AngelsFanSince86

11 hours ago, RBM said:

I think La Stella’s future with the Angels is tied to Rengifo and Thaiss. If one of them shows everyday infielder value to the team then La Stella becomes a 31 year old tradable asset. 

I would look into his trade value in the offseason and if he doesn’t warrant what we want bring him back on a 1 year deal. 

In my fantasy world I package him with Cozart to eat up the $12.7 M we owe him in 2020. 

No way you do that.  If he continues to play the way he has all year then the only way you trade him it's if you get a top prospect back. Packaging Cozart guarantees you don't get a top prospect back so what would even be the point? Cozart will likely get another shot this year too prove himself if he can ever stay healthy. If and when he proves he just can't hit they need to just let him go. 

I would be livid if they moved.  I go to 10-15 games a year.  My family has season tickets that we share. If they moved to LB we would no longer renew them and I would hardly ever go to a game.  I lived in SF when the 49ers moved from Candlestick down to Santa Clara.  I went to one game and the travel time there and traffic after left a bad taste in my mouth.  If I still lived in the area its possible I would go to another game (not likely), but only because one NFL game is so much more meaningful than an MLB game.  If the Angels moved to Long Beach I might go occasionally just so my son can watch Mike Trout, but ultimately I'd rather save the time and money and watch it on TV.  I know a lot of people who go to a couple games a year who would rarely, if ever, attend another game.  They would have to hope that the fan base in Long Beach would make up for that loss.  I honestly doubt it would.  The ease of access not only makes it a better experience, but it makes the number of fans who have a 15 minute drive or less to the stadium significantly greater than it would be in Long Beach.  Good luck during the week.  Right now parents can take their kids to weeknight games, leave by 9, and have their kids in bed by 9:30.  There would be very few people in LB that could do the same.  You would have to leave too early for it to be worth it.  

I don't think Simmons should be 1 or 2. I actually, for the time being, like him hitting somewhere between 4-6.  He's the one guy on the team you can count on most to make contact. He's the guy you want coming up with someone on 3rd cause he's most likely to get a hit or at least the sacrifice hit. Trout won't get a lot of pitches to hit with RISP and often gets intentionally walked. You need to have someone behind him that can make contact in those situations. Simmons is the only guy we have right now that can do that.

7 minutes ago, Tank said:

$4.85 for a 20 oz. bottle of water in the team store yesterday. 

unacceptable.

Well they do allow you to bring water into the park as long as it hasn't been opened yet. I haven't bought water at the stadium in very long time.

Well the price for "premium" beer has gone up significantly every year.  It was "only" about $10 just a few years ago and now is 50% more this year at $15 a beer.  

22 minutes ago, Vlad27Trout27 said:

Skaggs is in a bit of a wierd situation due to inconsistency and his health issue. these next 2 years are going to important for him. personally i think the contract that he'll sign will be based on incentive, I think he'll sign a 3/4 yr deal with a base salary of 30-40 mil and incentives that may push the deal to around 50-60 mil, depending on how he dies these next 2 years and the market.

Hopefully not at all...

...but in all seriousness I agree with your thinking.  It's impossible to say what he should get because of how inconsistent and injured he has been so far.  If he continues to battle injuries and put up 4.00 ERAs, then I don't think he's worth more than 2/$14M or 3/$20M.  If he can pitch 180+ innings and pitches around 3.50 ERA then I think he is worth the numbers you listed.

Yeah and they have Seattle at #10.  BR is pretty terrible when it comes to their own material.  I have the app because they post a lot of other articles from various sources and twitter posts throughout the day that give updates around the league as they are happening (which is helpful for me because I don't have a twitter account).  But the writers there are awful, narrow minded, and uninformed.2

3 hours ago, Lou said:

Mine (in order): 

1. Giants - lived there. love the city/ballpark. F*ck the Dodgers 

2. Padres - see above 

3. Brewers - have just always liked watching them play (in relation to other NL teams) 

 

Yep.  Giants are mine too for these exact reasons.  I was living up there during the 2010-2014 run they had.  Fun team to watch as they were never really the best team on paper, but always found ways to win.  

