This just in : Arte cares More about MONEY than winning!
by Jack Frost on Dec 14, 2009 3:05 PM PST
Email
Print
With the events of the last couple hours I don't know where to start. I'm angry -- in fact really pissed off. Angry at Lackey for going to of all places BOSTON -- angry at Reagins for essentially FAILING at his job (perhaps from Arte's perspective he has indeed succeeded), and angry especially at Arte Moreno, because, at the end of the day Arturo Moreno holds the purse strings to the organization and thus has the final say.
This is the baseball equivalent of Armaggedon for the Angles. How insulting to us as fans to think that signing an aging DH who didn 't play a single game in the field (Matsui played 0 coutn them 0 games in the field last year) will satisfy us after you simply let your top lead-off man and team sparkplug Figgins walk out the door for a few million and then obstinately refuse to meet Lackey's contract demands. In honesty, I do not know what the hold up was in the Halladay situation, and at this point I don't really care! The Angels have failed us as fans this off-season. Unless there is some totally unforeseen and drastic move coming then this off-season has been a complete and abject failure !
Who do I blame? I suppose I could blame Reagins for bungling the Halladay deal for which we were supposedly in the lead. I could blame Scioscia for alienating Lackey and making it more difficult to retain him. BUT ultimately, it comes down to one man -- ARTE MORENO.
Logic tells us that as the boss these decisions were his. When it comes down to dollars and sense he has the final say. And, on this day he appears to have more of the prior and less of the later (in baseball terms). In short, Arte is not the "Winning comes first" owner we have been led to believe. It is hard to get around the conclusion that the current predicament were in (being the laughing stock of baseball pundits and educated fans on this dour day) is due to the fact that Arte cared more about getting a "bargain" than about bringing in players (or even a single "key" player) who would help get us back to the World Series -- somewhere he always TELLS us he wants to be. Sorry, Arte, but actions speak louder than words. And please, don't anyone try to convince me that aging Hideki Matsui compensates for the losses or Figgins, Lackey and Halladay !
It's okay Arte, don't worry. I won't be spending one Angel Red Cent for tickets, parking or merchandise next season. I might watch on TV, but just like you, I will be thinking about my pocketbook first !
This Fan-Post is authored by an independent fan. Tell us what you think and how you feel.
215 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
HAH.
really? we didn’t overpay for an aging lead-off man, aging sp, and halladay didn’t come here because, in all likelihood, he liked philadelphia better and didn’t wanna sign an extension with us and you blame reagins and arte? wow.
arte spent 10 mill a year for 5 years on gmjr. how does signify that he loves money more than the team?
i suggest breathing a little bit and then breathing some more.
"come on, eileen."
Wel retrohalo the GMJ move was a PANIC move by Stoneman...
when he couldn’t sign Torii. I’m guessing that at that time Arte may have given Bill more leeway, and probably mostly out of that signing he’s decided to do things differently. Yes, GMJ was a terrible signing — probably got Stoneman demoted/fired. But, that doesn’t change the fact that Arte claims to be about winning first.
Do the events of this off-season convince you of that???
no.
his constant and unappreciated division titles do.
"come on, eileen."
by retrohalo on Dec 14, 2009 3:37 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Well retro, then I'm sure you LOVE the Atlanta Braves.
I’d rather have one World Series Championship over a 7 year period than four or five Division Titles in the same time frame without a single appearance in the Fall Classic.
After not being in the playoffs consistently for the first 40 years, I'm glad we're where we are.
Yes a few more WS championships over the next few years would be nice. But let’s appreciate what we have here, too! How’d you like to be the Royals, Pirates, or the 1990s Angels again?
RIP Nick Adenhart.
"When the Babe tries to call his shot, I hope Nick puts one in his ear."
--RallyMonkey5
by Clutch on Dec 14, 2009 5:40 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
100% right on
ONE TEAM wins the World Series each year. 8 different teams in the last 9 years. We’re consistently right there – funny how little perspective some fans have…
"There's nothing that cleanses your soul like getting the hell kicked out of you." - Woody Hayes
by johnnyangel101 on Dec 14, 2009 6:46 PM PST up reply actions
get lost
nobody wants you here
RIP Nick Adenhart
by ihearhowie2.0 on Dec 15, 2009 11:37 AM PST up reply actions
In what parallel universe do you reside?
Wel retrohalo the GMJ move was a PANIC move by Stoneman…
when he couldn’t sign Torii.
Stoneman couldn’t sign Torii because he was under contract to the Twins that year. His free agency happened the next year.
Stoneman was neither demoted nor fired. His contract expired, and he elected not to return, when he was going to be paid almost as well to be a consultant.
You conduct yourself here like an hysterical 14 year old girl who isn’t being asked to the prom by the boy she loves, she tells you, she loves him , and you’ll never understand because you never loved as deeply as she does.
Seriously, it is time for you to either see your doctor about going on testosterone therapy or find a new team to “support” (presumably, more so than this one). You don’t have a clue about what is going on.
And no, this isn’t " the baseball equivalent of Armaggedon [sic] for the Angles [sic]." Not even close, Francine.
"He's not a Rhodes Scholar to begin with''~Theo Epstein, talking about Papelbon
by George Kaplan on Dec 14, 2009 9:19 PM PST up reply actions
As I recall Torii was eventually resigned by the Twins that year,but that the Angels
actually had their sights on him as well. When he re-signed in Minnesota Stoneman, lacking a good Plan B overpaid for GMJ. That is how I remember it, but, will stand corrected if somebody (other than you) confirms otherwise. I’m not just going to take your word for it.
As for Stoneman what do you think that means that his contract wasn’t renewed? He wasn’t wanted. You say he chose not to return — I don’t quite remember it that way. In the business world the public isn’t usually shown the real story. Do you think Bobby Bowden chose not to come back at Florida State? Of course not. By being offered a diminished position the Board of Directors was telling him : “You’re not wanted.” Was he supposed to take a subservient position to someone thirty years his younger? Come on, wise up Georgie. That’s not how it works. Yes, he did take the consulting role but did you really buy his explanation that he couldn’t take the stress and that it (being a GM) is a “young man’s job” etc. If you buy all that than your dummer than I thought…
By the way George, do you think that makes you clever that you can
mock people for spelling mistakes and typos in a medium where people are writing quickly often without checking their spelling? Most people would overlook something like that. Why not you?
Maybe your mother didn’t really love you as a child. She just wanted to be friends.
Guess you never studied English
That was simply acknowledging that the spelling belonged to you, not to me.
More to the point, it isn’t relevant what you recall, only what the facts were. The fact was that Minnesota held a $12M team option for 2007 (as part of the deal Hunter signed in January of 2003) and did exercise it. Torii Hunter was never available for ANY team to sign for the 2007 season.
Your premise was fundamentally, factually incorrect.
As far as Stoneman is concerned, I’m not interested in your desire to substitute your supposed intuition for fact. Once again, you’re reporting your misunderstanding of circumstances and claiming them to be fact. Stoneman had an option at the end of his contract which allowed him to become a consultant with the team. This wasn’t an incentive to quit conjured by Moreno to get him to leave, it was baked into his deal from the start. If you care to research contemporaneous accounts of that time, you’ll see that this was consistently reported upon. You can try to roil the waters with chum about Bowden, but it’s all irrelevant to the facts.
As Mr Twain informed us, facts are stubborn things.
"He's not a Rhodes Scholar to begin with''~Theo Epstein, talking about Papelbon
by George Kaplan on Dec 15, 2009 3:31 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Get your facts straight--Torii was NEVER available in 2006!
Think about it for a second….I know this is hard…why would a player who was, at the time, one of the best CFs ever, in his prime, find himself a free agent and be content to sign a one-year deal with his former team? That alone doesn’t make any sense.
Torii either wasn’t yet done with his contract, or he had an option on his contract that allowed him to return to Minnesota for one more year. He was NEVER available for Stoneman to try to sign. NEVER.
RIP Nick Adenhart.
"When the Babe tries to call his shot, I hope Nick puts one in his ear."
--RallyMonkey5
Hunter
Was a possibility for the 2006-2007 free agent market. The Twins had an option year on his contract that they exercised. It was a fairly large amount, not a no-brainer like Lackey’s 2009 option. I’m sure the Angels had their eyes on Hunter.
“arte spent 10 mill a year for 5 years on gmjr. how does signify that he loves money more than the team?”
That’s only evidence that he sometimes flushes money down the toilet.
The HK-47 hitting droid is the finest line drive machine ever built
by RallyMonkey5 on Dec 15, 2009 7:10 AM PST up reply actions
Ah that does make sense.
I figured he must have had an option, or something. It just doesn’t make sense that he would actually be an FA and for some reason at that point in his career sign a one-year deal.
RIP Nick Adenhart.
"When the Babe tries to call his shot, I hope Nick puts one in his ear."
--RallyMonkey5
Okay, Monkey5, so if that is correct....
than G.K was not completely right. I remember that there was some uncertainty that he would be with Minnesota for that final year. If the option was a “large amount” as you say, then it was by no means a no-brainer (as George seems to be implying) that he would definitely be with the Twins. And if the Angels “had their eyes on him” as you say, and as I remember, (granted this was a few years ago and I don’t gave the newspaper articles in front of me) and were hoping to lure him to Anaheim (one season earlier) then what I was saying about GMJ is actually legitimate.
And by the way, I'm not the only one with that interpretation of GMJ deal
At least several other posters on this site have described that signing (amount and numbers of years) as essentially a panic move by Stoneman. Neither you nor I can get inside Stoneman’s head, so unless you are personally acquainted with Bill then I don’t think you have some kind of inside track to the “facts” as you say.
If RallyMonkey5 is to be believed, then your interpretation is somewhat skewed, and my interpretation is closer to the truth than you would like to acknowledge. There was no “certainty” that Hunter would be in Minnesota that final year. Again, as I recall the Twins had other contractual concerns and I believe the Hunter option was exercised rather late in the game, so the Angels were emboldened because the Twins hadn’t actually exercised the option.
There was no ambiguity
Hunter had a contract option. The Twins wasted no time exercising it.
Whenever there is a team option on a desirable player, other teams may watch like dogs outside the window of the butcher shop and see if the option is exercised. That happens with teams coveting players all the time.
But NO team can make contact while the player is under contract, which would otherwise be tampering and legally sanctionable.
