Official 2021-22 Hot Stove League Thread.

[UndertheHalo]

I don’t think it’s even that tough a decision.  The more I think about it the more foolish it seems.  It’s completely ridiculous to trade cost controlled young major leaguers for 1 pitcher.  The Angels can’t afford to do stupid shit like that.  They do not have the depth in the development system to absorb that kind of hit.  There’s no one behind Marsh and Adell ! Detmers and Sandoval already pitch in the majors !  Detmers has Castillos upside and better ! If they want Castillo they should get him by eating the mooses contract.  If the reds still want top ten prospects after that then fuck them.  
 

the angels situation isn’t even such that castillo makes them a serious on paper World Series contender

Edited December 4, 2021 by UndertheHalo

[Inside Pitch]

52 minutes ago, GoodTimesGoneBad said:

Castillo is an ace, on a team friendly deal, who pitches in probably the best hitters park in the NL. As much as I like Detmers, I believe the Angels make that deal in a heartbeat. 

He's a career 123 ERA+ guy. 

Those numbers are park adjusted.  He's never led the league in any pitching category of merit, he's got a grey ink score of 30, Garret Richards is sitting at 23.

Similar Pitchers through 28

1. Marty Pattin (971.0)
2. Ken McBride (970.0)
3. Taijuan Walker (968.5)
4. Joe Musgrove (966.6)
5. Craig Swan (966.1)
6. Carlos Rodon (965.7)
7. Drew Pomeranz (961.8)
8. Erik Bedard (961.3)
9. Brian Lawrence (960.2)
10. Michael Pineda (959.9)

Castillo is a very good pitcher, but some of you guys are overvaluing him.

[Inside Pitch]

59 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

I would love to have Castillo but trading 6 years for 2 is...ehh. Especially when Detmers has the upside of the pitcher you are trading for.

It's a tough decision. I wouldn't do it, personally.

Maybe more importantly, Detmers on his own won't cut it..   So the cost in years of control will likely be considerably larger.

[Angels_Make_Me_Drink]

Im holding onto Detmers, but I would be okay with a package built around Bachman for Castillo. 

[Warfarin]

We should really stop proposing trades that involve shipping out our young pitchers.  We need to develop guys like Detmers and Bachman, not trade them.

[Redondo]

5 minutes ago, Warfarin said:

We should really stop proposing trades that involve shipping out our young pitchers.  We need to develop guys like Detmers and Bachman, not trade them.

This is how I feel also 

Ok to spend on FA's, but we need to develop the young players

[AngelStew43]

I'd like to see us sign Kris Bryant to play 1B, then maybe trade Walsh plus prospects not named Adell and Marsh for Castillo.  

Of course, the trade would have to come first, otherwise the trade value for Walsh slips just a bit. It would allow the Reds to use Votto as their DH.  

It would also leave little to no room to add a SS, leaving us with Rengifo as the starter. 

[AngelStew43]

Kershaw is not coming here.  Dodgers, or retirement.  Grienke, if the price is right, or Duffy, if healthy. 

[tdawg87]

5 minutes ago, AngelStew43 said:

I'd like to see us sign Kris Bryant to play 1B, then maybe trade Walsh plus prospects not named Adell and Marsh for Castillo.   

I don't understand this.

It's also going to cost a lot more than that, trust me.

[mmc]

 

[Docwaukee]

If they were going to spend well above what they've already spent, they'd have done it by now.  

[AngelsLakersFan]

5 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

If they were going to spend well above what they've already spent, they'd have done it by now.  

They almost can't at this point, short of signing Correa or just lighting a pile of cash on fire.

[mmc]

6 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

If they were going to spend well above what they've already spent, they'd have done it by now.  

Curious why you think this?  Knowing how Arte is about budgeting I think it's very likely he wants to know what the new CBA is before deciding what payroll will be this year.  

[Docwaukee]

1 minute ago, mmc said:

Curious why you think this?  Knowing how Arte is about budgeting I think it's very likely he wants to know what the new CBA is before deciding what payroll will be this year.  

Based on what he's done in the past.  He has said a million times that the luxury tax has no bearing on payroll.  The budget was decided weeks if not months ago.  And their budget projections for the next 3-4 years are probably already in place. 

Do you think there's something different about expected revenue for 2022?  Because increased revenue would drive the budget.  The team's expenses are going to stay roughly the same or go up based of the new CBA.  And probably not by a huge amount in either direction.  

What about his normal pattern gives you any indication that he's suddenly going to fundamentally alter the equation of revenue minus expenses = profit? 

Knowing how he is about budgeting, there isn't going to be any major surprises.  The org will have mapped it all out by now. 

