Dtwncbad

I don't think anybody is under the illusion that the Angels have a treasure trove of All Stars now on the way.
The point of the optimism is things are improving.  You can't waive a magic wand and suddenly have 9 guys in the top 100.  I am happy things are going in the right direction.

I don't think anybody is under the illusion that the Angels have a treasure trove of All Stars now on the way.
The point of the optimism is things are improving.  You can't waive a magic wand and suddenly have 9 guys in the top 100.  I am happy things are going in the right direction.

Cheap shot.  Kendrick was nothing but a pure success as a homegrown prospect having a reliable and productive career as an Angel.  Any team would love to have a guy consistently hit .295, play defense, hit some homers, steal some bases, and drive in some runs.
Would you prefer he win a batting title one year or have the stable career he had?

Cheap shot.  Kendrick was nothing but a pure success as a homegrown prospect having a reliable and productive career as an Angel.  Any team would love to have a guy consistently hit .295, play defense, hit some homers, steal some bases, and drive in some runs.
Would you prefer he win a batting title one year or have the stable career he had?

I don't see the huge risk in Stanton.  His value is in his power.  As he goes from 27 yrs old to his mid 30s, his power is the one thing that is least likely to erode.
You can talk about missing games to injury but even with missing games he is posting nice WARs.
His best power years are probably in front of him.  I would say the over/under on homers over the next 6 seasons is like 260ish or 44 a year.
There are two players in the game that wouldn't surprise me hitting 65 homers in a season.  Stanton and Harper.
A 27 year old beast slugger is about the lowest risk profile player I can imagine.
 

I don't see the huge risk in Stanton.  His value is in his power.  As he goes from 27 yrs old to his mid 30s, his power is the one thing that is least likely to erode.
You can talk about missing games to injury but even with missing games he is posting nice WARs.
His best power years are probably in front of him.  I would say the over/under on homers over the next 6 seasons is like 260ish or 44 a year.
There are two players in the game that wouldn't surprise me hitting 65 homers in a season.  Stanton and Harper.
A 27 year old beast slugger is about the lowest risk profile player I can imagine.
 

I don't see the huge risk in Stanton.  His value is in his power.  As he goes from 27 yrs old to his mid 30s, his power is the one thing that is least likely to erode.
You can talk about missing games to injury but even with missing games he is posting nice WARs.
His best power years are probably in front of him.  I would say the over/under on homers over the next 6 seasons is like 260ish or 44 a year.
There are two players in the game that wouldn't surprise me hitting 65 homers in a season.  Stanton and Harper.
A 27 year old beast slugger is about the lowest risk profile player I can imagine.
 

The Angels can easily easily "afford" Stanton and multiple other big contracts too.  It would be almost impossible to really, really mess up the financial stability of the franchise.  Yes you can find yourself paying a luxury tax or having a year over year negative cash flow. . .but the balance sheet is king.
The team value is likely now 2 billion and they have no debt.  And the kicker is any reasonable financial projection says the increase in the value of the franchise will outpace any year over year negative cash flow from high salaries.
It's just a matter of if the owner:
1). Feels there is value in the player or players they take
2). Cares if he is ever over the luxury tax
3). Has solid finance resources to easily manage any potential negative cash flow for any particular year
When the value of your franchise goes up like $1.9 Billion since you have owned the team, "overspending" maybe $30m per year in salary is arguably insignificant. . .
That's a long answer but the point is the Angels could take on four Stantons and the owner's net worth on the balance sheet would still be increasing every year going forward.
These teams are not public traded with quarterly pressure and most are not owned to specifically achieve annual cash profit.  They are owned for pride in winning emotionally and financially as a way to increase their net worth.