So let’s review your “recollection”:
As I recall Torii was eventually resigned by the Twins that year,but that the Angels
actually had their sights on him as well. When he re-signed in Minnesota Stoneman, lacking a good Plan B overpaid for GMJ.
There was no “re-signing” of anybody, because Hunter was always under contract. Thus, the dominoes don’t fall in your theory of “panic” as a result of Hunter “re-signing” with the Twins.
There was no "certainty" that Hunter would be in Minnesota that final year. Again, as I recall the Twins had other contractual concerns and I believe the Hunter option was exercised rather late in the game, so the Angels were emboldened because the Twins hadn’t actually exercised the option.
As to your “late in the game” exercising of the option, I don’t think anyone who knows the baseball season would consider Tuesday, October 10, 2006 as leaving anybody hanging. The World Series wasn’t even over when the Twins pulled the lever. Kind of hard to any GM to “panic” when the season of free agency was still over a month away.
The problem seems only to exist with your recollections and not with actual events. This is all so easily researched in about 60 seconds in front of the computer. Maybe you might want to spend a few moments acquainting yourself with events and timelines before making wild, unsupportable claims.
"He's not a Rhodes Scholar to begin with''~Theo Epstein, talking about Papelbon
by George Kaplan on Dec 15, 2009 2:51 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Also if Stoneman wasn't wanted--why was he paid a considerable sum TO STAY ON AND ADVISE REAGINS????
RIP Nick Adenhart.
"When the Babe tries to call his shot, I hope Nick puts one in his ear."
--RallyMonkey5
This happens alot in the corporate world Clutch....
When “older” executives are given Golden Parachutes that include consulting deals. It is not an unusual thing. It is a way to acknowledge their service to the company, use their experience etc but essentially to “gracefully replace” them.
If Arte really wanted Stoneman as the GM why bring in Reagins at all? Again, I do not buy Stoneman’s explanation of his “resignation.”
hey jack...
you said: “In the business world the public isn’t usually shown the real story.”
given this is a reality in your world and probably generally true, how can your interpretation of arte caring only about money possibly be correct?
Oh, holy crap
If Arte really wanted Stoneman as the GM why bring in Reagins at all? Again, I do not buy Stoneman’s explanation of his "resignation."
This wouldn’t make you look so thick if this hadn’t been covered already:
Stoneman was neither demoted nor fired. His contract expired, and he elected not to return, when he was going to be paid almost as well to be a consultant.
His consulting deal was ALWAYS a part of his 4 year contract which ended with the World Series of 2007. ALWAYS. He elected not to sign a new deal.
Why do you have such a block about such a simple concept?
"He's not a Rhodes Scholar to begin with''~Theo Epstein, talking about Papelbon
by George Kaplan on Dec 15, 2009 2:57 PM PST up reply actions
Because
It doesn’t fit in with his agenda. If you don’t like the facts, just make up different ones. Seems to work for the government.
This term 'Aging' is rather overused no? EVERY MOMENT OF EVERY DAY WE ARE ALL AGING!
I am guilty of using it to describe Matsui, but really, PLEASE people, get a grip.
by Wally's World on Dec 14, 2009 9:10 PM PST up reply actions
This is a joke right?
Like April fools type of post yes?
HAHAHAHAHAHAH I GET IT…………….
Good job!
Thumbs up! (and its apparently up your butt!)
Yeah, I just stare at my desk, but it looks like I'm working. I do that for probably another hour after lunch too, I'd say in a given week I probably only do about fifteen minutes of real, actual, work. - Peter Gibbons
by norcaliangelsfan on Dec 14, 2009 3:18 PM PST reply actions
Finally somebody gets it right
Although I don’t agree about Arte, its refreshing to see a post that blames the FO and not the players or Boras or anybody else for once.
How do you know Arte's financial situation?
Is he supposed to bankrupt himself so some fans can live vicariously and bask in the reflected glory of other people’s accomplishments?
What makes you think "Since 81" that he's anywhere NEAR being bankrupt?
When the Angels have consistently been one of the top drawing teams in MLB over the last 6-7 season? Consistently drawing 3 million plus? Come on now, get real.
The 'bankruptcy' remark was in jest
The rest of my comment was a shot at the unrealistic expecations of fans.
by Fan Since 1981 on Dec 14, 2009 4:46 PM PST up reply actions
Without bashing Arte or anybody, or pretending to know the Halo financials...
It was Arte’s choice to buy into MLB. Nobody forced him to do it. If he cannot pay the rent, he should not have signed the lease. So, if it truly did mean that Arte would have to bankrupt himself to put a competitive product on the field, it would be better to sell the team than to tank the team.
But, i do not buy that Arte is anywhere near bankruptcy. He has been dropping payroll for the past couple of years, holding or raising prices, adding media streams, and gaining increased revenues through MLB.COM.
Had I owned the Pittsburgh Pirates, I could have saved America.
by Stirrups on Dec 14, 2009 4:07 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
The 'bankruptcy' remark was in jest
Arte HAS put a competitive product on the field. The Angels are averaging 94.5 wins a season during the 6-years he has owned the team.
by Fan Since 1981 on Dec 14, 2009 4:48 PM PST up reply actions
While I agree with you that we have failed today,
there is always TOMORROW to make a deal. And so on and so on until opening day 2010.
Additionally, while we have failed on the biggest fronts, I sincerely believe there is no fault to be placed on our side. I’m sure deals were posited until the midnight oil ran low, and beyond.
We’ll see in the coming weeks whether we can rectify our mistakes and move on as a franchise without many big names we had hoped we would attain.
NO LIFE IS OVER OMG I HATE YOU
WORST OWNER EVER
HOW DID THEY NOT GET HALLADAY WHILE ALSO NO GIVING UP ANY OF MY FAVORITE/BEST PLAYERS!>?!?!?/1/>!?!
I brought sexy back, but they only gave me store credit....
That does it!
Curling up in fetal position starting NOW!
Hard to type in this position.
THIS… IS… ANAHEIM!!
How long did it take you?
RIP Nick Adenhart.
"When the Babe tries to call his shot, I hope Nick puts one in his ear."
--RallyMonkey5
Hahaha.
I meant, “to type that out,” but yeah, probably! And probably still typing her answer, if any, to this one!
RIP Nick Adenhart.
"When the Babe tries to call his shot, I hope Nick puts one in his ear."
--RallyMonkey5
Ha! I uncurled long enough to gripe about it being hard to type in that position.
I need to take some more cough syrup. The world is not surreal enough for me right now.
THIS… IS… ANAHEIM!!
wow what an idiot
I am 49 yrs old and my father became a die-hard fan when they first arrived in socal. I naturally was an angel fan as early as I remember listening to games on the radio after dinner at 5 yrs old in 1966. In 2002 I took my father to the world series game and after winning it all he said"I can now die a happy man" which he did a few years later.
This is about being a winner yr in yr out, you certainly didnot go through 40+ yrs of loyality to taste a WS winner. We have argueably the best FO in baseball and we will once again win our division, restock our farm(with all our picks), and get a better look at what we really have. If Aybar repeats 2009 or better yet adds to it with walking abit more and/or learning to steal more efficently what will he be worth? Or Naps hits 30+ hrs and Conger continues to grow? I could go on but why.
Without saddling ourselves with stupid contracts and getting closer to ridding ourselves of some bad ones we are setting ourselves up for another 10 yrs of winning. Stay loyal after 40+yrs of losing and tell me this FO is lame/bad/wtfever. Get a clue dim-rod or switch to the skankees or whoever the favorite to win it all is.
Confidence breeds success, self-doubt breeds failure
by Blaze453 on Dec 14, 2009 3:22 PM PST reply actions 4 recs
You don't know anything about my fandom "Blaze"
I have been an Angels fan for over thirty years. I went to my first game in May of 79’. I have spent alot of my hard earned money over the years for Angels tickets and merchandise Please don’t talk to me about “staying loyal” when you know nothing about me…
Spot the Looney
On what basis can you conclude that the Angels were unwilling to match Boston’s offer for Lackey? On what basis can you conclude that Lackey would have preferred to stay here, given an equivalent offer? On what basis do you believe that the team brass signs players to appease fans, rather than to try to improve the ball club? Really, there are so many completely insane propositions in here that I don’t know where to begin.
Signing Matsui has nothing to do with Lackey, Figgins, Lee or Halladay. It had to do with replacing Vlad’s bat in the lineup. It’s unrelated to pitching. This should be obvious.
The Angels wisely didn’t match Seattle’s offer for Figgins because there is a young man named Brandon Wood who plays the same position, at about 1/20 of the price. Seattle is going to pay a lot for Figgins’ decline.
by jjackflash on Dec 14, 2009 3:24 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Seriously?
Signing Lackey would not have improved the team. In case you didn’t notice, Lackey’s been around since 2002. Keeping him would not have improved the team. And Halladay was not a free agent. He could not have been signed. Acquiring him would have cost players, with an s, and so how can you be so sure that a trade for Halladay would have improved the team, compared with what it would have cost to get him? Would an Angels team with Halladay, but without Aybar, Napoli, and Saunders have necessarily been a better (i.e., improved) team? Really?
To jjackflash...
Our rotation has just gotten WEAKER, not stronger? Get it?
The reason I brought up Matsui is because he seems to be a relatively cheap way to appease the fans. If you’re going to bring in a guy who can’t play in the field , then why not just keep Vladdy?
As for Figgins — here you are making my point for me. B.Wood — who has proven nothing at the Big League level is the CHEAPER option. And that, in my humble opinion, is why they went in that direction. Do you actually think choosing Wood over your .298 AVG, .400 OBP, Gold Glove caliber 3b get you closer to the World Series??
Didn’t think so.
kinda hard for 3 wood to prove anything when he hasnt been given the chance.......
I’ll take the potential of Brandon Wood over the probability of Figgy’s decline……for a fraction of the cost…….plus we have Izzy to pick up the slack if for some reason Wood isnt panning out…..
Yeah, I just stare at my desk, but it looks like I'm working. I do that for probably another hour after lunch too, I'd say in a given week I probably only do about fifteen minutes of real, actual, work. - Peter Gibbons
by norcaliangelsfan on Dec 14, 2009 3:48 PM PST up reply actions
The problem is Wood and Figgy are two totally different types of players.
