Trading away the franchise (long read)

[Stradling]

I agree.  The problems are self inflicted, but they are just as easily solved, it just takes longer to solve the core problem of the team.  

I used to laugh and be pissed when they would call the Angels farm the worst in baseball back in the 90's but it seemed each year we were calling up the Salmons, Erstads, Glaus, Percivals, Disars, Molinas, Edmonds, Andersons, then later the Krods and Lackeys.  
 

[Docwaukee]

1 hour ago, Stradling said:

Doc, incredible read overall.  Looking at the amount of trades that have happened in the last 6 or so years is insane.  What would have been cool to see is a break down by GM, so we could see who influenced what.  It is widely assumed that Reagins did whatever Scioscia wanted, and I don't completely disagree, but how many of those trades that happened on your 2nd list were Dipoto and how many were Reagins/Scioscia.  I can tell you right now that even though Scioscia and Eppler have a better relationship that he and Dipoto will ever have, this isn't a "Mike Scioscia" type team at all.  

Thanks Strad.  The trades are pretty much in chronological order.  The last trade that Reagins made was the Wells deal. 

Then it's all dipoto through the Kubitza deal.  

Then the three trades after dipoto quit with Stoney as the interim.

Then it's Eppler from the Simmons deal onward.  

[Stradling]

Thanks Doc.  Do you know the first Reagins trade?  

[stormngt]

3 hours ago, nate said:

People love their memes like Rondons, etc, but the truth is there is a significant impact to the organization and Doc's post highlights it well.

It shows how incredibly short sighted and foolish the people running this org have been.  Let us not forget that when Reagins was the GM he essentially did whatever Scioscia wanted, probably the dumbest decision made by this org was to give the manager of the ML team that much input on those decisions.

speculation?  or fact?

[stormngt]

53 minutes ago, Stradling said:

The winning doesn't ever last forever.  We may not have made it to the World Series multiple times, but we were very competitive almost every year from 2002-2015, that is a very good run.  When was the last time we had back to back sub .500 years?  

careful!  don't you know if you don't win the WS your a loser!

[nate]

1 hour ago, Stradling said:

The winning doesn't ever last forever.  We may not have made it to the World Series multiple times, but we were very competitive almost every year from 2002-2015, that is a very good run.  When was the last time we had back to back sub .500 years?  

Very competitive? Maybe from 2002-2009, except for 2003.

[Ohtaniland]

2 hours ago, Stradling said:

The winning doesn't ever last forever.  We may not have made it to the World Series multiple times, but we were very competitive almost every year from 2002-2015, that is a very good run.  When was the last time we had back to back sub .500 years?  

I agree so having a few bad seasons for the time being until we rebuild a sustainable team should be acceptable. Do you have the patience for that? 

 

 

Stradling.....

"But if he buys this guy and that guy and everybody gets healthy we can compete for the second wild card again. Then we're going to take Texas and Seattle and we're going back to Houston, Kansas City, New York and Boston.....we're going to take back that trophy and go to Washington DC again.  Yahhhhhhh !"

in a Howard Dean scream

 

[mrwicked]

So the org isn't top tier, or even middle tier. Not every team can be the Giants or Cardinals.

It's a game. The owner still makes money, the fans get to watch, and the team peddles along in mediocrity. Not the end of the world.  

Still fun to watch. They aren't nearly as frustrating when you have no expectations of actually winning.

[Angel Oracle]

I kind of sign on now to what Wicked and Strad are saying.   Eleven seasons out of the past fifteen seasons with at least 85 wins was never remotely done before.

We are only just now though rueing Arte's decisions from the beginning of J. Pierpont Reagins' reign through all of Dipeutered's reign.

And three of those four sub-85 win seasons have come since 2010.

The next two seasons will show improvement, but patience will be needed.   Most of the real farm talent is currently in the lower minors.

[Docwaukee]

54 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Thanks Doc.  Do you know the first Reagins trade?  

the Garland for Ocab deal.  

[ten ocho recon scout]

8 hours ago, Blarg said:

Somehow @Dochalo forgot the Angels  traded Broderick for Giavotella. Maybe because it was a throw away for a below average player but it happened. 

Then he went off and made project x, and gio got dfa'a.

[Angel Oracle]

Giovatella is no Alan Ruck.

[Troll Daddy]

Eppler's trade for Simmons was brilliant. 

I dont see how rehashing the past 20 years makes the team better. I guess most of you find enjoyment in that kind of stuff. 

