Skip to content

GM says Angels are “very, very unlikely” to sign Ryan Madson

Jan 5, 2012, 11:51 AM EDT

madson getty Getty Images

There have been surprisingly few teams linked to Ryan Madson since his reported four-year, $44 million deal with the Phillies fell through.

That led to some speculation that the Angels might make a run at him, but general manager Jerry Dipoto told Mike DiGiovanna of the Los Angeles Times that signing Madson is “very, very unlikely.”

Dipoto added that “what I’ll say with some degree of certainty is that our most significant acquisitions have already been made” and “closer has never been the real priority” because they’re comfortable with Jordan Walden in the role.

Walden blew a league-high 10 saves as a rookie, but also threw 60 innings with a 2.98 ERA, 67/26 K/BB ratio, and .223 opponents’ batting average. Right now he’s slated for ninth-inning duties, with Scott Downs and LaTroy Hawkins setting him up.

And Madson’s search for a contract anywhere near his almost-deal with the Phillies continues.

 

  1. jmcnick - Jan 5, 2012 at 12:04 PM

    Almost deal with the Phillies? I think that was Scott Boras floating that one out.

  2. WhenMattStairsIsKing - Jan 5, 2012 at 12:07 PM

    GM says “Hell no, are you out of your damn minds?? Why on earth would we sign a marginal overpriced less-experienced Boras client of a closer? What kind of heroin/Vicotin mix are you on? Get the hell out of my office!!!!” ~~~ would be the non-edited version of this article’s quote.

    • xmatt0926x - Jan 5, 2012 at 12:14 PM

      I’d say that the real version of what the GM is thinking is “yeah we want him but we can wait him out until his price drops to 2 years at $8 million per”.

      • WhenMattStairsIsKing - Jan 5, 2012 at 12:17 PM

        True, but that’s not nearly as fun to picture in the conversation.

      • xmatt0926x - Jan 5, 2012 at 12:17 PM

        Also, I don’t think you assemble the talent and dreams that the Angels have and leave the 9th inning to a guy like Walden who may or may not be able to do the job. The Angels need to win to justify that horrific Pujols contract.

      • CJ - Jan 5, 2012 at 12:43 PM

        how is that contract horriffic? that contract has earned them more than an additional $70 million a year for the next 10 years, and $100 a year for the ten years after that and that’s in TV money alone, AFTER netting out the money paid to pujols.

        This has been mentioned about 1000000000 times since the signing. I don’t understand how hard this is to understand. If any other team made that signing it’d have been idiotic, but given the situation the Angels were in, it was pure genius.

      • xmatt0926x - Jan 5, 2012 at 1:16 PM

        Is all of that tv contract the result of the Pujols signing? If that has been mentioned the billion times you say it has then I stand corrected. I have read several articles written by baseball writers much more in touch with the inner workings of baseball than I am who think it is a extremely risky contract for an aging player who while still great is starting to decline somewhat. I’m not really arguing your point that the Angels may have the boatlods of cash now to do that deal but does that make the deal itself a good one?

      • CJ - Jan 5, 2012 at 1:30 PM

        Put it this way. Would the Angels really be getting a $100 a year increase in the contract without signing the best player in baseball? Of course not.

        Now is every penny of that increase attributable to Pujols? Nope, there’s inflation and their WS win a fewyears back and other consideration as well, but I’d guess about 1/2 the increase is purely becuase they just got the best player in baseball. But the timing of the deals makes the relationship between the two obvious and there have been several articles in recent months from numerous sources that have covered the specifics. The long and short of that consensus is that, not only did the Angels sign Pujols for free, but they’re getting paid to have him on their team.

        I readily admit if you look at just the specifics of that deal in a vacuum it looks miserable, but that’s not a horrific contract by any stretch when put in proper perspective. Every other team in baseball would love to be getting paid to employ Pujols.

      • CJ - Jan 5, 2012 at 1:35 PM

        To answer your direct question more concise though, yes.

        If by spending boatloads of money, you can get boatloads more to spend on your team not only when Pujols is aging and would potentially be a huge drain on the payroll in any other scenario, the team now has more money to spend to keep the team competitvie even when Pujols is 42 and making $30 million a year (they still pocket an extra 70 M that year they can spend to acquire new talent).

        Now whether they actually do that or not is a different question, but it won’t be for a lack of money.

      • rooney24 - Jan 5, 2012 at 3:23 PM

        Pretty sure the TV contract was already in the works prior to signing Pujols and Wilson. Otherwise, how would the Angels justify spending the money? The TV contract didn’t come about BECAUSE of signing Pujols. I think CJ has the cause and effect backward.

      • cur68 - Jan 5, 2012 at 4:17 PM

        Not necessarily backwards, IMO. Its plausible that the contract was as lucrative as it is due to the simple fact that the Angels could say “We got a legit shot at Albert Pujols, gentlemen. That’s a crap ton of viewers right there. Now pay up accordingly and we can make that happen”. The 2 things are concurrent, with both sides taking a risk but with Lozano offering guarantees that his player will sign if the Angels make with the dough, and the Angels telling the network they got Pujols if the network makes with the dough. Perfectly reasonable.

  3. baseballisboring - Jan 5, 2012 at 12:10 PM

    I’d take a stab if I were the Reds. His price seems to keep slipping, and they’re still talking to Cordero, so they’re willing to spend a little bit on a closer.

