Remaining Free Agents
by matt92130 on Jan 9, 2009 1:33 AM PST
95 comments
Here is what's left. This is from ESPN.com with what I cleaned up. The statement is always made, "We're always looking to make our club better..." So my opinion is simple with a little input for some. Would they make us better.
Bobby Abreu, RF - Free Agent (A) - NY Yankees - Yes for his ability to hit in the 2 hole.
Moises Alou, LF - Free Agent (B) - NY Mets - No.
Garret Anderson, LF - Free Agent (B) - LA Angels - I'm sorry GA. You’d make us better right now, but we just can't ask you to come back.
Luis Ayala, RP - Free Agent (B) - NY Mets - I believe we're set in the pen.
Denny Bautista, RP - Free Agent - Pittsburgh - Same as above.
Joe Beimel, RP - Free Agent (B) - LA Dodgers – Same as above.
Matt Belisle, SP - Free Agent - Cincinnati - Same as above.
Emil Brown, LF - Free Agent - Oakland - No.
Paul Byrd, SP - Free Agent (B) – Boston – No.
Orlando Cabrera, SS - Free Agent (A) - Chicago Sox – He makes us better right away, but I can’t see the Angels asking him to come back… especially after the trade was awash.
Bartolo Colon, SP - Free Agent - Boston - No.
Alex Cora, SS - Free Agent - Boston - No.
Craig Counsell, 3B - Free Agent - Milwaukee - No.
Joe Crede, 3B - Free Agent - Chicago Sox - No, you would hinder Wood's growth.
Juan Cruz, RP - Free Agent (A) - Arizona - No.
Adam Dunn, LF - Free Agent (A) - Arizona - Absolutely. I'd do the deal today.
Ray Durham, 2B - Free Agent - Milwaukee - No.
David Eckstein, SS - Free Agent - Arizona - It would be great to have you back and I suppose it could happen if Figgins was dealt along with Aybar/Izturis. You could be our leadoff hitter again and a fan favorite. However, highly unlikely.
Jim Edmonds, CF - Free Agent - Chicago Cubs - Always remember "The Catch", but our relationship has run it's course.
Cliff Floyd, DH - Free Agent - Tampa Bay - Left handed DH fits our need, but I can't see him as an Angel. Nor, would I want him.
Eric Gagne, RP - Free Agent (B) - Milwaukee - Haha.... no.
Freddy Garcia, SP - Free Agent - Detroit - Could be a nice low risk option for the 5th slot in the rotation.
Nomar Garciaparra, SS - Free Agent - LA Dodgers - I'd take you for what Quinlan does. Ship Q, and bring in Nomar. Great back-up.
Jon Garland, SP - Free Agent (B) - LA Angels - I love the workhorse mentality, but you don't make us better.
Tom Glavine, SP - Free Agent - Atlanta – Another veteran lefty... recovering from injury. I'll pass on you.
Ken Griffey Jr., RF - Free Agent (B) - Chicago Sox - Would fit our need with a left handed bat in the DH slot but I can't see you as an Angel. But yes, he would make us better.
Mark Grudzielanek, 2B - Free Agent (B) - Kansas City - No.
Eddie Guardado, RP - Free Agent - Minnesota - No.
Livan Hernandez, SP - Free Agent - Colorado - No.
Orlando Hernandez, SP - Free Agent - NY Mets - No.
Eric Hinske, RF - Free Agent - Tampa Bay - No.
Orlando Hudson, 2B - Free Agent (A) - Arizona - Yes, but where? So no.
Jacque Jones, LF - Free Agent - Florida - No.
Gabe Kapler, CF - Free Agent - Milwaukee - No.
Jeff Kent, 2B - Free Agent (B) - LA Dodgers - He would make us better today, but not tomorrow. Strictly as a DH, he has some value left in him.
Mark Kotsay, CF - Free Agent - Boston - No.
Jon Lieber, RP - Free Agent - Chicago Cubs - No.
Paul Lo Duca, C - Free Agent (B) - Florida - No.
Braden Looper, SP - Free Agent (B) - St. Louis - No.
Derek Lowe, SP - Free Agent (A) - LA Dodgers - Yes, and the more I look at this, the more I'm beginning to believe he'll be part of our rotation next year. He'd be solid for us.
Brandon Lyon, RP - Free Agent - Arizona - Yes, if Speier doesn't return to form.
Pedro Martinez, SP - Free Agent - NY Mets - I don't like his injuries, plus we’ll end up playing the Yanks and I don’t want to hear their his daddy… so no.
Guillermo Mota, RP –Free Agent – Milwaukee – No.
Mark Mulder, SP - Free Agent - St. Louis - My darkhorse. I'd like to see it on a 1 year deal w/ a possible for two. 1M$ tops. He's still young enough and I think he can bounce back. Sue me HH.
Will Ohman, RP - Free Agent - Atlanta - Yes, again, pending Speier.
Oliver Perez, SP - Free Agent (A) - NY Mets - I think Adenhart would be just as good and he’s a class A, so no.
Andy Pettitte, SP - Free Agent (A) - NY Yankees - He could help us. He's better than Adenhart at this moment so yes.
Mark Prior, SP - Free Agent - San Diego - Interesting but no.
Manny Ramirez, LF - Free Agent (A) - LA Dodgers - Obviously. He alone makes us have serious offense. The only FA left that allows us to make that jump.
Dennys Reyes, RP - Free Agent (B) - Minnesota - No.
Juan Rincon, RP - Free Agent - Cleveland - No.
Ivan Rodriguez, C - Free Agent (B) - NY Yankees - No.
Kenny Rogers, SP - Free Agent - Detroit - No.
Takashi Saito, RP - Free Agent - LA Dodgers - No.
Ben Sheets, SP - Free Agent (A) - Milwaukee - He makes us better instanntly too but I've noticed the halos don't keep people around who have a recent history of injuries, especially pitchers.
Frank Thomas, DH - Free Agent (B) - Oakland - I'd take a flier on him for DH on a 1 year deal for $1M and incentives. Again... sue me HH.
Juan Uribe, 3B - Free Agent (B) - Chicago Sox - No.
Jason Varitek, C - Free Agent (A) Boston - No.
Omar Vizquel, SS - Free Agent - San Francisco - No.
Ty Wigginton, 3B - Free Agent - Houston - No.
Brad Wilkerson, RF - Free Agent - Toronto - No.
Randy Wolf, SP - Free Agent (B) - Houston - He makes us better today, not tomorrow. Plus, his contract will be greater than his value.
Gregg Zaun, C Toronto - No.
This Fan-Post is authored by an independent fan. Tell us what you think and how you feel.
6 recs |
95 comments
Email
Print
Comments
A for Effort
I bolded Your NO comments because i had nothing better to do…
by Rev Halofan on Jan 9, 2009 1:58 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Thoughts
I’d be in favor of picking up another starter. Lowe is a good arm, but he turned down 3/36 from the Mets, and the Angels aren’t that desperate for a guy in his late 30s. Maybe take a flyer on Ben Sheets if he’ll accept a one-year deal with a vesting option, but there might be stiff competition for that.