[Oz27]

Good perspective, Doc. There aren't many of those minor trades that you look at and go "wow, how awful" but when you're constantly trading away C grade prospects for marginal MLB talent it really depletes your organizational depth and that is one of our biggest problems at the moment. There aren't heaps of guys on that list you would be desperate to have back, but you would reverse a large percentage of those trades if you could. Still having Mike Clevinger in isolation wouldn't be that big a deal (although it would obviously help). But it's a weight of numbers thing, really. The only really good prospects who we've traded from our organization in the post Reagins era are Newcomb and Ellis, but the lack of organizational depth and fringe players making their way onto the roster can directly be traced to the amount of lower grade young talent we have traded. Doing a bit of that is harmless, doing it constantly is really harmful and Reagins and Dipoto were both very guilty of it. We really need a stint now where we're adding minor league talent, not subtracting from it, which is why "rebuilding is not in our DNA" and other such delusion is pretty worrying. I don't think the past few years have taught us much, at least beyond "don't sign recovering drug addicts on the wrong side of 30 to $150 million deals".

[TroutCron]

DiPoto made it clear that trading prospects for major league parts was the foundation of his philosophy. This could work if you have a Texas or Houston type system well stocked with high end prospects. However, the Angels system was anything but well stocked. I think that Dipoto saw Albert and Trout as the core of a championship team and not much else would be needed. All his little trades of minor leagers gutted the system so that when Albert broke down there was no backup. 

Eppler seems to have a good eye for clean peanuts. That plus good drafts and signing international FA, will rebuild the system. Hopefully witin two years we will start to recover.

[totdprods]

11 minutes ago, Oz27 said:

We really need a stint now where we're adding minor league talent, not subtracting from it, which is why "rebuilding is not in our DNA" and other such delusion is pretty worrying. I don't think the past few years have taught us much, at least beyond "don't sign recovering drug addicts on the wrong side of 30 to $150 million deals".

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I've been writing up a big, big post going over Eppler's First Year, and it really highlights this, and shows that Eppler has made great strides towards this. Just takes time to show results, but I think we are well on that way.

[Oz27]

4 minutes ago, totdprods said:

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I've been writing up a big, big post going over Eppler's First Year, and it really highlights this, and shows that Eppler has made great strides towards this. Just takes time to show results, but I think we are well on that way.

I can't really agree with that, especially when trading away our two best minor leaguers was one of the first things he did. His first draft was our most encouraging in awhile, but it is way too early to call it a success. I'm still not sold on the Thaiss pick and, while there is more upside talent behind him than in previous years, it's those top end picks which will really dictate how quickly we can rebuild the system. There are three ways to substantially improve a farm system - draft really well, trade MLB pieces for young talent and/or ceasing to ignore the international market. We haven't done the latter two to any meaningful extent and it's too early to call the first one.

The one thing he has done is help to address the lack of organizational depth, which was clearly needed. He's found a heap of AAAA/fringe MLB players for little cost and that needed to be done. One or two could turn into more than that too, like Marte. That is good, but the substantial changes comes from finding the high upside talent and that hasn't really happened yet.

[totdprods]

2 hours ago, Oz27 said:

I can't really agree with that, especially when trading away our two best minor leaguers was one of the first things he did....The one thing he has done is help to address the lack of organizational depth, which was clearly needed. He's found a heap of AAAA/fringe MLB players for little cost and that needed to be done. One or two could turn into more than that too, like Marte. That is good, but the substantial changes comes from finding the high upside talent and that hasn't really happened yet.

It's just going to be a difference of opinion. I wasn't as high on Newcomb and Ellis, and neither of them did much this year to change my mind. 

In a nutshell, we've given up a really good SP prospect, an run of the mill SP prospect, and a Kody Eaves:

• A young, high-upside, top of the rotation ceiling lefty starter with legitimate control issues who won't be MLB-ready until 2018
• A relatively safe SP prospect who is almost certain to log some MLB innings, maybe even have a couple good seasons, but likely doesn't project to be much more than a back of rotation innings-eater at best. 
• and a Kody Eaves.

and in return we've added an everyday SS, basically an everyday 3B, a potential top of the rotation arm or elite reliever, 3 young SPs and 3 your RPs:

• a 26 year old everyday (and by some measures a borderline star) shortstop with elite defense who is under control for several more seasons
• a 25 year old corner infielder and potential everyday left fielder whose OPS is behind only Trout and Cron, and ahead of Pujols, Escobar, and Calhoun
• A relatively young, high-upside, top of the rotation ceiling righty starter with injury history and some durability questions who is throwing MLB innings as I type this
• a trio of relievers, average age 27, who contributed 100 innings of 3.23 ERA/1.23 WHIP this season - no, not fantastic, but young, controllable, and acceptable 
• a trio of starters, average age 26, including one who was a top 100 prospect in 2012 and owned a 2.50 ERA in 16 starts at AAA last season, and one who has a 3.99 ERA over 44 games starter in the majors
• and while it's not nearly the same level, a 24-year old equivalent to Efren Navarro and a 24-year old 4th OF with a plus-plus arm

The big take away to me is that had Dipoto or Reagins traded the above, they would have gotten players back who were much older, more expensive, and under less control. Eppler has been the complete opposite.

