Abreu ----> Angels

by r0ry on Feb 10, 2009 6:38 PM PST Comment 58 comments

Apparently it's a one year, 5 million dollar deal.

Is that still out of our price range? I thought that the speculation was that if we could shed half of Washburn's salary ($10 mil?) we might have had room for Abreu, back when he was looking for $8-10 mil.

Either way, seems like a hard deal for us to pass on. I'm sure the Angels have more appeal to Abreu though, seeing that they are division favorites.

0 recs | Comment 58 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

If he's in the OF I find this hilarious but if he's the DH (which is significantly more likely) it really fucking pisses me off.

by acblue on Feb 10, 2009 6:41 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

It'll be interesting

If everyone is healthy, I bet that he’d be almost exclusively DH, but if Vlad has health issues and Willits isn’t hitting, the temptation to DH Vlad and put Abreu in the field could be high.

by ubelmann on Feb 10, 2009 6:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Brown seems to think that this move would put Brandon Wood out of a job.

Isn’t it more likely that it would put Matthews out of a job?

by r0ry on Feb 10, 2009 6:47 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Does Wood still have an option left?

It seems like he should. This gives the Angels 6 OF/DH types (Vlad, Hunter, Willits, Matthews, Rivera, Abreu), and I don’t think any of them can be sent down without going through waivers (or being released as free agents), but if they can send an infielder down without losing him, it might be better in the long-run.

by ubelmann on Feb 10, 2009 7:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think Matthews had a job coming in other than back-up.

This may take some AB’s from him but it hurts Wood and Rivera more in terms of playing time.

by Sec 108 on Feb 10, 2009 7:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Fuck all.

This team is never going to win anything ever again.

by Robert on Feb 10, 2009 6:51 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

We'd have a better chance with him.

Obviously.

by r0ry on Feb 10, 2009 7:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Better, yes

Still highly unlikely though.

I’m not really in favor of throwing money or young talent away on rentals when we’re not really trying to win now anyways.

by OlSalty on Feb 10, 2009 7:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

We're a lot closer than you seem to think.

This division is bad and if $5mm is all it takes to land Abreu it’s annoying to me that we’re not going to do it.

by acblue on Feb 10, 2009 7:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree that if $5mil is the real price we should've pulled the trigger on it

But I don’t see Abreu putting us over the top either way. Yeah the division is terrible but let’s face the facts we’re still an awful team at the moment, probably worse than anyone else in the division.

We’ll get there, Z has made some really great moves but there is too much Bavasi sh*t to get over to turn us into a playoff team in one year. If that’s really the price tag for Abreu’s services I think the reason we didn’t sign him is that Z is clearly not trying to win this year.

by OlSalty on Feb 10, 2009 7:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Read Dave's post at USSMariner. Add at least $2million to what he is getting paid to lure him here.

by Sec 108 on Feb 10, 2009 7:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It's less an issue (for me) of "Dammit Zduriencik, why didn't you get this done!"

and more an issue of “Dammit, I can’t believe the Angels are getting a two win player for ~60% of market value.”

by acblue on Feb 10, 2009 7:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I can totally relate with this feeling.

by Sec 108 on Feb 11, 2009 9:15 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

thats crap

and pure conjecture on Dave’s part. Maybe $1mm but this was all about the money for the guy and he took what he could get now with plans on next year. Plus, income tax in LA makes the difference even less.

by bilbo on Feb 10, 2009 8:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Hmm...

pure conjecture on Dave’s part.

Maybe $1mm but this was all about the money for the guy and he took what he could get now with plans on next year

by acblue on Feb 10, 2009 8:19 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs

We don't even know if this is true yet

by OlSalty on Feb 10, 2009 8:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Keep this in mind.

The Angels won the division last year and we lost 101 games. If you were a free agent which of these two teams would you ask for more money from? There are other factors too, but that one alone is enough to not call it conjecture.

by Sec 108 on Feb 11, 2009 9:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

There's an interesting line of thought there, playing for a higher profile team that's projected to be successful.

Or taking a chance and playing for a rebuilding team, I don’t know where the M’s media exposure rates. I’m assuming pretty much fallen off the table. Like trying to recruit top players in the NCAA to WSU, they prefer universities with bigger media exposure.
If he’s part of a team with higher expectations and they flounder, how much does that affect his next contract? Versus the M’s, who might play above expectations, only maybe doesn’t get noticed?

by Kermit. on Feb 11, 2009 10:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not sure it is about exposure.

Players like a few things, playing time, winning and money. There are other variables to be sure, but those are the big ones. If the perceived chance of winning is small then you want more money and/or playing time.

by Sec 108 on Feb 11, 2009 11:12 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Good points, I hadn't thought it out along those lines.

I was thinking of him taking the field with aging veterans, if things go bad he and his reputation can get lumped in there with the rest of them. Versus being a big name on the M’s, if things don’t turn out great, then I would think he keeps clean. The expectations were nil anyway, and all the average or less bats, young players, etc take the blame. It’s just an interesting decision, there’s a lot of angles.
I’m not used to seeing contract numbers drop, or at least freeze a bit, not like this season, this many big names still unsigned.

by Kermit. on Feb 11, 2009 11:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

yes but

one could just as easily argue that he was interested in Seattle because of all the Latin players we have (which both he and his agent stated) and that the opportunity to play more here would allow him to post better numbers for him going into next offseason. If Seattle would have guaranteed the $ that LAA is offering with base+incentives, I bet he would have come to Seattle. Again, pure conjecture.

by bilbo on Feb 11, 2009 11:14 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Of course, it's not as though the Angels are bereft of Latin players.

and there is that whole Hispanic owner thing, too.

by msb on Feb 11, 2009 11:19 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Isn't it great knowing exactly what Dave knows?

by Graham on Feb 11, 2009 11:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Goddammit.

Is that the light at the end of the tunnel, or the headlights of an oncoming train?

by Benne on Feb 10, 2009 7:18 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

So that makes it:

6 outfielders, 3 who should be DHs, one who should not be on a major league roster.

the other angels fan

by Eyebrows on Feb 10, 2009 7:26 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Which one shouldn't be in the majors?

GMJ?

by Fin on Feb 10, 2009 8:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Willits?

by OlSalty on Feb 10, 2009 8:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Gary

Willits can at least play defense.

the other angels fan

by Eyebrows on Feb 10, 2009 9:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh God we are getting Griffey aren't we?

by hcoguy on Feb 10, 2009 7:26 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Probably, but I'm honestly starting to believe that the terms are going to be reasonable and that he's almost never going to see the OF.

We’ll overpay for his production most likely, but not by much. If he was going to come back I think that the circumstances under which he’ll do so will be far less insane that I feared this time last year.

by acblue on Feb 10, 2009 7:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Fun fact:

If the Bill James/Oliver projections are accurate, Griffey is a one win DH and worth ~$4.5mm on a one year deal.

by acblue on Feb 10, 2009 7:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

...

What is Bill James/Oliver projections of Abreu at DH? If Abreu signs to play in the OF then I am fine with the Angels signing him. If he signs to DH, it’s probably not for $5M. I guess we’ll see.

by Roy Weaver Stuckey on Feb 10, 2009 7:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs