AngelsWin.com Today: The Scioscia Era – Where did it go wrong?

[nate]

1 minute ago, Angelsjunky said:

I know you mentioned the results, but I don't see you directly address the switch-over from 2009 to 2010, the losses to free agency, and the inability to plug those holes. No biggie, though.

Yeah, I guess the attrition losses of Figgins and Lackey weren't as big to me.  The reaction to losing to Boston in the playoffs several times and the failed roster reconstruction because of it on the other hand.  Giving Scioscia a team to manage that is so far away from his managing philosophies was never a good idea.

[California Cajun]

I think Scioscia brought Dodger baseball to the Angels at a time the FOX Dodgers abandoned Dodger baseball, followed up by an inept owner in McCourt.  He got the most out of a talented team and won a World Series.  That explains the championship to me.  

With 20-20 hindsight, Stoneman couldn't trade to win more World Series and the momentum fizzled.  Consider if the Angels got Miguel Cabrera.  Throw in some tragedy with Nick Adenhart, which led to Kasmir, Greinke, and loss of talent, to Arte's fling at buying a pennant and things went South.  I kind of think Eppler can figure this out and get back on course.

[Angelsjunky]

I hope this doesn't sound insensitive but I think people make too much of Adenhart's death in terms of how it impacted the team's performance and pitching. Adenhart was a good prospect, but not a great one. I'd say he was roughly similar to someone like Heaney or Tropeano, at least what we've seen so far from those two - a solid mid-rotation starter. The team was definitely impacted, but it was more on the human level. And I disagree with Dave that it generated this cascade effect with the starting pitching. The loss of one grade B prospect pitcher is nothing compared to what we've had to face over the last year or two.

Again, just to emphasize the point: I am not talking about the personal tragedy of Adenhart's death, which is immense. I'm talking about the impact on the team's performance, and the pitching afterwards.

[Angelsjunky]

1 hour ago, nate said:

Yeah, I guess the attrition losses of Figgins and Lackey weren't as big to me.  The reaction to losing to Boston in the playoffs several times and the failed roster reconstruction because of it on the other hand.  Giving Scioscia a team to manage that is so far away from his managing philosophies was never a good idea.

That's a good point. Scioscia was good at a style of play harkening back to the 80s that yielded good but not great results. Starting around 2009-10, the team shifted away from that but grew worse as a result.

 

[nate]

14 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

I hope this doesn't sound insensitive but I think people make too much of Adenhart's death in terms of how it impacted the team's performance and pitching. Adenhart was a good prospect, but not a great one. I'd say he was roughly similar to someone like Heaney or Tropeano, at least what we've seen so far from those two - a solid mid-rotation starter. The team was definitely impacted, but it was more on the human level. And I disagree with Dave that it generated this cascade effect with the starting pitching. The loss of one grade B prospect pitcher is nothing compared to what we've had to face over the last year or two.

Again, just to emphasize the point: I am not talking about the personal tragedy of Adenhart's death, which is immense. I'm talking about the impact on the team's performance, and the pitching afterwards.

I agree

[Dave Saltzer]

12 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

I hope this doesn't sound insensitive but I think people make too much of Adenhart's death in terms of how it impacted the team's performance and pitching. Adenhart was a good prospect, but not a great one. I'd say he was roughly similar to someone like Heaney or Tropeano, at least what we've seen so far from those two - a solid mid-rotation starter. The team was definitely impacted, but it was more on the human level. And I disagree with Dave that it generated this cascade effect with the starting pitching. The loss of one grade B prospect pitcher is nothing compared to what we've had to face over the last year or two.

Again, just to emphasize the point: I am not talking about the personal tragedy of Adenhart's death, which is immense. I'm talking about the impact on the team's performance, and the pitching afterwards.

Thanks for the thoughtful response. However, I disagree with your analysis. Adenhart was ranked the 34th best prospect by BA in 2007. Going into 2009, he was ranked 68th best by BA going into 2009. That's a lot more than just a grade B prospect--he was an A grade prospect. I would safely set the floor for him as a #3 starter, with a pretty high ceiling. 

