Dtwncbad

To be fair, at age 37:
Tony Gwynn OPS was .951
George Brett OPS was .902
Cal Ripken OPS was .721
So Gwynn and Brett were still beasts and Ripken was still a serviceable player.
The Pujols situation really is different.
Edit: I forgot to address Puckett.  He retired after he was 35 and had just posted .902 and .894 OPS.  Yes we know the medical reasoning but the point is there was never a situation with the four players listed where they were stinking up the joint and still being penciled in.
Pujols legacy NOW likely carries similar weight, but he will hurt his legacy compared to these other players if this keeps up for 4 more years since none of them had this stuff going on.

They have already scheduled  a Trans Night.  But they might switch the date. Stay tuned.

When is gay pride night?
In other words:
When do pitchers and catchers report?

Nobody wants to give up young talent. The teams needs more offense and needs high level players in their prime.
And we have people saying pass on Stanton because he is expensive in salary?
How does anyone think this team is going to acquire high level talent in their prime without giving up young talent?
Duh.  It will be by paying MONEY for it instead.
I'm a way, Stanton is tailor made for the Angel current situation (If the Marlins would accept another team giving them less in talent to take his whole contract).
 

When is gay pride night?
In other words:
When do pitchers and catchers report?

Stanton isn't Trout or even prime Pujols, but he's a super star and is really just entering his prime.  He probably ends up with 500 hrs pretty easily.  Which would make him a HOFer.  
There is risk involved with taking on his contract, but that risk is 6 years from now.  
You want to avoid risk yet you're willing to consider Darvish?  Or Moose?  Depending on the contract?  What would make you interested?  5/125 for Darvish?  He'll probably get 6/150 and he just turned 31.  Stanton doesn't turn 31 for 3.5 years.  After the 2020 season.  He'll have about 7/200 left from that point.  So you get Darvish for his age 31-36 yo seasons or you pay Stanton 50mil more spread over 7 years so you can get his age 28-30 season as well.   
Moose  is a year older than Stanton and nowhere near the same player but nowhere near the cost.  That said, he's still going to run you over 100 mil for 6+ years.  He's got a 5% walk rate this year and is solid above avg hitter but has had some dismal seasons and showing cracks on defense this year.  He's got a move to 1b written on him.  So yes, I see a ton of risk there.  
It's not always about how much risk you are taking, but when you take it.  I have no idea what Harper or Machado are going to do.  If I have a chance to get Stanton and pair him up with Trout for the next 3 years (at least), I'm taking it with two caveats.  1.  If it restricts signing Trout long term then I pass.  2. If I am cleaning out the farm then I pass.  
But I like the deferred risk of Stanton vs. the current risk of Moose or Darvish.  

I didn't call you names and I specifically was careful to make sure you knew I had no intention of insulting.  Emotions in being a fan is normal.  Nothing wrong with it.  It just doesn't work that great in a discussion on a message board that kinda relies on some objectivity to make a good points.
Hiding behind?  That's sort of funny since my point to you is you have committed emotions you want to express "hiding behind" basically fake logic due to a lack of objectivity.
Do you a favor?  I did.  You just didn't see it objectively.  Irony.

They probably didn't call because they are stupid and are not committed to winning.  Or they called but it wasn't a serious call because they are stupid and lazy and are not committed to winning.  Or they called and were serious but their proposal was probably stupid and wouldn't help the team.  Or they called and were serious and made an offer and the Marlins made an offer that was great but the Angels were too stupid to see a good deal and they passed on it.
They are dumb to not bring in elite players but they are also dumb for bringing in Simmons since they have not brought in more elite players.
They are dumb for spending big in free agency but they are also dumb for not spending in free agency.
Do I have this about right, approximately?

Since when was it ethically required to celebrate one's sexual or gender preference at a ball game?  
 

They have already scheduled  a Trans Night.  But they might switch the date. Stay tuned.

They have already scheduled  a Trans Night.  But they might switch the date. Stay tuned.

They have already scheduled  a Trans Night.  But they might switch the date. Stay tuned.

They have already scheduled  a Trans Night.  But they might switch the date. Stay tuned.

They have already scheduled  a Trans Night.  But they might switch the date. Stay tuned.

They have already scheduled  a Trans Night.  But they might switch the date. Stay tuned.

I didn't call you names and I specifically was careful to make sure you knew I had no intention of insulting.  Emotions in being a fan is normal.  Nothing wrong with it.  It just doesn't work that great in a discussion on a message board that kinda relies on some objectivity to make a good points.
Hiding behind?  That's sort of funny since my point to you is you have committed emotions you want to express "hiding behind" basically fake logic due to a lack of objectivity.
Do you a favor?  I did.  You just didn't see it objectively.  Irony.

I am so tired of hearing what the Angels cannot afford.
They can afford Stanton and Trout and Pujols and other players and they can afford to pay a luxury tax for a few years.
Choosing to not go over the lux tax is not the same as not being able to afford players.

I am so tired of hearing what the Angels cannot afford.
They can afford Stanton and Trout and Pujols and other players and they can afford to pay a luxury tax for a few years.
Choosing to not go over the lux tax is not the same as not being able to afford players.

1). Arte has been burned by some contracts.  The spending stopped when they were at the lux tax limit.  This offseason they will have lots of room.  Concluding he won't spend when he has room beneath the lux tax is 100% speculative with zero evidence to support it.
2). Saying the owner isn't interested in winning a WS instantly discredits anything you say.  There is literally no reason to think this.
3). Thinking Arte only cares about drawing 3 million in physical attendance dates your understanding of baseball revenues and economics.
4). Passing off Stanton's age as not a significant enough difference between his situation and giving new 10 year contracts to guys in their 30s is almost used car salesman stuff.
I conclude you hate Arte for no good reason, and this (somehow) is simply how you choose to be as a fan.
I think I just went 4 for 4.

Flop, why is this story speculating we weren't involved is true, but the one speculating we were involved isn't true?  

I am so tired of hearing what the Angels cannot afford.
They can afford Stanton and Trout and Pujols and other players and they can afford to pay a luxury tax for a few years.
Choosing to not go over the lux tax is not the same as not being able to afford players.

At tge trade deadline I think players in the dugout should troll the media and stage sudden goodbyes and hugs for one player while they collect their stuff and disappear into the clubhouse.

I would equally enjoy them losing in the first round if playoffs as I would watching them lose 95 games. 

Respectfully I never inquired about what MS is talking about.  I know he is full of shit on this subject so I ignore him.
What he says is 100% irrelevant

Respectfully I never inquired about what MS is talking about.  I know he is full of shit on this subject so I ignore him.
What he says is 100% irrelevant