Dtwncbad

So I can break my solar lease and tell my wife the seven year itch is legal?

I think he breaks none of the big records individually but ends up high on the list of many of the records. . .a testament to his overall game, and making him different from some of the guys who sit on top of one category but were more narrow in their overall game. The Toyota Camry is an excellent car. Nobody would argue otherwise. But the Hyundai has more legroom! The Subaru has more horsepower! The Nissan has a larger trunk! Mike Trout is a beast of a baseball player. I really don't care if: Rickey Henderson stole more bases! Pete Rose got more hits!

I think this is why Sherman Johnson's agent will not even discuss a 10 year extension for him that would otherwise be an obvious.

I think there have to be two big things on the minds of ownership and management.

1). having Mike Trout in an Angel uniform for his whole career

2). reaching a point where talent is grossly surging in the organization

I am guilty as anyone in wanting to not throw away 2017, but I have to believe ownership and management are trying to time these two things.  If they can stack up talent over the next couple of years to the point where the organization is at a peak of optimism going forward, and that coincides with Trout making a decision on staying or leaving through free agency, then they sand the best chance of achieving both.

For the Angels to keep Trout, he has to believe the best days are ahead and he doesn't want to miss those days after spending so much time with the Angels.  His legacy would be slightly damaged if he left and the Angels then went on to win without him.   Provided the money is close, I don't think he would want that to even be a possible story line.

So the key is to get the organization flush with young talent. . . 

I just have to hope they are competitive in the meantime, and I hope they have the nuts to make bold moves to accomplish this.  If the Angels are 7 games out at the trade deadline, I hope they have the guts to trade every expiring contract for prospects.

In the end, I want the Angels to win.  I can keep hoping for 2017 to be a miracle year, but I have to be patient and digest the reality that the big picture is more important.  It would be thrilling in 2-3 years if the Angels were bursting with young talent and extending Trout at the same time to be here through his extended prime.  Thrilling.

The Cubs have Bryant and a whole mess of other young talent around him.  They just won a ring and their best days still look to be ahead of them.  I am jealous.

I have to have patience.

To be clear, he doesn't do all the Christmas shopping.  He just finishes it.

2 hours ago, hangin n wangin said:

Here's the thing though. Pujols annoys me. Darvish doesn't. How many millions per win does that add to his total?

Pujols personally doesn't annoy me.  He seems to be a pretty good dude.  But it scares me that at this point in his offensive game he is basically up there to hit a fly ball to left and hope it catches a wind flurry and drifts out.  I am not seen him destroy balls like he used to.

He can probably be functional for a couple.more years but the thrill of watching him hit is long gone.

Free agency really has become so much less fun for the fans.  I wish owners would get smarter overall in terms of contract length.  The market is a function of player wants and owner willingness.  I get it.  But when will owners learn?

You can't have collusion but at some point you can hope for consensus, which is not the same.  Contracts longer than 3 years for free agents really should be rare.  Most free agents are 30+ yrs of age.  It would be reasonable to give three years and then take a new look at the 33 or 34 yr old to see what they have left.

If owners could smarten up a bit and not piss all over themselves for free agents with 5, 6, 7 or more year free agent contracts, maybe the league would be better with teams not trapped in mediocrity.

To be clear I am not talking about a rule about contract length (Trout and Harper types, of course).  I am just talking about showing some wisdom, and having that wisdom have an effect on a typical contract length for free agents.

I mentioned elsewhere how much I think Cespedes instead of Maybin in left would have been good (especially in the context of not punting 2017), but that is hindsight.

In foresight, I am honestly still pretty worried about 3B, 2B, and catcher.  I am fearful that with even just a small amount of bad luck, the Angels are going to have literally three black holes in the lineup that end up with a cumulative negative WAR.  And imagine if Simmons offensively reverts.  Am I going to be able to sit through 3 and a half hour games when inside the margin of error is possibly having 4 spots in the offensive lineup that can't produce?

I don't really loathe any of the individual players in any of these lineups.  But frankly, seeing them together in an actual lineup does feel a little yucky.  Too many "just getting by" spots screaming for at least ONE significant offensive upgrade.  Too many spots that are pedestrian.