The bullpen looks solid. The Angels have expressed interest in Chad Cordero’s medical records, and he’s also expressed interest in the Angels. Apparently he’s going to throw tomorrow for some scouts, but it’s not clear if the Angels will be there. He could supplement an already nasty back-end.
As for position players, I have to agree with the management. Mark Teixeira was the only free agent worth making a run for. The values of Dunn, Burrell, and Abreu are just too limited by their lack of defensive skills. Manny is a headcase who will be unhappy with his salary. Those guys just aren’t worth blocking Brandon Wood any longer.
by Suboptimal on Jan 9, 2009 2:36 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I'd concur...
…any deal to be signed should be for the 1year if poss. More than that and you start getting in the way of younger talent. A starter would be ideal, and if the bottom continues to drop out of the corner outfielder market then the price might make me change my mind, but again, only for a year.
For me, the best use of any payroll flexibility will be in making sure that the players we draft join the organisation. We have the potential to have ouor best draft for years. If they balls it up by low-balling the draftees on their signing bonuses, I’d be quite disappointed.
I see red people
by The Limey on Jan 9, 2009 2:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Thank you for the post
Nice info.
Angel Pitching, Angel Defense - get past that.
by vladtheimpaler on Jan 9, 2009 3:52 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Pettitte
I agree that he could be an asset to the rotation, but at what cost?
He turned down a one-year deal for $10M from the Yankees, which would have been an easy return to their staff. He clearly thinks he’s worth both more money and years.
Is he? I don’t think so. If memory serves, he crumbled in the second half of the season last year. If a #5 is what we seek, one should be much cheaper than $10M.
by George Kaplan on Jan 9, 2009 7:31 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Was Garland worth 12 million last year?
Then AP is worth more than 10 million.
by Kristy_Joe on Jan 10, 2009 2:24 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not the same thing
1) Garland was a trade, an attempt to get some value for OC in order to get Aybar into the lineup. That meant Garland cost $4.5M ($12M for Garland-$9M for OC+$1.5M paid to White Sox in trade). Otherwise, the Angels were going to pay OC’s salary one way or the other.
2) Garland was a #4 pitcher, not #5, which is what they need now.
3) Garland was worth every penny in the initial months of the season when Lackey was out for the first 6 weeks of the season and Escobar was MIA. Garland brought some wins to the rotation. It is true that he alternately pitched well and horribly, but in the games he pitched well he frequently completed 8 IP, which provided rest to the bullpen.
Garland’s reputation was never as the ace, but as the guy who would eat a lot of innings and mostly keep his team in the game and give the offense a chance to win it. The unfortunate part for him was the offense frequently didn’t hold up its end of the bargain.
That said, I don’t think he is worth re-signing (especially for the amount of money he is reported to be asking), but I think on balance it was a very good trigger-pull by Reagins.
As for Pettitte, he was 4-9 after the All-Star break and the Yankees were 15-18 in games he started. In his defense, the Yankee offense and defense were pretty awful in stretches of 2008, but Pettitte got hammered in several of his second half starts as well. He was paid $16M last season, offered $10M by the Yankees and acted as if he was offended by the offer. I certainly wouldn’t pay him more—maybe not even that much—to be the #5 on our rotation.
by George Kaplan on Jan 10, 2009 8:26 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
GA???
“I’m sorry GA. You’d make us better right now, but we just can’t ask you to come back.”
I agree that GA makes us better. There aren’t many better lefty hitters out there. My contention is that GA should come back to a decidedly back up role, filling in, DHing, and hitting off the bench. If we could get him to come back for less money, I am all for it.
I want him to succeed however and if he can get a starting gig somewhere more power to him.
by matthiasstephan on Jan 9, 2009 8:04 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I said 'if we could get him back for less money'
So, I understand his asking price is too high now, for the role we have available.
However, if his price comes down (the longer the market sits the better for us in this regard), then I have no objections and would love to see him back in an Angels uniform.
Any objections to that??
by matthiasstephan on Jan 9, 2009 4:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes. He's not a good enough hitter to play LF and DH.
.293/.325/.433.
For someone who has to DH’s as often as Sosh puts GA in that spot, I’d rather have Dunn.
by snowhor on Jan 9, 2009 4:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not a full time DH
That is the thing. We never play a full time DH here. Vlad will be there sometimes, Naps when Mathis is catching. What happens then with Dunn?
If we pay him that kind of money, he has to be in the lineup, which means he is in the field, and our defense suffers. I am trying to find the player that fits our philosophy, which is defense first. I think GA can help us off the bench, provide something different to the lineup and back up the OF. I think we have to pay him less, and give him a decidedly back up role (the starts are Rivera, Hunter, Vlad). Remember we don’t even have GMJ until May. Are we ready to settle on Willits.
I think GA is an improvement on Willits, which is the real option now. Dunn is a starter, and we don’t have room for one really. We need a back up OF.
by matthiasstephan on Jan 11, 2009 6:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I wasn't making the case for Dunn, just Dunn over GA.
I’m fine with standing pat. And I’d like to see Vlad get the most time in at DH to keep him healthy for the long term.
My point about Dunn was if we’re going to be paying free agent prices, he’s a better option than GA.
by snowhor on Jan 11, 2009 8:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
When Vlad is DHing ...
who is in the field?? This is my problem. Is the answer Figgy?? Willits?? or do we need to sign someone else.
I would argue GA is more likely to fill this role than Dunn, with his age and ties to the organization. Also, Dunn sucks in the field, and I wouldn’t want him there. I agree Vlad should be DHing maybe 80 games. It is those games I want an OF for, not for the DHing per se.
by matthiasstephan on Jan 12, 2009 10:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Figgy and Rivera will be in the OF when Vlad DHs. GA won't accept a part-time role.
GA will go whereever Scott Boras gets him an everyday job. And an everyday job will include significant time in the DH slot (43% of his at-bats where as DH last year). There is no point to put a bat as weak as GA’s in the LF spot, let alone the DH spot.
As for GA’s feeling on his production and worth (that his $11m option for his production was a bargain that we should have picked up), see this thread: http://www.halosheaven.com/2008/11/5/654721/it-looks-like-ga-won-t-acc
by snowhor on Jan 12, 2009 12:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I love GA with all my heart, but his production was not worth that 2009 option. He’s only worth $5M to $8M for 2009. I think he’ll get a 2yr / $11.75M from someone here soon.
by Downing Rules on Jan 12, 2009 1:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Dunn played in Great American Park, aka the staging site for NASA
chasing fly balls all day and night really highlighted his fielding deficiencies. In Angel Stadium, fly balls die in the marine layer which means alot less running for Dunn which makes him a much better fielder. Im not saying hes going to be average, but i dont think hell be unwatchable
Lets go angels
by anaheim angels on Jan 12, 2009 8:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
you don’t DH yer catcher on his days off.he gets days off cause he needs rest.. I love Napoli though,he has a great approach at the plate,but you can’t think he will DH when Mathis is catching..
by raven191 on Jan 18, 2009 4:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
i like it but
I disagree with Crede. You say that he would block Woods development, but that is only if Wood is our 3b. I would like to see Figgy traded (even though I love the guy) and have wood and Aybar split time at SS this year to see who rises to the top and play crede at 3b, great glove and can be had cheap
Terrorist plot to blow up Fenway? I'm okay with that
by Sinatrasratpack on Jan 9, 2009 8:25 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
High Cost
Boras Client
I’m wondering if we are seeing a trend here with Manny, GA, Crede all pretty much known commodities but nothing is going on them. In years past it seems like these guys would have been signed before the new year.
