Dave Saltzer

It was the Rays who made their first appearance in the WS in 2008, not the Marlins. It's fixed now.

2 minutes ago, Angel Oracle said:

Thank you Dave!    One correction, the Marlins also won a WS title in the 20th century (1997). 

My mistake. I shall correct it. 

1 hour ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

This is how many of these offseason stories, including some I may write, come to be.....

1. writer thinks to himself: Moustakas is from SoCal.

2. Writer to himself: Angels need a 3B

3. Writer to himself: Angels need a LHB

4. Writer to himself: Angels have some money freed up

(So far this is no different than what you can do yourself.)

5A: Writer asks Angels exec, off the record, about Moustakas. Told: "We are looking at everyone. He is part of everyone." Or:

5B: Writer asks exec, off the record, from other team if Moose to Angels makes sense. Exec does 1-4, just as writer did, and says "Yeah, that seems logical." Or:

5C: Writer asks Moose's agent, off the record, if Angels are interested. Agent says: "Oh yes! Many many teams are interested including the Angels." Agent then spends 30 minutes convincing writer that Moose is the best player ever  

Welcome to the hot stove season.

Where's the part about the player saying he's getting into the best shape of his life to come play here?

15 hours ago, stormngt said:

Reagins major fail is Vernon Wells, and coming to the winter meetings late and losing a chance to bid on Crawford (ends up being a blessing).  He did sign Hunter.  Am i  missing anything?

He isnt anywhere near as bad as Dipoto!

 

Wrong. Reagins' biggest mistake was firing Eddie Bane. Period. Not even close. He did that for all the WRONG reasons. That set this franchise back tremendously.

15 hours ago, stormngt said:

Reagins major fail is Vernon Wells, and coming to the winter meetings late and losing a chance to bid on Crawford (ends up being a blessing).  He did sign Hunter.  Am i  missing anything?

He isnt anywhere near as bad as Dipoto!

 

Wrong. Reagins' biggest mistake was firing Eddie Bane. Period. Not even close. He did that for all the WRONG reasons. That set this franchise back tremendously.

1 minute ago, Slegnaac said:

I can see the potential concern about two superstars.  But wouldn't it be cool to have the Ruth / Gehrig of the 21st century?

I would love it! But, if they don't want it, then, I'd rather keep Trout. 

5 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

No way this is even a consideration for Ohtani. The media will follow him, no matter whether they have a good press box or not. They may have to sit in the press dining room and watch the game on TV, but that's not Ohtani's problem. 

I'd be surprised if he signed with any team besides the Dodgers, Yankees, Mariners. 

Those are the teams that probably mean something to someone in Japan because of their histories with Japanese players. 

As for the money, it probably will be determined by which market offers him the best endorsement/sponsorship opportunities and which team is best positioned to offer him a mega contract in a year or 18 months. 

MLB can't prevent a team from signing him after his first year. 

Hey Jeff, I'm just looking out for you! I still want you to have the space to give us the updates.

I agree that most likely, it will be Dodgers, Yankees, and Mariners in that order that have the best shot at signing him. While I'm sure that Eppler and co. will check the tires on it, I don't think our offer will beat what they will propose.

Here's a different way that a team could hypothetically skirt the issue to funnel more money to him: If it's really about the money for the player, does it really matter where the paycheck comes from? Imagine this: A hypothetical team approaches its advertising partners to "market" and "promote" him in the stadium and on local broadcasts only. The hypothetical team could reduce the amount it charges to advertise in the stadium to offset the payment to Ohtani, and I don't think the league could do much about it. That way, Ohtani gets his money now, if it's really about the money, and the team stays within the MLB rules. It's not like anyone could complain that there are so many bobbleheads for him, or other give aways, or even other marketing features. And, Ohtani would still be able to pursue any national advertising campaigns for TV commercials and things. It would all be local revenue used to offset the salary.

Just another thought.

Personally, my bet is he wants to be a 2-way star. I've talked with many scouts about him, and almost all of them: 1) see him as a 1-dimensional player for their team (they wouldn't take the risk on him playing in the field or hitting daily and injuring his pitching); and 2) that some team out there will let him play both sides of the game. They all feel that may play a big role in signing him.

Some things in our favor: 1) playing with the greatest American player in our generation may appeal to him; 2) The large Japanese community here; 3) The relatively relaxed and calm environment compared to other teams and markets. 

