POLL: Perry Minasian Trade Deadline Grade

[ScottT]

5 hours ago, mmc said:

Funny how many people that always call on this team to sell end up hating what "selling" ends up looking like

Humor isn't what it used to be.

How are we supposed to trust the process?   This organization is a bit of a mess.  At best.

[ScottT]

2 hours ago, Inside Pitch said:

"We'll see".   Oh boy!

Oof.  The whole I have to do a better job thing, too

Oy vey

[REDneck]

So what does this fucker do next year?

[ScottT]

1 minute ago, REDneck said:

So what does this fucker do next year?

He's gonna get fired

[Second Base]

7 hours ago, aznhockeyguy said:

I beg to differ, if Arte gave Perry to spend where the Mets and Dodgers spend next season, they can definitely contend.  The problem is that Moreno isn't letting Perry spend above a certain amount.  When the big boys spend 300 million and you're spending 60-65% of that, then you need to beat them in other areas like scouting and development.  Unfortunately, Arte doesn't invest in that either and they're saddled with large contracts for 3-4 players. 

In the same post you complain about how Arte didn't spend, AND that the Angels are saddled with large contracts. I'm not sure anything he does will make you happy. 

[totdprods]

7 hours ago, Docwaukee said:

'I have to build a better roster next year' 

So I'll trade my best defensive OFer who probably has the best chance to improve at the plate of all my young players and a closer who has a really good chance at rebounding that I didn't want to trade last year when he didn't have a high salary because I wanted to keep him.  So the team makes a commitment to him for four years and pitches him halfway through his first year.  To save money for what? 

And what did we get for our main expiring asset?   a fourth OFer because hey.  proximity.  

This really drives home the point I'm trying to make. 

We went from needing, at a minimum, two SPs, two IFs, a back-up catcher, a couple relievers, maybe 1B/platoon help, and at least one starting OF and probably one 4th OF to...
Needing all of those exact same things still plus another OF now and back-end relief help on top of that. And we freed up $16m to do that, which, fine, but won't come close (and is probably earmarked for an Ohtani offer anyways), without making a single move that netted anyone who filled one of those needs. 

Maybe O'Hoppe emerges next year (he'll need to be on the 40 anyways, maybe Davidson becomes a solid pen arm/#5 this fall, maybe Moniak suddenly becomes a good 4th OF, but all those aren't very different from what we already had to work with). 

It's why, if we were going to trade an OF, someone like Ward might have made more sense. With his production this year it seems he would've been likelier to bank 2-3 prospects, maybe one of which already finding success in the majors, that could immediately help 2023, with the hope Marsh still developed to "replace" Ward.

Just a weird deadline strategy.

[Second Base]

7 hours ago, Docwaukee said:

'I have to build a better roster next year' 

So I'll trade my best defensive OFer who probably has the best chance to improve at the plate of all my young players and a closer who has a really good chance at rebounding that I didn't want to trade last year when he didn't have a high salary because I wanted to keep him.  So the team makes a commitment to him for four years and pitches him halfway through his first year.  To save money for what? 

And what did we get for our main expiring asset?   a fourth OFer because hey.  proximity.  

Even though we disagree on this, I admit, you make a good point. There's not a lot of logic in Perry's moves.  But I do think what was good in 2021 isn't necessarily the same in 2022. 

[Jason]

11 hours ago, Lou said:

You guys were clamoring for trades. Enjoy the day.

I think many were expecting other teams to way overpay for the Angels mediocre players 

[Jason]

5 minutes ago, totdprods said:

This really drives home the point I'm trying to make. 

We went from needing, at a minimum, two SPs, two IFs, a back-up catcher, a couple relievers, maybe 1B/platoon help, and at least one starting OF and probably one 4th OF to...
Needing all of those exact same things still plus another OF now and back-end relief help on top of that. And we freed up $16m to do that, which, fine, but won't come close (and is probably earmarked for an Ohtani offer anyways), without making a single move that netted anyone who filled one of those needs. 

