Unofficial Save The Farm Thread

[Pancake Bear]

I'm all for building the farm, but at the same time, due to our current situation, I think more needs to be done to make this team a contender. I don't think Arte will throw more money at the problem, so the solution is a trade. The key, IMO, is to make sure it isn't a short term only trade. They need someone with a minimum 2 years control, preferably 3 or more. So, e.g. if we could get Castillo, I'd be fine with trading potentials for him, so long as it doesn't empty the farm. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

37 minutes ago, Pancake Bear said:

I'm all for building the farm, but at the same time, due to our current situation, I think more needs to be done to make this team a contender. I don't think Arte will throw more money at the problem, so the solution is a trade. The key, IMO, is to make sure it isn't a short term only trade. They need someone with a minimum 2 years control, preferably 3 or more. So, e.g. if we could get Castillo, I'd be fine with trading potentials for him, so long as it doesn't empty the farm. 

They basically have one shot to make a deal, and they absolutely have to get it right.

[Inside Pitch]

Haven't read the thread, don't know if this has all been said but if they blow the farm after spending 5 years just getting it back to respectability.... Oy Vey!

Sugano is out there, Odorizzi is out there, Bauer obviously, and the two talented owie boys, Richards/Paxton.   Save the farm for midseason or next year when they may be in need of two more SPs to replace Heaney and Bundy.

Unless you can get extreme value from guys, they are just better off keeping as much organizational currency in place as possible.

[Inside Pitch]

3 hours ago, Pancake Bear said:

I'm all for building the farm, but at the same time, due to our current situation, I think more needs to be done to make this team a contender. I don't think Arte will throw more money at the problem, so the solution is a trade. The key, IMO, is to make sure it isn't a short term only trade. They need someone with a minimum 2 years control, preferably 3 or more. So, e.g. if we could get Castillo, I'd be fine with trading potentials for him, so long as it doesn't empty the farm. 

And that's the problem.  Arte is reactive, not proactive. 

[Inside Pitch]

2 hours ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

They basically have one shot to make a deal, and they absolutely have to get it right.

That's the issue, the farm is very top heavy, very young.   You make the wrong move you're extending the current situation.  Meanwhile they have two pending FA pitchers....  Spending is the smart play... 

[tdawg87]

5 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

That's the issue, the farm is very top heavy, very young.   You make the wrong move you're extending the current situation.  Meanwhile they have two pending FA pitchers....  Spending is the smart play... 

It is, but Arte won't do the thing and unfortunately we kinda need him to right now, otherwise what choice does Minasian have? 

Odorizzi and Richards? Barf. 

[Angels in 2030]

One trade is not going to blow up the farm.  If it does, then the farm wasn’t worth saving in the first place.  

[Stradling]

6 minutes ago, Fourts said:

One trade is not going to blow up the farm.  If it does, then the farm wasn’t worth saving in the first place.  

A trade for Castillo could blow up a good farm. 

[Warfarin]

The key thing is to look at who we hired as our GM.  Minasian came from two organizations that built up their farm systems (TOR, ATL).  The Braves did not empty their farm system to secure talent - they kept Acuna, Albies, etc.

Minasian will probably swing a trade using players he feels aren't part of our future core and will look to start building his vision of the farm system this year.  Minasian will build our farm, not tear it down.

[Pancake Bear]

2 hours ago, Inside Pitch said:

And that's the problem.  Arte is reactive, not proactive. 

Thing of it is, they have a few options. Either:

- a) Commit to a legit rebuild and trust the process

- b) Go all in financially but don't touch prospects (or even FA's with qualifying offers attached if possible)

- c) Go all in by any means necessary to win: Money, prospects, nothing is off the table

- d) Try to win, but with a set limit of spending

Due to decisions that were made a decade ago (and the numerous times Arte has doubled down on that strategy), the first option really isn't an option. There are too many contracts that cannot be traded. They could wait them out while rebuilding the farm, but to do so would be to waste the career of the best player of this generation. They've already made clear they won't commit to that option. 

While many of us would prefer something like the second option, Arte simply isn't going to blow his budget - which, to be fair, is one of the higher ones in the league. That also kiboshes the third option, leaving us with door #4.

While I'm not crazy about blowing the farm, I feel like if you're going to trade guys, at least make sure you're getting the right guy back. Most of the options we talk about with trades quite simply aren't that guy. 

 That's why I like the idea of trying to get Castillo and Moustakas. It sets us up a with a TOR starter for the next three years and a decent 1B/DH who has positional flexibility to fill in at 2B and 3B. Will it be expensive? Probably, but it's the only option I see that is realistic while still not screwing us over too badly long term (I'm sure others feel like I'm being unrealistic there, and that's certainly possible).

