Jump to content

Buttercup

Members
  • Posts

    80
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Buttercup

  1. 13 minutes ago, TroutField said:

    I’m sure Trout will ask for your opinion when he chooses where to live. 

    I’m not saying he would. I’m saying not everyone loves it in Southern California. 

    I did a phone interview with Trout once. I totally froze. He definitely doesn’t want my opinion. 

  2. 16 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

    After Machado and Harper sign, that’s when you can start keeping an eye on Trout. 

    I assume they’ll offer him more than those guys. They’ll convince him they have a plan to be long-term winners (build the farm system). They’ll remind him how well he’s treated, how he’s beloved, etc. And he’ll take it. 

    One thing you have to remember about all this “I want to win” stuff you hear Trout say: What’s he supposed to say? “I just want the most money.” No one says that. 

    If he’s paid fairly, likes the people he’s going to be around, and feels likes he’s got as good a chance as anywhere else to win, why wouldn’t he stay?

    I married a Jersey Girl. I’ve been under a lot of pressure to move...

    I guess I just see it as Trout has made a lot of money and is essentially guaranteed to make ludicrous money and get to choose where he wants to pay his taxes . I see only two reasons he absolutely stays.

    1. He gets offered the largest contract in sports history and likes it here. 

    2. He gets offered the largest contract in sports history and is afraid of injury. 

    Im not yet convinced he likes it that much here. I left SoCal because I found I liked NorCal better. And I was offered less money 

  3. 12 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

    I think there’s about 70 percent chance Trout signs an extension between now and February 2020.

    At those odds you can’t trade him. Coming from you Mr. Fletcher, that makes me sleep better. 

    I’ll yield from signing a big two and suggest signing two starters and trading Skaggs. 

  4. 1 hour ago, ettin said:

    Quite possibly the worst idea I have ever read here (sorry it had to be you Buttercup).

    Instead of spending $500M for perhaps the best player to ever play the game let's spend $400M for a guy that is about 40% less productive and valuable.

    I am somewhat honored at the thought of having the worst idea this forum has ever produced.

    I am getting increasingly worried that Arte will not spend $500 million and Trout will find that somewhere else. That’s the worst outcome and idea. If the 350 (maybe its 400) million Dollar player we got now produced 6 WAR (Machado’s average) and we could get  virtually any young MLB rookie (Acuna, vlad jr etc.)who could very likely produce 4 WAR with possibly higher upside. Plus several top prospects ready to be called up soon. That likely exceeds Trouts production and does so at very nearly the same annual salary as Trout makes now leaving us with another 20 million to spend. Multiple good to all star players protects from injury to one player as well  

    I feel emotion is clouding your responses. I understand, it would be hard to fap to Trout porn in a Phillies uni. 

    How many playoff games has Trout helped us win again? Babe Ruth had murderers row  Walter Johnson had nobody. I’m just saying something needs to be done and if Arte doesn’t increase payroll to help win this year, Trout is likely gone and we end up needing to replace Trouts production in much thinner free agent markets  

     

     

  5. 4 minutes ago, floplag said:

    Yeah i have to agree, spend to build around him while building the far, or tear it down.  It makes no sense to replace one star with another and still have the holes. 

    What they should do is spend now while staying the course on the long term plan, win now and win later.  Might suffer a couple years of higher than wanted payroll but might also win on the interim ... who knows.

    What they cant do it in my opinion is play it safe, not spend, not trade, not do anything but wait.  Thats a potentially lose lose in every possible manner.

    That is my point however. You spend money on Machado per se and by trading Trout you fill every other hole without spending any money.  I would give it 0% chance of ever happening. Just an interesting way of improving our team for the future. Or If Arte wants to go balls deep and sign one of the big stars this season, approach Trout about an extension and if Trout said no you can trade him next off-season. Number one priority should be extending Trout but if they get the sense he doesn’t want to do it this could be the way to make the team of the future. 

  6. Unfortunately,  to be a winner in life and baseball it hurts to make the big decisions. The quickest way to become a contender and the way to sustain a winner longest term would be to sign Machado or Harper and then trade Trout.  We would have a star and Ohtani a potential long-term second star. We would also suddenly have the best farm system in baseball and immediate pitching help or whatever Eppler deems best return for Trout. And either Machado or Harper are going to be cheaper than trout and actually save us money in the long term. Plus Harper is younger. It would hurt but think of how good our Angels would be. 

  7. 1 hour ago, bloodbrother said:

    Justin Upton was the #1 prospect in MLB and was seen as a future superstar. Obviously he didn't fully become that but he showed flashes of it. MAde it to the majors at 19 yrs old, was an All-Star by age 21 and was an MVP candidate by age 23. Issue is his performance fluctuated from season to season. All in all hes settled in as a well above average player who has serious pop in his bat

    Just turned 30 last week. Don't see him opting in but hoping he does.

    He reminds me of Adrian Beltre without the great defensive skills. He shows flashes and seasons of tremendous production but can't seem to hold it together for back to back seasons. Beltre didn't become the player he is until age thirty when he actually became consistent. Perhaps Upton can do the same. Similar power numbers and they are both black. Could he follow a similar career arc as Beltre?

     

  8. Huston Street: "Larrry"
    Street said he has coincidentally been let down by several Larrys in his life, so when he started missing lunches with his friend, Hanford Francis Farrell III, in Austin, Farrell advised him to "not be a Larry." It became a bit of a running joke between the two and came to mean someone who is unreliable in an ironic way.

    With Street he's a "Larry" because of his health problems. 

    I feel this nickname could stick with other relievers in our bullpen. Bud "Larry" Norris...

  9. 2 minutes ago, Troll Daddy said:

    Luv the baseball brawls ... would love to see Trout go after another player and get ejected 

    That might fire this team up. Those highlights would play for a long time. 

    I would trade one of Nolan Ryan's no hitters for us for his classic uppercut headlock beat down of Robin Ventura. Would have been great to see that in an Angels uni 

  10. 7 hours ago, Chuckster70 said:

    I did... I was pissed we didn't sign him. Especially for the price he was signed for. 

    Can you imagine if the Angels signed Beltre and Grienke instead of Pujols and Hamilton?

    And I will freely admit to having been for Beltre but only after they missed on Carl Crawford. Wow was I wrong!

    At the time Beltre was considered a bit inconsistent. He's proven to be one of the more consistent players of our generation but he didn't become the player he is until he was 31. That's why his contract was considerably less than Crawfords. 

    If I remember right he had to settle for a one year contract with Boston before he became a ranger. If only the angels had signed him that year they could of Had a real l bargain. And he expressed interest in playing for the angels even :/

×
×
  • Create New...