Angelsjunky

It is a short-hand estimate. And really, the above implies that the Orioles over-achieved and are probably more of a 85-90 win team with their current roster (their Pythagorean record had them at 94-68). There's always some flex, but WAR gives a baseline of expected performance (and I believe it is 45 wins + WAR = expected record, or something like that...so it predicted the Angels quite well). Take the Philadelphia Eagles. I noticed a couple weeks ago when they were 10-1 that their point differential was rather low: they were winning most games by very close margins. Since then they've lost the last two games.

It is a cliche, but apt for Angels fans: misery loves company. Let's face it: Being an Angels fan is miserable, but..."I can't quit you." And really, it isn't so miserable...there's great fun to joking around about the sorry state of affairs, which has been the norm for most of Angels history. We get a few nice moments, too, even if they are the exception rather than the norm. On a different note, I'm going on record as saying that Shohei is going to become very, very annoying. We thought the press loved him when he was an Angel, now every single moment is going to be broadcast everywhere.

There are three areas, or at least three controllable areas (not counting luck/fate): Health: I know, not fully controllable, but it isn't entirely outside of control, either. Trout needs to get on the phone with Novak Djokovic and find out some yoga moves and perhaps whatever alchemical concoctions Novak is drinking. Add in Rendon and Ward and the Angels got 222 games from those three, or an average of 74 games. That needs to improve, and almost certainly will. 222 games of Trout-Rendon-Ward yielded 4.7 WAR. With positive regression from all three and more games played, even just 350 games could give them 10+ WAR. The Angels were beyond even the worst-case reasonable scenario last year, so even if they still have injury issues in 2024, chances are it won't be nearly as bad. Meaning, they gain an easy 5 wins just through not having the worst injury-plagued season of all time, but the range starts there and could be +5 to 15 wins. Player Development: Here's the good news: A larger number of Angels players are on the ascending arc: Neto, O'Hoppe, Schanuel, Moniak, Adell, Silseth, Detmers, even still Rengifo and Canning. Chances are there is overall improvement from this group. So again, a baseline +5 wins but with range being something like +5-10 wins. Player Acquisitions: Many focus on this, and while it is obviously important, it is just one of three big areas of possible improvement - and I think probably less impactful than the other two. They need another starter or two and depth all around. +0-10 wins. So a baseline of +10 wins from better health (it really can't be that bad again) and modest player development. But that is negated by the loss of Ohtani. So by my account, that's +10-30ish games...quite a range. Take away Ohtani and, at worst, they're around the same place, in the 70-75 win range. At best and they can win 90+, but...this is where luck/fate comes in, and the simple fact that they need someone to step forward and have a breakout/comeback year - and probably several players. Meaning, they really need Trout to return to being vaguely Trout-esque. They need one of Ward or Rendon to return to a better form of themselves and stay healthy. They need two or three of the young guys to grow up fast and be impact players. They need one or two of Sandoval, Detmers, Canning and Silseth to do more than be an erratic #3-4 and solidify as a strong #2. And they need some help from the outside.

Rendon is a momentum/rhythm player. We've seen it multiple times over the last few years: Starts rusty, warms up and gets into a rhythm and plays well, then gets hurt. So I think if he's healthy, he'll be pretty good - not 2017-20 good, but the point is that the more he plays, the better his stats will be. As for Trout, who knows. Chances are something will happen and he'll play somewhere in the 80-120 games range, depending upon how severe his inevitable injury is. I can only imagine how frustrated he must be, or how frustrated he'll be if and when he gets hurt in 2024. Still, given the freakish nature of most of his injuries, it is also possible he threads the needle and plays 130-140 games and has a bit of a career renaissance. In truth, any kind of success the Angels have depends on it.

This brings up the question: As of now, what would Trout fetch on the free agent market? I assume no one would want to give him more than 3-4 years, but let's assume the deal would be locked at 7 years, like the remainder of his contract. How much would teams be willing to risk for the name "Mike Trout" for seven years, age 32-38? I'd guess something like $20-25M a year, or 7/$140M to 7/$175M. No way to defend that really, just a hunch. So let's say a Trout trade requires the Angels to cover the difference. Right now he's owed $260M. So in my calculations, the Angels would have to swallow roughly $100M of his remaining contract, give or take a couple 10s of millions. But let's go with $100M. More if the Angels get something of value in return, less if they get nothing. Is "saving" that $160M worth it? That's a lot of yacht fuel, but you're trading away the franchise's best player ever, which will lose quite a bit of ticket sales. It ignores the non-quantifiable value that "Mike Trout" brings to the franchise, not to mention the possibility that he has a career renaissance of some kind. I would argue there really aren't realistic scenarios where trading Trout has value to the team - not unless they don't have to pay much and/or they get a basket of prospects in return. I mean, in the end they'd still be paying him $15M a year or so to play for someone else. Anthony Rendon is another matter. There's still a chance he is a useful player for a few years, but he's really provided no value for three years now and has very little value, even as a free agent. If he was a free agent now, I don't think he'd get more than a 1/$15M "prove it" contract. Spread over his remaining three years, maybe 3/$30M, or a few bills more. So the Angels would have to swallow probably something like $85M or so of his remaining $115M. So that doesn't really fly, either. The only way Rendon gets traded is if he has a comeback year and the Angels are out. Then someone might take a flyer on him, with the Angels dumping most of his salary. Again, only in the case of the combination of comeback year and Angels sucking.