 

So, let's just take a #3 starter for him. If we had him as a #3, would we have traded Corbin, Skaggs, Saunders, and Rafael Rodriguez for Haren? My bet is no. So, what else could we have gotten for that haul instead of Haren? Or, if we did still do the deal for Haren, how much further and better would we have been in 2010-2012 with Haren AND Adenhart in the rotation? Remember, this was when Weaver was still the ace of the staff, so, that would have been a great rotation.

 

Let's assume we didn't trade Corbin and Skaggs, how much better would our rotation have been with the emergence of Corbin? If we had Corbin and Adenhart in our rotation, would we have traded Segura, Hellweg, and Pena for Greinke? Again, I think not. Now we may have still traded Segura, so what else could we have gotten for him than the rental of Greinke? 

 

Let's assume we don't trade Segura. How much better would we have been having him in our lineup? With his emergence, there's no way we trade Newcomb and Ellis for Simmons? Again, I doubt it. How much better could our rotation be if Newcomb and or Ellis develop? (Now to be fair, I'm really happy we have Simmons as he is better defensively than Segura, although Segura is better offensively).

 

I'm sure I'm missing other wrinkles and permutations that all stem from the death of Adenhart. But, to say his death didn't have lasting effects on the organization is like saying throwing a stone in a pond doesn't make a ripple. 

[ten ocho recon scout]

2 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

Good article, @nate. I think as you say, it is a combination of things.

Something you didn't mention is the switch-over after 2009, that last "golden era" season. The Angels lost Lackey, Figgins, and Vlad and didn't adequately replace them. At that point, there were questions around the team's inability to go deep in the playoffs, so the Angels were wanting to diversify their style a bit. But the basic truth is that one era ended and they didn't have the tools to compensate - whether through a farm that proved be far weaker than it has seemed a few years ago, or trades. When 2010 didn't turn out well, the Angels went into panic mode and began a series of moves that turned things from bad to worse - Wells, Pujols, Hamilton - which has led us to where we are today: a payroll burdened by albatross contracts, weak major league talent, and a terrible farm system.

I would also argue that part of the problem of the "Scioscia Era" is that Scioscia has wielded too much power. He's better on the field and in the dugout than in the GM's office.

This is my feeling, too. Not rebuilding after 2009 killed us. The small moves like shirt term contracts to matsui and abreu were cool. They werent enough to put us back on top, but we were still respectable. We should have stayed that route at the bogs and done what were doing now in regards to rebuilding the minors.

Also, not offering deals to guys leaving...if i remember correctly, we lost picks because of that.

The main problem in regards to the point of the thread is scioscia went from having a deep minor league system, strong majors core, and good owner to a team with none of the above. Arte still tried in the esrly 2010s, but we made the wrong moves and he went into hiding. We still had talent at the majors in weaver, santana, aybar and howie, but no minors to supplement the bad spending on names we brought in.

I defend sosh on not his fault the front office sh*t the bed, but he also got too much credit when good arte and stoneman gave him a lot of talent.

We can say sosh hasnt evolved to use station to station offenses, and arguing either point has merit. But one point that isnt a debate is the lack of a bullpen over the last several years....

Right now we have a respectable record with the injuries. That makes sosh look "good". Its in a big part due to the pen being better than we thought. If the pen regresses to expectations, it wont be scoiscias fault, though some will blame him.

 

[Angelsjunky]

55 minutes ago, Dave Saltzer said:

Thanks for the thoughtful response. However, I disagree with your analysis. Adenhart was ranked the 34th best prospect by BA in 2007. Going into 2009, he was ranked 68th best by BA going into 2009. That's a lot more than just a grade B prospect--he was an A grade prospect. I would safely set the floor for him as a #3 starter, with a pretty high ceiling. 

 

So, let's just take a #3 starter for him. If we had him as a #3, would we have traded Corbin, Skaggs, Saunders, and Rafael Rodriguez for Haren? My bet is no. So, what else could we have gotten for that haul instead of Haren? Or, if we did still do the deal for Haren, how much further and better would we have been in 2010-2012 with Haren AND Adenhart in the rotation? Remember, this was when Weaver was still the ace of the staff, so, that would have been a great rotation.