Maybe O'Hoppe emerges next year (he'll need to be on the 40 anyways, maybe Davidson becomes a solid pen arm/#5 this fall, maybe Moniak suddenly becomes a good 4th OF, but all those aren't very different from what we already had to work with). 

It's why, if we were going to trade an OF, someone like Ward might have made more sense. With his production this year it seems he would've been likelier to bank 2-3 prospects, maybe one of which already finding success in the majors, that could immediately help 2023, with the hope Marsh still developed to "replace" Ward.

Just a weird deadline strategy.

Sounds like they need a whole new team 

[UtahHalo]

Maybe it's becoming clear Perry is in over his head. Going into this season he spent around $60 million on free agents. That's as much as some teams' entire payrolls. Of the signings, it's not clear to me that any of them were materially better than guys that could have been called up from the Bees. Of course, it's easy for me to hurl potshots with the benefit of hindsight. But it's the GM's job to evaluate talent and assemble a roster and so far the team he's put together is the same or worse than teams which are intentionally bad or in aggressive rebuilding mode.

[wopphil]

C.

I like the Marsh trade, I’ll give him a B+/A- on that one. 

The Iglesias trade was fine. I was surprised he could find a taker for Iglesias’ entire contract, and he got a potentially useful piece in return. I’d give the trade a B. 

The Syndergaard trade looks bad to me. I’d have preferred a higher floor, lower ceiling guy who is more likely to stick on a major league roster. I’d give this trade a D. 

[T.G.]

9 hours ago, arch stanton said:

Created a path for all of Marsh, Adell, and Ward to get regular playing time even if one of them will do it for a different team

Got something for a pending FA who may still sign here next year

Cut loose an expensive closer who seems to check out mentally way too often for my taste

The return isn't really ML ready talent but there's still an off season to work on that

This sums up my thoughts as well.

While many are disappointed that these moves didn't improve the roster for 2023 - it did give the team more flexibility to build a better roster for 2023.  I'm good with that.

This team is a work in progress.  Get used to it for the time being.  It's going to require Minasian to pivot every now and then.  Maybe even a lot more than anyone is used to.

Minasian hasn't been perfect, but he's done some major things...

Minasian cut Pujols loose.  He cut Upton loose.  He dumped Maddon.  He gave Ward a path to become an every day player.  He's brought in some solid analytical minds (according to some of you) for the front office.  He drafted nothing but pitchers last year to improve the organization's pitching depth.  I'm sure there's more...

He's in the middle of year 2. 

I have no idea what the future holds.  And like I always say... it's out of my control anyway. 

The upcoming off season will be critical for all the obvious reasons.  I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and Arte too.   It's my choice to hope for the best.

 

 

[AngelsFaninGA]

B. Purely in a vacuum, they sold the assets that they needed to. That said, it doesn;t look like there's any intention of properly orchestrating a rebuild and there's no long term vision beyond this vague annual "retool"

[Jason]

58 minutes ago, wopphil said:

C.

I like the Marsh trade, I’ll give him a B+/A- on that one. 

The Iglesias trade was fine. I was surprised he could find a taker for Iglesias’ entire contract, and he got a potentially useful piece in return. I’d give the trade a B. 

The Syndergaard trade looks bad to me. I’d have preferred a higher floor, lower ceiling guy who is more likely to stick on a major league roster. I’d give this trade a D. 

They weren't going to get a high floor type guy for 2 months of an average pitcher well past his prime. 

[Adam]

I don't know that Ohtani's value will ever be higher. Disappointing to me they couldn't ship him for a massive haul. They're really going to suck for at least the next few years - probably longer with Trout and Rendon on the books at huge numbers. If they extend Ohtani we're really fucked

[totdprods]

10 minutes ago, Jason said:

They weren't going to get a high floor type guy for 2 months of an average pitcher well past his prime. 