8 hours ago, failos said:

I hope he gets shanked

That would be too generous to him.

11 minutes ago, floplag said:

I think Ward will need to show a lot more offensively before we have this discussion.  
Im jaded, ill admit it, weve seen far too many guys turn out to be AAAA players but we really need Ward to not be that guy as we pretty much have noone else long term at this point.

Yeah that is kind of how I feel about it.  It's really all speculation and hope at this point.  He hasn't shown anything at the MLB level to convince me he will be successful at the plate.  And without being an above average hitter he really doesn't have much value.  That is why my bet would 100% be on Fletcher getting an opening day spot if its between the two (although its always possible they both get it).  Fletcher will be there because he has proven to be a very good utility player while doing enough with the bat to not be a total liability.

Remains to be seen who will be overall more valuable, but I can pretty much guarantee Fletcher is on the opening day roster.  At the very least he is a solid utility player so even if he isn't hitting he has a fair amount of value there.  Despite being on pace for 36 doubles, he wasn't very good overall as a hitter.  However, in only 80 games he played great enough defense to be worth about 2 WAR by both baseball reference and fangraphs. 

Ward is an unknown.  He played solid defense from what I saw at 3B and should only get better, but it's hard to envision him doing enough in ST to earn a starting role (although I'm certainly hoping for it).  Even if he does, wouldn't Fletcher still be on the roster as their utility guy?

Bottom line is that Fletcher is a versatile player with above average defense.  For those reasons alone he will have a role on the team to start the season.

I'd be interested in Shelby Miller on a cheap deal possibly with some team options in case he is able to stay healthy and pitch to his potential. However, they would need to sign at least Kikuchi on top of that as well as have a couple long relievers in their pen.

28 minutes ago, True Grich said:

He's had some bad moments in some high profile situations, but he's not nearly as bad as some of you are making him out to be.  That being said, I'd pass on him mostly because of the draft pick compensation the Dodgers would get.

Exactly. And I find it hard to believe after clearly stating he wants to have a top 5 farm system that Eppler would give away his second round pick and international money for a player like Grandal.

1 hour ago, floplag said:

And if they dont find some magic no expert thinks they have today?  Where does that leave us ?  You are assuming 100% best case scenario. 

Where does it say the experts don't think they have it? Many of those guys named were just drafted. Adell wasn't ranked until after his rookie season. Then when the pre season rankings came out he was in the 50-75 range. Now he's considered top 20 and predicted by some to possibly be top 5 by the time so the preseason rankings come out. Griffin Canning was previously unranked. That doesn't mean they "found magic". It just means they were previously unproven despite having the necessary tools. Point being the Angels system could be top 5 very quick. And Eppler specifically said they are willing to spend for the right guys. They do want to win now, but they aren't going to use major prospect currency or spend $140M on a pitcher thats dealt with injuries constantly his whole career. 

4 minutes ago, aznhockeyguy said:

 

Oh boo hoo, just because the Angels release him doesn't mean he has to move his family.  If he isn't producing/not bringing in value, why keep him around?   Who cares if it's a breach of trust, I'm sure he'll wipe away the hurt tears with the millions he'll still get.  Just because the Angels knew this was going to happen at the latter years of the contract, does not mean they have to keep him around still.  The Angels' only obligation is to pay him, whether or not he plays on the team or not. 

Sure, keep making it into a here and now situation.  Its not about him moving his family after the fact.  It's about the fact he moved them here to begin with.  You think he would have moved his family here if there wasn't agreement in place?  Arte wanted to bring a HOFer to Anaheim to be a part of the organization for many years.  This isn't about speculating what the Angels are thinking.  This is about the deal that is already in place between them.  Arte isn't going to release him is all I'm saying and it has nothing to do with not wanting to eat the money or Pujols' feelings.  It is a business decision.  

You are concerned with team performance right now.  Arte is concerned with his business in the long term.  Signing Pujols was a long term business decision.  One of the most important parts of it being Pujols affiliating himself with the Angels post-retirement.  You screw the pooch on that one if you release him when he still wants to give it a shot.  How do you know he hasn't already discussed his retirement tour with them?  That maybe they are keeping it quiet for now?

