Sign in to follow this  
Dochalo

Is it time to add?

158 posts in this topic

floplag    608
Just now, Stradling said:

Because trading for offensive upgrades that were available or moved would cost us good prospects.  And adding to a sub .500 team would have been stupid.  Plus why trade good prospects for short term help?  It's what causes teams to be in our position in the first place.  

But you dont know that, you assume.   Taking on contracts by definition usually has a low cost due to the money and dont require top prospects.  Money we have, or should have, prospects we dont.  
I dont know how much clearer i can make this im not suggesting trading top prospects, im suggesting we take on money.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
floplag    608
3 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Ok.  Since this is a "possibility" show an example of that happening this year.  

i dont think any deals "this" year meet that type of trade, but are you suggesting it doesn't happen? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Angel Oracle    5,557
17 minutes ago, Chuckster70 said:

How about Verlander and Walker? 

Move Cowart over to 3B and he can platoon with Marte since he typically hits lefties really well, and Walker gives us another lefty in the lineup. 

If the Halos take on the money for both, and not have to trade the biggest prospects as a result, I'm all for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ettin    2,193
2 minutes ago, floplag said:

But you dont know that, you assume.   Taking on contracts by definition usually has a low cost due to the money and dont require top prospects.  Money we have, or should have, prospects we dont.  
I dont know how much clearer i can make this im not suggesting trading top prospects, im suggesting we take on money.  

Respectfully none of us have perfect insight into what negotiations Eppler may have or may not have made and what the asking price was in those talks.

Strad is correct insofar as why waste any prospects at the deadline for a team whom, at that time, was floundering at .500 (and still is around .500). Now that we are closer with this mini-win streak if there is a piece Eppler can add that makes sense he should do so. I get what you are saying Flop as I imagine someone like Neil Walker with something like $6M left on his contract probably would only net the Mets a low-tier prospect so there are probably some cheap options but where do we put them?

However the players Doc originally listed don't necessarily make sense for this team. Acquiring Neil Walker for instance is starting to look like a slight upgrade over Cowart which begs the question why even do it? Matt Moore had two more option years and the Giants probably want to give him another go around before releasing him super cheap. I don't like the idea of Verlander because he will tie up a ton of money and I don't feel confident he will provide the value that makes the difference for us.

Perhaps we should be thinking more along the lines of a more affordable (salary wise) longer term piece that we were going to pursue in the off-season and get it now if it is available. For instance if the Angels went after Cesar Hernandez and moved Cowart into a platoon at 3B or even moved Escobar to a utility role/pinch hitter. Maybe go after someone like Marcus Stroman or Daniel Norris or the like since pitching seems to be one of the only areas that makes sense to upgrade.

More importantly we have one and possibly two more pitchers returning to our rotation soon too which will probably be a nice upgrade for us anyway.

Eppler has to be really careful here and balance the here and now against the future. I think going for a longer term piece makes more sense if they are available.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stradling    11,472
13 minutes ago, floplag said:

i dont think any deals "this" year meet that type of trade, but are you suggesting it doesn't happen? 

You are the one upset they haven't done anything yet this year.  They haven't happened this year, so you are assuming a deal of taking on money without giving up talent should have happened even though none of those have happened this year.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
floplag    608
Just now, ettin said:

Respectfully none of us have perfect insight into what negotiations Eppler may have or may not have made and what the asking price was in those talks.

Strad is correct insofar as why waste any prospects at the deadline for a team whom, at that time, was floundering at .500 (and still is around .500). Now that we are closer with this mini-win streak if there is a piece Eppler can add that makes sense he should do so. I get what you are saying Flop as I imagine someone like Neil Walker with something like $6M left on his contract probably would only net the Mets a low-tier prospect so there are probably some cheap options but where do we put them?

However the players Doc originally listed don't necessarily make sense for this team. Acquiring Neil Walker for instance is starting to look like a slight upgrade over Cowart which begs the question why even do it? Matt Moore had two more option years and the Giants probably want to give him another go around before releasing him super cheap. I don't like the idea of Verlander because he will tie up a ton of money and I don't feel confident he will provide the value that makes the difference for us.

Perhaps we should be thinking more along the lines of a more affordable (salary wise) longer term piece that we were going to pursue in the off-season and get it now if it is available. For instance if the Angels went after Cesar Hernandez and moved Cowart into a platoon at 3B or even moved Escobar to a utility role/pinch hitter. Maybe go after someone like Marcus Stroman or Daniel Norris or the like since pitching seems to be one of the only areas that makes sense to upgrade.

More importantly we have one and possibly two more pitchers returning to our rotation soon too which will probably be a nice upgrade for us anyway.

Eppler has to be really careful here and balance the here and now against the future. I think going for a longer term piece makes more sense if they are available.

True, but we do know where he spent his time and what he prioritized based on the deal that was made.   Or at least have some indication of it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
floplag    608
1 minute ago, Stradling said:

You are the one upset they haven't done anything yet this year.  They haven't happened this year, so you are assuming a deal of taking on money without giving up talent should have happened even though none of those have happened this year.  

