deakscauz

Sorry AO, no, it was in fact Gaylord Perry.

Well, you didn't score great 2. It was ruled a home run before 1931. 4. Bats were first regulated in 1859, before that it was common for players to use 2 x 4 in an effort to maximize the amount of wood they could get on a ball. 5. Negative, not an A's game. It was 347 in 2011 when the Reds played the Marlins in Miami. 7. While he was indeed named after his father, his first name is George. Hope you all enjoyed.

Correct

You are both correct in that it was Mantle, however it was at Briggs Stadium in 1960 which was estimated to be roughly 634-660 feet.

Correct on all 3! Well played.

Hey all, Just thought we might have some fun with some baseball trivia. Now I can't make any promises, but a cursory poll of my living room shows that an individual capable of answering all these questions correctly will be heralded among baseball keyboard jockeys everywhere! So let us begin. 1. What is unofficially the longest home run ever hit in an MLB game? Who hit it, where, and how far did it go? 2. What was a ground rule double ruled as before the 1931 season? 3. Who was the first African American player in the major leagues? 4. What year was the first year bats were regulated? 5. What is the record for the lowest attendance ever at an MLB game? 6. What player did a manager once joke that "They'll land a man on the moon before he hits a home run," only to have the player he mentioned score his first home run hours after the Apollo 11 landed? 7. What was Ken Griffey Jr's real first name? 8. Who is the only player to hit 60 home runs 3 times? 9. Who introduced shin guards for catchers? What year did this take place? 10. What pitcher invented the curveball? Tip: He is widely noted as the "Father of the Curveball." Hope you enjoy!

Umm, unless I missed something, aren't competitive balance draft picks able to be traded? Not that it matters, just thought the new CBA changed that portion of it.

I believe it was Rogers Hornsby if I'm not mistaken

Yes, and no. Will the team need to sign free agents next year? Of course. Just throwing up your arms and implying that no free agents can be acquired or that this course of action is folly are just flat out ridiculous. Most teams actually have to sign free agents simply to fill out their major league rosters due to their farm systems are long term plans...it's why people use the term "stop-gap" in baseball. What I am essentially saying is that of the $25-30 million the angels will have to spend next year, it should be spent wisely. If it were up to me, I'd rid the team of guys like Callaspo, Aybar, Iannetta, Kendrick, Bourjous, etc. I would sell them to the highest bidder and move on. Will it be the best course of action? Probably not, I'm not big on signing free agents and prefer teams that build within, but like it or not, the next 4-5 years are going to be free agent heavy unless this team does some serious rebuilding.

Here is the biggest issue, and CA nailed it on the head. We haven't seen much of Conger since he came up. Even back in 2011 when he had his most at bats he played behind guys like Mathis. This is the one real issue I can honestly look at and say that Scioscia has; dealing with catchers. It goes all the way back to when Napoli was here. Let's be honest, Conger isn't great defensively, but you will never know what type of player Hank is until you give him 350-450 at bats in a year.

Actually Adam, I think they can easily become much better by next year. Your stipulation was that neither Bourjos or Trumbo could be traded. If we take this into account very well. That leaves you with realistically very little to trade. You have maybe Kendrick or Aybar, though I don't know if Aybar's contract has a no trade clause or not. You might be able to squeeze a team at the deadline to get a low D prospect for Hanson or Vargas, and that's a big maybe. I think the thing that you want is to know how they get better, so I will tell you. If the entire team stays the same and no roster moves are made a lot of money comes off the books next year. Vargas at $8 mil, Downs at $5 mil, Hanson at $4ish mil, etc. I think if you add it up something like $20-25 million is coming off the books, more if you can trade Blanton for a bag of balls if the other teams takes on the contract. $20-25 million is roughly 1/4 of a small market team, closer to 1/3 with some. I think that at the end of the year we could easily rebuild a struggling bullpen and starting rotation with that kind of money, and that isn't even including possible trades by the end of the year. The deal is, there are a ton of options out there, it's just that the average fan thinks that getting (or getting rid of) 1 or 2 players will make the biggest difference, when it won't. What about management such as Scoscia? You could buy a great reliever for 2 mil a year, and watch as Mike misuses him. There is more wrong with the philosophy of the Angels than their actual skills at the game.

