Halos Leadership

by Obscurity on Dec 17, 2006 1:45 PM PST

With the possible departure of Erstad, who would the Angels look to for leadership off the bench? And in the bullpen?

It's just something I was thinking about after reading something on angelsbaseball.com and it occured to me that there is a lack of leadership on the team, who would take the place of Erstad? Vlad? Lackey? Franky?

This Fan-Post is authored by an independent fan. Tell us what you think and how you feel.

Tweet Comment 22 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Leadership

I've heard it said elsewhere that clubhouse leadership is a point raised by people who have never been in one. I tend to agree. If guys at the major league level can't get themselves together to play the game the right way, why are they there? The chicks? The money? And if that's true, what does it say about the GM who hires/promotes them?

Fire Mickey Hatcher. An entire generation of Angels offense depends upon it.

by scareduck on Dec 17, 2006 1:52 PM PST reply actions

This doesn't in anyway devalue

Erstad's hollering in the shower does it?

by Bilko 420 on Dec 17, 2006 3:29 PM PST up reply actions

Scareduck

Never lets go an opportunity to bitch about Stoneman.

by george bush on Dec 17, 2006 4:10 PM PST up reply actions

not really

SD is on the low end of whining about about Bill Stoneman compared to others here.

Now, if you remove the "about Stoneman" from your sentence, who could argue?

by Rev Halofan on Dec 17, 2006 4:13 PM PST up reply actions

Zing!

by LA Seitz on Dec 18, 2006 12:22 PM PST up reply actions

Wha?

My point wasn't that Stoneman should be hiring "clubhouse leader" types full of veteran intangibles and suchlike, but that, as said below, leadership is the three run jack.

Fire Mickey Hatcher. An entire generation of Angels offense depends upon it.

by scareduck on Dec 17, 2006 5:21 PM PST up reply actions

Leadership is a 3-run home run

OK, everyone's heard that one before.

I'm not sure I'm a big believer in leadership, per se, but I AM a believer in chemistry, to a certain degree. With that said, I don't think chemistry means everybody has to like each other; they just need to TRUST each other, and respect that their teammates are doing everything they can to help the team, not just padding their own stats. Case in point: Kent and Bonds were never buddies, but I do believe that they respected each other and deep-down trusted each other when it came to winning games.

I do NOT believe that leadership can replace talent and production, though. I'd rather have 25 ultra-talented jerks than 25 drinking buddies who can't play the game.

To answer Scioscia's concerns - I don't think he has to do anything. Like any group of humans, someone will emerge as the leader sooner or later...

"I am an optimist. It does not seem too much use being anything else." - Churchill

by johnnyangel101 on Dec 17, 2006 4:39 PM PST reply actions

My whole question...

was, who do you think would take the place of Erstad?

by Obscurity on Dec 17, 2006 6:00 PM PST up reply actions

Lackey and Orlando Cabrera

by Rev Halofan on Dec 17, 2006 6:02 PM PST up reply actions

Cabrera already IS a leader

For whatever it's worth...

I think Kendrick has some charisma that will make him a leader, too. Napoli looks like he's got some leadership traits. Additionally, I actually think GMJ, if he plays well, might be one.

I agree with Rev that Lackey is/will be the leader of the starters. Wash used to be, and Lackey and Wash were friends (I know that sounds weird, but that's how its played out). Ever since Lee Smith, the closer has been the bullpen leader, no questions asked. Shields is a close second, though.

"I am an optimist. It does not seem too much use being anything else." - Churchill

by johnnyangel101 on Dec 17, 2006 7:17 PM PST up reply actions

Every game I watched where Nap caught

I was always impressed by the way he dealt with the pitcher despite being a rookie, even if the thrower was a veteran like Lackey. It looked like he had the ability to calm down the guy on the mound when the shit started to fly. If anything, that by itself what you want in a catcher, and what most justifies Napoli's likely position as the starter behind the plate. If he can hit 15 homers, great, but at the end of the day he has to be helpful part of the battery.

Light Up That Halo! ...and tell Clutch to chill!

by cardinalwraith on Dec 17, 2006 7:49 PM PST up reply actions

Mike Scioscia

is the leader. That's what he gets paid for.

It's certainly not his skill in filling out lineup cards.

DarkAngel hath spoken....

by darkangel01 on Dec 17, 2006 7:48 PM PST reply actions

Cabrera batting 3rd was pure genius

and you're doubting our hero for writing Edgardo Alfonzo's name in the lineup? Blasphemy!

Seriously, Scioscia IS the leader in much the same way Lasorda used to be the leader of the Dodgers. HOWEVER, at some point, the players have to have one of their own. It's a players game, Scioscia himself has said as much.