6 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

The real reason Albert hasn’t been released is because of money owed. Not some made up Trout speculation. Albert is owed a lot of money that Arte as of now does not want to eat. 

It likely has nothing to do with Trout, but it isn't just because Arte doesn't want to eat the money.  Arte signed him to be with the Angels long after he retires.  Essentially their business relationship extends beyond Pujols playing baseball.  Meaning there has to be a level of respect involved.  Don't you think in 2012 offseason that Arte assured Pujols he would get to play out his contract until he decides to retire?  He gave him 10 years knowing he wouldn't make it that long.  He's not going back on his word when he still intends to do business with him for the next decade.

2 hours ago, Angel Oracle said:

Good point, but what happens if he has a .600 OPS in 2019 and can barely run to 1B?

That is a separate point.  OP was saying he should be released.  At some point they will work out a deal.  However, Pujols has to be on board with it and currently he wants to play next season.  At some point they just sit him and eventually he will retire after working out a deal with Arte.  I've never heard of a player of his caliber willing to waste away on the bench.  Obviously hes not just going to give up the money though.

2 hours ago, aznhockeyguy said:

I don't understand this respect thing.  Never heard a free agent say when they signed with a new team, "You know I looked at how they treated [insert player here] and really wanted to sign here.  Money and winning had nothing to do with it."  Yea okay. It's been said before and it'll keep on being said until he retires, the Angels SHOULD release him, but they won't.

No, they really shouldn't.  They gave him the deal they gave him and it includes a service contract.  He moved his family here so they could establish themselves.  I agree that he needs to show some respect himself and retire/work out a deal, but if the Angels don't let it play out then what makes you think he will want to stay with the organization?  He wouldn't have moved his family here if he wasn't assured they would stick to their end of the bargain.  Releasing him is a breach of trust.  It would potentially make all these years of putting up with his BSOML only to constantly get injured and put up weak numbers all for nothing.  He was supposed to give us some great years and didn't.  Regardless of how that played out we were always going to be at this point.  The Angels knew that and they still made the deal.  They aren't going to release him and as much as it pains me to say it I agree with it.

1 hour ago, hangin n wangin said:

I'm having some trouble understanding it too. It's not like Pujols has been some kind of hero in an Angel uniform that has produced elite numbers and helped bring us a ring. He has been an epic disappointment and now he is straight dog shit. 

It's not like it's Eli Manning where he played his whole career for one team and helped bring two titles. It's not like he's been a Kobe Bryant type for us. If that was the case, then I could somewhat understand the Angels letting him do whatever the F*ck he wants. But he's an overpaid has been and is embarrassing himself. And it's embarrassing that he's playing as many games as he is on a team supposedly trying to win. I want to win games. I do not care about Albert Pujols.

Respect is fine and good and all. But this is a professional business in which teams try to put the best product on the field in order to win a World Series. It's not Facking tee ball.

I hope Pujols hangs them up soon because every year I am disliking him more and more. And the longer he continues to play 130+ games in an Angel uniform with the production we're getting from, the more of a joke the Angels organization looks like.

The main part of this is not just about respecting the player, although that is part of it.  Of course no FA ever signed a deal specifically because they felt they would be respected more, but it plays a part in the decision making process for some of these teams.  

And this has nothing to do with the here and now.  This is a building block for the future of the organization.  One part of building a top tier ML baseball team is being surrounded by great/HOF players.  Angels don't have much in that department.  They have Vlad and will soon have Pujols.  Maybe one day Trout.  It means something to have them around.  It means something to the fans, to the players on the team, and to FAs trying to decide where to go.  Ultimately things like money and competitiveness are the driving factors in FA decisions, but sometimes its close and things like this matter.  

It sucks watching Pujols waste a roster space for all that money right now, but don't tell me you think its a bad or even neutral thing to have him around the organization for the next decade plus after he retires.

16 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

Whether people like it or not, it's a respect thing.  

He's a first ballot HOFer.  

They're gonna treat him like baseball royalty.  Hopefully there have been discussions behind the scenes about when he will retire.  They'll buy out whatever is left and his final season will be the victory lap where every city he goes to will shower him with praise and teams will buy him gifts.  

