Is it really so complicated?

[OregonLAA]

Blackmon gets on base a decent rate right? And he steals lots of bases. I think he would be a great fit

[Docwaukee]

So first of all, our 2017 CBT number is at about 147 mil with arb estimates and picking up Escobar's option.  People forget about two things.  

1. Benefits are added to the tune of 15mil and that is why we are where we are because our overall salary commitment for 2017 is around 130mil.  

2. The CBT threshold could change from it's current 189mil.  Some owners want it lower.  Others want to raise it.  My guess is that it stays the same.  But since it's not set, it is something that can be raised as a concern by Arte.   

 

If we ignore 2016 payroll and just account for 2017, we've got about 40mil to spend on a LFer and then a bunch of maybe.  Maybe 2b, SP, RP, Bench.  Plus you'd like to leave yourself a slight cushion if possible.  So that makes it pretty tight.  If we spend all of that, suddenly you are entering the 2018 offseason with about 155mil toward the cap.  But by that time you pretty much know if your current construct is working and whether to continue adding or start subtracting.  

 

So if you go big now and spend 20 and add Freese for one year at 10 as well as 5 on a reliever, then you are over by about 25-30 for 2016 costing Arte 5mil in tax.  You drop Freese 10mi so you are around 175 rolling into 2017 potentially needing a SP, 3b or 2b and relief pitching.  

 

So the math is feasible to stay under for 2017 and to incur a 5mil tax for 2016.  

 

Overall, the numbers are likely workable if they need to be.  

 

But here's the thing.  What really matters here is where Arte's line is drawn.  Either he sees the value in adding another 30+mil in payroll or the he sees the risk that outweighs that.  

 

The 'going over for the right player' mentality is a window into Arte's philosophy and why we are at where we are at.  Shouldn't it be about the team as a whole and not just about whether there is one guy that could help?  Why worry about whether it one player for a boat load of money or three players at a modest amount of money?  

 

If you are gonna decide to go over to help the team then do it because you think the existing team is worth doing it for.  Then find the best combination of upgrades within financial reason to execute that plan.  It's the 'one great player' mentality that is sinking this ship.  It's ironic that we have one great player that we drafted and developed keeping us afloat.  

[Second Base]

Hector Santiago gave up 29 HR's last year. Do any of you believe that a non-contending Rockies team will willingly give up 3 years of Blackmon in return for two years of the HR prone Hector Santiago in Coors Field and not receive ANY prospects in the deal?

Santiago in Coors Field gives up 35 HR's and has an ERA of four and a half. Blackmon has been downright awful away from Coors Field except two things, power and speed. Those will play anywhere, to the point where he's hitting 15 HR with 30 SB. The solid defense is also consistent, but I'm afraid it's all going to be a wash if he only hits .250 with a .300 OBP.

At any rate, that's not a deal the Rockies make. They're more likely to deal Cargo, and in any deal, they'll want prospects, particularly of the pitching variety, and that's simply not something we're in a position to provide. For a 2-3 win player like Blackmon should be, it would likely cost the Angels Tropeano and another pitcher like Joe Gatto, plus a more promising offensive prospect like Kubitza or Hinshaw. They may even require an upside reliever as a cherry on top in the minors like Eduardo Paredes or Greg Mahle.

I wouldn't recommend making such a deal. Wilson and Weav are easily replaceable in the rotation, but without Tropeano, who is likely to grow into a #3/4 starter, we're looking at Skaggs, Shoemaker and Santiago all in the same rotation. This can work, if you have a ton of depth on the way, a shut down bullpen and a good offense, the latter two of which we don't have. If it were me personally, I'd offer Kubitza and Kyle McGowin, but nothing beyond that, and it's almost guaranteed they'd laugh and hang up the phone, but that's just the way I value our young pitching relative to Blackmon.

[Docwaukee]

Blackmon gets on base a decent rate right? And he steals lots of bases. I think he would be a great fit

his walk rate is 5.0% for his career.  It's .283 away from Coors.  Let's say he's better away than we are giving him credit for.  His obp will likely be somewhere around .310.  

 

If we aren't going to spend big, and we end up making a trade for someone to man LF, my preference would be for us to get as much obp as possible.  Slot him in at the top of the order, bring back Freese, and move Calhoun to the 5 spot.  So your 6 and 7 hitters are Freese and Cron.  Someone like a Markakis type.  Then you'd have Escobar with a near .350obp and Markakis with a near .360 obp hitting in front of Trout.  Markakis is a pretty poor defender though so I wouldn't be super excited about that. 

