Gold Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About ettin

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 06/16/1972

Contact Methods

  • MSN
  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location:
    Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
  • Interests
    Angels Baseball (duh!), Astronomy, Spaceflight, and Games of all sorts!

Recent Profile Visitors

2,562 profile views
  1. @Troll Daddy Keep your big trade goals alive! In other words klingon to your hope.
  2. He is a bat-only 1B, who just hit his first year of arb for close to $6M. He could easily be non-tendered next year where his arb price could balloon to $10M+. I don't think he will cost all that much to acquire in trade.... His defense is horrid by the way so he is an A.L. guy only probably making it even harder for the Pirates to trade him.
  3. I like Cumberland and wouldn't mind picking him up but his defense isn't as solid as other choices so as a Rule 5 pick for the Angels it is probably a no.
  4. I never thought I'd hear you use the word respectability, Toby.
  5. If that had been a better pun you could have added "Mike Drop" at the end of it, but alas....
  6. I know you're asking Jeff but I think Rengifo is more valuable at this moment in time, due to his defense at multiple positions.
  7. The Angels total 3.3 WAR for their starting rotation in 2019.
  8. We should probably just point everyone to the idea that the Red Sox might pare back payroll and that Chris Sale might be available from where it originated from (Alex Speier of the Boston Globe via the link):
  9. Walsh could also do really well here too! We do need a 1B, Pujols is unlikely to pick up a lot of time there in my opinion. Edit: I do think that Walsh is a viable trade piece because the Angels could easily go to the free agent or trade market to find a lefty 1B bat like Smoak or Schwarber for example.
  10. Since many of us religiously follow and read we should probably reference the source:
  11. So beyond the fact that the Indians would be selling low rather than keeping him on the roster to see if he recovers value, the Angels probably shouldn't be expending trade assets and spending $4.5M on a player that may be damaged goods right now. In the past I was a Salazar advocate and would love to see him get back into form but now is not the right time to buy him with the payroll in the shape it is in, especially when we are about to try and sign Gerrit Cole. The available space after that will be limited barring aggressive spending by Moreno.
  12. I am not too sure it matters that much in the scheme of things. The Angels could actually use at least three of those players that didn't accept their QO's (arguably more than three even) so if money wasn't an object I'd "punt" the upcoming Rule IV Draft and sign, baby, sign! However I think the Angels can sign Cole and trade for 1-2 other starters thus only giving up the 2nd round pick and the $500K which is a perfectly acceptable route too. In answer to your question the draft money might tighten up slightly but I don't think it is enough to materially change the approach or sign-ability of a particular player the Angels want. In other words they would probably allocate the money needed to sign the #10 pick as that is the slot with the most probable return on investment in comparison to the later round picks, even if it means we have a couple of picks in the early-middle rounds not sign because we used the money elsewhere.
  13. Lou eats meat. He prefers it In 'N' Out.