Is Re-Signing Raisel Iglesias the Smart Move?

[Stradling]

4 minutes ago, ThisismineScios said:

I agree with you on him in principle; a legitimate 4-pitch pitcher who can be a frontline guy. His stuff is just nasty. But it just doesn't seem like his body can handle 180 innings. I know last year was really his first full year, but he came in fully healthy and dealt with two major injuries. I don't know if he is built for it or if his delivery can handle 30 starts. 

Then he can’t handle a bullpen role either. 

[Angel Oracle]

13 hours ago, Blarg said:

Signing him to a qualifying offer would be a dumb move. Penning a three year deal wouldn't be. 

They may need to do the QO as a start towards a new contract.   Kind of like a good faith gesture?

A QO may only be some $3-4 million more than the AAV of a new contract anyway.

Agree that they do need to keep him, absolutely.

Has had consistency plus good health in his MLB career so far.   Even in his one so-so season (2019), the WHIP was still a decent 1.22.

Edited October 22, 2021 by Angel Oracle

[totdprods]

6 minutes ago, Angel Oracle said:

They may need to do the QO as a start towards a new contract.   Kind of like a good faith gesture?

A QO may only be some $3-4 million less than the AAV of a new contract anyway.

Agree that they do need to keep him, absolutely.

Has had consistency plus good health in his MLB career so far.   Even in his one so-so season (2019), the WHIP was still a decent 1.22.

Bingo. Offering a QO is not about trying to to sign him to a 1/$18m. 
It gives an advantage to the offering team in negotiating and dulls competing interest.

[Stradling]

5 minutes ago, totdprods said:

Bingo. Offering a QO is not about trying to to sign him to a 1/$18m. 
It gives an advantage to the offering team in negotiating and dulls competing interest.

However the end result could be giving him $18 million and it’s out of your control.  
 

 

PS you have the same avatar as 1961, congrats on your danish. 

[UndertheHalo]

It sucks to not have reasonably good alternative options.  It’s not a good situation to *need* a guy like Raisel Iglesias or really almost any reliever the way the Angels do.  It would be nice if they can get him under 16 mil aav. 
 

Edited October 22, 2021 by UndertheHalo

[Stradling]

4 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

It sucks to not have good reasonably good alternative options.  It’s not a good situation to *need* a guy like Raisel Iglesias or really almost any reliever the way the Angels do.  It would be nice if they can get him under 16 mil aav. 
 

They could trade for another closer.  Look he won’t be perfect next year, he just won’t.  He wasn’t perfect this year, he had blown saves.  If we get a league average closer that converts 90% of saves compared to 95% for a dominant closer the difference is a game or two.  You can get that person for well under $18 million.  Use the rest to create more save opportunities by getting better pitching to get you to the 9th.  

[totdprods]

21 minutes ago, Stradling said:

However the end result could be giving him $18 million and it’s out of your control.  
 

PS you have the same avatar as 1961, congrats on your danish. 

What is so bad about 1/$18m? It wouldn't be much worse than the $13m-$16m he'd likely make in '22 on a multi-year deal.
Downside is that extra $3-$6m you spend on him in '22 costs you one more good reliever or a bigger add at SS or C.
Upside too is that you aren't locked into a multi-year relief deal for a closer at $15m+ AAV. 

If things go south, it'd be a lot easier to trade Iglesias at the deadline too if he was only on one-year. Now you're gaining some prospects too.

If the Angels were shoestring this winter and had their usual $20-$30m to spend, yeah, it'd be a big risk, but the difference in what he'd make is like 10% of their offseason spending budget. 
For the benefits a QO offers - the draft pick compensation, tamping competing offers - it's worth the ~$5m extra it adds to the 2022 payroll. 

Edited October 22, 2021 by totdprods

[totdprods]

1 minute ago, Stradling said:

They could trade for another closer.  Look he won’t be perfect next year, he just won’t.  He wasn’t perfect this year, he had blown saves.  If we get a league average closer that converts 90% of saves compared to 95% for a dominant closer the difference is a game or two.  You can get that person for well under $18 million.  Use the rest to create more save opportunities by getting better pitching to get you to the 9th.  

Josh Hader, Edwin Diaz, and Will Smith all seem like guys who could be available similarly as Iglesias was last year, so this is a good take too.
Jose LeClerc could be a dark-horse rebound option in a trade as well.

[UndertheHalo]

5 minutes ago, Stradling said:

They could trade for another closer.  Look he won’t be perfect next year, he just won’t.  He wasn’t perfect this year, he had blown saves.  If we get a league average closer that converts 90% of saves compared to 95% for a dominant closer the difference is a game or two.  You can get that person for well under $18 million.  Use the rest to create more save opportunities by getting better pitching to get you to the 9th.  

I think it’s better to throw away money than prospect capital on players whose outcomes are broadly very difficult to predict.  I like Raisel.  I think he’s good-very good as far as relievers go.  I wish that angels weren’t in a situation where they probably need to go top dollar for a bullpen guy. 

Edited October 22, 2021 by UndertheHalo

[Junkballer]

13 minutes ago, totdprods said:

Bingo. Offering a QO is not about trying to to sign him to a 1/$18m. 
It gives an advantage to the offering team in negotiating and dulls competing interest.

I’m on board with giving him a QO as well as offering him the higher end of the hypothetical contract range. I’d posit that with their projected offense their need for a formidable bullpen is at least as important as their rotation, which does not need a lot to be upper 1/3rd. The rotation needs two #2’s, or #3’s with upside and now you’re looking at Sandoval/Suarez as 4/5.  If they don’t spend big on SS there is money for the bullpen and rotation.  
 