And by the time they traded him, every team had already addressed the need Syndergaard would have filled. Twins with Mahle, Braves with Odorizzi, Yankees with Montas, Cardinals with Quintana and Montgomery...Toronto was the only other suitor who didn't fill a rotation need, and they opted to do pen and offense improvements instead.

If anything, Perry held out too long. Maybe he could've gotten slightly more if he pulled the trigger before those moves were made.

[wopphil]

15 minutes ago, Adam said:

I don't know that Ohtani's value will ever be higher. Disappointing to me they couldn't ship him for a massive haul. They're really going to suck for at least the next few years - probably longer with Trout and Rendon on the books at huge numbers. If they extend Ohtani we're really fucked

I am a bit of this belief as well. I think they could have quickly helped the rebuild process if they could have obtained a Soto-like package for Ohtani (which I understand might not have been possible). 

[Chuck]

B & C grades seem like the consensus thus far. 

[mmc]

I weirdly both like and hate this deadline at the same time.  I like in that I see a rebuild as this teams only option, but my preferred option is still that we increase payroll to seriously try to win.  So I like in that I want a rebuild and we sold beyond the bare minimum, but I was still holding out a sliver of hope that we would expand the budget and really make a push in 2023 to keep Ohtani, but the Raisel trade ensures that won’t be happening, because evidently Minasian is already worried about his offseason budget.  So it’s an F a from me from the standpoint that I think it’s a joke that we aren’t more serious about winning, but since this thread is about Minasian, I’m more than fine with rebuilding and selling if he knows this won’t be the case.  

[totdprods]

16 minutes ago, mmc said:

but my preferred option is still that we increase payroll to seriously try to win

we keep doing that and it keeps not working. Not that I totally disagree with you. 

But spending in free agency has done jack for us for about a decade now, yet we try it every year. It's a weak FA class too. I don't think we can just spend and have it work this winter. Spending only nets you so many players...maybe 3-4 good ones if everything breaks right...and we need marked improvement from 10-12ish roster spots, by my count. 

[mmc]

7 minutes ago, totdprods said:

we keep doing that and it keeps not working. Not that I totally disagree with you. 

But spending in free agency has done jack for us for about a decade now, yet we try it every year. It's a weak FA class too. I don't think we can just spend and have it work this winter. Spending only nets you so many players...maybe 3-4 good ones if everything breaks right...and we need marked improvement from 10-12ish roster spots, by my count. 

When was the last time we had a dramatic increase in payroll from the previous season?  Seems like the budget has been relatively stagnant.  Increasing payroll also doesn’t exclusively mean free agent signings, it also gives us more options for trades

[totdprods]

28 minutes ago, mmc said:

When was the last time we had a dramatic increase in payroll from the previous season?  Seems like the budget has been relatively stagnant.  Increasing payroll also doesn’t exclusively mean free agent signings, it also gives us more options for trades

Why does it matter how much they increase it if the $20m-$60m they already spend each offseason doesn't do anything? We committed $100m to relievers this winter and it did nothing for us, to the point where we dumped half of it.

I get what you're saying, but at the same time, it isn't the solution. Every time Arte has spent big money, it's blown up in his face, so why keep doing it? Almost every single big ticket spend - Wilson, Hamilton, Pujols, Rendon, Syndergaard, Iglesias, Upton, Weaver, even Trout at this rate - have failed to live up to the money. So why do the same for Swanson, Contreras, Turner, Judge, deGrom, whoever is out there this winter? They'll be different? Do we know that? And I get that the money they have spent was kind of obviously bad for many of us, and a lot of it is Arte shooting himself in the foot, but, spending big in free agency tends to not work out more than it does, by a wide margin. We wanted Corbin. Look at him now. It's not just the Angels. 