Is this a sign of the times (economy) and owners (except the NYY) telling Boras to piss off? Hmmmm….
by Seik1177 on Jan 9, 2009 9:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's probably more like teams are saying no to paying too much
for a commodity that doesn’t really make the team better. The fact that Boras is their agent just cements the fact that the player will likely make 15-20% more than they’re worth. So in all reality, it’s a combo of both. Teams are seeing that with the exception of the three signed by the Yankees, there’s no real quality in this or next year’s free agent class.
Last year was a pretty tight race in most divisions (except ours really) and that they can afford to just go for it with the peices they have and make a move if necissary. Which is why I’m not completely dissapointed with this offseason. We won our division running away, we’re still missing peices, but have un-known value in a couple key peices. I for one am excited to watch what will happen with the peices we have.
by MidwayCityLivestock on Jan 9, 2009 9:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Haven't heard
anybody being interested in Anderson. He’s a below average hitter for corner outfield, and will be 37 years old. I can see why nobody wants that in their lineup, let alone pay big bucks for it.
Anderson could be useful in a part time role, but that’s about it. One year, 2-3 million.
by RallyMonkey5 on Jan 9, 2009 8:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Crede is awful. Absolutely awful. Awful, awful, awful. No.
Everyone, please stop with the Crede nonsense.
Last year: .248/.314/.460.
Career: .257/.306/.447.
These numbers can easily be found at baseball-reference.com. Check there before anyone posts nonsense like “let’s get Crede” or “we need OCab or Eck back” or other various nonsense.
by snowhor on Jan 9, 2009 10:01 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But But But....
Krukie said he was good
by Seik1177 on Jan 9, 2009 10:17 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Id say yes to Garland on a 1 year deal, yes to Lowe/Sheets and maybe thats it
by ihearhowie2.0 on Jan 9, 2009 9:12 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
if his bottom drops out
like it apparently is, i’d try to bring Judy back for one year.
we could do much worse, people.
Sheets? i’d be 100000% sure hes healthy before taking a flier on him
Kotch would've had that.
by howiestheman on Jan 9, 2009 9:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The Nomar Quote was hiliarious
Thanks for cheering me up this morning
Seriously
No one outside of the people that Reagins has already said he’s not going to pursue excite me or makes me think that they are better (or healthier) than what we already have in the organization
by Seik1177 on Jan 9, 2009 9:58 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
sign them all or...
NO to lowe too old for a 3 year deal
NO to sheets, too many injuries
YES to garland, at the right price 8.0 1yr. inning eater, saves our bullpen for aug/sept. when it counts not sure if our internal options can do that.
probably the oddest comparison ever to follow w/this example:
it reminds me of when normal fell left “three’s company” for “the roper’s”. during casting the producers kept saying we need a “don knotts” type while auditioning other actors until they put don knotts on the show. we need a garland type pitcher and he’s available.
by thejd on Jan 9, 2009 11:40 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Loved BOTH Normal Fell and Don Knotts. I wish I could live in an apartment with landlords like that! ;)
by Downing Rules on Jan 9, 2009 11:57 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Screw the free agents, let's just hope for some magic.
All that’s left as FA’s are either guys Reagins said he won’t go after, or guys we don’t need. I’d say it’s time for a ninja trade, but then again, who’s being shopped that we’re willing to trade the farm for?
I guess the only consolation for me is that no AL West team has dramatically improved this off season (thus far). So, if we stand pat, and Oak, Tex, and Sea stand pat, we should still be able to win the division. Then, maybe we’ll get lucky, be hot in October, and advance.
However, if our division rivals step it up here in the back end of the offseason, we might need to reconsider a trade. I’d prefer a slugger over a SP. Winning by out- hitting the opposition is far less nerve wracking than winning by out-pitching the opposition.
Nice post, btw. Thanks for putting in the work for us all.
Don't mess with Teix-ass or Bor-ass!
by Rally Manatee on Jan 9, 2009 4:44 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Didn’t Oakland get Holliday and some power-hitting 1B?
by Downing Rules on Jan 9, 2009 4:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I read on MLB trade rumors
On a fan post (Cannot cite the source) that the Brewers would be open to moving Prince Fielder. The fans writing about it stated they would gladly take one of Weaver, Saunders, or Santana w/ a low level prospect. I could deal with trading Weaver or Saunders but not Santana.There was also conversations discussing Morales as another deal along with Adenhart, and another lower level prospect. If that happened, then would we sign Adam Dunn to play 1st or would we live with Fielders bad defense? Man…. imagine that line-up!
1. Figgins 3rd/LF
2. Dunn 1st/DH/LF
3. Guerrero RF/DH
4. Fielder DH/1st
5. Hunter CF
6. Rivera LF/RF
7. Napoli C/DH/1st
8. Kendrick 2nd
9. Wood SS
SP: Lackey
SP: Santana
SP: Saunders
SP: Weaver
SP: Moselely / Green
Or w/out Dunn and instead of Morales, the pitching deal:
1. Figgins LF/3rd
2. Izturis SS/3rd
3. Guerrero RF/DH
4. Fielder 1st/DH
5. Hunter CF
6. Rivera DH/RF/LF
7. Napoli C/1st
8. Kendrick 2nd
9. Wood 3rd/SS
SP: Lackey
SP: Santana
SP: Saunders/Weaver
SP: Adenhart
SP: Green
Or would that deal force us to go after a guy like Lowe, Sheets, Pettitte, Wolf, or cheaper options like Mulder, Garcia, Perez, Garland, Byrd?
Preferably, we’d keep Saunders and trade Weaver. And as for a starting pitcher, I’d take Lowe. Although I still believe Mulder would fit in with us nicely if he’s healthy, in the 5th slot. Use Adenhart and Green like we did with Saunders… sport starters initially, let them get their feet and make the Angels force their hand and keep them up.
by matt92130 on Jan 10, 2009 12:22 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oops!
The second line-up should read:
1. Figgins 3rd/LF
2. Kendrick 2nd
3. Guerrero RF/DH
4. Fielder DH/1st
5. Hunter CF
6. Rivera LF/RF/DH
7. Morales 1st/LF/RF/DH
8. Napoli C/1st/DH
9. Wood SS/3rd
SP: Lackey
SP: Santana
SP: Saunders/Weaver
SP: Adenhart
SP: Green
by matt92130 on Jan 10, 2009 12:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Fans dont trade players
And the Brewers didn’t pay Prince a $2.4M bonus to sign with them in order to give up this early.
Prince has arbitration for the next three years. He’s not going to be flipped for three magic beans.
by George Kaplan on Jan 10, 2009 8:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
One Prince does not make the Angels jack
You can’t give up 2/5ths of your starting rotation for the Prince. Just not gonna happen.
by Kristy_Joe on Jan 10, 2009 2:30 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
i think he was saying 1/5
or 1/4 since 5th starter is yet to be determined
by linkbruin on Jan 10, 2009 3:27 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Manny Ramirez is the only FA left that truly makes a difference.
