Do you think Eppler will get any more pitching?

[Second Base]

9 hours ago, mulwin444 said:

Dude, this is nonsense but keep spinning it if it makes you feel some righteous anger or something...

Again, let's revisit what happened this season:

 - Strasburg - 31/32 years old in 2020, signed a 7 year deal with the team who drafted him and he just won a World Series with that previous season.  We going 8 years on him to pay him $35 mil into age 40?

 - Cole - Angels offered him 8 years and were outbid by the Yankees who offered 9 years.  Do we offer 10 years guaranteed to a pitcher?

 - Wheeler - Took less money and years to stay on the East Coast near New Jersey.  If he won't go for 6 years, do you offer 7?  Do you up it $25+ million per season?

 - Bumgarner - Took less money to play in AZ to be near his horse ranch.  Are we offering a 6th year, $120 mil?

 - Keuchel - Do you go 4 to 5 years, close to $20 mil guaranteed to take him away from the White Sox?  All that for maybe a 3 starter?  

- Ryu - A pitcher so desired on the market that his own team didn't make an effort to keep him and ended up signing with a basement dwelling Blue Jays.

- Kluber - I'm guessing you give up Marsh and Sandoval for him, right?

"Waited out", come on...

You guys keep waiting for him to make his "Vernon Wells" panic trade and he hasn't because he knows the ability to acquire players doesn't end today or next week or in Spring Training or April...he can acquire players to impact this season up until July 31st, that's his timeline.  

Oh please.

No one, and I mean NO ONE at this point blames Eppler for Cole or Strasburg. Kluber neither. But you've completely missed on Wheeler, Ryu, Gibson, Pineda, and even Corbin from last year.

You use the logic that Ryu's own team didn't want him back, except that logic is so backward and flawed that if it were even remotely true, no player would EVER change teams. Free Agency wouldn't even exist. 

Edited January 24, 2020 by Second Base

[Jeff Fletcher]

6 minutes ago, Second Base said:

You use the logic that Ryu's own team didn't want him back, except that logic is so backward and flawed that if it were even remotely true, no player would EVER change teams. Free Agency wouldn't even exist.

I would add a couple factors that make it a legitimate point in Ryu’s case....

-The Dodgers recent history has been to bring back pretty much all their good free agents. Jansen, Hill, Turner. They extended Kershaw so he didn’t opt out.

-In the case of many free agents, they price themselves out of their previous team. The Dodgers have plenty of money to afford Ryu. 
 

-Ryu was also coming off his best year, at a place where the previous year he wanted to come back enough that he took the qualifying offer. 
 

Given all that, the Dodgers lack of interest in bringing him back is a huge red flag, to me. 

[Claude]

10 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I would add a couple factors that make it a legitimate point in Ryu’s case....

-The Dodgers recent history has been to bring back pretty much all their good free agents. Jansen, Hill, Turner. They extended Kershaw so he didn’t opt out.

-In the case of many free agents, they price themselves out of their previous team. The Dodgers have plenty of money to afford Ryu. 
 

-Ryu was also coming off his best year, at a place where the previous year he wanted to come back enough that he took the qualifying offer. 
 

Given all that, the Dodgers lack of interest in bringing him back is a huge red flag, to me. 

The Dodgers decision to not re-sign Ryu won’t hurt their chances to win the NL West. The Angels decision to not sign Ryu will hurt their chances at contending for the second wild card. Two teams that are in completely different situations. Ryu in an Angels six man rotation would’ve been huge. 

[Pancake Bear]

45 minutes ago, Second Base said:

I think you can separate the AL into four groups. Not contending. Maybe contending, probably contending and shoe in for the playoffs.

Not contending: SEA, KC, BAL, DET

Maybe contending: LAA, CLE, CWS, BOS, TEX

Probably contending: OAK, HOU, TB

Shoe in: NY, MIN

Since 5 teams are going to make it into the playoffs, and 5 teams fall into the shoe in and probably contending category, it's a pretty strong get that those are your 5 playoff teams. 

Surprises do happen. Maybe one per year at the most, like the Red Sox not being very good in 2019. So there may be a surprise in store for 2020, but even if there is, whose to say it'll be the Angels? 

Why not the Indians? Great pitching, Jose Ramirez rediscovered his stroke, they're getting Zimmer back. No team has improved more than the White Sox, and they've got a great young core of players. Boston played like crap and still won 84 games. With neutral performances they can be right there at 90. Texas got some pitching and they're getting Gallo back. And the Angels? They're healthy, they brought in Rendon and they got some back end starters, so maybe.

I'm not confident saying the Angels will make the playoffs. Not at all. Will be be better than .500? Yeah, I'm confident there. But the difference between 81 wins and 90 wins is pretty significant. If they bring in a Jon Gray to, sure, I see 90+ wins, especially if Ohtani is as good as I think he will be. 