    • WhenMattStairsIsKing - Jan 5, 2012 at 12:20 PM

      Jocketty always claims empty pockets. I see St Louis, Washington or Detroit as possible locations, and even those are a bit of a stretch.

      • baseballisboring - Jan 5, 2012 at 12:50 PM

        I could see STL. I don’t think Washington or Detroit would be in the mix. That’s the crazy thing, his market is so limited now he might end up taking a deal for like 2/16, which would make him more realistic for teams like STL or CIN.

      • natstowngreg - Jan 5, 2012 at 1:18 PM

        Madson-to-Nats remains where it has been — very unlikely, unless Storen or Clippard is traded. With Henry Rodriguez the likely 7th inning guy, based on his improvement late last season.

  4. screename529 - Jan 5, 2012 at 12:13 PM

    Dipoto’s quotes must mean they are about to sign Madson to a 6 year deal.

  5. uyf1950 - Jan 5, 2012 at 12:18 PM

    Someone should offer him the same deal Bell got from the Marlins. He’s worth that.

    • b7p19 - Jan 5, 2012 at 12:26 PM

      Maybe due to his youth, but he hasn’t been as good as Bell has he?

      • uyf1950 - Jan 5, 2012 at 12:33 PM

        He also hasn’t pitched in the same pitcher friendly ballpark as Bell. And as fans on this very site keep insisting a pitcher strike out to walk ration is a much better indicator for a pitcher. If that’s true Madson is better.

      • Jonny 5 - Jan 5, 2012 at 12:38 PM

        Some metrics say he’s been better than Bell lately. Who knows if Bell is falling off due to age. And Madson has seemed like he’s been improving. If I had to pick from the two for the same salary? I pick Madson every time. Unless it’s for entertainment value. Bell seems like a lot more fun.

      • uyf1950 - Jan 5, 2012 at 12:51 PM

        Jonny 5 – Question for you and a change of subject. What are the Phillies doing to complete their 25 man active roster. As best I can tell between committed salaries and arbitration cases that only accounts for 20 players. What’s up with that?

      • phillyphreak - Jan 5, 2012 at 1:13 PM

        Agree with Jonny5- over the past two years, Madson has been the better pitcher by most metrics (xFIP, tERA, SIERRA etc).

        @uyf1950. I think the Phillies are pretty much done with their roster management (at least major major moves). Depending on what site you look at you’ll find 20-25 players listed. Cot’s give you a pretty good idea on what it looks like.

        https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tSSu2Qy8G9pTSsguHAbeu-A&output=html

        Of course a good number of those players won’t make the roster but still.

      • Jonny 5 - Jan 5, 2012 at 1:16 PM

        They have 25 actually.

        http://pabaseball.blogspot.com/2011/12/philadelphia-phillies-2012-roster.html

        That includes Howard, but they have a few other players to take his place once he’s placed on the DL. Probably Posednik, Orr, or Martinez.

    • Ben - Jan 5, 2012 at 12:37 PM

      Yeah, but there’s not really a market for him, unless Texas has some free cash and decides they don’t trust Joe Nathan.

  6. westcoastredbird - Jan 5, 2012 at 12:51 PM

    If you’re right CJ then signing Madsen is a no brainer for the Angels and they’ll probably be the mystery team that signs Prince Fielder to DH and protect Pujols.

    • CJ - Jan 5, 2012 at 1:15 PM

      Of course I am right, but that doesn’t necessitate they spend every penny of it this season, especially when they have young, cheap, and more than capable players at both positions you meantioned already (Trumbo, Walden).

      No one’s crazy enough to commit that type of new money into a team in one year, but you can (and you should) expect them to continue to be active in FA and trades in the coming years to address actually legitimate needs.

  7. lyon810 - Jan 5, 2012 at 12:54 PM

    DiPoto is a beautiful liar.mmmmmmmmm

  8. muckthefets23 - Jan 5, 2012 at 2:11 PM

    In retrospect, Madson should have just accepted arbitration and waited til next year to score his huge contract. I’m again going to show my hatred for Scott boras and solely blame him for putting Madson in this situation. Had he not scoffed at the idea of accepting a one year deal he could have hit the jackpot next winter when the closer market wasn’t overflowing.

  9. albie23 - Jan 5, 2012 at 3:58 PM

    I 110% agree with CJ, it has been said that the TV contracts alone will pay for the Pujols & Wilson contracts. On a different note…why are ignorant people saying his numbers are declining? True, his numbers were a bit down last year (37 HR & 99 RBI) but he did injure his wrist/forearm last season and to top it off it was a contract year which might have mentally screwed with him. He was ONE RBI short from extending his streak to 11 straight seasons with 30 HR & 100 RBI’s. All in all, Angels & Pujols will be fine.

    • Ari Collins - Jan 5, 2012 at 4:16 PM

      Sure, the Pujols contract is paid for by the TV contract. But the TV contract could also have paid for BETTER player contracts that would help the team more.

      I’d rather have Fielder and Grienke (available next year), which would cost little more than Pujols alone.

  10. mojosmagic - Jan 5, 2012 at 6:07 PM

    He might be washing car for Boras if this continues.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

This was 'the perfect baseball game'
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. S. Kazmir (5100)
  2. G. Springer (3608)
  3. K. Uehara (3350)
  4. M. Machado (3102)
  5. D. Pedroia (2874)
  1. J. Chavez (2691)
  2. H. Ramirez (2671)
  3. J. Reyes (2626)
  4. T. Walker (2579)
  5. C. Granderson (2434)