What would it take to make the 2017 season a success?

[ELEVEN]

Stay in contention deep into Sept, and show enough improvement to be a contender going ito 2018.

[TroutField]

If we are pushing for a playoff spot around the trade deadline would you guys be willing to trade one of Jones or Thaiss to fill a hole for a playoff push? 

 

Or do you roll with what you have and still build with an eye on 2018-2020?

[Glen]

The Angels were 35-41 against the AL West last year; Texas was 47-29. Getting over .500 in our division would go a long ways toward making the playoffs.

[tdawg87]

2 minutes ago, TroutField said:

If we are pushing for a playoff spot around the trade deadline would you guys be willing to trade one of Jones or Thaiss to fill a hole for a playoff push? 

Absolutely not. That's the type of shit that got us into this situation in the first place. They'd trade Jones or Thaiss for half a year of some pitcher and then miss the playoffs by 1 game. Then we have nothing.

[LegendaryPujols#5]

Releasing Scioscia and a 40-40 campaign from Trout. 

[Troll Daddy]

We can all agree the team was shitty last season. 

We can all agree the team has improved this off season. 

The Angels were two games over .500 after the break last season.

 

PS It all comes down to the all star break ... buyers or sellers?

 

 

 

[nikkachez]

13 hours ago, eaterfan said:

If:

Richards throws 170 innings

Bedrosian seizes the closer's role

They hold onto their top 5 prospects

Skaggs takes a step forward

Then I'll consider it a successful season.

 

Cherry on top:

Add more prospects through the draft or trades

Trout wins MVP

Make the playoffs

 

This, Wild Card would be good enough for me. 

 

Oh and for Texas to suck, that would really make it a successful season. 

[Oz27]

14 hours ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

Mid to upper 80 wins is an utter failure for a team in win now mode. 

 

This. So much.

We are going for it now. We are running out of seasons with the best player ever to wear our uniform. Being in contention  but not making it, is not a success. It is a very clear failure. The only true success, in our position, is winning the division.

[Troll Daddy]

[Stradling]

I don't really agree, mainly because I hate absolutes, but I understand your point.  Hell in your absolute view we could win 90+ games, miss the wild card by a game and it would be a failure, no matter what else happened.  Which is absolutely not the case.  What if Skaggs and Richards put together amazing seasons?  What if Simmons came back and hit .280 again and continued to play that defense.  What if Cron takes the next step?  All of these things are things that would help us in our pursuit to keep Trout.  Hell what if we had a shitty season but signed Trout to an extension?  All of these things are things that are possible.  What if Albert retired?  What if Arte sold the team to everyone's favorite billionaire?  

Also who in the world things we are solely in the Win Now mode?  If we were in a total Win Now mode I think we would be spending money or trading our only minor league players to compete now.  Just because we didn't trade Calhoun or we didn't trade Escobar or because we traded Bandy doesn't mean we are in a win now mode.  

[Oz27]

13 minutes ago, Stradling said:

I don't really agree, mainly because I hate absolutes, but I understand your point.  Hell in your absolute view we could win 90+ games, miss the wild card by a game and it would be a failure, no matter what else happened.  Which is absolutely not the case.  What if Skaggs and Richards put together amazing seasons?  What if Simmons came back and hit .280 again and continued to play that defense.  What if Cron takes the next step?  All of these things are things that would help us in our pursuit to keep Trout.  Hell what if we had a shitty season but signed Trout to an extension?  All of these things are things that are possible.  What if Albert retired?  What if Arte sold the team to everyone's favorite billionaire?  

Also who in the world things we are solely in the Win Now mode?  If we were in a total Win Now mode I think we would be spending money or trading our only minor league players to compete now.  Just because we didn't trade Calhoun or we didn't trade Escobar or because we traded Bandy doesn't mean we are in a win now mode.  

Well, if Skaggs or Richards or Simmons or Cron or Jose Alvarez put together amazing seasons but the team doesn't achieve anything then who gives a shit? Good for them, I guess, but what does that really mean for us? They would improve their trade value, I suppose, and that is nice. But beyond that, what does it matter? What is to say any of that helps to keep Trout?

If the team is truly good (over 90 wins) and somehow misses the playoffs, I could see how people could make an exception. The point I was trying to make was the metrics some people are using, like "playing meaningful September baseball", are terrible measures of success. If you're a .500 team you're probably playing meaningful September baseball because at some point in the month you're probably within four or so games of a wild card. Is that a success? Hell no. At the end of the day, we have four chances left to win with Trout and not winning the division this year just means we've blown another one of them. It's pretty hard to view that as a success.

