The A.L. West race is heating up

by Grichfan on Sep 6, 2011 4:48 PM PDT

To quote Ed Harris from Apollo 13: "On the contrary sir, I believe this will be our finest hour."

Too many people have posted on the bad of this season - so allow me a brief moment to wax on the GOOD things about the Angels 2011 season and why I believe they will make the playoffs whilst trailing Texas by 2.5 games with 21 games left:

The Good:

The Starting Rotation: Weaver and Haren have carried the team on their shoulders for the entire season. Santana woke up and is delivering better than average starts, Pineiro seems to have come out of his funk and all of a sudden some kid (cause I'm 38) named Jerome Williams has given the Angels an option as a #5

Relief: Downs is healthy and is a great bridge to the 9th inning. As for the rest, I'll call it addition by subtraction - Bobby Cassevah and Garrett Richards/Williams are keeping the ball out of the hands of Rodney.

Offense: More Trout, less Wells. More Wilson/Conger, less Mathis. For those of us who think that all Soch does is pick his lip, the guy is making decisions and managing. After his sit-down with Abreu and Wells, not only is he following through with his threat of playing Trout, it lit a fire under the vets (enough for them to contribute something)

And raise your hand if you thought Bourjos would be hitting .270+ with 10 HR?

Sorry, I forgot to mention the replacement for the power-hitting 1B - the one who's a favorite for the ROY

Defense: More Trout, less Wells. More Wilson/Conger, less Mathis - enough said

The schedule: IF the Angels can survive the Yankees, the schedule suggests the team will pull into the final series of the season within 1-2 games of each other.

And even IF Texas takes the division - how many of you REALLY thought the Angels would be this good coming into the 2011 season. I figured that 2012 would be their year, so in my mind - we're playing with house money:

They re-signed Weaver, got rid of B. Wood, are FINALLY shedding GMJ's contract, found a power-hitter in Trumbo (btw, Mike Schmidt was a career .267 hitter) and got an early glimpse of 5-7 years of Gold Glove OF in Trout and Bourjos.

There are a lot of holes, but there's no reason to think this group can't win the West.

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

Tweet Comment 82 comments | 2 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

If we had played better against texas I would be inclined to agree with you,

but we havent done much against them this year. Hopefully, it all clicks for this last push into the playoffs and gives us an advantage going in playing good baseball, but, as you said, at least its been a fun season.

by Balls and Strikes on Sep 6, 2011 5:17 PM PDT reply actions

it's just nice to be in a pennant chase again...

last year was the worst. Go Halos!

No Matter What... Fight On!
May The Halo Burn Bright!

by trojanangelfan on Sep 6, 2011 5:19 PM PDT reply actions

Trumbo

Should not be the leading candidate for ROY with an OBP below .300. I enjoy watching Trumbo play, but his plate discipline has been declining as the season goes on. I mean, there are a lot of times where Trumbo has had much worse plate discipline than Vlad ever did, and Trumbo is no Vlad Guerrero. If Trumbo cannot improve his plate discipline, he’s headed for major struggles next season and he’ll continue to be an out making machine down the stretch for us.

by Howie the Halo on Sep 6, 2011 5:21 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs

Wow

I didn’t know Keith Law was a member of HH

Well, come see a fat old man some time!

by Moondoggy on Sep 6, 2011 5:27 PM PDT up reply actions 7 recs

Umm

If by Keith Law you mean logical, then yes. Trumbo has provided a nice boost for our team and has certainly been much better than a replacement player for the Halos. With that being said, I don’t think I’m being unfair in hoping that Trumbo can become a very good first baseman/DH for us in the future. The only way he can become that guy is by starting to develop at least some form of plate discipline. Could you imagine how good/great of a player Trumbo could become if he stopped swinging at everything? If you’re okay with a guy that goes up there swinging at everything, then I guess you belong to the Mickey Hatcher school of hitting.

by Howie the Halo on Sep 6, 2011 6:52 PM PDT up reply actions

Trumbo is not in contention for MVP, he is in contention for Rookie of the Year.

There’s a big difference between the two. Your standards are a bit too extreme.

