The Official Los Angeles Angels 2023-2024 Hot Stove Offseason Thread

[Angel Oracle]

If it is the first year opt out that Moreno refuses to give, I understand that.

Would already lose a pick to sign Snell.

Then doubling down by giving an opt out after 2024, when at this rate he won’t debut until late April?

[Stradling]

I am sure it’s coming down to opt outs and money. Snell will end up here. 

[DMVol]

1 hour ago, Chuck said:

Does anyone else feel like it's another take it or leave it offer to Boras from Arte like he did with Adrian Beltre, that he won't budge on the money/years/opt outs and that's why nothing has been done, and I believe nothing will be done here. 

All Arte had to do is match another year with Beltre and the Hall of Famer would have been ours. Just feels like he's going to F up this one with all three of these FA's still on the market (Snell, Monty and JD). 

I've been in the "sit tight and let the young guys develop" mode this offseason but I've changed my thinking.  If Snell and JD Martinez can be had on manageable deals, considerably less than they wanted at the beginning of the offseason, then I'm in for it.  It doesn't necessarily make us serious playoff contenders but it takes you from "no chance" to at least "maybe on the periphery of the wild card".  But, like you, I fully expect Arte to mess it up.  His timing is maddening. He'll spend foolishly (Rendon, Pujols, Hamilton) and then refuse to spend when it seemingly does make sense (now).

[Dtwncbad]

Adding a couple of good players really doesn’t interrupt “letting the young guys develop.”  More leadership/experience around them, and winning more games also helps players develop into the right kind of players.

Edited March 13 by Dtwncbad

[Erstad Grit]

13 minutes ago, Stradling said:

I am sure it’s coming down to opt outs and money. Snell will end up here. 

I think both do, it just feels problematic that snell and Martinez are losing ST time which might impact the season. 

[Angels 1961]

6 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Adding a couple of good players really doesn’t interrupt “letting the young guys develop.”  If JDMore leadership/experience around them, and winning more games also helps players develop into the right kind of players.

If JD is signed it takes away at bats from Adell and Moniak so it does interrupt seeing what young players can do. I'm against signing JD, Snell is OK because depth at starters is so thin. 

[Jay]

Teams must not like Snell/Montgomery that much otherwise they would be in camp.

[Chitown27Fan]

I think teams like them just not as much as Boras thinks they should tho. 

[Chuck]

Wayne Randazzo talked at length about adding Blake Snell to the Angels rotation in our podcast.

 

[DMVol]

35 minutes ago, Angels 1961 said:

If JD is signed it takes away at bats from Adell and Moniak so it does interrupt seeing what young players can do. I'm against signing JD, Snell is OK because depth at starters is so thin. 

JD Davis would be cheaper and wouldn't necessarily take AB's away from Adell and Moniak. 

[Dtwncbad]

46 minutes ago, Angels 1961 said:

If JD is signed it takes away at bats from Adell and Moniak so it does interrupt seeing what young players can do. I'm against signing JD, Snell is OK because depth at starters is so thin. 

I very much doubt Adell and Moniak would be regularly used as DH.  One will be a starter and the other will be the 4th OF.  You also have Hicks, so something already has to give.

Martinez doesn’t really change that.

 

Edited March 13 by Dtwncbad

[DMVol]

3 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

I very much doubt Adell and Moniak would be regularly used as DH.  One will be a starter and the other will be the 4th OF.  You also have Hicks, so something already has to give.

Martinez doesn’t really change that.

 

I haven't been big on Martinez but, if it's a one year deal, that might be different. I've liked the idea of leaving the DH spot open but if you could get a proven middle of the order bat for a year, and we sign Snell, things get interesting.  What was going to be a "developmental year" becomes somewhat intriguing.  

[Dtwncbad]

33 minutes ago, DMVol said:

I haven't been big on Martinez but, if it's a one year deal, that might be different. I've liked the idea of leaving the DH spot open but if you could get a proven middle of the order bat for a year, and we sign Snell, things get interesting.  What was going to be a "developmental year" becomes somewhat intriguing.  

I wouldn’t want to bring in a veteran shortstop or catcher or first baseman because I want the in house young guys to play.

But I am wide open to bringing in Martinez even if that forces the Angels to sort out Adell/Moniak/Hicks.

If Moniak and Adell are clicking, then you dump Hicks.

So what?

[Vlad27Trout27]

at this point just offer Snell 35 mil, 25mil, and 20 mil, with opt-out each year. Take it or leave it. 

[jsnpritchett]

1 minute ago, Vlad27Trout27 said:

at this point just offer Snell 35 mil, 25mil, and 20 mil, with opt-out each year. Take it or leave it. 

This is exactly the type of deal the Angels should NOT offer Snell, in my opinion. There's zero upside in this deal for the Angels.

[HBAngel13]

I have been against adding Snell on a mega deal, but if he could be had on a three year deal, we should be all over that. I don’t want his contract extending past 2026 when Rendons contract drops off. 