I have to say this is my favorite post I have seen so far in my short time here.

No, and please, let's not even pretend that unloading Wilson, Pujols and Hamilton are realistic scenarios. Pujols didn't have a great year by his standards, but he had a great year for an average player, even what an average player would consider a "career year." So yes, Pujols may have had a "down year," but still quite good in most regards. Also, what upsets people so much is that he didn't have a "great year" for Albert Pujols standards. So he didn't hit .340/45-50HR/125+RBI. The best thing for Albert right now I truly believe is to go on the DL for 15 days and do absolutely nothing but rest his foot. You don't play a $200million+ investment in the condition he is in. When he returns you have hit become a full time DH and allow Trumbo to solidify himself at 1st. Hamilton is bar none the streakiest hitter I have ever seen. To think that he will a) yield anything on the trade floor right now is just plain idiotic, and b ) he will not have this type of year all year. Once again, he will have what most likely will be a below average year for Hamilton, but an above average year for most players. I foresee a .250/25HR/85RBI type year give or take. Is that atrocious? No. Is it for the type of money he makes? Of course, and that is the sticking issue again. People just need to realize that you aren't pissed that these players are having bad years so to speak, you are most likely pissed that they make so much and are having bad years. But to throw out trade scenarios where guys like Wilson, Pujols, and Kendrick are traded as one package for C level prospects is....well I don't know exactly how to put it. Face the music. On this roster you have very few trade options. Kendrick is one, but most likely this year only as a partial no trade kicks in next year. You could theoretically trade Trumbo or Trout, though management would be fired very quickly I imagine. And you have Bourjos and maybe Aybar. Outside that you have prospects. You don't contend for years straight by renting players, you do it by renting your players to other teams for their prospects.

Here is the thing that frustrates me the most about Angels fans. What dictates a quality pitcher? Is it a guy who is going to eat 200 innings a year? A sub 4.00 ERA? An ERA+ of around 160-180? There are multiple things that a pitcher can excel at to be considered quality. The bottom line is I think most Angel fans at this point in time would just be happy with a guy with an ERA around 5.00 and can pitch 6-7 inning while allowing under 5 runs. Like it or not, out of Vargas, Hanson, and Blanton you are not getting much return were you to trade them, even then you have to wait it out until after the trade deadline via a waiver trade. Even then you are hoping someone over reaches. Blanton isn't going to go anywhere this year, he is locked up for 2 years for roughly double what he should have been paid. In terms of quality vs cost it's an albatross contract. The only thing you can really do this year is start by maybe making a trade involving someone like Bourjos or Kendrick or Callaspo, then realizing that you aren't getting an A prospect. Realistically you are getting maybe a B but most likely a low C propsect. Out of those 3 players, Bourjos nets you the best return, but there is constantly outcry about keeping Bourjos. The only option right now to provide an influx of arms is to call them up and see how they do. We don't have a lot of talent in the system, but in terms of what you are getting from your "veterans" the statistical difference would be minimal, possibly even better. What prevents the organization of doing something like this is that there is no history with prospects. We can look at Vargas' body of work and realize that he will most likely return to form sometime during the season and pitch quite well.

