totdprods

As I said in the Hot Stove thread, I think Parra would be a fine add and compares well with Fowler. 
Neither player is a significant impact individually, but either profile well to the club's needs; top of the order bat, can hit left-handed, and bring at least decent speed and defense. Parra won't cost a pick either. 

He's hit first and second enough that I'd put him and Escobar at the top. Let Calhoun slide down to become a MOTO bat. 
 
Escobar + Parra in front of Trout, Pujols, Calhoun, and Cron is not bad.

Upton on a one year means we can turn right around and offer him a QO next year and get that pick back. Yeah, it still sets us back this draft, but a one-year deal and QO negates that loss a bit.
Or Angels could flip him for prospects at deadline if they're tanking.

Depending on how many baseball writers the Tigers have, Mike Trout.

Yeah no way Gordon would have signed with anyone else for that amount. He probably wanted to return to KC, they offered that initial 4/48 or whatever, he looked elsewhere but no one else was willing to drop huge money, then KC upped the offer enough to get him back.

Yeah no way Gordon would have signed with anyone else for that amount. He probably wanted to return to KC, they offered that initial 4/48 or whatever, he looked elsewhere but no one else was willing to drop huge money, then KC upped the offer enough to get him back.

You're doing it again scotty....

This has been an eroding situation for several years now.  
 
From 2005-2008 their drafts produced hank conger, jorden walden, peter bourjos, andrew romine, and tyler chatwood.   Other than Kendrys, we didn't really sign any significant international players (that I can remember) and then we completely pulled out of the international market in 2009.  
 
Reagins came along in 2007 and under the direction of Arte (and maybe MS to a degree), took a hammer to the eroded area blindly, further damaging it.  
 
Eddie Bane found a brand new piece of drywall and borrowed his dad's killer set of tool to give it a nice cosmetic appearance but the mold was still underneath.  
 
In 2010, he and reagins tried to fix it even further and ended up exposing the damage but got pissed at each other and just left it.  
 
Then Jerry came along and said 'I can fix that shit easy.'  So he got out his metric socket set but alas, the materials were standard so he put some spit, wd40, duct tape and patch all over it to hold every thing together.  But it looked like shit.
 
Scott Sevais came by one day and tried to cover it up with liquid paper and he lit a scented candle but when he came back the next day a sharpie note in MS handwriting said 'For a good time, call Jill Servais' with Scott's home phone number underneath.
 
Then Arte came along one day and said 'are we still working on this shit?  It looks worse than ever."  So he put a picture of a painting over it with a very fancy and expensive frame.  But he realized the painting was a knock off so he put a mirror with white powder all over it over the top.  Then he realized the mirror was a gift from his ex wife so he got rid of it not realizing it was an expensive family heirloom.  
 
Jerry saw the mirror in the trash and after seeing his reflection he realized how inappropriately tan he was which made him angry.  So he demanded that no one else was allowed to touch his eroded mess of a structure.  But Butcher, Baylor and Scioscia got really drunk one night and wrote mean stuff about jerry all over it.  So Jerry told Arte to fix it but Arte thought it really tied the room together and felt they should leave it.  
 
So Jerry left.  
 
Then Billy came along.  He took one look at it and said 'holy shit!  What the F is that thing?!" Arte told him it was the franchise and Billy laughed.  But after some consternation, Billy put together an estimate of what it would cost and showed it to Arte who told him to get started fixing it.  
 
But then Arte realized he didn't see one of the zeroes in the quote total.  So he said '**** it', took a shit on it, and then went sailing.

This is silly. Trout is here for five more years. Next year will be his age 24 season and he's got $150m in the bank ahead of him.
God willing, he has a lot of career, money, and championship attempts ahead of him.
 
For us fans, it may be hard to see past 2016-2017 right now. But if they simply let bloated contracts fall off the next two seasons, invest back into the farm, maybe trade off one high value piece like Calhoun/Richards/Skaggs/Heaney over the next two seasons for some immediate farm relief, they can drop some serious coin on the 2018 class. By maintaining a lean and flexible payroll the next few seasons, they could add a big bat, a big, maybe another solid player or two. 
 
That'd be a statement to a 27 year old Mike Trout, who still has a couple seasons before FA, that his current team is dead set on winning a World Series both at that moment and for the foreseeable future. A rebuilt farm ready to supply young talent into his next extension, a couple new big FA stars in the fold.
 
Bottom line, I don't see why making a very major commitment to winning in 2019-2020 is going to be less convincing to keeping Trout than making a major commitment to winning now, when he has five years and $100m ahead of him still. 2016 will be a distant memory to Trout by 2020 if we build a major contender around him then. For an example, look at Heyward taking less to join up with the Cubs. He knows he's in a great spot to compete and win it all right now with them. Why wouldn't we want to take a similar approach as Trout nears FA?