Some things that work against us: 1) the ridiculously tiny press box which would make it nearly impossible for the Japanese media to keep up on him (if he has any desire to be a global star, especially in Japan, he will care that the associated media can provide him); 2) concerns whether it would upset Trout to have another generational talent possibly becoming the face of the franchise (I wouldn't want to upset Trout to sign Ohtani); 3) payroll issues (could we afford him and Trout long-term); 4) how do we guarantee him ABs without cutting into Pujols' playing time, especially if Upton doesn't opt out (not that anyone on here would complain about it--but we would need a plan, and we would need Scioscia to actually implement the plan).

If we could swing it, sure, I'd love to get him. It's really up to Arte to decide how much he wants to open things up. Personally, I think he should, as it would make the franchise even that much more valuable if he ever wanted to sell it.

Good writeup, and I'll read and comment more on it later. I'd say I'd move two players up 1 tier--Adell to tier 1 (I get the risk that he might not make it, but if he does, he could be an All-Star level talent for several years), and Canning up to Tier-2. With our need for pitching, and his skill set, I'd say Canning easily has an above average expectation of being a solid contributor. 

If you wanted to be a bit more bold, I'd move Rivas up 1 tier as well to tier 3.

Again, I can look at it more later if you want.

I would rate him as a solid A, and believe he could grow into an A+. I hold the A+ in reserve for those with so much longevity that they are bringing in all sorts of team historical perspectives. If Victor is here another 5-10 years, he could move into that A+ ratings. 

Things that he does incredibly well: multi-tasks and runs multimedia and the broadcasts, shows emotion, calls out players for bad plays, has a sense of humor, interacts with fans, and calls things out the way they are. You can definitely tell what he would like to say at times but can't, and it makes the broadcast even better. 

If he's here (which I hope he is) for another 5-10 years, where he becomes THE voice for the team (and hopefully calls a world series or two for us), then I'd move him up to the A+. For me, that rating has more to do with longevity than with his skill. He has the talent to be an A+ announcer, and I want hi  around for many more years to see him earn it. 

1 hour ago, Dtwncbad said:

I am so tired of hearing what the Angels cannot afford.

They can afford Stanton and Trout and Pujols and other players and they can afford to pay a luxury tax for a few years.

Choosing to not go over the lux tax is not the same as not being able to afford players.

Agreed. And, they can add Stanton to the current payroll without going over the luxury tax. Whether they want to or not is a separate question, as is whether it makes baseball sense to do so. Marketing Trout and Stanton together should be a no-brainer, so, if they want to make the move, and if it makes baseball sense, they can do the deal. 

2 hours ago, stormngt said:

I know this is off topic but this is concerning.  Based on your evaluation of WAR, a player with 1.0 average over a ten year career should be paid 100 million dollars.  That is scary.

No. Remember, that's the price (although I think that number is a bit high) to pay for 1 WAR on the FA market. Until then, there are some price controls on it. But yeah, it's still scary sick money. 

2 hours ago, Stradling said:

Everyone including Calhoun in this deal, are you suggesting to do this trade in the off season?  If you aren't, have you heard one mention of Kole clearing waivers, because I haven't.  If he hasn't cleared waivers he can't be traded.  

I haven't heard a word about Calhoun clearing waivers. But, we never hear about any players that clear waivers either, unless some reporter leaks it, like Stanton. I do know that most teams now try to put almost every player on waivers to start the discussions for the off season, and to possibly clear waivers. And, I do know that the Angels could still try to put Calhoun through on waivers. So, it wouldn't be impossible to do the deal now, assuming Calhoun has or will clear waivers. You are right that it would be easier to do in the off-season, but, getting Stanton now would help us a lot more for this season. So, I'd prefer it to be done now. 

1 hour ago, ettin said:

Drop Calhoun out of that and that is pretty close to the ask we'd have to pay.

While I'd be ecstatic if we didn't have to include Calhoun, my bet is just picking up the money and the prospects I offered would not be enough to get the deal done, especially if other teams are involved. Kole is by far one of our most tradable assets that could net some top-tier Ed prospects in return. That would and could make our deal too good for Miami to pass up. Kole represents a tradable commodity and value. Make no mistake, I'd miss him, as he is fun to watch and one of our guys, but, to get Stanton, we'd have to pay. 

And, as for the person asking why we'd have to trade something, we aren't doing this I  isolation. Other teams can and will make offers. We aren't the only ones who can just absorb payroll. Players with Stanton's power don't come along very often, especially in their prime years. They aren't truly going to give him away. Yes, they can always pull him back. Most teams place most players on revocable waivers to get the discussion going for the off season. 

