Willson Contreras

[Docwaukee]

Contreras isn't as good as some make him out to be.  Don't get me wrong, he's very good but to me he's in the second tier because of his meh defense.  

[kevinb]

2 minutes ago, Hubs said:

We'd be taking on Kimbrel, who is worth less.

 

Kimbrel had a bad year but he's been good. Cozart isn't playing another game as an Angel and probably not playing another professional game period. Relief pitchers as we've seen from year to year are pretty up and down. 

[Hubs]

13 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

Kimbrel had a bad year but he's been good. Cozart isn't playing another game as an Angel and probably not playing another professional game period. Relief pitchers as we've seen from year to year are pretty up and down. 

This was Joel Sherman's suggestion yesterday. I like it because you get a potential asset, for basically your 3rd string utility guy.

[kevinb]

1 minute ago, Hubs said:

This was Joel Sherman's suggestion yesterday. I like it because you get a potential asset, for basically your 3rd string utility guy.

I get it. But you said he was worthless and I don't believe that's the case. You yourself just said potential asset, where Cozart is not even potential asset. You would think the Cubs could get more than Cozart for someone who a year ago was someone you could depend on. 

[Hubs]

2 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

I get it. But you said he was worthless and I don't believe that's the case. You yourself just said potential asset, where Cozart is not even potential asset. You would think the Cubs could get more than Cozart for someone who a year ago was someone you could depend on. 

It's also about saving $16M in 2021. They save a bit this year, save a lot next year.

[Slegnaac]

Why any team would agree to take Cozart in a trade is beyond me.  And if a team did agree to take Cozart, what bad player/contract are the Angels getting in return.  And is it really in the Angels best interest?

[Glen]

The only way Cozart is getting traded is if we eat about 75% of his salary.

[Hubs]

Just now, Slegnaac said:

Why any team would agree to take Cozart in a trade is beyond me.  And if a team did agree to take Cozart, what bad player/contract are the Angels getting in return.  And is it really in the Angels best interest?

Kimbrell. As stated several times. 2/32 with a 1 year option at 1M buyout.

[T.G.]

2 minutes ago, Glen said:

The only way Cozart is getting traded is if we eat about 75% of his salary.

If Arte had a dollar for every time an Angel fan mentioned Cozart in a trade proposal, he's have his salary covered by now.

[Hubs]

Just now, Glen said:

The only way Cozart is getting traded is if we eat about 75% of his salary.

Or take on an equally bad salary for more years or more money, in a position we can actually use.

Trading him for an overpriced ineffective reliever or a starter who is owed a lot of money but isn't quite what the team thought they were getting is totally possible.

[Docwaukee]

2 minutes ago, Hubs said:

Or take on an equally bad salary for more years or more money, in a position we can actually use.

Trading him for an overpriced ineffective reliever or a starter who is owed a lot of money but isn't quite what the team thought they were getting is totally possible.

taking on an equally bad salary means you are taking on an equally bad player.  Why do we want a shitty player occupying a position where we need to improve?  

Let's entertain the Kimbrel thing for a second.  The assumption is that he'd go back to being good.  Are you willing to bet 19m on that?  If there is a good chance of him being good again, why the F would the cubs trade him for a guy who might need even see the playing field ever again?

 

[T.G.]

8 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

taking on an equally bad salary means you are taking on an equally bad player.  Why do we want a shitty player occupying a position where we need to improve?  

Let's entertain the Kimbrel thing for a second.  The assumption is that he'd go back to being good.  Are you willing to bet 19m on that?  If there is a good chance of him being good again, why the F would the cubs trade him for a guy who might need even see the playing field ever again?

 

[eaterfan]

7 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

taking on an equally bad salary means you are taking on an equally bad player.  Why do we want a shitty player occupying a position where we need to improve?  

Let's entertain the Kimbrel thing for a second.  The assumption is that he'd go back to being good.  Are you willing to bet 19m on that?  If there is a good chance of him being good again, why the F would the cubs trade him for a guy who might need even see the playing field ever again?

 

Well, I'd assume a team that trades for him has a different evaluation. Let's say the Cubs believe there's a 10% chance his productions exceeds his contract value, a 20% chance he meets it, a 50% chance he stays the same, and a 20% chance he gets worse. Let's just assume Cozart is done. Angels believe there's a 20% chance Kimbrell's production exceeds his contract, 30% he meets it, 30% he is the same, and 10% chance he gets worse. Every player (especially relievers) come with risk, so there is some value between the Angels evaluation and Cubs evaluation where both teams believe they benefit.

