Angels remain over luxury tax, but Minasian says it will not impact 2024 spending

[Stradling]

2 minutes ago, BTH said:

I don’t know how players will feel about the Angels waiving all those players. But you’ve created a scenario where they could be upset when you didn’t have to.

Ok, so let’s play off of that logic.  Then I am sure they would have created a scenario where they could be upset if they sold off players at the deadline instead of buying.  Right?  

[Jeff Fletcher]

25 minutes ago, BTH said:

It was a bad look to waive all those players, but the upside was that you could get under the luxury tax and gain those benefits.

But since they didn’t get under the luxury tax, the benefits are lost and you are stuck with the bad look of waiving all those players.

Now, I’m worried that the team will have more trouble attracting players. AND, they have to pay a higher tax in the future + they get a worse pick if Ohtani walks.

It’s the worst of both worlds.

I think you’re over estimating the downside to this move. 
 

I think a lot more players would have looked negatively on the Angels if they’d been sellers when 3 games out or if they’d put Max Stassi on the restricted list (which literally takes money from him, as opposed to having guys keep their money and change teams)

[BTH]

4 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I think you’re over estimating the downside to this move. 
 

I think a lot more players would have looked negatively on the Angels if they’d been sellers when 3 games out or if they’d put Max Stassi on the restricted list (which literally takes money from him, as opposed to having guys keep their money and change teams)

I’m comparing how they would’ve been viewed if they waived those guys vs. if they hadn’t waived those guys.

I’m not comparing if they waived those guys vs. being sellers or putting Stassi on the RL.

Because, yeah, selling or putting Stassi on the RL is a worse look than waiving those guys.

[BTH]

11 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Ok, so let’s play off of that logic.  Then I am sure they would have created a scenario where they could be upset if they sold off players at the deadline instead of buying.  Right?  

I’m saying they could’ve just kept all the players and not waived them after they bought at the deadline.

[Stradling]

But if we are worrying about the sensitivity of the players then they are the same.  

[Dtwncbad]

My buddy tried to save up $1000 last month but he ended up only saving $950.  What an idiot.  It’s a really bad look.

[Jeff Fletcher]

1 minute ago, BTH said:

I’m comparing how they would’ve been viewed if they waived those guys vs. if they hadn’t waived those guys.

I’m not comparing if they waived those guys vs. being sellers or putting Stassi on the RL.

Because, yeah, selling or putting Stassi on the RL is a worse look than waiving those guys.

And my point is those are both moves that a lot of people would have endorsed without caring about the players feelings. So let’s not go too far caring about their feelings only when it suits the narrative we want. 
 

Also, every single player in the clubhouse knows that all of this waiver stuff happened for one reason: because they played like crap. 

[BTH]

Just now, Jeff Fletcher said:

And my point is those are both moves that a lot of people would have endorsed without caring about the players feelings. So let’s not go too far caring about their feelings only when it suits the narrative we want. 

In those scenarios, people might not care about their feelings because the Angels get the benefit of dipping under the luxury tax.

Just now, Jeff Fletcher said:

Also, every single player in the clubhouse knows that all of this waiver stuff happened for one reason: because they played like crap. 

But what do players outside the org think? Because those are the guys you have to recruit to join the team.

[BTH]

6 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

My buddy tried to save up $1000 last month but he ended up only saving $950.  What an idiot.  It’s a really bad look.

No one cares about Arte saving money.

The bad look is player’s perception of the team and not getting the benefits of dipping under the luxury tax (better comp pick, less tax)

And I only care about having the smaller tax because it increases the chances that Arte goes over. And having a higher tax decreases the chances that he goes over.

[Jeff Fletcher]

2 minutes ago, BTH said:

In those scenarios, people might not care about their feelings because the Angels get the benefit of dipping under the luxury tax.

But what do players outside the org think? Because those are the guys you have to recruit to join the team.

They understand that the moves happened because the Angels players played like crap. They are not stupid. 

[Jeff Fletcher]

3 minutes ago, BTH said:

No one cares about Arte saving money.

