Grading Minasian's First Trade Deadline

[Revad]

21 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I thought they would trade Iglesias. Maddon thought they would trade Iglesias.

I don’t know if the offers weren’t good or if Arte told him not to trade him or if they plan to extend him.

I think all of those are more likely than Minasian believing they have a realistic shot at the playoffs. I think it’s plausible that he could say that publicly as cover for one of the other three scenarios. 

I’m guessing there was a decent offer.  Related to some earlier posts, Iglesias would be a top three reliever on most teams but he doesn’t seem to do well if it’s not a save situation.  As a set up guy, perhaps but perhaps not..  I bet he’d do fine in the playoffs and that would be factor.

Like I said I think there was a decent offer.

[Docwaukee]

1 hour ago, Blarg said:

Come the playoffs that worst pen guy comes in only in a blowout. They will ride their three best relievers to the end, the fringe guys don't matter as much because they will probably move a 5th starter to the pen. No team is going to give up really good prospects to rise the floor of their bullpen on a rental, that's dumb.

The Dogs use 12 different non starters out of their pen in the WS.  The Rays used 9.  

The year before, Washington used 7 and the Astros 8

The year before that, Bos used 6 and the dogs 8.  

and that was just in the WS.  the most important of the various series.  

So no.  Teams are not riding their 3 best guys the whole way.  

And that's pretty obvious by the fact that a crap ton of relievers were dealt.  Many of whom won't be the three best.  

And you still need to win a bunch of games before you get to the playoffs so it's not just about when you get there but getting there.  

And Iglesias would likely be one of the top three relievers on any playoff team.  

And teams did give up some good prospects/players for relievers to rise the floor of their pen.  

And it didn't need to be another teams top or best prospects.  Just something of decent value considering that he has almost no value to us now except to maintain morale and keep our playoff chances at 2% instead of dropping them to 1%.  

-Feisty Doc

[ThisismineScios]

There's definitely a reason to not trade Iglesias and Cobb. And it's not because whenever Rendon stops getting hurt in BP/fielding drills, and Mike can get over the mental hump and go 100% on his calf we will go on a run. It's because of what Cobb said before the game--he wants to be here and would love to sign an extension. With Iglesias, you hope for the same. Make a "run" (not a realistic one), let him build camaraderie, and give it your best shot to extend him. Not paying any relievers anything isn't a realistic way to build a good bullpen. You have to pay some guys, and if you pay Iglesias you find other ways to fill the rest. And if he won't, you absolutely offer him the QO. Even if it's $18 million. That money is worth it to solidify the back end of the bullpen for a team that hasn't had that in awhile; if he rejects it for a multi-year deal, you get a Comp Pick. 

And Iglesias was not going to get you a Madrigal+ type of return. Kimbrel has another year on his contract, is a bigger name, and has proven himself on the biggest stage. While I'm sure he had great value and has been great for us, his ERA isn't great, he's blown 5 saves, and he's given up a lot of HR. 

I am sure Arte was against it. I hate how much of a micromanager he is. On the radio broadcast, Perry let it slip that he was constantly talking to Arte and keeping him updated. Don't think he realized what he was giving away. However, I think there is value to telling the clubhouse you're not giving up, you are serious about at the very least trying, and showing guys like Cobb and Iglesias you want them to stay this year and beyond. 

I think it's an A for the moves they made. No question. Heaney's slot in the rotation was going to be Detmers regardless. Watson is more valuable to others than he is to us. They got 2 lotto tickets from SF and 2 solid pitchers, one of whom could be a starter, from NY. This is exactly what they need to do--flood the system with young arms. 

[jsnpritchett]

9 minutes ago, ThisismineScios said:

There's definitely a reason to not trade Iglesias and Cobb. And it's not because whenever Rendon stops getting hurt in BP/fielding drills, and Mike can get over the mental hump and go 100% on his calf we will go on a run. It's because of what Cobb said before the game--he wants to be here and would love to sign an extension. With Iglesias, you hope for the same. Make a "run" (not a realistic one), let him build camaraderie, and give it your best shot to extend him. Not paying any relievers anything isn't a realistic way to build a good bullpen. You have to pay some guys, and if you pay Iglesias you find other ways to fill the rest. And if he won't, you absolutely offer him the QO. Even if it's $18 million. That money is worth it to solidify the back end of the bullpen for a team that hasn't had that in awhile; if he rejects it for a multi-year deal, you get a Comp Pick. 