While I think Hector's true ability and potential is still rather murky, I think with his age, his cost, his lefthandedness, his versatility, and the potential for more give him an extra appeal. He has enough going for him that some teams would see him as a great opportunity, and some would see him as overrated.All it takes is a team that can afford to give up what the Angels need that is looking for what they feel Santiago can be.

This may the plan already in the works, but with the FA class so heavy on SPs and OFs, they wouldn't be able to get max return trading those off. Probably better off waiting until deadline or even next offseason. 
 
Personally I think it is entirely plausible this team can do mini-rebuild 2016-17 without totally gutting the team and be ready to contend in '18.
We have enough young talent that's controllable through then to maintain a core, and maybe turn one piece like Calhoun or Skaggs/Heaney into multiple MLB ready pieces that can slot in '18. Use money the next few seasons on the farm, lower payroll, and prepare for the mega FA class in '18.

I don't get all the handwringing.  Just about every big money acquisition since Vlad and Colon has ranged from disappointing (Pujols, CJ) to utter disasters (Wells, Hammy).
 
What do you think we are missing out here?  Their track record sucks. 
 
Why not try a different tack?

Agreed. At least pick a lotto ticket with a payout higher than Gentry/Nava.

If we were going cheap this year than Kim was the most logical move.

Uh, no, I'm saying the Angels would be sellers at the deadline. Moving our pitchers next season when there's more demand, so we can get better return. Everyone here is so worried about our rotation, so why should we expect those same players to generate impact return, especially with a FA SP class of Greinke, Price, Cueto, Zimmerman, Kazmir, Gallardo, Chen, Leake, Maeda, Iwakuma, Samardzija, Lackey, etc were all available. It's possible no team was willing to pay up anything good for any of our SPers right now. Too many arms on the market. May be able to flip one of those for someone much better by a team willing to overpay at the deadline, and maybe that rotation depth is what keeps us in contention next year.

What if that *is* the plan?Maybe they've determined that instead of trying to get max return on an OF, SPs, and a solid closer during an offseason where they'd be overshadowed by better available players, they realized they were better off starting '16 pretending to compete, and then selling off those pieces at the deadline or the thin '17 offseason? That way they're not trying to push Calhoun amongst Heyward, Upton, Cespedes, Gordon, Fowler, Span, Parra or Santiago against Chen, Gallardo, Maeda, Samardzija, Leake or Street against Kimbrel, Giles, Miller, Chapman.
I've mentioned it before, and I know it'll get a rise of folks, but if I were to choose which part of the Five Trout Years I would want us to compete in, I would choose the final two or three over the first two or three.
Obviously we as fans wants them to be highly competitive for all five. But realistically, the Angels may see '16-'17 as pseudo-transitionary years. The young core of Trout, Calhoun, Simmons, Perez, Heaney, Skaggs, Richards all could be here still '18-'20. The Astros and Rangers are in prime position at least next season and the one after Darvish and Hamels will be FA in a couple years, Fielder and Choo still aging. Their once highly touted farm also hasn't quite paid off the way many expected. The Astros still have a very bright future, but they've also dipped into that farm big time recently. Maybe the Angels recognize that one big signing isn't going to put them over the top the next two years, and they're better off trying to sneak in via the Wild Card. They've kept all their pitching. The 2015 team underperformed massively. It's a risk but maybe they're gambling on some smart budget buys, a young core, and a bit of luck landing them in the playoffs instead of the buy big and be heavily favored on paper route. Because that has been the strategy the last five years and it hasn't produced.
I'm disappointed if this is the '16 team more or less, but I'm hanging onto some hope that this is just a very soft rebuild for '18-'20. If Arte and the FO feels they only have the money to splurge once in the next 5 years, I would rather they go all in and build a monster team (be it building a farm over the next three years, trading a good young player or two, and then investing in the big FA class of '18) to convince Trout when extension talks come up in a few years that the team is gunning for a championship then and for the foreseeable future.
Best I can do for a 'silver linings' post. If they wanted to go cheap I'd think signing Parra, Morneau, Murphy, a Korean, and a cheap pen arm would have been a better bet to compete while staying budget-friendly. It may have tipped the luxury tax for a year, but the commitments would have been short, the players projecting to be productive....not what's happened.

this is awful, and you should feel bad.

