UCLAngel

That's pretty awesome. Good to hear he's got the attitude to go with the skill set. Never got to play with/go to school with anyone, but played against a few-Trumbo, Romines, Espinosa, Hughes. Those guys were just in a different league. It's funny to see the ones that make it big...there were some guys that were more highly touted that didn't make it as far (Jason Corder comes to mind).

High upside arm would be my preference...if Hoffman falls I go with him. Nola or Freeland if they fall seem like good options as well. Second pick I'd love to see a guy like Taylor Sparks. I think we need another 3B in the system. Agree with you...very excited for the draft.

Alfonso Alcantara too. Really nice to see both these guys limiting walks. That seemed to be their biggest issue last year. Both have really good arms.

I have to think the club is showcasing him. Hard to see a spot for him any time in the future. Hope they move him to a good situation for a good return.

Clevinger got the call to High A. Seems like lately the org is much more willing to move prospects aggressively. I like it.

CJ wasn't in the lineup today. Is he getting the call over Green? DH platoon with Raul?

Anyone watched a game of his this year? Looks like he's coming back nicely.

Lindsey takes over for Utley when he retires. Lindsey isn't ready now anyway. Their time frame at second works with Lindsey.

The thought is based on the assumption that we're in the playoff hunt this year. What teams are going to give up young, cost-controlled starters that are ready for the majors? We aren't getting those guys back. Sure, we could trade for young prospects years away from the bigs and hope they turn out in 2-3 years, but then you've given up a proven asset for a gamble that wastes years of Trout's prime. Sure, giving up Howie for Lee would be ideal, but the Phil's aren't that dumb. They're set at 2B for a few years with Utley and have 3B covered too. Give them Lindsey and take back Lee's big contract. We've got money coming off the books next year and what pitcher out there could we sign for much less? If they throw in $10 mill, you get Lee at essentially $20 mill per year. With Yarbrough not too far behind Lindsey we'd still have a guy after Howie leaves. 2B is our only position with legitimate minor league depth. With Trout here, we have to figure out a way to win now. I think Lee's a good option.

Could he be a potential mid-season target? He'd slot in nicely as our #1 with Weave, CJ, Garrett and Skaggs behind him. He's owed $50 mill over the next two years with a $27.5 mill vesting option if he pitches 200 innings in '15 or 400 innings in '14 and '15 combined. He's 35 right now. The Phils are gonna be looking to save money. If we gave up Lindsey and a few other lesser prospects, I think they'd chip in about $10 million. Thoughts?

I gotta retract that last statement. The angels had about 1.9m to spend and spent 1.83m. So it looks like they spent close to the max, and likely went over when you factor in the money trades. I still think they need to be more aggressive tho.

I'm not saying they aren't moving in the right direction. I'm saying they could move in the right direction faster if they spent their entire allotment. It's just frustrating to see them leave money on the table (or literally off the table) when it could be spent on someone, anyone. I think they've kept about 500k, if I remember their pool correctly. That's a significant chunk that could sign a few very solid international prospects or one very good prospect.

Angels spent the second least in the international market. I know we traded some money away, but it still seems like we should have some left to throw around. Does not having a presence mean that we can't find anyone to sign? http://www.baseballamerica.com/international/2013-international-spending-by-team/

If you look at pitchfx his different fastballs all have very similar velocity. His cutter can be devastating but he doesn't throw it as much because he can lose his release point. Really he has two speed, which I think is so much more important than "pitches." If his cutter or two seamer was substantially different in speed, then they would be infinitely more effective. As is, he really throw 2 pitches a majority of the time: a fastball that averages 94 mph (regardless of how it "moves") and a slider. He needs that change to start working.

A GREAT comp for Richards could well be a younger Justin Masterson. In my mind, there's no such thing as a great comp (singular). You can't pick one guy out of thousands, say "these guys have similar stats," and call it a night. If your sample size isn't >10, I don't think the conclusion holds much weight. These are so many more guys out there who don't magically find a strike out pitch after age 25. Hoping that GRich bucks that trend is great, but doesn't seem highly probable.

Absolutely. If he throws 180+ innings I'll send you an Angels World Series hat or other item of your choice (not to exceed $25). I expect the same in return.

Look, I'm not just naysaying without reason. I actually rather like the rotation, have hope that Mulder throws 100+ solid innings and think Skaggs will develop nicely. I just really think GRich will take a Jerome-like route this year. He'll be spotty to start with, lose his release point on his curveball and be moved to the pen after 7 or 8 straight rough starts. He has so much talent, but his inability to locate his curve and lack of third pitch allows hitters to sit fastball. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't have a ton of faith in him.