 

There's no way Iglesias would reject a qualifying offer--and the Angels absolutely do not have room in their budget for a ~$19M closer if they actually want to have a competitive team next season.

[failos]

F-

[angelsnationtalk]

The grade of D for me.... That may turn into a B+

I wanted the Angels to trade Raisel Iglesias and Cobb. It seems like some teams were willing to over pay and the Angels should have taken that opportunity to cash in. What worries me is if they give extensions to both of them and they don't sign. Since they didn't get traded, they better be signed or else it's a loss. 

I didn't give it a F because we got some possible bullpen help for the future. We shall see. 

What made me grade it a D was this quote from Perry Minasian: "This group has earned the opportunity to continue to compete". If the front office thinks we can compete against the A's, Yankees and Blue Jays for the second wild card spot then they're lying to themselves. That to me is a huge slap in the face to the organization and especially the fans. 

Rumors came out today that the Marlins and Angels were discussing a trade that involved Marsh from the Angels and Meyer from the Marlins. This is a match made in heaven with the Marlins' surplus of pitchers and the Angels' surplus of centerfield prospects. If Minasian can re-engage these negotiation with the Marlins during the offseason and can get a deal done then i'll change my grade to a B+.

[Docwaukee]

12 minutes ago, ThisismineScios said:

There's definitely a reason to not trade Iglesias and Cobb. And it's not because whenever Rendon stops getting hurt in BP/fielding drills, and Mike can get over the mental hump and go 100% on his calf we will go on a run. It's because of what Cobb said before the game--he wants to be here and would love to sign an extension. With Iglesias, you hope for the same. Make a "run" (not a realistic one), let him build camaraderie, and give it your best shot to extend him. Not paying any relievers anything isn't a realistic way to build a good bullpen. You have to pay some guys, and if you pay Iglesias you find other ways to fill the rest. And if he won't, you absolutely offer him the QO. Even if it's $18 million. That money is worth it to solidify the back end of the bullpen for a team that hasn't had that in awhile; if he rejects it for a multi-year deal, you get a Comp Pick. 

And Iglesias was not going to get you a Madrigal+ type of return. Kimbrel has another year on his contract, is a bigger name, and has proven himself on the biggest stage. While I'm sure he had great value and has been great for us, his ERA isn't great, he's blown 5 saves, and he's given up a lot of HR. 

I am sure Arte was against it. I hate how much of a micromanager he is. On the radio broadcast, Perry let it slip that he was constantly talking to Arte and keeping him updated. Don't think he realized what he was giving away. However, I think there is value to telling the clubhouse you're not giving up, you are serious about at the very least trying, and showing guys like Cobb and Iglesias you want them to stay this year and beyond. 

I think it's an A for the moves they made. No question. Heaney's slot in the rotation was going to be Detmers regardless. Watson is more valuable to others than he is to us. They got 2 lotto tickets from SF and 2 solid pitchers, one of whom could be a starter, from NY. This is exactly what they need to do--flood the system with young arms. 

I'm good with keeping various guys who want to stay.  But you have to take the opportunity that's in front of you and not rely on probably/maybe.  

[ThisismineScios]

10 minutes ago, jsnpritchett said:

There's no way Iglesias would reject a qualifying offer--and the Angels absolutely do not have room in their budget for a ~$19M closer if they actually want to have a competitive team next season.

You're right. I'm a basketball guy and NBA guys almost always turn down 1-year deals for longer deals. I don't think he'd turn that much money down though. I do think there is money to keep him at 10-12 a year. Would you want him at that price for 2-3 years? 

