Dtwncbad

I have never really bought into idea that the Pujols contract is a problem. He is a decent player with a big name. He underperforms the dollars, yes. But the contract is not an obstacle. The Angels are financially limited by Arte's newly found discipline. They are not limited by the existence of the Pujols contract.

You said there isn't an agent in the world that would advise that kind of extension. Except Verlander's and King Felix's, right?

Respectfully, you bit, swallowed and permanently digested the bait. There won't be any presentation I can make to change you mind. But you might consider that Boras has his philosophy regarding free agency (not being a big fan of extensions prior) but Boras likely already has most of the money he will earn in his pocket, so he isn't exactly aligned emotionally or financially with a player looking at their first opportunity to secure a life changing number. So that is not, at all, evidence that Weaver left money on the table. And insurance doesn't work maybe the way you think it works. You understand that if Weaver went to an insurance company and said, "I think I might be able to land $150m in a couple years, and I want to insure that." The insurance company would say, "OK, so commit 20% of it to us as your premium." Is it sinking in yet? That is a COST. A big cost. So thank you for bringing up another element that would have Weaver want to make an $85m money grab in an extension now. I could see people saying that maybe Weaver may not have cared about going one last round of hard core negotiations to get that last dollar. I doubt it with Boras as his agent. When all is said and done, when Boras negotiates any contract, he is a bulldog. Verlander got $79m for 5 years. Weaver got $85m for 5 years. Sorry, I don't see some "discount" when it was more than the most accurate comp contract, and he actually got more than Verlander. The two deals that are most comparable to Weaver are the deals signed by Justin Verlander and Felix Hernandez. The deals for Verlander and Hernandez both bought out two arbitration years plus three years of free agency: Verlander: 5 years, $80 million; three FA years totaled $60 million ($20 million per year) Hernandez: 5 years, $78 million; three FA years totaled $58 million ($19.33 million per year) So that was the correct market for this kind of extension buying out two years of arbitration and 3 yrs of free agency.

Dude. . .the two "comps" you provide for Greinke and Lee are not comps. Not even close. I'm not sure how to say this any more clearly. Those guy were free agents when they signed those contracts. Weaver was not a free agent. And you cite Grienke's age and Lee's age when they signed those free agent contracts. Weaver clearly planned to cash his $85 million and THEN hit the free agent market in his young thirties and ALSO land a contract like that. Unfortunately, his stuff abandoned him and he is not a premium stud starter as a free agent like Greinke and Lee were. I notice you don't mention (off the top of my head) a more relevant "comp" like Justin Verlander that signed an EXTENSION (when he was not a free agent), and he got 5 yrs, $79m. These extension plays are often trying to double dip a bit. Grab a nice big chunk of money for that secure life changer, and still hit the open market as a free agent as young as you possibly can and ALSO land a second monster deal. There is nothing wrong with the strategy. But it is a strategy that secures that first life changing number (kind of dumb to say that since most of these guys already have made millions, but in their world making a couple million total is just an appetizer to a big number deal). The point is you absolutely cannot compare a free agent contract to an extension contract. Yes, you can say "if he did not sign an extension and stayed healthy and pitched well, he might have landed. . . " but even that doesn't properly acknowledge that security matters, and the fact that they often jump from a couple million a year to like $20 million NOW for sometimes a couple years prior to them being a free agent.

And what if he blew out his arm that year? He would have gotten nothing. This is the point. He did not give the team a "discount". He chose $85m now with no leverage(not a free agent yet) over likely more if he stayed healthy and if he performed well until he became a free agent when he would have leverage. Saying he could have landed a larger contract if he waited to free agency doesn't prove he gave the team a discount. Apples and oranges. I actually thought he might be slightly overpaid because I didn't think his stuff was projectable for length of the extension. In the end, he was highly overpaid in the last two years of that deal. There was no discount.

He wasn't a free agent. He only had one team to negotiate with.

I still maintain that the "hometown discount" really wasn't a discount. It was the right number under the circumstances. Anyone can accept a bird in hand for two in the bush but that is not taking a discount. I saw that whole "hometown discount" story as smart marketing on both sides. The team and they player both benefit from that angle. I just never bought it. He wasn't a free agent. His agent has brains. That was marketing. And that's fine. Marketing is smart.

