Angels begin GM interviews

[Jay]

Wrong

 

2001 Angels = 75-87

2002 Angels = 99-63

2003 Angels = 77-85

[Inside Pitch]

I believe Stoneman also said that the best move he made with the Angels was hiring Scioscia.

 

Do you disagree?

 

Whether or not he's outlived it's usefulness is open for debate -- but only people in deep denial would argue he wasn't key in the Angels becoming a first division club.  

Edited September 16, 2015 by Inside Pitch

[Jay]

Do you disagree?

 

Whether or not he's outlived it's usefulness is open for debate -- but, only people in deep denial would argue he wasn't key in the Angels becoming a first division club.  

 

No I don't disagree.

 

Not one of the haters.

[Inside Pitch]

No I don't disagree.

 

Not one of the haters.

 

Sorry Jay, wasn't at all trying to paint you as a hater in any way ..  But I am genuinely curious if people disagree with him.

[Blarg]

It was a sheer genius hire at the time and I doubt Stoneman foresaw Scioscia lasting this long as most managers pull stakes after five or more years. But I guess Scioscia felt this was the organization that would be more likely to maintain it's competitiveness and didn't consider jumping ship. You would have to be a fool to believe he hasn't been asked about his willingness to change venues and what would it take to get him.

Edited September 16, 2015 by notti

[KevinJ14]

An NL executive on Scioscia: "He had a lot of success early, and he hasn't had a lot of success since. I think guys find out that Los Angeles is a hard place to play, because if [scioscia's] not signing off on you, you're not playing there. He has a lot of control. And when you've got that much control and you're not a playoff team and you're spending that kind of money, the bloom comes off the rose.''

[Lou]

Who was the nl exec ?

[Lou]

2001 Angels = 75-87

2002 Angels = 99-63

2003 Angels = 77-85

You don't fluke your way to 99 wins and then compile an 11-5 postseason record en route to a World Series title. It's not like missing every cut then winning the US Open.

We were :

4th in MLB in runs/gm

1st in BA

6th in OPS

30th in Ks

29th in GIDP

4th in ERA

3rd in ERA+

5th in Shutouts

5th in WHIP

4th in Runs Allowed

Edited September 17, 2015 by Lou

[Hollyw00d]

It's pretty remarkable some of the nuthuggers wouldn't mind appointing catorce manager for life despite having 6 good seasons in 16 years

[Hollyw00d]

he's the jeff fisher of the baseball world, except scioscia lucked his way to championship one year

Edited September 17, 2015 by Hollyw00d

[Blarg]

Look, you were 6 years old when the Angels won the World Series. What you don't know is the organization was a complete wreck before Stoneman and Scioscia took the reigns and gave them an actual identity and cohesive system from the minors to majors.

 

So while you spout mindless drivel about the 2002 World Series the rest of us that lived through decades of real turmoil in the Organization can only shake our heads at your complete lack of knowledge. 

 

But please, keep making stupid analogies, it's entertaining.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

I know who most are but are we really going for a guy with no experience as a GM?  Then again i guess a real GM wouldnt take a back seat to Sven so getting an assistant makes sense since thats still going to be his role. 

 

No experienced GM is coming here. You know why.

[Hollyw00d]

Stop it, notti!  Just stop it.

[Lou]

No experienced GM is coming here. You know why.

Just like KC, NY, Texas, Toronto and Houston ?

[Lou]

It's pretty remarkable some of the nuthuggers wouldn't mind appointing catorce manager for life despite having 6 good seasons in 16 years

Who wants this?

[Jay]

You don't fluke your way to 99 wins and then compile an 11-5 postseason record en route to a World Series title. It's not like missing every cut then winning the US Open.

We were :

4th in MLB in runs/gm

1st in BA

6th in OPS

30th in Ks

29th in GIDP

4th in ERA

3rd in ERA+

5th in Shutouts

5th in WHIP

4th in Runs Allowed

 

like I said, a fluke

[Lou]

Hollyw00d, on 16 Sept 2015 - 12:43 PM, said:

Odd then that no established and successful GM is jumping at the opportunity to go to a situation as "great" as the angels

Lou, on 16 Sept 2015 - 2:52 PM, said:

Such as?

......

... crickets

[Lou]

like I said, a fluke

lol

[Blarg]

There are 1,190 posts in one single thread on NYYfans  message board that clearly defines how much the Angels organization changed from pre 2000 to 2009 in the fan eyes of the most successful franchise in baseball. Those here that hate Scioscia are not in the same league as these guys.

[Lou]

2002 99 - 63 Won World Series

2003 77 - 85

2004 92 - 70 Won AL West

2005 95 - 67 Won AL West

2006 89 - 73

2007 94 - 68 Won AL West

2008 100 - 62 Won AL West

2009 97 - 65 Won AL West

Looks like 2003 was the fluke year

[Vegas Halo Fan]

Just like KC, NY, Texas, Toronto and Houston ?

 

I didn't realize that those four teams had an entrenched manager.

[Stradling]

he's the jeff fisher of the baseball world, except scioscia lucked his way to championship one year

What is remarkable is that you can spend hours a day on an Angels fan website and be this ignorant about the team. Lucked into a World Series is probably the stupidest thing I have ever heard. It defies logic. You can luck into a Super Bowl, because it is one game. You can not luck into having 99 wins and winning the World Series. I don't know how old you are but I can only assume you weren't old enough to understand baseball back in 2002, or understand the state of the franchise prior to the World Series year. Because if that is not the case then you are literally insane.

[Guest]

What is remarkable is that you can spend hours a day on an Angels fan website and be this ignorant about the team. Lucked into a World Series is probably the stupidest thing I have ever heard. It defies logic. You can luck into a Super Bowl, because it is one game. You can not luck into having 99 wins and winning the World Series. I don't know how old you are but I can only assume you weren't old enough to understand baseball back in 2002, or understand the state of the franchise prior to the World Series year. Because if that is not the case then you are literally insane.

The Angels did not luck into the World Series win, but the idea that things like sac bunts and other small ball antics were a major contributing factor to the Angels success that year is definitely a persistent myth among Scioscia apologists. The Angels actaully had one of the best overall offensive teams with a lot of players who could hit for both average and power.

 

Note I'm not even saying that Scioscia does not deserve credit for leading the team to the WS, just that "but it worked in '02" can't be used as justification for things like excessive sac bunting today. 

Edited September 17, 2015 by ScottLux

[Stradling]

No one has ever claimed we won because Scioscia had guys sac bunting. Now he gets a lot of credit for hitting and running and taking the extra base, and going first to third, stuff like that.

[Hollyw00d]

The angels didn't win that series by hitting and running and going first to third