Angels Agree To Terms With Jeff Mathis

The Angels have agreed to terms with Jeff Mathis to a one-year contract, avoiding arbitration with the catcher, according to a team press release.  Mathis will earn $1.7MM in 2011, reports Mike DiGiovanna of the Los Angeles Times.

This was Mathis' second arbitration year, and he earned $1.3MM in 2010 after winning an arbitration case with Los Angeles last February.  (The Halos offered $0.7M.)  Mathis, 27, has served as the Angels' backup to Mike Napoli behind the plate for the last four seasons.  Mathis has just a .199/.265/.311 slash line in 1079 career plate appearances, but the Halos value him for his defense.

Mathis is the second arb-eligible player to settle a contract with the Angels in as many days, following Alberto Callaspo's $2MM deal yesterday.  Los Angeles still has six more players eligible for arbitration, including such notables as Howie Kendrick, Kendry Morales, Napoli and Jered Weaver.

46 Responses to Angels Agree To Terms With Jeff Mathis Leave a Reply

  1. ryankrol 5 years ago


  2. firstavenger 5 years ago


  3. WiiCat 5 years ago

    Sigh. Massive sigh.

  4. RSBuletz 5 years ago

    How much is he paying the Angels?

  5. Tom R 5 years ago

    Scioscia’s bromance with Mathis really needs to end.

  6. OH HELL NO!!!!!!!

  7. Chris Masteller 5 years ago

    Ugh… WHY?!

  8. I find it funny this made MLBTR. Not that I’m knocking MLBTR, but for almost about a month other than rumors, this is the only actual real deal the Halos have made. CERA por vida!

  9. Chris Masteller 5 years ago

    This just in, Mike Napoli traded for a rally monkey costumed mascot.

  10. Tom R 5 years ago

    Reagins and my 3 year old daughter use the same kind of logic. Why have three cookies (catchers) when you can have four? Four is better than three!

  11. ogueira 5 years ago

    Worthless, but not surprising. With Mathis, Napoli, Conger, and Wilson in the catching fold, hopefully Napoli can be bait for a left fielder. Perhaps a Napoli-centered package can net Beltran – big money, but one year left on the contract (just in time for Trout in 2012) and big offensive upside. Playing left field and occasional time at DH should *hopefully* keep him healthy.

    • I have a feeling Trout won’t debut(impact player) until 2013, if there is an inkling of doubt on his abilities on the farm.

      • ogueira 5 years ago

        Yeah, it’s possible they wait until 2013, but right now, I think the Angels’ ideal scenario is a September 2011 call-up. Assuming he doesn’t fall on his face, I think they’d like to give him the job in 2012.

    • Commander_Nate 5 years ago

      I was thinking something similar, but I was wondering if they’d take Juan Rivera instead of Napoli. Even though he’s getting $1.69 million more than he’s worth now, I’m hoping Mathis is off the roster by the trade deadline. In that case, Napoli could finally be the primary catcher and backup DH/1B while Conger gets eased in. I figure see if the Mets will take Rivera and swap salaries, which still ends up saving the Mets around $13 million. Rivera is also a free agent after 2011 so the Mets get the same type of rental at a lower price. Throw in Willits too just for kicks. That would give them two options to replace Beltran.

      • ogueira 5 years ago

        I’d definitely be in favor of Rivera for Beltran if the Mets would go for it, but I don’t think they would. I think they’d be much more receptive to Napoli because of the offense he provides at a premium position, and they’re more likely to keep Napoli long term than Rivera. As much as I like Napoli’s power, I just feel like he’s a waste on the Angels where he gets only part-time duty – he’s more valuable in a trade.

        • cookmeister 5 years ago

          Rivera is a FA at the end of the year.. the Mets could be interested just to save the money

      • Am I the only one who really values a guy like Willits? I hear what you’re saying about trade fluff, but the consensus from the fanbase on his value is well below mine. I love this guy off the bench. Sorry for the sidebar.

        • Looking back to the year he came up, I think Willits should be given a shot at left field and lead off. Excellent defense and a potential offensive jump starter.

        • RSBuletz 5 years ago

          I’ve just seen Willits make hash of too many fly balls. I don’t think he would have been on the roster last year if Pettit hadn’t gone down pre-season with a (I think) a torn labrum. I’ve heard nothing, but hope Pettit is back in the mix this year for the back-up OFer spot.

  12. 1.7 million with $50,000 extra for both 110 and 120 starts. WHHHHHYYYYYYYYY

    • He’ll donate half of his salary to April Fools Foundation, which the Angels’ staff seems to be “Honorary Fool” Members.