[AngelsLakersFan]

13 hours ago, Inside Pitch said:

That's the issue, the farm is very top heavy, very young.   You make the wrong move you're extending the current situation.  Meanwhile they have two pending FA pitchers....  Spending is the smart play... 

Spending is always the smart play until you run up against your budgetary limitations, which is where we are at already.

[Inside Pitch]

Just now, AngelsLakersFan said:

Spending is always the smart play until you run up against your budgetary limitations, which is where we are at already.

Is it really always the smart play?  Are we?  I know that's Arte's take, its his money, his team, he gets the final say but there is little question he would end up losing money.

I'm not a spend, spend, spend, guy...  In fact, I've always argued against it because it didn't make sense.  Right now, with the talent assembled and the farm where it is spending makes more sense than an any time since 2004.

[AngelsLakersFan]

Just now, Inside Pitch said:

Is it really always the smart play?  Are we?  I know that's Arte's take, its his money, his team, he gets the final say but there is little question he would end up losing money.

I'm not a spend, spend, spend, guy...  In fact, I've always argued against it because it didn't make sense.  Right now, with the talent assembled and the farm where it is spending makes more sense than an any time since 2004.

It's 'always' the smart play without the context of a budget. Once you reach your limit you can't play that card anymore. 

We couldn't get Cole last year so the smart play was to get Rendon. The smart play was locking up Mike Trout. The smart play was finally solving left field by bringing in Justin Upton. The smart play right now would be signing Bauer and another starter. Can we do that? I don't think we can - we've already played that card too many times.

[Inside Pitch]

10 hours ago, Pancake Bear said:

That's why I like the idea of trying to get Castillo and Moustakas. It sets us up a with a TOR starter for the next three years and a decent 1B/DH who has positional flexibility to fill in at 2B and 3B. Will it be expensive? Probably, but it's the only option I see that is realistic while still not screwing us over too badly long term (I'm sure others feel like I'm being unrealistic there, and that's certainly possible).

I want no part of an anchor to shore up a need.  MLB teams correctly guaged his value in back to back years then a team with delusions of grandeur gave him a 4 year deal at age 31.  I understand what you're saying, I just see him as an 18 mil a year waste of resources.   Three years where that money could go towards actual pitching vs a guy who plays positions the Angels already have answers for save for 1B, the one position you can fill out with cheap gets like CJ Cron.

[Inside Pitch]

7 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

It's 'always' the smart play without the context of a budget. Once you reach your limit you can't play that card anymore. 

We couldn't get Cole last year so the smart play was to get Rendon. The smart play was locking up Mike Trout. The smart play was finally solving left field by bringing in Justin Upton. The smart play right now would be signing Bauer and another starter. Can we do that? I don't think we can - we've already played that card too many times.

I view it differently.  The only legit smart play for me among the guys you mentioned was Trout.  Corner guys always cost too much but its the decision to make those moves that makes finishing the job of greater importance this season.  The other options essentially undercut those decisions/choices.  We will see how it all plays out soon enough.

 

[Warfarin]

21 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

Is it really always the smart play?  Are we?  I know that's Arte's take, its his money, his team, he gets the final say but there is little question he would end up losing money.

I'm not a spend, spend, spend, guy...  In fact, I've always argued against it because it didn't make sense.  Right now, with the talent assembled and the farm where it is spending makes more sense than an any time since 2004.

I agree with this.  Look at the best teams in baseball - they take calculated risks on a few contracts, but most of those contracts are usually short-term, higher AAV type risks.  The Braves, for example, spend every year, but they sign guys to 1-2 year deals at high AAV, such that if they bomb (which happens more often than not with FAs), they can move on fairly easily.

Look at their gamble on Cole Hamels.  They gave him a sizable one year deal and it didn't pan out, but since it was just a one year deal, they moved on easily from it.

Similarly, look at the Dodgers.  People always lump the Dodgers into teams that spend big, but that just really isn't the case with Friedman's Dodgers.  Even Kershaw was re-signed to a shorter-term deal (3 years) at a high AAV in the same offseason Chris Sale was re-signed by Dombrowski for a 5 year deal.  The only player they truly broke the bank for was Betts, but you do that for a generational player, just as we did for Trout.

I expect Minasian to utilize a similar strategy - sign guys to 1 or 2 year deals, and if they don't perform, it won't hamper them in the long-term.

I do not expect Bauer to be signed unless he sticks tot the 1 or 2 year concept he floated earlier.  Rather, I would expect us to acquire a cost-controlled SP who is undervalued (Snell, etc) and sign someone like Quintana/Odorizzi/Archer, so long as the max they require is 2 years.

I expect the bulk of his future emphasis to be building our farm system.

[AngelsLakersFan]

12 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

I view it differently.  The only legit smart play for me among the guys you mentioned was Trout.  Corner guys always cost too much but its the decision to make those moves that makes finishing the job of greater importance this season.  The other options essentially undercut those decisions/choices.  We will see how it all plays out soon enough.