A wise man does not need advice and a fool won't take it.

by angelslogic on Sep 6, 2011 6:55 PM PDT up reply actions

I mean that you are finding the cloud in the silver lining. Nice

Law stated he would vote for himself over Trumbo for ROY because of the OBP issue. I’m sorry, but that’s just stupid. Why is it only the pundits that see that you should never throw him a strike? Are the scouts, managers, pitchers so dense that they don’t see that right now? Maybe he has just a tad more skill than is being given credit for. He could very well have 30 HRs by year end. For a rookie, yeah, a pretty good accomplishment in spite of the fact that he can’t seem to get on base.

Well, come see a fat old man some time!

by Moondoggy on Sep 6, 2011 7:03 PM PDT up reply actions

You do realize

That pitchers make mistakes on the mound, right? If you’ve been watching the same games I’ve been, you’d notice that they haven’t been throwing him many strikes lately. Both pitches he drove last night were outside of the zone, with the double being the pitch he refuses to layoff. He certainly drives the eye high pitch well at times, but the majority of the time he makes outs swinging at that pitch.

by Howie the Halo on Sep 6, 2011 7:08 PM PDT up reply actions

A rookie with 26 HR

If that is not good enough for you, go root for Theo Epstein’s math homework, we are here to enjoy BASEBALL.

by Rev Halofan on Sep 6, 2011 5:34 PM PDT up reply actions 6 recs

26 so far

Well, come see a fat old man some time!

by Moondoggy on Sep 6, 2011 5:48 PM PDT up reply actions 4 recs

make that 27

"And the Anaheim Angels are the Champions of Baseball!"

by Grichfan on Sep 14, 2011 3:45 PM PDT up reply actions

Hooray optimism!!

We should all be higher on this team, if for no other reason than you’re all not stuck in the bowels of hell of this country that we call the East Coast! And yes Rev, I think your turn of phrase a week ago was much…pithier. Go Halos!!!!

by Duh..Angels on Sep 6, 2011 7:07 PM PDT up reply actions

Why is OBP given so much more weight than SLG?

He’s a rookie…most have huge holes in their game. As of right now, Trumbo’s is his OBP (oh, by the way, Bobby Crosby won in 2004 with a .319 OBP, 16 points lower than the MLB average, while Trumbo is currently 23 points below. Nevermind Trumbo’s OPS+ of 117 to Crosby’s 93).

But back to my point…the reason OBP is worshipped as it is (and rightfully so) is because of the chances it inherently gives a team to score. The more you get on base, the more scoring opportunities. But if someone does that at a below average clip, they can still provide the team with an equal number of scoring opportunities as someone with a higher number, by advancing further ON the base paths when they do get on. That’s Trumbo’s case.

He may not be getting on with the frequency we all want (which is something he can stand to improve on), but when he does get on, he’s more frequently doing it by taking extra bases, giving us better scoring opportunities in the process.

For a rookie to have had the consistent power he has had all year, without tapering off, is quite a feat, and it sets him apart from most of the ROTY pack.

A wise man once said "never postpone to tomorrow what can be done the day after tomorrow. Except DFAing Mathis. Do that shit now, plz."

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Sep 6, 2011 5:51 PM PDT up reply actions 4 recs

This is exactly what I was trying to say

only with less words

and less thought

and not quite as elegant

Well, come see a fat old man some time!

by Moondoggy on Sep 6, 2011 6:11 PM PDT up reply actions

I hope no women have read your post

admitting that you can’t do better is bad point number one, and is also a direct invitation to female fire an brimstone. Plus you will be cast not as a pumpkin, but as a melon. Thereby being taken advantage of till the end of time.

by eyespy on Sep 7, 2011 4:03 PM PDT up reply actions

The short answer is that OBP measures the currency of baseball

Outs. Outs are precious. Once you’ve made them, you can’t get them back. Trumbo is, unfortunately, very bad at avoiding outs. And that’s because he has very poor plate discipline. Bill James, in his last abstract, did a comparison where he put 1927 Babe Ruth on a team with a bunch of very poor hitters. In one scenario, he simulated the team with Ruth’s 1927 stats. In the other simulation, Ruth walked every time up. The second team was much, much better offensively with Ruth walking.

