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

Blake Snell is on the market


Richbert88

Recommended Posts

Trading Upton is near fantasy...I think Rosenthal is bored. 

Given the financial crunch it’s hard seeing any team being interested in what Upton is owed, no matter what chunk we eat or what prospect we send back, and that still leaves Upton’s NTC as another obstacle. They’re not insurmountable, but given what I’ve read from him, I sense he would really have to want to go to the acquiring team and city. 

San Francisco seems the best choice. He seems to prefer West Coast. A distant option could be San Diego or Arizona. I wonder if a three-team deal could work between Tampa, San Diego, and the Angels...but I would think San Diego would push hard for Snell in that scenario. I see overlap though between those three teams’ needs.

Perhaps something like...San Diego gets Snell and Upton, maybe the Angels get Kiermaier and a SD SP prospect, Tampa gets a much needed catching prospect from San Diego and a few young players/prospects, maybe someone like Thaiss, Rengifo, or a young Angels pitcher...we don’t get Snell, but maybe we shed significant payroll in the deal. San Diego assumes a good chunk of Upton’s contract, but they also get Snell. Profar played LF for them mostly last year so they have a need, and some vet presence could help them. Tampa sheds a ton of payroll (do they have any guaranteed money besides those two?), gets a top prospect, some young players they like...

For the Angels, it’s actually mostly about the money. Kiermaier is an affordable stopgap and they add another young pitcher to the mix. The money cleared allows the Angel to pursue Bauer without nearly as much financial pressure, and/or pursue someone like Darvish in trade more easily, and they could still kick tires on Realmuto, or multiple pen options, or multiple SPs, etc. depending on how other pieces fall in to place. 

Edited by totdprods
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, CanadianHalo said:

If the Angels really wanted to move Upton and were willing to eat enough money maybe the Braves would take him if they can’t bring Ozuna back

I need help understanding this.  Why would it be better to eat money to send Upton away than for Arte to go over the cap and pay the penalties? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, eligrba said:

I need help understanding this.  Why would it be better to eat money to send Upton away than for Arte to go over the cap and pay the penalties? 

Let’s say they sent Upton + 10 mill to Atlanta and then turned around and signed Schwarber for 7 mill, Arte would be saving money.

Could also do the same for the following season as well

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, CanadianHalo said:

Let’s say they sent Upton + 10 mill to Atlanta and then turned around and signed Schwarber for 7 mill, Arte would be saving money.

Could also do the same for the following season as well

Right, exactly.  Even if the savings for trading Upton is small (~7-10mil per year), that money can be used to acquire a better player.

I'm not too high on Upton's offensive skill set.  He's a free swinger, and I'd much prefer someone who is more selective at the plate, as I think free swingers tend to get exposed by high quality pitching, and if our goal is to make the playoffs, that's what we will face.

Having either Schwarber or Pederson in LF would be much more ideal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, CanadianHalo said:

Let’s say they sent Upton + 10 mill to Atlanta and then turned around and signed Schwarber for 7 mill, Arte would be saving money.

Could also do the same for the following season as well

I guess this goes to the idea of sending away a bad contract and prospects to clear the books.  In Upton's case, the savings in money is offset by the loss of prospects who could be used in a more strategic manner in the future to help the team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Stradling said:

I’m sure you don’t agree but you’d be wrong.  If he suggests that Upton would waive his no trade clause then he is absolutely out of touch with how Upton’s family situation. 

i think he was actually agreeing with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, tdawg87 said:

Why are we talking about trading Upton?

Might as well talk about trading Pujols.

The answer is:

Some people hate when players make a lot of money, so any “big” contracts are almost automatically viewed as a problem.

Unless you are generational player in his prime like Trout.

But give that one time.  The 2024 message board will be filled with fantasies of how to get out of paying Trout the rest of his contract.

I couldn’t care less what Upton is getting paid.  Play him if he can help you.  If he sucks, try somebody else.  But his contract doesn’t bother me a bit.

Edited by Dtwncbad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

The answer is:

Some people hate when players make a lot of money, so any “big” contracts are almost automatically viewed as a problem.

Unless you are generational player in his prime like Trout.

But give that one time.  The 2024 message board will be filled with fantasies of how to get out of paying Trout the rest of his contract.

I couldn’t care less what Upton is getting paid.  Play him if he can help you.  If he sucks, try somebody else.  But his contract doesn’t bother me a bit.

I thought the "its not my money" argument was ended years ago. 

It is very simple: Big contracts for mediocre or bad players has a negative effect on the team's performance.

Over the last five years, the Angels have paid Albert Pujols $135 million for -1.9 WAR.

Over the last two years, they have paid Justin Upton $39M for -0.2 WAR.

(includes full year contracts for 2020 - should be adjust a few million lower, but doesn't affect the basic point)

Together they're owed $53 million in 2021, and Upton a further $28 million for 2022.

And on and on. Bad contracts make a team worse through limiting resources for improving the team.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

I thought the "its not my money" argument was ended years ago. 

It is very simple: Big contracts for mediocre or bad players has a negative effect on the team's performance.