Also, this team is clearly being designed to compete now. Every transaction we've made in recent memory has been designed to either improve our 2017 chances of winning or not hurt them. Plus, we have a $250 million player whose days as an above-replacement level player are quickly running out, as well as the game's best player for what is a relatively short period of time remaining. If the aim isn't to win now, what the hell is it?

[Stradling]

5 minutes ago, Oz27 said:

Well, if Skaggs or Richards or Simmons or Cron or Jose Alvarez put together amazing seasons but the team doesn't achieve anything then who gives a shit? Good for them, I guess, but what does that really mean for us? They would improve their trade value, I suppose, and that is nice. But beyond that, what does it matter? What is to say any of that helps to keep Trout?

If the team is truly good (over 90 wins) and somehow misses the playoffs, I could see how people could make an exception. The point I was trying to make was the metrics some people are using, like "playing meaningful September baseball", are terrible measures of success. If you're a .500 team you're probably playing meaningful September baseball because at some point in the month you're probably within four or so games of a wild card. Is that a success? Hell no. At the end of the day, we have four chances left to win with Trout and not winning the division this year just means we've blown another one of them. It's pretty hard to view that as a success.

Also, this team is clearly being designed to compete now. Every transaction we've made in recent memory has been designed to either improve our 2017 chances of winning or not hurt them. Plus, we have a $250 million player whose days as an above-replacement level player are quickly running out, as well as the game's best player for what is a relatively short period of time remaining. If the aim isn't to win now, what the hell is it?

It is a hybrid, like it or not.  It is staying competitive while building the farm and not ruining payroll for other off seasons.  I am not saying I like it, but your alternative is trading everyone not named Trout, with hopes it improves the team in the future.  That could very easily could mean the end of Trout even more so than what we are currently doing.  As for the Albert part, it is basically bitching over spilled milk.  What exactly can they do about it now?  What move solves that?  There isn't one.  He isn't tradable and with the way this team is constructed he is still valuable.  If things were done differently under Dipoto and we were able to draft well, and sign international guys, and we had still signed Albert but had this long line or replacements for him, I could understand bringing him up.  Bottom line is we didn't do those things.  My one issue with WAR is that it is position based.  I know that sounds dumb, but when you see the actual numbers Trumbo put up last year and compare that to Cron, then you look and see Cron had a better WAR than Trumbo, well it loses its value to me.  Well when a guy puts up Alberts numbers, and they say he is a replacement level players.  Was he great last year?  No, but he had a 114 OPS+ which puts him 14% better than average and he was a DH.  I am sure you have metrics that will trash what I just said, but oh well.  

[Oz27]

14 minutes ago, Stradling said:

It is a hybrid, like it or not.  It is staying competitive while building the farm and not ruining payroll for other off seasons.  I am not saying I like it, but your alternative is trading everyone not named Trout, with hopes it improves the team in the future.  That could very easily could mean the end of Trout even more so than what we are currently doing.  As for the Albert part, it is basically bitching over spilled milk.  What exactly can they do about it now?  What move solves that?  There isn't one.  He isn't tradable and with the way this team is constructed he is still valuable.  If things were done differently under Dipoto and we were able to draft well, and sign international guys, and we had still signed Albert but had this long line or replacements for him, I could understand bringing him up.  Bottom line is we didn't do those things.  My one issue with WAR is that it is position based.  I know that sounds dumb, but when you see the actual numbers Trumbo put up last year and compare that to Cron, then you look and see Cron had a better WAR than Trumbo, well it loses its value to me.  Well when a guy puts up Alberts numbers, and they say he is a replacement level players.  Was he great last year?  No, but he had a 114 OPS+ which puts him 14% better than average and he was a DH.  I am sure you have metrics that will trash what I just said, but oh well.  

Of course it is position based, how could it not be? A 90 OPS+ from a DH would be worthless, but from a shortstop it would be okay. A 110 OPS+ from a DH is 'meh', but you'd be thrilled if your shortstop did that. There were 12 players who had at least 300 plate appearances and played at least 50 per cent of the time at DH last year, The only hitters worse than Pujols in that group were a broken Prince Fielder, Kendrys Morales and something called Avisail Garcia (seriously who the f**k is that?). In other words, most AL teams didn't have trouble finding a DH who could post an OPS+ better than 114. Some people here don't like it because, you know, individual players are totally responsible for their RBI totals, but WAR sums 2016 Pujols up pretty damn accurately. He was better than replacement level, but below the level of the average DH. Also, Trumbo and Cron were essentially the same hitter in 2016 - Trumbo had a 120 OPS+ and Cron 117. Trumbo is a historically bad fielder, which matters. His WAR is hurt a bit by his team asking him to play a position he clearly can't play but the value he provided to his team was pretty limited. He has one skill and is terrible at everything else.

Anyway I don't really get why that came up from what I said. I wasn't bitching, I was just making the point that once you've spent $250 million on someone it makes sense to try to be productive in the limited time left in which that person is still a productive major leaguer.

 

[Troll Daddy]

9 minutes ago, CALZONE said:

Well they have 3 1/2 seasons left to build a competitive team around Trout (still doesn't guarantee he will stay) or to extend him to a rediculas contract that Arte probably won't pay because Trout knows that other teams like Boston, Baltimore, Philadelphia and both New York teams are ready to drive the price up to a level that Arte will reject. That's why the "Trout window" is so stupid. Trout is going to play wherever he's wants to play regardless of our competitive status. 

If your gong to trade him at 3 1/2 years ... you might as well trade him in 2 1/2 years. You get far more value in return. 

[AngelStew43]

If this team gets a full season of health from the starting pitching, it will be a good team.  I'd like to see another top starter developed or brought in, and I'd really rather see

Marte at 3B over Escobar.  Also, Bedrosian pitches the ninth, no matter what.

[Troll Daddy]

Below league average DH with 119 rbis on a offensively challenged team. 

Is there some kind of medal for that?

[Oz27]

10 minutes ago, Troll Daddy said:

Below league average DH with 119 rbis on a offensively challenged team. 

Is there some kind of medal for that?

Firstly, the Angels were essentially an average offensive team (717 runs, which ranked 17th out of 30).

Also, Pujols had more plate appearances with runners on base than anyone else in the majors. He had 23 more runners on base for his plate appearances than anyone else did in 2016. Nobody has had more runners on base for their plate appearances since 2013 and his total (525) is the second highest since 2008. So yeah, he was really hurt by that "offensively challenged" team. Good talk.

[Troll Daddy]

1 minute ago, Oz27 said:

Firstly, the Angels were essentially an average offensive team (717 runs, which ranked 17th out of 30).

Also, Pujols had more plate appearances with runners on base than anyone else in the majors. He had 23 more runners on base for his plate appearances than anyone else did in 2016. Nobody has had more runners on base for their plate appearances since 2013 and his total (525) is the second highest since 2008. So yeah, he was really hurt by that "offensively challenged" team. Good talk.

Yada yada yada

[Oz27]

8 minutes ago, Troll Daddy said:

Yada yada yada

Facts suck, right?

[Troll Daddy]

Just now, Oz27 said:

Facts suck, right?

Prove it with details for every DH

thanks!

[Oz27]

3 minutes ago, Troll Daddy said:

Prove it with details for every DH

thanks!

Umm, I already did. Like everything else, you just seem to lack the ability to comprehend it.

For the record, Pujols drove in 16.7 per cent of the runners on base for his at bats - among DHs, that rate was behind Ortiz, Butler, Beltran, Morales and Encarnacion. Among all hitters with at least 300 plate appearances, that was the 53rd best rate in baseball.

[Ohtaniland]

52 minutes ago, Troll Daddy said:

If your gong to trade him at 3 1/2 years ... you might as well trade him in 2 1/2 years. You get far more value in return. 

Don't rule out Trout requesting a trade at some point after he gets married to his east coast high school sweetheart. He's earned every right to play wherever he wants on his own terms. The "Trout window" is silly because it may never apply. 

[Troll Daddy]

5 minutes ago, Oz27 said:

Umm, I already did. Like everything else, you just seem to lack the ability to comprehend it.

For the record, Pujols drove in 16.7 per cent of the runners on base for his at bats - among DHs, that rate was behind Ortiz, Butler, Beltran, Morales and Encarnacion. Among all hitters with at least 300 plate appearances, that was the 53rd best rate in baseball.

Good stuff thxs

Although, we really don't know the outcome if given the opportunity.

What about the ball partks? 

Do you mean Bret Butler?

What are the percentages of said players?

Does a LH bat have a advantage?

etc etc etc

 

 

 

 

[totdprods]

I would simply be happy with measured improvement by both the team and individuals. Not going to hold them to a win/loss or playoff benchmark. Not that I feel they're incapable, but seeing signs of some sustained organizational development would be a big reassurance that Eppler has turned things around.

I would rather see another '04-'09 era of sustained success and playoff appearances rather than a repeat of say 2014.

[Troll Daddy]