Source: Angels "have to be" in on Darvish

[Jobu]

42 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

What's the ERA+?

Plus what? Surely there's a calculator on your phone or computer.

[tdawg87]

8 minutes ago, Jobu said:

Plus what? Surely there's a calculator on your phone or computer.

Good one mate

[Mark68]

14 hours ago, Warfarin said:

You are correct in that we don't, but it does seem to be a point we do not cross.

Moreover, I don't think going over the luxury tax level once is a big deal, but I think Arte would want to avoid being a "repeat" offender and setting up a situation where we repeatedly exceed the level.  If we signed Darvish, could we find a way to stay below the luxury level in future years?  It might not be so easy.

If we don't re-sign or extend any of the contracts that expire this year, there's about $31.5MM coming off the books.

[Mark68]

1 hour ago, Stradling said:

The Yankees and Dodgers could both pay that kind of money.  Sure they want to be under the tax. But the Dodgers starting pitching isn’t all that great.  You say all the time that the tax is a choice and you see no reason Arte should be tied to staying under it.  Well if you are the Dodgers, who have much more money than Arte, were one game away from winning it all, are already spending a ton of money on payroll, why wouldn’t they go over the tax to sign a much needed piece.  

Because they'd be repeat offenders, and those penalties are now REALLY steep.

[Dave Saltzer]

Not sure Arte would want to do this, because he is shelling out a lot more cash this year than what the AAV says he's paying (remember, Ohtani had an additional $20 million posting fee), but this is what I've thought we should do in order to land Darvish. Sign him to a front-loaded 5 year/$110 million contract with an opt-out after the second year. Let's say we pay out $55 million in the first two years, his AAV would be $22 million, but he'd get $27.5 million in years 1 and 2. He can then opt-out after next year's FA class passes and try and get a better, longer deal. That still keeps us focused on the current window for Trout (although I believe that we will re-sign him).

 

Darvish would do this to maximize his earnings now and having another bite at the market in two years. We greatly bolster our rotation now, and have a much better chance, at least on paper, of making the postseason.

 

If Darvish wants a longer contract, it should be team options only for years 6 or 7, with a $1 million buyout for those years and for only $20 million/year. 

 

I don't see him going for less than $20/year, and most likely, if we want to get him on a 5-year deal, instead of a longer deal, we'd have to offer more, and, and opt-out. I'd be okay with that.

[Angelsjunky]

Settle down with that Enter key, @Dave Saltzer

Anyhow, I'm not excited about Darvish. They'd be putting a lot of money into 30-something borderline stars (Upton, Darvish). I'd rather see them save their money for true stars and locking down younger players. Darvish is a fine pitcher but he's not a true ace, and I just don't like the idea of spending $20-25 million a year on a #2-3 starter.

[Blarg]

You guys a spending a lot of time on a player that won't be in the Angels lineup.

[Second Base]

My guess we are definitely in on Darvish....but so are a half dozen other teams, a few of which could offer more than we are willing to.

So if Darvish does choose the Angels, it would be for 3-4 million less per year than their counterparts, and would mean he'd have to legitimately want to be here. 

Those sort of deals happen all the time. But I haven't read anything suggesting he wants to be an Angel, other than being close friends with Ohtani and enjoying his time in So Cal.

[ettin]

Most players that are on the wrong side of 30 hitting free agency almost always try to maximize their contract length and money because realistically it is the last good opportunity most of them will have to get paid. There are occasional exceptions like Cespedes or Lincecum for example but a large majority of 30+ year olds take the longest and most lucrative contract they can obtain as they could not even be playing once their contracts do expire.

So the idea that Darvish or Arrieta would take a 2-year opt-out seems really remote. You are much more likely to see someone like Machado do that next year in free agency (and the Angels could wind up doing this with him next off-season) because he is young enough that 2 years gets him paid well and then he can hit free agency again at age 28 and still get a very lucrative long-term contract.

Older players are less likely to gamble on their health and potentially declining skills in the free agent market.

[Tank]

5 hours ago, Ace-Of-Diamonds said:

Nolan Ryan, Randy Johnson, Curt Schilling, Bob Gibson, Steve Carlton, Lefty Grove, Roger Clemens, Walter Johnson, and Goose Gossage (RP).

Garret could live with a 92+ fastball with his slider, and change up mix. I just think he will be hard to replace.

the difference between richards and all of those listed above is health. they had it, and richrads doesn't. 

i'd love for him to pitch a full 33 starts this season (or however many it is), but i'm not realistically expecting that many from him. we have no idea how well his arm will hold up or if he'll be effective.

[totdprods]

2 minutes ago, Tank said:

the difference between richards and all of those listed above is health. they had it, and richrads doesn't. 

i'd love for him to pitch a full 33 starts this season (or however many it is), but i'm not realistically expecting that many from him. we have no idea how well his arm will hold up or if he'll be effective.

Even if he does make it through 33 starts this season - do we really expect him to be a durable 30+ GS start pitcher annually going forward into his 30s? When he's only ever done it once? And had a barrage of injuries since that one year? That's my biggest concern with a Richards contract post-2018. 

That seems just as risky if not riskier than signing Darvish to a 5/$120m or dealing prospects for Yelich. Not the same magnitude of course, but the risk is higher.

[Tank]

4 hours ago, Ace-Of-Diamonds said:

Koufax wasn't for his first 4 years or so. I am not saying he is as good as those pitchers but he could be someday or maybe he won't but he is as good or better than 90% of the pitchers today if he remains healthy.

and that's the great unknown, isn't it?

 

Edited January 18, 2018 by Tank

[Chuck]

1 hour ago, Blarg said:

You guys a spending a lot of time on a player that won't be in the Angels lineup.