It's why I started accepting the idea of rebuilding by trading some of our good non-Ohtani players and trying to emulate what Seattle did after 2019. They purged some solid value, added a lot of good prospects on top of a farm that was starting to rise, and Dipoto continued to build on that by trading some of those players they acquired two years ago for guys like Castillo and Winker and Suarez. And I loathe Jerry Dipoto. 

But it's easy to see a bit of parallel. We do have the core of a youngish, talented team. There are two otherworldly talents here. There's a second-tier of potentially really good (Sandoval, Ward, maybe Detmers) to solid (maybe Fletcher, Walsh, Rengifo, Suarez) to should be good players (Rendon, Stassi, Tepera, Loup, maybe a resurgent Adell). But after that it drops off fast, and that leaves half of a 26-man roster up for grabs. Spending big money can't fix half a roster. Rushing our kids or counting on guys like Adell and Marsh to immediately produce is proving to not be realistic. So how do you find essentially 10-13 'good' (as in better than Sierra, Thomas, Gosselin, Suzuki, Wade, Rojas, MacKinnon) players? 

It will have to be a combination on counting on some growth within (I feel good about the rotation, I do, at least depth-wise, and maybe the bullpen), I think at least one key 'sell' trade, and, as to your point, spending, but I don't think just spending - and spending more than usual - will address the vast desert of needs that are present and threatening 2023. If that is our actual goal. I don't like/want to consider the notion of trading someone like a Sandoval or Ward, but it would help, IMO, better evenly distribute some of the means of acquiring talent, rather than constantly banking on FA/cheap waiver claims/internal promotions. Trades tend to be a little safer and more direct in the talent your acquire. Free agency and promotions feel far more of a crapshoot, yet those are the only two solutions we do every offseason.

I like our chances of winning a trade better than I do winning in free agent signings. Minasian has traded well so far. The first Iglesias trade was genius. Cobb trade was good - Jones was released. These trades have been good. Janson Junk might be a decent get for Heaney. He's tended to trade well. If we win a theoretical Ward trade that nets 2-3 MLB-ready prospects/players, even if they're semi-unproven, it could solve two glaring 2023 holes and spare us from seeing guys like Gosselin and Lagares and perhaps at least give us guys like a Cavan Biggio equivalent or two at positions of need. At which point we'd just need to hit on a decent FA corner outfielder - which feels like it shouldn't be that hard to manage.

 

Edited August 3, 2022 by totdprods

[mmc]

16 minutes ago, totdprods said:

Why does it matter how much they increase it if the $20m-$60m they already spend each offseason doesn't do anything? We committed $100m to relievers this winter and it did nothing for us, to the point where we dumped half of it.

I get what you're saying, but at the same time, it isn't the solution. Every time Arte has spent big money, it's blown up in his face, so why keep doing it? Almost every single big ticket spend - Wilson, Hamilton, Pujols, Rendon, Syndergaard, Iglesias, Upton, Weaver, even Trout at this rate - have failed to live up to the money. So why do the same for Swanson, Contreras, Turner, Judge, deGrom, whoever is out there this winter? They'll be different? Do we know that? And I get that the money they have spent was kind of obviously bad for many of us, and a lot of it is Arte shooting himself in the foot, but, spending big in free agency tends to not work out more than it does, by a wide margin. We wanted Corbin. Look at him now. It's not just the Angels. 

It's why I started accepting the idea of rebuilding by trading some of our good non-Ohtani players and trying to emulate what Seattle did after 2019. They purged some solid value, added a lot of good prospects on top of a farm that was starting to rise, and Dipoto continued to build on that by trading some of those players they acquired two years ago for guys like Castillo and Winker and Suarez. And I loathe Jerry Dipoto. 

