Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

IGNORED

Angels Official Website: New draftees lead Angels' Top 20 Prospects list


Recommended Posts

Interesting.

I've been told that we traded our entire farm system away.

 

 

you would think four future major leaguers would be ranked higher than that

 

You seem to be in denial about the simple fact that the farm was weak to begin with and has only become weaker.

 

Denial is a primary symptom of homeritis, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of you guys really buy into prospect rankings.    I mean, I get it, you need to throw daggers at people who were upset with the trade and that's the whole reason for some of the comments but it's forest for the trees time.

 

Those prospect rankings are designed to try to spot guys who might end up being stars, it doesn't pay heed to guys who end up being Bengie Molina, David Eckstein, etc etc..    Guys like Adam Kennedy and Garret Anderson never did any better than being ranked 98th and 93rd, GA was a much better player than that, AK was a worthwhile player on a championship club.  Matt Shoemaker wouldn't ever make a prospect ranking, Cole Kalhoun and Jim Edmonds (a fringe HOFer), never did and yet Jeff Mathis, Brandon Wood, and Joe Torres did.  Our farm system is being severely underrated not because it doesn't have players who will be MLB players, but because it doesn't have guys who project to be anything better than just that.  It's interesting people will alternately find joy in one of our nobodies coming up and doing well while at the same time referring to the rankings when they want to validate their opinions. 

 

Arguing over whether or not the Angels gave up a lot is pretty pointless.  Accepting it was the cost of doing business at the trade deadline would probably benefit both sides. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inside Pitch, my view is why be one-sided? These discussions/debates start ending up being bifurcated with two camps having intractable views: "homers" and "failos." I try to be balanced, although have a bit of a contrarian streak and given that the moderator/admin party line is strongly homeristic, tend to grow irritated when mods constantly harp on people when they veer away from that party line. I realize this is at least partially because they want to keep the site as friendly as possible, for fans and Angels alike, but it can get a bit out of hand, imo.

 

Anyhow, as I've said before, one can be critical of the Angels and still be happy with how the team is doing. Homers don't seem to get this. Failos, on the other hand, tend to lose sight of the larger picture. Maybe a more balanced view is in order?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AJ, I'm less homer and more anti-failo, please get it right. You and IP, never get pounded on here because you are both insightful, balanced and well thought out. You don't automatically assume Dipoto is an Idiot, who has no business being a GM because he traded away prospects, to fill our biggest hole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, anti-failo for you - I can see that. I guess I have a touch of anti-homer in me, certainly more than anti-failo - although I have been known to criticism the most extreme failoism as well.

 

I appreciate your words, but I also worry because there's no clear demarcation between those who give insightful criticisms and don't get "pounded" and those who are just raging failos. It is a spectrum, with no clear line of separation. Even the most raging failos aren't usually complete and utter failos, but just tend to be a bit hot under the collar and tempestuous when it comes to the Angels.

Edited by Angelsjunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AJ somewhere between the Nutswingers and the Failos are the middle ground people here that post, and gets ignored simply because it isn't absurd or outlandish enough to get recognition. We definitely have the sides that will take advantage of whatever value the farm has to motivate their arguments but in the long run the farm is only there to facilitate the needs of the parent club.

 

If trading away prospects strengthens the parent club the GM has utilized his farm properly. If prospects are hoarded and the parent club is failing then the GM is wasting resources. Balance is the key and also having a 5 year plan. The prospects traded away this season were never a linchpin to any 5 year plan so their best utilization was trade chips. Most of the players picked up have been of value to the success of this team, now. That certainly points to the GM making prudent moves.

 

So rating one or more players that have yet to create an MLB value over players that are proven is always an argument that can't be validated except over time. Some prospects like Trout are sure bets, many others are simply guys that are advanced for their age but their talents top out sooner than the final process to get to the majors is finished. Some guys are sleepers and make up half of the MLB benches. Knowing the difference is key and so far no one has really been able to create the exact science for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inside Pitch, my view is why be one-sided? These discussions/debates start ending up being bifurcated with two camps having intractable views: "homers" and "failos." I try to be balanced, although have a bit of a contrarian streak and given that the moderator/admin party line is strongly homeristic, tend to grow irritated when mods constantly harp on people when they veer away from that party line. I realize this is at least partially because they want to keep the site as friendly as possible, for fans and Angels alike, but it can get a bit out of hand, imo.