Even if Wood comes through, we still have a hole, unless Aybar can fill it, which is another unknown. So already we have two ‘I hopes’. Add in another ‘I hope’ a starter can step up into the #1, and another starter can fill the back end, then we have two more ‘I hope’s’. So losing two players has created four ‘I hope’s’. That is not comforting.
Izzy is a good player, but A) he is not a regular. and B)he is not as good as Figgins.
C) If we end up relying on him, that will mean that d)Wood failed, or e)Injuries. Which will in turn hurt our depth, which will mean that ‘I hope’ someone can pick up that slack.
So there is the 5th ‘I hope’ trickledown effect.
by Wally's World on Dec 14, 2009 9:06 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Non-responsive
You talked about improving the team. Lackey would not have improved the team.
I still don’t know where you come up with this “appeasing the fans” nonsense. This is simply a product of your imagination. Why Matsui instead of Vlad? Maybe because he’s likely to be better, and might cost less money? And because he bats left-handed, which balances out against the right-handedness of Hunter, Rivera, Wood and Napoli? You really think that money is the only thing?
Once upon a time, Chone Figgins had proven nothing at the big league level.
More importantly, though, is that tying up Figgins long-term would have forced the team to deal Wood, an unknown quantity, to be sure, but one whose prime is not in the past. Figgins is going to slow down. But yeah, it makes sense to blow the team’s budget (before any of these other moves happened) on a declining singles hitter.
by jjackflash on Dec 14, 2009 3:51 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
"Figgins is going to slow down..."
Yeah, so is EVERY player. Does that justify not re-signing a key, integral part of your team who is not likely to be replaced by anyone in the organization? We still don’t have a lead-off hitter, and we are considerably weaker defensively at 3b. In fact, the Angels as a team are now much weaker. And therein lies the problem.
Sure
Figgins is being replaced by Wood, who is in the organization. You’re trading speed and OBP for SLG with that move. You can’t declare one more important than the other. Considerably weaker at 3B defensively? What does “considerably” mean? Measured in terms of wins, please tell me how you’re quantifying it. I’m curious.
Matsui, meanwhile, is another OBP guy who does have some SLG, too.
The point about Figgins slowing down is that it’s likely to start happening now. His stolen base % this year was on the border of being a net detriment to the team, and that’s something that is not going to improve unless he starts running less.
There is no compelling argument that Matsui + Wood < Figgins, so it is not at all clear that the lineup is weaker.
Right now, the rotation is weaker minus Lackey. Doesn’t mean it will stay that way through August.
Matsui = very slow. Wood= ?
anyone know?
by Wally's World on Dec 14, 2009 9:07 PM PST up reply actions
I think over on the Mariners Blog, they had a great write up of the baserunning intangibles that Figgy brings to the table.
They compared him with another slow aging slugger (Ortiz), and it was really quite astonishing to see the difference it will make to our lineup. Think Chicago White Sox from a couple years back.
by Wally's World on Dec 14, 2009 9:09 PM PST up reply actions
Draft picks, for one.
For some offseason fun, check out the Mac & Windows Space Shooter game I helped make: Insectoid
30+ SP with a 5 yr deal.
I know there are a lot of smart baseball people on this site. So someone please tell me when a team benefited by signing a pitcher to a 5 yr deal.
In all likelihood Toronto wanted to trade Halladay but he did not want to sign an extension with us.
Yes, Trott, that is possible.
But my complaint is not only about the Halladay non-trade. If we had signed Lackey, then I could have and would have forgiven not getting Halladay. It is about the accumulated effect of every move, non-move, each decision this off-season. My post is based about the canvass that is this off-season, not one brush-stroke.
It would be hard to argue that we are not a weaker team right now. Agree?
I think you have some valid points here, Jack
and I will give you a huge allowance for simply being upset, so I’m not going to give you a hard time for being unduly Eeyore-ish. I was pretty despondent myself earlier in the day.
It’s very likely that our starting pitching at least is weaker at this point, yes. However, I think it’s just as likely that if we had signed Lackey for that much money for that much time, it would have made us a weaker team several years down the road, in a way similar to that in which GMJ makes us a weaker team now—taking up a roster spot and consuming a lot of money that we could more productively use elsewhere.
BoSox benefitited
Pedro Martinez signed a six year deal for 75M. Guy made 168 starts winning 101 games against 28 losses.
by Angel Aviator on Dec 15, 2009 9:42 AM PST up reply actions
No he wasnt
but that was not mentioned in the question that was asked either. Pedro was thought by many to be a guy that wasn’t going to be able to stand up to the rigors of pitching because of size. Lackey has about 3 more seasons on him when you factor in Pedro had not thrown a 1000 inn in the bigs when the BoSox signed him. Lackey has about 1500 innings. What is funny is that Doc is older and has 2000 innings. What sort of extension will be signed there?
by Angel Aviator on Dec 15, 2009 6:08 PM PST up reply actions
I can think of two others
Mike Mussina with the Yankees and Greg Maddux with the Braves.
Get over yourself.
Arte is not only about the money.
But it does expose, yet again, a fundamental thing about this FO, and is why the Angels won’t be making big meaningful additions next year, either: When it comes down to it, Arte won’t spend what it absolutely takes, because he is BLINDED by his own perceptions. Sometimes those perceptions make sense, and sometimes they don’t.
But as a result, 9 times of out 10, New York and Boston will win, because they will outspend us, every bleeping time.
RIP Nick Adenhart.
"When the Babe tries to call his shot, I hope Nick puts one in his ear."
--RallyMonkey5
by Clutch on Dec 14, 2009 3:33 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
I think Arte is interested...
in value. He doesn’t want to give Lackey top dollar because frankly he isn’t a top dollar pitcher.
Remember this is a guy who signed Guerrero in about 5 minutes because he knew he was worth it.
All of these deals that have gone down with our players are IMO not great deals. Both Figgins and Lackey got too many years and too much money. Would we want these deals on the books in 2012 or 2013? We might like them next year but we better hope we win or we’re in serious trouble when these players hit 35 and are missing half the season when their productivity goes off a cliff.
There really aren’t any truly great players on the market this year that fill the Angels’ needs. I think the Angels realize this and are playing it cool, they’ll fill wholes and then in 2011 they’ll start spending again.
It is not like there are half a dozen Lackey's out there waiting to be snatched up!
I don’t like Theo Epstein, so I don’t want to use him to make a point, but if the Red Sox were willing to pay Lackey, then obviously SOMEONE thinks he is worth 17 million per. Remember, when you sign a big free-agent you get a dual effect: Not only do you get the player and his production, but you ALSO keep that player and his production away from your competitors. In this case BOSTON got a Big lift to their rotation. And our rotation goes from being a strength to being one injury away from a big weakness.
he'll spend when the person comes up.
for example, i don’t think he’ll shrink away when a player like pujols or mauer becomes available. i fully expect us to come away with some choice picks during next year’s fa.
"come on, eileen."
exactly what i said in less words..
I have a very strong feeling this is all a setup to get someone like Pujols or Mauer down the line. Those are truly special players.
I wish we could get a Pujols or Mauer next year.
But I seriously doubt either of those players will reach the open market.
OK, I'm finally over losing Tex. Thanks Kendry.
Teix is one of those players
$180 may have been a tad much, but Arte closed the wallet well before that point. I don’t expect him to do any less with Mauer when the Skanks are bidding $200 million +. Not that I would spend that much, mind you.
RIP Nick Adenhart.
"When the Babe tries to call his shot, I hope Nick puts one in his ear."
--RallyMonkey5
Teix was a different story..
he had zero interest in playing anywhere but the east coast. It wasn’t a money thing.
Eh, perhaps.
For all we know that’s the Lackey thing, too. But doesn’t everyone want to play for Mr. Steinbrenner when he throws a few hundred million greenies in their face?
RIP Nick Adenhart.
"When the Babe tries to call his shot, I hope Nick puts one in his ear."
--RallyMonkey5
some people can resist the pull of the dark side.
too bad they’re few and far between.
"come on, eileen."
Yes, indeed.
RIP Nick Adenhart.
"When the Babe tries to call his shot, I hope Nick puts one in his ear."
--RallyMonkey5
And his wife, too.
Blergh.
RIP Nick Adenhart.
"When the Babe tries to call his shot, I hope Nick puts one in his ear."
--RallyMonkey5
we were prepared to offer that kind of money though..
but realized it didn’t matter because he was going to get NY to match and go there no matter what.
Who told you that!
That is Yankee money, and leads me to believe that you haven’t been paying attention at all today.
Winning a WS has something to do with it as well
After playing with teams for most of his career that had not made a postseason appearance and finally making it to one I am almost certain that he wanted to play in a place were he would be able to win a WS.
The Yankees had made major changes with the SP signing both AJ & CC prior to him signing. I am sure he looked at the Angels as a team now but also a team that would not have guys like Lackey / Figgins / Vlad in the lineup for long. His contract would not allow for those players to be resigned.
by Angel Aviator on Dec 15, 2009 9:52 AM PST up reply actions
This is why it would have been so much sweeter to beat the Yankees
And watch Teix have to pick up his ball and go home while the team he snubbed his nose at went on to WS victory.
RIP Nick Adenhart.
"When the Babe tries to call his shot, I hope Nick puts one in his ear."
--RallyMonkey5
But......
It that wasnt the case………….instead it was just another wasted dream
by Angel Aviator on Dec 15, 2009 10:00 AM PST up reply actions
Yes it was.
On the Boulevard of Broken (Angels) Dreams.
RIP Nick Adenhart.
"When the Babe tries to call his shot, I hope Nick puts one in his ear."
--RallyMonkey5
Sorry, but Mauer will likely be given the keys to the city in Minneapolis or else sign in NYC
There’s no way we’d ever sniff Mauer. Same goes for Pujos. Nice to dream though.
I think you have made yourself very clear
You don’t give a damn about Arte Moreno’s money.
# Halo Heaven Fantasy Champ 2008 #
You do realize it's December 14th right?
And spring training doesn’t start for a few months.
Yes, this has been a pretty awful day, but a lot can happen between now and spring training.
