Sign in to follow this  
Torridd

The Eppler way?

23 posts in this topic

Does anyone know if these types of 1-year signings have been done before? If not, if most are successful, do you think other GMs may try things the Eppler way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Billy Eppler has shown a strong affinity for one or two year deals.  He has for a while, and honestly, it rarely ever works out.   Craig Gentry, Daniel Nava, Cam Maybin, Ricky Nolasco, Cliff Pennington, Martin Maldonado, Ian Kinsler, Jim Johnson and now Justin Bour, Jon Lucroy, Matt Harvey, Trevor Cahill and Cody Allen. 

So far, the best we can see about this is it hasn't harmed the long term financial outlook of the team, and in the case of Ian Kinsler and Maldonado, they were flipped at the trade deadline for some relatively solid prospects in Ty Buttrey, Williams Jerez and Pat Sandoval.  Not a great return that shifts the direction of the organization, but the type that definitely fills in the holes on the peripheral parts of the roster. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think the problem is 1 year deals in and of themselves, the problem is what you can get for those 1 year deals.   They are basically guys looking to rebuild themselves after down years or guys that have no long term value.   Expecting them to produce at levels above that is a reach in most cases.

You dont get top quality on 1 year deals barring something highly unusual (See Grandal). 

At the end of it all the old adage of "you get what you pay for" always seems to somehow be more accurate than most other arguments.  You shop at Macys, you get better than shopping at Salvation army outlets.   Occasionally you find a treasure someone didnt know they had, but more often you just find out there were reasons they were willing to take less.

We are what we are, were a team in the mix for the second wildcard if we can get a little luck.  In my opinion thats a crying shame and and utter waste of the real talent on this roster, but thats the path the club has chosen.  

Share this post


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

I dont think the problem is 1 year deals in and of themselves, the problem is what you can get for those 1 year deals.   They are basically guys looking to rebuild themselves after down years or guys that have no long term value.   Expecting them to produce at levels above that is a reach in most cases.

You dont get top quality on 1 year deals barring something highly unusual (See Grandal). 

At the end of it all the old adage of "you get what you pay for" always seems to somehow be more accurate than most other arguments.  You shop at Macys, you get better than shopping at Salvation army outlets.   Occasionally you find a treasure someone didnt know they had, but more often you just find out there were reasons they were willing to take less.

We are what we are, were a team in the mix for the second wildcard if we can get a little luck.  In my opinion thats a crying shame and and utter waste of the real talent on this roster, but thats the path the club has chosen.  

you can get excellent value from a 1yr deal and horrible value from a long term one.  In fact, most long term deals are an absolute bust.  Long term and short term deals both have their place.  

Again, if you're not going to get the guy you want on that long term deal, why should the default to be the next guy down for a little less money/years when you might be luke warm on him?  

I think that's the mistake a lot of teams make.  Or at least used to make.  It used to be that if you missed out on Corbin, you'd just go after Keuchel.  Teams are no longer going to pay for what a guy did but what they think he can do.  

The club has chose a path dictated by the talent on the roster and their available resources with an understanding of the 1,2,3,4 etc. year impact of everything they do.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's truly a great strategy to waste Trout's time as an Angel and let a new GM come in with payroll flexibility after Trout leaves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

btw, there are going to end up being a total of 7 deals of 4yrs or more this year.  Corbin, Eovaldi are done.  Harper, Machado, Pollack, Kimbrel and Keuchel are left and I'm not convinced that Keuchel and Pollock are going to get 4+.  Most likely, but it's not guaranteed at this point.  

On top of that, there are another 7 guys who have gotten 3 year deals.  there are probably 2-3 more that are going to get 3 years.  that's a total of 15 or so players with deals of 3 years or more.  About one for every other team.  

Everything else is a 2, 1 or minor league deal for the other 200 free agents out there.  

do you know why it's unusual that Eppler is handing out so many one year deals?  Because it's highly unusual that a team with this many holes to fill would want to try to compete or that they would spend money.  Most of the time teams will have guys from the farm taking a bunch of those spots or just sit on their hands.  

People are mistaking/confusing the ancillary benefit that the Angels have in inking these one year deals with the intent.  The intent of doing this is that they want to win.  Just like the intent of pursing Corbin, Eovaldi, Happ, Ramos and others is to win.  The ancillary benefit of 1yrs deals is two fold.  You can trade them if they're performing or you can bag them and have that money free for next year if they don't. 

The strategy is the make the team better now and in the long term.  If there's a player warranting a long term deal next off season and Eppler feels he fits that criteria then he won't hesitate to sign him.  If someone can tell me where we've missed that opportunity this off season, I would love to hear it.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

you can get excellent value from a 1yr deal and horrible value from a long term one.  In fact, most long term deals are an absolute bust.  Long term and short term deals both have their place.  

