2014 MLB transactions

[SouthSideRyan]

I know that we've all been conditioned to not care about what major league teams do, but they have a much better [expletive] major league team.

 

And they have that four-leaf clover generated Mike Trout

 

And can carry a payroll above $8.54 this decade

Edited July 19, 2014 by SouthSideRyan

[davell]

Would you trade franchises right now?

 

 

Yes.

 

But I get the sense half of you wouldn't trade the Astros for the Angels right now.

 

I honestly don't think you would. Even if PTR is broke and they [expletive] up the future TV rights, there's enough young talent already here to go on a Tampa type run, never breaking 100 mill in payroll.

 

Outside of Trout and playing in a bigger market(but second fiddle), what do they have? And why would you take them?

[XZero771679666304]

Would you trade franchises right now?

 

 

Yes.

 

 

I'd love to hear your argument as to why, provided it's something more than "they're 20 games over, duh".

 

I have a feeling a lot of it is #PTR

 

And that certainly has some validity, but like you said, money probably isn't going to solve the problems they have coming.

[Guest]

I know that we've all been conditioned to not care about what major league teams do, but they have a much better [expletive] major league team.

 

And they have that four-leaf clover generated Mike Trout

 

And can carry a payroll above $8.54 this decade

 

This year it is finally working after two years of [expletive] and those guys only getting older. And they have how much money and years tied up in Hamilton (33) and Pujols (34)?

 

Sidenote: I hadn't realized Pujols had picked it back up. Guess it makes sense given how hot they've been. I knew he had started off pretty well and then had tailed back off.

[SouthSideRyan]

I know that we've all been conditioned to not care about what major league teams do, but they have a much better [expletive] major league team.

 

And they have that four-leaf clover generated Mike Trout

 

And can carry a payroll above $8.54 this decade

 

This year it is finally working after two years of [expletive] and those guys only getting older. And they have how much money and years tied up in Hamilton (33) and Pujols (34)?

 

Sidenote: I hadn't realized Pujols had picked it back up. Guess it makes sense given how hot they've been. I knew he had started off pretty well and then had tailed back off.

 

89 win seasons now [expletive].

[Guest]

The difference in financial muscle doesn't really mean a whole lot when Pujols, Hamilton, Weaver, and Wilson are due 85 million next year and 97 million in 2016 while they hope they stay healthy and can reach a league average level of production. The Angels are at about 2011 on the Phillies trajectory, it may not be quite as swift because of Trout but I would rather be many, many other franchises than them.

[XZero771679666304]

I know that we've all been conditioned to not care about what major league teams do, but they have a much better [expletive] major league team.

 

And they have that four-leaf clover generated Mike Trout

 

And can carry a payroll above $8.54 this decade

 

This year it is finally working after two years of [expletive] and those guys only getting older. And they have how much money and years tied up in Hamilton (33) and Pujols (34)?

 

Sidenote: I hadn't realized Pujols had picked it back up. Guess it makes sense given how hot they've been. I knew he had started off pretty well and then had tailed back off.

 

89 win seasons now [expletive].

 

Regardless, they haven't made the playoffs since 2009, are no better positioned to win in the near future than the Cubs are, and far less better positioned in the mid-long term than the Cubs are, almost regardless of the financials.

 

They are certainly much better right now, but that's about it. I'd say the odds of that being the case two years from now are fairly slim.

 

You wouldn't trade positions, and you know it.

[SouthSideRyan]

They have Weaver/Richards/Skaggs/Wilson through 2016. They have the best offense in baseball, and it's not just Trout. Freese is their only starter with a wRc+ below 100. Their big money guys (Pujols/Hamilton/Wilson) are the only ones you could consider "old" (33/34/33)

[SouthSideRyan]

I know that we've all been conditioned to not care about what major league teams do, but they have a much better [expletive] major league team.

 

And they have that four-leaf clover generated Mike Trout

 

And can carry a payroll above $8.54 this decade

 

This year it is finally working after two years of [expletive] and those guys only getting older. And they have how much money and years tied up in Hamilton (33) and Pujols (34)?

 

Sidenote: I hadn't realized Pujols had picked it back up. Guess it makes sense given how hot they've been. I knew he had started off pretty well and then had tailed back off.

 

89 win seasons now [expletive].

 

Regardless, they haven't made the playoffs since 2009, are no better positioned to win in the near future than the Cubs are, and far less better positioned in the mid-long term than the Cubs are, almost regardless of the financials.

 

They are certainly much better right now, but that's about it. I'd say the odds of that being the case two years from now are fairly slim.

 

You wouldn't trade positions, and you know it.

 

THE NEAR FUTURE?? FOR FUCKS SAKE What the hell is 2014 and 2015?

[XZero771679666304]

I know that we've all been conditioned to not care about what major league teams do, but they have a much better [expletive] major league team.

 

And they have that four-leaf clover generated Mike Trout

 

And can carry a payroll above $8.54 this decade

 

This year it is finally working after two years of [expletive] and those guys only getting older. And they have how much money and years tied up in Hamilton (33) and Pujols (34)?

 

Sidenote: I hadn't realized Pujols had picked it back up. Guess it makes sense given how hot they've been. I knew he had started off pretty well and then had tailed back off.

 

89 win seasons now [expletive].

 

Regardless, they haven't made the playoffs since 2009, are no better positioned to win in the near future than the Cubs are, and far less better positioned in the mid-long term than the Cubs are, almost regardless of the financials.

 

They are certainly much better right now, but that's about it. I'd say the odds of that being the case two years from now are fairly slim.

 

You wouldn't trade positions, and you know it.

 

THE NEAR FUTURE?? FOR [expletive] SAKE What the hell is 2014 and 2015?

 

2014 is obviously "right now", unless you know something about time that I don't. I think it's entirely conceivable that the Cubs could be better in 2015. There is a lot of volatility with the Angels roster, and it's a fair bet that they're not going to be better next year.

[imb]

still can't believe trout was the 25th pick.

 

I don't really recall how much of it had to do with bonus demands but it's still amazing.

I thought I remember reading a lot of had to do with teams not sending many scouts to cover HS baseball in the northeast

 

It was because the Orioles had drafted Billy Rowell really high the year before because of his crazy power profile, then discovered he couldn't actually play baseball. Trout is from the same area, so everyone said "oh, he must just be another Rowell, who only dominates because he plays against no competition" the next year.

[Guest]

@JimBowdenESPNxm: Yankees & Padres discussing deal that would send Ian Kennedy to Yankees in exchange for Eric Jagielo and Ian Clarkin according to a source

 

Why haven't the Padres accepted this trade yet?

[Tryptamine]

@JimBowdenESPNxm: Yankees & Padres discussing deal that would send Ian Kennedy to Yankees in exchange for Eric Jagielo and Ian Clarkin according to a source

 

Why haven't the Padres accepted this trade yet?

 

That would be a great haul for the Padres. Hell I might take Clarkin all by himself, as I don't particularly care that much about Jagielo. There's a lot of noise that his swing isn't going to work once he hits AA and AAA.

[abuck1220]

Would you trade franchises right now?

 

 

Yes.

 

But I get the sense half of you wouldn't trade the Astros for the Angels right now.

 

I honestly don't think you would. Even if PTR is broke and they [expletive] up the future TV rights, there's enough young talent already here to go on a Tampa type run, never breaking 100 mill in payroll.

 

 

that's what we're hoping/shooting for?

[jersey cubs fan]

Would you trade franchises right now?

 

 

Yes.

 

But I get the sense half of you wouldn't trade the Astros for the Angels right now.

 

I honestly don't think you would. Even if PTR is broke and they [expletive] up the future TV rights, there's enough young talent already here to go on a Tampa type run, never breaking 100 mill in payroll.

 

 

that's what we're hoping/shooting for?

 

Five 90 win seasons over seven seasons is good; however, I do not think that is good enough to justify the prolonged dive these guys took.

 

Even if that does begin next season, and you ignore 2012, that would mean five 90 win seasons over nine years. You would need a couple of those to be 100 win type juggernauts to start to justify the garbage time.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Five 90 win seasons over seven seasons is good; however, I do not think that is good enough to justify the prolonged dive these guys took.

 

Even if that does begin next season, and you ignore 2012, that would mean five 90 win seasons over nine years. You would need a couple of those to be 100 win type juggernauts to start to justify the garbage time.

 

That's the dirty little secret of The Plan. Unless they go on an unparalleled run in the current MLB environment, they aren't going to win enough to make up for the hole they've put themselves in.

[Derwood]

Five 90 win seasons over seven seasons is good; however, I do not think that is good enough to justify the prolonged dive these guys took.

 

Even if that does begin next season, and you ignore 2012, that would mean five 90 win seasons over nine years. You would need a couple of those to be 100 win type juggernauts to start to justify the garbage time.