To at least get a serious conversation going, my bet is we'd have to offer Calhoun, Barria, Pérez or Ward, and Hermosillo while taking on all the money. The Marlins could either keep Calhoun or trade him for 1-3 other prospects from another team (he's still in demand by many teams). That gives them a current ML OF replacement, cost controlled pitching, catching, and a cheap OF replacement. 

We could expand the deal to possibly include Gordon and we'd replace Hermosillo with Jones and another pitching prospect such as Rodríguez. 

As much as I love Calhoun, and want to see Hermosillo succeed as an Angel, I'd be stoked to get Stanton. Pairing him and Trout for years would make for a lot of great games. Sure, there's a lot of risk in Stanton's contract, but, we would have that risk trying to acquire any major FA to be comparable to him. His deal is not that outrageous, other than in length. 

As noted above, inflation will happen. Arte seems content to spend up to the luxury tax. Over the length of the contract, the luxury tax will continue to go up. So, that would allow room for us to keep him and Trout. And, while Pujols is here, we would get the cheap, controlled years of Thaiss, Ward, and Cowart/Rojas (for 3B, especially if we expand and include Gordon). 

If we could get Stanton for something like this, I'd do it. 

1 hour ago, Chuckster70 said:

He certainly has. 

Good OBP and I believe he'll hit for more power down the road. Probably 10-15 a season once he completely fills out.

My question to you all is, how good is his arm strength and accuracy? How well does he work with the pitchers?

Chuck, 

I've timed him at 1.85 to second once, and consistently in the 1.9 to 1.95 range. Never heard any complaints by any pitchers about him. They like working with him. People have given him some crap from where he was picked and because of Mathis, but he is is own player, and should be evaluated as such. I'm still very high on him as a player. He's not Adell, Jones, or Canning, but he definitely should not be overlooked as a prospect, and is in the 6-10 range, IMHO. 

20 minutes ago, eaterfan said:

I think a Cowart/Gordon duo will probably help our run differential more.

 

Run differential is far far far more important than simply run production. I'm not going to argue that defense is as important as offense, but the run differential is. You can argue it's too hard to measure defense to get an accurate run differential. I'll disagree, especially now that front offices have more tools to measure player movement and ball speed. In this I mean being 20% better than league average as a hitter is better than being 20% better than league average as a fielder. But saving 8 runs on defense is better than creating 7 runs on offense. But to create 7 runs on offense you might only have to be 5% better than average but 30% better than league average on defense to save 8 runs.

But I agree that cost ($ and talent) should be more of a factor in determining where Cowart plays than just "he is a 3rd baseman". He is an average 2nd base defender IMO and his bat will play better there. I was just agreeing with Ace that he was moved to 2nd because he was blocked. They weren't looking at FA at the end of the season or even 2 years out when they started playing him there. If they find a good 3B for a good price then keep Cowart at second. But if they find two equally good options for equal price at 2B and 3B respectively then they are better off taking Cowart's above average defense at 3rd even though his hitting will be further from average.

This is where I am right now. We can address more offense in the Of, which should be easier to acquire, especially until our OF develops. Maybe we should go after one of the top tiered pitchers, such as Darvish, but Gordon leading off, getting rid of Escobar's bad defense at 3B, makes a lot of sense right now. 

3 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

Not a huge Dee Gordon fan. The speed is nice, but he doesn't walk and has no power, so is totally dependent upon BA. If he has a down year with BA, like last year, he becomes a mediocrity. He's basically Ben Revere at 2B with more speed.

I'd be more willing to trade for Gordon and keeping Cowart at 3B over signing Moustakis, losing our 2nd round pick and international money, and still having money to improve elsewhere on the team. At least right now, that's how I'm leaning. 

4 minutes ago, ADHB said:

With the new compensation rules put in place by the new CBA, no one gives up their 1st round pick anymore.  I'm not sure what we would give up if we signed a high dollar FA, but it would be no higher than a 2nd round pick.

Since we don't pay the luxury tax, we'd give up our 2nd round pick and $500k in international bonus pool money. And, we'd lose the slot money for our 2nd round pick. This year, we would have lost Canning. Or Brandon Marsh. Or James Jones. Still not sold on it. If it were Machado or Arenando, we'll count me in. But the low walk rate really scares me off. 

With all this talk about wanting Moustakis, I would be interested in hearing from those in favor of signing him if they really want him if he costs us our 1st round pick. I truly doubt that the Royals won't offer him a qualifying offer, so, with our record, we'd give up our 1st round pick. I'm on the fence on this one right now, but leaning against it. So, I'm interested in hearing from those in favor of it if they would do so if it meant losing our top pick. 