Yeah, that's fair. But two things. I don't QUITE trust WAR as much with pitchers as I do with position players, but that is just me. It doesn't minimize your point. The second thing is I do trust WHIP as a quicky look at how good a pitcher is at doing his job (stopping offense from scoring runs). Lackey's typical WHIP is very much Ervin Santana-like. And I don't think anyone ever thought of Ervin Santana in the same exasperated breath with the beloved Lackey.

I assume you mean on this board? No, I mean in the general fanbase and the media. Oh, and you mentioned John Lackey. On the Angel message board, I certainly wrote my share of posts pointing out that John Lackey was constantly treated like an ace, and he was an ace once. He might have been the default #1 pitcher in the rotation many years, but the fact is he average 12.75 wins a year. Yes, I know wins don't mean everything for a starting pitcher, but I point that number out because I think it is a number that would surprise people expecting it to be higher. Looking at whip and era (or any other more respected statistic than wins) seems to prove the same point. Lackey wan't my favorite player either. He was a guy that got a lot of credit for being gritty and a competitor, but there is a fine line between being a competitor and being a jerk teammate staring down other players and yelling and whatever. I don't remember any third basemen yelling at Lackey for missing on a 3-2 pitch, but he had no problem yelling at a player that made an error. Overall--overrated and not my favorite.

I don't think I am diminishing him at all. I am saying I think my context for who he was to the team feels more accurate than some of the King's treatment he seems to get. He was a true ace a number of times. In his non-ace years he was sometimes still considered an ace and I didn't get it. The truth is the truth. He was never bad until the end, and I appreciated that. But as I said in a previous post, sometimes he was more Kirk McCaskill/Kelvim Escobar. It's all good. Those are good pitchers. But maybe to me Weaver is Pamela Anderson. She was certainly pretty hot for a long time, but there were lots of times Pamela Anderson was not nearly as hot as people gave her credit for.

I don't hate Weaver at all. I guess I was too long winded in the first place, but if I had to re-post I would say: I think I liked Weaver exactly for his literal performance year by year, and at least a few times thought the attention he got wasn't exactly correct for his performance. He was a legit beast ace like three years. Lots of other good years in there too, but during those "good" years the rest of the fanbase seemed to be pretending he was closer to Pedro Martinez when often he was closer to Kirk McCaskill than they would like to honestly admit (Kirk McCaskill's 3 or 4 best years were pretty close to some of Weaver's non-ace years). That's all. I was just not one of those fans that were totally over-the-top jacked up when it was Weaver's turn in the rotation. I'm not dumb. I was happy to hand him the ball, but probably about as excited emotionally for Weaver to pitch as I was for Kelvim Escobar to pitch (when he was healthy). Cool, good pitcher today. Good shot at winning.

I may get roasted for this, but I am just telling the truth about my own personal emotional experience as an Angel fan. I have always appreciated Weaver's grit and success, but he isn't a player I ever got attached to. Among all the "face of the franchise" players over the 35 yr I have followed the team, he is the probably the least appealing to me personally and arguably probably the most over rated. He was praised as an ace much more often than actually was an ace. He was often, but not always, overrated. Don't confuse these comments as being critical of him or not liking him or not appreciating his actual performance. He was sometimes an ace, and many times pretty darn good. Its just that I never quite understood the permanent king treatment. So I am not going to "miss" Weaver taking the mound as much as most others when he had less appeal to me than most fans in the past and more importantly he is a terrible bet to be part of a winning plan going forward. (Putting on my helmet getting ready for the stones about to be thrown at me with accusations that I thought he stunk, which is not what I said.)

Yes, exactly. It wasn't an accident. Here is what I literally cannot understand. This roster, exactly as it is, (to me) is probably two players away from being a threat to not just make the postseason, but to actually have a puncher's chance in the postseason. Other than final roster tinkering on the low impact level, if they could add two things: --one guy that has the potential to pitch like a legit #2 --one SIGNIFICANT upgrade at a soft position (3B, 2B, C, or LF, as suggested Maybin ending up a 4th OF) Then this team could be pretty darn good! So yes this is easier said than done, but I will also argue that it is not so hard that you do not commit yourself to it. You go get Tyson Ross. He isn't going to cost that much and won't be a long term commitment. It will work or it won't. But at least you give yourself that upside and hope. The Angels are in fine shape money wise. They could easily spend a couple bucks to get an impact player (especially in an expiring contract) and the luxury tax penalty would be peanuts for one year. It just seems like making 2017 an honestly intellectually-hopeful season is just not that many moves, and not that expensive in the big picture. . . versus 2017 being nothing more than time passing getting to better days. I don't believe you have to have 2017 be basically a throw away year to stay on the right path to better days.