You are overreacting...
a little bit Jack. Let’s wait and see how the offseason shapes up. Our FO deserves more lattitude than this. If 5 and 85 are the numbers, than I am glad we didn’t match that. I am also glad we didn’t stretch for Figgins. You stretch financially for guys in their 20’s, not their 30’s. It was time to say goodbye to John and Chone. And if Toronto didn’t like our apparent offer of Saunders, Aybar, and Bourjos, I don’t know if I would have endorsed going much further than that. We have the best manager, a great owner and a great GM. I think in the end Boston will not like that 5 year contract they gave Big John. That is just too many years for a pitcher his age.
I will give Reagins the benefit of the doubt as long as he keeps putting us in the playoffs. I would like to put ourselves in a better postition to win a WS one of these year so don’t get me wrong…I do want to improve. But Reagins wants us to improve as well and knows a lot more about our team than we do.
Let see what happens next. I foresee something big yet to happen for us.
by land4sale on Dec 14, 2009 4:14 PM PST reply actions 2 recs
You are correct "land" but as I stated in my post :
Unless there is some totally unforeseen and drastic move coming…..
We basically know what players are available and what players were pivotal. We knew about Figgins, Lackey and of course Halladay. We failed in each of those cases. Too me, the auxillary signing of Matsui does not compensate for the failure on those other fronts. That’s just the way I feel.
It is about how much you have improved your team. In this case we have not only NOT improved, but we have become weaker. That is why I’m pissed at Arte.
maybe if you gave it the same emphasis you placed on "the sky is falling", we would've noticed
You can’t pretend to be offering both sides of an issue when one side is represented by a lone disclosure phrase. Stand by your opinion or represent both sides equally. Just don’t pretend that you’re being fair to both sides.
by yeswecan on Dec 14, 2009 4:54 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Bummer deal, today was.
I am disappointed to hear that Lackey is a Red Sock and Halladay has gone somewhere else.
When all else fails: W6G! Believe.
I love this team.
But W6G no longer exists.
Half those guys are gone now, anyway!
RIP Nick Adenhart.
"When the Babe tries to call his shot, I hope Nick puts one in his ear."
--RallyMonkey5
So we'll win with what we've got left? Is that the deal?
RIP Nick Adenhart.
"When the Babe tries to call his shot, I hope Nick puts one in his ear."
--RallyMonkey5
We Will Win With What We Now Got!
For some offseason fun, check out the Mac & Windows Space Shooter game I helped make: Insectoid
in other words...
let’s try to stay positive folks.
Look at the bright side…at least now we have a DH that will take a walk once in a while and amke the opposing pitcher sweat a little bit. I for one am very glad about that. I am probably in the minority here, but Matsui is a big upgrade from Vlad.
Come on...
if anything, Matsui is a slight upgrade from Vlad. A big upgrade? Come on.
Peanuts...Get your Overpriced Peanuts!
by Angel Hawker on Dec 14, 2009 6:38 PM PST up reply actions
I could swear I read this same post last offseason. maybe the offseason before that, too.
Had I owned the Pittsburgh Pirates, I could have saved America.
by Stirrups on Dec 14, 2009 4:29 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Yup. For some, the sky is continually falling. DARKNESS EVERYWHERE.
Speaking of falling, you need an investment partner for the Pirates?
Well, Stirrups it is true that we have yet to reach the World Series under Arte....
Let alone win it. I’m sorry, but for me as a fan just winning the Western Division and continually getting punked in the playoffs isn’t satisfactory. Yes, I am aware it could be worse. But it many ways it is more frustrating to have a good team that is very close and that consistently falls short than to be a team that never had a realistic chance to compete for the big prize (Pirates, Royals, etc.)
Agree? I don’t know about you, but I am NOT satisfied with becoming the AL version of the Atlanta Braves !
Ok then, go tell Disney you want them back.
The really don’t just care about the money.
RIP Nick Adenhart.
"When the Babe tries to call his shot, I hope Nick puts one in his ear."
--RallyMonkey5
You can put a team together to win a division
but you can’t put a team together to win a World Series.
No columnist or announcer will admit it, but the post season is a complete crapshoot.
# Halo Heaven Fantasy Champ 2008 #
I am totally with you on the whole "playoffs are a crapshoot" thing.
I think you can finger reason behind the vast majority of outcomes, and not random chance. The reason may be different every time, but that does not make thinggs a crapshoot.
But, to my earlier comment, it’s only December. It is too early to throw in the towel for the entire year.
We were never going to retain Figgy (unless the marketplace totally collapsed.)
Lackey went a LOT higher than what most people around here predicted to be reasonable, so that is not a total shock.
Halladay was a pipe dream. Probably more in line with the Tex history.
Vlad is more myth than reality any more.
The disappointment is Lee. We should have been able to do better than the M’s for Lee. Maybe we were prepared to do better. I don’t know. Maybe we saw that less was going to be demanding $25 mill after 2010 and refused to drop the prospects necessary to rent him. If that is the case, we dodged a bullet with Lee.
It DOES mean that we still have a bucketload of assets to play in a marketplace with fewer competitors. Sure, the largest jewels are gone, but that does not mean that the mine is played out. And yes, it DOES mean that all the hype and hope placed in our minor leaguers better start panning out. On this last point, I am afraid, I remain seriously skeptical.
Had I owned the Pittsburgh Pirates, I could have saved America.
It's not a complete crapshoot
But it is pretty close. Think about it. The worst team in baseball can beat the best team in baseball in a regular season series and no one bats an eye.
In the playoffs, you are talking about teams that are relatively close to each other in quality. Anyone can beat anyone in a 5 or 7 game series. Sure, there are certain advantages a team can have in a series (a strong 3 man rotation for instance). But I don’t think any mathematician or vegas oddsmaker would ever put the odds of a playoff series at more than 65-35. And most are going to be a lot closer to 50-50.
IDK
It sure looked like the Skanks just bought a WS. The Marlins first ring too.
No matter what happens from here on, it has been a great season.
by Rally Manatee on Dec 14, 2009 6:10 PM PST up reply actions
To a Point
But what would have happened to the Yankees if they’d had to use a 4th starter in either the ALCS or WS? The Yankees have tried to buy a WS ring every year since 2000. They’re 1/9.
This is by far your worst argument...
And unfortunately, it defeats most of the other points you make about Arte and his lack of success as an owner.
Once you are in the playoffs, getting to the WS is basically a crapshoot. The real test of a great franchise is winning divisions consistently. Obviously, it sucks to get eliminated in the playoffs. But just because you are eliminated doesn’t mean you are an inferior team to the team that eliminated you. And even if you are, there is still a really good chance you beat that team in a playoff series.
With 8 teams in the playoffs, if you make the playoffs eight years in a row and the teams are pretty close in quality, you should only win the WS once. Guess what? The Angels have won the WS once in the past 8 years (and didn’t make the playoffs in all those years).
Bottom line: learn your statistics and probability and calm the fuck down. Then start turning your negative energy into positive energy for your team.
by Spird on Dec 15, 2009 5:21 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Nice Srawman there Clutch....
I wasn’t defending the Disney ownership. Just simply pointing out that Arte hasn’t gotten to the World Series, let only win it. That is a fact. Some people may be happy with just winning a few Division Titles and others may not be. I am one of those that isn’t.
Exactly what is a "srawman"?
Even if you mean “strawman,” you’re misusing the term. You say you’re not satisfied just getting to the playoffs, and clearly Arte isn’t doing his job because we don’t now have 6 rings after 6 years of his ownership. I have 40-odd other years that all say this club is at a fantastic place it’s never been at before. So exactly who would you like to own the club who could do that much better, if Arte, Reagins, Scioscia, et al are the epitome of bad for the club?
RIP Nick Adenhart.
"When the Babe tries to call his shot, I hope Nick puts one in his ear."
--RallyMonkey5
I'm not misusing the term "strawman."
You misrepresented my position. My criticisim of Arte does not logically imply support for the Disney ownership. You brought up Disney as a counter to my argument about Arte, when in reality Disney had nothing to do with what I was saying. By the way, the “6 rings after 6 years of his ownership” is another strawman.
No, it's not.
You’re saying you’re unsatisfied with what Arte has brought this franchise. Arte has brought us:
Vlad (MVP 2004, Face of Franchise)
Hunter
Extended-Shields
Fuentes
Cabrera
Colon (Cy Young 2005)
Reagins
10 more years of Scioscia
Abreu
Approved Teixiera trade
He has also brought us:
5 division titles, 3 consecutive
5 ALDS appearances
2 ALDS wins
2 ALCS appearances
With that record, it’s really hard to conclude you’d be satisfied with anything less than WS rings every year. Which is just not possible. So no, it’s not a strawman. It’s what you seem to want.
RIP Nick Adenhart.
"When the Babe tries to call his shot, I hope Nick puts one in his ear."
--RallyMonkey5
by Clutch on Dec 14, 2009 5:57 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
You forgot
cheaper beer.
No matter what happens from here on, it has been a great season.
by Rally Manatee on Dec 14, 2009 6:11 PM PST up reply actions
You may think that Clutch...
..it’s really hard to conclude you’d be satisfied with anything less than WS rings every year.
BUT , I never actually said that.
It's all in the implication.
What the h-ll else will satisfy you, if that doesn’t?
RIP Nick Adenhart.
"When the Babe tries to call his shot, I hope Nick puts one in his ear."
--RallyMonkey5
Um, gosh, that actually happened. So why aren't you satisfied?
RIP Nick Adenhart.
"When the Babe tries to call his shot, I hope Nick puts one in his ear."
--RallyMonkey5
Yes but you said "once within the last 7 years" NOT "once under Arte"
Funnily enough, 7 years ago was 2009-7 = 2002. I seem to remember something happening that year.
RIP Nick Adenhart.
"When the Babe tries to call his shot, I hope Nick puts one in his ear."
--RallyMonkey5
lets look at the record books
oh shit we have won a ws in the last 7yrs sooo we have 7 more yrs to win 1 ws and you’ll be ready to die a happy man yes?
Confidence breeds success, self-doubt breeds failure
Hehe, that should be right for him! By his own logic, anyway.
RIP Nick Adenhart.
"When the Babe tries to call his shot, I hope Nick puts one in his ear."
--RallyMonkey5
03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09 = 7 years.
I don’t recall winning a WS in that time.
by Wally's World on Dec 15, 2009 11:40 AM PST up reply actions
Arte's first full season as owner was 2004, IIRC.
Hence one more year to get it done, even under the 7 year theory!
RIP Nick Adenhart.
"When the Babe tries to call his shot, I hope Nick puts one in his ear."