8 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

I'm good with keeping various guys who want to stay.  But you have to take the opportunity that's in front of you and not rely on probably/maybe.  

I get that, but we know now we're talking about Iglesias only. There's real value in keeping Cobb in that he's a great mentor (Sandoval has addressed this) and wants to sign an extension. I'm sure he could have brought back something, but I believe they feel keeping him the next two months will make him want to stay longer. If he doesn't and never really did it's a really dumb move. They are most likely not making a run this year. 

[jsnpritchett]

6 minutes ago, ThisismineScios said:

You're right. I'm a basketball guy and NBA guys almost always turn down 1-year deals for longer deals. I don't think he'd turn that much money down though. I do think there is money to keep him at 10-12 a year. Would you want him at that price for 2-3 years? 

 

At $10M, I'd seriously consider it--but my guess is he'll be aiming for a lot more than that, given that he's already making $9.125M this year. 

[ThisismineScios]

1 hour ago, jsnpritchett said:

At $10M, I'd seriously consider it--but my guess is he'll be aiming for a lot more than that, given that he's already making $9.125M this year. 

Yeah. I’d probably go go to 12. I just badly want a guy to close out games consistently. 

[Second Base]

I figure the Angels are going to win 87 games with the roster constructed. And the WC2 winner on going to win 92 games. 

The end of the season, we'll be able to say the Angels were a "decent" team. And that's it. Not a playoff team. Certainly not bad. Better than .500. 

[stormngt]

3 hours ago, ThisismineScios said:

There's definitely a reason to not trade Iglesias and Cobb. And it's not because whenever Rendon stops getting hurt in BP/fielding drills, and Mike can get over the mental hump and go 100% on his calf we will go on a run. It's because of what Cobb said before the game--he wants to be here and would love to sign an extension. With Iglesias, you hope for the same. Make a "run" (not a realistic one), let him build camaraderie, and give it your best shot to extend him. Not paying any relievers anything isn't a realistic way to build a good bullpen. You have to pay some guys, and if you pay Iglesias you find other ways to fill the rest. And if he won't, you absolutely offer him the QO. Even if it's $18 million. That money is worth it to solidify the back end of the bullpen for a team that hasn't had that in awhile; if he rejects it for a multi-year deal, you get a Comp Pick. 

And Iglesias was not going to get you a Madrigal+ type of return. Kimbrel has another year on his contract, is a bigger name, and has proven himself on the biggest stage. While I'm sure he had great value and has been great for us, his ERA isn't great, he's blown 5 saves, and he's given up a lot of HR. 

I am sure Arte was against it. I hate how much of a micromanager he is. On the radio broadcast, Perry let it slip that he was constantly talking to Arte and keeping him updated. Don't think he realized what he was giving away. However, I think there is value to telling the clubhouse you're not giving up, you are serious about at the very least trying, and showing guys like Cobb and Iglesias you want them to stay this year and beyond. 

I think it's an A for the moves they made. No question. Heaney's slot in the rotation was going to be Detmers regardless. Watson is more valuable to others than he is to us. They got 2 lotto tickets from SF and 2 solid pitchers, one of whom could be a starter, from NY. This is exactly what they need to do--flood the system with young arms. 

Agreed!

[Torridd]

22 hours ago, ukyah said:

why can't people understand that an expiring contract has no value for 2022? we're not going to the playoffs in 2021. their contracts expire at the end of this season. sell them, get the better prospects that your few desirable players can bring you, then resign the motherfuckers in the offseason if you want them back. players go to who offers them the most money, keeping them for the rest of 2021 doesn't change that. there is rarely a hometown discount.

Sometimes you can't re-sign them.

[Torridd]

22 hours ago, AngelsFanSince86 said:

All out sellers? Lol

Trading Cobb and/or Iglesias, who are free agents at the end of this season is not going all out. It's selling the pieces that will likely be gone anyways. They could have traded for really good pitching prospects instead of "roll-the-dice" type prospects that they got in the trades they made.  That would be focusing on pitching. 

