Warfarin

So, our opening position player roster, pending health: Catcher: Stassi + one of O'Hoppe, Thaiss, Wallach IF: Walsh, Drury, Rengifo, Fletcher, Rendon, Urshela OF: Renfroe, Trout, Ward, Phillips DH: Ohtani

This signing is fine. Not exciting, but the whole idea we have had is to raise the floor. He is fantastic defensively, and I can envision him being a late inning defensive replacement often, which is how you would maximize value. Even if he isn't hitting, which appears to often be the case, he is a positive value player because of elite defense and speed. This will enable Moniak and Adell to start in AAA. I like Moniak much better as a 5th OF than as a 4th OF. Our position players are set now, I would say.

Quite simply, I don’t think Arte would want to deal with the potential headache and complication Bauer might bring while trying to sell the team.

The Warriors are the only NBA team based in SF, and thus, don’t have to share their market. We are one of two teams “based” in LA, and well, that “based” part is rather dubious.

The Angels’ market is larger than the Warriors? I don’t follow the NBA, but aren’t the Warriors based in SF?

It sure is. A lot of potential there. Could still develop into a good SP, but even if he doesn't, he should ultimately be a very good reliever. I imagine he'll start back at AA to start the year.

Thanks Bill! Certainly I trust your input over Bob's Assuming the bidding hasn't started and will commence in February, it does seem like there's no chance a sale is fully completed by opening day. What I personally hope for, though, is that Moreno can at least select the winning bid by opening day. At that point, I am thinking it will probably take around 2 months or so to have it ratified by the new owners and completed, such that we can reasonably expect a fully completed sale before, say, the end of June?

Right, it isn't easy, but it can be done and likely wouldn't be that difficult. So let's just say we convince Ohtani to stay and sign one of Nola/Urias. Our rotation then becomes: Ohtani, Nola, Sandoval, Anderson, Detmers, Suarez. In addition, we would have Silseth, Bush, maybe Bachman, maybe others. We could likely easily trade either one of our prospects OR one of our other established pitchers (Suarez, Detmers, etc) in a significant trade for whatever offensive deficiencies we have at the time. If our player development process works out, and O'Hoppe becomes our new catcher and Neto looks like a solid bet to be our SS, then we are mainly looking to find an OF option (since the infield should be rather well covered). It likely would be fairly easy to swap pitching for a very good corner OF. Or, if Neto's development hits a snag, we could either sign someone like Rosario or, in turn, trade pitching for a SS, and so on. I am optimistic about the future. We'll see what happens.

Again, we just don't know what the medicals indicate. If they indicate Correa is an extremely poor investment, then it's probably not a discount. Again, we just simply don't know. All we can really do is speculate. Obviously, it is not good. Because the new owner has not taken over. It is one thing to spend 30-40 million on a contract, and another to spend 300+ million on a contract. It could be done, but it would probably be somewhat of a complication in the context of selling the team. 300+ million is not exactly an insignificant liability. I know you referenced the Matt Kemp deal in the Dodgers' sale, but also keep in mind that team had virtually no money on the books and no talent on the roster. They kept Kemp, but there was little else on that team, both in the majors and minors. Next year's FA class is light, but you can see how we can still prosper, right? Imagine we re-sign Ohtani and sign either Nola or Urias. We would then have multiple top-flight SPs. We can then use our incredible SP depth to trade pitching for hitting, which will be easy to do because most teams are looking for good pitching. Or, if Ohtani leaves, we can sign Nola AND another significant SP and do the same. Or we can agree to take on bad contracts while acquiring great prospects who are ready to contribute. There are all sorts of ways money can be employed to get the team ready to contend.

