ettin

Really nice work Dave!

Well the considerable injury history part doesn't really strike confidence into an acquiring teams heart. A lot of the projection systems have Kinsler at about 3.5 WAR next season and he is on the wrong side of 30 so frankly you have to suck it up and say that his best days are behind him. His contract is about equal value right now so I don't think you'll get much back for him if an opposing team has to eat his whole salary. Andrus on the other hand I think is valuable from a defensive standpoint. Profar just needs time to develop as not all prospects enter the big leagues and stomp the competition into the ground like Trout did, which you alluded too. You do need to get off the Kinsler bandwagon, it is about to crash.

That writer is completely out of his mind. All you have to do is run the "ballpark" math: Price @ 2 years at approximately 4.5 WAR per season. Using $5.5 million per WAR that's $49.5 million in WAR value. Take out his projected arbitration salaries of $13,100,000 plus his 2015 salary that should be around $18500000 and that leaves you with about $17-18 million in "net worth". Add in some additional value for the fact that he is a top-line ace and that he will net a compensatory draft pick (Qualifying Offer) and you are probably up around $25-$30 million in total value. Trumbo for 3 years of control probably sits around $15 million in total value (2014-2016: 2.3 WAR per season). Garrett Richards under 5 years of control projects around $32-40 million in total value (2014-2018: 2.5 WAR per season). The point I am trying to make is that we shouldn't sell our players short. They have real value and the numbers are certainly debatable but if the Rays want to maximize their total value they should be looking at prospects not established MLB talent. MLB players are the apple to apple comparison. Trading for prospects is where the Rays can really strike gold (aka Wil Myers) if they target the right farm sysems and players where they can extract far greater value because prospects are inherently inexpensive because of the "gamble" involved in making sure they develop properly.

*High Fives AO*

So when they review the footage of whether Cron's home run really cleared the fence or not will that be a photo bomb?

True statement tbh. However since pitching is the main priority, I don't mind having a platoon that isn't a complete black hole offensively. Something about the old adage, "It can always be worse!" springs to mind when considering the alternatives.

I get your point tdawg but there is no farm system in baseball that has enough quality talent to provide even an equal return for Trout's value right now. His on-field performance combined with the fact that he is a 10+ WAR player, which is very rare, makes him so incredibly valuable that it would require Major League talent to be included not just farm hands. Literally it would take David Price, Wil Myers, and Matt Moore to get the conversation to a serious state at this point in time. If Trout doesn't want to sign an extension then we trade him in his walk year and get back 2-3 top prospects plus ? from a National League farm system preferably.

Blanton to Dipoto: "I'll be your Quisenberry!"

Just some food for thought for today. Here are the 2011-2013 OPS splits (in the format of vs. LHP/vs. RHP) for the following four players currently on our 40-man roster: Grant Green: .847/.782 Luis Jimenez: .786/.824 Tommy Field: .798/.778 Chris Nelson: .854/.910 Clearly none of these numbers have translated (yet) to the Big Leauges but would the Angels be better off with a platoon at 3rd base in 2014? Can a platoon of say Grant Green and Chris Nelson provide an OPS over .800+ next season? What about Luis Jimenez's leadership and energy? Would it be better to have a platoon of Field (higher OBP) and Jimenez (probably better defense from the both of them)? Should we just try to acquire a good 3rd base prospect or an established 3rd baseman in trade? Discuss! For the record I'm okay with a platoon of any of the above and wouldn't mind giving someone like Nelson, who hasn't seen consistent playing time in the Majors, the opportunity to run with the position if he does well in Spring Training. If we do trade Aybar then I'd like to see the best defensive 3rd base option manning the position if possible or trade for a more defensively inclined 3rd baseman.

LOL, now I know where the cursor disappeared to when I was typing that message last night.

it madf Everyone keeps forgetting that every team in MLB is getting approximately $25 million extra from the national TV deal, so taking on some additional salary is not as big an obstacle as it may appear.