The bad look is player’s perception of the team and not getting the benefits of dipping under the luxury tax (better comp pick, less tax)

And I only care about having the smaller tax because it increases the chances that Arte goes over. And having a higher tax decreases the chances that he goes over.

Also, Arte clearly agreed to go over the tax in the first place so he must be Ok with it. When he went over on July 26 it was clearly with the intent of keeping Ohtani, which likely also would have meant going over for the second straight year in 2024. 

[Blarg]

Just now, BTH said:

In those scenarios, people might not care about their feelings because the Angels get the benefit of dipping under the luxury tax.

But what do players outside the org think? Because those are the guys you have to recruit to join the team.

Look, if you are a player that was traded to a team that failed in their attempts at getting to the playoffs, or was a one year contract like Renfroe, you are probably thankful you got a second shot with another team. No money lost, you're still playing, the only difference is the home team locker.

And if you are a player coming up on free agency you at least know that one team isn't going to chain you to mediocre outcome for a season. You are beating this drum as if it has any significance. It doesn't. 

[Blarg]

Hey, @BTH, the Yankees, Mets, Tigers and White Sox all placed a player on waivers. Only one was selected. Do you think a free agent is going to blacklist those four teams this off season? 

[BTH]

1 minute ago, Blarg said:

You are beating this drum as if it has any significance. It doesn't. 

I now realize that after Jeff, who speaks with players almost daily, said players understand why they made the moves.

[BTH]

1 minute ago, Blarg said:

Hey, @BTH, the Yankees, Mets, Tigers and White Sox all placed a player on waivers. Only one was selected. Do you think a free agent is going to blacklist those four teams this off season? 

One player is different than six.

But as I just said, Jeff convinced me that it doesn’t matter.

I was wrong in thinking it might be a negative.

[BTH]

6 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

Also, Arte clearly agreed to go over the tax in the first place so he must be Ok with it. When he went over on July 26 it was clearly with the intent of keeping Ohtani, which likely also would have meant going over for the second straight year in 2024. 

Maybe, but they still could sign Ohtani to a mega deal and not go over the tax.

[Stradling]

@BTH I know this won’t sit well with you, but sometimes you have to realize that guys who’ve been following the sport for 40+ years have a perspective or context that might be able to give you the same conclusion that Fletcher just provided.  There are a generation of Angel fans that truly look at things through one lens, that lens is Arte is garbage and the devil and so any decision made that benefits Arte must be awful and we have to then make up scenarios in our heads that make it even worse than it is. Then there is a generation of Angel fans who look at things a little more nuanced.  You don’t have to hear it straight from the reporter for it to be valuable.  

[BTH]

11 minutes ago, Stradling said:

You don’t have to hear it straight from the reporter for it to be valuable.  

That’s fair.

I’ll try to keep that in mind going forward.

[khouse]

12 hours ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

If the Angels had put Stassi on the restricted list, Arte would come off looking even worse.

Well...to be fair Jeff...unless the conditions the Angel's minor leaguers faced (& how they were treated) were completely overblown, I'm not sure many would be surprised by such a move...

[greginpsca]

All those conceptions will be gone once the season is over.

[T.G.]

54 minutes ago, greginpsca said:

All those conceptions will be gone once the season is over.

So... you're saying they're screwed. 

[Chuck]

On 9/1/2023 at 7:57 PM, mmc said:

 

@Dave Saltzer

[Chuck]

Fact Check: FALSE

Did Arte & Angels GM Perry Minasian ever sit down & set a budget & plan for the 2024 roster? If so, was it capped at 30-40 million & Perry used it all up on relievers?

Or did they pivot & decide they'll wait until the '25 free agent class to spend? Maybe they wanted to see how the young guys perform in '24 & see if the veterans can stay healthy & provide production before shaping the roster beyond this season.

[Blarg]

I think it was a combination of not seeing an avenue to get a season changing player and needing to find out what kind of team the young players will turn out to be. Next season's market has more variety that could fill holes that are exposed this season. Budget flexibility can also make the Angels better capable of a mid season acquisition in case this team jells a season early. 

[tdawg87]

Arte altered the deal.