Again, if you're not going to get the guy you want on that long term deal, why should the default to be the next guy down for a little less money/years when you might be luke warm on him?  

I think that's the mistake a lot of teams make.  Or at least used to make.  It used to be that if you missed out on Corbin, you'd just go after Keuchel.  Teams are no longer going to pay for what a guy did but what they think he can do.  

The club has chose a path dictated by the talent on the roster and their available resources with an understanding of the 1,2,3,4 etc. year impact of everything they do.  

Yes and hindsight is 20/20 and nothing is a guarantee regardless. 

If i'm being completely honest, what i see is a completely broken game financially.   No one knows all the details but the article you linked the other day suggested the average revenue in MLB was around 300M.   The Angels have it far better than most financially at least on the surface, and we apparently cant afford to compete with the big players.    

The luxury tax is meaningless  if the reality is that no other teams can actually afford to spend that much.  And of course all in the face of the players union screaming they are underpayed.

This game is in deep trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

The intent of doing this is that they want to win. 

I see what you're saying, I'm just not certain how Eppler can say he's trying to win with these pickups. I think Cahill, Bour, Allen, and perhaps Lucroy are decent, but "winners?" I don't know. Maybe I've been spoiled as a fan in that management has generally made more "prominent" deals. These pickups seem to be rolling the dice. Eppler looks like a genius if he gets boxcars. There's no sure thing that these minor leaguers are going to turn the corner and I'm still not sure what's so great in the waiting for the 2019 offseason. I guess a big question is how much does Eppler want to win and how long he's willing to wait to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you look at the AL West it looks like the Astros are putting about the same team out there as last season so they are the odds favorite.

Now be objective about the other three teams of the AL West and are they better than last season? The A's have continued with budget buys and their rotation is a bigger question mark than the Angels.

Captain Dipoto had plotted a course last season trying to squeeze through a narrow channel to a playoff berth and ran aground. The franchise is sinking back to the bottom of the AL. 

The Rangers are still in their rebuild phase and not far along the trail. 

So by default the wins for the Angels in their own division should be easier. Depending on scheduling with the rest of the league and interleague the Angels could have a clear shot at a Wild Card. 

But more importantly Epller isn't dismantling what is being built to get to the next level. All of the impatience about not being able to get to the playoffs isn't forcing him to make on the surface moves that don't really push the needle but look good in a headline.

I can put up with the one year contracts and wait for that kid with his club control years to wrestle that position away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Torridd said:

I see what you're saying, I'm just not certain how Eppler can say he's trying to win with these pickups. I think Cahill, Bour, Allen, and perhaps Lucroy are decent, but "winners?" I don't know. Maybe I've been spoiled as a fan in that management has generally made more "prominent" deals. These pickups seem to be rolling the dice. Eppler looks like a genius if he gets boxcars. There's no sure thing that these minor leaguers are going to turn the corner and I'm still not sure what's so great in the waiting for the 2019 offseason. I guess a big question is how much does Eppler want to win and how long he's willing to wait to do so.

and my question earlier was who from this year?  

should we have paid Grandal 4/65 and lost a pick after Ramos picked his first choice over us?  Should we have upped the ante on him?  

should we have paid Corbin 140m or more if we had to out bid the nats?  

Harper is a nice player but is he $350m nice for 10 years?  

would it make everyone feel better to commit 5 years to Keuchel from age 31-35 just to make a prominent deal?  

I don't like Machado, but would a 7/175 deal be at least palatable?  ok maybe, but the reason he's not getting the offers originally thought is that he comes with tremendous baggage and every team knows it.  

our last 4 or 5 prominent deals bit us in the ass.  I am not saying that the players are the same, but the reason they didn't work is because we ignored the red flags.  

I don't think the Angels and Eppler aren't willing to make big deals.  But you need to match your level of risk with where you're at as a team.  

And I can guarantee you that a lot of our prospects aren't going to contribute at a high level on the mlb team.  but some are.  tis the nature of a farm system.  but the more you have that are capable of that, the greater your odds of not only having them produce for the Angels, but bring a return in trade when the time is right.  

Eppler has traded for Simmons with top prospects and signed Upton for over 100m.  He also landed the highest profile intl player maybe ever.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Torridd said:

I see what you're saying, I'm just not certain how Eppler can say he's trying to win with these pickups. I think Cahill, Bour, Allen, and perhaps Lucroy are decent, but "winners?" I don't know. Maybe I've been spoiled as a fan in that management has generally made more "prominent" deals. These pickups seem to be rolling the dice. Eppler looks like a genius if he gets boxcars. There's no sure thing that these minor leaguers are going to turn the corner and I'm still not sure what's so great in the waiting for the 2019 offseason. I guess a big question is how much does Eppler want to win and how long he's willing to wait to do so.

