Angels expected to look for a big bat

[NrM]

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2014/08/alex-gordon-plans-to-exercise-2016-player-option.html

 

 

"Alex Gordon says he plans to exercise his $13.25MM player option with the Royals for 2016, Andy McCullough of the Kansas City Star reports. Gordon is in the midst of a four-year, $37.5MM deal that covered, or covers, the 2012 through 2015 seasons."

 

And if you followed the source of the rumor.. what he actually said was..

 

“Casey’s not the boss of me,” Gordon said with a grin. “I’m sure he’ll have things to say and whatnot. But when it comes down to it, it’s my decision.”

 

 

“I don’t know,” he said. “I don’t know. Win the World Series, then think about it.”   

Edited October 13, 2015 by Poozy

[tdawg87]

He's a solid player and yes I think he could help this offense, but he's had one year where his OPS has cracked .800. He has never hit for power, except for one year in 2012.

Ok, he's an above average outfielder. But is he enough of an offensive force where it would make sense spending 200 million for 7-8 years? I just don't think so.

 

I definitely don't think he's worth anywhere near that much. But he has more value than just his bat. If the Angels added him, they would have the best defensive outfield in baseball hands down.

 

Again, still not worth 200 million, but just saying. He's a 5+ WAR player year in and year out.

[NrM]

I definitely don't think he's worth anywhere near that much. But he has more value than just his bat. If the Angels added him, they would have the best defensive outfield in baseball hands down.

 

Again, still not worth 200 million, but just saying. He's a 5+ WAR player year in and year out.

 

Just like Jacoby Ellsbury was so amazing defensively.... and carl crawford....and carlos gomez... and michael bourne..

 

Defensive metrics should never be the biggest factor when projecting future production. In Heyward's case, defensive metrics and age are his main attributes.

Edited October 13, 2015 by Poozy

[gotbeer]

And if you followed the source of the rumor.. what he actually said was..

 

“Casey’s not the boss of me,” Gordon said with a grin. “I’m sure he’ll have things to say and whatnot. But when it comes down to it, it’s my decision.”

 

 

“I don’t know,” he said. “I don’t know. Win the World Series, then think about it.”   

 

Alex Gordon plans to exercise 2016 player option, delay free agency

 

 

“Casey's not the boss of me,” said Gordon to McCullough when asked if agent Casey Close would approve of his decision to delay free agent by a year. “I'm sure he'll have things to say and whatnot. But when it comes down to it, it's my decision.”

 

 

But this year, it looks like he changed his mind.

 

Royals LF Alex Gordon unlikely to pick up 2016 option

 

 

Royals veteran left fielder Alex Gordon will likely not pick up his player option for 2016, which will result in free agency, per CBSSports.com Baseball Insider Jon Heyman, who indicated that the team cannot afford to pay what he is currently worth.

 

 

 

Now if you guys are finished measuring your dicks.  

 

While I don't think he will do his option.  The Royals still may offer him a qualifying offer.  $13.25 million vs $15.80 million or draft picks.  I don't think the difference is enough not to.  

[tdawg87]

Just like Jacoby Ellsbury was so amazing defensively.... and carl crawford....and carlos gomez... and michael bourne..

 

you don't give players 200 million dollar contracts based off of defensive metrics....

 

That's nice. No one said he should get a 200 million dollar contract.

 

Also, Ellsbury had 2 seasons where he put up a WAR greater than 5. Heyward has 4 and he is 4 years younger than Ellsbury was when he signed his massive contract. Excellent comparison. Crawford also had just 2 seasons of a WAR greater than 5, and he was 3 years older than Heyward when he signed his contract. Another excellent comparison. Gomez isn't a free agent until 2017 (when he will be 31) so I have no idea why you brought him into the conversation. Michael Bourne had 3 5+ WAR seasons compared to Heyward's 4, and he was 30 when he signed his contract. All are absolutely fantastic comparisons. Spot on.

 

BTW I'm just being a dick for no reason. But Heyward >>>>>> all those players you mentioned.

Edited October 13, 2015 by tdawg87

[NrM]

That's nice. No one said he should get a 200 million dollar contract.

 

Also, Ellsbury had 2 seasons where he put up a WAR greater than 5. Heyward has 4 and he is 4 years younger than Ellsbury was when he signed his massive contract. Excellent comparison. Crawford also had just 2 seasons of a WAR greater than 5, and he was 3 years older than Heyward when he signed his contract. Another excellent comparison. Gomez isn't a free agent until 2017 (when he will be 31) so I have no idea why you brought him into the conversation. Michael Bourne had 3 5+ WAR seasons compared to Heyward's 4, and he was 30 when he signed his contract. All are absolutely fantastic comparisons. Spot on.

 

They are comparable because they accumulated a large percentage of their overall WAR from defensive metrics.

 

Look at the defensive Metrics of those players and what happened after they signed their contracts.

Edited October 13, 2015 by Poozy

[totdprods]

I don't understand the idea of trading Calhoun. We are looking for an outfielder to cover a corner and spot and want to trade another one of our young cost-controlled outfielders? He strikes out a lot yet, but he does produce. He's making $500k and hit 26hr with nearly a .260 clip (not great, but will take it). His obp was his lowest this year but looking at his previous numbers, it would be totally realistic to hope for an increase to .330 obp. He hits 4 more hr and he's a 30 hr guy.

 

I'm not all for it by all means, it's contingent on the Angels plan this offseason and how much they really want to spend, both on FA's and luxury tax this year and how they want to proceed over the next couple years, but the reasons why I wouldn't outright dismiss the idea of trading him are:

 

1) Calhoun's numbers have dropped each year. Yes, they're still extremely solid, but his BA, OBP, SLG, OPS+ have gone down every year in every category. His walk rate has dropped every year. His strikeouts have increased. He's still an integral part of the offense, but he's regressed each year in each category. It's absolutely possible he can improve, but it's a little strange that each category has dropped each year. 

2) Free agent outfielders are plentiful this year, and most of those are in the same ballpark of Calhoun-level production. 

3) With our farm system as barren as it is, it's understandable to be reluctant to deal from it to improve the MLB club now, but we also want to be competitive. On the MLB roster, Calhoun would be by and far one of the most valuable trade chips we have.

4) Looking big picture, Kole Calhoun is similar to many of the FA outfielders this year who are set to receive ridiculous money, and free agency over the next few offseasons is looking to be thin on talent (and thus extremely competitive, good news for when Kole does reach FA. How much will he fetch then considering what's being discussed for Heyward/Fowler/Cespedes etc. now?)

5) It would be contingent on the Angels making significant upgrades and spending big in FA. Blowing past luxury tax for a season or two. The haul from Calhoun could offset those expenditures a couple years down the line, especially if it fills multiple positions of need for the team at league minimum, and if that has panned out, lessens the need to spend in FA the next few offseasons (which look to be thin).

 

This idea is admittedly so far fetched that I haven't even considered a single package a team would make for Calhoun. There may not even be a team that can offer a "can't refuse" package.

But if there was a team out there who could offer 2-3 MLB ready players that would fill a need for the team - maybe two IF prospects that are blocked/redundant, a Smith/Street replacement that can step into the pen now and groom for future role, and maybe a high minors OF who is high-risk/high reward, then the team could essentially start back at minimum dollars at 2-3 positions of need right now, offsetting some of the money used to sign two FA OFs, probably from the mid-tier. Alternately, Calhoun could possibly fetch a stud young SP - adding even more SP depth to deal from. 

 

I will disclose that I thought Kole was a season or two closer to free agency when I originally thought of this, so it does make me more hesitant than initially, though, it also means his value is that much higher.

 

In a way, it's sort of converting a high-value asset for the next two or three seasons into a couple high-value (albeit lesser) values for the next four to six seasons. I'm also just ready for the offseason to really begin and trying to think of anything and everything to keep me entertained.

Edited October 13, 2015 by totdprods

[VariousCrap]

They are comparable because they accumulated a large percentage of their overall WAR from defensive metrics.

 

Look at the defensive Metrics of those players and what happened after they signed their contracts.

 

 

 

You can't compare due to their ages dude.  That is the point. 

