Angels_Fan

Just now, Lou said:

Ok, 4.31 era 

I actually prefer using the past 2 seasons - 4.52 era 

Skewed by one year, despite a FIP that was more than a run lower and a 3.47 xFIP.

Just now, Lou said:

and a career 4.46 era 

The last 3 years are way better indicators for performance moving forward. Otherwise Pujols is still a star.

1 minute ago, Drink More Yakult said:

Any guarantee Gray pans out? Kinda weird he has 0.75 ERA better at Coors than away.

Gray is already an established (and good) starting pitcher despite pitching half of the time in a brutal environment for pitchers, lol.

Yea, that’s a little strange, but most teams (in all sports, really) play much better at home than on the road. The reason for that is because players perform better at home than on the road (for the most part).

2 minutes ago, ukyah said:

trading marsh for gray is the angels getting taken to the cleaners. they'd regret that trade by next year.

Is there any guarantee that Marsh pans out? Much better prospects have failed, if we’re being honest. 

The Angels need pitching. And if they’re going to be stingy, they’ll never get that difference maker they need.

If Gray is available as Morosi suggests he is, he should be the primary target, as he likely wouldn’t cost Adell. Marsh + would likely be enough. 

That helps. Still one good starter away from being a legit postseason contender, though.

1 minute ago, Chuckster70 said:

With as many FA arms that were available in this year's class and in 2020, it would be pretty crappy to deal a talent like Marsh when $$$ could have been spent to have brought in a solid arm or two.

I agree with @RBM in that his grade is incomplete. But there are some things we can praise him for and criticize him on at the same time.

Yup. But that’s the situation the Angels are in...it’s trade or bust. And they need a good starter if they want to have a decent shot at making the postseason.

19 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

What sucks is, if Eppler makes a legit trade for a starting pitcher using prospects, our farm system ends up closer to where it started when he came here.

We really, really needed to use money to fill that need this winter. 

True. But I also think it depends on who the Angels trade. Would trading/including Marsh, for example, for a cost controlled top of the rotation arm really be a bad thing? 

If Adell pans out, 2/3 of the OF is set for the next 6+ years. Upton is also signed here for another 3 years. Marsh simply has nowhere to play. And it really shouldn’t be that hard to find a corner OF once Upton’s contract expires. 

Just now, tdawg87 said:

Doubtful, because they're still available. Has a significant pitching trade been made this off-season besides Kluber? 

Clevinger might go, but the Angels aren't getting him anyway. Guys like Boyd, Musgrove, Gray etc... should still be available in February.

The Angels probably aren’t going to get a difference maker via trade without including at least Marsh.

Meh. That sounds like something one would say when they had no real reason to join a bad team other than $/years. 

4 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

I'm guessing he's waiting until closer to ST for asking prices to come down. 

Let's be real, every team he approaches about a trade for pitching is going to ask for Marsh. They know we're desperate. But if Eppler hangs around fully prepared to go into the 2020 season with this rotation, I suspect teams may become a little more reasonable. 

Also, we literally need a catcher still. He's not done.

I don’t know if that’s the right strategy, considering many teams besides the Angels need pitching help. For all the Angels know, all the best available trade targets could be gone before then. 

2 minutes ago, Lou said:

how is Clevinger not considered a#1?

He’d be a #1 on most teams. So, yea. He should be considered a #1.

Just now, Angelsjunky said:

Yeah, I get it. Clevinger > Canning, at least right now. But you have to weigh all the factors:

Clevinger (29), current #2, 3 years of club control.

Canning (24), current #4/potential #3, 6 years of club control.

All things tolled, I'd make that trade straight up--as would Eppler--because Clevinger will almost certainly be better over those three years. But adding in impact players like Marsh and Rengifo gets a bit much. 

The Indians would never, ever trade Clevinger for Canning straight up, though. Not even close. 

8 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

As for including Canning in a Clevinger trade, I just don't get it. Clevinger represents Canning's absolute upside. Chances are that Griffin won't be quite as good (Clevinger is a true #2, while Canning is probably a #3), but not only could he be as good, but he's five years younger and with three more years of club control.  So if you take all of those factors into account, their value is  similar and I'm not even sure that I'd do Canning straight up for Clevinger, certainly not Canning and Marsh and Rengifo.

Prospects are just that - prospects. Some pan out, some don’t. The Indians would be giving away a near certain #1/#2 pitcher with 3 years of club control for players who may or may not pan out down the road. It’s a big risk the Indians would be taking. Canning would kind of help minimize the risk. He’s not nearly as good as Clevinger right now and may never be, but he has a lot of upside and is under club control for another 6 years.

By the way, there is a lot of concern with Canning’s durability. His innings have been limited and he’s been shut down often for a reason.

The most that I think Eppler should offer for Clevinger is Marsh, Canning, Rengifo, and maybe someone like Deveaux or Adams? If that’s not enough, he should move on. 

Eppler needs to add a good SP (someone like Gray, Syndergaard, Clevinger, etc.)  before this team can be considered a true postseason contender. It’s possible that they can make the postseason with what they currently have, but they’d also need a lot of things to go right.

Eppler has done a lot of good things (extending Trout, convincing Ohtani to sign here, rebuilding the farm system, etc. etc.). With that said, this game is all about results on the field. So far, the Angels have yet to make the postseason under his reign and have had poor records. One also has to feel that he’s had plenty of time to fix this team. He’s well past the point of being new on the job. If the Angels fail to make the postseason this upcoming season (which would likely be due to the pitching staff), he’ll most likely be gone. I hope he can surprise by acquiring a good starter via trade soon rather than just being content with who he’s gotten.

2020 will be a make or break year for Eppler, and it’s all going to come down to how well the pitching staff performs. So far, none of his pitching acquisitions inspire any confidence. We’ll see what he does on the trade front. It’s clear that the Angels need to aim a lot higher than just stockpiling back-of-the-rotation arms. 

Please no. The Angels have enough back-of-the-rotation arms. They don’t need another one.

Just now, zenmaster said:

Who are we willing to give up for 1 year of Gray?

Two years

2 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

I'd love to see this mythical list of "aces" that teams are just dying to get rid of.

The  type of pitcher that the Angels could land in a trade is not an "ace." Gray, Boyd, Ray...good pitchers, but  not "aces." Syndergaard and Bauer...ace-caliber pitchers, but with major red flags.

 

I wouldn’t include Gray in a sentence with Boyd. Gray actually gets results.

1 minute ago, eaterfan said:

It is, but what if he just becomes a Joc Pederson type. A nice player, sometimes flirts with being an all-star? A pitcher with two years left, no matter how good, is one pitch away from missing 2 years of time. Beyond that, there are plenty of veterans whose performance just drops off. David Price, Chris Sale, Chris Archer have all seen huge declines in production over their last two seasons. There's certainly less risk with MLB players, but it's still pretty high. I'm also not saying don't trade Marsh, just that it's not an automatic move.

One has to give something to get something. Also, not every prospect pans out - most don’t. If Jon Gray, for instance, can be had for Marsh as the centerpiece of a deal, you take it.

2 minutes ago, eaterfan said:

What if you think Marsh is going to be a perennial all-star? Why would you do that for the chance to pay a lot of money to a guy for only 2 years?

That seems like a best case scenario. What are the odds of any of that happening? He’s hardly the only prospect with upside. Not that the prospect rankings matter too much, but how often do we see someone ranked as ‘low’ as he is end up becoming a perennial all-star?

Bundy is who we think he is.