[Warfarin]

40 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

Based on what he's done in the past.  He has said a million times that the luxury tax has no bearing on payroll.  The budget was decided weeks if not months ago.  And their budget projections for the next 3-4 years are probably already in place. 

Do you think there's something different about expected revenue for 2022?  Because increased revenue would drive the budget.  The team's expenses are going to stay roughly the same or go up based of the new CBA.  And probably not by a huge amount in either direction.  

What about his normal pattern gives you any indication that he's suddenly going to fundamentally alter the equation of revenue minus expenses = profit? 

Knowing how he is about budgeting, there isn't going to be any major surprises.  The org will have mapped it all out by now. 

And, to be fair, he has already spent ~45mil or so on payroll for this upcoming year (Syndergaard, Loup, Iglesias, Lorenzen), so yes, likely the bulk of the spending has already been done.

Likely there's still another 10-15mil left to be spent, maybe up to 20mil if there's a deal he really feels worth pursuing.

[Inside Pitch]

This lockout is lame. 

I want some team to be shady, sign a MLB talent to a minor league contract just to watch the shit storm that would follow.  There are probably rules, or the significant risk of running afoul of the rest of the owners but at least it would be entertaining.

It would be especially awesome if it was the Astros. 

[Chuck]

5 hours ago, Inside Pitch said:

This lockout is lame. 

I want some team to be shady, sign a MLB talent to a minor league contract just to watch the shit storm that would follow.  There are probably rules, or the significant risk of running afoul of the rest of the owners but at least it would be entertaining.

It would be especially awesome if it was the Astros. 

Ha. I was coming on here to ask the question. Could a team sign a major league FA to a minor league deal and then give them an MLB extension when the lockout ends?

[Inside Pitch]

10 minutes ago, Chuckster70 said:

Ha. I was coming on here to ask the question. Could a team sign a major league FA to a minor league deal and then give them an MLB extension when the lockout ends?

Correa signing with someone on a 10 year 380 million dollar minor league contract would make for some fun.

[Wisconsin27]

8 hours ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

I have no idea what Detmers will be. And he could be a giant letdown (hes an Angel prospect, so he will be).

But this is my take, too. He has a chance to be a front end starter, the first weve had and developed in like a decade.

If the trade was straight up? I probably would. Because we need a good pitcher NOW. But him, plus others? Pass (personally).

Nothing personal here for you or Dawg.  My concern is this.  If we aren't willing to overspend in FA for a top of rotation starter and our mindset is we don't want to trade the potential of a young potential ace to acquire a proven one, then why do we also complain the FO/Arte aren't acquiring one during Mike's prime years?  

What is the solution?

 

[Warfarin]

7 hours ago, Wisconsin27 said:

Nothing personal here for you or Dawg.  My concern is this.  If we aren't willing to overspend in FA for a top of rotation starter and our mindset is we don't want to trade the potential of a young potential ace to acquire a proven one, then why do we also complain the FO/Arte aren't acquiring one during Mike's prime years?  

What is the solution?

 

Develop them.  

Look at Ohtani - he became a top-of-the-rotation caliber SP this year.  Also - a healthy Syndergaard is very much a top-of-the-rotation SP, too.

As it stands, we have two guys who profile as those kinds of SPs.  While having a rotation full of them would be nice, having 2 is a very good start.  The key thing we need beyond that is solid mid-rotation SPs AND quality backend SP depth.

Historically, we've struggled a lot with having quality depth.  Each organization needs effectively around 9-10 SPs who can step in and make starts, given how many injuries occur over a full year.

As it stands now, we have the following SPs:  Ohtani, Syndergaard, Sandoval, Suarez, Lorenzen, Barria, Canning, Detmers, Junk.

I'd say we have two top-of-the rotation caliber SPs, several who profile as solid mid-rotation guys (Sandoval, Suarez, possibly Canning, possibly Detmers), and multiple backend SPs (Lorezen maybe, Barria, Junk).  Now that said, both Canning and Detmers could probably use some further development before they're counting on again, which is why having another SP option would help improve our overall depth and prevent us from having to utilize subpar options to start games.

This actually holds true for the offense, too.  When injuries mounted last year, we were rolling out some pretty awful lineups due to a lack of depth.

[Junkballer]

11 hours ago, Wisconsin27 said:

Nothing personal here for you or Dawg.  My concern is this.  If we aren't willing to overspend in FA for a top of rotation starter and our mindset is we don't want to trade the potential of a young potential ace to acquire a proven one, then why do we also complain the FO/Arte aren't acquiring one during Mike's prime years?  