I would give him a 4 year deal, with the back half of the contract including options for both sides, giving both flexibility and a degree of comfort.
He’s one of the greatest hitters in the history of the game, and his bat is just as effective now as it was 5 years ago. And he’s probably the greatest money player alive right now.
Anyone else? Naa.
by goodvibe61 on Jan 11, 2009 8:59 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I will always agree
I’ve communicated your thoughts over and over and most of the fans on here rip the idea everytime. It’s not worth the aggravation anymore.
by cookieman 57 on Jan 11, 2009 5:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
i think theres really only 2 or 3 anti-manny people here
by linkbruin on Jan 11, 2009 10:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's harsh
I have yet to see anyone here write that Manny isn’t a game-changer.
That is a completely different statement from stating that he isn’t worth $25M a year for 4-6 years, which is what he has been seeking. Remember, he turned down $45M/2 yrs from the Dodgers because he was certain that was going to be a low-ball offer. Instead, it has been the only offer, and it isn’t even on the table right now.
Manny is a phenomenal hitter. He is also an indifferent defensive player and a lackadaisical baserunner. Red Sox fans can cite example after example of Manny blunders which cost the team runs, just as they can cite the game-winning hits.
The Angels don’t need another player for the OF and they really don’t need one more DH. The team can carry only 24 players on the roster at any given time, and putting Manny on the 24 removes another.
The salary he is expecting places the payroll of the team doing the signing in upheaval—if the Angels were to sign him for, say, the $22.5M the Dodgers offered, then what do they offer Vlad to keep him beyond 2009—keeping in mind that Vlad is a fan favorite who has at times carried the team with his play?
Finally, the fault regarding the lack of interest in Manny lies within Manny—his egregious behavior in Boston which led to his being traded from the team, voiding the $20M options for 2009 and 2010 , were an obvious attempt to extort a greater amount of money from the Red Sox or to cash in a bigger payday from some other team. Thus, a 2-year deal (such as the Dodgers have put forth) or something equal to or less than $20M a year represents no victory for Manny—and he showed the world how he treats his team, his teammates and the fans when he is displeased. Frankly, I think there are a lot of GMs who are either disgusted by his behavior in Boston or who are afraid to sign someone who could become a big, expensive and untradeable headache two years later.
There is a lot to recommend Manny. It is highly significant that this lock for the Hall of Fame finds himself in early January with no credible offer on the table. The problem with signing Manny, ultimately, is Manny.
by George Kaplan on Jan 12, 2009 5:20 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Was that supposed to be clever?
If I’m wrong, where are all the offers for Manny?
The Giants were supposed to be interested—after all, the team hit about as many HR in 2008 as Mathis and Napoli combined did—and Lord knows that team needs offense, not to mention the pleasure of twisting the Dodgers for signing Manny away from them, but…they don’t feel compelled to spend the money.
The Rangers, which have been sinking to the bottom of the AL West for years, lost its DH (Milton Bradley) to free agency, and since the team never seems to get the word that it needs pitching more than more offense, is just the sort of team likely to make a bid for Manny, but…nothing.
The Yankees, with more money than God and no fear of spending it this Winter, are an ideal match, since he would thrive in taking on his old team in the number of head-to-head contests the Sox and Yankees play each year, but…no offer from them.
Why do you suppose the Dodgers are the only team with an acknowledged bid made for Manny (even though it has been withdrawn), while other GMs have said publicly that their team will not be involved in bidding? Why do you suppose the teams with money and some sort of tangental need for Manny aren’t even kicking the tires?
You seem to confuse an estimation of his offensive prowess—which is indisputable—with his value to the team in the long run. He has shown himself capable of inexcusable unprofessionalism. He is a 1.5 tool player who is expecting to be paid like a 5 tool player.That should be enough to provide caution to any owner, and to any fan who is able to view the entire picture, instead of simply wanking to fantasies of Manny in an Angel uniform.
by George Kaplan on Jan 12, 2009 7:30 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So, George Kaplan gives you a thorough answer on why many here lean towards no on Manny and your response is that douchebag statement?
by snowhor on Jan 12, 2009 9:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
In reply to Kaplan and Snowhor.... douchebag statement... haha, that's funny
First off on a personal level, I would like to thank Kaplan for not taking my “Do you work for ESPN” so personally. In answer to your question as to was I being clever… absolutely.
Snowhor… don’t challenge me, you’ll make yourself look silly.
The pros and cons to signing Manny Ramirez:
Pros:
1. In 15 major league seasons, he’s averaged a .314 BA, 41 home runs, 133 RBI’s, 111 runs, 39 doubles, 93 walks, .411 OBP, .592 slugging. He’s been to 11 All Star games, he’s been in the top 10 in the MVP voting 9 times. He’s also averaged 181 hits per year.
2. He’s compared offensively to all time greats like Frank Thomas, Jim Thome, Jimmie Foxx, Jeff Bagwell, Alex Rodriguez, Mickey Mantle, Ted Williams, Gary Sheffield, Chipper Jones, Ken Griffey Jr, Frank Robinson, Barry Bonds, Willie Mays, and Duke Snyder.
3. He is a model of consistency, offensively.
4. Contrary to popular belief on here, mentioned as a great teammate time and time again. He’s never been in trouble with the law. Unless you count that time, he almost got a ticket for jaywalking…. but I’m going to go out on a limb and say we’ve all done it at least once in our lives. As a matter of fact, I’ll use this jaywalking incident as a con.
5. The Angels are in need of a big bat.
6. Also in need of a DH. Please no body say, “But what about GMJ?” I’ll die. I don’t believe I’ve ever said he’d be an asset in the outfield. His bat… is what I want him for.
7. When Angel management says we’ll look into every aspect of making our team better, shouldn’t they be thinking Manny and the instant offense he provides?
8. Could he provide our hitters and pitchers valuable information about the Red Sox pitchers and hitters tendencies, strengths, and weaknesses? The answer is yes. Believe me, in my line of work, the more you know about the opposition, the more successful you’ll be. Bottom line, up front.
9. He is a proven winner. The man knows how to win.
10. In 106 post season games, he’s hit .286 BA, 28 HR, 74 RBI’s, .399 OBP. I beg you….tell me he’s not clutch. The guy gets on the big stage and he kills people.
Bonus: A couple:
1. He single handedly took the Dodgers from middle of the pack to a serious playoff team with World Series aspirations.
2. It would kill the PR for the Dodgers and the money Arte would make… it’s unbelievable. It was reported the Dodgers made enough money in Manny Ramirez memorabilia in two months in LA, to pay his entire salary for 2008.
Cons:
1. He plays an extremely poor left field. .978 fielding percentage. Although he is head and shoulders above our beloved Vladamir Guerrero who has a career .963 fielding percentage. I love Vlad, this isn’t against Vlad… just making a point.
2. Not always mentioned as a great teammate, but mentioned as a brooding superstar.
3. I feel the need to put this in here as I want to be fair, by Dan Shaughnessy of the Boston Globe “We’re going to miss the majestic homers, the pajama pants, the goofy antics in left field, and the bathroom breaks and cellphone calls from inside the Wall. But we won’t miss the fabricated injuries, lame excuses, and occasional no-shows. We won’t miss watching Manny Ramírez dogging it down the first base line. His teammates and manager won’t miss going to the ballpark wondering if Manny feels like playing tonight.” That being said, very much a con, we’ll count this one as two.
