This totally sucks

[Chuck]

4 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Dodger Blues was like that during the McCourt era.

Dodger Blues celebrates the futility, disappointment, and humor of the Los Angeles Dodgers. If you look up the word 'celebrate', one of the meanings is 'to honor or praise publicly.' That's all the site is doing: publicly honoring the mediocrity, underachievement's, and absurdities of the Los Angeles Dodgers. It's for the fan who can't wait for the game to start, and once it does, won't stop complaining.

 

The website is now defunct. I'd say keep with the current format, eventually it all comes back around.

AngelsWin60Games.com

[Slegnaac]

13 hours ago, greginpsca said:

Can anyone on this fricken team hit the ball?

 

When you're in a Slump, you're not in for much fun.  Un-Slumping yourself is not easily done. 

[floplag]

But... Trout?
Sorry cant help myself and yes im going to throw that in faces over the blasting i got and being told that watching Trout was worth being terribad.  Hows that working out for us now? 

[Slegnaac]

The morning guy that reads the Sports scores on KFI refused to give the score of the Angels' game. He said he would give the scores once they started winning.   His only other comment was that they have lost 4 in a row. 

[RallyPanda]

I love how some of y'all are acting like our poor performance is a surprise, LOL!

[Pujols4MVP]

Which is worse:

6 years of finishing with 70 to 75 wins & not becoming a contender for a long time or 3 years finishing with 60 to 65 wins followed by contending in 2019 ?

[Biergott]

No surprise in the performance, the suckitude and injury train just hit harder and more violently than expected.  I didn't expect to avoid watching games as much as I have.

[Blarg]

1 hour ago, floplag said:

But... Trout?
Sorry cant help myself and yes im going to throw that in faces over the blasting i got and being told that watching Trout was worth being terribad.  Hows that working out for us now? 

@floplag a lot better than watching Shane Robinson while the team is failing.

[floplag]

1 hour ago, Blarg said:

@floplag a lot better than watching Shane Robinson while the team is failing.

you assume it would still be failing.  we dont know if thats true or not.

[floplag]

Just now, floplag said:

you assume it would still be failing.  we dont know if thats true or not.

heres the thing, we are going to fail regardless for the next few years, the issue is whether or not we come out it better or worse than we are today?
with our farm, that three years is looking more like 5-6 without re-stocking that thing somehow. .

[Stradling]

4 hours ago, floplag said:

But... Trout?
Sorry cant help myself and yes im going to throw that in faces over the blasting i got and being told that watching Trout was worth being terribad.  Hows that working out for us now? 

Flop, what would you want in return for Trout?  I'll break it down for you once again.  If you are lucky you will get 4 guys that average a 3 WAR for Trout.  How does that make us better?  

[CaliAngel]

4 hours ago, Slegnaac said:

The morning guy that reads the Sports scores on KFI refused to give the score of the Angels' game. He said he would give the scores once they started winning.   His only other comment was that they have lost 4 in a row. 

 

This is good. I like this.

Did the Angels hit 3 million fans last year? I thought that streak was done a year or 2 ago.

I don't see myself going to a game this year. A lot of other things I'd rather spend my money and free time on than watching Pooie ground to 3rd with the bases juiced.

[ScottT]

Allegedly, the Angels surpassed 3 million fans by 12,765 last year.

[Tipist]

Pretty sure those numbers are based on number of tickets sold, and not actual people going through the turnstiles. 

[ScottT]

Allegedly, the Angels sold 30,679 tickets last night.

Season tickets were in the 17-18 thousand range when they boasted about having a 90-95% renewal rate. I guess I can see the extra 13k.  Cardinals had a lot of fans.  

Actual attendance is clearly down in recent years.  Moreso than paid attendance numbers might lead you to believe. They've probably recovered that money and then some by raising prices in certain areas.  

Edited May 12, 2016 by ScottT

[floplag]

16 hours ago, Stradling said:

Flop, what would you want in return for Trout?  I'll break it down for you once again.  If you are lucky you will get 4 guys that average a 3 WAR for Trout.  How does that make us better?  

IF theoretically we got upgrades at 3 spots and were still good/not  great at the 4th, how could that make us worse?  Yes, we would be weaker at CF, but at least the lineup wouldn't look like Swiss cheese with the holes everywhere else.
I get it we wouldn't have Trout but how long before he stops seeing anything to hit at all at his point?  Frankly i'm shocked he even gets  to take the bat off his shoulder, i wouldn't pitch to him in this lineup. 
Look i don't love the idea at all, but if you can tell me how else we dig this team out sooner rather than later im all ears.  All i get is people berating me for even considering the idea but no one has yet offered another viable solution that makes this team better at any point in the next 5 years or even starts the process of improving it for 2-3.  
i'm sorry but watching Trout isnt enough for me, I'm an Angel fan first.  It does me no good watching a great player on a terrible team.  I don't think i'm a bad guy for feeling this way. 

[zenmaster]

How many tickets is Arte buying per game to hit that 3 million mark?

[AngelsLakersFan]

21 hours ago, Scioscia4MVP said:

Which is worse:

6 years of finishing with 70 to 75 wins & not becoming a contender for a long time or 3 years finishing with 60 to 65 wins followed by contending in 2019 ?