Over the last five years, the Angels have paid Albert Pujols $135 million for -1.9 WAR.

Over the last two years, they have paid Justin Upton $39M for -0.2 WAR.

(includes full year contracts for 2020 - should be adjust a few million lower, but doesn't affect the basic point)

Together they're owed $53 million in 2021, and Upton a further $28 million for 2022.

And on and on. Bad contracts make a team worse through limiting resources for improving the team.

 

And it's still not my money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Lou said:

And it's still not my money.

My least favorite narrative that dumb assholes come up with when they feel wronged by players is the “We pay your salary”.  You really don’t.  You pay Arte or you pay directv (not you Lou).   If I’m mad at the hipster chick for screwing up my coffee at Starbucks I don’t immediately go to, “I pay your salary”, because I’m not that kind of dumb asshole, I’m an entirely different kind of asshole. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

I thought the "its not my money" argument was ended years ago. 

It is very simple: Big contracts for mediocre or bad players has a negative effect on the team's performance.

Over the last five years, the Angels have paid Albert Pujols $135 million for -1.9 WAR.

Over the last two years, they have paid Justin Upton $39M for -0.2 WAR.

(includes full year contracts for 2020 - should be adjust a few million lower, but doesn't affect the basic point)

Together they're owed $53 million in 2021, and Upton a further $28 million for 2022.

And on and on. Bad contracts make a team worse through limiting resources for improving the team.

 

Bad contracts suck if they prevent the team from signing anyone else after.

We had Pujols and Upton on the books and we got Rendon. And there's a chance we get Bauer.

So I'd say we haven't been restricted by Pujols or Upton or Hamilton or any of that crap.

And yes, it's not my money. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

I thought the "its not my money" argument was ended years ago. 

It is very simple: Big contracts for mediocre or bad players has a negative effect on the team's performance.

Over the last five years, the Angels have paid Albert Pujols $135 million for -1.9 WAR.

Over the last two years, they have paid Justin Upton $39M for -0.2 WAR.

(includes full year contracts for 2020 - should be adjust a few million lower, but doesn't affect the basic point)

Together they're owed $53 million in 2021, and Upton a further $28 million for 2022.

And on and on. Bad contracts make a team worse through limiting resources for improving the team.

 

Right, agreed.  Even the Yankees and Dodgers have their limits.

The key part of being able to have contracts like the above on the books is the ability to draft and develop players well.  The Dodgers have had some significant free agency misses and have some bloated contracts (Jansen, Pollock, Kazmir, McCarthy, etc), but they are positioned to absorb it because they produce tons of good, young talent on a yearly basis.

That is the key part of the process that we need to get better with.  We can absorb crappy contracts that likely have a poor ROI towards the end, but we need to be able to promote young talent that can come in and perform well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

It is very simple: Big contracts for mediocre or bad players has a negative effect on the team's performance.

 

This.

The players the Angels have paid have completely fallen off a cliff almost immediately after signing. 

I wasn’t a fan of signing Rendon ONLY because of possible financial limitations moving forward. I do think paying a guy like Rendon was a safe bet. He should be someone that can be a productive hitter for the majority of his contract. DJ LeMahieu is another guy I’d feel comfortable giving him his asking price if I was the Yankees.

If Pujols, Hamilton and etc were even just semi productive it may have really changed things.

This was basically just me ranting but completely agree with your post. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, CanadianHalo said:

This.

The players the Angels have paid have completely fallen off a cliff almost immediately after signing. 

I wasn’t a fan of signing Rendon ONLY because of possible financial limitations moving forward. I do think paying a guy like Rendon was a safe bet. He should be someone that can be a productive hitter for the majority of his contract. DJ LeMahieu is another guy I’d feel comfortable giving him his asking price if I was the Yankees.

If Pujols, Hamilton and etc were even just semi productive it may have really changed things.

This was basically just me ranting but completely agree with your post. 

Yeah, and this is the argument to be made also in terms of signing Bauer at like 6/150 or trading for someone like Snell at 3/39.

The risk of trading for Snell is if he gets hurt and/or if Adell goes on to become a star.  If Snell gets hurt, then it isn't financially crippling to the team because he's only signed for 3 years at a low cost.  However, if that happens and Adell goes on to be a star, then we would have cashed in our best trade chip for someone who can't even help our team.

The risk of Bauer, of course, is if he regresses or gets hurt early on.  If he does, then that's years and years of a very high cost salary, anchoring down our financial flexibility, in the same way that Pujols has done.

Given the length of the contracts that we have to Trout and Rendon, as well as a somewhat mediocre farm system, I don't think we are particularly well positioned to absorb yet another big deal like Bauer.  I think our SP will likely have to come via trade, and I think we will look to sign a 2nd SP who only requires 1 or a max of a 2 year commitment.

Again, looking at successful teams, the Dodgers tend to trade for players with short-term or undervalued commitments.  With the exception of Betts, they haven't really  given out a big contract since Friedman took over.  Even Kershaw, when they extended him, was just given a 3 year / 94 million dollar deal - high AAV, but short duration.

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...