4. The secretary incident. No more need be said. We’ll also count this one as two.
5. His agent is Scott Boras, and he’s asking for a lot of money.
6. Oh shit, I almost forgot… he’s a jay walker.
So did I miss any? Perhaps… feel free to piggy back… anyone on the pros and cons. My final count: Pros 12. Cons 8. Manny was with the Red Sox for 7 1/2 years. Maybe too long. He’d be an Angel for 3-4 years. That’s roughly half of the time. And he’d bring us a ring.
1. Figgins 3rd
2. Kendrick 2nd
3. Guerrero RF
4. Ramirez DH
5. Rivera LF
6. Hunter CF
7. Napoli C
8. Morales 1st
9. Wood SS
So there is my response to YOUR douchebag statement snowhor.
by matt92130 on Jan 13, 2009 1:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Pros and Cons
As I have stated repeatedly, Manny’s offensive prowess is unquestioned. His ability to electrify a crowd is unquestioned.
But the cons…
° What is inescapable is that he quit on his teammates—there is no way to sugarcoat it, he simply quit on his teammates. It is like considering a relationship with a woman you know for a fact not only cheated on her last husband but who publicly humiliated him. Why would any rational person believe that a new relationship with her would be immune from the same behavior?
° Likewise, we know he poisoned his relationship with the Red Sox for the sole reason of voiding the contract under which he was then playing, which would have brought him $40M over 2009 and 2010. We know for a fact that any per-season amount under $20M and length under 2 years will be insufficient for Manny. Given the fact the Angels have a payroll to make, and given the fact the team sells 93% (or so) of its seats already, how could the team possibly justify the sort of salary Manny believes he is due, within the budget of the team as a whole? Boras is keen on saying that “Manny will pay for himself” but Moreno is already doing quite well at the box office. The Dodgers had walk-up seats to sell, but the Angels aren’t in the same situation. Certainly, selling out the remaining cheap seats isn’t going to get it done, and I have yet to hear someone endorse the idea of a large increase in ticket prices across the board.
° Once Moreno has established $20M+ as a viable salary, what does he pay Vlad for 2010 and beyond? What does he offer Lackey? A signing such as this throws off the entire salary ecosystem of the team. I don’t know that Moreno isn’t still investigating a regional sports network—maybe partnering with the Lakers and/or Dodgers—but this is the only way such a signing makes sense. Otherwise, it severely constrains the overall budget for the team, and the part which takes it in the shorts is usually scouting and prospect signings. This has happened repeatedly in the past—for example, the Texas Rangers after signing A-Rod, and the damage is felt for years to come. We know Manny would be here for 2-4 years, tops, but the loss of young talent in the Angels’ farm system would hurt it for far longer.
° Finally, if I had some sense that Manny wanted to play for the Angels, I think I’d be more enthusiastic. At the end of the day, though, he is simply chasing the biggest dollars. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but it means the only thing which would make Anaheim special to him is the way it makes him feel on the 1st and the 15th. It simply makes me suspicious that he is liable to repeat 2008 here if he decides he’s unhappy—which could happen the first time the Yankees sign some player to a higher per-season average than Manny’s deal.
As I said before: His talent is unquestioned—so where are all the offers from the other teams? Manny’s biggest problem remains Manny.
by George Kaplan on Jan 13, 2009 4:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Very good points...
1. Quitting on his teammates is unacceptable. I will whole heartedly agree with you there. Manny has been on 3 teams, the Indians, Red Sox, and Dodgers. 7 years with Indians, 7 1/2 years with the Red Sox, 1/2 a year with the Dodgers. When Manny left the Indians, his stock could not have been any higher. I don’t recall his Indian teammates reporting (At least not leaked to the media) that he quit on them. The Red Sox people loved Manny until the end. The Dodger players loved him. One team… a team we all loathe, the Red Sox, have made him out to be asshole. A guy nobody should ever want to play with. How do we know exactly what happened? We don’t. It was kept pretty hush-hush. Pushing a secretary over tickets is ridiculous, I’ll give you that. Did’t they say that about Randy Moss in Oakland? He went on to the Patriots and had the greatest single season for a WR in NFL history. A guy like Dennis Rodman can be controlled by the right environment. Do you honestly believe he’s as bad as Rodman? The Angels are a breath of fresh air, new scenery. I don’t believe 3 to 4 years is long enough to completely frustrate the guy. Like I said, I don’t agree with how things ended in Boston. But this is a different environment than Boston.
2. Reportedly, Manny memorabilia and merchandise paid for him. I said this a long time ago… I’d gladly pay more money to watch Manny and know that his output offensively his worth paying for.
3. As for Vlad… he is simply not worth $20M. 4 years ago, yeah, but not anymore. As for Lackey, you pay for his stats. Whatever the median is between Roy Halladay, AJ Burnett, Jake Peavy, and Brandon Webb, that’s what Lackey is worth, which happens to come to about $11M. He made $9M last year. Do a 5 year / $75M contract.
2009: $11M
2010: $13M
2011: $15M
2012: $17M
2013: $19M
Lackey is not worth $20M. Vlad isn’t either. Vlad is worth a 4 year / $72M. I’m sorry the Angels over paid for Torrii. It sucks but it’s where we are right now. Pay him $18M a year. He has stated he wants to remain an Angel. $18M is $18M… if that’s underpaying for an aging superstar… than forget him. Move on. Also, what young talent are we going to lose? Manny is a 3 or 4 year contract. Not like A-Rods 10 year / $250M. That’s a poor example.
4. And finally… you are dead on right. He is chasing the big dollars. So did Tex. So did CC. A-Rod makes more than CC and Tex. I don’t think Manny is going to concern himself with what other players are making after this. This will be a handsome pay raise, and one that he rides out into the sunset after. As stated before, I’m not a huge Mike Scioscia fan, but I think he has the players pulse and their respect. I think Manny would follow suit. I get the feeling the Red Sox are run by an iron fist. The Angels are a “Let’s play ball, have fun, and win” kinda club.
As for the other offers… I’m thinking nobody wants to be the first offer with a big number. Everyone is scared, and they want to get him for the least amount possible. Once someone gets close to signing him, you’ll see the teams start lining up.
Dude… Kaplan. I hear you. Your points are all validated. But I just believe different than you, that’s all. If I was the GM, I’d try to get him batting 4th and playing DH for us. We’ll see what happens.
by matt92130 on Jan 13, 2009 12:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't disagree...
as far as what impact he’d have in the lineup. I think everyone agrees with that.
I also wasn’t suggesting that Vlad and Lackey would be paid $20M each, just that their expectations would be raised by a contract so much higher than any other on the team. Vlad carried this team for a number of years, and is making $15.5M in the option year of this deal—what do you suppose he’ll think he’s entitled to if Manny shows up making $22.5M+ on the first year of his deal?
Likewise, with Lackey, it isn’t about what he’s worth, it is about what some team will pay him—see CC Sabathia for Exhibit A.