The Angels can easily easily "afford" Stanton and multiple other big contracts too.  It would be almost impossible to really, really mess up the financial stability of the franchise.  Yes you can find yourself paying a luxury tax or having a year over year negative cash flow. . .but the balance sheet is king.
The team value is likely now 2 billion and they have no debt.  And the kicker is any reasonable financial projection says the increase in the value of the franchise will outpace any year over year negative cash flow from high salaries.
It's just a matter of if the owner:
1). Feels there is value in the player or players they take
2). Cares if he is ever over the luxury tax
3). Has solid finance resources to easily manage any potential negative cash flow for any particular year
When the value of your franchise goes up like $1.9 Billion since you have owned the team, "overspending" maybe $30m per year in salary is arguably insignificant. . .
That's a long answer but the point is the Angels could take on four Stantons and the owner's net worth on the balance sheet would still be increasing every year going forward.
These teams are not public traded with quarterly pressure and most are not owned to specifically achieve annual cash profit.  They are owned for pride in winning emotionally and financially as a way to increase their net worth.

The Angels can easily easily "afford" Stanton and multiple other big contracts too.  It would be almost impossible to really, really mess up the financial stability of the franchise.  Yes you can find yourself paying a luxury tax or having a year over year negative cash flow. . .but the balance sheet is king.
The team value is likely now 2 billion and they have no debt.  And the kicker is any reasonable financial projection says the increase in the value of the franchise will outpace any year over year negative cash flow from high salaries.
It's just a matter of if the owner:
1). Feels there is value in the player or players they take
2). Cares if he is ever over the luxury tax
3). Has solid finance resources to easily manage any potential negative cash flow for any particular year
When the value of your franchise goes up like $1.9 Billion since you have owned the team, "overspending" maybe $30m per year in salary is arguably insignificant. . .
That's a long answer but the point is the Angels could take on four Stantons and the owner's net worth on the balance sheet would still be increasing every year going forward.
These teams are not public traded with quarterly pressure and most are not owned to specifically achieve annual cash profit.  They are owned for pride in winning emotionally and financially as a way to increase their net worth.

Why would you lose Cowart?  He can play 3B.

Claim Kinsler and get him for next to nothing. Put Cowart at 3B with Escobar hurt and if he does well, give him the spot for next year. If not, sign moose. Sign Upton for LF. Sign Darvish. 

With one walk in his last 66 at bats and a career worst swing at balls out of the zone rate, Pujols really should not be drawing attention to himself on the subject of balls and strikes.

I hate to pile on (I honestly do, I have been a huge Pujols fan forever), but the article starts out with "Angel slugger Albert Pujols. . ."
You honestly have got to stop this delusion.  He is not a slugger.  .376 slugging is in the bottom 9% of hitters in the AL.
I don't know where others draw the line, but how about at least being in the top half to be called a slugger?

With one walk in his last 66 at bats and a career worst swing at balls out of the zone rate, Pujols really should not be drawing attention to himself on the subject of balls and strikes.

I don't disagree with your overall view.
But my conclusion looking at this analysis is, to me, a glaring need to lock up a pitcher with the best chance at #2 starter or better level production with maximum innings.
If the Angels had that, then suddenly the rest of the staff is set because there are enough viable bodies to fill out four more spots and I dont NEED any one other pitcher to deliver.
The real upside is the Angels find themselves with too much pitching and they can deal some to address another position upgrade.  Imagine being able to deal some combo of (for example) Meyer/Tropeano/Bridwell for a rock solid contributing regular.
Better too end of the rotation and an improvement at another spot.  Sweet.
All pivots on landing a horse to lead the staff. . .