--RallyMonkey5
So...
Had we signed Lackey and Figgins to long-term, big money deals and signed Vlad to a two-year deal, you wouldn’t be pissed at Arte? It is tough to see those 2002 WS champions (and Vlad) move on, but I’m excited to see what happens, and the idea of standing pat and being on the hook for already aging, declining, injury prone players would’ve been cause for much more concern.
well...
how much did Arte offer Chone and Lackey? we knew there was a deal out there for Halladay (however neither confirmed nor denied by Reagins). It really pains me to see those two go because of what they meant to the franchise – Chone being a superutility player (something I love – doing whatever it needs, playing wherever) and Lackey (2002). But as others have said – you got to keep faith.
personally I care less about any of the players
they come and they go whether traded, let go, leave via freeagency or retire BU*T the team Angels remain. I want a competitive team yr in yr out and if that means we get rid of a player 2 yrs early instead of 2 yrs late god-bless the FO. Dont get me wrong I do appreciate watching a player over 5 or 10 yr period BUT as a fan for 44 yrs and 30 more on the horizen I care about the team not the players
Confidence breeds success, self-doubt breeds failure
Arte cares about spending the exact same on payroll every year, *and* winning
You could even look it up.
Typed in the heat of the moment?
I too am pissed that we lost all these guys. And I too do not think that Matsui makes up for it. I much rather would get Bay. And we were led to believe that Bay was Plan C. So, I guess we’ve moved on to Plan D. Oh well. Turn the page.
Even though I’m pissed, I won’t take it out on Arte. Let’s just face the facts. The only teams at this point in history who can almost guarantee to land the top FA’s every year, and flip the best trades, are the Yankees and Red Sox (and I think we can include the Phillies for now).
Another cold hard fact: Angels fans have to learn how to be satisfied with being upper-echelon underdogs. For whatever reason, even though So Cal is a huge market, the Angels do not garner the revenue that the Skanks and Sux do.
Having said that, we also need to bear in mind that is much better rooting for the Arte-era-upper-echelon underdogs than dismal Angels of the past. Every year, we have a shot. I, for one, am not ready to become an ungrateful fan who bitches and moans when I get nothing less than a WS win every year. That would make me, well……a Yankees fan.
No matter what happens from here on, it has been a great season.
by Rally Manatee on Dec 14, 2009 6:29 PM PST reply actions 3 recs
Even Boston
can’t spend indiscriminately every year the way the Yankees do. Let us not forget that Boston didn’t land Teixeira, either.
Personally, I’m unenthused about Bay. Just because he might be the best FA bat on the market doesn’t mean he’s worth breaking the bank. Unless his price comes down, I expect that he won’t live up to the contract he’s seeking. He’s not an elite player (merely a good one), yet he is seeking to get paid as such.
Agree. His career stats are good, but not worth the money he is demanding.
by Wally's World on Dec 14, 2009 8:56 PM PST up reply actions
You could be describing John Lackey, for that matter
But some here feel the blank check approach is the responsible way to build a team consistently good for the long haul.
Ask Tom Hicks how well that plan turned out.
"He's not a Rhodes Scholar to begin with''~Theo Epstein, talking about Papelbon
by George Kaplan on Dec 15, 2009 3:48 AM PST up reply actions
Well, the reality is, Lackey got what almost everybody figured he would get. All over MLB.com/ USA TODAY sports weekly/ ESPN/ Yahoo/ XM 175, almost to a man it was predicted "AJ BURNETT MONEY OR MORE"
So when Arte says, that we can sign one of Figgins or Lackey, after Figgins signed, it makes sense that we would have signed him.
Do you dispute these two facts? If not then it only follows that the salary Lackey just received is not a surprise, or even out of the ordinary. Therefore for Arte not to resign him after what he previously could be construed as Lame.
by Wally's World on Dec 15, 2009 11:45 AM PST up reply actions
two words
on why you don’t offer 5 year contracts to 31 year old pitchers. Bartolo Colon.
we had him for 4 years and he gave two good years. here are the numbers:
no, re-read what i wrote.
It’s about what Arte said, then didn’t do. These are top baseball execs. They knew what the price and years would be. Don’t fool yourself in thinking that they had no idea he would get 5 years. Of course he was going to get 5 years. It is laughable to think otherwise. Look around! 5 years is ordinary.
by Wally's World on Dec 15, 2009 5:55 PM PST up reply actions
Arte
never said WE WILL sign one or the other. He said we could only sign one or the other. It came down to a businessbaseball decision… 5 years was too long the 4 yr deal offered was fair just not the best offer. We have young talented guys that will get paid inthe next 3 yrs and having Lackey on the books would have made it hard to kepp them so….
Confidence breeds success, self-doubt breeds failure
That's not even accurate...
he pitched good for a year and a half. His first 3 months w/ the Halos he stunk it up.
Peanuts...Get your Overpriced Peanuts!
by Angel Hawker on Dec 15, 2009 6:55 PM PST up reply actions
Maybe I'm alone here
But what happened today, although it obviously sucks, excites me about the rest of the offseason as well.
I really want to see what the FO can pull off with some of their big targets off the table, investing in players like Bedard, Sheets or, Duchscherer to put in the rotation and finding some affordable bullpen help.
Obviously this next season is going to be a little more shaky than it would be with Halladay, but it seems like the team always does the best when everyone says the odds are against them, which is how it seems after today.
Yeah
pretty sure your alone.
Peanuts...Get your Overpriced Peanuts!
by Angel Hawker on Dec 14, 2009 6:42 PM PST up reply actions
MMP?
My Mariners/Pilots? If that’s what it means, then of course you’re excited about this offseason.
No matter what happens from here on, it has been a great season.
by Rally Manatee on Dec 14, 2009 6:50 PM PST up reply actions
No
But “excited” wasn’t the right word, I should have said intrigued.
Obviously I’m upset on losing out on pretty much all the big name pitchers, but I’m interested to see what the FO does and I have faith in them to make some good deals to help at least soften the blow of what happened today.
Nope, Im with you
If we had signed any of these guys, I think we would have regretted it.
How many people would be happy to hear we had given lackey 5 years and 85 million?
Figgins 4 years and 36 million?
We dont know what cash it would take to lock halladay up but lets say its 5 years 100 million plus losing Saunders, Aybar and a prospect.
Considering the options, I’d WAY rather go into the season with some minor league call ups getting a shot than contracts that would burden the franchise for years.
by Balls and Strikes on Dec 16, 2009 4:04 PM PST up reply actions
Wow.
I don’t care if Bill Gates owned the team, I wouldn’t have spent that much money on either Lackey or Figgins.
This front office has been too good, for too long. I’ll let this one play out. I’ll bet one cold Pepsi the Halos are in first place come next October. Again.
The rotation still features three All-Stars and one “should have been” All-Star. First round picks. Studs. Don’t worry, Jack, we’ll find a 5th starter. And you WILL be happy. We’re not the Royals or the Indians or the Orioles or….the Dodgers.
"There's nothing that cleanses your soul like getting the hell kicked out of you." - Woody Hayes
I won't take the Division wager, but I'll bet you we don't get past the first round
That is, if we make the playoffs. It’s not that I don’t want it, it’s just that realistically we haven’t done anything to bring that closer to reality. Is it impossible? No. Is it unlikely with the current roster, probably YES. Our chief competition has gotten stronger and we have gotten weaker. Fact.
By the way, I think Figgins was a bargain at 9 million per considering the fact that Boston is paying Big John 17 mil per. We are in the same league with Boston financially — so there’s no reason we couldn’t at least have retained Figgins.
I suspect that we did not really want to retain Figgy.
They wanted his $9 mill for Halladay or Lackey, and were willing to accept Wood at 3B, Rivera in LF, and Abreu in RF. If Lackey had signed with Boston and Halladay had gone to Philly and Lee had gone to Seattle, all first and before Figgy signed, then I suspect the Halos would have shelled out the $9 or $10 or $11 mill for Figgy to stem the tide.
Had I owned the Pittsburgh Pirates, I could have saved America.
stop the whining...
it’s tiresome and no amount of logic will stem it as it’s purely emotional and childish for a grown man. in 2002, i didn’t expect the angels to beat the yankees in the first round so i made sure i attended at least one west coast game…then they did. i didn’t expect them to win the ALCS, then they did. i certainly didn’t expect them to beat the giants but was very hopeful, then they did—even with a not very good starting rotation (appier anyone?).
having been an angel fan since about 5 or 6 years old i was used to the constant letdowns and was especially crushed in 1986, and in 1982 when the team should’ve beat milwaukee, but didn’t.
so without such high postseason expectations the emotional thrill of the pay-off for winning in 2002 was quite a high.
so you’re feeling deprived as your expectations of at least another WS championship have not been fulfilled. tough. i thought we’d get another one in 2005 but it was the Chisox’s year—and jeez, before then it hadn’t occurred since 1917.
Not really upset
about losing either Figgins or Lackey. The dollars/years just weren’t right for the team to re-sign either. The FO is obviously looking at more then 2010 when they are offering/not offering contracts to a player. They didn’t want to hamstring the team with another GMJ-style contract that will hurt the team in two years.
I am also ok with the signing of Matsui. I wish Vlad were able to be the player he once was and we didn’t need to sign a “new” DH, but I think Matsui will be an upgrade with his plate discipline.
I would have expected (and still do) the Angels to make some kind of move to IMPROVE. While I don’t think they are in a worse position than last year, some of our chielf rivals have improved.
Boston signed what was arguably our ace (I don’t think Lackey was an ace but I do think he was a pretty good pitcher) and they are still in the running to retain Bay. They haven’t regressed.
The Skanks (remember them from the playoffs?) have signed Granderson. While he does have admitted issues with left handed pitching, he does have power that will play in that park. It also looks as if Damon won’t be re-signed. I read this as a net improvment.
Even our own division is improving. While I still see the Angels as the best team in the division, the M’s have definitely improved their pitching, the A’s young pitchers should be expected to improve and the Rangers played us tough the first half of the season. The take away from this is that our own division is improving making wins tougher to get.
And what have we done to counter all of these moves/improvements?
Again, I still believe that there will be some sort of stealth move somewhere. Who saw the Kazmir trade coming? Have faith. I believe the FO will do what is needed to win the division while grooming our young kids to eventually take over. I don’t believe we will be in the running for any of the big name talent next year. We NEVER overspend.