No, im assuming our GM should have tried to make such a deal happen.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stradling    11,472
1 minute ago, floplag said:

No, im assuming our GM should have tried to make such a deal happen.  

Actually I think you're assuming he didn't try to make such a deal happen. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
floplag    608
4 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Actually I think you're assuming he didn't try to make such a deal happen. 

Yes, your right, I am.  
This is based on the facts that it didnt happen even though many players in this situation were supposedly available, and his time was spent making another worthless deal happen.  Not to mention the fact that players are clearing waivers without claims that could help. 
Why are you assuming he did?  
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DMVol    1,119
4 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Actually I think you're assuming he didn't try to make such a deal happen. 

@Jeff Fletcher indicated he at least had some talks at the deadline about deals for controllable players....not sure if that meant taking on money or not.....but deadline discussions weren't all about selling...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stradling    11,472
3 minutes ago, floplag said:

Yes, your right, I am.  
This is based on the facts that it didnt happen even though many players in this situation were supposedly available, and his time was spent making another worthless deal happen.  Not to mention the fact that players are clearing waivers without claims that could help. 
Why are you assuming he did?  
 

Because I assume people do their jobs.  Bottom line is you think they aren't trying.  Since no players have really been claimed I'll assume teams are really letting these players go without prospect compensation.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
floplag    608
5 minutes ago, DMVol said:

@Jeff Fletcher indicated he at least had some talks at the deadline about deals for controllable players....not sure if that meant taking on money or not.....but deadline discussions weren't all about selling...

i believe you and Jeff, but in the end, thats what he did, hes sold a reliever for a box of balls.   I dont have any idea what he tried to do, but we know what he did do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
floplag    608
3 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Because I assume people do their jobs.  Bottom line is you think they aren't trying.  Since no players have really been claimed I'll assume teams are really letting these players go without prospect compensation.  

No thats not it at all.  Im sure he is doing his job, but the question is what is that job.  Is it winning or staying under the tax?  
The last couple years suggest the latter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wopphil    1,941

I'd have zero problem making a trade that involved Thaiss and/or Barria as the centerpiece(s) and included the Angels taking on all of Verlander's salary.

Look at what Verlander has done the last 7 starts. He'd be a huge pickup for this team, and a rotation cog for the next two years.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ettin    2,193
21 minutes ago, floplag said:

True, but we do know where he spent his time and what he prioritized based on the deal that was made.   Or at least have some indication of it.  

I feel like Eppler realized that the trade deadline market wasn't developing as many expected due to so many of the Division leaders having such a commanding lead that adding to their teams as buyers wasn't as critical as it has been in past seasons. The David Hernandez trade seemed to me like Eppler was hedging his bets, based on where the team was at and where it could be with the return of some of our starters after the deadline, trying to get a touch of value now and then waiting to see how August played out on the revocable waiver wire. I suspect that he didn't pull the trigger on one or more deals because why pay for half a year, in the last half of 2017, of a player that wasn't going to impact your 2017 season potentially? What I mean to say is why trade for let's say Cesar Hernandez when he may not impact 2017 and you pay the extra cost of acquisition now versus the offseason. This becomes more magnified if you're looking at a really expensive player like Brandon Belt, Giancarlo Stanton or even Verlander for instance.

Now we're in a position where maybe Eppler revisits one of those trades to see if he can consummate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ettin    2,193
11 minutes ago, floplag said:

i believe you and Jeff, but in the end, thats what he did, hes sold a reliever for a box of balls.   I dont have any idea what he tried to do, but we know what he did do. 

I don't think Eppler views the prospect acquired as a box of balls TBH. Also if you have multiple pitchers returning from the DL (Skaggs, Heaney, possibly Bailey) and/or relief prospects in the Minors that you can call upon and use in replacement of Hernandez are you really in a worse off position without David now? Yes I know he was helping us this season but his overall impact was a drop of water for the team in a larger pond and there is no reason we can't move one of our other rotation guys out into the bullpen (a la Chavez).

I'm not sure it is as big a deal as it might appear is all I'm saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
floplag    608
Just now, ettin said:

I don't think Eppler views the prospect acquired as a box of balls TBH. Also if you have multiple pitchers returning from the DL (Skaggs, Heaney, possibly Bailey) and/or relief prospects in the Minors that you can call upon and use in replacement of Hernandez are you really in a worse off position without David now? Yes I know he was helping us this season but his overall impact was a drop of water for the team in a larger pond and there is no reason we can't move one of our other rotation guys out into the bullpen (a la Chavez).

I'm not sure it is as big a deal as it might appear is all I'm saying.

Perhaps true, but  it weakened the ML roster at the time, thats all i know.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stradling    11,472
2 minutes ago, floplag said:

Perhaps true, but  it weakened the ML roster at the time, thats all i know.

Yes he weakened the team, of a sub .500 team. A team that is 8-3 since the trade.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eligrba    1,402

Getting a prospect for Hernandez was an act of a magic.....The Angles essentially got a 20 yr old pitching prospect from Venezuela, and some helpful pitching from Hernandez in the first half of the season paying hardly anything to the Braves.  A few more deals like this and Eppler might have a difficult time finding trade partners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
floplag    608
Just now, Stradling said:

Yes he weakened the team, of a sub .500 team. A team that is 8-3 since the trade.  