Finally, while his Red Sox teammates smiled and shook their heads for a number of years, that ended last year. Manny sat out the one of the Yankee series with a “hurt toe” which came out of nowhere. It is said that privately, many lost a lot of respect for him that day, and no wakes were held in the clubhouse the day he was traded.
That says a lot, too.
by George Kaplan on Jan 13, 2009 1:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yup, very true.
But the whole worth and paying someone. Vlad showed up back in 2004… it was a different market then. Lackey arrived in 2002 with the championship. Oh man, he led us then. He leads us now. But to give him CC money…. ehhh, I don’t know. But under your rational, it’s what someone will give him. Supply and demand my friend.
I still say sign Manny if we can. Sign Lackey, and Vlad under the conditions I mentioned above. If we have to pay more… fine, but then we may run the risk of being the Texas Rangers and their PR move signing Michael Young two years ago. It’s not looking to good in Arlington. Something to consider.
by matt92130 on Jan 13, 2009 1:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
One last thing
Bottom line… Angel brass has some very tough decisions to make within the next year.
by matt92130 on Jan 13, 2009 1:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Angels fans can also cite a pretty hilaripus example
July 19, 2008 at Fenway: Manny stops, drops, and rolls. Was it gross incompetence? Or a non-strike strike? The world will never know.
Witty .sig goes here.
by scareduck on Jan 12, 2009 4:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t like Manny. But I would not complain if he was slotted in the Angels’ lineup.
by Downing Rules on Jan 12, 2009 8:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Manny Sux
I am anti-Manny, but I am a dick, so that is correct.
Signing a player to a long term deal, when he only turned it on in the last months of his contract push, in the National Minor League, who is a legendarily horrible fielder (much worse than the other bad fielding FA’s), when we are already overloaded with Righties, when most of his age/comps go into the toilet, is stupidity of Bushian proportions.
by elricsi on Jan 13, 2009 7:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I can't stand the guy, but
I can see how he would improve the team a lot (at the plate that is). He could become cancerous in the clubhouse, which I’m almost positive is the only reason we aren’t going after him. I’d keep Figgins at 3rd and leading off, and make Wood sit again. Have Manny, Vlad, and Rivera split OF duty and DH duty so they’re all getting max AB’s and max rest.
However, I’m also getting really curious to see what we can do with all these young guys. So many fans of our rivals are saying this year is the last chance for the Angels to be any good because they are assuming none of our young players will emerge as stars. But if guys like Kendrick, Napoli, Morales, and Wood start to really put it together, this team is going to be exciting for a long time.
Don't mess with Teix-ass or Bor-ass!
by Rally Manatee on Jan 11, 2009 5:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Quinlan has the health skill
Nomar does not.
Any questions?
Witty .sig goes here.
by scareduck on Jan 12, 2009 4:48 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Now pitching for the Atlanta Braves:
Derek Lowe. 4 years at $60M. Whew! Lotta money!
by matt92130 on Jan 13, 2009 1:13 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Which means we keep the Mets Round 1 pick for Frankie...
…would have gone to that lot up the road if he’d signed with the Mets.
I see red people
by The Limey on Jan 13, 2009 6:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Is Frankie not ranked higher than Sheets?
Can’t imagine that he’s not…
Light Up That Halo!
by Clutch on Jan 15, 2009 5:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Why not sign Sheets?
The guy is ridiculously underrated, with a superhuman K/BB ratio. Seems that noone (except for the Rangers) is seriously interested in signing him… why not?
visiting halos fan
by 442 on Jan 13, 2009 9:59 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
injury prone
plain and simple even though i also like him
Watching the Halos from Princeton University. The random Halo fan in a sea of Bosux and Skankee fans.
by princeton11loveshalos on Jan 14, 2009 9:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He's not that injury prone
I mean, he’s not Rich Harden. His IP totals over the last 4 years : 156.7, 106.0, 141.3 and 198.3 last year. If we can get maybe 165 innings out of him at something like 8mil (I honestly have no idea what he will command) then we would be getting great value. Look at that team in Boston – they signed Brad Penny for $5M and Smotlz for $5.5M.
Again, if we’re a contending team with depth, then I think we focus more on the upside. In terms of ability, Sheets is at least Santana’s equal. What we’ll probably get from Sheets if we sign him is maybe 100140 innings of Sheets, and 60100 filler innings of Moseley/Green/Adenhart. If there’s maybe a 20% chance that he somehow comes near his ridiculous 2004 form – the guy’s only 29 -, then I say we take it.
visiting halos fan
by 442 on Jan 15, 2009 1:38 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Our Santana, that is.
Ervin, not Johan.
visiting halos fan
by 442 on Jan 15, 2009 1:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
our Santana actually is Johan
…well, not anymore, but he used to be.
Kotch would've had that.
by howiestheman on Jan 15, 2009 9:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
yep he changed his name so as to not be confused with the more established Johan
This is the worst offseason in years. But hey we got Colorado's closer!
by hauldog on Jan 15, 2009 5:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you
Im really worried about our SP depth. If one guy goes down, then we really need some starters to step up. I dont think that Adenhart/Ortega are ready yet, and Moseley is like the guy who you just throw out there because you really dont have other options and you figure its not the worst thing you can do. Having a solid 5 man rotation really helps out alot especially in teh case of injuries
Lets go angels
by anaheim angels on Jan 15, 2009 7:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
yep
showcased last year in our rotation.
and i have no doubt that Sheets will break the coveted 100,000 innings mark next year. stupid SB nation formatting.
replacement level analysis
by 442 on Jan 15, 2009 7:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
haha saw that and was like, what?
but seriously, im legit worried what will happen if a starter goes down/ineffective. Im worried about Saunders as well
Lets go angels
by anaheim angels on Jan 15, 2009 8:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
my worry is that
The FO will think that Escobar will return as the starter he was 2007, and not do anything about the pitching staff. We could be in for a lot of trouble if Escobar doesn’t return healthy and a starter goes down, like you said. IMO, ideally you want at least 7 proven Major League starters (non-suck division) in your system at any given time. Right now, I would say we have less than four.
replacement level analysis
by 442 on Jan 16, 2009 4:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
less than four?
Lets go angels
by anaheim angels on Jan 17, 2009 3:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Lackey, Santana, Saunders, Weaver
Anyone else? And I’m not completely sold on Saunders – a lot of his success last year was based on a low BABIP.
replacement level analysis
by 442 on Jan 17, 2009 8:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Thats what i though
I think we have four, although i am too a bit iffy on Saunders.
Lets go angels
by anaheim angels on Jan 17, 2009 10:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
They better be absolutely freakin stellar
For us to contend for the division this year.
replacement level analysis
by 442 on Jan 17, 2009 11:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
problem is his arm always breaks down in Sept.
Rendering him useless at the most critical time. Just like 2008.
Tex is a Yank...now our counter move is what?
by hk47 on Jan 16, 2009 1:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Since the Angels missed out on Mark Teixiera...
I think the best thing to do is sign Ben Sheets. We obviously have the money to spend because if we were going to give Tex $160, we can afford to give Sheets some big money as well. It seems that no one is really going after him, but he is a definetly a great pitcher.
We only have 4/5 of our rotation filled, so why not add Sheets? Give him a bit less than Derrick Lowe money, say 4 years $48 million.
