Scioscia on 11 game losing streak: "You turn the page from every game"

[Troll Daddy]

Did somebody actually say that Simmons will depreciate ... 'au contraire'

[Oz27]

6 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Yeah, at least Giavotella has been solid this year with the glove. At least to the naked eye he seems to be much better than last year.  

Yeah he is a lot better, but still not good. He was -12 DRS last year, -1 this year. That would be passable if his bat were making up for it but he's fallen off pretty dramatically offensively.

[Stradling]

Just now, Troll Daddy said:

Did somebody actually say that Simmons will depreciate ... 'au contraire'

Defense depreciates over time, it is a fact, sorry TD.  I like the guy, and think he is the best I have ever seen defensively, but it isn't forever.  

[Troll Daddy]

5 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Defense depreciates over time, it is a fact, sorry TD.  I like the guy, and think he is the best I have ever seen defensively, but it isn't forever.  

He's 26 years old for heaven sakes ... no offense but

[Brian Ilten]

1 hour ago, Stradling said:

Yes he looked like garbage and that was a bad decision, but he did it literally because not a single person was hitting.  If Albert, Trout or Hamilton hits .200 in that series we could have been up 2-0.  

And if my Aunt had balls she would be my Uncle.

Woulda shoulda coulda... how much longer are you sheep going to follow MS and his BS?  Read the article. I mean ACTUALLY read point number six and let it sink in.

[Oz27]

6 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Defense depreciates over time, it is a fact, sorry TD.  I like the guy, and think he is the best I have ever seen defensively, but it isn't forever.  

Plus, more importantly, the value of players decreases the less time they are under control for. That is about as contentious as the fact the sun will rise tomorrow. It's a mere statement of the obvious. But clearly it's a little difficult for one person to understand, which says a bit about them.

[Troll Daddy]

1 minute ago, Oz27 said:

Plus, more importantly, the value of players decreases the less time they are under control for. That is about as contentious as the fact the sun will rise tomorrow. It's a mere statement of the obvious. But clearly it's a little difficult for one person to understand, which says a bit about them.

If you have something to say ... don't be a p

[Stradling]

7 minutes ago, Brian Ilten said:

And if my Aunt had balls she would be my Uncle.

Woulda shoulda coulda... how much longer are you sheep going to follow MS and his BS?  Read the article. I mean ACTUALLY read point number six and let it sink in.

As soon as "fans" don't pretend to know what would happen if someone other than Scioscia was the manager.  To stop going to games because of the manager is pretty silly. 

[Oz27]

6 minutes ago, Troll Daddy said:

If you have something to say ... don't be a p

To be clear, do you dispute the notion that the trade value of a player decreases as their length of club control goes down?

[Troll Daddy]

11 minutes ago, Oz27 said:

To be clear, do you dispute the notion that the trade value of a player decreases as their length of club control goes down?

No ... seems a little silly to bring up age when a player is only 26 now and only four years left on his contract 

Trout will be 26 his next birthday. He'll be 30 years old in his final season on the team. Does it make sense to handout a ridiculous contract to a depreciating asset?

 

[Oz27]

Just now, Troll Daddy said:

Yes ... seems a little silly to bring up age when a player is only 26 now and only four years left on his contract 

Trout will be 26 his next birthday. He'll be 30 years old in his final season on the team. Does it make sense to handout a ridiculous contract to a depreciating asset?

 

Would you give up more for five years of Trout (or anyone) than you would give up for one year of him? Would you give up more for Simmons if you were getting him for five years instead of two? This isn't complicated stuff. You'd pay more to buy a car which you were going to be able to keep running for four years instead of one which you could only drive for a year, right?

[Troll Daddy]

19 minutes ago, Oz27 said:

Would you give up more for five years of Trout (or anyone) than you would give up for one year of him? Would you give up more for Simmons if you were getting him for five years instead of two? This isn't complicated stuff. You'd pay more to buy a car which you were going to be able to keep running for four years instead of one which you could only drive for a year, right?

I'm not sure were you're going with this .., although, I do like the car analogy. 

You either love the trade or hate it ... I love the trade unlike you. You called it the 'worst trade in Angel history'. Your depreciation comment was uncalled for a player only 26 years old. It's likely he hasn't even hit his prime yet. 

I think the majority here are more than happy with the trade.

Maybe, I'm wrong about you.

 

[Oz27]

6 minutes ago, Troll Daddy said:

I'm not sure were you're going with this .., although, I do like the car analogy. 

You either love the trade or hate it ... I love the trade unlike you. You called it the 'worst trade in Angel history'. Your depreciation comment was uncalled for a player only 26 years old. It's likely he hasn't even hit his prime yet. 

I think the majority here are more than happy with the trade.

Maybe, I'm wrong about you.

 

Jeez, he is a "depreciating asset" because he is under club control for less time. Every player's value declines as their period of club control does. I didn't like the trade but Simmons is a good player. Offensively he is the same as last year, defensively he may be declining slightly down but is still elite. Even if he's at the same level overall, his trade value would be expected to have decreased because his contract has less time remaining on it. An acquiring team would be getting him for a shorter period of control than we did. In what universe is that "uncalled" for? It's just a statement of the completely obvious.

[Troll Daddy]

23 minutes ago, Oz27 said:

Jeez, he is a "depreciating asset" because he is under club control for less time. Every player's value declines as their period of club control does. I didn't like the trade but Simmons is a good player. Offensively he is the same as last year, defensively he may be declining slightly down but is still elite. Even if he's at the same level overall, his trade value would be expected to have decreased because his contract has less time remaining on it. An acquiring team would be getting him for a shorter period of control than we did. In what universe is that "uncalled" for? It's just a statement of the completely obvious.

I get what you're saying  .,, but it's also very possible we trade him in 2-3 years and get more than what we gave up for him. 

Conventional wisdom makes sense but in sports it can take a turn.

[ten ocho recon scout]

8 hours ago, cysomeawfulpitcher said:

You calling others retards and telling those to kill themselves is like Uwe Boll telling Martin Scorsese that he's a terrible director.  Pot kettle black.

Sorry. Got ahead of myself while talking shop with the people these boards are about. In the future, ill ignore their input and rely on you and others who likely have a far better grasp on whats happening than those its happening to.

[IEAngelsfan]

5 hours ago, Dick B Back said:

The fat man can't be blamed for the crap floating on the top of the 25 man roster.

(Wanted to post "fat man" since its my first time posting it on AW. I am no longer a fat man virgin.)

You know, I had to read that twice.  I was about to offer you condolences.

[Blarg]

7 hours ago, yk9001 said:

Counterpoint: Bunting to get to Hamilton.

When everyone on this board except a few random nutswingers could see he looked like hot garbage.

The entire lineup was garbage  vs the royals. 

[yk9001]

9 hours ago, Blarg said:

The entire lineup was garbage  vs the royals. 

And yet we wasted two precious outs bunting for a guy who, for the whole series, gave some of the most comical non-pitcher at bats in major league history.  Who Scioscia played every game.

But of course, its never Mike's fault.

[yk9001]

Just wondering, how many managers have been fired since Mike Scioscia took over last century?

 

I'm going to guess a nice round number like 140.

[yk9001]

1 minute ago, hangin n wangin said:

Are there any managers who have missed the playoffs 6 out of 7 years and still keep their job?

Whether people think Scioscia is still doing a good job or not, there is obviously some type of obsession that Arte has with Scioscia.

Managers don't keep their jobs missing the playoffs 7 out of 8 years.

According to several people on this thread, the whole mess has nothing to do with Scioscia.

The dreadful play.  The dreadful record.  Worst organization in baseball.

Scioscia, who wields more power than any manager we know, has no culpability.

 

Hey, I don't watch the team every day.  These perceived nutswingers could actually be right.  NOTHING is Mike's fault.

It doesn't pass the sniff test to me, but I could be wrong.

[mulwin444]

He got a 10 year contract at $5 mil a year through 2018.  There is your explanation as to why he is still employed with the Angels.  It doesn't matter whohas been fired since 2009 because there is really no comparison.  Let's say Arte was thinking about firing him after the 2013 season, Scioscia still had half his contract left to go to the tune of $25 mil.  Even if he fires him now, he's still on the hook for $10 mil.  When Arte drew up the contract, the Angels were at their peak and the first year of the contract, 2009, saw them advancing to ALCS.  I think the soonest you see Scioscia canned is mid-season 2017 since, if there is no extension after the current, there would only be 1 year left on the deal and it would be a "lame duck" situation.

[yk9001]

Arte burns more $ than that before his morning coffee. 

Going all the way back to Appier, who at the time, was the largest $ release ever.  GMJ; Wells, Hamilton... I am sure I am forgetting some.

Arte eating failed contracts is like the sun coming up in the east.

[Troll Daddy]

There's no reason to fire Scioscia other than bringing in a new face. I think Scioscia gives this team the best chance at winning. The players support him and that's good enough for me. I believe he's one of the best baseball strategist in the game. 

I'm guessing most of you would of been happy with Scott Servais as our new manager, right?

[mulwin444]

I'm guessing them making the playoffs in 2014 and missing them by a game in 2015 bought him some time.  Like it or not, he's led the Angels through the most successful period in their history and he has collateral with the people who matter.

[Billy_Ball]

28 minutes ago, yk9001 said:

Arte burns more $ than that before his morning coffee. 

Going all the way back to Appier, who at the time, was the largest $ release ever.  GMJ; Wells, Hamilton... I am sure I am forgetting some.

Arte eating failed contracts is like the sun coming up in the east.

Justin Speier!