Now, obviously we can debate the projections of Ellis and Newcomb and the ceilings and floors of Oberholtzer, Marte, Valdez, and Ortega and Co. all day long, and we will and that's why message boards exist. While these guys don't have the 'prospect shine' anymore, it doesn't take away from the fact they are all still pretty young and controllable, and cost basically nothing to acquire. Dipoto and Reagins rarely acquired players like this - at least with this level of upside. More often, it was for aging vets or highly-paid 'stars'. Eppler's guys aren't really far off from being prospects. This stands in stark contrast from Dipoto/Reagins. Closer to Stoneman. And we haven't touched upon guys like Scribner, Grendell, Holland and a handful of other minor league arms that are showing promise in A/AA. He's taken a similar strategy there, also while giving up very little. 

You can even make an argument he replaced Newcomb and Ellis literally without giving up anything.  What Meyer may lack in upside now to Newcomb (and that can be arguable) he makes up for with the fact he's able to contribute immediately. One of Banuelos/Oberholtzer/Wright could reach Ellis' potential as soon as next season, and they're all in their mid-20's who again, cost nothing. 

And I actually think Dipoto got the Latin American presence back on the right direction. The Baldoquin signing was a mess, but the Halos had literally no pull there for years after the skimming scandal, and no amount of money was going to turn that around in one year - not when every other team was focusing on the same players. That was always going to be a slow-moving, incremental turn around, and I see several Latin American players plucked in the last couple years that have now started making progress in Arizona. Rivas, Pena, Rodriguez, etc. 

[Docwaukee]

3 hours ago, Oz27 said:

Good perspective, Doc. There aren't many of those minor trades that you look at and go "wow, how awful" but when you're constantly trading away C grade prospects for marginal MLB talent it really depletes your organizational depth and that is one of our biggest problems at the moment. There aren't heaps of guys on that list you would be desperate to have back, but you would reverse a large percentage of those trades if you could. Still having Mike Clevinger in isolation wouldn't be that big a deal (although it would obviously help). But it's a weight of numbers thing, really. The only really good prospects who we've traded from our organization in the post Reagins era are Newcomb and Ellis, but the lack of organizational depth and fringe players making their way onto the roster can directly be traced to the amount of lower grade young talent we have traded. Doing a bit of that is harmless, doing it constantly is really harmful and Reagins and Dipoto were both very guilty of it. We really need a stint now where we're adding minor league talent, not subtracting from it, which is why "rebuilding is not in our DNA" and other such delusion is pretty worrying. I don't think the past few years have taught us much, at least beyond "don't sign recovering drug addicts on the wrong side of 30 to $150 million deals".

Thanks Oz.  I would say Segura was a really good prospect.  

I agree with both you and totdprods to some degree.  The whole 'rebuilding isn't in our DNA' thing is stupid.  I get what he is saying, but there is always going to be a point where you need to move your existing major league talent before their value becomes limited.  

If the plan is to draft well, tap into foreign markets, pick up minor league free agents, pick up the occasional major league FA, and selectively trade from your major league roster to replenish your major league roster, then you have a very narrow margin for error.  It's a line that Arte has essentially drawn and asked his GM's to walk since Reagins was hired (sans the foreign market thing).  All with a finite payroll.  A large market payroll, but still finite and not at the level of the Yankees, Dodgers or Red Sox where they can actually buy their way out of trouble to some degree.  

There is a distinct difference between our last 4 gms.  

-Stoneman had his own plan and was able to execute it.  There were flaws in it, but they were passive flaws that didn't cause significant collateral damage.  In fact, the main flaw was perhaps a little bit too much of a concern for sustainability without a mind for taking advantage of what was available.  

-Reagins was initially given stoneman's plan to execute but he was also asked to make the necessary adjustments that stoneman never could.  But he wasn't savvy enough to pull it off and when that became clear, stoneman's plan morphed into a conglomerated Arte/MS plan that was based on desperation and a loss of the normal check and balances inherent in a normal owner/gm/manager hierarchy.  

-Jerry's plan was this forced amalgam of Arte's plan, Scioscia's input and his own ideas that were mostly a contentious response to the fact that he didn't have full control.  He never fully accepted his situation and begrudgingly did things a certain way with a mild contempt for the whole process.  