I know a competition for the final spot in the rotation would be great, but why not add a proven winner to the rotation? I know he’s injury prone, but he is also a dominant pitcher when he’s healthy.
Plus, how often do we see starting pitchers go down with injuries? If we lose another starter in spring training do we really want to have a competition for 2/5 of the starting rotation?
The only bad part I can see in signing him is he’s a type A free agent and we’d have to give up one of our draft picks. What do you guys think?
Peanuts...Get your Overpriced Peanuts!
by Angel Hawker on Jan 22, 2009 7:50 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Sheets (reportedly)
Does not even want big money.
I am with you on taking a flyer on this guy
I guess I already used my Manny bomb for the month?
by hauldog on Jan 22, 2009 10:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
does that mean
he doesn’t want big per yr or long term? look at what Smoltz and Penny got. if its something like that then awesome. 1 yr. 5-7M. why hasn’t anyone jumped on him if hes not looking ofr big money?
by HALO_86 on Jan 22, 2009 10:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No clue
Just relaying what I have read numerous times.
That price, one executive predicts, will be in the $6 million to $8 million range for one year, with incentives that could push the total value past $14 million. A lucrative club option also might be part of the package.
Rosenthal
I have read this other places as well.
I guess I already used my Manny bomb for the month?
by hauldog on Jan 22, 2009 11:08 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Sheets
I know he’s injury prone, but he is also a dominant pitcher when he’s healthy.
Plus, how often do we see starting pitchers go down with injuries?
Goodness, where to begin? Here are a few names off the top of my head:
Barolo Colon
Kelvim Escobar
Carl Pavano
Jaret Wright
Mike Hampton
Kevin Brown
Mark Mulder
I am sure some other folks here can come up with even better names. You must take a moment and stop and think: If Sheets was such a lock to win 15-20 games per season, why would any team hestitate to lock him up for several years? Why would Lowe, who is 36 now, be able to command a four-year deal while Sheets is still unsigned? Why is Boston, with its deep pockets, signing a short deal with a 40 year old Smoltz rather that signing Sheets?
Quite possibly, the word on his medical reports scares the bejeezus out of the other GMs, who view scarce dollar resources within their own budgets and feel better about rolling the dice with mid-level FAs and farm-grown talent instead of committing $10M+ per season for several years and risk seeing Sheets grow roots on the DL.
by George Kaplan on Jan 22, 2009 9:46 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for proving my point...
I was saying that starting pitchers go down with injuries A LOT. I guess I should have been more clear on that, I just assumed everyone would know what I meant.
My fear is that one of our CURRENT starting pitchers will go down and then we’ll be stuck with a Moseley/Ortega/Green/Adenhart for two-fifths of our starting rotation. I think you should always have at least a bonefide 6th starter going into spring training because eventually you’ll need them.
If we locked up Sheets for 4/48, that is still less overall money then we gave GMJ. I say go for it. If no one gets hurt mid season, we could at least trade one our starting pitchers if need be when Escobar comes back.
Just think of our rotation come July when Escobar comes back:
Lackey
Santana
Sheets
Weaver
Saunders
Escobar
Peanuts...Get your Overpriced Peanuts!
by Angel Hawker on Jan 22, 2009 12:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Or conversely...
Imagine what our rotation would look like if one of our starters go down in spring training:
Take one of these out:
Lackey
Weaver
Saunders
Santana
And put two of these in:
Ortega
Adenhart
Green
Moseley
Yuk :(
Peanuts...Get your Overpriced Peanuts!
by Angel Hawker on Jan 22, 2009 12:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Sheets
unless its for only 1 yr no way. why do you want to give a injury prone pitcher 4 yrs? even with his upside. even with your 1st rotation with Sheets at 4 yrs it blocks Adenhart or Ortega in the near future. how much longer can you keep Adenhart @AAA? i know he struggled when he got his first real chance but he’s only like 22-23. i guess you can always trade 1 of them if you have to.
on the 2nd post its difficult. we have a good proven 4 and injuries happen. no one can predict them. i don’t like the idea of blocking or not giving our own guys a chance to come up and prove themselves.
by HALO_86 on Jan 22, 2009 12:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
We have two pitchers up for free agency next year...
Escobar and Lackey. While I hope we can hold onto Lackey, it still is only hope. I fully expect Escobar to be departing the Angels after this year.
Peanuts...Get your Overpriced Peanuts!
by Angel Hawker on Jan 22, 2009 12:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
At least most of Sheets injuries have been of the flukish variety...
ear infections, back issues, soreness…
He hasn’t had to go under the knife though.
Peanuts...Get your Overpriced Peanuts!
by Angel Hawker on Jan 22, 2009 1:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So many bizarre notions here...
…one scarcely knows where to begin.
1) What makes you think Escobar is coming back to the rotation? The man lacks one of the 4 muscles in the shoulder of his (surgically-repaired) throwing arm. At best, he’ll pitch short relief, assuming he is found capable with his post-rehab stints.
But while we’re on the topic, how many months do you suppose Escobar has spent on the DL in his Angel career? I love the guy to death—he’s one of my favorite pitchers—but the fact remains he has been pretty fragile over the years. Why take on Sheets if it is acknowledged that he has a history of arm trouble already?
2) How does showing that expensive contracts for pitchers can blow up in a team’s face prove that it is a smart idea to sign a pitcher like Sheets to a long-term deal of high dollars?
3) Why does it matter than $48/4 is “less overall money” than for GMJ? It is less money than a lot of players, but that doesn’t make it a smart investment just based upon price alone.
And you didn’t really address the central question I posed: Why do you suppose that Sheets is without an offer from ANY team when he’s as good as you want to think he is? Apparently, the Rangers—the RANGERS!!!—backed off from offering him a deal, and if any team could use a quality arm, it is Texas.
You sound a lot like one of the Steinbrenners. They have a knack for taking a high-priced pitcher whose function is to occupy a slot on the DL for years. From Kevin Brown, to Jaret Wright, to Carl Pavano, to AJ Burnett. The Yankees have that sort of money to burn. The Angels don’t.
by George Kaplan on Jan 22, 2009 2:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Answering the bizarre notions...
1) What makes you think Escobar is coming back to the rotation?
Because he’s pitched in the rotation for years (with the exception of the end of 2005) and also because he’s stated he wants to remain a starting pitcher several times. Also, Escobar has had SURGERIES, something Sheets has not had. Specifically, Escobar has had SHOULDER surgeries, something Ken Forsch the Angels assistant GM just mentioned the Angels like to stay away from. Sheets has only had some soreness and tendinitis, but never gone under the knife.
2) How does showing that expensive contracts for pitchers can blow up in a team’s face prove that it is a smart idea to sign a pitcher like Sheets to a long-term deal of high dollars?
Well, first of all, your question is retarded, because the deal would be neither long term OR high dollars. He would come much cheaper in this free-agent market and would take a much shorter deal. I don’t think 4 years is a long contract at all. What, with CC getting 7 years from the Yankees!
3) Why does it matter than $48/4 is "less overall money" than for GMJ? It is less money than a lot of players, but that doesn’t make it a smart investment just based upon price alone.