I love the season Trumbo has had, and despite the poor OBP, he’s given good value. I’d have to think about it more to decide who I’d vote for ROY, but he’s in the discussion.

Still, I am worried about a sophomore slump, given Trumbo’s profile. If pitchers figure out that they very, very rarely have to throw him a strike, he is apt to struggle. I hope that doesn’t happen.

Defending maligned chants since 2009

by Gorbachav5 on Sep 6, 2011 6:12 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs

look at his hit charts though, he crushes stuff out of the zone.

While he does get fooled sometimes, he is just as likely to kill it.

by Balls and Strikes on Sep 6, 2011 10:29 PM PDT up reply actions

Personally, I've always liked OBP and OPS about the same. OPS+ is good too.

Trumbo is currently at .777 and 115 in the last two categories. Those numbers are acceptable for an everyday player. Not too shabby for a rookie who a lot of people doubted because he did his AAA time in Salt Lake City.

Scioscialist Party of America - Redistributing your defense since 2000.

by Commander_Nate on Sep 7, 2011 8:47 AM PDT up reply actions

i'd love to see a stat that is

Runners Moved Up…the percentage of runners who moved up a base because of you.

by Halos in DE on Sep 6, 2011 6:18 PM PDT up reply actions

you may have just struck gold, hahaha

Minor League Ball's 2010 Rookie of the Year Poster
If you didn't know by now, my screen name is sarcastic

by mathisrocks5 on Sep 6, 2011 6:50 PM PDT up reply actions

the ever elusive productive out

Soth’s favorite play

by eyespy on Sep 7, 2011 4:05 PM PDT up reply actions

Again

You can compare him to Bobby Crosby all you want, but that doesn’t mean anything until you look at the guys Crosby was up against in 2004. 2004 was one of the worst rookie classes in the AL I can remember in my lifetime. Zack Greinke deserved to win the award that year and he had by far the highest WAR (3.7). The other cadidates were: Shingo Takatsu, Daniel Cabrera, Alexis Rios, David DeJesus, Ross Gload, John Buck, David Bush, and Nate Robertson.

I like Trumbo, but I’d just like to see him stop swinging at every pitch. As far as slugging percentage goes, .483 isn’t exactly setting the world on fire enough to completely ignore OBP. People can call me Keith Law all they want, but the only difference between Mark Trumbo and Vernon Wells is that Trumbo is young and can actually get away with swinging at nearly everything. I know I wasn’t a fan of hearing Vernon say he never has taken pitches, and he never will, so why should we be content with the same from Trumbo. Again, I only want Trumbo to become the best player possible and he cannot do that unless he figures out the strike zone.

by Howie the Halo on Sep 6, 2011 7:03 PM PDT up reply actions

The only difference between Wells and Trumbo is WHAT?

How about 120 points in OPS, for starters?

You’re trying too hard to compare Trumbo’s performance against what a veteran star should be capable of. He’s a rookie. Start analyzing him as such.

A wise man once said "never postpone to tomorrow what can be done the day after tomorrow. Except DFAing Mathis. Do that shit now, plz."

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Sep 6, 2011 7:14 PM PDT up reply actions

Dude

Wells and Trumbo have the exact same plate discipline right now. The difference is that Trumbo is a younger, much better hitter with better bat speed. There’s really no way any objective person could argue that either guy has lousy plate discipline right now. The good news for Trumbo is, he is a young guy that can develop better pitch recognition. The bad news for Wells is, he is an aging player that never cared to develop any form of plate discipline.

by Howie the Halo on Sep 6, 2011 7:20 PM PDT up reply actions

We're talking about a Goddamn ROTY award

and you’re sitting here bitching about issues that MANY rookies have. That’s my problem. No one is arguing about Trumbo’s plate discipline. What we’re talking about is understanding that ROOKIES almost always have holes in their game, and need to be measured up as such.

A wise man once said "never postpone to tomorrow what can be done the day after tomorrow. Except DFAing Mathis. Do that shit now, plz."

