure to refuse?     Unless they have a real surprise up their sleeves, they are just going to sit back and let someone else take the risk....and pick up a draft pick outa the deal.   

As currently structured with projected totals for arbitration-eligible players from MLB Trade Rumors included, the Astros are looking at a payroll just north of $225 million for the 2020 season. (Note: Zack Greinke's AAV does include the roughly $10.333 million in salary relief from Arizona for the next two seasons.)

https://www.crawfishboxes.com/2019/11/6/20951194/an-early-analysis-of-the-astros-2020-payroll-situation-gerrit-cole

[Rally Gorilla]

3 minutes ago, Dick B Back said:

They can’t afford to offer him a huge contract.

I think this is part of the reasoning, I don't know.     But wouldn't a team make a serious effort to extend a guy  if they thought it was going to be worth it?     I think the Astros would rather avoid paying a guy huge money well past his prime, and pick up a draft pick.

[Rally Gorilla]

Just now, Ace-Of-Diamonds said:

As currently structured with projected totals for arbitration-eligible players from MLB Trade Rumors included, the Astros are looking at a payroll just north of $225 million for the 2020 season. (Note: Zack Greinke's AAV does include the roughly $10.333 million in salary relief from Arizona for the next two seasons.)

https://www.crawfishboxes.com/2019/11/6/20951194/an-early-analysis-of-the-astros-2020-payroll-situation-gerrit-cole

Ok, I can see that the huge $$$ would be hard for the Astros to handle.    I concede that this could be the biggest reason they didn't make any serious effort to extend him.     But, it would still bug me to see us send another draft pick to those tanking sob's.  

[tdawg87]

Just now, Rally Gorilla said:

I think this is part of the reasoning, I don't know.     But wouldn't a team make a serious effort to extend a guy  if they thought it was going to be worth it?     I think the Astros would rather avoid paying a guy huge money well past his prime, and pick up a draft pick.

Yep, which is why they're paying Verlander $33 million the next two years.

[Stradling]

5 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

Yep, which is why they're paying Verlander $33 million the next two years.

And Greinke $25 million a year for the next two years.