 

In general I agree with you. The team needs to spend now to put themselves in a good position now and moving forward. Unfortunately I don't think we are going to because we've kind of blown our wad spending on other areas we may or may not have needed to - all of which were justified given the need to improve the team and having the money to spend. 

If they can't / wont spend, I'm not sure how they don't make a trade. My plan for the off season was to sign the two best starting pitchers they could afford, and if they go that route I think a lot of this board will be disappointed. 

[Inside Pitch]

15 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

In general I agree with you. The team needs to spend now to put themselves in a good position now and moving forward. Unfortunately I don't think we are going to because we've kind of blown our wad spending on other areas we may or may not have needed to - all of which were justified given the need to improve the team and having the money to spend. 

If they can't / wont spend, I'm not sure how they don't make a trade. My plan for the off season was to sign the two best starting pitchers they could afford, and if they go that route I think a lot of this board will be disappointed. 

Yep, this is where I wonder about Arte's ability to see the big picture despite his success outside of baseball..  They just spent 5 years building the farm up to where it's respectable and can be counted on to start adding talent to the roster and help compensate for injuries and they may undo that work chasing a trade.   If they want to trade from the lower tiers even if it's high upside guys fine... they are a ways off still, but trading away all the guys that could be of help in the near term would IMO be repeating old mistakes.

[AngelsLakersFan]

3 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

Yep, this is where I wonder about Arte's ability to see the big picture despite his success outside of baseball..  They just spent 5 years building the farm up to where it's respectable and can be counted on to start adding talent to the roster and help compensate for injuries and they may undo that work chasing a trade.   If they want to trade from the lower tiers even if it's high upside guys fine... they are a ways off still, but trading away all the guys that could be of help in the near term would IMO be repeating old mistakes.

Given Arte's track record I think it's clear that he doesn't see the big picture. The way we handled the left field situation following the Hamilton debacle proved it to me. The Vernon Wells situation comes to mind as well. Sure it's possible that he's finally learned his lesson but I don't see any signs of that.

[Inside Pitch]

He's definitely a reactionary type....  Which is a shame.

[eligrba]

35 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

He's definitely a reactionary type....  Which is a shame.

I have no idea if Arte is reactionary but I think an alternative explanation might involve the inabilities of his baseball executives to articulate and execute a plan that showed progress at the major league level.

Arte has been the Angel's owner since 2003, and I can't remember any instance where a former employee had something negative to say.  I understand that there might be non-disclosure agreements, but they also have not even been mentioned.  To this point in time, no one with experience in the front office has mentioned Arte interfering or being unreasonable.  Any indications of him being reactionary could also be explained by a GM being panicky.

I don't disagree that Arte might be reactionary, I just don't have any evidence to support that claim.

[Revad]

I think Artie is a baseball fan but he sees the team from a business aspect, a marketing aspect.  

[Blarg]

2 hours ago, Inside Pitch said:

Right now, with the talent assembled and the farm where it is spending makes more sense than an any time since 2004.

Good observation but unfortunately Moreno doesn't have the payroll surplus of 2004. Buying the team in 2003 he inherited a good core with lots of faulty parts, none of which were bullpen related.

But he never had the chance to improve the team in the off season so he ended up with a first to almost worst record. Which was probably a good thing, he didn't impulse buy without knowledge of the team and had a year to see what needed to go (Appier) and what need to stay (the farm). 

That 2004 off season may have been the best of any team for years considering the sharp turnaround and how long those decisions kept the team contending. 

This year... They have a young farm but I don't think with near the talent depth of 2004, the payroll is burdened with one more season of Pujols and two of Upton so they are going to be bumping up against the payroll cap every year from now until forever. So buying your way to the playoffs isn't going to happen. 

Stoneman had built wealth in farm hands and payroll flexibility. Minasian only got a good but not great farm with a tight budget. This won't be a repeat of 2004. 

[T.G.]

Winning is hard. 

I'm not getting any younger. I just want Angels baseball to be fun again. If that means some prospects have to go, so be it. 

I want to see what Trout can do on the big stage. He's done everything else.

Arte isn't getting any younger either. If he decides to gut the farm to win now, he's entitled. AND, since it's out of my control, why worry about it?

2002 seems like a lifetime ago. I want some new memories.

[angelsnationtalk]

The inevitable sell the farm or build the farm discussion. Do I think one of Adell/Marsh gets traded? Yes. 

Honestly, since Eppler built our farm with so many high-risk-high-reward guys I wouldn't be surprised in Minasian guts it a little bit. 

Every GM and their scouting staff with view prospects differently. If they view Marsh being a much more projectable/stable guy then Adell is out. I really don't think it's a hard decision for them.

To keep it simple. We could see a handful of prospects being traded because Minasian and company values our prospects a little differently.