Angels franchise approaching .500 again

[ScottT]

Two years ago today the Angels reached .500 as a franchise after being below for 8,545 games and 19,439 days. 

They are now only 12 games above.  Seems likely that they'll be back below at season's end.  

[tomsred]

I don't think so.  Then again what difference does it make?  There are no championships for franchise all time stats.

[WeatherWonk]

I can easily see us slipping another 12 games further under .500 this year.

We're done playing a lot of patsies for a while. Of our next 43 games, 38 of them are against teams that are .500 or bette, right nowr. During this stretch, the trading deadline looms. It is logical to assume that some of our best players this year, could be traded for prospects.

We havent done well against teams above .500 in several years. Even in our recent high water win mark of 2014, we were under .500 against teams better than .500.

[Ohtaniland]

10 hours ago, ScottT said:

Two years ago today the Angels reached .500 as a franchise after being below for 8,545 games and 19,439 days. 

They are now only 12 games above.  Seems likely that they'll be back below at season's end.  

There should be a tote board at the stadium for that too.

[Stradling]

Claude cares more about the marketing and tote boards at the stadium than Arte himself.  

#15minutestowapner

[California Cajun]

To be within 12 games of .500 is remarkable.  This is Year 56, and it was Year 46 before the Angels had a third consecutive winning season.

[Stradling]

Yep, as a kid the idea we would ever be over .500 in my life time seemed very unlikely.  We have had a 15 year run of being a very good organization, this year not so much. 

[mulwin444]

1976 was the year I first became aware of the Angels.  So, from 1976 through 2001, 25 years, the only thing I could associate with the franchise was the '79 team, which I don't remember except for relatives talking about at the time, the '82 team and their collapse from a 2-0 lead, the kick in the balls from '86 and the '95 free fall.  Considering its history to that point, I never really had an expectation that the franchise would ever be competitive on a season-to-season basis much less break even as a franchise.  Pretty amazing that just over a decade later the Angels don't have it in their "DNA" to act like the Royals and Astros and suck for long enough to get a good enough collection of cost-controlled players to make a run.  The Angels and their fans now expect them to be competitive every year and be in the playoff hunt, expect them to be in the conversation for free agents and expect them to make the necessary adjustments if they are not.       

[Amazing Larry]

3 hours ago, Stradling said:

Claude cares more about the marketing and tote boards at the stadium than Arte himself.  

#15minutestowapner

Haha!

[Ohtaniland]

2 hours ago, mulwin444 said:

1976 was the year I first became aware of the Angels.  So, from 1976 through 2001, 25 years, the only thing I could associate with the franchise was the '79 team, which I don't remember except for relatives talking about at the time, the '82 team and their collapse from a 2-0 lead, the kick in the balls from '86 and the '95 free fall.  Considering its history to that point, I never really had an expectation that the franchise would ever be competitive on a season-to-season basis much less break even as a franchise.  Pretty amazing that just over a decade later the Angels don't have it in their "DNA" to act like the Royals and Astros and suck for long enough to get a good enough collection of cost-controlled players to make a run.  The Angels and their fans now expect them to be competitive every year and be in the playoff hunt, expect them to be in the conversation for free agents and expect them to make the necessary adjustments if they are not.       

The Angels were very good from 2002 - 2009. Then arrogance kicked in with the "we don't rebuild, we just retool". What you're seeing today is the result of that. If  we had just rebuilt after 2010 instead of trying to buy a championship we would be in prime position today.

[John Stellman]

14 hours ago, ScottT said:

Two years ago today the Angels reached .500 as a franchise after being below for 8,545 games and 19,439 days. 

They are now only 12 games above.  Seems likely that they'll be back below at season's end.  

They are definitely in that direction.

[ELEVEN]

We could be 100 games under in 3 years.

[mulwin444]

43 minutes ago, CALZONE said:

The Angels were very good from 2002 - 2009. Then arrogance kicked in with the "we don't rebuild, we just retool". What you're seeing today is the result of that. If  we had just rebuilt after 2010 instead of trying to buy a championship we would be in prime position today.

I don't think it was hubris/arrogance as much as lack of development of the minor, poor transactions and poor drafts.  I can't fault the Angels FO for looking at 2003 - 2009 and seeing that they struck gold with Vlad, Kelvim, Morales, Torii, etc and could repeat the formula without actually having a contingency.  

Starting with 2010, Brandon was looked upon as the heir apparent at 3B but, instead, put up one of the worst offensive performances in MLB history (.146 .174 .382 OPS 6 OPS+ 6 BB 71 SO in 243 plate appearances).  This from player who put .293 .353 .910 from Salt Lake the year before and was a solid defender but just fell off a cliff and never recovered.  Forced to scramble for alternatives, they traded a promising RP prospect in Wil Smith for an underwhelming Alberto Callaspo.  This was also the year that Kendrys Morales fractured his ankle on home plate and took a potent bat out of the line-up for two seasons.  This led to the disastrous trade of Napoli/Rivera to TOR for Vernon Wells and set up everything you see now.  People that were expected to perform didn't and lack of farm replacements meant they had contiuously fill gaps with FA's or additional ill-advised trades.

