Should the Angels extend or trade Raisel Iglesias at the trade deadline?

[ukyah]

9 minutes ago, greginpsca said:

I like that idea. But, he is being paid $9 m this year. So he will want more next year. I just don't see the Angels paying 9+ for a closer when there are so many other needs, with limited payroll.

lou was being sarcastic.

[WicketMaiden]

19 minutes ago, greginpsca said:

I like that idea. But, he is being paid $9 m this year. So he will want more next year. I just don't see the Angels paying 9+ for a closer when there are so many other needs, with limited payroll.

Just get Ohtani to do it, he does pretty much everything else. 

[failos]

21 minutes ago, WicketMaiden said:

Just get Ohtani to do it, he does pretty much everything else. 

I’d be down to see that happen….not regularly though.

[Inside Pitch]

1 hour ago, Lou said:

The ol' trade him then sign him in the off-season move.

Works every time.

So, how many times have the Angels tried it?   The key word again is try/tried.   Worked for the Yankees with Chapman.

Ultimately the front office will know whether or not he's willing to take an extension and if there is enough value to be had via trade.   But not trading him and trying to re-sign him in FA is no sure thing either.  It's not like the guy has any ties or loyalty to the Angels beyond having been traded here in his walk year.

[Inside Pitch]

54 minutes ago, greginpsca said:

I like that idea. But, he is being paid $9 m this year. So he will want more next year. I just don't see the Angels paying 9+ for a closer when there are so many other needs, with limited payroll.

You may be right and if that's the case then I hope someone tells Arte to F-Off the next time he spews some tripe about "needing to do right by Mike Trout."   

[Lou]

6 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

So, how many times have the Angels tried it?   The key word again is try/tried.   Worked for the Yankees with Chapman.

Ultimately the front office will know whether or not he's willing to take an extension and if there is enough value to be had via trade.   But not trading him and trying to re-sign him in FA is no sure thing either.  It's not like the guy has any ties or loyalty to the Angels beyond having been traded here in his walk year.

In the history of MLB, how many players have been traded at the deadline and re-signed with their old team?

I can think of one. 

[Stradling]

Just now, Lou said:

In the history of MLB, how many players have been traded at the deadline and re-signed with their old team?

I can think of one. 

I brought this up also. I’m sure it’s happened more than once but I only remember Chapman. 

[Lou]

And it took 5/$86M for the Yankees to sign Chapman as a free agent.

[Inside Pitch]

2 minutes ago, Lou said:

In the history of MLB, how many players have been traded at the deadline and re-signed with their old team?

I can think of one. 

So the Angels haven't tried it? 

Is it your opinion that keeping him past the deadline increases the chances he forgo free agency?

Like I said, the front office will likely know what he wants or is willing to do.  But I remember Bill Bavasi not trading Finley away because he didn't want that on his resume then watching as he left for the Indians and the Angels had nothing to show for it.

I mean screw it.   Don't care if they can't re-sign him, seek out the max value and then trade him.

[Inside Pitch]

1 minute ago, Lou said:

And it took 5/$86M for the Yankees to sign Chapman as a free agent.

So what's it going to take to keep Iglesias in the fold if that's what you'd like to see them do?    He's not Chapman, he's never been Chapman, he will be 32 next year not 29... so 5/86 is irrelevant.

[Lou]

Just now, Inside Pitch said:

So the Angels haven't tried it? 

Is it your opinion that keeping him past the deadline increases the chances he forgo free agency?

Like I said, the front office will likely know what he wants or is willing to do.  But I remember Bill Bavasi not trading Finley away because he didn't want that on his resume then watching as he left for the Indians and the Angels had nothing to show for it.

I mean screw it.   Don't care if they can't re-sign him, seek out the max value and then trade him.

I didn't say they haven't tried it. I just know they have never succeeded at it. It has rarely been accomplished by any team. 

Im not saying don't try it, but there's a great chance it will fail. 

I'm all for dealing him, btw. 

[Lou]

Just now, Inside Pitch said:

So what's it going to take to keep Iglesias in the fold if that's what you'd like to see them do?    He's not Chapman, he's never been Chapman, he will be 32 next year not 29... so 5/86 is irrelevant.