Right, none of us have any idea what the medical reports indicate. I was just making up a scenario, but none of us know what the medicals reveal. Obviously it is concerning enough to have at least 1 and possible 2 teams scuttle the deal, which I don't recall ever seeing with one player in a single offseason. Obviously there is some kind of very significant health risk with Correa that is not seen in other free agents of his caliber. I think we are close to be honest. I think the improvements we have made have us as a fringe wild card contender, and I think another SP and/or significant reliever should help boost us a bit more. Our fortunes are greatly tied to the health of Trout, Ohtani, and Rendon - if we can help "manage" their innings and games played, and get reasonable healthy years out of them, we should be in the wild card hunt. Sure, I don't dispute that Correa helps a good amount, but I think he is not nearly worth what his contract will be, and I think whoever signs him will greatly rue that contract in short order. Sure, but as we have seen with the Dodgers and Mets - you can create a contender very quickly with a new owner and money to spend. If the worst case pans out and Ohtani leaves (and we don't sign Correa), then yes, that sucks, but we can recover. There are multiple very good FA SPs next year - Nola, Urias, etc. We can easily pivot and sign one of them, which would effectively replace Ohtani's departure in the rotation. We would need to find an offensive replacement, but we can always swing a trade. Finding a good hitting LH DH shouldn't be the hardest thing to accomplish. And again, assuming the new owner is willing to spend, and assuming our farm system keeps growing, I don't see much concern that we can contend quickly, even if Ohtani leaves. As for a SS - we have Neto developing. He was our #1 pick, and we had a high pick. He may not pan out, but we just spent significant draft capital to acquire him, and he is in AA. By the end of this season, he will have had a full season in AA and (probably) some time in AAA - we should have a better idea of how he is developing, and at that point, we can decide on our SS route. There are several SS options next year, including Rosario, that will be available, should Neto not look like our SS of the future.

I am assuming there is something in Correa's medicals that indicate his injury risk, such that he becomes just a shadow of what he is now, is much higher than anyone anticipated. If you thought the odds indicated you'd get 3 more years of production, followed by 7+ years of terrible production, is that still worth it? To me, it is not. But YMMV. Again, I would just look at the construction of most of these elite teams. We have Trout on a 12 year deal. If we sign Ohtani, he will likely be on a similar deal for more money. We have Rendon on a large 7 year deal. Do we really want to add Correa at 10+ years to that too, especially the significant health concerns that are arising? Just doesn't make sense to me. I want to see a team that is competitive year in, year out. Not a team that is going "all in" for like the next 2 years, then is stuck with all of these gigantic contracts that prevent them from fielding a competitive team for the next 10 years thereafter. Balance is key. We can't be so desperate to win now that the only solution is to sign someone who is clearly a very high health risk to a gigantic deal, and then intend to sign another to the largest contract ever issued in MLB history the year thereafter. What I generally sense is there is a crowd of people who feel "we must sign Correa because it is the only way we can get Ohtani to stay," but I simply don't think that is true.

Per Fangraphs, they are 100k under. That is likely not enough, as the Dodgers tend to liberally use the IL for injured players (they already have 3 guys on the 40-man roster who will be out all year), which means they have to pay replacements for those guys. They likely need another 5mil or so of wiggle room at least. Also, they will probably want space for a mid-season acquisition, potentially.

To be honest, I would not be shocked to see Amaya become a very good player. He's good defensively at SS, and he improved offensively significantly last year. They excel at player develop, and I think it's possible he will be better than anticipated. I would also not be surprised to see them trade for a young SS using one of their many young SP prospects, either. They have tons of options. But again, it all depends on their intentions. Are they hyperfocused on getting below the LT limit? If so, trading Taylor is probably the best option, or trading Hudson. They likely need Muncy, so I think he'll stay. But if they indeed are looking to shift some salary, there is opportunity to be had there, as they will assuredly find someone who will trade for one of their useful, cost-controlled players.

I highly doubt Friedman would have that view of "I won't trade with this team because they burned me once." I think he is opportunistic and open. And as far as Arte is concerned, I doubt he cares now. He is on his way out. He no longer has to be concerned about one market vs the other. And this kind of trade would be a smaller scale one anyway, so I doubt it matters. I would love to have Taylor on this team if we can find a way to get him. He backs up literally every position, and he would essentially replace Renfroe next year as one of the corner OF, while also backing up CF. He would be a perfect fit.

We'll see. I highly doubt we will pursue Correa, unless it is for a shocking discount. I also feel pretty confident that Minasian is not done either. I think he will continue to add to the team. Perry seems to be rather opportunistic. I mentioned this earlier - why not look to the Dodgers? They are likely going to craft a way to get back under the LT, which means they will likely have to trade one of Taylor, Muncy, or Hudson. We could use any of those guys - perhaps we can craft a deal. Ship out one of Loup/Tepera to the Dodgers in exchange for Taylor. Or just acquire Hudson for nothing. Just some ideas.