 

Let's assume we didn't trade Corbin and Skaggs, how much better would our rotation have been with the emergence of Corbin? If we had Corbin and Adenhart in our rotation, would we have traded Segura, Hellweg, and Pena for Greinke? Again, I think not. Now we may have still traded Segura, so what else could we have gotten for him than the rental of Greinke? 

 

Let's assume we don't trade Segura. How much better would we have been having him in our lineup? With his emergence, there's no way we trade Newcomb and Ellis for Simmons? Again, I doubt it. How much better could our rotation be if Newcomb and or Ellis develop? (Now to be fair, I'm really happy we have Simmons as he is better defensively than Segura, although Segura is better offensively).

 

I'm sure I'm missing other wrinkles and permutations that all stem from the death of Adenhart. But, to say his death didn't have lasting effects on the organization is like saying throwing a stone in a pond doesn't make a ripple. 

@Dave Saltzer, John Sickels--who is about as objective as they come in terms of prospect analysis--saw Adenhart as a B- prospect in the last list he was on, so according to that my grade B is generous. But you accepted the #3 starter, so let's go with that. The Haren trade was more because of the failure of Kazmir than the lack of Adenhart; the Angels had hoped Kazmir would be the staff ace, or at least co-ace with Weaver, but he was a disaster in 2010. I think more likely, if Adenhart had survived and stabilized as a decent pitcher right away, the result would have been no Joel Pineiro, which had minimal impact.

So most of your argument is irrelevant, in my opinion, because I don't see any relationship between Adenhart's death and the Haren trade - or at least a very tenuous connection at best. Adenhart surviving would have likely given the Angels a solid mid-rotation starter, but not an ace.

Just to be clear: I'm not saying it didn't have some rippling effect, but that we disagree on the size of the "stone."

[Angel Oracle]

Kazmir was a joke.   Even with the good September 2009 ERA, he stunk it up against the Red Sux and Skanks in the post-season. 

[ten ocho recon scout]

One thing to keep in mind, as far as the "scioscia era". The team the last several years is roughly the same as the 90s....cheap owner (arte spent a ton, but the last few years hes been MIA), yesterdays names brought in and taking, pujols/vaughnn, and bad pitching.

We have trout, but the core of the 90s was much better. With that in mind, i dont think its all on sosh that the team isnt the class of the division...its just built poorly.

[nate]

Those late '90s teams had more talent than the '10s teams have IMO.  Anderson/Edmonds/Salmon in the OF.  Disar and Glaus in the IF.  It fell apart with the rotation because an aging Finley and a bunch of washed up schmucks.

[yk9001]

On 5/22/2017 at 4:21 PM, nate said:

I hope you guys enjoy, I wrote this whole thing because of something Glen said to me yesterday

I read one nut punch after another.  There was nothing enjoyable about it!!

[Brandon]

i always thought the morales leg break was a huge kick to the dick and the domino effect to where we are now.

that and every fa signing has pretty much been a bust.

the team just reeks of desperation with the wells trade and eating the money in the trade (just absolutely bad) and poor signings.

[Angel Oracle]

If only Eppler was already experienced enough by 2008 to be hired as GM, and Arte stayed out of scouting forever and valued spending on good scouts......

I know, if my aunt had a nut sack.... 

[LAAMike]

Is it not a fact that a manager should also be judged by what his managing style gets out of the players he is given by the GM?  Managing 25 egos is part of the success story of most title contenders.  How many career years did players have while with the Angels and how many trades, drops or cuts really flourished with new teams? 

[ten ocho recon scout]

3 hours ago, nate said:

Those late '90s teams had more talent than the '10s teams have IMO.  Anderson/Edmonds/Salmon in the OF.  Disar and Glaus in the IF.  It fell apart with the rotation because an aging Finley and a bunch of washed up schmucks.

The big thing we jad in the 2000s was pitching. Vlad was trout now...a beast who had to carry the load for a binch of average to good guys. To be fsir there were some pretty solid hitters like GA, OC etc in vlads time, but when you compared our lineup to the competition (NY/Boston, Tex pitching aside) we fell behind. But the pitching was great.

We really havent had that signature pitching since the early part of this decade. Weave/haren were pretty badass in 10 and 11, but the pen fell off. 

[nate]

The thing about the pen was Shields and K Rod meant any lead through six innings was a win.  Rest of the pen was no slouch either.