If you ever want a big name free agent to come or to extend your own star players that's how you have to treat someone who's so well respected within the game.  

It part and parcel with signing someone to a 10 year deal of Albert's stature within baseball.    

Exactly.  And they aren't stupid for doing it.  This was part of the whole deal to begin with.  Pujols is one of the greatest players of all time.  Having him as a part of your organization after he retires is a big deal.  Other more established organizations have several baseball greats that have some sort of role on the team.  It creates a certain culture.  Something teams like the Red Sox, Yankees, Cardinals, Dodgers, etc. have.  You have to start somewhere.  When Arte brought in Pujols this was a major part of why he did it.  It sucks right now because he sucks, but long term for the organization it is a great move.  They would be stupid to let him go at this point.  It would all be essentially for nothing.

He moved his family here.  His kids go to school here.  This was always meant to be a permanent deal.

Trout extension easily.  Other than that, signing Harper on a deal worth less than $300M total and less than $30M AAV would be my next wish.

1 hour ago, ettin said:

The free agent marketplace sets the tone and price. There is a LOT of money ready to be spent right now and Machado and Harper are going to get paid amounts at or over $400M.

If you do a rough back-of-the-napkin projection of a Machado extension he projects out over 10 years at about $511M starting with a $9.5M base $/WAR amount in 2019 and a 7% $/WAR increase year to year. That is about 5 WAR per season over the next 5 years (through 2023) with age-decline added in through 2028. Even if you drop that to 4.5 WAR per season between 2019-2023, then add in age-decline that comes out to $440M. Machado just had a 6.2 WAR season and has two other 6+ WAR seasons in 2014 and 2015 for reference.

Some of you are letting the depressed 2016 and 2017 off-seasons and Stanton's extension contract fool you. High water marks are going to be set this off-season on free agent contracts (remember that extensions generally give the player less money than the free agent market will give them, so if Giancarlo had been a FA at that time he might have approached $400M).

Also because of Harper's incomplete season in 2016 and his lesser defensive value, his value will be depressed a bit more than Machado. Right now on a 10-year deal he projects to receive about $415M (quite a bit less than Manny). However this assumes approximate 4.3 WAR seasons over the next five years then five more years of age-related decline. There is a case to be made that Bryce will put up stronger WAR seasons than that (in the last four years he has a 9.1 and 4.8 WAR season in 2015 and 2017 respectively). Steamer projects him for a 4.9 WAR season in 2019 for reference.

When you factor in that the Phillies, Yankees, Giants, Dodgers, Cardinals, Twins (yes Minnesota has a ton of open salary), and White Sox all have a TON of money to spend, you will see bidding wars. That doesn't even consider the Braves, Blue Jays, Reds, and Astros that also have salary capacity to spend. This was by design for a lot of these teams.

I am going to go on record stating that Machado will get something in the $420M-470M range on a very long-term deal (10 years). Harper something in the $400M-450M range over the same length (10 years), likely with opt-outs (particularly with Bryce because he has been so inconsistent). Greinke's AAV is $34M per season (two years ago as well), you don't think both Machado and Harper will get more? Both will have to get at least $35M AAV, almost certainly more. Trout will get $500M because he is at least 50%-more productive as Machado and it will be a bargain based on the standard this free agent market will set.

I know that many of you have stated you can't possibly see either of Machado or Harper exceeding $400M but don't take my word for it:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/columnist/bob-nightengale/2018/11/07/bryce-harper-phillies-free-agent-contract/1924622002/

https://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/ct-spt-bryce-harper-scott-boras-400-million-20181109-story.html : Makes an interesting case about how Harper should sign before Machado to ensure Manny does not create an artificial upper boundary for Bryce's contract.

https://www.mlb.com/news/a-look-at-bryce-harpers-free-agent-suitors/c-268428784

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/the-phillies-can-afford-a-bryce-harper-or-manny-machado-but-that-might-not-be-enough-to-contend/

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2757849-manny-machado-vs-bryce-harper-who-will-earn-more-hundreds-of-millions-in-2018

 

Have at me you wallet trolls!  