Are we actually going to content in 2019??

[floplag]

23 hours ago, Angel Oracle said:

As bad as the Halos are, the Twins and Braves are woeful.

and yet, who has the chance to improve the fastest?  

[AngelsLakersFan]

1 hour ago, floplag said:

IF theoretically we got upgrades at 3 spots and were still good/not  great at the 4th, how could that make us worse?  Yes, we would be weaker at CF, but at least the lineup wouldn't look like Swiss cheese with the holes everywhere else.
I get it we wouldn't have Trout but how long before he stops seeing anything to hit at all at his point?  Frankly i'm shocked he even gets  to take the bat off his shoulder, i wouldn't pitch to him in this lineup. 
Look i don't love the idea at all, but if you can tell me how else we dig this team out sooner rather than later im all ears.  All i get is people berating me for even considering the idea but no one has yet offered another viable solution that makes this team better at any point in the next 5 years or even starts the process of improving it for 2-3.  
i'm sorry but watching Trout isnt enough for me, I'm an Angel fan first.  It does me no good watching a great player on a terrible team.  I don't think i'm a bad guy for feeling this way. 

I just don't think it's possible. Sure if you can get 4 guys who average 3 war per year for say 5 years of control, then yes it's worth it and a good trade. Still that is only netting us about 2 extra wins above Trout, with the loss of the production of the other 3 guys we replace in the lineup. Odds are those guys aren't contributing very much of course.

With 5 years of control we are looking at just 1 additional year of value beyond Trout's contract. Assuming these guys are all making league minimum we probably save enough money on this deal to sign a big time free agent as well, who is probably good for 5 war. In the end we are looking at about 7 wins of improvement, but is that enough? 

What team's have 4 young guys who can be expected to put up 3 WAR consistently over the next 5 years? Why are those teams going to give up that talent anyway? Don't they need those guys to help Trout lead them on a playoff run?

[Troll Daddy]

Wondering if any of you caught the interview by Edmonds with Trout? 

Trout was more interested in interviewing Edmonds on his World Series accomplishment with the Cardinals. Edmonds answered by telling how great if feels playing with a winning ball club. The atmosphere and energy on the field was incredible. Afterwards, Trout left without a smile and a blank stare on his face.

hmmm

 

[Angel Oracle]

Moreno can still make this right, although it will take 3 years.

Go in with both oars into Latin America.

Make sure the scouting is beefed up sufficiently.   Why was Trout's scout fired?

Continue to refrain paying big money to declining stars.

But don't be afraid to bring in a solid money FA who is playing at peak level, doesn't require draft pick comp, and doesn't already have 10+ years MLB experience.  

Hope Ghost Pujols retires no later than after 2018/2019.   That frees up money to both keep Trout and continue to beef up the team.

 

Edited May 12, 2016 by Angel Oracle

[Stradling]

2 hours ago, floplag said:

IF theoretically we got upgrades at 3 spots and were still good/not  great at the 4th, how could that make us worse?  Yes, we would be weaker at CF, but at least the lineup wouldn't look like Swiss cheese with the holes everywhere else.
I get it we wouldn't have Trout but how long before he stops seeing anything to hit at all at his point?  Frankly i'm shocked he even gets  to take the bat off his shoulder, i wouldn't pitch to him in this lineup. 
Look i don't love the idea at all, but if you can tell me how else we dig this team out sooner rather than later im all ears.  All i get is people berating me for even considering the idea but no one has yet offered another viable solution that makes this team better at any point in the next 5 years or even starts the process of improving it for 2-3.  
i'm sorry but watching Trout isnt enough for me, I'm an Angel fan first.  It does me no good watching a great player on a terrible team.  I don't think i'm a bad guy for feeling this way. 

Well you can improve through smaller free agent deals and draft and develop better.  If you trade Trout and get four 3 WAR players you get 12 WAR.  If you keep Trout and his 9 WAR and acquire three 2 WAR players, which isn't hard to do, you have 15 WAR and keep the best player in the game.  

[Stradling]

If Trout was 30 years old I might change my time, but he's 24, you build around him.

[floplag]

2 hours ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

I just don't think it's possible. Sure if you can get 4 guys who average 3 war per year for say 5 years of control, then yes it's worth it and a good trade. Still that is only netting us about 2 extra wins above Trout, with the loss of the production of the other 3 guys we replace in the lineup. Odds are those guys aren't contributing very much of course.

With 5 years of control we are looking at just 1 additional year of value beyond Trout's contract. Assuming these guys are all making league minimum we probably save enough money on this deal to sign a big time free agent as well, who is probably good for 5 war. In the end we are looking at about 7 wins of improvement, but is that enough? 

What team's have 4 young guys who can be expected to put up 3 WAR consistently over the next 5 years? Why are those teams going to give up that talent anyway? Don't they need those guys to help Trout lead them on a playoff run?

You may or may not be right, im not suggesting any specific trade, im just saying the same thing i have for a long time now, to not even consider it is just silly.  
IF you can get the right package, how do you not look into it just cause Trout?  It may not be out there, maybe noone will offer enough (kinda doubt it) but i take offense to those who suggest its a bad idea to even consider and yet offer no alternative as to how to get the club better.  We are still the Angles, not the Trouts