I think a couple things need to be remembered here. Trout is young, as in real young. He is 21, think of what you were doing at 21, and then compare that to Trout. The kid is entitled to struggle a little bit given that the average major league player doesn't ascend to this level until usually around age 23-25. Trout is a sophomore who didn't play a full season last year. While yes, he played the majority of the season, he had a very minimal book that opposing pitchers could pull from at the start of last year. Teams have had a full year of major league scouting on him, and they will be making serious adjustments against him. Now given his stats over his minor league career i don't foresee Trout struggling all year or not panning out as a player or anything. You can look at some serious prospects over the past few years. Harper, Hosmer, Hayward (lots of H's apparently), etc. These guys had great first years, and only Harper has shown no sign of a sophomore slump with Homser and Hayward performing well below their rookie year statistics. There is reason for this in my opinion. Trout is like Harper; different. We don't know what kind of player either of them can be. Why is this? It's because unlike most prospects they both shot through their respective systems at incredible speeds. So while they both played exceptionally well in the minors, it's not like they logged 1,000 or 1,500 at bats. They are still both very raw, ridiculously talented kids playing well above their age level. We never got a chance to see the full body of work, we just saw 2 kids putting up insane numbers. We didn't see struggles all that often. This year provides a good learning experience for Trout. He hasn't really had to deal with massive struggles. Granted he played mediocre upon first call up back at the end of 2011, but people saw potential. The first few years players have to decide what type of player they are going to become. Are they a power hitter? Are they a speed demon? Are they a guy who is going to worry more about getting on base, and be patient. People like to throw great players out there and wonder why everyone can't play up to their level. But it is rare that 1 player can assimilate himself to all these aspects of the game quickly and for the long term. Trout could easily be a guy who hits .300+ with 50-70 steals a year, and maybe pops 10-15 out. He could be a guy who hits .260 and jacks 40 out. He could be a guy who gets on base at a .400 clip. The jury is out, not just for us, but for him as well. Also it begs to be mentioned that Trout had a year that nobody expected...sometimes even being labeled the greatest rookie year of all time. While I disagree with that sentiment that it is the greatest ever, it should be mentioned that it's difficult to transition from that. How do you top that? Hit .400 and jack 50? Not likely. Not to mention that because of this success there is a ridiculous amount of scrutiny on the handling of him. Let's say the Angels send him down, there would be unimaginative amounts of public outcry. So while he may struggle, he isn't going anywhere. It's a similar situation to Hamilton, no matter how bad they play, their successes have cemented them where they are.

I think this is something that needs to be mentioned. I think that for last 4-5 years Angels fans have been accustomed to being in the mix for the top free agents during the off-season. I even remember when Carl Crawford was a free agent, and the fan base, at least from what I remember, was clamoring for him. I think multiple teams have shown that the impact of losing a good player can be absorbed with the right system in place. I firmly believe that if the Angels want to contend not just for this year, but the next 4-5 years, they must place a serious focus on player scouting and development. The answer to the teams problems should not always come from the outside, but should first be achieved from within. Now I have no basis for this assumption, but I would imagine that players who come up through a clubs farm system together and are reunited at the major league level would have far better chemistry than a group of people from all different organizations thrown together to collect a paycheck.

That's good new Oracle, I'm not super up to date on the Angels drafting processes other than what I have read casually over the last few years. Hopefully they continue to do so. I don't envy the scouting departments position of always having their 1st pick in the 2nd round.

You may be right Oracle, and against my better judgment I threw in Colon as merely a stop gap to the Howie trade. It's possible the Royals value him higher than I do, who knows. I think the whole point of the exercise is to merely show that certain players could be traded for not necessarily missing pieces, but just pieces. Would Colon be better at SS, probably. Could another prospect take his place in the deal? Of course. I think I just wanted to illustrate that while fans may have become accustomed to someone like Howie playing 2nd, he could theoretically be expendable. That isn't a knock on his play or him as a person, it's just business. The Angels organization has in essence "put all their eggs in one basket." I merely seek a way to counteract that. I do however appreciate the input, and it just shows what I believe, there are a million ways to look at situation, and more than 1 can be correct.