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Sep 6, 2011 8:24 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs

I respectfully disagree

It’s true that Trumbo’s OBP is rather low.

Before tonight’s game, he was at 132 games – the same number of games the aforementioned Mike Schmidt play in his 1st “full” year

(I use the Schmidt comparison because of an argument my mom and I had at a game last month – and Schmidt defines the power-hitting, low avg. corner INF) – For kicks I also threw in Tim Salmon’s stats from his rookie year.

Schmidt – 132 games; 367 AB; 72 hits; 18 HR; 136K; 62BB; .196 avg; .324 OBP
Trumbo – 132 games; 473 AB; 122 hits; 26 HR; 101K; 24BB; .258 avg; .297 OBP
Salmon – 142 games; 515 AB; 146 hits; 31 HR; 135K; 82 BB; .283 avg; .382 OBP

What do we see here? Trumbo doesn’t take walks, but he doesn’t “swing at everything” (at least he’s not up there swinging and missing) -

I would say that he’s hitting the ball – but not getting it to fall. If you want, I can provide the link to Crash Davis testifying on the difference between .250 and .300

Funny though, if you look at Schmidt’s rookie season – would you think he would be a HOFer?

"And the Anaheim Angels are the Champions of Baseball!"

by Grichfan on Sep 6, 2011 8:27 PM PDT up reply actions

That is an awesome thing to argue with your mom about

My mom and I usually just bitch about cleaning my room or some stupid shit like that.

Tim Salmon: The once and future Kingfish.

by Teixeira Who? on Sep 6, 2011 8:38 PM PDT up reply actions

My mom is old-school and loves Schmidt and the Phillies

We were sitting in section 512 drinking a beer and talking about if Trumbo compared to Schmidt.

She remarked that Schmidt was a career .286 hitter. I was like “No way” and looked it up, which caused her to sulk for two innings.

"And the Anaheim Angels are the Champions of Baseball!"

by Grichfan on Sep 6, 2011 8:47 PM PDT up reply actions

Slow down

But if someone does that at a below average clip, they can still provide the team with an equal number of scoring opportunities as someone with a higher number, by advancing further ON the base paths when they do get on. That’s Trumbo’s case.

Yes, in a general sense, that is true. But think for a second. Is it better to get on base instead of making an out, or to hit a double instead of a single? What’s worth more: not making outs in four consecutive trips to the plate, or hitting a home run in one plate appearance and then making outs in another three? You need to be able to translate between outs/not outs and extra-base hits/non-extra-base hits to make a claim about Trumbo’s relative value.

It’s not an obvious question. If you’re thinking in terms of OPS, going 1-for-4 with a home run is worth exactly the same as going 4-for-4 with four singles: 1.000. But they’re totally different situations. In one case, the player has given you only one chance to score, but he made damn sure that you would score. In the other, the player has given you four different chances to score a run. Who has helped his team more?

by Suboptimal on Sep 6, 2011 7:20 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs

if you're on the yankees, 4-for-4

if you’re on the angels, 1-4 w/ hr. other guy will never score.

i have a trumboner.

by truhalo on Sep 6, 2011 7:29 PM PDT up reply actions

And

That’s because we have a bunch of other guys that don’t get on base. I just have a hard time believing that people on HH are so quick to dismiss OBP, when that’s the type of thinking that landed us Vernon Wells. People told Reagins, “but look at Wells’ OBP.” Reagins and Scioscia said, “but he hit 31 HR’s.”

by Howie the Halo on Sep 6, 2011 7:33 PM PDT up reply actions 4 recs

That's all true

I wasn’t trying to argue otherwise…I’m merely stating that you can’t solely measure worth in OBP, and all the arguments against Trumbo basically only use that stat, while completely ignoring any other contributions. If Trumbo was really totally worthless because of his OBP, then he wouldn’t be a positive WAR contributor.

A wise man once said "never postpone to tomorrow what can be done the day after tomorrow. Except DFAing Mathis. Do that shit now, plz."

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Sep 6, 2011 8:25 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs

This

If Trumbo was really totally worthless because of his OBP, then he wouldn’t be a positive WAR contributor.