I think it was Scott who said it's going to take several more years before our system will get any recognition it in (maybe we will be ranked 25th or so for the next 2+ years), and I fully agree. There is a lot of herd mentality that occurs in the rankings and definite group-think that happens. I have met many of the guys who do it, and cover the minors, and that is definitely the case. Everyone says how bad our system is, so when they go to ser them, they look for the bad, find it, and recognize firm what they believe to be true. They don't give out system a second look, so between the bias coming into their one visit per year, their bias based on where players were ranked (I have written several times about the shiney new toy phenomenon), and the fact that they never return to see if there have been any changes, it explains a lot about our rankings. If it were me, I'd say we are an upper 20s system now (maybe 23rd or 24th), and could reach the high teens if and when these guys mature (and if we conyinue to add to them year in and year out). And, I would be very happy with that as a fan. We've been killed for so long without any international talent that we would be very hard to rank anywhere higher. And, I hope we dont ever get to the point where the Major League team sucks so badly that we have so many high end picks to get to be a top 5 organization. But, with good domestic and international drafting, we should be able to maintain  a system in the high teens and still have  championship clubs in the Majors. 

On 7/14/2017 at 9:51 AM, Inside Pitch said:

Jo Adell was a wish come true as far as pure upside goes.  He's got a lot of volatility in him regardless of how well he's doing right now.  Chances are he will hit a wall at some point when met with premium pitching because of how relatively raw he is but we haven't see a pure upside guy like him in a long long time...  Trout aside because he's Mike Trout, but you have to go way way way back.....  maybe Troy Glaus but he was a high floor guy to start with.   Adell is easily the biggest lottery ticket type in ages.  But like Trout, Adell is more than just tools, there was a very strong family unit there along with the family sports history.  I think it's that component away from the diamond coupled with the genetics that ultimately helps him reach his potential.  At least, I'm hoping.

All I know is Tank might remember how high I was on Glaus prior to the draft and the lengths I went to talk him prior to us drafting him.  I haven't been that high on anyone the Angels had a legit shot to draft since Glaus until Adell.  To be fair, it's partially because they just had not been in the top 10 in a long, long time.

I'm very excited about Adell. Getting him was really exciting this season. However, I wouldn't go back that far for someone that I was tbat excited about. I was very thrilled when Weaver fell to us and we took him. I saw him pitch a few times in college and knew that his stuff would be 'ace' stuff in the Majors. For a while, it was. And it is so sad to see him still playing when his stuff is so far gone. 

I want to point out that there appears to be a different philosophy going on in player development. Under Abe Flores, years ago, players pretty much went 1 level per year. Under Dipoto, some players were jumped over levels, and some earned promotions. Players were challenged to the level where they could play, although some struggled. Now, under Eppler, there seems to be more of a systemic movement, with levels of players moving up to fill similar positions. It's more of a ripple effect. A little less aggressive than some of Dipoto's moves, but a more organized approach. It's a subtle change. 

4 hours ago, Scotty@AW said:

I swear they're reading my articles  Both are good moves. Rojas has the sort of bat that you just keep challenging until he stops hitting. When you're drafted in the 36th round there are no expectations.

And Fletcher has answered every question minor league ball has, except one.  Will he be a starting 2B in the majors or will he be a utility infielder? 

That is the biggest question and something I really hope to see in Salt Lake. 2B has been a black hole for us for years. And, there aren't any really good Fa solutions. It's to the point where I hope we both buy and sell right now to solve 2B long term. Even if it means giving up a current piece, we might need to do that to solve 2B. But, if Fletcher her man man the spot for a while, that would be a very good solution. 

5 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

Exactly, although I haven't seen much except that one Fangraphs comment.

Usually I try to find the balance between, on one hand, folks like @Scotty@AW and @Brent Maguire, who are both far more knowledgeable than I about prospects and scouting and pay attention to the Angels farm far more closely than BA et al, but are also inherently more biased than BA etc, and on the other hand, BA and other "asshole publications" (to quote @Chuckster70), who may be more objective but also don't follow the org as closely. Scotty has been saying the farm is deeper than people think for a year or two now and, to be honest, I didn't really buy it. I do think he was being a bit too rosy, but that he was partially correct and the last two drafts have really fulfilled his perspective.

Feeling left out. Not sure if it's because if that's because I'm not such a Homer for the system and it's a good thing or not.