Ohtani is less of a business risk than he is a baseball risk, so in that sense I can agree that he's an example of "spending a ton to make even more." But in terms of baseball itself--which is all I care about as a fan--it is a terrible risk, which is why I appreciate the fact that the Angels presumably didn't really compete. Regardless of how the money is spread out and over how long a time, paying any player $70M a year is just insane. Paying a guy who has a legit chance of being a DH for the rest of his career that kind of money, is just bonkers. Chances are he'll continue to be a superstar for some years to come, but that we've seen the best of him. There's a chance that he could have a year or two even better than 2021-23 if he, say, combines 2022 pitching with 2023 hitting. But there's also a possibility that 2023's hitting is the outlier and he'll never be the pitcher he was. I do think he'll age well and not drop off a cliff--he wants to be good too badly for that to happen. But I just don't think you can expect 9+ WAR seasons from him on a regular basis, and the Dodgers are essentially paying him to continue at 2021-23 level for at least half of that contract. The chances of that happening aren't high enough to make the contract worth the risk, imo. Or as Jeff said in the podcast, a few months ago before the injury, we were talking about $500M as dubious. Then he got hurt and everyone assumed his price would plummet. But somehow his agents managed public opinion and his injury was seemingly forgotten, or at least minimized. And then somehow the price not only returned to half a billion, but soared past that. The point being, if we were balking at $500M back in June, and then thinking much less in September, why is anyone bummed the Angels didn't pay him $700M or more? I get being bummed about losing Ohtani - I feel it too - but I don't get thinking that the Angels somehow fucked us over because they wouldn't pay him like he was going to continue at his 2021-23 pace for the next half decade or more.

This. You can't fault them for not wanting to shell out 70% of a billion dollars. It is stupid money and, for the Angels as a team (and not simply a business), would have been a stupid move. So in a way this ironically may show us that Arte and the Angels are about more than just money. (Or it could simply be that Shohei was done with the Angels and wanted to be a Dodger; and the Dodgers wanted him bad enough to out-spend anyone else, as I'm guessing no one else went over $600M or so).

Or to put it another way, signing a DH-only guy like Martinez or Pederson will be a good sign that Perry Minasian doesn't know what he's doing.

Well, they didn't used to. Maybe to some extent it goes in cycles and there's a lot of luck involved, or maybe they just haven't practiced in-depth scouting, beyond what you and I are capable of: "Loup and Tepera were great in 2021 - let's grab them." Stats like ERA are even more volatile with relievers. You really have to look at peripherals and other underlying numbers.

One of the tiny silver linings of losing Ohtani: An open DH spot for the injury-prone players like Trout, Rendon, and Ward. Plus, they can rotate Drury, Thiass, and Schanuel, as well. Focus on pitching and lineup depth, not an expensive DH-only.

Dude, give it a decade or so. If Ohtani wins three or four WS with the Dodgers (or even just one), this question will be moot. If he blows out his arm in Spring Training of 2025, people will always remember his 2021-23 as "the" unicorn version of Shohei Ohtani. Either way, give it a few years, at least.

I feel similar about the team as I did a year ago, even with the loss of Ohtani (which has partially been ameliorated relative to a year ago by generally positive developments from young players): The team, as is, has some talent. Neto, O'Hoppe, and Schanuel all look like they're here to stay and are already average plus regulars with upside for more. Moniak has some value, if only as a good 4th outfielder/platoon guy. Rengifo has emerged as a solid player and I wouldn't be surprised to see him take another step forward this year. Ward's bat is good when he's healthy. Even Adell has shown glimmers of progress. Drury is maybe the one acquisition that was as good as he was hoped to be. Unfortunately none of those guys look like elite bats, so the Angels really need Trout and Rendon to be healthy and/or to add depth, with Ward being a kind of wildcard. As for the SP, I think the podcast said it well: The Angels have a bunch of solid #3s/good #4s, though I think the upside is there for more from Detmers, Sandoval, and maybe Silseth. But as Chuck said, Canning was sneakily pretty good. It is heartening that his pitch velocity was the highest of his career, so I'm wondering if he's on the verge of finally fulfilling his potential. Anderson should be a solid #4. So that's five guys, but really, if they want a competitive rotation, they probably need to go after the best starter they can get, either Yamamoto or Snell, or at least someone like Stroman. The bullpen...who the fuck knows. It seems like no matter what they do, it always implodes. But there are some good pieces, so maybe just a couple solid veterans. Anyhow, my main point is that the team's success in 2024 largely depends upon players they already have: Not just (but to a huge degree) Trout and Rendon, but the rest of the cast. Hiring RW might turn out to be a genius move (and hopefully not genious). I think they need to bolster the roster, but I just don't think it will make or break them. They need better performance (and health) from the guys mentioned above.

