...is that the Angels wanted to keep Lackey but he is ticked off at Scoscia not trusting him enough in the post-sesaon and wanting a bit more money than they can afford to offer.
Also word from Anaheim was that Vlad Guerrero wants to stay an Angel but the Angels want to go another way (like...the Granderson way with Hunter moving over to RF and Abreu playing left or DHing). I calculated (before the Angels took an even bigger chunk of their payroll out than I thought they would to buy back Abreu) that they had roughly 35 million to spend in 2010. Let's run the numbers again - courtesy of Cot's great obligation spreadsheet (this stuff is GREAT)
In 2010:
CF) Torii Hunter (18.5 M)
OF) Gary Matthews Jr. (11.4)
OF) Bobby Abreu (9.0)
CL) Brian Fuentes (9.0)
SP) Scott Kazmir (8.0)
SP) Ervin Santana (6.0)
RP) Scot Shields (5.35)
RP) Justin Speier (5.25)
C) Mike Napoli (4 - Arb 2 esitmate up from 2 in 2009)
DH) Juan Rivera (3.25)
IF) Maicer Izturis (3 - Arb 3 estimate up form 1.6 in 2009)
1B) Kendry Morales (1.2)
Those are the guys who are at least Arb2 and that will cost them a total of roughly 84 million dollars.
But their problems get worse. Look at this big honking list of Angels players who are hitting their first year of arbitration that they can't possibly lock up to long term contracts all at once!
SP) Joe Saunders
2B) Howie Kendrick
SP) Jered Weaver
SS) Erick Aybar
C) Jeff Mathis
OF) Reggie Willits
Assuming those guys cost the team about 8 million dollars combined in 2010, we're up 92 million in salary obligations.
Their payroll last year was $113.7 Million though they've shown a willingness to go up to $120 M for the right player. That means they have 28 million to spend to improve their ballclub this year, but they absolutely CANNOT be signing long term contracts for big free agents, because the 6 guys that cost them 8 million in 2010 will probably cost them 20 million in 2011, they have several contracts that escalate to higher dollar values in 2011 and oh yes...they're going to be a year older and a year more likely to require extra help.
Reagins is completely and totally screwed. I wonder if he realizes it yet?
=== O-Dawg ===
I/O: Jason Churchill hears, or opines, that Orlando Hudson would prefer to stay in the National League.
Crunch: If I were him, I would too. Hudson is just the type of player who can easily drop off quickly after the age of 30. He's been out of the AL since 2005. I don't care for his chances to play well in Safeco Field. Maybe one year's worth.
I/O: Larry Stone points out that Hudson would cost the M's #18 overall to sign Hudson.
Crunch: Hudson was an interesting suggestion as a lateral move vs. Jose Lopez -- Hudson being roughly a push for Lopez in the very short-term -- and freeing you up to deal Lopez in a blockbuster.
One of my fave roto players five years ago, O-Dawg has to step a little more carefully and deftly these days, like 50-year-old Michael thinkin' This Is It, still got the groove but gotta pace yourself, man.
Looks like this cyber-discussion is dying on the vine.
.
=== Godzilla ===
I/O: It's speculated that Matsui would avoid Seattle because he doesn't like (or doesn't want to share glory with) Ichiro.
Crunch: this in regards to a player who would be leaving the New York Yankees? :- )
But I don't understand the situation that well, and I guess Taro and IceX could comment as to whether Matsui would be likely to pick Anaheim over Seattle due to Ichi-reasons.
.
I/O: It's also doubted that Seattle would want Matsui because they want their DH to help in the outfield.
Crunch: again we frazz out here: would this mean that Nick Johnson, Adam Dunn, etc., are nonissues for 2010?
As with roto, multiple positions are always a very sweet bonus on a player. But in real MLB, options are far more limited than people realize. You may only have a choice of two or three players who can legitimately help you, not ten or twelve.
.
I/O: Dr. D speculates elsewhere that Matsui might not be the M's kind of guy on a personal level.
Crunch: We welcome input on that. :- )
.
=== John Lackey ===
I/O: E-v-e-r-y-b-o-d-y agrees that this could jell, if Lackey isn't going to insist on $100M.
Crunch: Dr. D has been around long enough to know that there are plenty of surprises in this game. He doesn't take it as a given that the M's wouldn't hand John Lackey a huge contract if it brought him here.
Just the same, am sure the M's would love a reasonable deal -- and in this market of paying $5M to shortstops worth $9M and $4M to first basemen worth $12M, you've got to spend your money wisely.
I'm all for Stars & Scrubs, but if Lackey's taking 90 cents on his WAR dollar and everybody else is taking 50 cents on the WAR dollar, take the 50.
.
Crunch: Just the same, can't you see it?
A resurgent 320/360/525 Vlad, a 17-6, 2.75 Lackey, both in blue ... alongside The Next Gen of Felix, Morrow, Branyan, Gutierrez, Ichiro .... the Angels reaching back, punching the M's and breaking their hands like Jim Carrey's Riddler?
I'd love to see the Next-Gen M's pass the 90-W mark (and the Angels) and then see Lackey and Vlad pile on, beating the Angels about the head and shoulders in the Z era.
Can you visualize it? :- )
Cheers,
Dr D
Comments
Why isn't that a main article?
OK, maybe two. How many of the Morales - Weaver - Kendrick etc group can they keep around longer-term...
Weaver's coming into his 5th year, same as Felix. Time to pay him or trade him pretty quick here?
I want to compare Zduriencik's philosophy to Reagins' philosophy for discussion...because the Angels are looking pretty boned to me unless they can find some way to trade their arb-eligible minor stars for prospects who are close...which is harder and harder to do these days.