[Second Base]

his walk rate is 5.0% for his career.  It's .283 away from Coors.  Let's say he's better away than we are giving him credit for.  His obp will likely be somewhere around .310.  

 

If we aren't going to spend big, and we end up making a trade for someone to man LF, my preference would be for us to get as much obp as possible.  Slot him in at the top of the order, bring back Freese, and move Calhoun to the 5 spot.  So your 6 and 7 hitters are Freese and Cron.  Someone like a Markakis type.  Then you'd have Escobar with a near .350obp and Markakis with a near .360 obp hitting in front of Trout.  Markakis is a pretty poor defender though so I wouldn't be super excited about that.

I think the Nick Markakis idea deserves more merit than it has received. When the Braves signed him, it came across as a head scratcher, but the contract itself is far from debilitating. Markakis hit for no power last year and was bad in RF. MLBTR seems to think he's immovable unless Atlanta eats a healthy portion of his contract, so the price for the Angels should be relatively low. Also, I think his performance last year was a bit of an outlier for multiple reasons...

1. He still hit for a fantastic batting average and OBP.

2. While he did not steal, he still has adequate foot speed abd has been generally regarded as a smart base runner throughout his career.

3. The drop in HR's was expected leaving the AL East, however, he still logged plenty of doubles, so there is pop.

4. The range factor wasn't far off from his career average. Since that's the most important factor in evaluating a defender, and other metrics can inexplicably shift year to year, it's possible or even likely that he's still an acceptable defender abd not a liability.

5. Playing next to a CF like Trout can help limit the amount of room he may need to cover, especially if he can cheat a couplesteps due to the presence of Calhoun.

Markakis is the exact sort of player they need hitting in front of Trout. It would suck not having the pop behind him, but if we can front load high OBP options in front of Trout, we can depend on Calhoun and Cron to pick up some slack behind him and take a chance on Albert being fully recovered. It's even possible Choi really steps up and can be a run producer.

All in all, I really like the Markakis idea. Atlanta already has all the pitching prospects they could ever need and their GM recently said they'll be looking for opportunities to acquire offensive weapons to help in the future. If moving tr contract really is a partially motivating factor here, it may be possible to take n the entirety of the contract and it only cost the Angels a Kubitza or Hinshaw type, who both bring a degree of offense to the game, enough that they're viewed as potential starters at least.

[Angelsjunky]

Freese? How did he come back into the discussion?

[Docwaukee]

Freese? How did he come back into the discussion?

If we are speculating on guys we don't have that could provide some additional value to the team for this year, why not discuss it.  I still think we are going over the cap, so if we are, I'm not handing 2b to GIa or 3b to Cowbitza.  

[Angelsjunky]

Actually, Cowbitza would be pretty good: great defense, decent bat. Its Cowart or Kubitza who are the problem.

 

But seriously, fair enough. I just don't see the Angels signing Freese. Escobar is too much of an unknown at 2B.

[gotbeer]

But here's the thing.  What really matters here is where Arte's line is drawn.  Either he sees the value in adding another 30+mil in payroll or the he sees the risk that outweighs that.  

 

The 'going over for the right player' mentality is a window into Arte's philosophy and why we are at where we are at.  Shouldn't it be about the team as a whole and not just about whether there is one guy that could help?  Why worry about whether it one player for a boat load of money or three players at a modest amount of money?  

 

If you are gonna decide to go over to help the team then do it because you think the existing team is worth doing it for.  Then find the best combination of upgrades within financial reason to execute that plan.  It's the 'one great player' mentality that is sinking this ship.  It's ironic that we have one great player that we drafted and developed keeping us afloat.  

 

I actually think the CBT is a smokescreen for the real issue.  Arte does not want to go over a certain yearly payroll.  Which is fine.  He knows how much the Angels really are spending.  From front office salaries, to scouting, to whatever payments the Angels are making to whatever entities.  People say he is a businessman.  And if that's true, then he knows his bottom line. 

 

For simplicity sake.  Opening day payroll.

2011 $141

2012 $151

2013 $137

2014 $154

2015 $146

 

2016, right now, we are standing at $147 million.  That seems to be within the comfort range.  And I really think that this is his true comfort number, and that the CBT is his way of saying he's spending near max. 

[wopphil]

I actually think the CBT is a smokescreen for the real issue. Arte does not want to go over a certain yearly payroll. Which is fine. He knows how much the Angels really are spending. From front office salaries, to scouting, to whatever payments the Angels are making to whatever entities. People say he is a businessman. And if that's true, then he knows his bottom line.

For simplicity sake. Opening day payroll.

2011 $141

2012 $151

2013 $137

2014 $154

2015 $146

2016, right now, we are standing at $147 million. That seems to be within the comfort range. And I really think that this is his true comfort number, and that the CBT is his way of saying he's spending near max.

Great point. Actual payroll is probably a lot higher than in previous years, even if CBT payroll isn't. Pujols and Trout get large raises, and Wilson/Weaver make their highest salaries this year.

Of course, be could backload Upton's contract and trade someone to save some money.

[Docwaukee]

Actually, Cowbitza would be pretty good: great defense, decent bat. Its Cowart or Kubitza who are the problem.

 

But seriously, fair enough. I just don't see the Angels signing Freese. Escobar is too much of an unknown at 2B.

He was an unknown at 3b till last year.  Plus, as a natural SS, he's probably more geared to 2b over 3b anyway.  

[QuinlansMinion]

Arte is already a billionaire and set for life. He will turn a profit no matter what in 2016 because of Trout and because we show up to support the team. He should be spending more. #itsnotmymoney

[Docwaukee]

I actually think the CBT is a smokescreen for the real issue.  Arte does not want to go over a certain yearly payroll.  Which is fine.  He knows how much the Angels really are spending.  From front office salaries, to scouting, to whatever payments the Angels are making to whatever entities.  People say he is a businessman.  And if that's true, then he knows his bottom line. 

 

For simplicity sake.  Opening day payroll.

2011 $141

2012 $151

2013 $137

2014 $154

2015 $146

 

2016, right now, we are standing at $147 million.  That seems to be within the comfort range.  And I really think that this is his true comfort number, and that the CBT is his way of saying he's spending near max. 

 

Totally agree.  The CBT threshold seemed too arbitrary.  It makes more sense that he'd keep to his general budget as opposed to the CBT.  BTW, I am seeing payroll at 167mil right now because of the hamilton money.  

[gotbeer]

Totally agree.  The CBT threshold seemed too arbitrary.  It makes more sense that he'd keep to his general budget as opposed to the CBT.  BTW, I am seeing payroll at 167mil right now because of the hamilton money.  

 

You are right.  I was pulling the number from Cot's.  But I believe he doesn't take into account the arbitration numbers.  In my sheet, I have it at $173 million.  Which blows by other years opening day payroll.  Which again, might be the reason why he is reluctant to spend more.  But if you take out Hamilton's dead money, it's right back into that comfort zone.

[eligrba]

Sign the best option for LF and if necessary next year trade someone for prospects to get under the cap. We compete this year and restock the farm next year. We may need to eat some money depending on the prospects and contract involved but don't forget next year's crop of FA is poor so it would seem we'd be dealing from a position of strength.

I get it that the player we sign may require a no-trade clause but we do have other players that don't.

 

But the Angel way is to trade youth, sign old and bunt often.

[Lou]

The math says they'll be under. The owner says they don't have the money, the reporter that's trying to be edgy by contradicting everyone says there'd be holes to fill with no money to fill them.

I gotta go with common sense and call bulls___. Fletcher says we' need another catcher, yet he doesn't bring up Bandy. He says we'll need two more starters, yet by next year, we'll have Richards, Heaney, Skaggs, Santiago, Shoemaker, Tropeano and Nate Smith ready for deployment with the added depth coming from Kyle McGowin and potentially Greyson Long. Joe Gatto should still be at least a couple years off.

Fletcher also says we'll need a 3B despite the fact that Escobar has a cheap option and we have Cowart and Kubitza. He started we'll need a RP, and while there are internal candidates abound, we could still swing a trade for one quite easily.

Brief math inside my head, but if we sign a LF for 20 million a year, it will push us 16 million over the luxury tax threshold. Weav and CJ's AAV together is around 35, Smith is 5, and the smaller ones add up to another 5, which comes to 45 million. Subtract the 20 from the LF and its 25 million. Add in arbitration and we're down to 10-15 million to work with next year, with "openings in the rotation, catcher, utility infielder and RP. The first three are solved internally, and the RP either in FA or trade. If it's FA you figure another 6-7 million. Aggressively speaking, you're still looking at residing 3-8 million under budget next year after filling all holes.

The long term outlook is also quite promising, seeing as Hamilton's 25 million will be coming off the books the following year, though that will be negated by the need to lock up Richards, Calhoun, Skaggs and Cron shortly thereafter.

I'm pretty sure Fletcher was referring to needing good players

[Lou]

I don't agree. Lots of high prices vets coming off the books next year. And higher priced arbitration guys like Richards, Calhoun and Santiago could be traded, if necessary, for cheaper pieces. Even Simmons and Street could be moved.