But it's easy to see a bit of parallel. We do have the core of a youngish, talented team. There are two otherworldly talents here. There's a second-tier of potentially really good (Sandoval, Ward, maybe Detmers) to solid (maybe Fletcher, Walsh, Rengifo, Suarez) to should be good players (Rendon, Stassi, Tepera, Loup, maybe a resurgent Adell). But after that it drops off fast, and that leaves half of a 26-man roster up for grabs. Spending big money can't fix half a roster. Rushing our kids or counting on guys like Adell and Marsh to immediately produce is proving to not be realistic. So how do you find essentially 10-13 'good' (as in better than Sierra, Thomas, Gosselin, Suzuki, Wade, Rojas, MacKinnon) players? 

It will have to be a combination on counting on some growth within (I feel good about the rotation, I do, at least depth-wise, and maybe the bullpen), I think at least one key 'sell' trade, and, as to your point, spending, but I don't think just spending - and spending more than usual - will address the vast desert of needs that are present and threatening 2023. If that is our actual goal. I don't like/want to consider the notion of trading someone like a Sandoval or Ward, but it would help, IMO, better evenly distribute some of the means of acquiring talent, rather than constantly banking on FA/cheap waiver claims/internal promotions. Trades tend to be a little safer and more direct in the talent your acquire. Free agency and promotions feel far more of a crapshoot, yet those are the only two solutions we do every offseason.

I like our chances of winning a trade better than I do winning in free agent signings. Minasian has traded well so far. The first Iglesias trade was genius. Cobb trade was good - Jones was released. These trades have been good. Janson Junk might be a decent get for Heaney. He's tended to trade well. If we win a theoretical Ward trade that nets 2-3 MLB-ready prospects/players, even if they're semi-unproven, it could solve two glaring 2023 holes and spare us from seeing guys like Gosselin and Lagares and perhaps at least give us guys like a Cavan Biggio equivalent or two at positions of need. At which point we'd just need to hit on a decent FA corner outfielder - which feels like it shouldn't be that hard to manage.

 

I get all of this, I’ve said before my preference is a rebuild, but I’d still be much more encouraged by a budget increase than hovering around $190 million again

[totdprods]

18 minutes ago, mmc said:

I get all of this, I’ve said before my preference is a rebuild, but I’d still be much more encouraged by a budget increase than hovering around $190 million again

It badly needs to be a mix. It’s been hard for us to ever rebuild because we 1) have an expectation to compete every year and 2) rarely have anything to ever sell off in a rebuild 

I think this year and headed into 2023 offers, for the first time, a chance to challenge those two points.

They don’t need to tear down and trade everybody. And maybe they need to think more about 2024 instead of dumping all assets into one-year deals to try and win the next year as they’ve been doing.

This winter, flip one or two from Ward, Sandoval, Adell, Barria, Rengifo, Stassi, Walsh, Fletcher, Suarez, Quijada. Any of those guys should net at least a piece as intriguing as they themselves once were or currently are at a minimum, and a few of them should net a whole lot more to address a couple areas of need. Maybe not players who will absolutely make 2023, but could by 2024. Bank on a couple youngsters still, sure. Sign one premium player to fill a need, maybe take some salary off another team to fill another, and then don’t be afraid to spend more in the mid-tier, specifically corner outfield and maybe a MIF spot or 1B since it’s usually cheap. And do it with an eye a year ahead instead of the upcoming year, and maybe we surprise. Maybe it’ll help some of the youngsters with some pressure. 

Edited August 3, 2022 by totdprods

[BTH]

I gave him a B.

I like the Marsh for O'Hoppe trade because I think it allows them to more reasonably address their position player depth issues in 2023 and beyond. It's harder to find an average to above-average catcher than an average to above-average outfielder.

I wish they ate Syndergaard's money for this season to increase the return, but Arte may not have given Perry a choice so I'm not gonna dock Perry to hard on that.

I'm a big fan of them clearing Iglesias' entire future salary off the books. I didn't think they'd be able to do it, but they did, and they also got an interesting pitcher in return. Iglesias drop in velo scares me and having $16M tied up in a reliever scares me when you aren't spending like the Yankees, Dodgers, or Mets.