Around The League Thread

[coolhandluke121]

Just for fun, what package of brewers prospects would you be willing to give up for Trout? Assume you have to somewhat conform to what LAA would need to even consider it if their situation deteriorates, but don't assume it has to be exactly fair value. Just a real competitive offer. And participating doesn't mean advocating for it or thinking it could actually happen.

[wichmae]

Just for fun, what package of brewers prospects would you be willing to give up for Trout? Assume you have to somewhat conform to what LAA would need to even consider it if their situation deteriorates, but don't assume it has to be exactly fair value. Just a real competitive offer. And participating doesn't mean advocating for it or thinking it could actually happen.

Our entire top 7 plus Hader

[El Duderino]

The bigger risk is that he bolts in three years if the Angels keep missing the playoffs.

They don't have to rush into trading him, but the clock is ticking on his contract running out and i doubt he'll stay without playoff berths given he'll get paid an insane amount of money wherever he is.

Absolutely. I actually mentioned that it's a real fear you have to have that he leaves for nothing in 3 years.

Just look at the historical trades of the best players in baseball and they generally end up being extremely lopsided. If a top 5 prospect is dealt, it is relatively likely that the team trading him doesn't believe he is the next Mike Trout. They would not be trading him in 99% of the cases if so.

Another thing to consider is the ages (or distance from the majors) of the prospects. If you trade Mike Trout tomorrow given this roster, you probably should be trading for guys that still need to spend 2 more years in the minors. Why? Because if you trade for guys ready for the majors, you are burning probably 3 years of those guys' career while your roster is in shambles. Now you're gambling that the back-end of those players' rookie deals are good because you're only getting 3 years of that.

I don't agree with this

The Angels aren't a small market franchise who has to heavily factor service time into every decision. If a key piece or two was major league ready or say a really productive rookie, i wouldn't fret that much. The by far biggest key for me would be trying to land a player or two i was most confident could become an impact player in the majors, regardless of how close or far from the majors. I'd steer very clear of pitchers in the low minors for example as a main piece.

Come the end of the 2018 season, if the Angels are still floundering in mediocrity, that's when the heat on them will get stronger. It's a tough spot given you are talking about a guy who very well could end up going down as one of the best players ever, but if he balks at signing an extension, the Angels have to at least field offers.

[Kerb Hohl]

The bigger risk is that he bolts in three years if the Angels keep missing the playoffs.

They don't have to rush into trading him, but the clock is ticking on his contract running out and i doubt he'll stay without playoff berths given he'll get paid an insane amount of money wherever he is.

Absolutely. I actually mentioned that it's a real fear you have to have that he leaves for nothing in 3 years.

Just look at the historical trades of the best players in baseball and they generally end up being extremely lopsided. If a top 5 prospect is dealt, it is relatively likely that the team trading him doesn't believe he is the next Mike Trout. They would not be trading him in 99% of the cases if so.

Another thing to consider is the ages (or distance from the majors) of the prospects. If you trade Mike Trout tomorrow given this roster, you probably should be trading for guys that still need to spend 2 more years in the minors. Why? Because if you trade for guys ready for the majors, you are burning probably 3 years of those guys' career while your roster is in shambles. Now you're gambling that the back-end of those players' rookie deals are good because you're only getting 3 years of that.

I don't agree with this

The Angels aren't a small market franchise who has to heavily factor service time into every decision. If a key piece or two was major league ready or say a really productive rookie, i wouldn't fret that much. The by far biggest key for me would be trying to land a player or two i was most confident could become an impact player in the majors, regardless of how close or far from the majors. I'd steer very clear of pitchers in the low minors for example as a main piece.

Come the end of the 2018 season, if the Angels are still floundering in mediocrity, that's when the heat on them will get stronger. It's a tough spot given you are talking about a guy who very well could end up going down as one of the best players ever, but if he balks at signing an extension, the Angels have to at least field offers.

My point was not for cost savings. My point was let's say the great scenario happened where you traded for 2 guys that will make several All-Star games.

They come up in 2018 with a supporting cast of Ricky Nolasco, Kole Calhoun, and Albert Pujols.

That team sucks. It misses the playoffs. You're likely 2-3 years away from other prospects coming up to help unless you sign 3 or 4 impact free agents. Then when the team is ready to go, you only have 3 years left of those guys.

You traded a 3-year window of Mike Trout for a 3 year-window of likely inferior players that have a high probability of busting or only being mediocre.

[trwi7]

If they can finally get all of Heaney, Skaggs and Richards pitching at the same time, the Angels aren't that bad. Simmons is in his prime and is a monster defender. Calhoun is having a bit of a down year and not a fall off a cliff type player so he could bounce back. They could try to re-sign Upton. They should release Pujols and cut their losses but never will. They have a decent enough core to build around Trout but they spent stupidly and are now paying for it, so unless they're willing to spend to counter the mistakes of a few years ago, then yeah, it might make sense to move Trout.

[trwi7]

Verlander to Houston for Perez (#46 prospect on MLB Pipeline), Cameron (37th overall pick in 2015 with an .815 OPS in A ball as a 20 year old) and Rogers a 21 year old good defensive catcher with an .824 OPS between A and A+ this year.

[Kerb Hohl]

The Angels will have some money to spend to counter some of their bad moves. It might be too little, too late given the players available this coming offseason.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[El Duderino]

Verlander to Houston for Perez (#46 prospect on MLB Pipeline), Cameron (37th overall pick in 2015 with an .815 OPS in A ball as a 20 year old) and Rogers a 21 year old good defensive catcher with an .824 OPS between A and A+ this year.