Thanks Chuck. I don't know if I would place myself in the top 5 best first posters, but hey, I definitely appreciate the compliment. I think the biggest aspect that I am trying to present that is despite what most people think, the Angels do not "sink or swim" with what they necessarily have now. Baseball budgets are more fluid than that. Lets say Arte ponies up $10 million extra next year. You have just opened a world of possibilities in terms of roster composition. Especially if you let some older vets go, make a trade or two to infuse their farm system, and bring a few minor league players up. I think, unfortunately like most things in life nowadays, many people take a doom and gloom approach to how things are run. Would firing Scoscia help the team? Who knows, we can say yes, but a variable such as this is never a certain, just as whether Pujols goes deep when he is up isn't a certainty. Is it possible? Of course, maybe even probable, however it's never a certainty. Also, it comes down to philosophy. It's easy to say, "Oh, just start drafting well." The trouble with this sentiment is multitudinous. For one thing, it's extremely hard to hit on every player you draft, but it becomes exceedingly hard when you consistently give up your first round pick to other teams due to signing compensations. Also, for the past 3 or 4 years the angels have taken the approach of drafting high risk/high reward players. This will occasionally work, and may even net a superstar like Trout, but you can never bet on it. It would make more sense, at least in my opinion, to take an approach of mixing players that project to be every day guys but not stars as well as a few high risk/reward. It is a philosophy that is the deterrent of this. The Angels organization has, at least for the past 4-5 years, thought of prospects as packages to be sent for quantifiable major league players. To win consistently, you have to do both. It's a risky business when it comes to being a GM. I think my perspective is just different. Even with the slight wiggle room in salary the organization currently has, I see as a unique opportunity to take some chances, make some changes, and begin to keep the players with the albatross contracts, but surround them with differing components. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't. These are just casual observations made by me, who was no real background in baseball management. So as I said, everything with a grain of salt.

