While we wait....

[floplag]

I cant see how, the only way this ends up disappointing is if its Marsh, and thats already been eliminated.
If its Adams, well so be it i suppose we replace him with Pages in the same basic slot i guess with one being a bit closer to ML ready than the other but we still keep both Marsh and Adell to slot in on either side Trout so thats a win.
Aside from that i expect to lose one of the young arms, maybe Soriano or Yan type, and Im OK with that as well for gaining 3 years of Stripling.
Its kinda like i said in another thread they Dogs dont really need ML ready, they are stacked to the bejesus belt for the immediate future, they are looking to replace pipeline it appears.

[Torridd]

8 hours ago, Dochalo said:

trades are hard.  

they not only take a match of needs and players as well as a similar thought process in terms of player values, but it also takes timing.  Off loading 9m in salary would have been much easier 3 months ago and not a week before pitchers and catchers report.  

my guess is that this didn't form out of nowhere.  that Eppler had discussions with Friedman about acquiring Stripling centered around Rengifo and others but Eppler probably thought the price was too high.  Then the Betts trade happens and there is already some ground work so Andy calls Billy and tells him there's a way to get Stripling without giving up Sandoval or Marsh on top of it.  

The dogs probably value Rengifo more that some here realize.  The probably also realize that even though Joc is a nice player, he's essentially a very pricey platoon player and not many teams can take on 9m for a guy that can't play everyday.  

I agree that the prospect the halos give up in return is likely going to sting a little and that's where things even out a bit because it does seem that on the surface this deal is in our favor.  

Actually, one of my biggest concerns with how this is being drawn out is that someone else swoops in and offers the dogs a better deal for Pederson, Stripling and Pages.  I am not sure if there is some sort of code among GMs that once they agree to a deal they typically stick with it even if another team tries to swoop in.  

Or maybe it's just that the dogs really like Luis and the prospect they're getting.  One has to assume that the dogs did their due diligence on this by shopping that package to other teams so I favor that they just like the deal the Halos have to offer.   Don't discount the value of Rengifo even if he becomes an average everyday player with 6 years of control.  That's a lot of cost certainty and something that Friedman has shown to put a premium on in the past.  

I'll wait till the deal goes through though before I get too excited.   

  

Good point about other GMs being potential vultures.

[NorCal Halo]

10 hours ago, Drink More Yakult said:

You should probably get really upset about it before all the details are out.

Tell the Iowa Democrat Party that. 

I think the rush to be the first to break news causes lots of problems, including the lack of professionalism and credibility.

[Slegnaac]

9 hours ago, Lou said:

I hope we get really good players and send them really crappy ones

Champagne wishes and caviar dreams.

[Chuck]

9 hours ago, SoWhat said:

I hope it isn’t CRod, Kochanowicz or Soriano 

This.

I would rather trade Suarez than any of those three. 

[ukyah]

2 hours ago, Stradling said:

Make sure you read it from the beginning 

and don't comment until you've read it in it's entirety.

i find posting is better if you follow the old adage, "it's better to edit your post, than to ask for forgiveness." or something like that.

[ukyah]

6 minutes ago, Randy Gradishar said:

I'm saying the Rays are still good without him (and As too, for that matter). And he has failed so far at the easiest job in the league.

i wish the angels could fail by winning the division for like a decade in a row, go to 2 of the last 3 world series, all the while being cheated out of potential championships, have an incredible farm system and financial flexibility.

andrew friedman is a loser.

[Lou]

I think @Randy Gradishar knew exactly what he was saying. 

I took it that way. 

[Lou]

1 hour ago, ukyah said:

and don't comment until you've read it in it's entirety.

i find posting is better if you follow the old adage, "it's better to edit your post, than to ask for forgiveness." or something like that.

But if you don't edit before someone responds you look like an idiot. 