Here is the deal with Trumbo: He's an approximate 2.2-2.3 WAR player over the next three years of his control. He will make about $4.7 million in 2014, probably close to $9 million in 2015, and somewhere around $13 million in 2016, so about $27 million or so. When he hits free agency there is a good chance he will get a Qualifying Offer which is also worth a compensatory draft pick. Add all of this up and I truly believe that Trumbo is worth one top prospect. Now some teams may not want to part with one top prospect for Mark but I think there are teams that would do it. I do believe Trumbo can bring in at least one quality starting pitching prospect and a secondary, lower-tier type player in trade.

One thing to remember is that David Price will make approximately $13 million in arbitration this year and quite possibly something like $17 million or more next season. That's $30+ million dollars that a team will be expending in return for his services. Now clearly he is worth it but how much moreso is open for debate. Clearly it takes more than just Mark Trumbo who could play first base for them. Is it Howie? Maybe they could move Zobrist to LF perhaps? Is it Bourjos? Then we'd better be getting something else back in return because Peter would give them too much value on top of Trumbo. I think we have some pieces the Rays need but it is just a matter of finding the right fit, of which the Angels may not be a puzzle piece.

The more I look at other teams and their rosters I become increasingly convinced that most, if not all, of our offseason acquisitions of pitching will come through trade and those trades will be for young, cost controlled starters in AAA or AA who are capable of starting the 2014 season on the Angels 25-man roster. That being said I think there will be at least one pitcher acquired in free agency and Jimenez is an option with his high K/9 rate and resurgence in the league. Vargas coming back as an innings eater is fine with me as well. We need a one-year reboot with youth-infused pitching and I think it is quite possible that we could actively contend doing it, despite the quick rebuild.

Maybe we'll get lucky and it will be like reverse psychology in the future: The Angels crush the Astros while the Astros crush the Mariners, A's, and Rangers?

Mass hysteria! Enough! I get the point!

Well almost by definition if it is on Lookout Landing it is probably Mariners players. Those are three interesting pitchers and Erasmo is definitely the type of pitcher that would do well in Anaheim. The other two are also interesting in their own ways. In my mind that is probably a trade the Angels would consider. It is pretty clear they don't want to sell low on Peter but I think this is in the ballpark of consideration.

We should be worried about the new addition to the AL West. It is not very often a team takes the complete reboot approach and they are doing it the right way and it will produce the right results soon.

In the Angel's RePLAY section there are some really pretty pictures too.

Actually most of the people here voted yes for all of them, even Wells, so I have a feeling your statement is incorrect.

That would probably work itself out also. The only concern would then be is Stroman and Sanchez enough depth for 2014. They certainly are good prospects and Stroman could be in the rotation in 2015 (maybe Sanchez too). There is a balance to be found somewhere in that idea.

Editors Note: I caught two errors I made on Mark Trumbo and Tommy Hanson's salaries for 2014 in the spreadsheet. Trumbo's was listed at $2 million but it is actually going to be about $4.7 million. Hanson was listed at $8.5 million and it should have been $3.9 million. This is not to big of a deal as the Phillies would have to send a little less money but I wanted to mention it here for clarity's sake. The pitfalls of not initially linking your Excel spreadsheet cells.

I would be the first to say that it is probably the fact that the Jays would have to give up their top two pitching prospects that would probably make this deal a no-go. However the Blue Jays also made a commitment to try and win last season and they are still in that window of contention which would make them consider deals that they may not normally pursue. Thanks for your input tdawg!

Also I see that my article title has hijacked itself.... sigh. Is that an internal Craig?

If you call giving up four Major League players the least amount of talent, then yes your statement would be correct. Prospects are never a sure thing, you know that! Maikel Franco could become Brandon Wood 2.0? Stroman was busted for PED use which is an added risk if he reuses and is out a number of games? There are risks in this trade that I don't think you appreciate?