I can't help but comment that a great 4th OF for a championship team would be Cameron Maybin. So for me, the search should be for a third OF since the Angels already have a great 4th OF.

Before I know who is coming back, I have to be honest that Bandy was one of the players that was starting to be fun to root for. Jett is a cool name and I admit I didn't go to the fridge when he was at bat. Hopefully the return is good.

How many blacks are supposed to be major leaguers? How many Hispanics are supposed to be in medical school? How many Irish Americans are supposed to be rap stars? How many Asians are supposed to be in the NBA? How many lesbians are supposed to be ventriloquists? Lots of work to do here to straighten things out.

I was away from message boards for an eternity and I take a peek back in, and what do I see? Sherman Johnson talk. OK. How about seasoning it with some Andrew Romine talk?

Please sign Tyson Ross. Please? He is going to want one year to re-establish himself. So no long term risk, no massive amount of money risk. If he recovers fully then he is potentially the #1 starter on the team. Imagine adding like 14 wins to the rotation. Imagine the Angel offense does fine, Richards pitches well, Ross pitches well, and the volume of other pitchers make the staff competitive every single day. Imagine getting into that wildcard spot and actually looking at a postseason with two #1 level pitchers in Richards and Ross. Nothing about signing Ross to a one year deal would disrupt any other plans long term. It is all upside, and the only downside will be a modest one year contract. Come on Eppler, see the opportunity and move on it.

It "should" be Bedrosian at this point if you measure talent and getting Bedrosian into the role he belongs in. But I think the reality is they will put Street in there in the hopes he returns to being a reliable closer so that he has trade value as such mid summer.

Wondering out loud. . . Is Eppler the type of GM that carefully measures available opportunities? Or is he a GM that knows how to create opportunities? I think the difference between a decent functional GM and a really good one is if they are good at only the first or good at both.

www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-risk-of-a-justin-turner-deal/ Good argument that Turner could be a value. And yet Eppler was quoted as not willing to consider moving Escobar. I don't know if that means the Angels will not pursue a 3B, or if that means even if they do Escobar will not be moved to 2B. Eppler is on record saying the game is to watch for opportunity and value. I hope he sees what I see in Turner.

Not exacly. I am asking them to spend some money on making the team better. It is pro sports. It costs money. This is the Los Angeles Angels in 2017 with Mike Trout in his prime. You spend some money and try to win. Turner is a very good player that produces with the bat and is great in the field. You go get this guy. He makes the team better. I remember when people were freaked out by Adrian Beltre asking for 5 years and how "stupid" that would be for the Angels to get him. Yes there are lots of 5 year deals that don't produce for 5 years (like CJ Wilson) but that doesn't mean you don't pick a player that fits and try---especially when you have the money and your team is so healthy financially. The Twins or the Rays are different. My opinon is the Angels are not acting like the Angels should act. What would Dave Dombrowski do as GM of this team right now? There are two answers. One is aggressively tear it down around Trout, and the other is aggressively build it up around Trout. But I guarantee Dombrowski would not have left these Winter Meetings with unchecked boxes the way Eppler did.

A young man trying to get rich makes one set of decisions. Arte is not a young man trying to get rich. He is an old man who is already pretty filthy rich. And the one point I would make is I don't think it is even remotely possible for him to spend so much on this team that he ends his life not being filthy rich or not leaving an extremely financially healthy baseball team to his heirs. Spending foolishly is spending foolishly. I don't think anyone is asking for that. But open up a bit and sign Turner for 3B? Sign a free agent pitcher and then trade from pitching depth for a legit 2B (who may also have a healthy salary)? This doesn't sound to me like anything more than spending what you have to make the team better, with zero long term financial risk.

I also could not care less what that type of fan thinks. But that has nothing to do with the point I made about what more engaged intelligent fans are observing. I am not looking for trading Dante BIchette for Dave Parker or signing Gary Matthews Jr . . . I like to think I know a bit about baseball and I have been following the team since I moved to CA in 1977. I'm bored overall (except for obvious love of watching Trout play and other storylines). But bored OVERALL with the stagnant roster and the totally lacking in enthusiasm for 2017 being different than 2016. Just being honest.

All we need now is for the Angels to march out Scioscia to the media at the meetings to review four or five tired platitudes on what is nice about the current roster and playing it one game at a time, and blah blah blah. . . Shoot me.