I was under the impression...
that the deal for Halladay was done, Halladay for Aybar, Saunder, and Bourjos. The only thing holding it up was that Halladay wasn’t going to sign an extension with us. That is not the Angels FO fault. The Figgins departure was a financially sound move. He will decline within the next 2 to 3 years and be no where near trhe worth of his contract. IMO opinion Matsui is more valuable than Vlad from a pure baseball standpoint. Vlad will always be close to my heart but again, another good baseball move. I would have rather had LaRoche but I’m far from upset we got Matsui. As for Lackey… to hell with him. If he wanted to be an Angel, he would have been.
The problem, as I see it,
is that now we have to replace Lackey, and the options are far fewer. Certainly the easier options. Unless the Angels can dangle that same Aybar/Saunders/Bourjos package to some other team for their ace, there is now a hole where we had hoped to have grown.
The rest of what you write, I agree with.
Had I owned the Pittsburgh Pirates, I could have saved America.
Without seeing the Financial records of the Angels Business, it is hard to judge Arte.
Very few (if any) owners actually dip into their OWN pockets. It’s all about the revenue generated by the business (team). So the question is, how much did the Angel’s make Mr. Moreno? Is he not signing players to reap more profits? If so, then that stinks.
So you are saying that this is the price we pay for cheap beer?
Had I owned the Pittsburgh Pirates, I could have saved America.
This isn't complicated
Arte runs this like a business, instead of as a hobby. That is one of the many things which distinguishes Moreno from bozos like Tom Hicks, who go for broke—literally, in the case of Hicks—then are left with nothing when their plan fails and there is no backup plan.
Arte is running a business. He is planning not just on 2010 but on 2015, and he knows that John Lackey will most likely be worth very little 5 seasons from now. As a result, he was willing to pay serious money for 4 years, but not to guarantee a 5th. That is smart business.
As someone who went to his first game in 1962, I have suffered way too long with ownership which was affable but clueless (Autry and his parade of GMs) and ownership which was simply clueless (Disney). Moreno knows baseball, but even more importantly he knows how to run a successful enterprise. He makes decisions based upon the long haul, not upon what would placate know-nothing fans and create the illusion of progress today.
I vote we stick this thread in a time capsule and have a hearty laugh at the author. We won’t have to bury it for a decade, or even 5 years. I figure about 4 months should be plenty.
"He's not a Rhodes Scholar to begin with''~Theo Epstein, talking about Papelbon
by George Kaplan on Dec 14, 2009 9:36 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
So let's say Lacky has a good four year run, and is hurt the 5th year.
Every good baseball person knows; teams have windows. We are in one. The frustration is that it seems as though over a few million, the FO is willing to take a chance with our window. We KNOW that Lackey can win big. Now he is gone. That doesn’t make us stronger George, that makes us WEAKER. Without knowing the inside data, it appears as though the Business is BOOMING, money is flowing into the coffers , over 3 million fans every year.
So if you have emotions, it should be readily apparent why fans are upset about this move, or nonmove, as the case may be. I and many others here are FANS, we are not working for Arte, nor are we business majors. Most of us are smart, and we love baseball. We love the Angels. RISK is inherent in ANY contract. in any move made by the FO. Some risks are more palatable, others taste like camel dung. This is one of those. Figgins was my second favorite player, behind. . . Vlad. So PLEASE don’t come at all these posts from a business logic point of view, because if you do, you are missing the point.
The point of my post above is that without the data how can we judge someone? However, we all know the team isn’t going broke (ala Hicks), because if it was, that would be all over the news.
by Wally's World on Dec 15, 2009 12:09 PM PST up reply actions
What's the point of your 4 year assumption?
You can’t just assume he’ll be fine for 4 years and then we eat the 5th year. If we could make that assumption, I bet we would have re-signed him. The problem is, in a 5 year contract, that’s 5 years of risk for a pitcher that has been on the DL in each of the the last two seasons. Arte’s already eaten significant chunks of previous long-term contracts for pitchers (see Colon and Escobar) and by the looks of the team’s 4 year $72m offer, he was willing to risk losing more. Expand that to 5 years and it becomes irresponsible.
the 4/5 thing was in response to George stating that we would have signed him to a 4 year deal.
" So PLEASE don’t come at all these posts from a business logic point of view, because if you do, you are missing the point. "
by Wally's World on Dec 15, 2009 6:01 PM PST up reply actions
But thats the point.
Arte was willing to take on 4 years of risk. This doesn’t necessarily mean he believed that Lackey would be healthy all 4 years. It only means that was the max he was willing to guarantee in case something went wrong.
that makes sense.
I guess when the owner and manager and general manager all come out and say they want to resign him, I figure that they are already aware of a ballpark figure, money and years. If they thought he wouldn’t get offered 5 years, then it makes sense. The reality is, as I already posted, every source that I read or heard or saw, including interviews with other players ex-managers, ex gm’s, ex-players, and lifetime reporters and analysts, ALL indicated that he would almost certainly get 5 years. So how could they have not known? I bet that his agent was trying to get 6 or 7!
by Wally's World on Dec 15, 2009 10:53 PM PST up reply actions
We KNOW this?
Every good baseball person knows; teams have windows. We are in one. The frustration is that it seems as though over a few million, the FO is willing to take a chance with our window. We KNOW that Lackey can win big. Now he is gone. That doesn’t make us stronger George, that makes us WEAKER.
Really? Unassailable fact?
Seems to me Lackey missed a lot of starts the last two seasons with throwing arm injuries. Always possible it was two years of bad luck, but chronic arm troubles often start out this way.
I have no problem with having Lackey on the staff and having him spend time on the DL. I do have a problem with that if he’s making $18.7M a year. One of the qualities of the elite is durability, and I don’t think that has been a hallmark of John Lackey for a couple of years, and I wouldn’t bet $18.7M of someone else’s money—much less my own—that it was an aberration and he’ll be just right as rain for the next 5 seasons.
"He's not a Rhodes Scholar to begin with''~Theo Epstein, talking about Papelbon
by George Kaplan on Dec 15, 2009 3:02 PM PST up reply actions
George, you always have to be right don't you. Even when it's not about being right.
you are hilarious. How is it possible that by taking away our #1 starter (as PROVED by Sosh put him. . . #1), we get better? What a joke. We just LOST depth. we gained nothing. Did you watch game 1 this year (the one where he shutout the dreaded Sux)?
by Wally's World on Dec 15, 2009 6:00 PM PST up reply actions
reading comprehension
Where did he say that the Angels gained depth? Where did he say that they were “better” without Lackey? The word “better” appears nowhere in his comment. The word “depth” appears nowhere, either.
Don’t berate people for saying things they didn’t say.
The headline to his post is "we KNOW this" which is a phrase taken from my post.
“We KNOW that Lackey can win big. Now he is gone. That doesn’t make us stronger George, that makes us WEAKER.”
than he starts his post with:
Really? Unassailable fact?
Do you disagree that it is a fact that Lackey won game 1 against Boston? And that it was a big game? I thought not. Sosh had called him our #1, is that not good enough for you? What more ‘facts’ do you need?
Depth is a gauge jjack. we now have one less #1 starter. Just because he didn’t write that particular words doesn’t mean he wasn’t talking about it He was questioning my statement, which was directly dealing with the issues of starting pitching DEPTH.
So jjack, perhaps it is you he need to go and take a reading comprehension class.
by Wally's World on Dec 15, 2009 10:45 PM PST up reply actions
Gibberish
is all you have written. You attributed words and statements to him that he did not make; end of story.
“Do you disagree that it is a fact that Lackey won game 1 against Boston? And that it was a big game?”
I like chocolate.
But you are ignoring the facts
The fact is we were losing our #1 starter regardless; he was a free agent. At the end of the world series, he was no longer “ours.” We had the option to attempt to retain him for 5 years 85 million. Our FO looked at the deal and decided the cost outweighed the benefit. They decided that 85 million could be better used in other ways than on a lower level #1 starter with arm problems. Agree or disagree with the decision, stop pretending he was Angel property.
by Balls and Strikes on Dec 16, 2009 4:11 PM PST up reply actions
Actually, I'd be very happy if you were right
But you’re not. Why don’t you want me to be happy?
We don’t KNOW Lackey can win big in the future. We can guess that he can. Moreno certainly seemed to think that he would, which is why he offered between $68M/4 yrs and $72M/4 yrs (depends upon whom you read, but those are the numbers by consensus). That tells me Arte believed that Lackey would support that contract for 4 years, or at least most of those 4 years. I don’t know when the last time someone offered you $68M to work for them, but I can tell you it has been several weeks since I received such an offer. So this nonsense about Arte caring more about money than winning is just that—nonsense. That works out to between $17M and $18M per season, greater than the $16.5/yr that Burnett is making.
But it wasn’t 5 years! Because Arte didn’t think Lackey would be a quality pitcher long enough to honor the entire 5 years, he proposed to pay him as one of the Top 5 pitchers in the game for 4 years (behind Sabathia, Santana, Zambrano and Zito, ahead of Peavy and everyone else).
How exactly is Moreno being cheap? How is he “caring more about money than winning”? From all outward appearances, he was perfectly willing to meet Lackey’s salary level (which is reported by the Boston Globe to be equal to Burnett’s $82.5M/5 yrs.). This means that, rather than cheapening out, Moreno offered more money per annum to Lackey than he received from the Sox; the difference was in the number of guaranteed years, and Lackey insisted upon 5.
So enough with your finger-pointing and specious arguments. Lackey was made an offer which would have made any player feel fortunate. If he wanted to be an Angel, he would have stayed. He wanted money even more, and thus did what he had to do to lock down one more guaranteed year. It is a business, and both sides treated it as one. But let it not be said that Lackey was disrespected by the offer made to him by the Angels. Let’s just acknowledge that Lackey is a Hessian and move on.
"He's not a Rhodes Scholar to begin with''~Theo Epstein, talking about Papelbon
by George Kaplan on Dec 15, 2009 8:43 PM PST up reply actions
You really are Hilarious.
‘Actually, I’d be very happy if you were right
But you’re not. Why don’t you want me to be happy?’
George ‘I always have to right’ Kaplan. Only happy when everyone else agrees with him?
To be fair, I often agree with you. Why can’t you just let others have their opinions? Why don’t you re-read my posts, starting at the top.