A sub 500 team that was still in a WC race even sub 500.  Perhaps not the best signal to send to the team at that point.  It speaks a lot to the character of the players that they went on that run after that message was sent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DMVol    1,119
6 minutes ago, floplag said:

Perhaps true, but  it weakened the ML roster at the time, thats all i know.

I don't think there would be much question that, 12 days out from the deadline, if Eppler could have a do-over, he probably would have kept Hernandez....but we didn't....without a crystal ball, you could have guessed, on July 31, that we could just as easily be 6 games out in the WC race as where we are....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
floplag    608
Just now, DMVol said:

I don't think there would be much question that, 12 days out from the trading deadline, if Eppler could have a do-over, he probably would have kept Hernandez....but we didn't....without a crystal ball, you could have guessed, on July 31, that we could just as easily be 6 games out in the WC race as where we are....

Perhaps, but still missing the point.  That's where he chose to spend his time and effort.   Pretty clear indications what the front office thinks of the club.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stormngt    1,083
7 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Yes he weakened the team, of a sub .500 team. A team that is 8-3 since the trade.  

Two of those three losses are due to bullpen blowing up.  Where would we be if we didn't bw those two games?l

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glen    6,439
23 minutes ago, wopphil said:

I'd have zero problem making a trade that involved Thaiss and/or Barria as the centerpiece(s) and included the Angels taking on all of Verlander's salary.

Look at what Verlander has done the last 7 starts. He'd be a huge pickup for this team, and a rotation cog for the next two years.

 

I disagree, but I also wasn't terribly happy with the Simmons trade initially, so what do I know.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wopphil    1,941
Just now, Glen said:

 

I disagree, but I also wasn't terribly happy with the Simmons trade initially, so what do I know.

You gotta give to get, and while Thaiss and Barria might be two of the Angels' better prospects, I don't think anyone considers them legit top 100 guys. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DMVol    1,119
4 minutes ago, floplag said:

Perhaps, but still missing the point.  That's where he chose to spend his time and effort.   Pretty clear indications what the front office thinks of the club.  

Again, you don't know how much effort he put into discussions about "controllable" players....may a lot, maybe not so much....he held on to all of the pen, sans Hernandez, so they certainly didn't bail and have a fire sale....if he did anything wrong, he should have had a fire sale for Norris in mid-July, obviously....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
floplag    608
1 minute ago, DMVol said:

Again, you don't know how much effort he put into discussions about "controllable" players....may a lot, maybe not so much....he held on to all of the pen, sans Hernandez, so they certainly didn't bail and have a fire sale....if he did anything wrong, he should have had a fire sale for Norris in mid-July, obviously....

Nor do you, but why is it only about controllable?  Some of you have such a narrow focus.    If we could get even a rental for salary dump that helps us make the post isnt that worth it?  Isnt that the goal?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chuckster70    8,289
6 minutes ago, Glen said:

 

I disagree, but I also wasn't terribly happy with the Simmons trade initially, so what do I know.

Same here.... That's why we don't get paid the big bucks.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dochalo    10,681
1 minute ago, floplag said:

i believe you and Jeff, but in the end, thats what he did, hes sold a reliever for a box of balls.   I dont have any idea what he tried to do, but we know what he did do. 

My guess is that he tried to sell other parts as well.  I bet he also had some discussions about controllable players.  Not big salary additions but guys that would require legit prospects.  He may have even laid a foundation for the off season.  

But you are right.  do.  or do not.  there is no try.  

I don't see us taking on any big money right now so I think it's more Arte than Eppler.  If we push over the tax, then Arte will want to reset it next year.   I really don't have a problem with the deadline moves (or lack thereof) that Eppler made.  

On July 31st, we were 4 games below .500 and 4.5gb of the second WC.  Many players were under performing (still are) and we had a lot less clarity on players returning from injury.  That's not a situation justifying any sort of investment.  Even if it's 'just' monetary.  Hey Arte, I know we are injured and playing like crap, but how about we take on some money and push the team over the CBT threshold to give us a slightly better chance of having one more game to play?  Hey Billy, how about you're fired.  

But now, the team is showing signs of life.  The offensive disappointments are coming around (a bit), guys are coming back from injury, and most importantly, even though we've played well over the last couple weeks, no one else we're competing against has taken off in any meaningful way.  

So why not find a way to improve a bit by eating some other team's money?  

Even though Verlander sort of fit's that mold, he owed 60 mil for his age 35 and 36 yo seasons.  Either you suck that entire amount up or you give up talent to bring it down.  The one thing that bodes well for him is that his velo is really good.  So do you make a 60+ mil commitment to a guy age 35 and 36 when only 9 more of his starts are potentially the only meaningful ones he could make during his entire 2+ year stretch?  Tough call.  Don't see it being justified though.  

The guys I mentioned were a max extra year of commitment after the rest of this one.   Guys that could give a boost but wouldn't cost really anything but a few bucks.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this