[ten ocho recon scout]

My take on heyward is that hes a great player but the wrong fit (for us). I thonk hes the kind of guy the puts a very good team (the cards) over the top. But on his own, hes more of a luxury (because of cost).

If we blew our wad on him and went with the revolving cast at 3B/2B, it wouldnt be anywhere near worth it IMO. Id prefer a span, parra type with money left over to chase a 2B/3B upgrade

[VariousCrap]

I'm not all for it by all means, it's contingent on the Angels plan this offseason and how much they really want to spend, both on FA's and luxury tax this year and how they want to proceed over the next couple years, but the reasons why I wouldn't outright dismiss the idea of trading him are:

 

1) Calhoun's numbers have dropped each year. Yes, they're still extremely solid, but his BA, OBP, SLG, OPS+ have gone down every year in every category. His walk rate has dropped every year. His strikeouts have increased. He's still an integral part of the offense, but he's regressed each year in each category. It's absolutely possible he can improve, but it's a little strange that each category has dropped each year. 

2) Free agent outfielders are plentiful this year, and most of those are in the same ballpark of Calhoun-level production. 

3) With our farm system as barren as it is, it's understandable to be reluctant to deal from it to improve the MLB club now, but we also want to be competitive. On the MLB roster, Calhoun would be by and far one of the most valuable trade chips we have.

4) Looking big picture, Kole Calhoun is similar to many of the FA outfielders this year who are set to receive ridiculous money, and free agency over the next few offseasons is looking to be thin on talent (and thus extremely competitive, good news for when Kole does reach FA. How much will he fetch then considering what's being discussed for Heyward/Fowler/Cespedes etc. now?)

5) It would be contingent on the Angels making significant upgrades and spending big in FA. Blowing past luxury tax for a season or two. The haul from Calhoun could offset those expenditures a couple years down the line, especially if it fills multiple positions of need for the team at league minimum, and if that has panned out, lessens the need to spend in FA the next few offseasons (which look to be thin).

 

This idea is admittedly so far fetched that I haven't even considered a single package a team would make for Calhoun. There may not even be a team that can offer a "can't refuse" package.

But if there was a team out there who could offer 2-3 MLB ready players that would fill a need for the team - maybe two IF prospects that are blocked/redundant, a Smith/Street replacement that can step into the pen now and groom for future role, and maybe a high minors OF who is high-risk/high reward, then the team could essentially start back at minimum dollars at 2-3 positions of need right now, offsetting some of the money used to sign two FA OFs, probably from the mid-tier. Alternately, Calhoun could possibly fetch a stud young SP - adding even more SP depth to deal from. 

 

I will disclose that I thought Kole was a season or two closer to free agency when I originally thought of this, so it does make me more hesitant than initially, though, it also means his value is that much higher.

 

In a way, it's sort of converting a high-value asset for the next two or three seasons into a couple high-value (albeit lesser) values for the next four to six seasons. I'm also just ready for the offseason to really begin and trying to think of anything and everything to keep me entertained.

 

 

 

How would Calhoun be worth that much via trade when, as you stated, OF free agents are plentiful this season?

[VariousCrap]

My take on heyward is that hes a great player but the wrong fit (for us). I thonk hes the kind of guy the puts a very good team (the cards) over the top. But on his own, hes more of a luxury (because of cost).

If we blew our wad on him and went with the revolving cast at 3B/2B, it wouldnt be anywhere near worth it IMO. Id prefer a span, parra type with money left over to chase a 2B/3B upgrade

 

 

Personally, I think Heyward would thrive hitting in the #2 spot in the line-up with Trout hitting behind him; however his price is just going to be way too damn high.  

 

Heyward may cost 25 million a year, so why not get Fowley who will cost 15 million a year and he would give the Angels a great lead-off hitter.  It will also give the Angels the money to get other free agents as well.

[HeavenlyHalos]

So first of all a 26 year old hitting the free agent market is pretty rare nowadays. The fact that he is a young, athletic corner OF who can produce offensively and defensively (especially defensively) and can play all 3 OF positions combined with the very young age makes him a very attractive target to teams.

Because of that he will get paid and he will get a very long contract length. He will probably very well get an opt out clause that will allow him to opt out of the contract at the 4 or 5 year mark. He will get all of this in spite of the fact that it will cost a 1st round draft pick.

