Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

IGNORED

Teams Worse Than the Angels


Recommended Posts

The Astros and Marlins. That's it. Now let's take a look at their respective payrolls:

 

Astros: $26.1 million

Marlins: $50.5 million

 

Angels: $137.2 million

 

While we're at it:

 

Athletics: $62 million

 

There's no getting around the fact that this team was poorly constructed, and is poorly run.

 

Here's a scary thought: In 2016 the Angels will be paying Hamilton, Pujols and Wilson $75 million - more than half the current payroll and, I would imagine, somewhere close to half what it will be 2016. Throw in Weaver and you've got $95 million committed to four players in their mid-30s - more than the payrolls of two-thirds of the teams in the major leagues.

 

The point being: The franchise is not in a good situation and this won't change for at least a few years. They're going to have those albatross contracts weighing it down, limiting flexibility. And none of this includes contracts for Trout, Trumbo or Bourjos.

 

I suppose you could say that after the huge contracts the Angels basically have the payroll of a team like the Athletics and if they can be competitive on $60 million a year, why can't the Angels? The simple answer: Jerry Dipoto is no Billy Beane. He doesn't seem to have Beane's eye for talent, for spending less and getting more (thus the Joe Blanton contract...$15 million for this?). And he continually seems to make the wrong moves, the wrong signings - at least more often than not. There is an ever-increasing list of former Angels that are thriving elsewhere - much longer than the imports.

 

I just don't know a way out of this, how they're going to go from a fat-cat team that spends poorly on over-rated and over-the-hill players to one that uses their money more wisely, on choice free agent only and finds ways to spend less and get more. It seems they're caught in this spiral and think that two wrongs make a right (e.g. Spending $240 million on Pujols through his age 41 season,when there were already signs of significant decline, and then spending $125 on the erratic Josh Hamilton). It is disheartening, to say the least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we all knew Pujols and Hamilton were likely bad long term investments....no surprise there...the thought was that, short term, they could help us win a championship....let's hope that turns around, and soon....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, Bean's "eye for talent" is primarily good with minor leaguers thru draft and trade and then those players coming to fruition in time. TIME being the key word, as Dipoto hasn't been here long enough.

In addition, why is Bean all of a sudden a genius again? Because there were some very lean years up in OAK between 2004 and 2011 where "Moneyball" or "Billyball" was considered an absolute joke after it had supposedly worked well enough that it was going to be the new model to build.

Don't get me wrong, there is something wrong with the Angels... But don't put it on the guy that hasn't even been here two years. The problems are much older than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just hope that the Pujols and Hamilton signings don't cripple this team for the next 4-5 years, to where they don't spend the money that they should on the draft, scouting, foreign scouting, and player development.

And I hope they aren't bound to keep Scioscia through the next 3-5 years just because of the contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, Bean's "eye for talent" is primarily good with minor leaguers thru draft and trade and then those players coming to fruition in time. TIME being the key word, as Dipoto hasn't been here long enough.

In addition, why is Bean all of a sudden a genius again? Because there were some very lean years up in OAK between 2004 and 2011 where "Moneyball" or "Billyball" was considered an absolute joke after it had supposedly worked well enough that it was going to be the new model to build.

Don't get me wrong, there is something wrong with the Angels... But don't put it on the guy that hasn't even been here two years. The problems are much older than that.

 

Beane.  Billy BeanE.  Billy BEAN was the guy who came out as gay after he quit baseball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We might be starting our own "lean period" here and it could last awhile. We had a lot of high-priced veterans during the 80's and 90's, yet missed the playoffs for 15 straight years. 

 

The gamble that Pujols and Hamilton would kickstart us to a championship might not pay off. That's baseball, folks. You do what you can as a GM and an owner, but success is not guaranteed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This team is screwed for the next decade and it is Dipoto's fault. The quickest way to fix this thing is to dump/trade whoever we can now. Pujols, Hamilton, CJ Wilson and whoever else we can get rid of outside of Trumbo and Trout. If it means packaging up Weaver with Pujols Jham and CJ in order to get a team to take those worthless turds then so be it. You need to bite the bullet now in order to rebuild quicker. Ya sure it is crazy and will never happen because of egos but that's what needs to be done. May as well fire all management and coaches too, start from scratch here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think we can make the argument that the big contracts are a problem until we actually see them being a problem.  Albert's and CJ's contracts didn't hinder us from getting Josh.  It's Arte's money, let him spend how he wants.