Hey all. Let me preface by saying that this is just a casual look at possibilities on how the Angels organization can move forward in a positive manner, not only this season, but for the next 4-5 years which about all you can project when looking at professional sports, and even that is a crapshoot. As a little background, I have been an Angels fan since I was about 7, and growing up in SoCal naturally my grandpa took me to my first game in which Wally Joyner hit a home run...that's about all I remember before I fell asleep...hey, I was 7. Anyways, over the last decade work has taken me away from Southern California to places such as Sacramento and Northern Ohio, and now in Oregon. So I didn't get to be there for the 2002 series, or during the Arte Moreno era of purchasing high priced talent for high prices. What I did get to see were teams like Oakland and Pittsburgh try to compete with ridiculously low salaries. If nothing more this gave me an opportunity to look at the business of baseball through a different prism. So I wanted to share so "arm-chair" GM ideas and just have some fun with it, since lets face it, an Angels game isn't much fun to watch these days. "Good pitching beats good hitting, and vice versa." -- Yogi Berra Let us start with forgetting about all the hoopla that came with the past few years signings and trades. The jury will be out on these moves for a few years. Everyone said that Pujols was finished last year, and he still put together a pretty decent season, who knows if Hamilton will do the same. So with that in mind lets take a look at some issues we need to solve, not necessarily in any order. 1. High team salary - This isn't necessarily an issue as the jump in TV revenue coupled with the new divvying of the MLB TV revenue almost alone could cover this years team salary. However, currently the Angels sit at around $140 million in salary give or take. This is the type of salary budget small market teams dream of and the Yankees piss on. Now the only reason I bring this up, and I can't solidify the statement as I don't remember where I saw it, but I remember hearing that Arte Moreno doesn't want to increase salaries much, almost as if what we have now is almost a hard cap, with the exception of certain moves he would approve. So if we look ahead a few years, remembering that the Angels handed out long term deals like they were going out of style, we need to free up at least $20-30 million over the next few years if we are realistically going to sign Trout or Trumbo or any other player making close to league minimum to a realistic tender. We will go over this later on. 2. No trade clauses - I throw this in because I get so tired of seeing the "Trade Pujols/Hamilton/Wilson/etc." type posts all the time. Not that they aren't fun to chat about or think of what-if scenarios, but all of these players have no trade clauses that would heavily prevent any transaction being accomplished. So for the purposes of this post, let's assume that certain players are just off limits when it comes to trades. Odds are these players will play out their contracts close to the end for the Angels. 3. Minor League System - This hasn't been a problem for the Angels for awhile. It is different as a fan seeing an Angels farm system ranked at or near the bottom. But that is exactly what is taking place right now in the Angels organization. High profile trades, and loss of draft picks due to signing high profile free agents have devastated the system. That's something that, if you want to win consistently in the league, you have to have manageable replacements for players. I think as we see this year, that when big time players go down with fluke injuries or whatnot, not having the right person step in can really throw a rally monkey wrench into things. 4. Thought Process - This is more a knock against ownership and Management. There needs to be a drastic reformation of how value is determined for the ballclub. While yes, the financial situation of the Angels organization allows for more generous expenditures, things such as years of control, arbitration, and free agency years need to be taken into account. More on this later as we deal with each player. So enough of the problems as they present itself, lets move on to the roster and see where we can go from here. Now I understand full well, that some things that I may recommend may fly in the face of everything someone who reads this believe, it's merely a different take on things, no more no less. Pitching This has been the Achilles heel of the Angels thus far this year. Yes, issues about runners in scoring position continues to be a problem, but no lineup can consistently provide 7-10 runs a game on average. Blanton - While I may disagree with the contract of 2 years at the price given, I could foresee Blanton falling back down to earth and generate a much more common career year in terms of stats. Not only that, but realistically Blanton has little to no trade value outside of eating the majority of his contract in a trade. Plus, if we are building for long term success and not just the next year, I'd rather his arm take the punishment of innings than a young prospects. Bottom line, handcuffed by finances and performance, you run him out there every 5th start and hope for the best for the next two years. Sucks, but chalk it up to growing pains. (Net financial gain in 2014: none) Sean Burnett - Signed through 2014 with an option for 2015, not cheap, but not expensive. I saw him with the pirates a few years back, and he isn't a superstar, but he is serviceable, and as a lefty can be used as a specialist if need be also. He has value, but let's face it, the goal is to