BTH

16 hours ago, ukyah said:

tell me if this has ever happened in the history of modern FA.

why would team Y pay a guy 51 million dollars when he's on waivers? all they have to do is let him clear waivers and they can pay him massively significantly less, and keep their own prospects. what's the upside for them? there is none.

It hasn't happened before using waivers, and the scenario has since been shot down.

But since you brought it up again, the scenario said that team Y would receive a prospect to take on Upton. Just like the Giants received Will Wilson in exchange for taking on Zack Cozart's contract.

I would do that deal from an Angels perspective, but I don't think the Rays would.

And if the Rays wanted to do that deal, I'd be concerned because the Rays are generally smarter than other teams. It would lead me to believe that they know something about Snell that others don't.

So both Dahl and Renfroe have signed for right around $3 million. I'd imagine that the Angels would look to pick up an outfielder in a similar price range as them.

9 hours ago, Dochalo said:

 

 

that's my understanding.  any assignment of a contract has to be approved by the player if they have an NTC or 10 and 5 rights.  So even if another team claims him, he'd still have to approve.  

sections A and F starting on page 84

https://d39ba378-ae47-4003-86d3-147e4fa6e51b.filesusr.com/ugd/b0a4c2_95883690627349e0a5203f61b93715b5.pdf

If that's the case, then my bad.

That would explain why it's never done.

One benefit of Suzuki would be that he presumably wouldn't require a large contract, which would give the Angels more financial flexibility in other areas. I do, again, question whether he is a good defensive catcher, but maybe Minasian knows something about Suzuki's defense that fans don't.

1 hour ago, mmc said:

This would almost certainly cause an issue with the PA.

1 hour ago, Dochalo said:

I think it would be tremendously difficult to work around Upton's NTC.  The whole point of having it is that it's ultimately Justin's choice and not that of some ivy league GM.  

1 hour ago, angelsnationtalk said:

How would someone like Bauer view that? Assuming hasn't signed anywhere he might look at that and thinks thats being cheap as a team.

1 hour ago, Lou said:

Nice post, but you are wrong.

1 hour ago, Dochalo said:

MLBPA would never allow that in a million years.  It's a direct and purposeful move to circumvent the contract.  

So a lot of people are bringing up the MLBPA not allowing that, but can the MLBPA really do anything? I can see why they'd be upset, but it's not against the rules. Until it's written in the rules, isn't is a loophole that can be exploited?

6 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Saying they can work around the no trade clause is ignoring what Upton said when he signed here.  He said he was looking forward to being in one place for 5 years since before he was here he was on a few different teams in a few years.  He wanted stability for him and his family.  I don’t expect him to waive the no trade clause unless it is a GREAT situation for him.

The Angels don't need him to waive his no trade clause.

Here's why: Say the Angels wanted to trade Justin Upton and Prospect X to Team Y for a PTBNL/Cash Considerations. The Angels could agree with Team Y that we will trade you Prospect X if you take on Justin Upton in exchange for a PTBNL/Cash Considerations.

If Upton declines to waive his no-trade clause, you work the agreement with Team Y so that they agree to claim Upton on waivers when you put him on waivers. You then put him on waivers, the team picks him up, and the deal is done.

Now you could say “what if Team Y doesn’t pick Upton up on waivers like they agreed to?” Well, they could work out the deal so that Team Y gets a PTBNL/Cash Considerations and that PTBNL/Cash Considerations is only Prospect X IF team Y claims Upton. Otherwise it’s just cash considerations (or $1).

Players with no-trade clauses can be put on waivers, and this is thus a workaround for any no-trade clause.

56 minutes ago, Stradling said:

It would have to be a contender or else he isn’t going to go.  So which team is a contender that might want a guy like Upton, maybe Oakland? 

If GM's are smart (and most of them should be since they are Ivy League guys) they know that you can easily work around a no trade clause.

The Angels can easily work around Upton's no trade clause.

1 hour ago, Warfarin said:

An interesting thought too, but Rosenthal suggested in his piece this morning that the Angels might be looking to trade a prospect, along with Upton, to help offload his contract.  They'd still have to eat a sizable chunk of it I imagine, but perhaps they can find someone who will take on ~10mil per year of his remaining salary if they attach a prospect of some kind.

Notably, he has a full-trade clause, so that deeply confounds things, but it's an interesting suggestion nevertheless.

I honestly don't think having a no trade clause is a big deal. There are ways you can work around those. Getting someone to take Upton and his salary (even if you are attaching a prospect) is the bigger issue.

44 minutes ago, Stradling said:

So we all know that Bauer kinda likes attention.  So when do you all think he will announce where he is signing?  I doubt it would be on a Sunday, since he would have to compete with Football.

I think it's gonna drag out. I don't think he's randomly going to sign at 3 pm on a random Tuesday. I think he'll announce it live or something, and it likely won't be till January/February.

Suzuki makes sense considering the Minasian connection with Atlanta, but is Suzuki really a good defensive catcher?