      Seriously, It must be april fools!

  13. Chris Masteller 5 years ago

    After his horrendous performance in 2010, don’t you think the Angels could have won arbitration this time?

  14. haloapologetics 5 years ago

    Okay so we got the 2 most worthless players back on board… just close up with the rally monkey before arbitration and we’ll be set… FML

    • PushDown 5 years ago

      Cmon bro don’t put Callaspo in the same group as Mathis. At least Callaspo’s going to be an improvement over Wood at the 3B. You could’ve plugged in anybody in Mathis’s spot and he still wouldn’t e considered an improvement.

  15. ze3 5 years ago

    Mathis sucks.

  16. I want a 30% raise for sucking at my job too!

  17. SoCalAngelsFan75 5 years ago

    Back in Nov 2010, I was so looking forward to the 2011 season. What with Moreno’s big talk about spending big and the availability of players fitting our team’s needs. Now I’m just dreading the impending catastrophe.

  18. You can only value a player for his defense so much…..I’d say after batting under the Mendoze line for over 1000 plate appearances, that is overvaluing his defense. Considering most sites think his defense slightly above-average I don’t know what the deal is. The Angels have plenty of catching options. $1.7 million for a marginally decent defensive catcher who has batted UNDER .200 for over 1000 plate appearances is WAY too much.

  19. It boggles the mind how Mathis is still on the roster, let alone making nearly $2M

  20. mkorpal 5 years ago

    Thats about 3 million too much

  21. JFAAKATIM 5 years ago

    Angels come to terms with Rally Monkey. 142MM/7yrs
    Big Splash we were waiting for

  22. PushDown 5 years ago

    Whew, I was holding my breath hoping Reagins doesn’t sign him long-term. At least we’re done with him after next year.

  23. Flharfh 5 years ago

    Jeff Mathis or Koyie Hill, who would you rather have as a backup catcher?

  24. Angelsdog 5 years ago

    The lunatics are running the asylum. Black is white, up is down, I dont know what to expect next-really concerned. I hope all this minor stuff is leading to something!

  25. I know we value defense, but in that case couldn’t we have given the the bullpen catcher $40k or something to be the backup catcher? No way he hits worse than Mathis.

  26. cookmeister 5 years ago

    i’m sure the mets would kick in money, or any kind of deal probably wouldnt happen

  27. ogueira 5 years ago

    Beltran’s bat is better than Napoli’s, plus Beltran would be an every day player. Napoli might be capable of playing every day, but obviously that’s not going to happen in Anaheim. Offensively, the Angels come out ahead. Besides, it’s time to give Conger some work.

    Paying $18.5M for Beltran (assuming the Mets don’t kick back extra cash) for one year is much different from signing Crawford to a 6 year contract. You don’t get the production you want out of Beltran? Great, he’s off the books in 1 year. With Crawford, you’re stuck with him for 5 more years. Big difference. And if you believe in contract-year performance, even better.

    Finally, while I agree there’s no guarantee, Trout becoming an every day player in 2012 is hardly a dream.

  28. ogueira 5 years ago

    Agreed. Any Napoli for Beltran deal probably relies on the Mets kicking back some cash.

  29. start_wearing_purple 5 years ago

    One big problem with your analysis, Crawford is 29 and signed through age 35. In other words he may not have peaked yet and his contract ends when he should theoretically be declining.

  30. ogueira 5 years ago

    That’s not really material to my analysis. My analysis is simply, a one-year contract carries less long-term risk than a 6-year contract. For example, if you had the option of signing Crawford to six one-year deals or to one six-year deal, money being equal, obviously you’d take six one-year deals because they carry less risk.

  31. ogueira 5 years ago

    That doesn’t really concern me. Beltran has power – maybe not 30-40 HR power, but at least 20-30 HR power, and, especially in comparison to Napoli, carries a good OBP. Under my scenario, I would have Abreu hit DH. Between Hunter, Beltran, and Morales, I think there’s enough power (or at least as much as we can reasonably hope for at this point). I also think Bourjos will prove he has some pop in his bat, though I’m definitely not banking on it.

    Bottom line is, I don’t want Abreu or Rivera in the field on a full-time basis under any circumstances – Beltran (if healthy), Bourjos, and Hunter would be an exceptional defensive outfield.

  32. cookmeister 5 years ago

    it would have to be Nap + a prospect to be honest…. i just dont see the mets giving up Beltran when he has some really good seasons under his belt

Leave a Reply