 

That's the dirty little secret of The Plan. Unless they go on an unparalleled run in the current MLB environment, they aren't going to win enough to make up for the hole they've put themselves in.

 

Why do they have to balance anything out? Just wine nought toget into the post-season crap shoot every year.

 

Fun fact: the Cubs have something like the fifth or sixth best historical winning percentage in MLB

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Five 90 win seasons over seven seasons is good; however, I do not think that is good enough to justify the prolonged dive these guys took.

 

Even if that does begin next season, and you ignore 2012, that would mean five 90 win seasons over nine years. You would need a couple of those to be 100 win type juggernauts to start to justify the garbage time.

 

That's the dirty little secret of The Plan. Unless they go on an unparalleled run in the current MLB environment, they aren't going to win enough to make up for the hole they've put themselves in.

 

Why do they have to balance anything out? Just wine nought toget into the post-season crap shoot every year.

 

Fun fact: the Cubs have something like the fifth or sixth best historical winning percentage in MLB

 

Because they *aren't* getting into the postseason crap shot "every year." They've failed to get into it three years in a row.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

This is the part where someone says that Epstein inherited the worst MLB team in history and literally didn't even field a farm system, so it's perfectly ordinary for him to still have one of the worst teams in baseball after three years.

[jersey cubs fan]

Five 90 win seasons over seven seasons is good; however, I do not think that is good enough to justify the prolonged dive these guys took.

 

Even if that does begin next season, and you ignore 2012, that would mean five 90 win seasons over nine years. You would need a couple of those to be 100 win type juggernauts to start to justify the garbage time.

 

That's the dirty little secret of The Plan. Unless they go on an unparalleled run in the current MLB environment, they aren't going to win enough to make up for the hole they've put themselves in.

 

Why do they have to balance anything out? Just wine nought toget into the post-season crap shoot every year.

 

Fun fact: the Cubs have something like the fifth or sixth best historical winning percentage in MLB

 

The issue is the phrase "every year".

 

They've already spent a lot of time not winning enough to get into the "crap shoot" any year. You can't take a dive and focus exclusively on the farm system while losing an inordinate number of games and then claim you've won consistently. These years happened.

[Guest]

The Cubs with a ~100 million budget had zero chance of making the playoffs in 2012, only slightly better odds in 2013. This year you can say with better moves they could've had a shot. But if it makes you feel better to use phrasing like "taking a dive" and treating the 2012 season the same as 2015 and beyond, knock yourself out.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The Cubs with a ~100 million budget had zero chance of making the playoffs in 2012

 

That's dumb and by extension you're dumb, you dirty apologist.

 

It's uncanny how the assessment of our chances in each year always goes down after the fact, when it makes things look better to retcon those chances.

[Derwood]

Five 90 win seasons over seven seasons is good; however, I do not think that is good enough to justify the prolonged dive these guys took.

 

Even if that does begin next season, and you ignore 2012, that would mean five 90 win seasons over nine years. You would need a couple of those to be 100 win type juggernauts to start to justify the garbage time.

 

That's the dirty little secret of The Plan. Unless they go on an unparalleled run in the current MLB environment, they aren't going to win enough to make up for the hole they've put themselves in.

 

Why do they have to balance anything out? Just wine nought toget into the post-season crap shoot every year.

 

Fun fact: the Cubs have something like the fifth or sixth best historical winning percentage in MLB

 

The issue is the phrase "every year".

 

They've already spent a lot of time not winning enough to get into the "crap shoot" any year. You can't take a dive and focus exclusively on the farm system while losing an inordinate number of games and then claim you've won consistently. These years happened.

 

Yes, they've sucked (historically sucked) the last 3 years, but that doesn't mean you have to win 100 games the next 3 years to "balance" anything out. That's stupid.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Yes, they've sucked (historically sucked) the last 3 years, but that doesn't mean you have to win 100 games the next 3 years to "balance" anything out. That's stupid.

 

They need to make the playoffs enough to end their tenure having done so a reasonable percentage of the time.

 

Jim Hendry made it 3 times out of 9. Epstein's got some work to do to beat that.

[jersey cubs fan]

But if it makes you feel better to use phrasing like "taking a dive" and treating the 2012 season the same as 2015 and beyond, knock yourself out.

 

1) If it makes you feel better to pretend they didn't take a dive, knock yourself out.

2) I already made the point that you can go ahead and pretend 2012 didn't happen in order to appease the apologists that don't care about winning. And the comparison still doesn't look good.