1)Without seeing the Financial records of the Angels Business, it is hard to
judge Arte.
2)So let’s say Lacky has a good four year run, and is hurt the 5th year
In this one I talk about ‘windows’ (of opportunity to win big) It is why teams often do well in multiple years , plus or minus a few, then go ‘dormant’ for a while, till the next ‘window’. Not an absolute, but a fair premise to work from.
We are in one right now. in the 90’s we were not in one. Make sense?
Then I discuss the fact that we lost Lackey. I guess some folks thinks that makes the team better. I think it makes the team weaker.
Then I describe that I have emotions, I am a fan, and that entitles me to be upset with moves that I don’t like. Like losing my two favorite players from the team. O.K. Still with me?
3)then we have a couple posts relating with snowhor in regards to the hypotheticals of 4 or 5 years.
At which point you come at me with “Really? Unassailable fact?”
FACT: SOSH PUT LACKEY AS OUR #1.
FACT: LACKEY CAME THROUGH AND THREW A SHUTOUT
are you really going to dispute this George, just to be right?
Do you really think that without Lackey we aren’t weaker. Even just a wee bit? I already said " PLEASE don’t come at all these posts from a business logic point of view, because if you do, you are missing the point. "
So i don’t care about years and money. All I care about is having a great team. You can be right in your head all you want. Just step back a little, because in my space, losing Lackey sucks.
P.S. go see Hapyorange’s post
by Wally's World on Dec 15, 2009 11:11 PM PST up reply actions
Take a breath
And stop inventing things that you pretend other people said, then follow with a stream of semi-literate ramblings of false premises and illogical conclusions.
I needed a Dramamine trying to read your post
You know, that quote function works so well in separating your words from the quotes of others. Give it a try, because it will make something like the above so much more readable.
To your question: Is the Angel team “weaker” without Lackey? In 2010, maybe, though not critically. What matters is how the team would fare with its payroll locked up paying a pitcher I fully expect to become less effective and less hardy as the years tick by. I might wish to have Lackey in the rotation for 2010 or even 2011, but I wouldn’t pay him $18M to be in my rotation in 2014.
That is the crux of the problem, no matter how much you try to paper it over with faux outrage. It isn’t about what Lackey would mean to the team in 2010, it is about how much he is anticipated to deteriorate over the span of the 5 years he was insistent about getting, and the premium he demanded to be paid over that time. I’m not privy to the discussions his agent had with Reagins, but it wouldn’t surprise me if he was offered four plus option. However, there was no way Moreno was going to go to a guaranteed 5th year, and I think he was absolutely right.
And while you’re licking your imagined wounds over Lackey’s departure, do keep in mind he was offered a tremendous amount of money to play in Anaheim for the next four seasons. He declined. It wasn’t that he wasn’t wanted or appreciated or offered enormous compensation, it was that he expected a 5th guaranteed year.
He wasn’t pushed, he jumped. That was a career decision he made for himself. If you’re annoyed with anyone, it shouldn’t be with the Angel front office which offered him between $17M and $18M per year for four, guaranteed seasons. Maybe you should be peeved with the guy who expected even more and decided that one more year was more important than a sense of community and loyalty to the team which brought him up since he left community college in Texas.
"He's not a Rhodes Scholar to begin with''~Theo Epstein, talking about Papelbon
by George Kaplan on Dec 16, 2009 10:40 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
he pays over 100 million a yr and salary
in 4 more yrs he will have paid OVER A BILLION dollars in salary and on the hook for over 100 mil a year each year he keeps team. Come on he does the fans justice
Confidence breeds success, self-doubt breeds failure
Okay, then I can have a "hearty laugh" at you Kaplan when the Angels get knocked
out yet again in the Division Series. Again, and I feel I have to repeat this for dimwits like you — if the Angels win the West ,and only the West, (or get the Wild Card) only to go on and lose in the ALDS then the season is a failure. Plain and simple. That is not about my “unrealistic expectations” as some have said, but rather the result of prior winning. With increased performance come increased expectations, and that is as it should be.
Arte had to know this as well. Perhaps his business model allows him to spend just enough for the Angels to Win the West but not enough to Win the WS. I don’t know what the high end of his salary limits are, but I don’t expect (and I don’t think most other fans would expect) him to have a payroll of $240 million or anything approaching that. Just don’t tell us that you are committed to winning now, when in actuality you are more concerned with the long term health or your “business.” It is certainly his right to run it as a “business” as you say, just don’t tell us that you’re all about winning, when you’re only interested in winning within certain parameters — that is dishonest.
For all the criticism Gene Autry took after the fact (and he most certainly "overpaid " on more than one occassion) he was almost universally loved by fans and players. My point: while Autry may not have been the best businessman, I don’t question whether he did each and everything in his power to bring Anaheim a World Champion. I can’t say that about Arte.
Let me get this straight
Your theory is that Moreno should shell out the most money every year for every free agent, and trade away all of the team’s prospects every year, in the hope of winning it all?
That is absolute lunacy, and only a moron would believe that guarantees a championship. Sorry, pal, but the Yankees have been spending close to double what any other team spends every year for most of the last decade, and it still took a good bit of luck for them to win one World Series.
John Lackey was a good pitcher, but he was not one of the top 5 pitchers in the game. But apparently the Angels were supposed to spend whatever it takes to keep him, no matter what affect that has on any other aspect of the team. Same goes for Figgins. Apparently, money grows on trees, so they should have broken the bank for him too, ignoring the fact that some of the team’s young players – guys like Aybar, Saunders, Santana, Napoli and Morales are all going to start earning larger paychecks in the near future. It’s not your money, so feel free to spend it all, even the money that isn’t there.
Please. Try making some sense for once.
by jjackflash on Dec 14, 2009 11:10 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
Spot on
Your theory is that Moreno should shell out the most money every year for every free agent, and trade away all of the team’s prospects every year, in the hope of winning it all?
To do that, he’d have to first legally change his name to “Gene Autry”. There were some years when Autry had the highest payroll in the game, yet the team didn’t make it to the World Series until after his death. The only way THAT happened was to work a plan and nurture talent, and it is significant that the team which won the World Series had a core of home-grown players, instead of being a band of Hessians.
Look at the current Angel roster; better than 50% are players developed in the Angels system, learning the team’s style and beliefs from the outset. The front office then fills in key areas with free agents, but those signings represent the minority of the total roster.
In addition, there is a budget, which fosters critical thinking and long-range planning, instead of flailing in the moment, which was the hallmark of the Autry years. Lackey was deemed unworthy of a guaranteed 5th year, so he found it elsewhere. That was running a team responsibly, not running it to placate the fan base with bad contracts. In 5 years time, we’ll all know whether or not the Red Sox made a good signing, but the folks who have watched Lackey for the past seven seasons didn’t think he’d hold up for five more full seasons.
I trust the guys on the field to make that analysis, not disgruntled “fans”.
"He's not a Rhodes Scholar to begin with''~Theo Epstein, talking about Papelbon
by George Kaplan on Dec 15, 2009 3:44 AM PST up reply actions
It's not my money -- but when I buy a ticket it IS MY MONEY and have the right NOT
to contribute to Arte’s bottom line if I don’t feel he’s committed to winning (not just the Division, but the World Series). IF you re-read my post JJFlash you’ll see that is the way I phrased it. It IS Arte’s right to spend as little or as much as he chooses on payroll — it is also MY RIGHT not to pay for parking, merchandise or the cost of a ticket itself !
Again, it is not simply the failure to sign Lackey but the accumulated effect of the off-season moves and non-moves that led to my post. I am not expecting Arte to mortgage the farm, and signing Figgins wouldn’t have entailed parting with one single prospect, except perhaps of necessitating a trade of B. Wood. It would have by no means “broken the bank.”
Then go root for someone else.
You want rings above all else and don’t give a shit about much else, go root for New York.
RIP Nick Adenhart.
"When the Babe tries to call his shot, I hope Nick puts one in his ear."
--RallyMonkey5
by Clutch on Dec 15, 2009 11:44 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Good for you
It’s not my money — but when I buy a ticket it IS MY MONEY and have the right NOT
to contribute to Arte’s bottom line if I don’t feel he’s committed to winning (not just the Division, but the World Series).
Show that bad ol’ Arte Moreno a thing or two—don’t attend his games, don’t watch them on TV or listen to them on the radio. Vote with your wallet. Deny him your money.
Whatever it is, stop with the whining. Do you actually think that any of your complaining has made a nickel’s worth of difference in how the Angels roster will be formed? If you don’t like the way it’s been handled, then that is your right and perfectly understandable, but it makes no sense that you’d continue to bleat about it.
Walk away. You’ll be so much happier. God knows many of us will be, too.
"He's not a Rhodes Scholar to begin with''~Theo Epstein, talking about Papelbon
by George Kaplan on Dec 15, 2009 3:06 PM PST up reply actions
I love how anytime someone doesn't agree with a complaint they call it 'whining'.
by Wally's World on Dec 15, 2009 6:06 PM PST up reply actions
Why? Do you hear that from others a lot?
Maybe there is a lesson you should take away from that experience.
In Frost’s case, it is “whining” because he is incessantly complaining about something over which he has no direct control, but to which he holds a very simple solution—don’t support the Angels. If it bothered him as much as he makes it out to be, then he can resolve his anger by not supporting the team in the future. He could find a new team, or follow the Professional Bocce Tour, or any number of other options.
But complaining about owners spending money is like complaining about gravity. A smart person, if as annoyed as he poses as being, would simply walk away.
"He's not a Rhodes Scholar to begin with''~Theo Epstein, talking about Papelbon
by George Kaplan on Dec 15, 2009 8:49 PM PST up reply actions
excuse me....
but your posts and rants are a classic case of unrealistic and unmet expectations and it’s wrapped up in a neat little theory called relative deprivation (laymen call it keeping up with the jones’). here’s a simple sketch:
A (Jack Frost) does not have B (WS championship since 2002);
A knows that other teams have B (the different teams that have been champs since 2002);
A wants B;
A thinks getting B since 2002 is realistic (which i agree with since we’ve been in the playoffs almost every year since)=
Since A doesn’t get B, A acts out.
The reason i don’t act out even though i may have the same expectations is because i realize that luck is a variable in the equation that equals a WS championship, just as talent, skill, and decisionmaking are (this does not mean i think of them as having equal value between them).