My point was simply that 88-90 wins in a highly competitive year makes things very close. 

When things are that close, luck and other things can make a meaningful difference. More offense and defense. Pitching improves from historically bad to average. Coaching improvements could take them that last step.

Also, I wouldn’t crown Minnesota just yet. Especially if you’re going to put Houston in the probable camp. 

[disarcina]

Halos need to pick up a quality starter but what's left and/or available in a ST time trade?

I agree with the assessments (some posted in this thread) that call the Halos 'improved', will finish above .500 but likely not a playoff team.

I see an 85/86 win team that stays in contention for the second wild card spot into mid-September but ultimately falls short.

[Second Base]

51 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I would add a couple factors that make it a legitimate point in Ryu’s case....

-The Dodgers recent history has been to bring back pretty much all their good free agents. Jansen, Hill, Turner. They extended Kershaw so he didn’t opt out.

-In the case of many free agents, they price themselves out of their previous team. The Dodgers have plenty of money to afford Ryu. 
 

-Ryu was also coming off his best year, at a place where the previous year he wanted to come back enough that he took the qualifying offer. 
 

Given all that, the Dodgers lack of interest in bringing him back is a huge red flag, to me. 

All fair points. 

[mulwin444]

1 hour ago, Second Base said:

Oh please.

No one, and I mean NO ONE at this point blames Eppler for Cole or Strasburg. Kluber neither. But you've completely missed on Wheeler, Ryu, Gibson, Pineda, and even Corbin from last year.

You use the logic that Ryu's own team didn't want him back, except that logic is so backward and flawed that if it were even remotely true, no player would EVER change teams. Free Agency wouldn't even exist. 

Gibson is 5 starter and we already got those...Pineda has spent half his career on the DL and just got popped for PEDs...so, no.

Both Wheeler and Corbin were East-coast bound so how much money are you outbidding the Nats and Phillies for those two?

As for Ryu, couldn't have laid it out better than Fletcher.

[mulwin444]

1 hour ago, Glen said:

I get that.  However, to me our starting staff right now isn't much better than it was last season, and at the very least it has as many question marks.  It looks like Heaney will be our #1 starter, we're hoping to get 100+ innings from Ohtani, and it just gets more questionable after that.  I hope I'm wrong, but it looks like this season could be a repeat of last season for the starters.  Terheran and Bundy could be Harvey and Cahill, or they could be a decent improvement.  Sandoval could get better, but he also could flame out.  Just so many question marks again, and we did sorta the same thing we did last offseason.

Look at Cahill and Harvey's few seasons before signing in 2019...now look at Teheren and Bundy.  Not even comparable...

[Drink More Yakult]

If our pitching is as dog shit as half of you say it is, getting one or two of those needle dick FAs wouldn’t have helped anyway. We would have had to sign Cole and Wheeler, and neither of those were close to happening.

[Stradling]

1 hour ago, Glen said:

I get that.  However, to me our starting staff right now isn't much better than it was last season, and at the very least it has as many question marks.  It looks like Heaney will be our #1 starter, we're hoping to get 100+ innings from Ohtani, and it just gets more questionable after that.  I hope I'm wrong, but it looks like this season could be a repeat of last season for the starters.  Terheran and Bundy could be Harvey and Cahill, or they could be a decent improvement.  Sandoval could get better, but he also could flame out.  Just so many question marks again, and we did sorta the same thing we did last offseason.

I completely disagree with the part about it having as many question marks as last year. 

[Glen]

29 minutes ago, mulwin444 said:

Look at Cahill and Harvey's few seasons before signing in 2019...now look at Teheren and Bundy.  Not even comparable...

In 2018 Cahill was better than both Bundy and Teheran in 2019.  Harvey wasn't.  I exaggerated a little bit but not much.  

This lead me to do a bit more research on Teheran.  In 2019 he had seven games where here gave up five or more ER (two of those were in his last three games).  He had 20 games where he gave up 2 ER or less.  I can see taking a shot on him and I was glad the Angels signed him.  That said, my expectations are in check.

[Second Base]

1 hour ago, mulwin444 said:

Gibson is 5 starter and we already got those...Pineda has spent half his career on the DL and just got popped for PEDs...so, no.

Both Wheeler and Corbin were East-coast bound so how much money are you outbidding the Nats and Phillies for those two?

As for Ryu, couldn't have laid it out better than Fletcher.

Yeah I'll give you Ryu. I mean I would've invested 4/80 in him, but can't deny the existence of those red flags.

Gibson is more than a fifth starter and we'll see that come to fruition in Texas. Pineda is healthy and has been for a stretch now, and when he's healthy, he's had stretch runs off absolute dominance. Twins got him back cheap. 