I still cannot quite digest why the Angels would not have considered someone like Cespedes to drop in there to bring the lineup into a world of legitimacy.  Yes, I get the money and the interest in rebuilding the farm.  But winning matters too!  Realistically if the Angels pitching stays healthy and Cespedes has a normal Cespedes year, I could see the Angels as a postseason team in 2017.  Not going to happen now (obviously), but how much more energized would the Angel fan base be if the opening day lineup was:

Escobar

Trout

Cespedes

Pujols

Calhoun

Cron

Simmons

Espinoza

Maldonado

I don't want to pick on Maybin personally, but it is pretty hard for me to ignore that I can realistically see Maybin either getting hurt and missing 60 games, or delivering an OPS in the 600s.  Of course I am not rooting for that, but I have to be honest that this is a possibility.  Compare that to a fairly reliable .850 OPS from Cespedes?  Cespedes would bring people out to see the team and tune into the games.  I don't see Maybin contributing in the marketing side of the business at all.

For the record (shouldn't have to say it) I am pulling for Maybin.  I would love to see a breakout year.  I just wouldn't bet on it.

I doubt Heyman has any info at all on the Angels lurking on any significant names.  It's all about promoting himself.  Lots of baseball information people use all the same tricks for clicks.  In that sense, Heyman is no different.  But in one sense Heyman is different.  He is actually a complete jerk, fueled by his own uppity attitude and self-righteousness.

But the bottom line is speculating a big name being connected to a big market team "hauls in" a pretty good number of clicks.  I can't see the Angels signing Bautista for any number that is believable, so I say there is no story here (other than noticing an obvious case of Heyman executing click food). 

I don't think people having their own firm, settled opinion about Hamilton makes them "obsessed".  The subject is still relevant because the Angels are still paying him.  The great divide on Hamilton is between those that are done making excuses for him and those that will never be done making excuses for him.  That divide will remain forever.  The frequency of it being mentioned will drastically reduce when he is finally off the payroll releasing the Angels of the constant reminder of what a complete disaster he was for this team.

I like Huston Street as a person but I have almost no confidence left at all that he is a plus as a member of this bullpen.  I can see too many blown saves coming our way. . .I'm not looking forward to that.

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?

44 minutes ago, ukyah said:

weaver's contract wasn't marketing. it was one of the clearest examples of a hometown discount in the history of the current climate of mlb contracts. there is no agent in the world that would recommend a client who is performing anywhere near a top 5 status, as weaver was, and recommend him to sign an extension when he's a year away from a FA contract and he's young.

worried about getting injured? buy an insurance policy for a year.

weaver left an insane amount of money on the table and boras was beside himself.

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.

18 hours ago, Dochalo said:

Weaver had back to back top 5 cy finishes.  

3 yrs prior to his contract (2009-2011):

3.03 era, 671ip, 605k.  

Age 29 first year of new contract

5/85mil

 

Comps from then:

Greinke:

three years prior to contract (2010-2012)

3.83 era, 604ip, 582k

cy young in 2009

Age 29 first year of new contract

6/147mil

 

Cliff Lee:

three years prior to contract (2008-2010)

2.98 era, 667.1ip, 536k

cy young 2008

Age 32 at start of new contract

5/120mil

 

An argument could be made that Weaver was better than either of those guys at the time.  

He left upwards of 50 mil on the table to come back to the Angels much to the dismay of Boras.  

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.

18 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

He would have gotten it for sure the following year.  

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.

19 minutes ago, hangin n wangin said:

Lackey was top ten in pitcher WAR for three straight years from 2005-2007. The definition of an ace is hard to quantify because everyone has different variables. But to be in the top ten in pitcher WAR in all of baseball for three straight years is very impressive. I wouldn't argue with someone if they did say he was an ace for those three years.

But I'm definitely not judging Lackey on his win averages to determine if he was an ace or not.

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.

2 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Well if you had been here he certainly hasn't been given the kings treatment.  Also, like I said in the Angels existence we have had only a handful of good pitchers that spent ten years with the team.  

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.

2 minutes ago, Stradling said:

He may have been over rated by the fans but he was our best pitcher for about a decade and since you have followed the team about as long as I have, have we been able to say that about many people.  I get what you are saying about not being part of a winning plan going forward, but it doesn't mean we should diminish what he did for a team that hasn't had a lot like him over the course of their existence.  I will miss him, but considering how he has pitched the last couple of years, it won't be as hard as losing a guy like Lackey when he was still in his prime.  

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.)

11 hours ago, ukyah said:

 

ah grasshopper, the answer lies in your observation.

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.