True, I’ll agree with you on that one, but I believe a pitcher of Sheets caliber has a LOT of upside so it’s more of a medium risk / high return kinda deal then other deals the Angels have made in the past (like GMJ). My point is if we can risk 50 million on GMJ, why can’t we risk less on a potential ace of a pitching staff?
4) Why do you suppose that Sheets is without an offer from ANY team when he’s as good as you want to think he is?
Well, because of the present economic situations free-agents are not getting deals. He is a risk, I’ll freely admit that, but the potential return could result in a championship. My guess is the Texas Rangers don’t have as deep of pockets as the Angels, or they may have gone after Teixeira too! Just because a player hasn’t got a deal yet doesn’t mean he won’t perform. I mean do you think MANNY RAMIREZ is a bad player too? He doesn’t even have an offer either! I guess he sucks too.
Oh, and of all the free agent pitchers you mentioned, none had a deal like I’m talking about. I’m talking about getting an ace at below market value. And I’m not talking about a pitcher with as much injury history as say a Mark Prior.
Peanuts...Get your Overpriced Peanuts!
by Angel Hawker on Jan 22, 2009 6:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Stop it...you're killing me!
This is a treasure chest of priceless material…
The Rangers don’t have deep pockets, or otherwise they would have bid on Teixeira?!?
Really? You’re content with that theory? You don’t think that maybe Texieira had no interest in going back to Arlington after forcing his way out of there in the first place?
Sheets “would come much cheaper in this free-agent market and would take a much shorter deal”?!? And you know this because you’re his agent? And exactly in what universe is a 4 year contract not a long-term deal?
And you want us to believe there are parallels between Sheets and Manny? Let’s see…Manny is expecting to be paid in excess of $20M a year from at least 2 years. How many teams can afford that? About 4, and one of them is the Red Sox, which means it won’t happen, and one is the Yankees, and they simply don’t have a place to play him without dumping Matsui, Damon and Swisher first. So Manny suffers from having priced himself out of the price range of 90% of the teams in MLB. That’s just a little different from Sheets, no?
As for Escobar, he has had one shoulder surgery in his time with the Angels (from which he’s now recovering), and one surgery to shave bone spurs in his elbow. Scioscia has already said that it was highly unlikely that Escobar’s shoulder would be strong enough to stand up to the rigors of pitching every 5th day for 6 innings or more. He may prefer to start, but he showed two years ago he will move into the bullpen—where he was when a Blue Jay—if it helps the team.
The centerpiece of your signing plan involves Sheets agreeing to YOUR terms. It’s all well and good when you’re committing Moreno’s money (remember, you claim $48M/4 yrs isn’t high-dollar or long-term), and you have no responsibility to the Angel long-range plan, but there isn’t much rooted in reality or fact—just a series of “I think it would be cool if..” statements.
by George Kaplan on Jan 22, 2009 9:03 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Wow...
Your truly cannot understand things clearly and twist things that I did not say. Let me spoon feed you…
My points are as follows:
1) Angels have deeper pockets than many other teams (like the Rangers)
2) Sheets (or many other free agents) would be cheaper to sign today than say a year ago because of the current economic state of the US today (oh, and by US I mean the United States—it’s an abbreviation)
3) Just because a player doesn’t have current offers doesn’t mean they are not good—I mentioned Manny Ramirez because I thought that was a good EXAMPLE of that.
4) When several players get 5, 6, 7, and 8 year deals, 4 years is not long term in my universe. See CC Sabathia (when I say see him, I mean see his contract length, not actually him)
5) When I say 4 years and $48 million, I assume that would get the deal done with Sheets (by deal I mean contract signed). It is something I made up. I admit that. It is just an idea, but I thought we were on a BLOG where we can express IDEAS. I had no idea I was writing a news column or starting rumors that would end up on ESPN, I actually just thought it would be cool to have Sheets on our team. Strangely, other members of this blog do the same thing! (By the same thing, I mean other bloggers think it would be cool to sign players and come up with what the think the player would sign for).
Peanuts...Get your Overpriced Peanuts!
by Angel Hawker on Jan 22, 2009 9:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It just gets better and better
1) Just because the Angels have “deeper pockets” than the Rangers doesn’t mean the Rangers aren’t budgeted specifically for a starting pitcher (as opposed to having multiple needs which cut into available dollars), nor that the Angels have unlimited resouces to spend upon any player who captures their fancy and makes the team want to gamble upon their health over four guaranteed seasons. It is very easy committing someone else’s money in a hypothetical situation, but the reality is that it isn’t your money, the team does have limits for spending, and in order for your scenario to be taken seriously, it needs to exist within the real world. Otherwise, fantasy baseball is more suitable.
2) I’ll split the difference with you and concede that the definition of “long-term” is subjective, though I doubt you’d find many who would support your contention. Just because Sabathia or Teixeira took 7-8 year deals doesn’t make those contracts common enough to bump the 4-5 year deal from being considered “long term.” However, the median salary for a starting pitcher in 2007 (can’t find 2008 stats at the moment) was $650,000. A salary which is 18X that median could safely be considered a high salary.
So you’re proposing a salary of $12M for a pitcher who is not the ace of the staff. By contrast, Roy Halladay—who has lived a career that Sheets can’t yet touch—is due for $14.24M this year and $15.75M next. Cole Hamels had his arbitration years bought out with a deal peaking at $9.5M in 2011. We’re talking about filling the #4 or #5 slot in our rotation with a guy paid on nearly the same level as Halliday?
3) Your analogy regarding Manny is still weak sauce. Ramirez has painted himself into a financial corner with his salary expectations. Sheets, on the other hand, hasn’t disqualified himself necessarily on financial grounds—for example, a one-year deal under $10M a season which allows him to show durability and quality over a season would serve him well and get him signed tomorrow. Likewise, Shields comes with durability question marks, but not the emotional baggage of Ramirez. Plainly said, many more teams are financially capable of striking a deal with Sheets than with Manny. Many more.
Meanwhile, the Rangers continue to flirt, then back away, from Sheets. The Dallas Morning News reports that Sheets and his agent had dinner Tue night with Ranger ownership and management, then met Wed at pitching camp with Mike Maddux, his former pitching coach in Milwaukee now with the Rangers. The published comments from team president Nolan Ryan and GM Jon Daniels:
Ryan said no offer was made, but that “if everything would come together, there’d be a possibility” of an offer.
“For an organization that is trying to imprvoe their pitching and a pitcher of that magnitude is available and if he’s healthy, you’d ovbviously have an interest,” Ryan said.
Daniels said it was a good meeting, but that the club isn’t in any different position with Sheets than they were before that.
“We’re ready to go to camp with the group we’ve got and we’re still looking at some external possiblities and it’s a poorly kept secret that he’s on that list,” Daniels said.
Ryan said the Rangers medical staff has not looked at Sheets, but they are aware of what’s in his medical records.
Again, why do you suppose Sheets isn’t signed on the spot if he (A) is a Louisiana native who is a resident of Dallas already, (B) has a working relationship with Mike Maddux already, and © he doesn’t seem to be fighting off suitors?
Unless the Rangers are leery of signing him for anything guaranteed for more than a couple of years (maybe with an option) and with the dollars lower in salary and higher in incentives…
by George Kaplan on Jan 23, 2009 11:15 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