I could see it happening, but it would still surprise me. Grienke had just put up an incredible 3 year stretch and had just come off a 9 WAR season. The d-backs are currently shopping him around to unload that salary. He's an active example of what happens when you sign those contracts and he's likely being most actively shopped to those teams that have the money to take him on.  And this is a guy, who other than 2016, has been very good.  I could be wrong, but it seems the Grienke example would serve as a fresh reminder of what not to do rather than serve as a benchmark.

What I don't get is how everyone, including baseball execs, keep talking about the quality of this FA class. Harper has not lived up to expectations, Donaldson has been injured lately, Adam Jones has declined, Andrew mccutchen fell off the map relative to his career, Matt Harvey completely fell off the map, keuchel is still solid but not the ace he was when this FA class was hyped, Garrett Richards can't stay healthy, Clayton Kershaw has had health problems so stayed on with the dodgers, and Jose Fernandez is tragically no longer part of the equation.

I know there have been articles that have addressed this, but I still keep hearing about the depth of this class like it's still 2015. 

9 hours ago, Inside Pitch said:

Good hire for them and more of a brain drain for Houston -- so good for us.   Flip side is that there will likely be one less dumb team and that's not good for us.

Well if it makes the east more competitive then it at least should make it easier to compete for a wild card spot. Rather than letting the red Sox and Yankees beat up on them to pad their win column.

24 minutes ago, floplag said:

First off, if i can trade Suarez and Jones for Realmuto i do that right now without hesitation.  i keep my top guys and get a monster upgrade for my second pitcher and an easily replaceable guy in Jones we already have tons of depth at the spot, that is literally my wet dream, not even a second thought

I never asked them to get to the level on the RedSox overnight, Why do people think that?  All ive ever said is post season baseball.  We need to do something to give Trout/Simmons a reason to re-up, making the playoffs, even if that doesnt mean the WS, is a giant step in that direction.  

Yeah I know you are saying you just want to contend for a WC spot.  I agree, but there isn't much they can do other than what they have been doing.  And I guess that is the point.  This thread is about holding on to our top prospects.  Suarez and Jones for Realmuto would never happen.  I was being facetious to prove the point that even with all those major upgrades the Angels would still hardly be at the Astros level. And the overarching point is that you shouldn't trade away any top prospects unless that trade is going to be what puts you over the top.  You should never trade young players for a couple years of a ML player unless you are ready for it and the Angels aren't. 

The Angels are already a team capable of competing for the WC, health permitting.  Nothing they can do this offseason is going to change that very much.  You don't trade away a long term asset so that for the next couple years you can have a slightly better chance at maybe making the playoffs.  I'm sick of .500 ball, but I also understand you don't build a contender overnight. Eppler has been working every year to build up the team.  He went out and got Simmons.  He got Upton and extended him.  He got Ohtani to sign here.The farm system continues to improve.  With a few smart signings and maybe some low key trades not including any of the top prospects the Angels could still contend for a WC spot.  It all depends on the health of their pitching and that is true regardless of what they do.

1 hour ago, floplag said:

ive literally posted it three times by not at least, im not doing it again for another round of the same old same old.  There is no point anyway when you think we need 8 spots that need upgrades.

Fair enough.  I don't read every single thread here in it's entirety.  But i can say if you think we only need 4 upgrades then you are delusional.  Maybe if those 4 are significant upgrades you would be correct.  Lets trade Suarez and Jones for Realmuto, sign Harper to a 5 yr/$100M contract to play 1B after Pujols agrees to be bought out, trade Canning for Kluber straight up, and sign Keuchel to a 3 yr/50M contract. If that is what you are talking about then yes I believe that makes us a contender.  We would still lack any sort of depth to account for any injuries/deep playoff runs, but we would certainly be on the Astros level at that point.  However, even then, we would have a mediocre bullpen at best and no money left to improve it.  As a matter of fact, even with these completely unrealistic trade/signing scenarios the Angels would still be over the luxury tax because of the added salaries to Kluber and Realmuto.  