You're right, because he'll be in our rotation. 

[krAbs]

1 hour ago, Blarg said:

You guys a spending a lot of time on a player that won't be in the Angels lineup.

Aight, so, we are deep in a cold stove offseason. No unrealistic baseball talk. I'm personally sick of re-hashing lineup ideas and ideas for a 4th outfielder or utility infielder or precisely how to rate obscure members of our minor league system. So...

...
....
.....
......

Some weather we've been having, hu?

[ten ocho recon scout]

1 hour ago, Blarg said:

You guys a spending a lot of time on a player that won't be in the Angels lineup.

Thats where im at. If we added him, it would be huge. (Id still prefer adding offense somehow, but any improvement eould be great.) But being that it seems so unlikely to me (ithink the money is gone, and they want wiggle room), i dont think were serious contenders.

[Angel Oracle]

1 hour ago, ettin said:

Most players that are on the wrong side of 30 hitting free agency almost always try to maximize their contract length and money because realistically it is the last good opportunity most of them will have to get paid. There are occasional exceptions like Cespedes or Lincecum for example but a large majority of 30+ year olds take the longest and most lucrative contract they can obtain as they could not even be playing once their contracts do expire.

So the idea that Darvish or Arrieta would take a 2-year opt-out seems really remote. You are much more likely to see someone like Machado do that next year in free agency (and the Angels could wind up doing this with him next off-season) because he is young enough that 2 years gets him paid well and then he can hit free agency again at age 28 and still get a very lucrative long-term contract.

Older players are less likely to gamble on their health and potentially declining skills in the free agent market.

Back through the 1980s, it was easier to sign those guys (like a 36 year-old Reggie in 1982) because the money and the contract length wasn't so ridiculous like it's gotten now. 

[Angel Oracle]

1 hour ago, totdprods said:

Even if he does make it through 33 starts this season - do we really expect him to be a durable 30+ GS start pitcher annually going forward into his 30s? When he's only ever done it once? And had a barrage of injuries since that one year? That's my biggest concern with a Richards contract post-2018. 

That seems just as risky if not riskier than signing Darvish to a 5/$120m or dealing prospects for Yelich. Not the same magnitude of course, but the risk is higher.

Both GRich going forward into the 2020s, and Darvish now, are health risks based on past health.   Beware! 

[totdprods]

3 minutes ago, Angel Oracle said:

Both GRich going forward into the 2020s, and Darvish now, are health risks based on past health.   Beware! 

You are correct. But as of this moment, Darvish has the slight advantage on durability and seems to be a better bet at making it through a full season. I also think his pitching style lends more opportunity for aging well, where GRich seems like he'd flame out quicker once he starts losing miles on his FB. 

Darvish will cost more, but we're paying folks to play. If it was one or the other, despite the cost difference, I'd choose Darvish. 

[Dave Saltzer]

1 hour ago, ettin said:

Most players that are on the wrong side of 30 hitting free agency almost always try to maximize their contract length and money because realistically it is the last good opportunity most of them will have to get paid. There are occasional exceptions like Cespedes or Lincecum for example but a large majority of 30+ year olds take the longest and most lucrative contract they can obtain as they could not even be playing once their contracts do expire.

So the idea that Darvish or Arrieta would take a 2-year opt-out seems really remote. You are much more likely to see someone like Machado do that next year in free agency (and the Angels could wind up doing this with him next off-season) because he is young enough that 2 years gets him paid well and then he can hit free agency again at age 28 and still get a very lucrative long-term contract.

Older players are less likely to gamble on their health and potentially declining skills in the free agent market.

Many of these high-priced FAs won't have a choice if they want to try and maximize their earnings. Most FAs want to avoid next year's class, figuring the money will get sucked up by a few key players. After that, the market should thin out a bit in subsequent years. If Darvish and others want to have high yearly salaries, they may need to accept shorter term deals with fronloaded contracts and opt outs.

[AngelStew43]

I would be happy to add another SP of Darvish quality.  Personally, though, I think we would be better off with Arrieta.

[totdprods]

I feel like I should also mention that, if prices for Darvish and Arrieta are falling, they may be falling for Lynn, Cobb, Garcia, Hellickson, etc. as well. Obviously a whole different tier of pitcher, but any would still provide some stability to a rotation full of question marks.

I don't think there's a single SP on the roster right now who's pitched a complete season at a big-league level over the last two seasons. Ohtani included (if you count NPB).  Heck out of all of them, only Shoemaker may have single season's worth of starts combined over the last two years. 

[red321]

Didn’t we get our fill of pitchers on the DL last year? And now we want to pay 20 million a year for the privilege?

[totdprods]

16 minutes ago, red321 said:

Didn’t we get our fill of pitchers on the DL last year? And now we want to pay 20 million a year for the privilege?

Darvish is a FA last I checked, not on the DL. We willingly paid a LF $25m a year for two years to not even be on the team. Paying a guy who can actually walk onto the field wouldn't be the stupidest thing we've done.

We're paying him because he can make 30 starts, something no one on this club has done since 2015.

[Chris]

I think what we communicated to Ohtani holds weight.  So if we told Ohtani he will be the only Japanese star, I think we live up to our word to him.

If we talk to Ohtani, gauge his interest first, and he's ok with adding Darvish, then who knows...

 

[Angel Oracle]

10 minutes ago, totdprods said:

Darvish is a FA last I checked, not on the DL. We willingly paid a LF $25m a year for two years to not even be on the team. Paying a guy who can actually walk onto the field wouldn't be the stupidest thing we've done.

We're paying him because he can make 30 starts, something no one on this club has done since 2015.

Can he though?   How many years has he done it?   Answer: only twice in six years, and in fact only three seasons out of six has he made more than 22 starts