oater

38 minutes ago, Erstad Grit said:

I don't get the hype on Skaggs. (and no this has nothing to do with today) 

 

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.

37 minutes ago, Make Angels Great Again said:

This is going to be his age 38 season. IF he has a productive year, great! He obviously won't be a waste of a roster spot if he is producing more than we could get elsewhere.

Even if fully healthy though, don't expect MVP numbers. Basically no one stays that good that old.

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?

2 hours ago, Dochalo said:

Ohtani, Richards, Skaggs, Heaney, Shoe, Odorizzi displaces Ramirez to the pen and Bridwell, Trop, and Barria to AAA.  

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.

1 hour ago, Revad said:

Did the Cowboy get a number?  Sorry Arturo you’ll always be in second place.  Wouldn’t need Kinsler if we had Grich....

LAA Retired Number: No. 26, Gene Autry

20 minutes ago, totdprods said:

Great! They re-signed Campos - who a few of us were pretty high on - and Ian Krol, one of the lefties that had been on my radar for a minor-league signing.

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

5 hours ago, Scotty@AW said:

Taylor Ward is a top 100 prospect.

VALIDATION!!!

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. 

1 hour ago, WeatherWonk said:

How would it even be possible to feel bad for owners in the last 50 years? Especially when POSs like Loria do so well. Has there even been an owner in the last 50 years that hasnt at least tripled his investment?

2

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

26 minutes ago, floplag said:

i think an awful lot of people are freaking spoiled wanting to run Calhoun out.  You guys have visions of Yelich dancing in your heads and severely under appreciate the guy. 
Probably our third best player last year overall with a 2+ WAR in a possible down year, gold glove..  idk what you guys want to like a guy sometimes. 

+1

Next logo to go.

celtics.pdf

1 hour ago, Blarg said:

Want to pick up an insurance plan? Sign a guy to a minor league deal. By the looks of it there maybe a surplus of Vargas level guys without contracts come April.

1

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.

25 minutes ago, Dave Saltzer said:

I'm saying a bit more than that, but in a larger scheme of things, yes. Unlike the past, where owners spent ridiculously, and payrolls skyrocketed way past beyond what inflation did, it appears that the spending spikes have peaked, and won't be like the rate of increase we saw in the past. So, yes, they appear to finally be acting like business owners rather than as fans. 

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.

1 hour ago, ettin said:

l am sharing it because I didn't know the CBT sunsets after 2021 and thought I'd share it and what it may or may not mean for the Angels decision making and to see if anyone had any angles on this that I haven't considered yet?

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. 

2 hours ago, Troll Daddy said:

He’s white and has a red beard ... I like it

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.

5 hours ago, ettin said:

Yes you are correct the new rules have changed but you have to be careful about assuming that the $4M is taken off AAV. Actual and AAV are not the same. In the example I presented I agree that actual would reduce down to $13M and $16 in years 3 and 4 but the AAV would only be reduced by the aforementioned $2M. AAV is calculated as an average so you have to recalculate the proportional amount that the $8M represents to the original AAV (the $8M divided by 4 years, not two years).

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."

3 hours ago, ettin said:

 

Yeah originally in a different thread Fletcher and I were talking about this but as it turns out it does not reset it is transferred over. If there is cash sent in the deal it impacts not only actual but how much AAV too but on some type of proportional basis that we couldn't figure out (it's not super clear in the CBA). Without examples it's hard to pinpoint.

A simple example as I see it: A player signs a 4 year, $60M contract. That is $15M per year in AAV but the contract pays $10M in year 1, $13M in year 2, $17M in year 3, and $20M in year 4.

After the 2nd year the player is traded to another team and the original club sends $8M in salary relief spread evenly ($4M each) over years 3 and 4.

Because AAV is calculated as the original total contract divided by the number of guaranteed years ($60M/4 years = $15M), in order to calculate how much AAV the original club keeps and how much the new team takes on would require that the $8M be divided by the original number of guaranteed years ($8M/4 years = $2M/year in AAV). So basically the original team will have $2M in AAV on their books for the next two years even though the player is now off of their roster is how I see it. This is why teams don't send cash as often because they like keeping their ledgers clean.

So basically the acquiring team will only pay $13M and $16M in actual club payroll for years 3 and 4 while in terms of AAV they will only be at $13M in both of those years for purposes of the Luxury Tax. The original team would carry $2M in AAV on their books for years 3 and 4. Note that this (AAV) would still be true even if they had applied all of the $8M to only year 3 or only year 4 for example (i.e. the money could have been split up any way the two clubs chose to do it but the AAV would still be the same because it is calculated as an average).

Remember that this is my interpretation. I could be wrong but it makes sense to me.

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)