Tim Salmon: The once and future Kingfish.

by Teixeira Who? on Sep 6, 2011 8:39 PM PDT up reply actions

Who

Said Trumbo was totally worthless because of his OBP?

by Howie the Halo on Sep 6, 2011 10:20 PM PDT up reply actions

No one is saying that Trumbo is totally worthless

Just that he is not worth as much as his home-run total would suggest on its own. Most guys who hit 25-30 home runs do it with an OBP over .300. Not just most guys—almost every guy in the history of everything. Only 20 other players have done it. He’s an absolute freak, which makes him so much fun to watch.

by Suboptimal on Sep 6, 2011 10:24 PM PDT up reply actions

Howie the Halo above

was saying that he doesn’t deserve a ROTY award, solely using the argument that his OBP is as low as it is (while rather laughably comparing him to Vernon Wells in 2011). That’s my problem here…he’s using a single statistical flaw of Trumbo’s to say he doesn’t deserve an award that is ALMOST always given to players with significant flaws in their extremely young careers.

A wise man once said "never postpone to tomorrow what can be done the day after tomorrow. Except DFAing Mathis. Do that shit now, plz."

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Sep 7, 2011 7:04 AM PDT up reply actions

An ROY doesn't need to be perfect

Just the best among his colleagues. Trumbo’s low OBP is a very significant flaw in his game right now. Is there anyone out there who is less flawed? I think there is. It could be a matter of legitimate debate, depending on how you feel about the relative value of pitchers and position players.

by Suboptimal on Sep 7, 2011 9:20 AM PDT up reply actions

The only candidate I’d champion over Trumbo is Hellickson. Hosmer is essentially a wash with Trumbo, and makes it a toss-up.

-Ackley didn’t play enough, and tapered off until recently, anyway.

-Nova’s ONLY argument is wins (the worst stat in baseball), and his 103 ERA+ is the definition of average.

-Pineda has had a mediocre, if not worse, second half after being the early favorite, and sits on the same 103 ERA+

Hellickson himself actually just barely qualifies for the ROY, interestingly enough, but he’s still eligible.

Trumbo has the obvious hole in his OBP. But for a rookie to generate his kind of power (with more than an outside shot at 30 HRs and 90 RBIs) this early, and, more importantly, to have meant more to his team than any other rookie, make him more than a strong candidate…I’m just more irked by Howie Halo’s total disregard for him on the basis of one flaw.

A wise man once said "never postpone to tomorrow what can be done the day after tomorrow. Except DFAing Mathis. Do that shit now, plz."

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Sep 7, 2011 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions

Nova ain't getting a W today in Baltimore

he gave up 3 runs in 5 innings too and now sports a 3.94 ERA.
thanks for playing Nova.

by Rex Fregosi on Sep 8, 2011 1:36 PM PDT up reply actions

OPS is different in your scenario

4-4 with 4 singles = OPS of 2.000 (1.000 OBP + 1.000 Slg)
1-4 with 1 HR = OPS of 1.250 (.250 OBP + 1.000 Slg)

by jco on Sep 7, 2011 2:45 PM PDT up reply actions

My mistake

The SLG is the same, not the OPS. But the point remains. You can find two players with the same OPS but with very different relative values.

by Suboptimal on Sep 7, 2011 4:41 PM PDT up reply actions

Then who?

To me, if you negate Trumbo for his OBP then who do you select? To me there’s no one even nipping at his heels.

Tim Salmon: The once and future Kingfish.

by Teixeira Who? on Sep 6, 2011 8:41 PM PDT up reply actions

Jeremy Hellickson, Pineda for the Mariners, Eric Hosmer (longer shot), Ivan Nova

It’s a deep AL race. Handing Trumbo the award is short-sited. Especially considering that their is a rookie on the Yankees (which might be enough to give him the award), who might win 18 games.

"I have one word for you...Be careful."
-Jose Guillen

by IE Angel on Sep 6, 2011 10:13 PM PDT up reply actions

Nova's likelihood scares me

primarily because he really just doesn’t deserve it at all compared to other guys playing right now. Anyone can win 18 games with 6.63 runs of support per game. Hell, Weaver would be practically undefeated.