There is a major difference between playing for a wild card spot and being a true contender.  The Angels literally could not get to the level of the Red Sox/Astros/Dodgers/Yankees even if they traded any and all prospects.  When guys like Matt Kemp, Chris Taylor, Marwin Gonzalez, Brock Holt, etc. are depth on their respective teams and would be in the mix with Simmons and Calhoun as the Angels 4th best hitter behind Trout, Ohtani, and Upton then you should realize you aren't even close to those teams level.  Its easy to look at the starting roster at face value and say add a couple guys and we are set.  But as long as the Angels are trotting out the Martes, Cowarts, and EY Jr.s of the world as their depth then they will not contend.  The depth those other teams have is from their farms.  Plain and simple.  Eppler has taken one of the worst farm systems in baseball to a respectable, average farm with some studs.  You don't need a crystal ball to see that given a couple more years Eppler will continue to draft well, the guys he has drafted in the last few years will finally be old enough to contribute, and all levels of the system will have good ball players.  

Like I said though, I'm fine with trading.  Only if its for a guy with a minimum 3 years left and only if it doesn't mean trading 3 or 4 of the top 10 prospects in our system. The Simmons trade is a perfect example.  

1 hour ago, floplag said:

I've never once said go ham spend 250M, sell the farm trade everyone win now screw the future.   Not once.  Ive agreed with everyone that says we need balance, ive agreed it takes a mix of farm/fa/trades/cost controlled guys, ive agreed with every point save for one, why it cant be now as easily as 21.  Ive suggested a simply plan that has maybe 1 trade... 1.  the rest is all FA, 4 guys that puts us in the post season mix right now and give Trout/Simmons a reason to believe..  Many others have done the same exercise including some of you 21 or bust guys.

We can fix #1 without killing #2, continue to build #3 over the next few years, Extend Trout/Simmons to solve #4 and the rest is moot.  Its right there right now in the deepest FA class and group of guys available in trade that i can remember, almost ever.  There is absolutely no reason we cant have it both ways, none.  

Why is it so terrible to expect them to make that effort now instead of simply accepting 500 ball for 3 years for no logical reason that the lady up the street with the crystal ball couldnt even predict?   Why is wanting to not waste the prime of 2 of the best position players in the game today a bad idea?  This wait plan could easily go south and we end up with no Trout, no Simmons, a group of average ball players and Adell in 21 with Upton in his last years and Pujols on a walker.  Adell isnt going to carry this club is Trout cant even do it.   Thats to pathetic a situation to even think about and equally as possible as the pipedream im being asked to accept on faith.

Alright, the Dipoto example was a bit extreme.  

Well let me ask you this:  what 4 guys would we need to be in the postseason mix? 

Remember: we need a catcher, a 1B (yes, Pujols is here to stay and thats a major problem that likely isn't going away this year but it doesn't negate the fact that we need one long term), 2B or 3B (Cozart and Fletcher have upside but are both question marks with the bat.  If they are both solid then that just means we need a good utility IFer), ace SP, reliable middle rotation SP, solid 4th OFer, Closer and long reliever. And this is assuming Calhoun plays closer to his second half then his first half.  

Long reliever can possibly come from rotation depth and two of 2B, 3B, and utility IF will be covered by Fletcher and Cozart so just one of those needs to filled.  That still leaves 8 positions that need upgrades in some capacity to be a real contender. 

So again: what 4 players do you propose, for discussion sake, that we go out and get?  I'd like to hear a legitimate proposal as to how the Angels can use their current assets (money and prospects) to become a contender while not sacrificing the future.

And as an aside: nobody is asking you to accept a pipedream.  Holding onto prospects and trading away ML talent for prospects instead of the reverse is a major part of why the Cubs, Astros, Yankees, Dodgers, etc.  are all successful.  Its not a pipedream, it is a proven strategy.  Those teams success is built on homegrown talent.  Hell, take the A's for example.  They come out of nowhere every few years because all they do is hoard prospects and trade their stars for more. 

Edit: Thought I would look this up to see.  Despite consistently having one of the lowest payrolls in baseball and not signing high priced FAs or trading away much prospect depth (as far as I know), the A's have had 9 postseason berths since (and including) 2000.  The Angels have 7 despite having one of the highest payrolls during that span.  2002 was the last time their payroll was in the bottom half.