With all due respect 

[Warfarin]

Friedman is a top 3 executive in the sport without question, maybe even the best.  As others have said, he has built such a tremendous infrastructure in both TB and LA.  He inherited a team in LA with the highest payroll in baseball (by far), has gradually whittled that down, all the while generating a perennial juggernaut that has both financial flexibility and an incredibly deep farm system.

Yes, he has not yet won it all, but he was basically cheated out of it in 2017 (2018 is debateable, since the Red Sox crushed them fairly handily).  He has, by all accounts and measures, set the Dodgers up to be a winning team for a very, very long time.  I would love to have him in charge of the Angels, personally.

[Pancake Bear]

1 hour ago, Warfarin said:

Friedman is a top 3 executive in the sport without question, maybe even the best.  As others have said, he has built such a tremendous infrastructure in both TB and LA.  He inherited a team in LA with the highest payroll in baseball (by far), has gradually whittled that down, all the while generating a perennial juggernaut that has both financial flexibility and an incredibly deep farm system.

Yes, he has not yet won it all, but he was basically cheated out of it in 2017 (2018 is debateable, since the Red Sox crushed them fairly handily).  He has, by all accounts and measures, set the Dodgers up to be a winning team for a very, very long time.  I would love to have him in charge of the Angels, personally.

Complicated. Would the Dodgers have beaten Houston in 2017 if Houston wasn’t cheating in the WS? Maybe? Why weren’t guys like Darvish guarding their signs better? Alex Wood did it successfully. People knew something was up with Houston. On the other hand, who is to say Houston would’ve made it to the WS without cheating? Could LA have beaten NY? We’re either LA or NY using illegal sign stealing as well?

It’s just not as simple as saying LA got cheated out of a championship, IMO. 

[ukyah]

2 hours ago, Lou said:

But if you don't edit before someone responds you look like an idiot. 

With all due respect 

this is an internet message board, lou. we're all idiots. the fools are the ones who don't know they're idiots.

[ukyah]

20 minutes ago, Pancake Bear said:

Complicated. Would the Dodgers have beaten Houston in 2017 if Houston wasn’t cheating in the WS? Maybe? Why weren’t guys like Darvish guarding their signs better? Alex Wood did it successfully. People knew something was up with Houston. On the other hand, who is to say Houston would’ve made it to the WS without cheating? Could LA have beaten NY? We’re either LA or NY using illegal sign stealing as well?

It’s just not as simple as saying LA got cheated out of a championship, IMO. 

while it's not as simple as saying LA got cheated, they certainly did not NOT get cheated. you go to game 7 against an opponent who is verifiably cheating. i don't think it's a stretch to consider that a reasonable conclusion while acknowledging the randomness of all the legitimate outcomes that could have happened.

[Lou]

10 minutes ago, ukyah said:

this is an internet message board, lou. we're all idiots. the fools are the ones who don't know they're idiots.

Those are my favorites

[T.G.]

14 minutes ago, ukyah said:

this is an internet message board, lou. we're all idiots. the fools are the ones who don't know they're idiots.

Excuse me, sir. I'm an idoit.

[Pancake Bear]

15 minutes ago, ukyah said:

while it's not as simple as saying LA got cheated, they certainly did not NOT get cheated. you go to game 7 against an opponent who is verifiably cheating. i don't think it's a stretch to consider that a reasonable conclusion while acknowledging the randomness of all the legitimate outcomes that could have happened.

Sure, that’s fair. 

[Tank]

5 hours ago, NorCal Halo said:

Tell the Iowa Democrat Party that. 

I think the rush to be the first to break news causes lots of problems, including the lack of professionalism and credibility.

signed,

everyone in america except the network news directors on election night during presidential elections

[ukyah]

51 minutes ago, Lou said:

Those are my favorites

i agree? meh, i am aware.

 

[ukyah]

48 minutes ago, True Grich said:

Excuse me, sir. I'm an idoit.

yeah, looking back, i'm filled with regret.