It isn't being healthy that's the issue. Every team deals with pitching injuries every year. It's about building your farm so you have cost controlled pitching depth. Part of that is done through the draft and good teams also increase that depth by trading rentals like Cobb and Iglesias when they have a long shot of making they playoffs like the Angels this season. 

 

I'm saying if we get rid of Cobb, and especially Iglesias, we're writing off the season. I also think if they want to re-sign Iglesias it should be done sooner than later. I believe keeping him is better than getting some minor leaguers for him. The bullpen is weak enough.

[Torridd]

16 hours ago, Dochalo said:

BTW, if Minasian felt the team really had a chance to remain competitive and make the playoffs he would have kept Heaney and Watson.   Lesser players went in trade than our two biggest assets and the returns seemed fair.  Especially considering that in two months, they're worth nothing.  Not even a draft pick.  

Heaney wasn't helping the team. 

[TheLordofOuts]

I personally love what Minasian did. He seems very committed to building the pitching side of the organization and I would be surprised if none of the 20 drafted and 5 of the newly acquired pitchers pan out.  Mathematically, you can expect at the very least 3-4 solid pitchers from this batch, if not more. I can see the pitching becoming a strength of the organization within 2-3 years  

A lot here have mentioned that Minasian could have traded Iglesias and Cobb and then resign them in the offseason.  I’m skeptical to think that happens all often. Why would a player go back to a team that was wanted to get rid of him for some other player(s)?  You’re also talking about all the personal logistics that a player has to handle: family stuff, finding a new place to live, etc.   Not to mention, that the player may end up liking his new team and situation more and not entertain any offers from his old team.  
 

In Cobb and Iglesias, we have 2 solid pitchers that would be instrumental this season, if somehow the Halos go on a huge run and contend. If they are extended, we will enjoy their services for longer. 
 

 

[stormngt]

2 hours ago, Torridd said:

Sometimes you can't re-sign them.

There is a only a very small advantage of re-signing a player that has not been traded.  It is only about a one week window where the team has exclusive negotiation rights.

Other than that there is no advantage or disadvantages.   If you "just can't  sign them as FA then you probably was never going to re-sign them.

[Stradling]

21 minutes ago, stormngt said:

There is a only a very small advantage of re-signing a player that has not been traded.  It is only about a one week window where the team has exclusive negotiation rights.

Other than that there is no advantage or disadvantages.   If you "just can't  sign them as FA then you probably was never going to re-sign them.

If this was true then resigning guys you just traded would happen much more frequently.  

[beatlesrule]

[AngelsFanSince86]

5 hours ago, Torridd said:

I'm saying if we get rid of Cobb, and especially Iglesias, we're writing off the season. I also think if they want to re-sign Iglesias it should be done sooner than later. I believe keeping him is better than getting some minor leaguers for him. The bullpen is weak enough.

Not being willing to "write off the season" is exactly why the Angels have sucked (been mediocre at best) for the last 5+ years. Good teams know when their chances are slim and sell their valuable pieces to build for a better tomorrow. Poorly run teams like the Angels "never say die" and thus never think ahead. The result is they never take advantage of a chance to acquire real impact future talent for rentals like others do. You think it's a coincidence the red Sox were good, sucked for like 2 seasons, and now are back to being good? They sold when the opportunity presented itself.

Iglesias isn't the difference between the Angels winning a WS or not. But the player(s) they could have gotten in a trade may be the difference in the next year or 2

[JustATroutFan]

It's a miracle that the Yankees actually wanted Heaney. He'll be remembered as a big underachiever who was hurt a lot, which is the how things go with the Angels. 

[tchula]

I graded the trade a C.  I thought we got decent returns for both Heaney and Watson, but like another poster said in this thread it doesn't move the needle at all.  And as much as I wanted us to be sellers and was hoping to get a Jonathan Gray type prospect for Iglesias and or Cobb, I was probably not being realistic.  I do believe that both Iglesias and Cobb are now likely to extend with the Angels, and considering the holes we have to fill I am OK with that.  Now, if we do not re-sign Iglesias then I will be very critical of not moving him.  