compete while still building for the next 4-5 years. You keep him, and hope that management learns to better use a bullpen. (Net financial gain in 2014: none) Dane De La Rosa - The jury is out so far, he has only pitched what 20 some odd innings in his career. Bottom line is he is a cheap, pre arbitration reliever who if he puts up anywhere near average numbers will be useful for the next few years. (Net financial gain in 2014: none) Scott Downs - I don't mind him, and he has put up good numbers in the past, but the bottom line is he is 37. He is also costing $5 mil a year but his contract is up at the end of the year. You get what you can out of him this year, then merrily send him on his way and thank him for his service. (Net financial gain in 2014: $5 million) Ernesto Frieri - He is actually a pretty decent pitcher outside of some high walk numbers. Here is the thing, decide if he is a closer or not, and then pitch him there. His trade value will increase as a hard throwing, strike out oriented closer, so I figure since he is cheap (i.e. pre arbitration) you keep paying him the minimum you need till he either matures and becomes a solid anchor as a closer, or you use him as a setup man and see where it leads. Bottom line is he is cheap and could mold himself into quite the closer or setup man given the right instruction and opportunity. (Net financial gain in 2014: none) Garrett Richards - I like the kid. Not only is he pitching better than both Blanton and Hanson, but he is cheap, and under team control for I believe what, 4 more years or so before he hits free agency? You slot him in the 5th starter slot until Weavers return, get him more experience, and see what you come up with. In my scenario, we let Hanson and Vargas walk at the end of the year, so he will be needed next year and the ones after as well. (Net financial gain in 2014: none) Jason Vargas - He, like Blanton, will probably not pitch this poorly the whole season, but once again you have a pitcher you are paying $8.5 million to who will give you average to above average pitching. We want to free some money up for some other signings, so we let him walk at the end of the year unless we are out of the race come July, and we pawn him off for whatever C rated prospect he will likely fetch. (Net financial gain in 2014: $8.5 million) Tommy Hanson - This kid was a beast when he first came into the bigs with Atlanta. The problem is, he reminds me of Scott Kazmir. Hitters are just plain figuring him out, and his stats have declined every year since he made the show. Not only that, he is arbitration eligible next year and will most likely get upwards of $5 million. That's not how you win championships. We thank Tommy for his service at the end of the year, and let him walk. (Net financial gain in 2014: $3.75 million) Jered Weaver - Don't even begin to think that he is going anywhere. He is a phenomenal pitcher at a team friendly deal. Enjoy him while he lasts. (Net financial gain in 2014: none) Jerome Williams - I don't really know what to say other than he is an average pitcher in both a starter or long relief role, and is arbitration eligible again next year. Realistically depending on injury an performance issues this could place his salary next year in the $3-4 million range. Bottom line is you can find a minor league player to fill his role for very similar stats, who would be younger, and less expensive. I say you either include him in a package at the deadline for a couple prospects, or you let him walk. (Net financial gain in 2014: $2 million) If we realistically understand that Blanton will most likely be here for his contract, and we don't waste money with a buyout, you can make a good decision in letting some of the older players go next year and save roughly $19.25 million in salary. That isn't just a drop in the bucket, that's some serious coin we are talking about here. Obviously the departure of some of these players will leave holes to fill, but more on that later. Position Players First things first, drop all notion of Pujols or Hamilton going anywhere. It isn't going to happen. Not only do they both have full no trade clauses, but they still put butts in the stand, like it or not. I'm going to gloss over some things and just focus on things I would do personally. Chris Iannetta - I didn't agree with the extension the Angels gave him. Not that he is a bad player, he has some pop, catches a decent game, and doesn't throw his mitt at Scoscia after getting signs fed to him. The reason I bring him up is one thing; Hank Conger. Is Hank solid or subpar? Who knows, as right as he was coming up the angels picked up Iannetta and more or less blocked his ascension. Chris makes $5 mil. I couldn't find any information on whether he had a no trade or not. I want to say we try to trade him, but let's be honest, we aren't going to get much, and he could theoretically mentor Conger. It is more the fact that in reserve to take his place the team would most likely call up the atrocity that is John Hester. We don't want that, and we don't have a suitable replacement, so while I would like to see, especially given the injury to his wrist last year, him play far less and platoon with Conger, you are most likely stuck with him for the next few years. (Net financial gain in 2014: none) Hank Conger - We just talked about him, but bottom line is he was a decently regarded prospect and you have to give the kid opportunity. You being to play him more often, take some chances with him at DH, and get him some at bats so we better understand the full body of work. (Net financial gain in 2014: none) Howie Kendrick - Here is where feathers get ruffled. Howie is an above