Every year the market surprises people and they underestimate what the free agent market will pay. This year it might even be more surprising.

Heyward has averaged 5 WAR over the last 4 seasons. Assuming he averages another 5 WAR over the next 4 years and then starts to degrade by the standard .5 WAR per season that is 39.5 WAR over 10 years.

The free agent price per WAR will be about $7.7MM/WAR according to my calculations (and I'm probably off a bit but most would agree it is over $7MM). Assuming another 10% WAR increase year over year, Heyward, based on his total projected WAR is worth over $400MM!

So Heavenly if defensive WAR is BS (and I would even agree that it probably doesn't accurately measure a player's contribution) let's hack off 40% of his projected worth.... $400MM-$160MM = $240MM.

If you think this Heyward estimate is bad I've read rumors that David Price will get $30MM per year (on a 7 or 8 year contract)!?!?!

We live in an environment of run prevention these days and teams are paying for it simply because it has been mis-valued in the past. Elite defenders save runs so I don't think anyone here would argue that it does have SOME value. How much is certainly open to argument but what can't be argued is that Heyward is a premium defender. He'll get paid for that too.

The other thing to consider too is that there are several teams out there that have a lot of cash to spend this offseason. Teams like the Red Sox and Cubs are flush with cash. The Dodgers and Yankees are the Yankees (pond scum). Giants and Nationals have cash flow too. Even small market teams like the Royals and Twins have payroll space. More cash = more teams ready to spend = prices going up.

I read an article yesterday saying Alex Gordon will get $20MM per season! Do you think that Alex Gordon, a specific, niche left fielder (and a good one to be sure) is worth, value-wise, more than a $25MM Heyward?

So yeah Heyward will get a 10 year contract and it will be pretty darn close to $250MM. Bookmark the page Heavenly and I'll eat crow if it makes you happy.

 

Okay, so yes it is rare that a 26 year old is a free agent but he just isn't that spectacular of a free agent. He's a good player but far from superstar status. You are citing WAR as if its the end all in determining FA value, which I disagree with, especially if you are trying to extrapolate that to a decade from now. I don't think either Gordon or Heyward are worth what you have proposed, though I could envision some dumb teams giving them that average value, but 10 years for Heyward? I don't see that happening. I sure as **** don't think he gets 10 years and $250 million. And sure, bookmark away!

Edited October 13, 2015 by HeavenlyHalos

[totdprods]

How would Calhoun be worth that much via trade when, as you stated, OF free agents are plentiful this season?

Half of the MLB teams don't spend anywhere near what those FAs would be commanding. Pittsburgh isn't going to shell out hundreds of millions into FA outfielders like the Angels can, and may, do.

In addition, there may be big market teams already tight on or exceeding payroll, and trading future savings tomorrow for immediate savings today may fit within their 3-5 year plan. Sort of similar to how the Angels were in the Offseason of Blanton/Madson/Hanson/Burnett.

Could sign Upton and one of Span/Fowler/Rasmus and you'd have that duo and Trout locked up as OF for foreseeable future, pull in some cheap IFers and maybe a badass bullpen piece for the future, and you're fielding a better team - more expensive, yes, but cheaper in the long haul.

Edited October 13, 2015 by totdprods

[Stradling]

Okay, so yes it is rare that a 26 year old is a free agent but he just isn't that spectacular of a free agent. He's a good player but far from superstar status. You are citing WAR as if its the end all in determining FA value, which I disagree with, especially if you are trying to extrapolate that to a decade from now. I don't think either Gordon or Heyward are worth what you have proposed, though I could envision some dumb teams giving them that average value, but 10 years for Heyward? I don't see that happening. I sure as **** don't think he gets 10 years and $250 million. And sure, bookmark away!

What the difference between giving Heyward 10 years and Cespedes 6 years?

[Adam]

Heyward and Zobrist hitting 1-2 would definitely balance out the line-up

[NrM]

What the difference between giving Heyward 10 years and Cespedes 6 years?

 

more years, more risk.. Just because a player is young, doesn't automatically mean you should continue adding more years to a contract..