Given what the Braves got for Shelby Miller, I think it stands to reason that Richards could bring back two useful, cheap players. If he has a good year and the team tanks, perhaps you move him for two good arms (Skaggs/Heaney types). And you save yourself $10 mil in the process.

Do the same for Santiago and Calhoun and you can massively slash from this year's payroll.

No chance Simmons will be traded

[totdprods]

I'm pretty sure Fletcher was referring to needing good players

Yeah it'd be way too risky to rely on all those young players to not only pan out and become at least average major league players, but count on them to be healthy and productive. Going that route would be okay if the farm was deeper, but it isn't. As optimistic as you can be on prospects, the team would be better off bringing in another vet or two as replacements for that crop.

I think this offseason and 2016, maybe 2017, are going to just be 'wait and see' type transitionary years. After the Dipoto debacle, I think Arte (and Sosh) are going to give Eppler a bit more of a leash. They're going to try and win with smart, frugal moves, and do their best to rebuild the farm, stay competitive, test their young talent, and keep their eyes on the '18 FA crop, potential move/new stadium, and developing a powerhouse team 2018 and beyond to help persuade Trout to stay.

[NrM]

We won't be under the cap next year. Especially if we spend big on a long term FA this year. Keep saying that we have money being freed up next year all you want.

But the reality is, our farm sucks, and we don't have cheap replacements. Sure, we lose salary next season. But for CBT purposes, we are already at $145 million. We lose 2 starting pitchers or at least 1 1/2 starting pitchers and 2 relievers next season. If we sign someone for $20 AAV this season, that's bumps us up to $165 million. 2 good relievers are about $5 million a piece. That's $175. A good starter will be at least $12 for a 3/4 range. So that's $187.

It also means that we are all in on Garrett Richards. If he can't handle the #1, then we truly are going way over in order to be competitive next season.

this.. if we sign cespedes or upton, we're going to be over the cap next year unless we fill the million holes with nova type free agents or AAAA quality prospects. Edited January 10, 2016 by Poozy

[tdawg87]

this.. if we sign cespedes or upton, we're going to be over the cap next year unless we fill the million holes with nova type free agents or AAAA quality prospects.

 

That's fine since those are about the only type of free agents available in next year's crop.

[tdawg87]

Also, we assume Arte would only want to go over the threshold for one season, since the penalty would only be 17.5%. It makes sense, but the penalty is only based on every dollar you go over the threshold.

So lets say for shits and giggles the Angels sign Upton for 20 mil, and Freese for 1 year at 10 mil. By Arte's figure that puts them over by 26 million. That's roughly what, 4.5 million in penalties?

In 2017 they would have nearly 50 million coming off the books. So lets say for even more shits and giggles that the Angels are more conservative next offseason, but still look to add some pieces including a couple relievers, a starter, and picking up Escobar's option. After everything, they lower the payroll from 2016 but still end up over the threshold by a couple million. Lets say 5. The penalty for going over a 2nd straight year is 30%. So Arte pays 1.5 million. Oh noes!

Obviously no owner wants to pay a tax penalty. So it behooves them to stay under the threshold as much as possible. But they're also billionaires. A few million in tax penalties isn't going to kill any of their wallets.

After 3 years of going over the threshold, you pay a 50% penalty. This is where it starts to get steep and no owner wants to get caught in this situation. But 50% of 5 million is still just 2.5 million. You only really start feeling the pain when you are over by 50+ million in that 3rd year. Theres no way or reason for the Angels to get to that point. And hell, once you get payroll under for just one season, the penalties reset.

Obviously these percentages could change, but I don't think any changes will be drastic. My point is that the taxes only really become a serious problem if you're significantly over in that 3rd straight season. I don't see the Angels ever needing to go that far, but I also don't see how they can compete the next few years if they don't go over the threshold at least once. They're too close as it is.

But "it's not my money" goes both ways. Arte doesn't have to spend a damn thing if he doesn't want to. But if he wants to win the next few years he's going to have to.

[Second Base]

I think that's a bit aggressive saying the Angels won't compete without exceeding the tax. They'll compete. For one thing, there's Trout. But there's also a core of position players that should be decent for a while in Calhoun, Cron, Simmons and maybe others like Kubitza, Cowart, Choi or Hinshaw soon. They also have a very deep pitching staff featuring four 20-something's in Richards, Heaney, Skaggs and Tropeano, all of which project as a middle of the rotation or better starter.

They should compete, but it looks to be more of the 82-88 win variety, instead of the 89-95 variety they'd be capable of if they signed a LF and upgraded 2B.