-Eppler's plan is still a bit of a mystery.  What I am hoping is that he took a look at the dynamic and immediately accepted it as just part of the process instead of fighting it.  He recognized that MS is a seasoned baseball mind that probably has some useful stuff to offer and that Arte's intentions are are good but his execution is lacking.  He is aware of the need to keep the team marketable while fortifying the foundation in the best way that he sees feet and not necessarily in response to said dynamic.  

The problem going forward with the current team philosophy is that you never really get to take advantage of peak value for any given player.  Whether it be for trading minor leaguers for major leaguers or trading major leaguers for prospects.  You are always on the short side of a deal in the 'rebuilding isn't in our DNA' mentality unless Eppler is just that good.  I want and hope that he is a little better at drafting than most.  I want and hope that his team is better than most at picking up unknown free agents and I want and hope that his team is better than most at using major league talent to acquire other almost ready major league talent.  But that is a tall task and one that has a narrow margin for error.   

[nate]

Another great post, Doc.  Totally agree.

[Erstad Grit]

On top of these moves our fear and reluctance to make QO has not helped. 

[Oz27]

16 hours ago, Dochalo said:

Thanks Oz.  I would say Segura was a really good prospect.  

I agree with both you and totdprods to some degree.  The whole 'rebuilding isn't in our DNA' thing is stupid.  I get what he is saying, but there is always going to be a point where you need to move your existing major league talent before their value becomes limited.  

If the plan is to draft well, tap into foreign markets, pick up minor league free agents, pick up the occasional major league FA, and selectively trade from your major league roster to replenish your major league roster, then you have a very narrow margin for error.  It's a line that Arte has essentially drawn and asked his GM's to walk since Reagins was hired (sans the foreign market thing).  All with a finite payroll.  A large market payroll, but still finite and not at the level of the Yankees, Dodgers or Red Sox where they can actually buy their way out of trouble to some degree.  

There is a distinct difference between our last 4 gms.  

-Stoneman had his own plan and was able to execute it.  There were flaws in it, but they were passive flaws that didn't cause significant collateral damage.  In fact, the main flaw was perhaps a little bit too much of a concern for sustainability without a mind for taking advantage of what was available.  

-Reagins was initially given stoneman's plan to execute but he was also asked to make the necessary adjustments that stoneman never could.  But he wasn't savvy enough to pull it off and when that became clear, stoneman's plan morphed into a conglomerated Arte/MS plan that was based on desperation and a loss of the normal check and balances inherent in a normal owner/gm/manager hierarchy.  

-Jerry's plan was this forced amalgam of Arte's plan, Scioscia's input and his own ideas that were mostly a contentious response to the fact that he didn't have full control.  He never fully accepted his situation and begrudgingly did things a certain way with a mild contempt for the whole process.  

-Eppler's plan is still a bit of a mystery.  What I am hoping is that he took a look at the dynamic and immediately accepted it as just part of the process instead of fighting it.  He recognized that MS is a seasoned baseball mind that probably has some useful stuff to offer and that Arte's intentions are are good but his execution is lacking.  He is aware of the need to keep the team marketable while fortifying the foundation in the best way that he sees feet and not necessarily in response to said dynamic.  

The problem going forward with the current team philosophy is that you never really get to take advantage of peak value for any given player.  Whether it be for trading minor leaguers for major leaguers or trading major leaguers for prospects.  You are always on the short side of a deal in the 'rebuilding isn't in our DNA' mentality unless Eppler is just that good.  I want and hope that he is a little better at drafting than most.  I want and hope that his team is better than most at picking up unknown free agents and I want and hope that his team is better than most at using major league talent to acquire other almost ready major league talent.  But that is a tall task and one that has a narrow margin for error.   

Good post, again. And yeah Segura slipped my mind. I wholeheartedly agree with your "narrow margin for error" points. That is a big part of why I cringe when I see so many posts saying we should hold onto what we have because "if scrubs X, Y and Z turn good then we can have a really good team!". Sure, that could happen. But it's not likely to. What is most likely is we hold onto what we have, it goes nowhere and we waste another year of guys we should be looking to move - therefore substantially hurting their value. I talk a lot about the middle being the worst place to be and that is what I'm getting at here. We're stuck in a point where we aren't terrible enough to truly restock the farm but aren't good enough to have a legitimate shot at achieving anything. One way or another, we need to rectify that. Our strategy seems to be "assemble a team which might be competitive but likely won't be truly good and hope for the best" and that is a road to nowhere.

[Troll Daddy]

Nobody wants to sell off our good players and wait 3-4 years for the team to possibly compete. 

i prefer the 'hope for the best approach'. 

 

[Angel Oracle]

Keep the best players, sign non-draft pick loss FAs who aren't waaaay overpaid, and be all in for Latin America and Asia.