Martinez is a tough one. In a vacuum his bat makes us better, but if his presence prevents us from using the DH to keep Trout and Rendon fresh in addition to pushing Adell out of regular PT, I don’t think the juice is worth the squeeze.  Especially if that would inhibit our ability to shop for another starter from next years FA pool.  

Even with a Snell and Martinez we still need a ton of things to break our way to contend. 

One long shot possibility would be to bring Martinez in and then move Ward in a package for someone like Cease. 

[Vlad27Trout27]

9 minutes ago, jsnpritchett said:

This is exactly the type of deal the Angels should NOT offer Snell, in my opinion. There's zero upside in this deal for the Angels.

I have to disagree. 

it's a short term deal. 3 years is  good deal considering Snell's age and injury history. 

there's enough money left where you can offer Snell that 35 mil year one, and work out the other 2 years without have issues with money. 

if he decides to opt-out it works for us aswell with the crop of free agents next year. If he gets hurt or underperforms.... well we out of that contract in 3 years instead of 5 or 6 years. 

[AngelsFanSince86]

2 minutes ago, Vlad27Trout27 said:

I have to disagree. 

it's a short term deal. 3 years is  good deal considering Snell's age and injury history. 

there's enough money left where you can offer Snell that 35 mil year one, and work out the other 2 years without have issues with money. 

if he decides to opt-out it works for us aswell with the crop of free agents next year. If he gets hurt or underperforms.... well we out of that contract in 3 years instead of 5 or 6 years. 

Yeah, but the Angels have to give up a draft pick. 2024 is NOT the year for Angels to go all in. They most likely won't contend. This is a building year. Giving up a draft pick in a year they most likely won't contend only for him to opt out for 2025 where they might actually be able to contend is a really bad move. 

I'm for signing Snell, but really hope it's for at 3 years no opt outs. It gives them an ace for a few years and gives something to build on next offseason.

Snell isn't "the piece" because the Angels need more than one "piece". They need to see what they have this year with Neto, O'Hoppe, Schanuel, Moniak, and Adell. Then they need to adjust accordingly next offseason. Adding Snell for a few years makes sense because it's building towards something. Giving an opt out after one year is essentially going all in on this year. Which makes zero sense.

[Stradling]

38 minutes ago, Vlad27Trout27 said:

at this point just offer Snell 35 mil, 25mil, and 20 mil, with opt-out each year. Take it or leave it. 

No way. You don’t give him an opt out after year one if it cost you a pick. 

[jsnpritchett]

3 minutes ago, Stradling said:

No way. You don’t give him an opt out after year one if it cost you a pick. 

[DMVol]

4 minutes ago, Stradling said:

No way. You don’t give him an opt out after year one if it cost you a pick. 

Particularly if he won't be ready to start the season...

[jsnpritchett]

25 minutes ago, Vlad27Trout27 said:

I have to disagree. 

it's a short term deal. 3 years is  good deal considering Snell's age and injury history. 

there's enough money left where you can offer Snell that 35 mil year one, and work out the other 2 years without have issues with money. 

if he decides to opt-out it works for us aswell with the crop of free agents next year. If he gets hurt or underperforms.... well we out of that contract in 3 years instead of 5 or 6 years. 

 

18 minutes ago, AngelsFanSince86 said:

Yeah, but the Angels have to give up a draft pick. 2024 is NOT the year for Angels to go all in. They most likely won't contend. This is a building year. Giving up a draft pick in a year they most likely won't contend only for him to opt out for 2025 where they might actually be able to contend is a really bad move. 

I'm for signing Snell, but really hope it's for at 3 years no opt outs. It gives them an ace for a few years and gives something to build on next offseason.

Snell isn't "the piece" because the Angels need more than one "piece". They need to see what they have this year with Neto, O'Hoppe, Schanuel, Moniak, and Adell. Then they need to adjust accordingly next offseason. Adding Snell for a few years makes sense because it's building towards something. Giving an opt out after one year is essentially going all in on this year. Which makes zero sense.

@AngelsFanSince86, your response is pretty much exactly what mine would have been, so thank you for saving me some time.  Ha ha. Absolute insanity to give him an opt-out after this year. 

[Pancake Bear]

3 hours ago, Stradling said:

I am sure it’s coming down to opt outs and money. Snell will end up here. 

Snell wanted a long term deal, but reportedly he's now open to an opt out deal. Presumably that would involve an opt out after year one on any contract. I'm assuming Arte doesn't want to do an opt out deal because those aren't great for the team. We probably are wanting a 3ish year deal with no opt outs, but that obviously is less appetizing to Snell/Boras since their goal is for him to have a big season and re-enter the market next season. 

Personally, I'm less confident Snell ends up here. I could certainly believe they're interested, I just don't see a deal that is likely to work unless we give in on opt-outs, which I'm skeptical about. JD Martinez seems more likely, but I wouldn't bet a ton on that either. 

[Dtwncbad]

1 hour ago, Stradling said:

No way. You don’t give him an opt out after year one if it cost you a pick. 

You also don’t give massively declining individual year salaries that ENTICE the player to bail out.

[Docwaukee]

I would much rather have Lorenzen and Davis on 1yr deal than Snell on an opt out deal and loss of a pick.