average hitter and fielder, and has a lot of trade value. This is where the hard decisions are made. Howie can begin blocking trades with a partial no clause next year. Howie also makes $9.1 million. That's a lotta scratch. I like Howie as a player, I always have, but given that the replacement to him was traded (Jean Segura) you will have to replace him with someone such as Romine. I can live with that. The majority of this offense will come from the 1-5 hole players, it's okay to give something like this up. Also, Kendrick is solid trade material; he is signed for 3 more years, and his salary isn't so much as to scare away a small market team. Thanks Howie, you rock, but we have to start building somewhere. (Net financial gain in 2014: $9.1 million) Alberto Callaspo - On the dl now, he will return and most likely either be benched in favor of Jimenez or take his place either via platoon or full time. I personally think we let him play until July. While Jimenez is doing a fabulous job right now, he is a rookie, and we need to up Callaspo trade value. Callaspo is an above average fielder and player who hits for average-ish. You auction him off at the deadline and hope another GM over reaches with their offer. If you get one B prospect or two C's, you did a good job. After saying goodbye to Callaspo and his $4.1 million salary, you reinsert Jimenez in his place. (Net financial gain in 2014: $4.1 million) Albert Pujols - This is not a trade him paragraph. Albert needs to be on the DL, and now! You don't send a $200 million investment out every game with one of the most painful injuries. You put him on the 15 day dl and take it from there. You risk surgeries and all kinds of other complications if you don't handle this wisely. Unfortunately, as of right now, the Angels are playing roulette with $200 million. Also, I don't care if AP is a much better fielder than Trumbo, Pujols would never see the field with me. You just invested $200 million for his bat, not his glove. So to keep him healthy and fresh, welcome to the AL Albert, enjoy the rest of your career from the comfy confines of the dugout until your at bat is up. Mike Trout - Here is again where feathers are ruffled. Tons of people keep saying "Pay the man!" Here is the thing, ever hear of the sophomore slump? Whether Trout has a year similar to last remains to be seen, but as of right now, there are some concerns. Low stealing attempts (though anyone else notice every time he gets a good jump Pujols fouls it off?) Here is the thing. You don't have to pay Trout for really theoretically 3-4 more years. You have a couple years at league minimum and then 2 arbitration years. Now, if you want him at a discount, and by discount I mean $115 million instead of $150 million, you let him play this season out, then you buy out next year, his 2 arbitration years, and 4 years of free agency. That's 7 years of service. You roll what money would have been spent overpaying for free agency years into his salary next year and his arbitration years. This is a way to get a player who, if he plays anywhere near how he did last year, will command a preposterous amount of money on the open market. You are locking him up until almost his age 30 year where players begin to decline. (Net financial gain in 2014 after 7 year/115 million deal: -$16.43 million) ~ As an aside, this year were Trout to be a free agent, he would have got probably close to double what you can most likely sign him for.~ Peter Bourjos - Once again, feathers are a ruffling. Bourjos is a fantastic defensive center fielder and an average hitter with great speed. Basically he is everything you want in a young center fielder. Not only that, but he is cheap! And guess what, we are going to trade him. Not only does Trout have more value offensively as a center fielder (i.e. Trouts offensive stats are outrageous for a center fielder, and while still good for a corner outfielder, they are no longer so spectacular.) Not only will teams fight to get him at the deadline, but they will over pay. I guarantee a team in contention will relish the idea of offloading a low A or high B prospect with a filler or two for Bourjos. He is very projectable in the National League, and under team control for 4 more years. This is where the rubber meets the road in terms of tough decisions for a GM. He is a lot of positive things, but our farm system won't rebuild itself when we keep coughing up 1st round picks to other teams. (Net financial gain in 2014: minimum salary) Mark Trumbo - Trumbo falls into the same category of Trout except we didn't sign him this past off-season so he is arbitration eligible next year. That is going to net him a very big raise. I couldn't tell you how much, but my guess would be at least $4 million, probably closer to $5 million. Now you have two choices seeing as how Mark is 27. You pay the man under what he is worth the next two years, thank him for his service, and hope that C.J. Cron is ready by then to take his place. Or you sign him to a power hitting 1st baseman's salary for 5-7 years. Personally, I like Trumbo, and in case you weren't aware, he was born in Anaheim. Go figure eh? Anyways, this off-season, you give him a 5-7 year deal at whatever you can get him to sign for, and promise him that Pujols won't be messing up his 1st base mojo anymore. Realistically I think you could sign him for $6-8 million per season. It is important here to give him at least 5 years but not over 7. Why? Because 7 years from now he will be 34, and aging power hitters decline very quickly. (Net financial gain in 2014 after new deal: -$7.5 million) Outlook Here is the deal, if the Angels were to proceed with these moves it would