A wise man once said "never postpone to tomorrow what can be done the day after tomorrow. Except DFAing Mathis. Do that shit now, plz."

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Sep 7, 2011 7:05 AM PDT up reply actions

What?

Hellickson has had an excellent year. If I had a vote I’d vote:

1. Hellickson
2. Trumbo
3. Hosmer

by Howie the Halo on Sep 6, 2011 10:19 PM PDT up reply actions

I think it will come down to Hellickson or Trumbo

Those are pretty much the best rookies on each side of the ball. The rest of the top 5 will be some ordering of Hosmer, Pineda and Walden. Brett Lawrie would be in that mix if he had been called up earlier.

Scioscialist Party of America - Redistributing your defense since 2000.

by Commander_Nate on Sep 7, 2011 8:25 AM PDT up reply actions

Absolutely!

Just to have our team in a pennant race that will probably be decided in the final series of the regular season is awesome. Anything beyond that is icing on the cake!

I meant the OTHER Howard!

by agent_99 on Sep 6, 2011 6:05 PM PDT reply actions

WHEN Trumbo reaches 30+ HR's, 90+ RBI's

It would be very difficult to vote against him for ROY regardless of OBP or BA. There are guys making 8 figures who aren’t gonna do that.

by TheGodofRuns on Sep 6, 2011 6:11 PM PDT via mobile reply actions

Ah, do you mean a certain left fielder for the Angels?

A wise man does not need advice and a fool won't take it.

by angelslogic on Sep 6, 2011 6:57 PM PDT up reply actions

Nice write-up Grichfan

I’ve been an Angels fan since 1961, but I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a season like this, with more ups and downs than the Dow. The Wells acquisition was a season-crushing bummer and a disaster that will hurt us for years to come. But the bright spots you mentioned — the emergence of WTY as one of the 2 or 3 best pitchers in MLB and the exciting play of Fleet Pete and the rookies and more — have really brought us to an unexpected place this late in the season. That we would actually be contending with 20 games to go is nothing less than astounding. Must admit that I almost gave up on this team several times during the year, and each time they came back. All I can say now is GO ANGELS!

by Seraphan on Sep 6, 2011 6:17 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs

"And even IF Texas takes the division - how many of you REALLY thought the Angels would be this good coming into the 2011 season."

The problem with this is that the Angels aren’t very good — our division is simply very weak this year in most categories outside of pitching.

The Angels project to be an 88 win team, if they’re lucky, and continue to maintain the high-water mark they achieved this week.Why shouldn’t we have expected 87-88 wins from the 4th highest payroll in baseball? Those would be markedly pessimistic expectations, all things considered, no?

Much will be told tonight — if the Angels can beat King Felix and keep pace, they may still be in it. If not, nah, not so much.

It’s cool that you have a positive mindset. But I find it hard to agree that the Angels have been better than expected. I expected a team that would win 85 games, give or take two or three, and that’s what we’ve gotten through most of the season.

by Turks Teeth on Sep 6, 2011 6:33 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs

I was optimistic before the season

I thought we would win 85-90 games, with an outside chance at more than that if everything went well for us. That was before we lost Morales for the season, before Wells proved to be far worse than anyone predicted, and before young bullpen arms like Jepsen and Kohn flamed out.

If I had anticipated all of that, I certainly would have been less optimistic about our chances. And many fans were. In fact, most members on this site predicted that the team would finish at or below 500 and in third place, behind the Rangers and A’s. Many even predicted a 70-win season. So, under the circumstances, I would say that Grichfan’s current positive outlook is justified.

by Brody on Sep 6, 2011 7:02 PM PDT up reply actions

I'm still shocked that folks thought Morales was a lock to return.

My estimate of 85 wins assumed he would stagger back to the lineup and play perhaps half a season at partial strength, much as Rivera did after suffering a catastrophic leg break. Problem is, a lot of fans really didn’t learn from that lesson, which was only two seasons prior to that of Kendrys.

