oater

I didn't realize that Skaggs was being "hyped." The most "hype" I have seen concerning Skaggs is that, if healthy, he will be in the starting rotation. I agree with the other posters who believe he has a chance to be a solid contributor, but he will have to prove it.

In 1957, when Ted Williams was 39, he hit .388/.526/.731, with a 9.5 WAR. Definitely the exception, but . . .

I don't have enough information. When asked by Eppler, did Trout say it was more likely or less likely that he would sign an extension if Scioscia were given an extension?

My working assumption is that the Angels will go with a hybrid 6 man rotation with Ramirez being in the pen and making spot starts as needed. I suppose Skaggs could take on that role, but Ramirez would seem to be the ideal fit.

Notwithstanding the MLBTR spin, I don't sense that anything is happening re Odorizzi. The TB article is about plans for the new baseball stadium and in an aside states that the Rays "have been talking about dealing RHP Jake Odorizzi with a number of teams, said to include the Brewers, Twins, Cardinals, Angels and possibly Orioles." In today's OCR, Jeff Fletcher quotes Eppler:' “We feel very good about the club we have right now,” Eppler said. “We feel prepared to head into the season. If there are additions along the way, we’re obviously open minded to it, but we feel good with our club.”' Presuming that the expected starters are healthy (at least to start the season), adding Odorizzi will likely force Heaney or Skaggs to the minors and will create an even bigger roster crunch in 2019. I personally am not in favor of that course of action--especially if it means trading a top minors prospect like Jones.

LAA Retired Number: No. 26, Gene Autry

Agreed. Krol was a nice pick-up. But will Campos ever be healthy?

It may just be me, but I find the rankings of catching prospects to be humorous. Once in a blue moon a Buster Posey comes along that everyone recognizes as great. For the most part, however, the highly rated minor league prospects are decent hitters with questionable defensive skills. The reality is that the majority of good major league catchers start with solid defensive skills and develop a decent offensive game, like Yadier Molina.

You have a short memory. Disney pretty much broke even when it sold the Angels, and never recovered its operating losses.

+1

Next logo to go. celtics.pdf

Yes, these are exactly the type of depth pieces I expect Eppler to add.

Nice payday for a player that wasn't drafted.

Under the CBA, if a player is cut during spring training, he is entitled to receive 30 days (if cut 16 or more days before the start of the season) or 45 days pay. Thereafter the contract is fully guaranteed. This presumes that the contract is not guaranteed.

Sorry, my remark was not intended in any way to be critical.

So basically you are saying that at the end of the day, baseball is a business and the owners are acting like business men. What a novel idea.

The current CBA expires on December 1, 2021, so the only significance of the provision that the CBT sunsets after 2021 is that a revised CBT will be negotiated as part of the following CBA. Under the current CBA, the CBT threshold was raised, but the penalties for exceeding the threshold have increased. Even the teams with the highest revenue (i.e., Yankees and Dodgers) are making a concerted effort get payroll under the CBT threshold this year. Is there any reason the Angels would have a different plan for 2022?

I think the Angels should seriously consider extending both Machete and Richards this year. A Richards extension would obviously carry a significant risk, but if he is healthy and productive in 18, he will be one of the premier FA pitchers next year, so this may be a good time to negotiate a deal that would work for both sides (maybe 4 yrs/ $60 M?). The extensions would add significantly to the CBT payroll (because of the higher AAV) even if the deals are payroll neutral for 18.

Cool, but J Turner owns that department.

Thanks for the write-up, Scotty. You never know for sure how a prospect will develop, but the blood-line sure helps. As I recall, his dad was somewhat of a late bloomer himself (at least on the hitting side).

Cozart would be the perfect Swiss army knife for the Angels. Sign him up!

I am happy that Eppler is being patient and not forcing anything. I am convinced that reasonable options will remain on the market long after the winter meetings are over, and I am in favor of finding value over any specific player.

Well, OK--but really not. My comment was intended to reflect the net effect on the payroll allocated to the respective teams for purpose of the CBT. Technically, the AAV of the contract remains at $15M irrespective of which team pays the salary. However, for CBT purposes, $4M per year is added to the payroll of the payor team and $4M per year is subtracted from the payee team over the two remaining years on the contract. The CBA provides: "An assignor Club that pays cash consideration to defray all or part of the salary obligation of the assignee Club for an assigned Player or Players shall include such cash consideration in its Actual Club Payroll on a pro-rata basis over the remaining Guaranteed Years of the assigned Contract( s). . . . Any cash consideration that is included in the Actual Club Payroll of the payor Club shall be subtracted from the Actual Club Payroll of the payee Club in the same Contract Year in which it is added to the payor Club’s Actual Club Payroll."

I agree that the AAV of the contract does not "reset" as a result of a trade. Thus, in your example, the AAV remains at $15M. However, under the new CBA (Art. XXIII, C(2)(b)(iii)), the cash paid by the trading team is evenly allocated over the remaining years of the contract. If $8M is paid and two years remain on the contract, $4M its allocated to each year. The $4M is added to the payroll of the trading team (the payor) and deducted from the payroll of the team that acquired the player (the payee). Thus, in your example, the acquiring team has an AAV of $11M in each of the remaining two years on the contract. Under the previous CBA, the accounting rules were somewhat different, since the charges and credits were determined based on the year in which the money was paid, rather than being spread evenly over the remaining years on the contract.

Oh, my! (apologies to Dick Enberg)