net them $8.52 million next year. What have we accomplished? We said goodbye to Howie and Peter, we signed Mike and Mark to long term sensible deals, and we try to forget about Vargas and Hanson. So we locked up two of our best players, traded a couple very solid players for what hopes to be good prospects, we let aging relievers go, and have hopefully given our farm system a shot in the arm. Also, it's important to note that we really didn't do a whole lot. We only made a couple trades, and nothing that doomed us for this year. We freed up some money, and spent it on young, homegrown talent. Hey, isn't that a recipe for success for most teams? The Replacements "Whoa" - Every Keanu Reeves movie Here is the bottom line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to sit and conjure up every replacement for the players we let walk at the end of the year, or traded nearing the deadline. What I can say is that at this point, we are vastly overpaying for the players we have. I can sit there and say that Romine might field as well as Kendrick (doubtful as most his games are logged at SS, but it's very similar.) I can say that Calhoun could take over for Trout in LF as Mike makes his way back to CF. It's all a crapshoot when it comes to replacements. We can project given stats and theories etc. But realistically it boils down to this; some of these players are supplemental. This means that on a team where 3/5 of your rotation is set for the next 4 years, and 6/9 of your lineup is set for roughly the same time, you can only do so much. If we trade for some young high ceiling prospects and call up minor league players who can play barely above replacement, you are still left with a very capable team. Those players we do have will hit peaks and valley as the baseball Gods toy with their streaks. It is important to note that we are trying to supplement the core that is already in place, not rebuild it. A note on trades I want to take a moment and say one thing about trades and the farm system. I think one thing that a GM must do is to find mutually beneficial situations for trades. Now I can go on all day with this, but let me give an example of if we were to decide to part ways with Howie Kendrick. I think a fantastic potential target would be the Royals. Why? A couple reasons, they are a team with a stocked system who is transitioning into a "win-now" mode. They are past trade partners with I would imagine a decent relationship. Also, they have a real need at 2B. They have an average player in Chris Getz, and I'm sure would be willing to part with some pieces to obtain him. What pieces you might ask? Well, let's look at it realistically. They might part with John Lamb, a 22 year old lefty who had just made AAA before needing Tommy John surgery. As a 22 year old, it's always difficult to place weights on something like TJ surgery, so you might be able to get him as a throw in. He is projectable, and still young, and on the Royals 40 man roster meaning if they trade him they can now conceal another coveted prospect of theirs from the rule 5 draft next year. He could make the bigs as early as 2-3 years as a 3-5 starter and is a lefty. Christian Colon, a young 24 year old 2B who could be an everyday starter or at least a utility man. He is a contact hitter with an above average glove, who is young, cheap, and not super high on prospect boards. So thus far, if things go well, we have wrangled a B prospect in Lamb, and a C prospect in Colon. But we want this to really work well for both sides don't we? We really need to get a starting pitcher that can pitch now, is cheap, and won't embarrass us. How about Nate Adcock? He isn't highly touted, has pitched to a 3.79 ERA in a couple partial seasons in relief with the Royals, and could slot in behind Richards as 5th in the rotation and give us what would most likely be average level play. The thing is, he doesn't have to be an ace. If he gives up 2-3 runs in 6 IP he has done his job which is to keep the team in the game, turn it over to the bullpen without a 9 run deficit, and given a chance to win. So we look at what we gave up and what we get. We gave up Howie Kendrick to get 3 decent players who project well and cost next to nothing. One player can replace Howie at 2nd base, though not as well. One can slot into the rotation as a 4 or 5 starter and give adequate performance, and one is a young 22 year old left with a reasonably high ceiling that could progress well in the next few years. Theoretically the Royals might not even bite on this deal as Adcock is good enough to start in the majors, it's just that they have a huge logjam at pitching now after their off-season deals. Theoretically we may end up eating some of the contract, though I would ride that trade horse till she bucks you before agreeing to pick up salary. Recap This was really long and probably really boring to read, but hey, it's fun sometimes to think of this stuff. Take this all with a grain of salt and whatnot, I guess I just look at it from a couple sides, and though I left a lot undone in this post (filling some of the vacant spots,) it could be easily remedied. There is so much more to cover, but it's long enough already. Personally, I think management in terms of coaches need a gigantic overhaul, but the downside is who to get to replace them all. Everyone, at least right now, is a push in terms of replacement value. Now, come the end of the year, I think a lot of possibilities open up for managers and bench coaches etc. Anyways, hope you guys like the read, but remember, it's just a game, and I'm just messing around. The likelihood any of this ever happens is so minute that it's just fun to think up.