But, on a side note, we have added 24 pitchers to our minor league clubs in the past month.  This convinces me how bad our pitching situation in the minors actually is/was.  Despite the emergence of Sandoval, Suarez, and Barria (not to mention Shohei), I still think we need one more #2-3 type of starter to truly be competitive in our division next year.  

 

[stormngt]

11 hours ago, Stradling said:

If this was true then resigning guys you just traded would happen much more frequently.  

You keep going back to this argument that has no basis.  You assume everyone traded was attempted to re-sign.  Them you also assume that the offer from original team wasn't accepted because the player was traded and not because he was outbid by someone else or whether the player preferred to play someplace. 

If the original team was going to be outbid ir if the player prefers to play somewhere else that means the player was never going to re-sign with his original team.

you are arguing just without logic.  

You can't tell me one logical reason why trading the player makes it near impossible to re-sign.  You only argue that it rarely happens.

[Stradling]

11 minutes ago, stormngt said:

You keep going back to this argument that has no basis.  You assume everyone traded was attempted to re-sign.  Them you also assume that the offer from original team wasn't accepted because the player was traded and not because he was outbid by someone else or whether the player preferred to play someplace. 

If the original team was going to be outbid ir if the player prefers to play somewhere else that means the player was never going to re-sign with his original team.

you are arguing just without logic.  

You can't tell me one logical reason why trading the player makes it near impossible to re-sign.  You only argue that it rarely happens.

Of course my argument has basis.  The basis is the fact that it virtually never happens.  I don’t assume every team tries to resign every player traded.  Also if you want to play the logic game, we can do that.  Logically speaking the team likes the player, or else they wouldn’t have signed them, traded for them originally, logically that player is playing well because he was able to be traded, logically often times that leaves a hole on the team that traded him, not always but certainly at times, and logically that team then goes out and acquires a player at season’s end to replace that player. So logically, why do we not see teams re-sign players they traded away?  It absolutely has happened, and it can happen, but it really happens so infrequently that logically there is another reason.  There have been hundreds of players traded mid season that are in the last year of their contract.  Chapman resigned with the Yankees, and someone pointed out one other example of it happening.  Sure the Angels could have traded Iglesias, I wanted them to trade him and Cobb.  But then I would have logically assumed we would sign replacement players not named Cobb and Iglesias in the off season.  Sure they could have even signed those guys back, unless of course they chose not to come back after being traded.  They could have liked it here then got a sour taste in their mouth after being traded.  Players have egos, owners have egos, GMs have egos.  I have made this comparison before and you didn’t like it, but no player has ever resigned with a team long term after losing arbitration.  This is similar to being traded and expecting to be resigned.

[stormngt]

2 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Of course my argument has basis.  The basis is the fact that it virtually never happens.  I don’t assume every team tries to resign every player traded.  Also if you want to play the logic game, we can do that.  Logically speaking the team likes the player, or else they wouldn’t have signed them, traded for them originally, logically that player is playing well because he was able to be traded, logically often times that leaves a hole on the team that traded him, not always but certainly at times, and logically that team then goes out and acquires a player at season’s end to replace that player. So logically, why do we not see teams re-sign players they traded away?  It absolutely has happened, and it can happen, but it really happens so infrequently that logically there is another reason.  There have been hundreds of players traded mid season that are in the last year of their contract.  Chapman resigned with the Yankees, and someone pointed out one other example of it happening.  Sure the Angels could have traded Iglesias, I wanted them to trade him and Cobb.  But then I would have logically assumed we would sign replacement players not named Cobb and Iglesias in the off season.  Sure they could have even signed those guys back, unless of course they chose not to come back after being traded.  They could have liked it here then got a sour taste in their mouth after being traded.  Players have egos, owners have egos, GMs have egos.  I have made this comparison before and you didn’t like it, but no player has ever resigned with a team long term after losing arbitration.  This is similar to being traded and expecting to be resigned.

You are much better than that!

Give me one logical argument why trading the player hinders the chances of signing them in the off season

Other than "it rarely happens "