I hear what you are saying. I think this team should spend money to improve the team, but I like what Minasian has done this offseason - he has spread the money across a variety of players and has avoided a catastrophic signing. If we want to improve the team further, look into trading for Kim instead. He has a 7mil AAV for the next 2 years and would cost like 5% of what Correa will, and while he won't be quite as good as Correa, he was worth 4 fWAR last year, which is close enough.

I don't disagree, but the far wiser strategy would be to sign players to high AAV, short term deals, for those few years as the franchise ramps up its player development. Arguably, our player development has already ramped up. Our farm system is not great, but it is promising now in terms of its turnaround. In about 1-2 years, we should start seeing some good promotions - O'Hoppe, Neto, Joyce, Bush, Silseth, Paris, and so on. What we should have considered was to sign Verlander instead of someone like Correa. Short term, high AAV deals, go over the luxury tax for a few years as the farm system starts churning out talented players, then ease back on payroll. Handing out 10+ year contracts is the one way to guarantee that you will be in a financially difficult spot years from now.

Also, one other point I'll add to your comment - the Phillies have 157.1M tied up to 7 players, all of whom (for now) are also productive. In the model you have for us, we would have 150mil for 4 players - that is not an insignificant different in terms of player difference. Also, one of those players is not exactly productive, either. We literally had to dish out 10 million extra just to find an insurance policy for him. Also, while the Phillies were successful last year, I would not yet look to them in terms of being one of the best run teams in the sport. They got to the WS last year, but let's see if they have a consistent winning team that is in the playoffs year in and year out prior to anointing them as a well-run franchise.

You might, but ownership might look at actual long-term financial obligation more. I'm not sure to be honest. What I will say is it's probably best to look at how the teams that are consistently great tend to operate. Dodgers, Braves, Astros, Rays. The Dodgers get a lot of attention for spending, but how many long-term deals do they actually have? Betts (362mil), Freeman (162mil), and ..?? That's it. The Braves, as we have chronicled, lock up the vast majority of their players at young ages, thus signing them to rather reasonable contracts. The Astros have Altuve (162.5mil), Alvarez (110mil), and .. Bregman, at 100mil, and that is it. Again, I just point this out because these teams are the most successfully run in the sport. They are clearly doing multiple things right. It seems, from my untrained eye, that they may have 1-2 big contracts (in terms of total dollars), but a lot of their other deals are higher AAV, shorter term.

I understand that is what you want. I don't know. I've just seen basically literally every external long-term deal that we have signed players to (Pujols, Hamilton, Upton, Rendon) just pan out so poorly. We finally have some degree of financial wiggle room, that I would rather not see another one on the ledgers immediately, especially to a guy who has failed two separate physicals. If we were really going to see this team spend money, I would have rather have just seen us pursue, say, Verlander or other guys who have high AAVs but shorter deals. The Phillies were cited as a team spending a lot. They are, but they have 2 guys with 300+ million contracts, 3 guys in the 100-120mil range, and everyone else below. If we signed Correa, and if we intend to sign Ohtani, we'd (potentially) have 1 500+ million player, 1 400+ million player, and a 300+ million player? I mean, as fans we really shouldn't care about what kinds of contracts the players have, but when I see these contracts being issued, I am assuming it will greatly hamper future financial flexibility and signings (much as Rendon's contract is hampering us now), and so that is why I am generally rather reluctant, especially when we are about to go all in on Ohtani and have the two largest contracts in this sport on the same franchise.

Okay, the Kemp deal is a good example. I forgot about that. I think he did that deal and apologized to the fan base at the same time, basically saying "sorry for destroying this franchise, here is a parting gift, goodbye." I think for Angels fans, the equivalent from Arte wouldn't be signing Correa, but rather signing Ohtani to a mega deal. I would much rather have that, to be honest.

Are you sure? A guy whose deal would have been canceled by two other franchise due to health risks would only help sweeten the value? I mean really, how many players have seen their deal canceled by two separate franchises over health concerns? I am guessing the new owner would prefer to make a decision when it comes to handing out a 300+ million dollar contract. It is not a deal breaker, but likely that kind of deal will at least be a factor in the bidding. It is not an insignificant liability in terms of the % value of the sale.

It just seems highly improbable. I can't recall a single instance of an owner in the process of selling their team going out and making a huge signing right before they sell it to someone else. Are there any examples of this ever occurring?