 

Anyhow, as I've said before, one can be critical of the Angels and still be happy with how the team is doing. Homers don't seem to get this. Failos, on the other hand, tend to lose sight of the larger picture. Maybe a more balanced view is in order?

Yep, I'm in agreement with you...  A person can accept the reasons why the trade was done while at the same realize they paid through the nose.   When it's all said and done, I don't like what we gave up but I do like the idea of having the 8th and 9th innings on lock-down through 2015.   As far as to whether the failos or homers are more balanced I have no idea.  I'm sure people lump me in one camp or the other depending on the subject.   I mean, I like Dipoto and think he's got the right plan but I'm no rush to extend him beyond his two years still left.  Maybe that makes me imbalanced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AJ somewhere between the Nutswingers and the Failos are the middle ground people here that post, and gets ignored simply because it isn't absurd or outlandish enough to get recognition. We definitely have the sides that will take advantage of whatever value the farm has to motivate their arguments but in the long run the farm is only there to facilitate the needs of the parent club.

 

If trading away prospects strengthens the parent club the GM has utilized his farm properly. If prospects are hoarded and the parent club is failing then the GM is wasting resources. Balance is the key and also having a 5 year plan. The prospects traded away this season were never a linchpin to any 5 year plan so their best utilization was trade chips. Most of the players picked up have been of value to the success of this team, now. That certainly points to the GM making prudent moves.

 

So rating one or more players that have yet to create an MLB value over players that are proven is always an argument that can't be validated except over time. Some prospects like Trout are sure bets, many others are simply guys that are advanced for their age but their talents top out sooner than the final process to get to the majors is finished. Some guys are sleepers and make up half of the MLB benches. Knowing the difference is key and so far no one has really been able to create the exact science for that.

 

Lots of solid points in here.  There are a lot of guys that don't get a lot of responses because they are generally very even keeled, True Grich instantly comes to mind as a guy who tends to see the bigger picture and never really gets riled up but there a lot of others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I see our system as a whole, I see a ton of major leaguers, probably as much if not more than any other system. But I don't see superstars and unfortunately that's the only thing the prospect sites care about.

Where does Grant Green, Efren Navarro, Matt Showmaker and Collin Cowgill fit when you make these? They don't show up, yet they are 100% MLB quality players.

And even when they do show up occasionally like Kole Calhoun, Mike Morin and CJ Cron all you read about are their flaws and why they aren't special. The funny thing is, they come up and outperform the future superstars.

I make top prospect lists and I'll say this.... to hell with top prospect lists. I'll take my non prospects any day, they're the ones with a chip on their shoulder and something to prove.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point Scotty. In fact, it is interesting to compare Bryce Harper and Kole Calhoun. Yes, I realize there is a big gap in their ages, and that Harper has the higher ceiling, but consider their career lines:

Harper: .269/.351/.467/.818 (with a 122 OPS+)

Calhoun: .281/.341/.467/.808 (with a 128 OPS+)

Also consider their 162 game averages:

Harper: 24 homeruns, 70 RBI (an arbitrary statistic, I realize)

Calhoun: 21 homeruns, 69 RBI

I am not arguing Calhoun will be the better player going forward, but the point is that nobody gave him any regard as a prospect, and yet he has outperformed super prospect Harper (whose numbers have actually trended downward).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to be in denial about the simple fact that the farm was weak to begin with and has only become weaker.

 

Denial is a primary symptom of homeritis, though.

Yep, our weak farm system has been that way for years. Amazingly, it supplied half our current roster. If acknowledging that makes me a homer, I don't care. I'd much rather be a homer for the team I've all my life than endlessly bitch and moan and every trade, FA signing, managerial/GM move, at bat...

For those that make ridiculous comments you can rest assured that they'll be called out on it.

One site prospect expert stated that all 4 players we traded would be at least average major leaguers.I think that's ridiculous.

Take a look at our roster and tell me how many of those players you would have pegged to be here 3 years ago. I'll take Street every day of the week.

btw, Lindsey is

2-25 since the trade

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of solid points in here. There are a lot of guys that don't get a lot of responses because they are generally very even keeled, True Grich instantly comes to mind as a guy who tends to see the bigger picture and never really gets riled up but there a lot of others.

Sadly, theres some really good posters on here who crtique the right things, praise the right things, and never get the love they deserve.