[Inside Pitch]

1 hour ago, Angel Oracle said:

If only Eppler was already experienced enough by 2008 to be hired as GM, and Arte stayed out of scouting forever and valued spending on good scouts......

I know, if my aunt had a nut sack.... 

It likely had less to do with Eppler's experience and more to do with JD being a pretty smooth talker.   Dipoto has the gift of gab and the ability to get you pumped up about whatever he is talking about.  Eppler can come off like a Gomer Pyle by comparison.   It seems fairly obvious why in an interview process JD would pull ahead.

Given there is no open warfare between Eppler and MS, and that for the most part his moves have shown promise, my hope is that Arte learns to trust Eppler in the same way he seemingly trusted Stoneman.

 

[Inside Pitch]

8 minutes ago, nate said:

The thing about the pen was Shields and K Rod meant any lead through six innings was a win.  Rest of the pen was no slouch either.

Shields was IMO the best RP the Angels have ever had -- not the most talented mind you -- but he made everything else work.  The ability to induce GBs, strike people out and pitch every day or go 4 innings if necessary...  He did everything well and against every type of batter.    He was such a rare bird and IMO the flexibility he brought to the table made the rest of the BP go.   Didn't matter what the situation was -- MS could call in Shields, and he would hang in there until they found a favorable match-up.

I think the one thing we can all agree on that MS is a different manager when he has a quality pen.   This year is adding to the evidence already on hand.

[nate]

Totally agree, Shields is the unsung hero of the whole playoff run.  Most consistent and dominant reliever the Angels ever had.

[Angel Oracle]

4 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

Shields was IMO the best RP the Angels have ever had -- not the most talented mind you -- but he made everything else work.  The ability to induce GBs, strike people out and pitch every day or go 4 innings if necessary...  He did everything well and against every type of batter.    He was such a rare bird and IMO the flexibility he brought to the table made the rest of the BP go.   Didn't matter what the situation was -- MS could call in Shields, and he would hang in there until they found a favorable match-up.

I think the one thing we can all agree on that MS is a different manager when he has a quality pen.   This year is adding to the evidence already on hand.

If only Shields could have held on through 2008/2009.   Imagine those teams with a prime time Shields.

[Inside Pitch]

16 minutes ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

The big thing we jad in the 2000s was pitching. Vlad was trout now...a beast who had to carry the load for a binch of average to good guys. To be fsir there were some pretty solid hitters like GA, OC etc in vlads time, but when you compared our lineup to the competition (NY/Boston, Tex pitching aside) we fell behind. But the pitching was great.

We really havent had that signature pitching since the early part of this decade. Weave/haren were pretty badass in 10 and 11, but the pen fell off. 

You know whats sad....  The Angels have had exactly ONE season with a positive or even ERA+ since 2012.....  that year we won 98 games.   I think after tonight, the team might be at an even 100 ERA+ again.  

[nate]

1 minute ago, Angel Oracle said:

If only Shields could have held on through 2008/2009.   Imagine those teams with a prime time Shields.

Too many innings.  Same thing that happens to basically every dominant relief pitcher.

[Inside Pitch]

8 hours ago, Angel Oracle said:

If only Shields could have held on through 2008/2009.   Imagine those teams with a prime time Shields.

The crazy part was it wasn't his arm that gave out -- it was his knee.   I was sad to see him go, but he made no bones about why he was leaving.   Classy to the last pitch.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/28/sports/la-sp-angels-athletics-20100929     Dude was just a stud and this article does a great job of talking about how he impacted not just the Angels but middle RPs in general.

[GrittyVeterans]

I look at a few things that led to the demise:

1) Morales breaking his ankle - Pujols never happens if this doesn't occur

2) Reagins/Dipoto's years of consistent ineptitude combined with Arte being involved in player decisions (led to Pujols, Wells, Hamilton, etc etc.)

3) Not rebuilding after 2009. I get why we didn't, but I disagree with it. We didn't rebuild because we were coming off the most successful stint of Angels baseball ever. But we should have. We had a meh farm system and Lackey/Figgins/Vlad all left (3 huge parts of previous years success). We should have recognized that we didn't have the depth to replace those guys and torn it down right there IMO. But it's crying over spilt milk at this point