One of my concerns is that it is KJansens FA year and the Dodgers will spend whatever it it takes to get that elite closer.  The draft pick they’ll lose in a QO situation is a de facto 3rd and with their farm the way it is it won’t be that big of an issue for them. The Angels will have to consider going way above their comfort level to retain him if he rejects the QO. 

[Taylor]

Yes.

 

Until he blows two saves in a row next season. Then re-signing him will never have been the right decision.

[Jason]

15 minutes ago, Taylor said:

Yes.

 

Until he blows two saves in a row next season. Then re-signing him will never have been the right decision.

Nah, we’re just going to blame Maddon 

[Angel Oracle]

2 hours ago, Stradling said:

They could trade for another closer.  Look he won’t be perfect next year, he just won’t.  He wasn’t perfect this year, he had blown saves.  If we get a league average closer that converts 90% of saves compared to 95% for a dominant closer the difference is a game or two.  You can get that person for well under $18 million.  Use the rest to create more save opportunities by getting better pitching to get you to the 9th.  

Here’s the problem though.  They haven’t had much luck outside of Iglesias.   Robles had a meh season, a solid season, and then a mediocre one.   They haven’t had a multi years success in the pen since K-Rod.

[tdawg87]

It isn't a smart move, but it's the only move they can make. 

Like Arte upping the payroll by $20 million. Not necessarily smart, but very likely needed to significantly improve the roster depth. It won't happen though, unfortunately. So Minasian is going to have to re-sign Iglesias, then get really creative.

[totdprods]

3 hours ago, Stradling said:

They could trade for another closer.  Look he won’t be perfect next year, he just won’t.  He wasn’t perfect this year, he had blown saves.  If we get a league average closer that converts 90% of saves compared to 95% for a dominant closer the difference is a game or two.  You can get that person for well under $18 million.  Use the rest to create more save opportunities by getting better pitching to get you to the 9th.  

I'd also rather they use trade currency for pitching - almost always a better investment than shopping in FA in terms of production and financial flexibility.

Minasian would have to have lightning strike twice and find a way to acquire a closer in a deal almost as good as he had last year.

[totdprods]

We've also seen really, really good teams fail to win in the playoffs because they lacked that lockdown closer. It would suck for the Angels to make the right moves this year to shore up the rotation only to watch it crumble late in a game. 

Locking in Iglesias now might be a step early, but it'd be a lot easier rolling the dice and getting him now rather than trying to solve that problem later.

[AngelsLakersFan]

If the Angels are serious about retaining him they should make him a qualifying offer. If they aren't serious about retaining him they should've traded him for prospects at the trade deadline.

So obviously what will happen is the Angels won't make him a QO and he will sign with the Yankees for exactly the contract we all expected the Angels to offer him while Minasian talks about how the team "made a real effort" to re-sign him.

[AngelsLakersFan]

1 minute ago, totdprods said:

We've also seen really, really good teams fail to win in the playoffs because they lacked that lockdown closer. It would suck for the Angels to make the right moves this year to shore up the rotation only to watch it crumble late in a game. 

Locking in Iglesias now might be a step early, but it'd be a lot easier rolling the dice and getting him now rather than trying to solve that problem later.

We have money to spend, and we need good players. Iglesias is a good player who costs money. Seems pretty obvious.

[totdprods]

Just now, AngelsLakersFan said:

We have money to spend, and we need good players. Iglesias is a good player who costs money. Seems pretty obvious.

It's priority #1 to me, honestly. I like Detmers, Suarez, and Sandoval enough that if Iglesias came before every other SP, I still think it'd be the right move. 

[Torridd]

18 hours ago, Trendon said:

To begin, Raisel Iglesias was simply outstanding in 2021. It was a joy to watch him close out games, relatively stress free. He had some insanely dominant outings.

That being said, I pose the question: Is re-signing Raisel Iglesias the smart move?

For starters, he's likely going to command a 3-4 year deal with an AAV from $14-$20M. If he performs like he did last season, he's worth the money. But there's no guarantee that he does that. If he slips off, is he worth the large contract he deserves and will get? Then, you factor in that the Angels only have so much money to spend. Is utilizing a third or almost half the budget on a closer the proper move?

We need his talent and he paid his dues. This was a horrid season and he was one of the shining lights of it. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

13 minutes ago, totdprods said:

It's priority #1 to me, honestly. I like Detmers, Suarez, and Sandoval enough that if Iglesias came before every other SP, I still think it'd be the right move. 

I mean, if you aren't spending money on Iglesias, who are you spending it on? Is that any less of a risk?

[totdprods]

1 minute ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

I mean, if you aren't spending money on Iglesias, who are you spending it on? Is that any less of a risk?

Just in terms of prioritizing Iglesias vs. SP. I'd rather see them sign Iglesias over the top SPs (with SP added by trade/mid-tier) than focusing on top dollar SPs and lesser closers. 

The bullpen is that important to me.

[Torridd]

3 hours ago, Stradling said:

They could trade for another closer.  Look he won’t be perfect next year, he just won’t.  He wasn’t perfect this year, he had blown saves.  If we get a league average closer that converts 90% of saves compared to 95% for a dominant closer the difference is a game or two.  You can get that person for well under $18 million.  Use the rest to create more save opportunities by getting better pitching to get you to the 9th.  

But Strad you have to find that person. Right now we have the bird in the hand.

[Torridd]

20 minutes ago, totdprods said:

Just in terms of prioritizing Iglesias vs. SP. I'd rather see them sign Iglesias over the top SPs (with SP added by trade/mid-tier) than focusing on top dollar SPs and lesser closers. 

The bullpen is that important to me.

Yes, and as bad as our starting pitching has been, our relief has caused us more agita during this playoff dearth. 

[tdawg87]

We can get away with having an average rotation if we have a lockdown bullpen.