What is the solution?

 

Your posts have been well-stated and capture the feelings of a lot of fans so I don't direct this at you but as general food for thought.

At what point do we let go the sins of the former FO's past and give this one some leeway in moving towards a sustainable plan for long term success?  Yes, the Trout/Ohtani window is 2 years and they should definitely try to round out the team to make them plausible playoff this off-season, however, that doesn't necessarily mean stacking the rotation nor does it mean if they don't that they've blown that window. 

They clearly need another #3 pitcher to push Sandoval/Suarez back in the order, however, a TOR at this juncture is a want, not a need.  The prospects they have that may be coveted by other teams is a short list and none of those pitchers are at the apex of their prospect value.  The reason fans are clamoring for pitching is exactly because of the past failures to draft and develop pitching, so it seems to be contradictory to fault them now for not being willing to go down that road.

There will be a time for them to trade pitching prospects but I would say that time is not now, at least not for their Detmers' and Bachmans'.  There are other, greater, team needs that a Castillo just won't overshadow and they will be in a much better position to go "all-in" at the trade deadline or next offseason when their primary pitching prospects will be more highly valued and those below will have had a window within which to be properly evaluated.  If it weren't for the theoretical Trout/Ohtani window and fan's collective disgust at the underperformance of the past, we would be looking at a methodical, prospect-cultivating FO culture in a much better light.

 

Edited December 5, 2021 by Junkballer

[Dtwncbad]

Some fans clearly believe that  Detmers/Sandoval/Canning/Bachman are the right players to just hold on to to “solve” the pitching problem.

I am curious if these specific fans would want the Angels to spend big money on an offensive player.

If you think the pitching will be right with the bodies the team has already, then surely you would favor the team bucking up for a premium bat, right?

[tdawg87]

2 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Some fans clearly believe that  Detmers/Sandoval/Canning/Bachman are the right players to just hold on to to “solve” the pitching problem.

I am curious if these specific fans would want the Angels to spend big money on an offensive player.

If you think the pitching will be right with the bodies the team has already, then surely you would favor the team bucking up for a premium bat, right?

Improving the team is improving the team.

[AngelsLakersFan]

5 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

If you think the pitching will be right with the bodies the team has already, then surely you would favor the team bucking up for a premium bat, right?

They don't need a bat, they need a shortstop.

[Wisconsin27]

36 minutes ago, Junkballer said:

Your posts have been well-stated and capture the feelings of a lot of fans so I don't direct this at you but as general food for thought.

At what point do we let go the sins of the former FO's past and give this one some leeway in moving towards a sustainable plan for long term success?  Yes, the Trout/Ohtani window is 2 years and they should definitely try to round out the team to make them plausible playoff this off-season, however, that doesn't necessarily mean stacking the rotation nor does it mean if they don't that they've blown that window. 

They clearly need another #3 pitcher to push Sandoval/Suarez back in the order, however, a TOR at this juncture is a want, not a need.  The prospects they have that may be coveted by other teams is a short list and none of those pitchers are at the apex of their prospect value.  The reason fans are clamoring for pitching is exactly because of the past failures to draft and develop pitching, so it seems to be contradictory to fault them now for not being willing to go down that road.

There will be a time for them to trade pitching prospects but I would say that time is not now, at least not for their Detmers' and Bachmans'.  There are other, greater, team needs that a Castillo just won't overshadow and they will be in a much better position to go "all-in" at the trade deadline or next offseason when their primary pitching prospects will be more highly valued and those below will have had a window within which to be properly evaluated.  If it weren't for the theoretical Trout/Ohtani window and fan's collective disgust at the underperformance of the past, we would be looking at a methodical, prospect-cultivating FO culture in a much better light.

 

Thanks and very well stated.  Your post and Warfarin's as well both emphasize a common thread; more time is needed for our prospects/pitchers to develop.  I don't disagree at all and organizationally I believe it's the correct pathway (and I think why I appreciate the work Billy did here more than most).  

It's just so hard to come to terms with knowing the solution you guys are suggesting will move us beyond the two year window.  I am optimistic Mike will be in the playoffs in an Angel uniform, I just hope it is time for him to be a true asset on ."that team and not the "one-time annual MVP candidate".

Where the three of us disagree is in the value of the TOR starters.  I am likely a bit old school and know it's not a requirement to have 3 TOR's (I live in Brewer country and they have been successful with a strong bullpen), but on the whole, it just seems teams in October have tremendous pitching.  I don't see ours as comparable at the moment and am not optimistic it will be developed or attained in the next two years. 

Again, I suppose I just need to come to terms with it.