So are you saying that the Angels will win their next World Series in 84 years?

No, I'm not talking about Shohei wearing a Dodgers uniform. I've never lived in Orange County, so I don't own that particular brand of Angels fan jealous butthurt. I'm talking about where the Angels are now: They just lost the best player in baseball with nothing to show for it; and in fact, lost some of their best prospects in a vain attempt to make the playoffs and earn his love. They're like a dude who empties his bank account to buy an extravagant gift for his girlfriend, loses the girlfriend but she takes the gift with her (and starts dating his better looking, smarter, more successful nemesis). Back in June or July, when talk about a hypothetical Shohei trade heated up, I speculated that there were three or four possible scenarios. I don't know how I phrased it as it was spread across weeks and in various discussions, but if I remember correctly (and with the benefit of hindsight), it was something like this: Best: The stars align and Shohei and the Angels (with Trout and Rendon returning from injury) fight their way into the playoffs. Shohei signs long-term, and the Angels return to perennial contention with a youth movement building around Ohtani, Trout, and Rendon. Not so bad A: Shohei is traded, the Angels farm is replenished, and the youth movement commences, led by old man Trout (and hopefully a healthier Rendon). Not so bad B: The Angels don't trade Shohei but miss the playoffs, but Shohei stays and Perry builds around him. Worst: The Angels don't trade Shohei, go all-in on the playoffs but miss out. Shohei leaves. So yeah, this is the worst-case scenario. The Angels shot for "best" and got "worst," and somehow managed to make worse even worser by trading away their best prospect and a handful of other prospects for what amounted to absolutely zilch: no playoffs, no Shohei, and an empty farm. Oh, and to add insult to injury, they couldn't even catch a bit of luck in the draft lottery. In hindsight, it really looks like they should have gone for "Not so bad A". That's what I and others advocated for in July, even though I did understand Perry's reasoning behind going for it. But what happened happened, and it failed spectacularly. To illustrate how bad "worst" is, consider that if they had gone for "Not so bad A," right now they would they still have Quero, Crow, Albright etc, but also a handful of other good prospects - even one or two top 50 guys. Now, well, there's no Shohei and the farm is as barren as it was back in the Dipoto era. I honestly have no idea what the Angels plan on doing. Presumably Arte wants to contend. They have about $70M to spend (ironic) and have picked up a couple no-name relievers. Maybe they go after Yamamoto and/or Snell. I fear a Bellinger "splash" which has high belly-flop potential (wouldn't that be almost deliciously ironic: Shohei in Dodgers blue and the Angels compensation is...Cody Bellinger). Or Arte could play it frugal - that wouldn't surprise me, either, at this point. But it is hard to imagine a positive near or even mid-term future. I suppose the optimist in me says that the youth movement could be better than expected. Trout could finally be healthy and Rendon comes to spring with a chip on his shoulder (which Ron Washington seems to be trying to manufacture). Taylor Ward could have found God and be ready to mash. Silseth, Sandoval, Detmers, etc...it could all click. Who nows, maybe losing Shohei is what the team needs to actualize its potential. It could happen, folks! Meaning, this isn't the Rockies. It. could be the Orioles or Rangers...right? Right?!?!

You're joking, right? Fangraphs speculated $30M/year with the other $40M deferred in four-year increments, so $10/year for 40 years. Hard to see that. I could see $20M over 20 years, though.

I'm not grieving, so no stage. As I said in another thread, the Angels' problems are much larger than Shohei Ohtani. If they had convinced him to say, all of those same problems would still exist -- and perhaps even been worse.

The Angels suck for not signing Shohei, but they would have sucked for signing him. The problems with the org are much larger than one player, even one as historic as Ohtani. I didn't read the Blum article, but I hope he talked not just (or even primarily) about spending on major league talent to compete, but all corners cut throughout the org - from screwing minor leaguers to no international scouting to player development in general.

What it means for Trout is what it meant for Trout yesterday: He needs to focus on staying healthy.

I get it. I guess we'll just have to see. Deferment over 30 years is quite a bit different than, say, 15.

I can believe that they'll get around the luxury tax, but they still owe him an average of $70M a year, so that's what the contract is.

Post-apocalyptic deferments.

Well, he's probably thinking, "No way am I dedicating 40% of my net worth to a single baseball player's salary."

Yes, but it is $700M and 10 years, so not matter how they wiggle around, it is $70M a year.