I don’t think banking on Morales was wise, or that inconsistent rookie bullpen arms flaming out should be a shocker to anyone. That happens every year. In fact, nothing extraordinary happened to the Angels this year (notwithstanding inept roster construction) compared to other teams beyond the fact that their starting pitching has been better than expected. The rest feels like excuse-making to me.

I expect a rich team to succeed. If I’m going to follow 150+ games a year, management and ownership should expect that a fan like me expects their team to succeed. I’m not here to make excuses for them, or to be sympathetic because a single hard break like Morales failing to recover adequately threw the team’s season into the shit. A $140M team shouldn’t hinge on a single player. Only insanely inept management can f*ck up that badly. (See: Mets.)

by Turks Teeth on Sep 6, 2011 9:03 PM PDT up reply actions

I wasn't counting on Morales to return at 2009 strength -

But we keep talking about a $140 million payroll – remember that two large chunks belong to guys that aren’t even here: GMJ and Kasmir ($10.9 million & $12 million).

Add in Wells’ $23 mill for this year and it’s fair to say that $45 mil is poorly spent and the Angels are really dealing with a $95 million payroll of “productivity” (if you want to include Rodney’s $5 million for 2011.

OK – we’re all same people here – Throw in Rodney’s $5 mil and that makes it $90 mil of “productivity”

Do you still feel the same way?

I don’t

"And the Anaheim Angels are the Champions of Baseball!"

by Grichfan on Sep 6, 2011 9:31 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs

How can you just subtract misspent money from your equation?

Misspent money is the very point here.

Roster construction is about how we spend our money, and roster construction is why this team is mediocre.

by Turks Teeth on Sep 8, 2011 7:46 PM PDT up reply actions

I'm not "subtracting" the money

But how can anyone (beside the guy who cuts the checks) look at what the Angels have spent their money on and say it’s truly a $140 million payroll?

Two of the guys on the payroll aren’t even on the team, the third (Wells) either hits a home run, ground out weakly to short, strikes out or pops up, so he might as well NOT be on the payroll.

And the 4th (Rodney) doesn’t understand why he’s not pitching even though he couldn’t throw a baseball out of a boat in the middle of the Pacific and hit water.

I respectfully disagree that roster construction has been poor. For the MOST part, the guys that Reagins has signed have paid off -

With that said, his willingness to take on other team’s poor roster moves (ie, Kaz, Wells) is an abomination.

"And the Anaheim Angels are the Champions of Baseball!"

by Grichfan on Sep 14, 2011 3:53 PM PDT up reply actions

The roster has been constructed well so long as you don't count the part of the roster that hasn't

by Suboptimal on Sep 14, 2011 5:47 PM PDT up reply actions

now you are getting it

by Balls and Strikes on Sep 14, 2011 6:02 PM PDT up reply actions

That's what Tony's counting on to stay employed for another year.

Arte Went Biblical sounded nice until it was clear it didn't involve sitting the twenty-three million dollar man.

by snowhor on Sep 15, 2011 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions

I didn't expect 2009 Kendry(s)

But I did expect him to play. The medical staff said that the surgery was successful and that he would be ready to play. Although it did not work out that way, it is way overly simplistic to say that Kendrys’s comeback was destined to fail this season because Rivera’s did in 2008. The injuries were very different, and Rivera broke his leg during winter ball and had surgery in January (only three months before the season began), whereas Kendrys broke his leg in May and had surgery almost a year before the season began.

Medical doctors and trainers are not in the business of making unrealistically optimistic predictions. They tend to do the opposite. I imagine that if you looked at all athletes who had the same fracture that Kendrys did, you would find a compelling basis to conclude that Kendrys would be able to play within a year of his surgery.

How good he would be, and whether he would hold up over a 162-game season, are different questions.

by Brody on Sep 7, 2011 6:18 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions 1 recs

This was my outlook as well

I expected him to be back because that is basically what the coaches and training staff said, and they are in a better position to make that call than any of us. Also, since the comparison to Rivera keeps getting brought up, the timeframe of their return would have been about right. Rivera didn’t return to the Angels lineup until very late in the ’07 season, roughly 9-10 months after his injury. The same timeframe for Morales would have had him coming back to baseball sometime during ST or the early weeks of this season. Until it was decided that he needed a second surgery, that is essentially the schedule he was on.

