jsnpritchett

For what it's worth, I think 22 for Syndergaard was crazy. And I also just don't buy the whole "1 WAR is worth 8-9M" trope. That may be someone true for a 3+ WAR player, but I'm not into paying that much for a 1 WAR guy with very limited upside.

And I'm praying the Angels are not in on him, too.

Theoretically, I could be on board with what you're suggesting. I just don't think any of the guys you listed are likely to have even decent seasons next year. (And, before you or anyone else asks: no, I haven't looked to see who would be better options. Ha ha.)

Where do you see his upside? I'm genuinely curious, since I've seen others say that, too. I don't see much in the data to support that.

He made $7M this year. Never made more than $4.5M before. Exactly what did he do this season to justify an $18M commitment? If that's what it's going to take to sign him, I welcome the day when someone other than the Angels get him.

Of course they are. But to me, that's not how we should look at the situation. In what you're proposing, you're creating a hole (relief pitching) to patch another (bench depth), while also potentially adding as much as $5.5M to next year's payroll. So now you're down $3-5.5M and you still need to sign a reliever who can hopefully match or improve upon what Loup/Tepera could do. That'll cost, what, a minimum of $3M, likely a lot more? So why not just sign a free agent bench piece for $3-8.5M and keep Loup/Tepera? I wasn't a big fan of signing either one of them, but I think there's at least a reasonable chance that one or both will be marginally (or significantly) better next season.

In a related article, Sam Blum gives his take on the state of the 40-man:

So where's the list of players who can help the Angels improve?

None, because the last Rule 5 draft was canceled due to the lockout.

Currently, none. They're at 40, plus 5 guys who are on the 60-day IL, but don't count for the 40-man total. After the season is over, they have to add back those 5 guys--but then 4 guys currently on the 40-man are headed to free agency (Bradley, Duffy, Lorenzen, Suzuki (retiring)). So they'll still need to drop one more player who's currently on the 40-man just to create the space for the 60-day IL guys. Then at some point not longer after that, they'll have to make the decision about which of the guys listed in the first post they want to protect--so they'd need to cut more guys currently on the 40-man. There's a decent amount of fat they could cut (e.g., Weiss, Zastryzny, Jhonathan Diaz, etc.), so I don't think it'll be a huge issue if they do want to protect a few guys like Adams and Jackson.

Beats me. Being a great player doesn't necessarily make you a good front office exec/consultant, a great manager/coach, etc. It all depends on the individual, how they communicate with others, how they process information and share it with others, their ability to strategize, their ability to analyze players, etc. As a player, he always struck me as somewhat selfish and self-absorbed, aside from a few mentions of him being buddies with Trout and helping him a bit. Again, I've seen nothing to indicate he can help a front office, if that's what they ask him to do when/if he fulfills the personal services contract. If you or others reported on his abilities in these areas and how they might translate into his post-playing career, feel free to share those articles with us and I'll be happy to read them. EDIT: Also, I'm well aware that he's not a player anymore--at least assuming he meant what he said when he said he really was retiring after this year. Further, I don't know anyone who is saying that the financial commitment to him is going to impact the Angels budget in any way, so I'm not even sure why you're throwing that in as a strawman.

I didn't realize it, either. I was surprised to find that excerpt. Not sure why more hasn't been made of that allegation (or, if it has mentioned before, I've completely missed it).

Probably because for some of us on this board, he's a symbol of what has gone wrong with the franchise over much of the last decade and we don't need a reminder of how disappointing his tenure with the Angels was. I don't understand why it would be hard for you to see that. Maybe I've missed something between all the stories about his injuries, his comments about how great of a player he is, and his family drama, but I haven't seen much reporting that indicates he would bring anything unique or positive to the front office. A casual Angels fan might be happy to see him around because he's a "big name," but I don't really give a shit. His best years were with another team. I have zero fond memories of his days with the Angels.

Ok, forget this. Ha. Cole settled down and Urias has looked great so far.

Yes, by round, I believe it now goes best of 3, 5, 7, 13, 21, 35, and then ends in mid-December.

Reminds me of this:

Yeah, that whole inning could have been a disaster. It's interesting to me that so far today, the three home starting pitchers haven't looked their sharpest. All are coming off of longer-than-usual layoffs (6 days for Cole and Verlander, 10 for Fried). Curious to see what Urias does later tonight after a 6-day layoff.

Exactly. And they have continued to kick the shit out of the Angels and every other team in the AL West since then, so it clearly wasn't just the cheating that was making them effective. People need to move on at this point. Sound like a bunch of whiny losers.

No. Do you think the sale of the team is going to last more than a year? And even if it does AND the Angels won the World Series, I highly doubt that would have any significant impact on the price.

Chuck Finley? Fernando Valenzuela? Mark Gubicza? Jk. Sandoval. But I don't think that in and of itself means that all big contracts for SPs are bad--especially when you're the Yankees and can more or less sign whoever you want for whatever amount you want. I'd still take Cole over Sandoval in any individual game right now, given their respective track records. Moving forward, obviously Sandoval is a better "bargain," but that doesn't necessarily mean that Cole's deal with NY was bad for them.