And the funny thing about those geographical preferences, they don't mean jack squat if you offer more money. If money is equal, does Cole pick NY? Doubtful. I know he said championships but that's just playing to the crowd. Corbina and Wheeler are on Eppler, not on some notion that they don't like Southern California. 

The one I won't pin on Eppler is Charlie Morton though. The only two clubs he'd play for were the Braves and Rays and he stuck to that. 

But then again, sometimes losing out isn't all bad. Eovaldi comes immediately to mind.

[Second Base]

It would just be awesome if Callaway worked his magic and turned...

- Bundy into a mid rotation starter z convincing him to live off his sinker and slider.

- Teheran into a sustained #3/4 starter, where he isn't reliant upon batted ball luck. Again, sinker and sliders.

- Canning and Sandoval into young mid rotation starters, using their velocity and attacking the inner half of the plate.

 

[Drink More Yakult]

9 minutes ago, Second Base said:

Yeah I'll give you Ryu. I mean I would've invested 4/80 in him, but can't deny the existence of those red flags.

Gibson is more than a fifth starter and we'll see that come to fruition in Texas. Pineda is healthy and has been for a stretch now, and when he's healthy, he's had stretch runs off absolute dominance. Twins got him back cheap. 

And the funny thing about those geographical preferences, they don't mean jack squat if you offer more money. If money is equal, does Cole pick NY? Doubtful. I know he said championships but that's just playing to the crowd. Corbina and Wheeler are on Eppler, not on some notion that they don't like Southern California. 

The one I won't pin on Eppler is Charlie Morton though. The only two clubs he'd play for were the Braves and Rays and he stuck to that. 

But then again, sometimes losing out isn't all bad. Eovaldi comes immediately to mind.

Wheeler was offered more money by the White Sox, signing him would have taken us out on Cole, and if Wheeler had waited to sign after Strasburg and Cole, he would have made 6/$150.

[Stradling]

So Corbin and Wheeler are on Eppler even though they both wanted to play back East, got it. 

[ukyah]

6 hours ago, Pancake Bear said:

“90% think the Angels aren’t a playoff team”. More teams competing means less top and bottom heavy. Means upper 80’s/90 puts us in range for the playoffs. Vegas oddsmakers I saw had us over Tampa. Only team I’m certain is better is NY. Aside from that, I’m not even positive the Astros will be.

There’s roughly 4 teams in the AL who aren’t competing (SEA, KC, DET, BAL). That means 11 teams are trying to get in. Who are the teams that are so much better they’ll be blowing everyone away? Not Houston. Maybe New York. 

i'm cool with you, so let's start from that point. having said that, any post that says houston and the yankees aren't flat out great teams is a conversation killer. you're starting from a perspective that's just patently ridiculous. houston and the yankees are elite teams. i'm aware the astros cheated, but that does not negate their massive talent.

i don't give much of a shit what merlingcat says, he's just another poster from my perspective, but 86 wins isn't getting a team into the playoffs, especially when acknowledging that you are correct in that we are in the "tanking" era. however, that doesn't lower the wins needed to get in, it raises the number. the wins aren't dispersed around the league, they are stockpiled by the better teams and horded by the elite. the top and bottom heavy comment doesn't play out the way you suggest. 

to be fair, perhaps i'll be wrong and mid 80's does put a team into the wild card. i'd bet against it. i feel playing for the wildcard, as your win goal, is a failure. that's the type of shit small market teams play for, and it's not the type of product i'd like to pin my hopes to. i went into this offseason thinking the angels were on the same page, but it appears they were not. i'd be fascinated to see their internal projection models, but that ain't happenin'.

[ukyah]

4 hours ago, Pancake Bear said:

My point was simply that 88-90 wins in a highly competitive year makes things very close. 

When things are that close, luck and other things can make a meaningful difference. More offense and defense. Pitching improves from historically bad to average. Coaching improvements could take them that last step.

Also, I wouldn’t crown Minnesota just yet. Especially if you’re going to put Houston in the probable camp. 

how are they at 88-90 wins now?

i get it, if you're just saying that's what you think, but that's not based off any model with any validity. the vegas over/under is based on betting action not actual win expectency, but that's still a far more mathematical conclusion than yours. can you point to any other models that are predicting the angels win expectancy as +/- 90 wins?