The defensive metrics out there say he is a bad defensive catcher. Last season, he was in the 4th percentile in framing and was worth -4 DRS. For his career, his DRS is -76, and he's only had 4 out of 14 seasons where he had a positive DRS ('08, '09, '10, and '17).

11 minutes ago, Warfarin said:

And, an interesting wrinkle in terms of the Rays..

Let's say the Rays ask the Angels to take on Kiermaier's contract along with Snell in exchange for Adell, which in turn means they won't ask for another prospect in addition to Adell.

Would you do it?  And if so - would you consider having Trout shift to LF and put Kiermaier in CF, at least some of the time?

Obviously, any suggestion to move Trout off CF is basically blasphemy, but Kiermaier is the best defensive CF in the game, and almost all of his value comes from the defense he provides.

Trout would then become the best defensive LF.  It sounds far-fetched and very unlikely, but it'd give us an ace while also significantly improving OF defense (Kiermaier in CF, Trout taking over in LF, Upton mainly to the bench).

I'd do it, especially if it lowers the Rays asking price on Snell.

3 hours ago, Warfarin said:

Right now, the way I see it, we have 5 "definites" in our pen - Iglesias, Mayers, Pena, Buttrey, and Reyes (since he can't be optioned).

Is Reyes out of options? FanGraphs says he still has 1 year of options left.

The Angels heavy involvement with McCann is even further proof that they are committed to adding a catcher. I'm interested to see where they go from here because, besides Realmuto, Molina and maybe Zunino, the rest of the options seem like platoon options/backups. Ramos may be a starting catcher, but he doesn't seem to have the defense the Angels would want.

Watson reportedly interviewed for the Angels GM job, so it turns out that the Angels were able to get 2 executives from among their GM candidates without having to give the PBO and GM title.

I was wrong, and it's good to see that the Angels are adding front office talent.

3 hours ago, Second Base said:

But I get the feeling that if the Reds were going to trade Gray to the Angels, they may have already done it by now when they were discussing Iglesias.

This is something I do have some questions about.

I don't know if trading with the Reds already means that a Gray deal won't happen, but it has to change the chances.

The question is, does the chance of Gray being traded to the Angels increase or decrease? It could increase because we know that the Angels and Reds have a working relationship. However, it could decrease because if they were going to do it, they might have already done it (like you said). I'd have to think that the chances that two teams strike two deals of significant magnitude with each other in the same offseason are lower.

3 hours ago, Second Base said:

Unless Marsh makes the move to 1B, the Angels don't have room for Adell, Marsh and Adams, along with Orlando Martinez, D'Shawn Knowles, Alex Ramirez and Trent Deveaux. 

The chances that all of Adell, Marsh, Adams, Martinez, Knowles, Ramirez, and Deveaux develop are EXTREMELY low and it's completely unrealistic to think that they will all develop.

Yes, they have a number of OF prospects to deal from, but it'd be inaccurate to say that they "don't have room" for all of them because it's very unlikely that they all develop.

1 hour ago, Hubs said:

Peters is out of options I think. He’ll be cut.

Yeah, he's probably one of the first guys who they'd look to DFA if their 40-man roster is full. However, it's still a ways away from being full, as it's only at 35.

One thing this shows is that the Angels truly need to add a quality outfielder. While Adell/Marsh/Schebler/Upton/Ward could put together good production, they shouldn't count on it. Adding a quality outfielder gives insurance for both LF and RF.

38 minutes ago, CanadianHalo said:

 

It'd be kind of sad and funny if Eppler just didn't think the Angels needed pitchers.

3 hours ago, mmc said:

 

I also wouldn't have minded Dahl at 3 million, but I wonder if the Angels want more of a sure thing if they sign a RF'er. Dahl's injury issues and bad 2020 leave some cause for concern. If they are going to sign someone to play over Adell/Ward, perhaps it will only be someone who they definitively know will be an upgrade.

2 hours ago, Warfarin said:

 

More FYI

Again, is this account really reputable? I've seen nothing to convince me that he's legitimate. Maybe I missed something that would establish his credibility?

Bauer- 6/180M.

Springer- 5/$130M.

Realmuto- 5/$130M.

McCann- Mets: 4/$40M.

1 hour ago, Warfarin said:

Likely, the only one of this guys who is actually available is Marquez.

I think if the Rockies trade Marquez, they'll probably try to get someone to take on Blackman's remaining contract.

If Arte is willing to absorb more payroll, we could conceivably acquire Marquez + Blackman for, probably, Adell + nominal prospects.

Marquez would instantly become our ace and Blackman would be our LHH RF.  Marquez comes with 4 years of control, with an AAV of 8.6mil.

I'm not even sure if Marquez is avaliable.

"Márquez would certainly net them the biggest return in a trade, but the Rockies are hoarding him like a gold-plated diamond."

16 minutes ago, Stradling said:

So where does Tanaka end up?  Here, SF or Seattle?

The most Angels scenario would be he signs here and then fully tears his UCL and needs TJ.