Moustakas certainly will sign for a fair market price.  He will be a free agent. The contract will define fair market price.
Secondly, the team is ready to compete.  They are almost in a playoff spot now.  They have a couple of obvious holes to be filled, and that is how teams should use free agency. . .to fill a couple of specific holes.
I am not in love with Moustakas specifically. . .I am fine scooting Cowart over there and signing a different impact bat if that is how it plays out.
But the Angels have passed on major free agent signings the last couple of years evidently committed to staying under the luxury tax.  Going through these seasons with glaring holes has clearly hurt their wins and losses.  But at least we have known why those holes are there.
This offseason they will have plenty of room to spend to fill those holes.
There is literally no reason to not use that money to fill those holes.
I don't think anyone is advocating reckless 8 year contracts for 32 year olds, so there is no point arguing against that straw man.
If the Angels do not somewhat aggressively spend money to directly address their holes in an offseason when they have tons of room to spend, it will have an effect on my interest in the team.
This is supposed to be a first tier, big market team with ownershio interrsted in winning.
If you don't try to win when you have money to spend, are arguably 2-3 players away from being really good, and you have Trout in his prime. .  Then I question the entire notion that this is a first tier, big marketbteam witj an owner that wants to win.
I believe they will sign at least two high profile players.  Any other outcome would be a shock (and disappointment) to me.

"Angel Great" would not be inaccurate just like describing Pujols as a Cardinal Great is still correct.  But currently calling Pujols a slugger is just kind of lame, especially when it isnt necessary in that context to call him anything. That's all.

I hate to pile on (I honestly do, I have been a huge Pujols fan forever), but the article starts out with "Angel slugger Albert Pujols. . ."
You honestly have got to stop this delusion.  He is not a slugger.  .376 slugging is in the bottom 9% of hitters in the AL.
I don't know where others draw the line, but how about at least being in the top half to be called a slugger?

With one walk in his last 66 at bats and a career worst swing at balls out of the zone rate, Pujols really should not be drawing attention to himself on the subject of balls and strikes.

Jeez.  I wrote about this exact nonsense no more than like a week ago saying how pathetic it is that the media foams at the mouth over Jeter every time a shortstop leaves his feet to throw.
Jeter is a HOF player.  I do not question that.  But I will say he is the most overrated player I have ever seen.
My favorite way to show it is that Jeter's lifetime WAR is  71.8 over 20 seasons.
Grich is 70.9 over 17 seasons.
Jeter is treated like Babe Ruth and Grich is treated like Johnny Ray.
It's a joke!
 

Valbuena needs to hit his way out of this slump this year.  Play him.  I don't want him going into next year still mired in a slump.
Maybe he slumps the whole year and then we know to cut bait.  But If this guy can get out of the rut, if that's possible, I want to get over the hump this year so we know.
Spending the at bats on that might be worth it.

The Angels will have money this offseason.
2 significant signings, one starting pitcher and one position player.
Signing a better pitcher frees up a number of back of the rotation arms to trade to address another position.
That makes two position upgrades.
Optimism says Cowart can check off another position in need.
That should improve the team enough to put them in the race at the trade deadline to pursue a targeted improvement.
So come August 2018, the Angels should be on the race with a stronger starting rotation and three significant positional upgrades (plus Cowart helping potentially).
Here are my choices to fill in the names.
Tanaka and Hosmer in free agency.
Trade pitching depth for an outfielder like Domingo Santana (Brewers have like 38 projectable OF bodies).
At trade deadline, trade for half a season of Manny Machado for the title run!
Simmons SS
Trout CF
Machado 3B
Hosmer 1B
Pujols DH
Santana LF
Calhoun RF
Maldonado C
Cowart 2B
Tanaka, Richards, Heaney, Skaggs, Shoemaker.
 
 
 

Maybe I missed it noted elsewhere but. . . Trout hit the foul pole on the day Baylor died.  That gave me the chills remembering one of Baylor's most famous Angel moments.

Jeez.  I wrote about this exact nonsense no more than like a week ago saying how pathetic it is that the media foams at the mouth over Jeter every time a shortstop leaves his feet to throw.
Jeter is a HOF player.  I do not question that.  But I will say he is the most overrated player I have ever seen.
My favorite way to show it is that Jeter's lifetime WAR is  71.8 over 20 seasons.
Grich is 70.9 over 17 seasons.
Jeter is treated like Babe Ruth and Grich is treated like Johnny Ray.
It's a joke!