I don't get your point. 

[Inside Pitch]

2 minutes ago, Lou said:

I didn't say they haven't tried it. I just know they have never succeeded at it. It has rarely been accomplished by any team. 

Im not saying don't try it, but there's a great chance it will fail. 

I'm all for dealing him, btw. 

I was asking because I don't remember them ever trying it.   It wasn't snark, I was legit wondering if they had ever attempted it and yeah -- I can't really remember anyone doing it besides the Chapman situation.

And yeah...  we are on the same page.  

[Lou]

Just now, Inside Pitch said:

I was asking because I don't remember them ever trying it.   It wasn't snark, I was legit wondering if they had ever attempted it and yeah -- I can't really remember anyone doing it besides the Chapman situation.

And yeah...  we are on the same page.  

I don't think anyone here would know if they had. 

[Inside Pitch]

4 minutes ago, Lou said:

I don't get your point. 

Sorry, I was asking what you believed it would take money wise for the Angels to bring Iglesias back (if that's even something they want to do).  I don't think it would come close to Chapman money simply because his track record and age fall short of Chapman's when he was brought back.

[Lou]

1 minute ago, Inside Pitch said:

Sorry, I was asking what you believed it would take money wise for the Angels to bring Iglesias back (if that's even something they want to do).  I don't think it would come close to Chapman money simply because his track record and age fall short of Chapman's when he was brought back.

I honestly have no idea. 

I'm not giving him a dime.

[DMVol]

11 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

I was asking because I don't remember them ever trying it.   It wasn't snark, I was legit wondering if they had ever attempted it and yeah -- I can't really remember anyone doing it besides the Chapman situation.

Historically, we haven’t traded away premium guys at the deadline, like Chapman, who we might have pursued in the off-season.....

[stormngt]

45 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

So, how many times have the Angels tried it?   The key word again is try/tried.   Worked for the Yankees with Chapman.

Ultimately the front office will know whether or not he's willing to take an extension and if there is enough value to be had via trade.   But not trading him and trying to re-sign him in FA is no sure thing either.  It's not like the guy has any ties or loyalty to the Angels beyond having been traded here in his walk year.

If the players has a desire to re-sign with the Angels than thete is no logical reason they can not have the same chances re-sign them as FA.

Those who say it rarely happens are correct.  However how often dies a player get traded and there is a real effort to re-sign as a FA?

[eligrba]

Angels aren’t interested in trading a player than re-signing him in the offseason because they prefer using waivers for that purpose.

[mmc]

2 hours ago, Lou said:

In the history of MLB, how many players have been traded at the deadline and re-signed with their old team?

I can think of one. 

Jason Hammel and Jay Bruce are the only other 2 I can think of off the top of my head

[beatlesrule]

5 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

We need a "Genious" like button. @Chuckster70? It could be Einstein, although that would imply that it was actually meant as a complement.

[Docwaukee]

Gotta trade him and get as much value as you can even if it's less than originally anticipated.  Then do the same thing over and over year after year where you take on the final year or two of a closer's salary and then you never have to pay a high dollar reliever.  If I had my choice of who they should trade for it would be a pen arm or two unless you really can get a top 100 guy.  Keep recycling guys like this through the pen until you can get enough of them in trade where you've actually built a legit pen.  Not only do I not care about whether we can extend him, I wouldn't.  

[Angelsjunky]

Why would Raisel sign an extension right now? He's going to want to test free agency where he'll likely get 3-4 years, $12-14M. That's money the Angels don't want to spend on a reliever.

Trade him.

[Taylor]

15 hours ago, Lou said:

The ol' trade him then sign him in the off-season move.

Works every time.

Are you saying the FA won't value the relationship he had with the team who traded him?

[Torridd]

18 hours ago, rafibomb said:

I am a little torn on this one. Iglesias is one of the few (if not only) valuable pieces to our bullpen. He also might be one of our only valuable trade chips if the team continues to fall further behind in the playoff race. Do we take a chance, trade him and try again to look for a closer via another trade or free agency? Or do we lock him up for the foreseeable future?

I think the bullpen has enough problems. We need to keep good arms.