[T.G.]

7 minutes ago, eaterfan said:

Well, I'd assume a team that trades for him has a different evaluation. Let's say the Cubs believe there's a 10% chance his productions exceeds his contract value, a 20% chance he meets it, a 50% chance he stays the same, and a 20% chance he gets worse. Let's just assume Cozart is done. Angels believe there's a 20% chance Kimbrell's production exceeds his contract, 30% he meets it, 30% he is the same, and 10% chance he gets worse. Every player (especially relievers) come with risk, so there is some value between the Angels evaluation and Cubs evaluation where both teams believe they benefit.

[Docwaukee]

13 minutes ago, eaterfan said:

Well, I'd assume a team that trades for him has a different evaluation. Let's say the Cubs believe there's a 10% chance his productions exceeds his contract value, a 20% chance he meets it, a 50% chance he stays the same, and a 20% chance he gets worse. Let's just assume Cozart is done. Angels believe there's a 20% chance Kimbrell's production exceeds his contract, 30% he meets it, 30% he is the same, and 10% chance he gets worse. Every player (especially relievers) come with risk, so there is some value between the Angels evaluation and Cubs evaluation where both teams believe they benefit.

there would have to be a pretty big separation there and then you'd have to wonder why the team who currently has the player is so far less bullish on him.  that's a pretty big risk when considering that you'd be potentially locking up 16m for 2021 on a reliever.  I know your example is meant to be more general and not specific to and particular scenario, but the math starts to fall apart pretty quick for me when taking on more years of dough vs. the one you are getting rid of.  

Jeff Samardzija, Wade Davis, Ian Kennedy maybe.  It's a little simpler because then a prospect can easily be added to even things out.  

If Cozart were healthy, it would be totally different story by the way.  There would be some more reasonable scenarios where you could move him.  Since he's not and we have no idea if he will be, I consider him essentially unmovable.  

[ettin]

Quite frankly, Contreras is a nice player but he is not worth as much as some here are thinking he does.

[T.G.]

4 minutes ago, ettin said:

Quite frankly, Contreras is a nice player but he is not worth as much as some here are thinking he does.

How about Cozart, Mike Trout's socks from last season, the horse head worn in someone's luxury box when Hansel Robles comes out to close, an order of INO fries, and lunch with @Tank at a Veggie Grill

[ettin]

2 minutes ago, True Grich said:

How about Cozart, Mike Trout's socks from last season, the horse head worn in someone's luxury box when Hansel Robles comes out to close, an order of INO fries, and lunch with @Tank at a Veggie Grill

The latter is a deal-breaker, IMHO.

[T.G.]

1 minute ago, ettin said:

The latter is a deal-breaker, IMHO.

[Tank]

6 minutes ago, ettin said:

The latter is a deal-breaker, IMHO.

better than spending time with victor's mom.

and there'll be a lot less chlamydia. 

[angelsnationtalk]

2 hours ago, Second Base said:

Ok tell you what, if the Cubs are willing to trade Contreras for Jahmai Jones, Will Wilson, Jaime Barria and Hector Yan, then I'd do it.

I'd do this in a heartbeat 

[tdawg87]

AW: How do we get a quality, impact piece under control for 3 more years while giving up absolutely nothing?

You want Contreras? Marsh is gone. 

[angelsnationtalk]

That simulator must be off a little cuz this trade matches up perfectly based on their values:

Angels get:
Wilson Contreras (16.20 value)

Cubs get:
Justin Anderson (6.9)
Jahmai Jones (6.6)
Taylor Ward (2.7)
---Total value: 16.20---

If this is true (which it isn't) then that's a HUGE steal for the Angels. Ward and Jones likely don't have a spot on the depth chart with the Angels. 

 

[tdawg87]

4 minutes ago, angelsnationtalk said:

That simulator must be off a little cuz this trade matches up perfectly based on their values:

Angels get:
Wilson Contreras (16.20 value)

Cubs get:
Justin Anderson (6.9)
Jahmai Jones (6.6)
Taylor Ward (2.7)
---Total value: 16.20---

If this is true (which it isn't) then that's a HUGE steal for the Angels. Ward and Jones likely don't have a spot on the depth chart with the Angels. 

 

Yeah the trade simulator is a fun tool that ultimately bases its algorithms on "Fuck All" technology.

[angelsnationtalk]

2 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

Yeah the trade simulator is a fun tool that ultimately bases its algorithms on "Fuck All" technology.

If it was actually realistic then it'd be one hell of a steal for the Angels.