[tdawg87]

I think that's a bit aggressive saying the Angels won't compete without exceeding the tax. They'll compete. For one thing, there's Trout. But there's also a core of position players that should be decent for a while in Calhoun, Cron, Simmons and maybe others like Kubitza, Cowart, Choi or Hinshaw soon. They also have a very deep pitching staff featuring four 20-something's in Richards, Heaney, Skaggs and Tropeano, all of which project as a middle of the rotation or better starter.

They should compete, but it looks to be more of the 82-88 win variety, instead of the 89-95 variety they'd be capable of if they signed a LF and upgraded 2B.

 

That isn't really "competing" in the sense that I was referring to. That's more "they are just 2 games back of the 2nd WC with 3 games left to play" kind of "competing".

 

I also disagree that they have a "very deep pitching staff". They have depth, but none of the pitchers you mentioned are sure things. Even Richards is a question mark. Just because they project as something, doesn't mean they will reach it. And after those 4 guys, what else do they have going forward? Shoemaker is basically just a swingman. That's valuable, sure, but not worth much. Every team has those guys. Nate Smith is probably a 4-5 guy at best. McGowin is the same thing. I'm going to assume the vast majority of teams in baseball can find at least 1 or two Smiths and McGowins in their system.

 

So are we just going to cross our fingers every year and hope the regular guys overachieve and the mediocre prospects break out?

[Second Base]

That isn't really "competing" in the sense that I was referring to. That's more "they are just 2 games back of the 2nd WC with 3 games left to play" kind of "competing".

 

I also disagree that they have a "very deep pitching staff". They have depth, but none of the pitchers you mentioned are sure things. Even Richards is a question mark. Just because they project as something, doesn't mean they will reach it. And after those 4 guys, what else do they have going forward? Shoemaker is basically just a swingman. That's valuable, sure, but not worth much. Every team has those guys. Nate Smith is probably a 4-5 guy at best. McGowin is the same thing. I'm going to assume the vast majority of teams in baseball can find at least 1 or two Smiths and McGowins in their system.

 

So are we just going to cross our fingers every year and hope the regular guys overachieve and the mediocre prospects break out?

It's 8 deep right now. There aren't many teams that have that, and I have some issues with your evaluations.

1. Richards is a question mark? I said he'd be at least a mid rotation starter or better and you think that's in jeopardy? Thats like saying Simmons isn't a sure thing at SS.

2. Heaney also seems like a sure thing. Highly valued LHP prospect, good arsenal, came up and delivered mid rotation type of SP results for over half the season. Calling Heaney a question at this point would be similar to calling Kyle Schwarber a question mark for the Cubs, just because he's only been good for a little bit.

3. Yeah, you're right, Skaggs and Tropeano aren't sure things yet, despite clearly having the youth and stuff to be such a thing. If only there were some way of finding out if a pitcher will be good someday.

4. Shoemaker is better than a swingman. Even last year, he was better than a swingman. His first year, he was at the right weight, he kept the ball low, it stayed in the park and he had some luck. The result was front of the rotation performance. But we already knew regression was coming. But it came overly hard last year. He lost too much weight, and lost a couple MPH on his fastball, which was slowly built up throughout the season. He's back where he needs to be now. The ball left the yard even more last year than was expected, the truth is, Shoe isn't as good as 2014, or as bad as 2015. Most people would agree on this. Chances are, you're looking at 180 innings, an ERA around 4, solid strikeouts and a good BB/9. A good 4/5 starter,

Our pitching isn't the problem. Dipoto wasn't the best GM ever, but he sure knew how to acquire pitching depth.

[Docwaukee]

The pitching staff is better than they get credit for.  Or at least I think they are going to be in 2016.  Richards, Heaney, and Santiago are a solid 1, 2, 3.  At least average at each of their respective rotation slots.  Skaggs will perform well but won't have the stamina we need him to and it will show by the end of the year.  Wilson get a bad rap.  He's a league average pitcher which makes him a decent #3.  Shoe and Weaver are back end starters and/or swing guys but they can ham and egg it.  Shoe in particular will be better than people think next year.  

 

Tropeano is a good pitcher and even though he is untested and unheralded, he gets a bad rap because of how he was acquired.  He misses bats and has good stuff.  He's better than a guy you should be able to acquire for a backup catcher, and people will see that very soon.  

 

The key to next years staff is Richards.  In fact, he probably the key to next years season.  If he throws out another season with a high 3's era then we are screwed.  He needs to be the guy with cy young potential that we saw in 2014.  Hopefully, he mentally past his injury.  Last years pitching staff was more of a disappointment than the offense in my eyes.  The offense performed around their talent level.  The pitching did not.