Hopefully, with the lack of committing money to FA's this past offseason, the Angels are attempting to correct course.  Obviously, depending upon if they learned from lessons in the past, I think they can recover a lot quicker than other franchises quite simply because they big market resources at their disposal.    

[Ohtaniland]

3 minutes ago, mulwin444 said:

I don't think it was hubris/arrogance as much as lack of development of the minor, poor transactions and poor drafts.  I can't fault the Angels FO for looking at 2003 - 2009 and seeing that they struck gold with Vlad, Kelvim, Morales, Torii, etc and could repeat the formula without actually having a contingency.  

Starting with 2010, Brandon was looked upon as the heir apparent at 3B but, instead, put up one of the worst offensive performances in MLB history (.146 .174 .382 OPS 6 OPS+ 6 BB 71 SO in 243 plate appearances).  This from player who put .293 .353 .910 from Salt Lake the year before and was a solid defender but just fell off a cliff and never recovered.  Forced to scramble for alternatives, they traded a promising RP prospect in Wil Smith for an underwhelming Alberto Callaspo.  This was also the year that Kendrys Morales fractured his ankle on home plate and took a potent bat out of the line-up for two seasons.  This led to the disastrous trade of Napoli/Rivera to TOR for Vernon Wells and set up everything you see now.  People that were expected to perform didn't and lack of farm replacements meant they had contiuously fill gaps with FA's or additional ill-advised trades.

Hopefully, with the lack of committing money to FA's this past offseason, the Angels are attempting to correct course.  Obviously, depending upon if they learned from lessons in the past, I think they can recover a lot quicker than other franchises quite simply because they big market resources at their disposal.    

Well said.

Hopefully, with the lack of committing money to FA's this past offseason, the Angels are attempting to correct course.  Obviously, depending upon if they learned from lessons in the past, I think they can recover a lot quicker than other franchises quite simply because they big market resources at their disposal.   

[Ohtaniland]

13 minutes ago, ELEVEN said:

We could be 100 games under in 3 years.

ELEVEN games under would be fine.

[Pujols4MVP]

3 hours ago, mulwin444 said:

Pretty amazing that just over a decade later the Angels don't have it in their "DNA" to act like the Royals and Astros and suck for long enough to get a good enough collection of cost-controlled players to make a run.  The Angels and their fans now expect them to be competitive every year and be in the playoff hunt, expect them to be in the conversation for free agents and expect them to make the necessary adjustments if they are not.       

That pretty much is why I'm ok with them losing 100 games, its much harder for the scouts & Ric wilson to fail when they got a top3 pick each of the next 3 seasons. I have no confidence in them from how they did in the 2011-2015 drafts.

Its not just about the 1st round, 2nd round picks will be higher too & be basicly like a late 1st rounder. If they do their scouting right they could really turn the farm around thru the draft & from trading players like Calhoun & Escobar. then they can trade some prospects for proven players & sign free agents again.

Its sad that Eppler & Arte want to go the NHL's NJ Devils way of trying to be competitive with a 30th ranked farm system & an aging core with like only 2 young players that are valuable(Trout + Calhoun, for the Devils its Hall + Palmieri)

[mulwin444]

I'm OK with the Angels trading Escobar, Street, and Smith but on the fence with trading Calhoun, Cron, Shoemaker and Santiago.

Calhoun probably has the most value out of the options listed since he's a proven middle of the lineup offensive and gold glove defensive commodity and he can't become a free agent until 2020.  However, I'd only let him go for an overpay.  The reason this team is crap right now is the SP has been gutted by injuries or aging and BP is crap...the one above average element is the offense and Calhoun is a big part of that.  Right now, the offense is ranked 6th in the AL with a combined OPS+ of 102 right behind TOR.  Next year, with the right adjustments in the BP and SP, they could be competitive in the AL West/Wild Card.  You ONLY trade Calhoun if you have also given up on 2017 as well.

Cron is close to the same category.  He's cost controlled, home grown and looks to still be developing in a positive direction.  Despite his hack-tastic nature, hot/cold streaks, and defensive ineptness, this a solid bat putting up .280 .331 .810 119 OPS+.  Some are saying sell high but, again, ONLY if you've given up on 2017.

Santiago and Shoemaker fall into the same boat together - inconsistent starting pitchers that are equally capable of delivering a shut out or an early exited.  I think I'd be more inclined to trade one or both if i knew Richards would be available at the start of '17.  With that uncertainty most likely not resolved by the trading deadline, you have to start playing with "What if" scenarios.  At this point, Weaver, Wilson, and Chacin are gone, Lincecom is likely not re-signed leaving you with a rotation consisting of Tropeano.  One dude.  The FA class is pretty empty so you are going to need these guys.  I'm not saying don't trade for the right price but the right price has to be determined.  

The Angels have to decide if they are playing for '17, '18' or '19.  If they are going to be competitive you are likely seeing only a few pieces moved and I'm guessing its going to be Escobar for young, MLB -ready, cost-controlled starting pitching.  Street and Smith hopefully will be next but I can't imagine getting more than a speculative A-High A prospect for the pleasure of unloading their salary on someone.  After that, I'd let Choi and Cowart occupy LF and 3B for the remainder of the season to see what they have in those two and if those positions still need to be addressed in '17.