Will Angelos pay for an arm, or is it business as usual

[bluehens45]

Garza looked very good in his last start. He seems to finally be coming around to 100% If he puts together another quality start or two I think he should be our #1 target. He wont cost us Bundy or Gausman and has the potential to be a very solid #2. The guy I would be really interested in is Travis Wood. I know he is 5-6 but he has 4 or 5 straight quality starts and a nice era. If the Indians fall out I would love to see us call about Justin Masterson or Ubaldo Jimenez. The other guy I think we should take a strong look at is Nolasco. I do not think he would cost as much as people think if we were willing to take on his full salary. I wonder what it would cost to land a package around Nolasco and Logan Morrison? We could use DH help and Morrison is a big LH bat we could we really use. I of course would also ask about Stanton and would be willing to trade one of Bundy or Gausman in package to land him. I know that is pipe dream.

[BrunoCherrytown]

When every MLB team gets that $25 million a year raise next year for the new national TV deal it'll be interesting to see if our payroll goes up say $25 million. You'll have a clear barometer on what's more important (winning or $$$$) to Angelos if a great player(s)/great fit(s) comes our way and we pass.

[weams]

When every MLB team gets that $25 million a year raise next year for the new national TV deal it'll be interesting to see if our payroll goes up say $25 million. You'll have a clear barometer on what's more important (winning or $$$$) to Angelos if a great player(s)/great fit(s) comes our way and we pass.

I'm sure he'll indicate that it went to paying for existing players.

[Can_of_corn]

I'm sure he'll indicate that it went to paying for existing players.

I'm expecting a settlement with the Nats and ownership blaming the new terms for payroll not going up as much as TV money + attendance + higher MASN ratings would indicate.

[Miamiorioles]

Angelos is all about the money

[Can_of_corn]

Angelos is all about the money

If you want to see an owner who is all about the money you don't have to go far.

Angelos, like most owners, is mostly about the money. He didn't have to spend a decade handing out bad contracts to relief pitchers and over the hill sluggers. If you look at any team under PA's reign as owner you will see where he spent money above and beyond what he had to spend, if his goal was actually maximizing profits.

[El Gordo]

So you'd be willing to part with Bundy or Gausman, plus 2 or 3 others to take on a ton of salary for a guy at the end of his career that has already had back issues?

Just because someone makes a high salary it doesn't guarantee that they're a superior talent. Nor does high payroll equal team success. Would you like to be in the situation that the Dodgers and Angels are in? Locked in to big money, long term deals to players clearly in decline is about the worst place to be as a franchise.

But their owners spent big money so WOO HOO!!

If you were to trade Bundy and say, Arrieta, and Wrght for Lee, you would be expecting Philly to be sending back a sizable chunk of his salary. Suppose you could have Lee for 15M on average for the next three years, who is more likely to take you to the WS within those 3 years, Lee or Bundy? With his injury, Bundy is not likely to even be in the rotation most of next season, if at all.

[weams]

I you were to trade Bundy and say, Arrieta, and Wrght for Lee, you would be expecting Philly to be sending back a sizable chunk of his salary. Suppose you could have Lee for 15M on average for the next three years, who is more likely to take you to the WS within those 3 years, Lee or Bundy? With his injury, Bundy is not likely to even be in the rotation most of next season, if at all.

Sure. Done. They don't eat 10. They don't want to trade Cliff at 25 to 27. As Darren O'Day would say to himself, "Boom."

[El Gordo]

Sure. Done. They don't eat 10. They don't want to trade Cliff at 25 to 27. As Darren O'Day would say to himself, "Boom."

Exactly. I'd up the ante to Bundy, Britton and Hader if they want to pay some more. We still have Gausmann, who will be in the rotation next year. It's not like Philly is broke. If they are trading Lee it's for players as close to major league ready as possible.

[primetime]

If you were to trade Bundy and say, Arrieta, and Wrght for Lee, you would be expecting Philly to be sending back a sizable chunk of his salary. Suppose you could have Lee for 15M on average for the next three years, who is more likely to take you to the WS within those 3 years, Lee or Bundy? With his injury, Bundy is not likely to even be in the rotation most of next season, if at all.

Cliff Lee could potentially be a better option than our pitching prospects. My post was more about the continual point of "if only Angelos would spend money....".

So I was merely illustrating that while we would all like to have an ace in our rotation, there wasn't just one sitting out there to be signed. Any move we attempted to make this offseason surely would've started with Bundy, Gausman or both, so you have to weigh that in the discussion.

If I could have Cliff Lee for 15 mill per, that would be something to seriously consider because this team is, IMO, about 90% of the way to being downright dominant.

[El Gordo]

Cliff Lee could potentially be a better option than our pitching prospects. My post was more about the continual point of "if only Angelos would spend money....".

So I was merely illustrating that while we would all like to have an ace in our rotation, there wasn't just one sitting out there to be signed. Any move we attempted to make this offseason surely would've started with Bundy, Gausman or both, so you have to weigh that in the discussion.

If I could have Cliff Lee for 15 mill per, that would be something to seriously consider because this team is, IMO, about 90% of the way to being downright dominant.

That would now have to cost Gausman, Britton and Hader. I'd still do it. Besides Gausman, what pitcher in our system has a good chance to impact our rotation between now and 2018?

[primetime]

That would now have to cost Gausman, Britton and Hader. I'd still do it. Besides Gausman, what pitcher in our system has a good chance to impact our rotation between now and 2018?

Looking out to 2018, I don't know. Perhaps Hunter Harvey or someone in the lower minors will emerge. But pitching is just so hard to forecast, which is why so much emphasis is put on inventory.

That said, if we were able to add ace type starter at about 60ish% of ace salary for the next 3 years, I'd roll the dice on giving up Gausman in a trade.

As I see it, I think we have a pretty nice window of 3-4 years where we can compete for a title. Our offense and defense is largely in place, we have the core of a good bullpen and some solid starters. Having a legit guy at the top of this rotation would be a game changer.

[El Gordo]

We have the position players in our core to compete over the next 4-5 years depending on extensions. But we don't have the pitching inventory in our system to compete. We can only acquire it through trade and FA, if we are to have the SP we need for the next 4-5 years. So if we are not willing to spend for it, forget about it.

[anrynike]

We have the position players in our core to compete over the next 4-5 years depending on extensions. But we don't have the pitching inventory in our system to compete. We can only acquire it through trade and FA, if we are to have the SP we need for the next 4-5 years. So if we are not willing to spend for it, forget about it.

:agree: