Bronson Arroyo is our guy

[Vegas Halo Fan]

Scott34 only wants players with a clear record, free of sin and mistakes in their lifetimes on this team. 

 

I suppose that he can post when he finds one.

 

IMO you have made a compelling case. Durability is a big plus, and if it only takes a two-year contract it's worth the risk, IMO. Much more solid recent history than Joe Blanton, who he has drawn comparisons to.

 

Besides, we have Mike Butcher to fix anything that goes wrong.

[Scott34]

You guys are right, a clubhouse of drunkards, sexual assaulters and misogynists will get along so well! That is a winning recipe!

[Glen]

Scott34 only wants players with a clear record, free of sin and mistakes in their lifetimes on this team. 

 

 

 

Serious question: does his performance with Texas last season strike you as a warning flag?  

[nikkachez]

I feel like the idea of Arroyo is nice, noted in the bullet list you made, but I just feel like signing him would be a mistake in the end. I feel like the Halos would be able to get away with signing Baker, Hammel, or Capuano to a low salary one year deal and get the same production Arroyo would provide, possibly even better than Arroyo. He's 37, wants a multi-year deal, the AL would most likely destroy him, he doesn't miss bats,and he gives up a toooon of bombs, to me he's a better version of Blanton

[Chuck]

I suppose that he can post when he finds one.

 

IMO you have made a compelling case. Durability is a big plus, and if it only takes a two-year contract it's worth the risk, IMO. Much more solid recent history than Joe Blanton, who he has drawn comparisons to.

 

Besides, we have Mike Butcher to fix anything that goes wrong.

 

We've seen what an aging, average pitcher in the NL on a two-year deal can do for this club.

[Chuck]

Serious question: does his performance with Texas last season strike you as a warning flag?  

 

Nopes! 

 

2 months of results have no bearing on what kind a pitcher he is. If you look at his stuff during his rough stretch, he was still throwing 93-96 MPH with a sharp slider and changeup.

 

He had a few bad starts, but he also had some good ones with the Rangers. The team was fading fast and he was pitching in that TexASS heat down the stretch. I have no worries about his late season numbers. 

[HaloCory22]

You guys are right, a clubhouse of drunkards, sexual assaulters and misogynists will get along so well! That is a winning recipe!

Technically you can't prove it is or isn't.

[Chimi]

You guys are right, a clubhouse of drunkards, sexual assaulters and misogynists will get along so well! That is a winning recipe!

 

It worked for the Red Sox.

[Docwaukee]

You guys are right, a clubhouse of drunkards, sexual assaulters and misogynists will get along so well! That is a winning recipe!

as long as they don't do anything really bad like take PEDs or smoke pot then it's ok. 

[Chuck]

You guys are right, a clubhouse of drunkards, sexual assaulters and misogynists will get along so well! That is a winning recipe!

 

I won't mention names, but the 2002 club ......

[greginpsca]

Warning sign #1: his performance with Texas last year.

Warning sign #2: the Rangers didn't want him back, after trading for him.

Warning sign #3: after coming to the AL, his ERA for August was 4.79, his ERA for September was 5.02.

 

However, his ERA in Arlington was 3.56.  That's probably at least a run better than anybody on our staff, but I have that Angels feeling that if we signed him he'd suddenly suck ass in Arlington.  

I don't want any pitcher who gives up home runs to JB Schuck. Schuck hits one only to be taken away on a bad call. Then next game against garza, he hits another. No wonder Texas doesn't want him. Nuff said.

[Docwaukee]

BTW, I am going on record that Bronson Arroyo will be a disaster just shy of Blanton or Hanson and will get Jerry fired if that's who he brings in.  Low to mid 5's era.  40hrs. 

 

I will happily eat crow if he has 200ip with an era less than 4.5. 

[Docwaukee]

At least Garza is a decent pitcher so it depends on the money.  He makes the team better. 

 

No effin way he's a #2.  We'll be lucky if he's a #3 but over the course of his contract he will probably average out to a #4. 

 

He's just so damn douchy though. 

[Guest]

[rick99gtp]

On Garza (if you haven't read it)

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/wont-someone-give-matt-garza-a-home/

[NrM]

So fangraphs projects garza at 180 innings with 10-12 wins and an ERA in the 3.80 range.

this is what 70-80 million dollars gets you now? give me a ****ing break.

[Blarg]

You guys are right, a clubhouse of drunkards, sexual assaulters and misogynists will get along so well! That is a winning recipe!

 

Hmmm, you just described Mantle, Puckett and Ruth.

[VariousCrap]

So fangraphs projects garza at 180 innings with 10-12 wins and an ERA in the 3.80 range. this is what 70-80 million dollars gets you now? give me a ****ing break.

 

 

Garza won't cost that much.

[Chuck]

Garza won't cost that much.

 

I agree.

[Brent Maguire]

I don't think Arroyo is a very good idea either. Getting him on a 2 year deal is just as bad as overpaying for Garza.

His rates are just way too similar to Blanton for me to get on board with him. Maybe he proves me wrong but a 38 year old with huge HR tendencies moving back to the AL screams dangerous to me.

[Blarg]

Garza won't cost that much.

 

Once Tanaka signs all of the remaining pitchers will have a value based upon that contract. That value may be inflated by the scarcity of arms that do not cost a draft pick.

[VariousCrap]

Here is how I look at it:

 

If the Angels can sign Garza for the amount Jeff Fletcher stated he thinks he will sign for (4/56), you make that deal.  Period.  He is worth that money.  If Garza is going to end up getting 5/75, you have think twice about it.  That is a big contract for a guy who is a #3 at best.

 

Arroyo at 2/18 is a fair deal if Garza ends up costing too much.

 

I'd prefer Garza at 4/56.

[VariousCrap]

Once Tanaka signs all of the remaining pitchers will have a value based upon that contract. That value may be inflated by the scarcity of arms that do not cost a draft pick.

 

 

 

I don't think so.  There are teams that want Tanaka that have no interest in Garza.  Teams like the Dodgers, Yankees and others are all in on trying to get Tanaka, but won't be in on Garza.

 

His market is not as big as people think.

[NrM]

I think garza gets at least 60. Probably 65-70 million.

Not costing a draft pick helps.

Edited January 15, 2014 by Poozy

[Docwaukee]

I don't think so.  There are teams that want Tanaka that have no interest in Garza.  Teams like the Dodgers, Yankees and others are all in on trying to get Tanaka, but won't be in on Garza.

 

His market is not as big as people think.

his market expands considerably at 4/56.  It will take more money and possibly an additional year to weed some folks out. 

 

seattle, yankees, toronto, dbacks, twins, maybe Houston and probably a couple other surprise teams are in play at that price in addition to the halos.  Even if the Yankees sign Tanaka, they might still sign Garza for that money. 

 

No one wants to give up a pick to get the other guys.