 

If Heyward was 24 would he deserve a 12 year contract instead of a 10 year?

 

Or why stop at 10 years? Why not give him 15? 

Edited October 14, 2015 by Poozy

[Stradling]

more years, the more risk.. Just because a player is young, doesn't automatically mean you can keep adding more years to a contract..

If Heyward was 24 would he deserve a 12 year contract instead of a 10 year?

Or why stop at 10 years? Why not give him 15? **** it.. how bout 20...

I guess it depends. Do you want to sign top tier free agents? If so you give them the asking price if not then there's no quick fix to this team. This team doesn't have enough player currency to make the trades necessary to field a great team.

[Blarg]

more years, more risk.. Just because a player is young, doesn't automatically mean you can keep adding more years to a contract..

 

If Heyward was 24 would he deserve a 12 year contract instead of a 10 year?

 

Or why stop at 10 years? Why not give him 15? 

 

I don't think any contract over 5 years is warranted but I'm old and bitter about all the players that sign that big deal then under perform.

[NrM]

I guess it depends. Do you want to sign top tier free agents? If so you give them the asking price if not then there's no quick fix to this team. This team doesn't have enough player currency to make the trades necessary to field a great team.

 

 

If I were an astros fan, I wouldn't mind a 10 year deal to heyward. They could take the risk without it hurting their franchise.

 

If he turned out to be a bust for the angels, there would be no recovering from that...

Edited October 13, 2015 by Poozy

[tdawg87]

If he turned out to be a bust for the angels, there would be no recovering from that...

 

But this will be said about every big free agent signing this team ever makes.

 

Stradling's point is that the Angels either nut up and pay a bunch of money for "arguable" talent, or they don't improve the team at all.

[Stradling]

If I were an astros fan, I wouldn't mind a 10 year deal to heyward. They could take the risk without it hurting their franchise.

If he turned out to be a bust for the angels, there would be no recovering from that...

Well if you were an Astros fan you would have the player currency to go get a comparable guy by making a trade and not having to commit to ten years. Also the Angels would be just fine and would recover without any problem from that contract. The team makes $150 million a year from their TV contract. Not going over the luxury cap is a choice not a necessity. Also that $150 does not account for the money they get from the MLB TV contract. Would they struggle to stay under the cap, yes, for a couple of years, but that is about it. They have Hamilton coming off in two years, Weaver and Wilson after this coming year. It would suck to get a guy that under performs but it wouldn't be the end of the world.

[NrM]

But this will be said about every big free agent signing this team ever makes.

 

Stradling's point is that the Angels either nut up and pay a bunch of money for "arguable" talent, or they don't improve the team at all.

 

And my argument is I would rather they do that for short term deals(Which there seems to be an abundance of) than be stuck in another Pujols type situation.

[gotbeer]

Well if you were an Astros fan you would have the player currency to go get a comparable guy by making a trade and not having to commit to ten years. Also the Angels would be just fine and would recover without any problem from that contract. The team makes $150 million a year from their TV contract. Not going over the luxury cap is a choice not a necessity. Also that $150 does not account for the money they get from the MLB TV contract. Would they struggle to stay under the cap, yes, for a couple of years, but that is about it. They have Hamilton coming off in two years, Weaver and Wilson after this coming year. It would suck to get a guy that under performs but it wouldn't be the end of the world.

 

Yes and no.  $150 million a year.  but a % goes to the general fund.  I think it was like 30%.  This came up when the Doggies were being sold, and the absurd tv contract was being negotiated.  Doggies didn't think they needed to contribute as much, but MLB said yes you do.  

[tdawg87]

And my argument is I would rather they do that for short term deals(Which there seems to be an abundance of) than be stuck in another Pujols type situation.

 

Other than Zobrist, examples?

 

Literally every impact player is going to cost 5+ years.

[Stradling]

Yes and no. $150 million a year. but a % goes to the general fund. I think it was like 30%. This came up when the Doggies were being sold, and the absurd tv contract was being negotiated. Doggies didn't think they needed to contribute as much, but MLB said yes you do.

Ok so then add in the 3 million tickets sold and you have another $80-100 million. That is before selling any food or concessions.