As for his performance when and if he does return, I’m not that worried. He might take a while to get going, but he is a naturally gifted hitter. It’s his ability to run that needs to be restored.

Scioscialist Party of America - Redistributing your defense since 2000.

by Commander_Nate on Sep 7, 2011 8:36 AM PDT up reply actions

The doctor who recommended a second surgery said that surgery was utterly predictable.

You’re leaving out the possibility that the front office chose to believe what they wanted to believe, and ignored opinion that may have contradicted what they wanted to believe.

Is that unlikely? I think it’s quite plausible. They did precisely that with Wells, Rodney and Kazmir.

by Turks Teeth on Sep 8, 2011 7:49 PM PDT up reply actions

I don't remember anybody predicting a 70-win season.

The general consensus was this team improved upon itself, very slightly (3-5 wins). Lot’s of people were high on the A’s, however.

140 million should get you past Texas, not a pat-on-the-back fanpost about how peachy this club is .

What do you need a fancy suit for, Charlie, you ain't got no job to wear it to.

by clover_black on Sep 7, 2011 12:12 AM PDT up reply actions

There were definitely 70-win predictions

The argument was as follows:

Start with last year’s 80-win team. Wells replaces Rivera, which is a wash. We get an extra 2/3 of a season of Haren, rather than Saunders, which might be worth a couple of wins at most. Then we subtract our two best hitters — Napoli and Matsui — and we lose 1/3 of a season of Morales. This would make our terrible offense much worse than it was last season. Hence the 70 wins.

I’m sure you can find the preseason posts if you want to verify this.

by Brody on Sep 7, 2011 6:05 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions

79 was the lowest predicted win total that I can remember

I think 85 was the most popular number. High hopes for Bourjos and Conger, and the possibility of Mike Trout, seemed to push the expectation higher than last year’s team.

Actually, this year’s offense is quite a bit worse than last season. But the pitching and defense is among the best in team history, better than anyone could have anticipated.

by Suboptimal on Sep 7, 2011 9:28 AM PDT up reply actions

You're right. Interestingly enough, we've never led the AL in ERA, though

I thought this year might finally be the one, but now it doesn’t look like it, either.

"There's nothing that cleanses your soul like getting the hell kicked out of you." - Woody Hayes

by johnnyangel101 on Sep 7, 2011 2:02 PM PDT up reply actions

Agreed

The Angels have far exceeded my expectations of them this season and have turned it into an exciting race.

by Harrigan on Sep 6, 2011 6:39 PM PDT reply actions

Kansas City has already been eliminated.

They haven’t won 60 games as of yet.

We only won 3 of 10 games against them this year. If we were 7 – 3 instead of 3 – 7 aganist them we would be in 1st place.

Don’t ever say April games don’t mean much…

by Unclearnie on Sep 6, 2011 6:59 PM PDT reply actions

The Royals

Have a very bright futue if they can put together some starting pitching. Their core of young position players figures to be among the best for years to come.

by Howie the Halo on Sep 6, 2011 7:06 PM PDT up reply actions

yep, they are a great farm team for the rest of the league

by Balls and Strikes on Sep 6, 2011 10:37 PM PDT up reply actions

We also let Rodney blow a few saves against them

And we let Kazmir face them when he probably should have been DFA’d out of Spring Training.

Scioscialist Party of America - Redistributing your defense since 2000.

by Commander_Nate on Sep 7, 2011 8:39 AM PDT up reply actions

Just how good are the Angels?

When we talk about the Angels projecting to be an 85 win team this year, let’s keep in mind that on June 10, following six straight losses, the Angels record was 30-35. Since then they are 47-29, playing at a .618 clip. Had they done that for the whole year, we’d be looking at 100 wins. The big question from here on out is which team will show up for the last 20 games, the 30-35 team or the 47-29 team? If it’s the latter, then we could be in for an exciting ride the next few weeks!

by Seraphan on Sep 6, 2011 7:19 PM PDT reply actions