I like Houston rolling the dice here.

Verlander has pitched really well since the All Star break, his velocity is up, and the Astros have a farm system which can handle losing some prospects. Come the playoffs, if Verlander pitches as he has been of late, it could be the difference between reaching the World Series and not.

[wichmae]

IM really glad the Vernader saga is over. Thats a steep price tag for Verlander.

[Kerb Hohl]

Even though I still think Verlander is good when he needs to be...I would not have paid anywhere close to that price.

More importantly, Mike Cameron's son was traded so we can all feel old.

[coolhandluke121]

This could work out even better for Houston than the Carlos Gomez trade. Surprised they still go this route once in a while when discipline and patience got them where they are and could keep them there for a decade. Will they be able to afford Keuchel in 1.2 years? I hope the Brewers never do anything like this. I'd much rather have a young team with a low payroll and overpay a lot in free agency dollars than do something like this and overpay prospects. Houston had a chance this year anyway and could have overpaid Arrieta or Lynn or Darvish if they wanted a starter so bad.

I was obviously joking about trading three top-10 prospects for him, but I guess that's what it would have taken.

[coolhandluke121]

Just for fun, what package of brewers prospects would you be willing to give up for Trout? Assume you have to somewhat conform to what LAA would need to even consider it if their situation deteriorates, but don't assume it has to be exactly fair value. Just a real competitive offer. And participating doesn't mean advocating for it or thinking it could actually happen.

Our entire top 7 plus Hader

I might balk at that. Would include more prospects but not as many MLB-ready ones. Need those cheap contributors if you're going for it all in this way.

[Kerb Hohl]

This could work out even better for Houston than the Carlos Gomez trade. Surprised they still go this route once in a while when discipline and patience got them where they are and could keep them there for a decade. Will they be able to afford Keuchel in 1.2 years? I hope the Brewers never do anything like this. I'd much rather have a young team with a low payroll and overpay a lot in free agency dollars than do something like this and overpay prospects. Houston had a chance this year anyway and could have overpaid Arrieta or Lynn or Darvish if they wanted a starter so bad.

I was obviously joking about trading three top-10 prospects for him, but I guess that's what it would have taken.

I'm assuming they're a team that when they're ramped up and competing, they will spend at or near the luxury tax.

So the answer to most of that is: Yes.

Way back in one of the threads where we debated this, [assuming we didn't give up many prospects in a trade] this is why I liked Verlander. His contract is a lot of money...but it's short. Lance Lynn and Alex Cobb probably will command 5-6 years.

Verlander doesn't really cut into the years that they have to pay everyone.

Verlander is [probably] done after 2019 unless his option vests, it means he pitched really well. They can start paying Keuchel that year because nobody else will be a free agent. They still have plenty of room in 2019. Once all arbitrations are factored in, most of their roster is under contract at around $100 million.

After that, they have a huge free agent per year, but Verlander will be gone. Altuve after '19, Springer after '20, McCullers/Correa after '21.

The year 2022 or so will be interesting. I'm assuming that all of their stars I just listed will average somewhere in the ballpark of $30 million/year. They could have $150 million/year tied up in Springer, Altuve, McCullers, Correa, Keuchel if they choose to keep all of these guys. That doesn't even factor in Bregman after that or a helpful player like Marwin Gonzalez.

[crkone]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/sports/baseball/boston-red-sox-stealing-signs-yankees.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

For decades, spying on another team has been as much a part of the gamesmanship of baseball as brushback pitches and hard slides. The Red Sox have apparently added a modern — and illicit — twist: They used an Apple Watch to gain an advantage against the Yankees and other teams.

Investigators for Major League Baseball have determined that the Boston Red Sox, who are in first place in the American League East and likely headed to the playoffs, executed a scheme to illicitly steal hand signals from opponents’ catchers in games against the second-place Yankees and other teams, according to several people briefed on the matter.

The baseball inquiry began about two weeks ago, after the Yankees’ general manager, Brian Cashman, filed a detailed complaint with the commissioner’s office that included video the Yankees shot of the Red Sox dugout during a three-game series in Boston last month.

The Yankees, who had long been suspicious of the Red Sox stealing catchers’ signs in Fenway Park, contended the video showed a member of the Red Sox training staff looking at his Apple Watch in the dugout and then relaying a message to players, who may have then been able to use the information to know the type of pitch that was going to be thrown, according to the people familiar with the case.

Baseball investigators corroborated the Yankees’ claims based on video the commissioner’s office uses for instant replay and broadcasts, the people said. The commissioner’s office then confronted the Red Sox, who admitted that their trainers had received signals from video replay personnel and then relayed that information to some players — an operation that had been in place for at least several weeks.

The Red Sox responded in kind on Tuesday, filing a complaint against the Yankees, claiming that the team uses a camera from its television network, YES, exclusively to steal signs during games.

heh

[crkone]

Read on Twitter

[ReasonablySober]

FENGAHZI

[blazza18]

Dodgers weren't the first division to clinch. Nats only 4 games behind now for best record.

[BUCKnation]

Annoying to not gain one game on the Rockies when they play the Dodgers away

[MickeyDavis]

Cleveland goes for 19 in a row and draws 18k. Unreal.

[coolhandluke121]