IMO, and i’m not one of the statheads out there although i find them useful, the luck i speak of is when a team is playing to it’s optimal capacity, or as we like to say, when they’re HOT!
The FO is managing risk the best they can within a financial structure determined by the owner who wants to win, but not at any cost. i can respect that in a man.
by SactoFan on Dec 15, 2009 4:01 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Okay, who's the moron that rec'd this fanpost?
Now it’s going to be on the front page of halosheaven for another week or so. What a waste of a thread. Let’s start another Granderson thread so we can go back to talking about something fun and awesome.
I heard he was available! Maybe we could go--oh, wait.
Now I’m angry again.
RIP Nick Adenhart.
"When the Babe tries to call his shot, I hope Nick puts one in his ear."
--RallyMonkey5
Thanks, Stirrups!
RIP Nick Adenhart.
"When the Babe tries to call his shot, I hope Nick puts one in his ear."
--RallyMonkey5
You all got hooked
This kid is a troll.
RIP Nick Adenhart 4/9/09
I blog about the Angels at The Diamond Aces
Why are the same people who are pissed off today the same ones who hate the yankees?
And accuse them of “buying a championship?”
It really does look like jealousy when you cry about not signing the best free agents and then criticize the yanks for doing it.
by Balls and Strikes on Dec 15, 2009 2:11 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
what is happenin with ya???
is it just me or everybody is being over-optimistic?? why ya ppl think we even gonna win this division REMENBER this is a new year aaand new NEW YEAR BRINGS NEW THINGS!!!! just remenber that the only way we got to the ALCS was b-cuz the red sox didnt have no offense! and yeah we got to the playoffs and we had a chance really why the hell we got crush by the yankees!!! i mean crush not even a chance since the first pitch was throw?? and this new year is lookin really bad we havent improve at all i mean at all and seattle is still on the race for JASON BAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ooou waooo
u gonna remenber this when u see tha angels......
like with 20 W outta 50 then u gonna say see you next year !!!!!!!!!!!!!! WS lol im way desperate right now!!! MY BAD!!!!!!!!!!!! tomorrow is another day
ARTE IS A CHEAPSKATE
Man oh man JACK FROST is so SPOT ON!
Arte Moreno loves limelight and MONEY.
ANd make no mistake, Reagens is a nice guy, but he is a PUPPET.
Arte Moreno controls every molecule in the organization.
One more thing, Arte is vindictive. Just ask Boras.
Specific examples, please
I ask that because you’re agreeing with someone whose premise has been thoroughly debunked.
"He's not a Rhodes Scholar to begin with''~Theo Epstein, talking about Papelbon
by George Kaplan on Dec 17, 2009 9:35 AM PST up reply actions
My premise debunked? How so George ?
First, what do you think my premise is?
Second, if you are anywhere close to correct in stating my premise GK, I’d like to know how you have debunked it? I don’t think Arte Moreno has shown a commitment to winning the World Series in 2010. I am basing that on his unwillingness to sign in-house free-agents (among other things) because they were considered too expensive. In both cases (Lackey and Figgins) the players took more money from Angel competitors. If Arte had stepped up to the plate, instead of being tied down by his “business plan” / or financial model they Angels would have at least one of those key players.
You can say that in each case that too many years were expected etc. but that is the nature of MLB contracts for star players; you typically overpay at the end and get a deal for the first couple of years. It goes with the territory if you want to own an MLB franchise (particularly a middle market or big market team), as Stirrups has accuratedly stated.
So, NO you have not debunked my premise. Arte wants to have his cake and eat it too. But if his has to give up one he’ll keep his cake (money) and settle for less than a Championship. I don’t see how you have debunked that idea. You can say you don’t think he sees it that way, however, I don’t think any knowledgeable baseball person would say the Angels have done anything this off-season to help them Win now (in 2010). I’m not saying he hasn’t positioned the team to be at least moderately successful down the road — but again, that is not my premise. He hasn’t shown me that he is committed to winning a Championship in the current window we are in.
Thanks for doing the heavy lifting for me
It figures that once you get in gear, you destroy your own argument.
You can say that in each case that too many years were expected etc. but that is the nature of MLB contracts for star players; you typically overpay at the end and get a deal for the first couple of years.
No, YOU would “typically overpay at the end and get a deal for the first couple of years.” Arte is seeking to do it differently. He isn’t interested in taking a 31 year old pitcher with two years of arm trouble and committing to five guaranteed years of $15M+ per season. It doesn’t matter if the deal is front-loaded or back-loaded, the front office apparently had enough concerns about Lackey’s arm health that it didn’t think he’d be able to honor that fifth season with 30 starts. While you apparently advocate actions for their own sake, the Angel front office is more interested in meaningful actions.
Lackey may well go to Boston and turn into the second coming of Cy Young, but in the meantime it was determined that he wanted more money than the team’s evaluation of his worth. Perhaps you’re in the habit of overpaying to goods and services, but that isn’t a smart way to run a business.
If the Angels make no moves at all, the rotation features two pitchers under team control for the next three seasons, one for the next two and one for the next four. Saunders will be the oldest of the four at 28 on Opening Day. One can do a lot of hand-wringing about the lack of an “ace”, but I don’t think there is a GM in the game who would pass at the opportunity to take these four pitchers instead of the top four of his own rotation. We may lack a Haren or a Halladay, but no team in the game (aside from Boston) is as solid in #1 through #4 as the Angels.
In the meantime, the team has been developing pitchers like Reckling, Walden, Ortega, Bell and O’Sullivan, and they will need to either be traded or allowed to be promoted to the big team if they show the capability.
Forbes magazine estimates that Moreno had negative operating income of -$38M in the first three seasons he was in charge (04-06), and the income the team has had in the next three seasons has not quite equaled those income losses ($37M over 07-09). Even still, this man who (according to you) values money over winning inherited a team which was one year removed from a World Series and increased his player payroll by 25% in the first year alone; it was double what Disney was paying for players in 2001. His current budget is double the payroll of the 2002 team. If you seriously want to make a case that Moreno has deeper pockets than Disney, then step up; otherwise, to say he values money over winning is an argument which lowers the IQ of those who simply read it.
The constant refrain in your posts is Moreno “wants to have his cake and eat it too”, in that he wants to be profitable and win a championship at the same time. Well, duh! Show me the successful business owner who doesn’t desire to make money (which allows the business to continue) and still strive for excellence. It is a given that the Angels lack the financial resources of the Yankees and Red Sox, so comparisons there are futile. But if you compare the Angels to other major-market teams (White Sox, Cubs, Mets, Astros, Phillies, Diamondbacks and Padres all exist in markets of 1.2M or more), only the Phillies are in the same class of success over the past six years. Yes, the White Sox and Tigers both won World Series championships, but neither team has shown the consistent success of the Angels over that same period of time. Not insignificantly, the Tigers, White Sox, Cubs and Mets all carried larger player payrolls than the Angels at various times, which is a good indication that money alone does not dictate winning results.
Finally, Moreno hasn’t veered from his course. He remains a man with a very sharp pencil and a very long-range vision for the team. If you expect him to suddenly be frivolous with player signings, then you’re watching the wrong club. There were lessons learned from the deals for GMJ and Colon, and one would not expect Moreno to go 5 or 6 years for any player who isn’t an absolute game-changer (like Teixeira). The amounts of money bandied about by agents for Bay, Holliday, Lackey and others simply disqualify them from playing in Anaheim.
This brings me back to my earlier point: There is no purpose served in whining about his methodology. It is like complaining about gravity. If it truly bothers you, then you really need to find a different team to support. It is clear that there are some who feel as you do; it is clearer that you are in a distinct minority with your view. The majority of Angel fans appreciate top-level play in an environment which is affordable (compared to so many other baseball parks these days). Arte is in the entertainment business, and as such he competes with the beaches and ski slopes as much as with the Dodgers and Lakers. The consistently high level of attendance tells us his efforts have paid off with the fans, and the nearly annual trips to the postseason are markers of his continued efforts to field a championship-level team each season.
You don’t have to agree with his methodology (or even buy his product), but insulting him simply makes you small.
"He's not a Rhodes Scholar to begin with''~Theo Epstein, talking about Papelbon
by George Kaplan on Dec 19, 2009 12:32 PM PST up reply actions
Here are my 2cents on Lackey
You guys have ever looked at his sprit stats, I bet you may not want him anymore.
Lackey’s Career total: ERA 3.83 WHIP 1.27
However, the sprit career numbers are,
vs BOS ERA 5.25 WHIP 1.64
vs NYY ERA 4.66 WHIP 1.53
vs TEX ERA 5.87 WHIP 1.57
（vs HOU ERA 11.57 WHIP 2.57 *too small sample）
What this means?
His money pitch is the sharp and big uncle charley to the outside sink in the dirt.
The patient hitting teams such as BOS, NYY (well, they are great hitting teams anyway) can lay off his money pitch.
And Lackey does not have overpowering 99 miles fastball goes only 91-94 something like that.
His other problem has been his short temper and creating big innings.
A lot of people love his "fired up" attitude, but it does not work well for the pitchers all the time.
When he loses his calm, he creates big innings.
That’s why he cannot pitch well in his home town, I believe.
Do you remember when he was shouting "Sciosc, this is mine!" in one of these post season games?
Mike Bucher actually visited him in that inning already. And when Scioscia came to the mound, he had no choice but was pulled from the game at that moment.
Lackey’s shout did not mean anything by the baseball rule.
That’s how he loses his calm.
We, most of the Angel fans, know when a teammate made an error, most of the time, Lackey was not able to pick him up like the true ace pitchers do.
He was too upset in those occasions. Another temper issue, I would say.
It was good for him that he does not have to pitch against the patient and good BOS lineup who owns him.
We need the pitchers who can pitch well against the RedSox or the Yankees such as …Kazmir.
$85MM for 5 years is just too much.
50% of his career 8 complete shutouts were against hacking Seattle lineup.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Will Bryce Harper start the season with the Nationals?
- Mitch Mustain puts football behind him, signs reported rookie deal with White Sox
- Robinson Cano and Denzel Washington face off in Jay Leno’s Yankees trivia contest
- Shane Victorino lands role on ‘Hawaii Five-0′
- Have you criticized Hanley Ramirez on Twitter? Your name may be on his bat!
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