But the skipper definitely is the one getting the endorsement deals...

"I am an optimist. It does not seem too much use being anything else." - Churchill

by johnnyangel101 on Dec 17, 2006 7:56 PM PST up reply actions

cabby at #3 was a call for help

why else would he be in that spot?

by yeswecan on Dec 20, 2006 2:14 PM PST up reply actions

Having Darin Erstad

patting people on the back and screaming from the dugout railing doesn't make Vlad hit bombs into the seats. Having him rally the forces in the clubhouse after a tough loss doesn't make Juan Rivera crush pitches for a month straight. Having him keep people in line doesn't somehow make John Lackey throw up 7 scoreless innings, or make K-Rod strikeout the side in the 9th. It's nice to have a good clubhouse...it really is. I like hearing about players being friends and a lighthearted, but competitive atmosphere. But how many runs is it putting on the scoreboard (or keeping off for the opponent)? These guys are professional athletes, paid to perform at the highest level in the world. None of them are going to become lesser athletes, or less productive athletes because they didn't get invited to each other's weddings. Anything that is NOT a cancerous clubhouse is adequate enough for me.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Dec 17, 2006 8:09 PM PST reply actions

Wouldn't you agree

That having that light hearted atmosphere prevents clubhouses from becoming divided thus affecting their on the field play?

by Obscurity on Dec 17, 2006 8:40 PM PST up reply actions

counter-argument

a team lacking intensity perhaps accepts losing too easily and cannot adjust to one or two players who suddenly blow up (be it for personal reasons or frustration with performance)...

by Rev Halofan on Dec 17, 2006 8:53 PM PST up reply actions

The point is that we don't need

an Erstad in the clubhouse to win games. It's not like he leaves the team, and suddenly Cabrera air-mails every throw to first, Vlad strikes out three times a game, and Francisco Rodriguez blows every other save chance. It's a nice, added bonus, but it's not putting anything in the win column. And I don't see players getting along as being necessary for them to cast it all aside once they're out on the field. If Jose Molina and Kelvim Escobar have a falling out, is Molina just going to stop blocking balls in the dirt out of spite? Intangibles are a valued commodity among media spectators who have never been in a clubhouse (no, I can't substantiate that). It's a personal belief, however, and disregard it if you wish.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Dec 17, 2006 9:15 PM PST up reply actions

Having played...

Sports in leagues (all amateur stuff like High School and some other community leagues) I know that results aren't based off how happy/angry you are. But I think, that people would take a play off if they were pissed off at someone, case in study Randy Moss.

by Obscurity on Dec 17, 2006 9:53 PM PST up reply actions

Derek Jeter

is the perfect example of a "leader" who doesn't lead. The Yankees miss guys like Paul O'Niell (whom I hated) and David Cone. Guys who would show leadership through example and be willing to kick anyone's ass who got out of line.

Derek's "leading by example" style doesn't seem to cut it when this team has a player out of line or needs someone to quiet the feeding frenzy of the press.

Don't get me wrong...he's a great player and he performs at a very consistently high level. I just think we're gonna miss Erstadt and AK a lot more than we might think.

Feels like the 1970's all over again. <sigh>

by Moondoggy on Dec 18, 2006 8:01 AM PST reply actions

It isn't nothing

I disagree that clubhouse tension/dysfunction can be cured or waved away with enough three-run homers. The Angels, for (mostly) better and (some) worse, have a Culture, one they kick-started by booting out Edmonds & letting Finley walk, then having Scioscia/Stoneman/Bane/Moreno et al create some identifiable Angel Way.

It's easy to scoff at such things, and it's also easy to overrate them. But I think most workplaces, if they indeed work, either have everyone (or at least a super-majority) subsuming themselves for the same Higher Goal, or conversely thrive on competitive/creative tension. The latter Bronx Zoo Model seems very hard (to me) to sustain for any kind of long haul.

I think this team will be fine; guys like Kendrick & Napoli keep their heads down, work hard, and exude the Angel Way in most every pore, while Lackey and Cabrera keep the various factions in line. My only worry is what happens if/when either Lackey or (much more likely) Cabrera starts to tank....

Stone-Sosh takes this shite pretty seriously, I think; it may help explain the quick exits for Schoeneweis, the short leash for Dallas, and the most recent trade of Donnelly, in addition to Jenks & various minor league things we probably don't know about.

As long as you don't fill a team with late-career Erstads, or marginalize otherwise good guys who march to their own drums, or serially abuse promising young talent, I got no problems with any of that at all.

by mattwelch on Dec 19, 2006 6:35 AM PST reply actions