 

It's not the money that matters, it's how the people are playing and the results on the field. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think we can make the argument that the big contracts are a problem until we actually see them being a problem.  Albert's and CJ's contracts didn't hinder us from getting Josh.  It's Arte's money, let him spend how he wants.

 

It's not the money that matters, it's how the people are playing and the results on the field. 

 

Really? Have you seen the pitching staff? Don't you think the Josh, CJ, and Pujols contracts have prevented them from putting together 5 strong starters and a good bullpen? Right now it's the worst in baseball only behind the Astros and they don't count because they aren't even trying to win anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think we can make the argument that the big contracts are a problem until we actually see them being a problem.  Albert's and CJ's contracts didn't hinder us from getting Josh.  It's Arte's money, let him spend how he wants.

 

It's not the money that matters, it's how the people are playing and the results on the field. 

 

Well how he's chosen to spend his money IS a problem.

 

It's a shit ton of money spent on large contracts with poor decision making behind them. It's a problem now, and it's a problem for the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? Have you seen the pitching staff? Don't you think the Josh, CJ, and Pujols contracts have prevented them from putting together 5 strong starters and a good bullpen? Right now it's the worst in baseball only behind the Astros and they don't count because they aren't even trying to win anyways.

 

What pitchers did they not sign because of those contracts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What pitchers did they not sign because of those contracts?

 

Well, they could have signed Anibal Sanchez instead, and therefore actually addressed a need instead of splurging on Hamilton.

 

Heck, Anibal Sanchez + Nick Swisher(if they really wanted a power hitting outfielder) signed for less than they ended up paying Hamilton and Blanton.

 

Also, while it's harder to say what it would have taken to sign him with the Dodger's pocketbooks, I rather have Greinke on his Dodgers deal than the one we signed Hamilton to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, they could have signed Anibal Sanchez instead, and therefore actually addressed a need instead of splurging on Hamilton.

 

Heck, Anibal Sanchez + Nick Swisher(if they really wanted a power hitting outfielder) signed for less than they ended up paying Hamilton and Blanton.

 

Also, while it's harder to say what it would have taken to sign him with the Dodger's pocketbooks, I rather have Greinke on his Dodgers deal than the one we signed Hamilton to.

Good idea. Part of the reason for the Hamilton signing was having a left handed batter in the lineup after the 2013 season as Morales would've been unlikely to return, our farm is bare, and the 2014 free agent class is awful. 

 

Swisher would've accomplished this for a fraction of the price. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is an example of Arte's decisions of how to spend his money being an issue though.

 

It's an example showing that you don't like the decision making.  Which is totally fair.  But having a lack of money (because we spent it poorly somewhere else) has yet to be an issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest problem is we have made big move after big move to get these great players and it hasn't paid off. The problem with going all in for the past few years is that if we aren't in the playoffs, not only is it a huge failure but we're stuck with big money contracts, no draft picks and a barren farm system. 

 

I was happy with going out to get Greinke but the price was hefty for a 2 month rental. Obviously, Dipoto had intentions of resigning so it's hard to disagree with the move. I thought the Haren move was great at the time to be honest. Another ace was pretty necessary and I don't think anyone saw him falling off the way he did. I expected him to be this bad next year or the year after.

 

The Hamilton deal had me excited at the time, but I had different thoughts as time passed. The horrible plate discipline was there all of the 2nd half and it's continued into 2013. Did I expect him to be this bad? Not at all. I did have big question marks about him coming into the season, though.

 

It's all 20/20 hindsight in this situation. We have an owner who wants to win and will spend to get big players. I'd absolutely rather have an owner like this this than someone like Loria or McCourt. It's just a matter of trying to balance getting some big players and retooling the team when it's needed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's an example showing that you don't like the decision making.  Which is totally fair.  But having a lack of money (because we spent it poorly somewhere else) has yet to be an issue.

You are speaking like the Angels have an unlimited budget.

All teams including the Yankees and the Dodgers have a limit.

If the Angels didn't have a limit they would have resigned Greinke and been in much better place.

Angels have a lower limit than those teams and Pujols, Hamilton and Wilsons contracts limit what the Angels can do in the future.

Angels would have been wiser and saved much more money in signing Darvish and Cespedes than the garbage we have on our roster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course every team has a limit.  What I'm saying is that we haven't seen what Arte's limit is yet.  I'm certainly not saying that the money couldn't have been spent more wisely.    I believe that it could have been.  But the money has not been an albatross.  (At least not yet)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...