Thats why the word pubes was invented. If TG would say something like 'trading prospects could hurt us down the road, but we had a weakness that needed to be filled now because we are a legis WS contender, so we should shave our pubes', hed get like 30 likes for the comment

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I see our system as a whole, I see a ton of major leaguers, probably as much if not more than any other system. But I don't see superstars and unfortunately that's the only thing the prospect sites care about.

Where does Grant Green, Efren Navarro, Matt Showmaker and Collin Cowgill fit when you make these? They don't show up, yet they are 100% MLB quality players.

And even when they do show up occasionally like Kole Calhoun, Mike Morin and CJ Cron all you read about are their flaws and why they aren't special. The funny thing is, they come up and outperform the future superstars.

I make top prospect lists and I'll say this.... to hell with top prospect lists. I'll take my non prospects any day, they're the ones with a chip on their shoulder and something to prove.

 

While I like much of what you say here, Scotty, it seems that you're missing or ignoring the fact that you follow the Angels much more closely than you do other teams (as far as I can tell). I imagine that you can name over a hundred minor leaguers in the Angels org, yes? How many minor league Brewers or White Sox or Marlins can you name?

 

The point being, from an "insider" point of view, the farm system always seems better than it actually is, or how it looks from an unbiased outside perspective. A player like Jose Rondon is a classic example because while he's a solid prospect, he looks better from the inside than from the outside.

 

Also, just to nitpick, neither Green nor Cowgill are from the Angels farm. Cowgill was already an established major league bench player when he came over to the Angels, and Green was on the verge.

 

Also, don't forget that every farm system produces Matt Shoemakers and Efren Navarros. These guys aren't on prospect lists, because prospect lists - as you say - tend to emphasize talent above the norm.

 

Yep, our weak farm system has been that way for years. Amazingly, it supplied half our current roster. If acknowledging that makes me a homer, I don't care. I'd much rather be a homer for the team I've all my life than endlessly bitch and moan and every trade, FA signing, managerial/GM move, at bat...

For those that make ridiculous comments you can rest assured that they'll be called out on it.

One site prospect expert stated that all 4 players we traded would be at least average major leaguers.I think that's ridiculous.

Take a look at our roster and tell me how many of those players you would have pegged to be here 3 years ago. I'll take Street every day of the week.

btw, Lindsey is

2-25 since the trade

 

I love the irony of you ridiculing ridiculous comments and then make that ridiculous Lindsey comment. I suppose I should be calling you out for it? Of course maybe you are just being clever? The jury is out on that one.

 

I agree, the farm used to be pretty damn good - but it has gotten worse and worse over the last five years or so - which was masked by the drafting of Trout. I think the tipping point was the infamous 2010 draft in which the Angels had five first round draft picks and spent them on Cowart, Bedrosian, Clarke, Lindsey, and Bolden. Only Bolden and Clarke are duds so far, but Cowart and Bedrosian have been disappointing (although Cam is showing potential). Anyhow, it was a lot of missed opportunity.

 

Since Trout graduated a few years ago, the farm system has been particularly bad, although of course with a few strong graduates - Richards and Calhoun in particular. But here's the problem: what about the last 2-3 years? The trend is not good, and we still haven't seen that blossoming of a new generation of talent that we've hoped to see.

 

Anyhow, as I said before, the point for me is not to choose between being either a diehard homer or a grumpy failo. Diehard homers tend to take a biased view and see what they want to see, even apologizing for management no matter what they do. Extreme failos will bitch and whine about everything and miss the big picture, even miss the team kicking ass like they've been doing - I'm not advocating that, either. I'm advocating for a balanced perspective in which both sides are seen, in which one is aware of one's bias and doesn't let it blind them to the problems and issues with the team, but also that one's complaining and criticisms are moderated by looking at the big picture.

 

But it bothers me that whenever someone criticizes the team in any way there's a moderator gang-bang of ridicule. OK, it doesn't always happen in an extreme way, but it does seem that more often than not, any kind of negative comment, even if is pretty mild, is greeted with instant snide commentary from multiple moderators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are making a pretty big strawman here AJ.  You and phil seem to want to continue the meme that aw drives positive threads.  You fail to seperate a moderator voicing their own opinion versus trying to keep the site clean.

 

Here is the difference, if your post/thread gets edited or deleted, then the moderators are acting like moderators.  If your post/thread gets criticized, people might actually just disagree with your opinion.

I know that is hard for some of you to digest, but it is true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...