I'm not sold on the idea that he can stick in the rotation. No consistency and no third pitch. ESPN seems to agree. http://m.espn.go.com/general/blogs/blogpost?blogname=sweetspot&id=43922 Maybe someone can change my mind, but I'm just not seeing an impact arm, whether in the pen or starting.

It seems to me that the Angels' philosophy these last few years has been the type that goes undervalued by ranking systems. Outside of Green and Middleton last year, these last few drafts have felt like "high floor" drafts. Instead of signing high ceiling/low floor players like Bolden and Clarke, they've instead identified high floor players that may not have the flashy tools of high ceiling players. This approach will naturally lead evaluators, who focus on ceilings, to undervalue the system as a whole. However, for who the Angels are and the places they've picked in the last few drafts, this seems like a solid approach. Teams in smaller markets--the Twins/Rays/Pirates of the league--have a harder time signing high-priced free agents. They have to draft high ceiling guys to be successful. The Angels seem to have made it clear that they plan to go after big free agents and use the system to fill out the holes with solid, if unspectacular, players. The true wild card in this type of approach is a team like Oakland. Instead of focusing their attention on stars/role players, they look for value at every position. They want players whose production is relatively easy to forecast. Then they put those players in the best position to succeed, using platoons and statistical averages to highlight players' strengths. I think you see certain teams moving toward that this offseason, specifically the Twins.

on a minor league deal. I like it. Mr. Fletcher reported it first.

It's not that it isn't an EXACT comparison, it's that there is NO comparison. It was one thing when you suggested that paying Tanaka more than Darvish was foolish (the situations were different, but your thought process was somewhat understandable), but extrapolating an arbitration salary to the free agent market is ridiculous. I really think you should do a bit of research on the concept of markets. Let's just say this then: because Mike Trout is going to make around, say, $10 million through arbitration next year, signing anyone on the free agent for more than $10 million a year is a bad idea. Of course, this is because Mike Trout is the best player in baseball and should be paid the most. Do I have that right?

I agree. I could see it too. I wouldn't mind the Angels offering Tanaka something like this: 7 years/$129M Year 1 - $20M Year 2 - $20M Year 3 - $20M Year 4 - $20M OPT OUT OPTION Year 5 - $17M Year 6 - $17M OPT OUT OPTION Year 7 - $15M (Just for illustrative purposes) I would decrease the amount of salary for years after opt outs. It just seems like the Dodgers take on all the risk. If Tanaka (or Kershaw) hold or increase their value, then they can capture that, but the Dodgers are protected if he decreases his value beyond that lowered salary. I wouldn't mind seeing this type of contract structure.

I get it, he's the best pitcher in the game. Young, mature, All-American, etc. I have no problem with the signing itself. He's the kind of guy you give a long-term contract to. However, the contract is baffling to me. Not because of the AAV, but for two other reasons. 1. Timing. 2. Opt out. 1. Timing The Dodgers don't want to risk him hitting the open market where his value might be driven up further, so they locked him up. But locking up a player before he's actually a free agent is all about risk allocation. When the Dodgers sign a guy to a long-term guaranteed extension, they take on the risk that he's going to be hurt or underperform in the year(s) before he hits free agency. For Kershaw, I simply don't see how this risk was priced into the contract. Kershaw received the highest AAV contract. Perhaps you could argue he was set to make $32M/year, I don't know what the market would support. 2. Opt out Opt outs are great for the player. It, again, puts all the risk on the team. It the market would pay Kershaw more, he'll just opt out or renegotiate a new contract with the Dodgers. If it won't, he's sitting pretty at $30m/year. You'd think that the contract would reflect this allocation of risk, but again I'm not sure it does. Kershaw is getting paid the most largest contract ever for a pitcher despite the fact that he wasn't a free agent, he received an opt out clause and he negotiated for significant trade restrictions. Now, one or the other of these two principles may support the AAV of Kershaw's contract, but take them both together and Kershaw wins this deal going away. Colletti was pantsed. Then he was forced to watch as Casey Close bongo'ed a catchy little beat on his cheeks. Sure, the Dodgers don't care about money now, but what happens when the labor deal is renegotiated to place astronomical penalties on luxury tax offenders? The Dodgers may not regret the Kershaw signing, or the impending Hanley signing either, but the mega-contract after that (or 2, 3, 4 down the road) will come back to bite them. When you value money differently than every other team in a collective league, the league forces you to adjust. For the time being, the Dodgers will thrive. They have a great team. But they're setting a dangerous precedent for themselves which, I believe, will come back to hurt them.

Hah I know...sometimes I really hate us

Green did indeed negotiate for a spring training invite this year. I haven't seen too many draft picks negotiate for such a clause.