The number of wins is being fixated on a bit too much and may have been a poor way of explaining my stance - overall, I'm all for winning now, and I'm all for spending to do so - I'm just feeling that we are better off sacrificing maybe a couple wins that a supposed $200m 'star' player would bring. I believe that we can be just as competitive with several players that may not be capable of delivering the same impact as one player at his peak, and with the benefit of a more flexible payroll and less long commitorments it will be easier to fix needs on a year to year basis to ensure we stay in the thick of it all 5 years.
I worry that if we go for broke this year, and it quickly doesn't pan out, it puts us in a position where we are truly without hope for 2017-2020.
There is no way this team can develop a farm system in two years that can impact the MLB team consistently in the last half of the Trout years. Our best hope is the farm is producing MLB talents around the end of the Trout deal so we can stay competitive in a new Trout deal, or compete in a world where Trout leaves via FA.

He wasn't left off the M's 40 man, he hit his six year minor-league free agency. It seems pretty rare that any player who makes it to minor league free agency remains with the original organization. As to why Baltimore didn't add them to their 40? Probably because he was just signed as a minor league FA, and BAL probably assumed that since they managed to sign him that way, no one would be looking at him seriously for the Rule 5.
 
My guess is when he got popped with the 50-game PED suspension he dropped off their radar quite a bit, and then was further overlooked by the seemingly endless supply of 1B/LF types the Mariners had last year.
 
He will have to remain on the 25-man all season like Featherston, but I think I read Eppler indicated that both Choi and Guerra are here more as immediate depth options, not long-term prospects, and if they weren't filling their roles the organization would waive them.

I'm hoping Eppler is hoarding all these players as a sort of safety net. Even if they do heavily pursue any or all of the big 3 remaining OFers, there's still a chance they could get outbid, or even if they offer the most, a player may choose a lesser offer due to hometown ties or whatever. If they strike out on all 3, they will at least have some sort of depth built up already, rather than a January scenario of "Oh shit. All three signed elsewhere. Quick, let's see what's left!!"That was what led us to Vernon Wells.
If we sign a big 3, or a mid-tier bat, all these guys profile just fine as depth at SLC or 4th OFers.

ispy45, also need to consider we will have Calhoun, Richards, Heaney, Skaggs, and Perez all in late arbitration or extended by that point - plus we will likely be trying to make room financially for another Trout extension, maybe Simmons as well. This will be an expensive team around that FA class so it may limit who we can sign at that time. Especially since it is unlikely the farm will be a strong pipeline in three years.
That said, adding another long, expensive contract into the mix will only make that more complicated. I like the idea of Span, Parra, Murphy as they'll allow us far more flexibility during the Trout years.
Span may even take a one year deal, maybe with an option. He could be a big get in next year's almost non-existent FA class. We may even be able to get a draft pick for him.
Might those years tie in as well with a potential new stadium/renovation?

I'm hoping Eppler is hoarding all these players as a sort of safety net. Even if they do heavily pursue any or all of the big 3 remaining OFers, there's still a chance they could get outbid, or even if they offer the most, a player may choose a lesser offer due to hometown ties or whatever. If they strike out on all 3, they will at least have some sort of depth built up already, rather than a January scenario of "Oh shit. All three signed elsewhere. Quick, let's see what's left!!"That was what led us to Vernon Wells.
If we sign a big 3, or a mid-tier bat, all these guys profile just fine as depth at SLC or 4th OFers.

I don't object to them spending money, just feel doing so on one big FA is awfully sketchy and risks putting us in the same position year in and year out.
That $150-200m to Upton/Cespedes/Heyward....if they sign and promptly bomb upon arrival, or Richards needs TJ, or we experience the Joyce/Iannetta/Aybar slump next year with Calhoun/Perez/Heaney how do even think about fixing ourselves next year? No money, no farm, more question marks than this year. A very thin FA class to shop in, and right back to threat of trading prospects for fixes.
Using that same money on Gordon, Murphy, a pen arm, some reinvestment in the farm/drafting/scouting, and having some money for emergencies and no new long contracts helps us fix whatever problems arise next year and the year after. Our fate won't hinge as much on one hugely expensive FA succeeding or failing.
Overall I think the big thing I'm preaching is I see parallels between this offseason and the 2011 Pujols/Wilson offseason. We banked on big money then, and it kept us from fixing the farm and spending on new fixes for a few years after. I worry we are setting the team up for the same scenario when our young core should be at their peak.

.....Anyone who gets Springer is going to keep Springer.

Gordon's age spooks me the most. It'd suck if he went into a decline after a year or two and put us in a position needing to upgrade the offense again but with fewer positions to do so. I wouldn't be against him. In fact, I'd be pretty happy with any of the Big 3 provided the right accompanying move was made.