He obviously wants to win now. It’s interesting because two of the four new players you mentioned were on a 97 win team last year and another was on a 91 win team. One of baseball’s beautiful reminders is the principle that the whole is greater than the sum of it’s parts. Think 2002 Angels. This team Eppler put together will compete if healthy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We know of one player a year from now who checks all of the boxes, especially the ones where he grew up in O.C. and has been rock solid at the top of the infield class for the past several seasons.

  Arenado

Big question of course, how much will teams like the Yankees offer him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Angel Oracle said:

We know of one player a year from now who checks all of the boxes, especially the ones where he grew up in O.C. and has been rock solid at the top of the infield class for the past several seasons.

  Arenado

Big question of course, how much will teams like the Yankees offer him?

his road splits scare the crap out of me.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, floplag said:

This game is in deep trouble.

IMO the biggest problem in MLB is fully guaranteed contracts. If a guy is signed to a big deal and he doesn't produce, in any other sport he can be released with little or no obligation by the releasing club (depending upon how much money is guaranteed in the contract). Only baseball insists that players be fully paid whether they produce or not. If it isn't rectified, it will kill the game.

The players union can scream collusion all that they want. IMO they have created this situation with the fully guaranteed contract provision in the CBA. Teams are very leery of long term deals, especially when a player approaches 30.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Vegas Halo Fan said:

IMO the biggest problem in MLB is fully guaranteed contracts. If a guy is signed to a big deal and he doesn't produce, in any other sport he can be released with little or no obligation by the releasing club (depending upon how much money is guaranteed in the contract). Only baseball insists that players be fully paid whether they produce or not. If it isn't rectified, it will kill the game.

The players union can scream collusion all that they want. IMO they have created this situation with the fully guaranteed contract provision in the CBA. Teams are very leery of long term deals, especially when a player approaches 30.

It's gonna boil down to risk.  In the past, teams would assume a lot more risk on players later in their careers and they've just stopped doing that.  Mostly because of the aging curve normalizing and also because there are a lot more productive younger players in the game or at least teams have noticed that league min talent is nearly as productive as a lot of the guys last few years of a big contract.  

But even with guaranteed contracts, the risk balance has shifted to a ton more being on the player.  Yet shortening the time to free agency just increases the supply of players and may even have the opposite effect intended.  

If the MLBPA were smart, they would find a way to shift some of the risk they're now absorbing on the back end to the front end meaning that they're gonna have to figure out a way for the players to get paid more earlier in their careers.  I don't know enough about all that to figure it out but I would think that starting the arb process earlier would help.  The also absolutely need to create a payroll floor based on total team revenue that includes sharing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m pretty sure the only league where the contracts aren’t fully guaranteed is football.  I think they are guaranteed in hockey and basketball.  I would have no issue with some changes being made to this in baseball.  I think if a player is suspended for PEDs the team should be able to immediately void the contract.  What I would say is if the team doesn’t suspend that player by the end of the season they are then responsible for the remainder of the contract.  I also would be ok with the team Amnesting a contract of a guy like Albert, and the owner is still required to pay the total of the contract, but it comes off of the taxable payroll.  With that I would say that a team can not amnesty more than one contract at a time.  So if the Angels were to amnesty Albert, they couldn’t amnesty anyone else until 2022 when his contract is up.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On January 18, 2019 at 10:42 AM, Second Base said:

Billy Eppler has shown a strong affinity for one or two year deals.  He has for a while, and honestly, it rarely ever works out.   Craig Gentry, Daniel Nava, Cam Maybin, Ricky Nolasco, Cliff Pennington, Martin Maldonado, Ian Kinsler, Jim Johnson 

He traded for Maybin and Kinsler. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lou said:

He traded for Maybin and Kinsler. 

 

They're still one year deals though, which is why I included those. It's just to illustrate Eppler's strong affinity toward very short term contracts. Maybe that's just because of the rebuild that has occurred, or maybe its just Eppler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dochalo said:

If the MLBPA were smart, they would find a way to shift some of the risk they're now absorbing on the back end to the front end meaning that they're gonna have to figure out a way for the players to get paid more earlier in their careers.  I don't know enough about all that to figure it out but I would think that starting the arb process earlier would help.  The also absolutely need to create a payroll floor based on total team revenue that includes sharing.  

They need to move arbitration up to year two, and free agency up to five. They also should replace arbitration with some form of restricted free agency so that those players contract's more accurately reflect the market. Lastly they need to tie revenue sharing to a teams record. Team's shouldn't be forced to spend money on players they don't want or need, but they should be rewarded for fielding competitive teams and discouraged from pursuing the current optimal strategy (tanking). 

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  

  • AngelsWin.com Ad-free Membership Options