[Pancake Bear]

4 minutes ago, ukyah said:

i'm cool with you, so let's start from that point. having said that, any post that says houston and the yankees aren't flat out great teams is a conversation killer. you're starting from a perspective that's just patently ridiculous. houston and the yankees are elite teams. i'm aware the astros cheated, but that does not negate their massive talent.

i don't give much of a shit what merlingcat says, he's just another poster from my perspective, but 86 wins isn't getting a team into the playoffs, especially when acknowledging that you are correct in that we are in the "tanking" era. however, that doesn't lower the wins needed to get in, it raises the number. the wins aren't dispersed around the league, they are stockpiled by the better teams and horded by the elite. the top and bottom heavy comment doesn't play out the way you suggest. 

to be fair, perhaps i'll be wrong and mid 80's does put a team into the wild card. i'd bet against it. i feel playing for the wildcard, as your win goal, is a failure. that's the type of shit small market teams play for, and it's not the type of product i'd like to pin my hopes to. i went into this offseason thinking the angels were on the same page, but it appears they were not. i'd be fascinated to see their internal projection models, but that ain't happenin'.

I don’t think I said 86. My thinking is that’s the low end of likely outcomes. I put us more around 88-90, depending how things shake out. Anywhere from 86-92 is a legitimate possibility in my mind. 

Now obviously we aren’t making the playoffs with 86 wins, or most likely with 88-90. But it does get us really close. Cleveland was knocked out with 93 wins this year, but I see more competition. Top teams mostly didn’t do much to improve, but the mid tiers all did. 

I think we may see a situation like the NL in 2019. Wild Cards at 93 and 89. That’s why I said I see us in the conversation. Improvement for us and greater parity league wide. 

[Pancake Bear]

3 minutes ago, ukyah said:

how are they at 88-90 wins now?

i get it, if you're just saying that's what you think, but that's not based off any model with any validity. the vegas over/under is based on betting action not actual win expectency, but that's still a far more mathematical conclusion than yours. can you point to any other models that are predicting the angels win expectancy as +/- 90 wins?

I didn’t say it was based on anything. Zips article said upper 80’s. I think an early offseason one I saw a while back had us projected at 5th in the AL, but I don’t remember where. 

Models in general are conservative and heavily based on the previous year. I’ll acknowledge a bit of homerism, but I don’t think it’s less realistic than saying Bundy/Teheran = Cahill/Harvey. IMHO, it’s a good bit more realistic. 

[Drink More Yakult]

2 hours ago, ukyah said:

how are they at 88-90 wins now?

i get it, if you're just saying that's what you think, but that's not based off any model with any validity. the vegas over/under is based on betting action not actual win expectency, but that's still a far more mathematical conclusion than yours. can you point to any other models that are predicting the angels win expectancy as +/- 90 wins?

The entire past decade is evidence that upper 80s wins gets you into the wildcard. Zips, which historically is the most accurate projection, has us projected for upper 80s wins.

Ipso facto, you are either purposefully obtuse, an extreme pessimist, or willfully ignorant.

Vegas only cares about getting equal money on each side of the wager. Based on clowns like you and others on the board, they are correct to skew low. 

[Torridd]

13 hours ago, Inside Pitch said:

So, you're on record as saying Arte gave Eppler a blank check and he could have spent more but chose not to?  I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm looking for a definitive answer.  

Also what are the excuses?

I think there are going to be people, like me, who think that Eppler could have gotten a pitcher or two of worth considering what was on the line this free agency.

[Torridd]

12 hours ago, RBM said:

While true, that was a point made by a person.

It's certainly not proof of Eppler performing poorly. It's a Vegas over/under man.

This free agency the focus on the Angels was pitching, pitching, pitching. Eppler didn't get anyone of note. Whatever happened for him not to pick up one of those guys is an excuse, no matter what the reason.

[Stradling]

9 minutes ago, Torridd said:

This free agency the focus on the Angels was pitching, pitching, pitching. Eppler didn't get anyone of note. Whatever happened for him not to pick up one of those guys is an excuse, no matter what the reason.

What a crock of shit.  So if you wanted to play for the Yankees and they offered you $324 million, what’s getting you to sign with the Angels? If you wanted to return to the team you just won the World Series with, what changes your mind?  If you wanted to be back East so much that you turned down more money from the White Sox, what makes you go further west, like all the way west?   It can’t simply be money, because the money is there for all teams.  As has been pointed out by others here, if the Angels matched the Yankees deal (which by the way Boras doesn’t tell other teams what they’re bidding against) he still probably picks the Yankees or the Yankees increase their offer.  Hell we call it a $324 deal but it has an option to make it $360 million, the same as Trouts extension.  

[Jay]

Things I learned from this thread:

1. Mostly everyone agrees the pitching staff is not where it needs to be.
2. You're a pessimist if you think the pitching staff is not much better than last year.
3. You're an optimist if you think the pitching staff is slightly better than last year.
4. You're a an optimist if you don't blame Eppler, a pessimist if you do.

 

[Stradling]

You forgot:

5: Adding a catcher, two starters that will give you 350 innings, and the best offensive free agent is punting on the season.