Mike Scioscia vs Frank Robinson

[stormngt]

1 hour ago, UndertheHalo said:

Perhaps “utter failure” is a bit strong.  I admit that I get pretty pissed when I think about those squads and not winning a World Series then.  I was maybe not being entirely rational.  But I don’t think it’s unfair to say that Stoneman on some level was a failure.  Yes, he was GM of a World Series winning team (mostly not his player) yes he drafted pretty well and the team was competitive during his tenure.  But I think that failing to win the World Series over 3 or 4 year period when your team is arguably the best in the league is a serious indictment of quality.   Particularly when the main cause was potentially guarding several prospects that lets face it were massive busts.  Not all of them were.  But even the ones that were good Angels failed to deliver a World Series.  Timing is important.  I know that hindsight is 20/20 but wouldn’t you trade Howie Kendrick or Ervin Santana for potentially a World Series title in 2006 ? Stoneman was the guy in charge.  He gets the blame and he deserves it.  And I don’t think it’s unreasonable to remember it that way. 

They were arguably one of the best teams in the league.   So where the Red Sox, Yankees, and White Sox. If not mistaken the Angels lost to the World champions five of the six years they were in the playoffs in playoffs under Stoneman.  One of the six seasons they won it all.

[stormngt]

1 hour ago, UndertheHalo said:

  He inherited a far more challenging situation.  

 

We're all you guys fans after the 2001 season or do you guys fail to remember just how bad the franchise was during the 90s?

[Billy_Ball]

19 minutes ago, stormngt said:

We're all you guys fans after the 2001 season or do you guys fail to remember just how bad the franchise was during the 90s?

The Mike Port/Dan O'Brien years.

[Blarg]

1 hour ago, UndertheHalo said:

Maybe, but let’s face it.  The standard for “best Angels GM” isn’t very high.  Tbh, I’m more impressed with Eppler thus far.  He inherited a far more challenging situation.  Hopefully at the end of his time with the Angels he’s delivered a championship.

Anyway, I’ve said my piece.  I appreciate the good that Stoneman did but I have it seared in my brain that he didn’t get it done with a good team.  I guess that’s unfair, but whatever.  I’ll be a butt hurt fan about that one. 

Here is where we part ways on your argument. 

Eppler inherited a poorly built team with the best player in baseball, a ravaged farm system and a front office that need reorganization. A lot of work to do but support from the owner.

What Stoneman inherited was a complete disaster run by a corporation that ran it as a promotional device for their theme park down the street. The president of the company, Tony Tavares, had no idea what he was doing and wanted the entire core of the Angels from Salmon, Erstad, Glaus, Anderson and Edmonds all be traded away because of how his guy Terry Collins had destroyed the team, managing a contending core into the cellar. The budget was frozen do it wasn't a matter of buy your way out if trouble., Disney was all ready in the process of shopping the team for sale.

Possibly the greatest achievement Stoneman did was to hold that idiot Tavares at bay and install real baseball people in the front office and hire Scioscia to get order out of chaos in the clubhouse. Eventually Edmonds ended up being the scapegoat for the players part of the '99 disaster but Stoneman drug his heels as long as he could to keep him on the team. His trade netted Adam Kennedy, a crucial part of the 2002 team but far less if a haul if Tavares hadn't flushed his value in public, calling him a lazy So Cal surf punk. 

Stoneman did more his first months in his new position than Eppler has in two years simply by not caving to Tavares need to shift blame and kept the Angels relatively in one piece. Without that resolve the Angels are no closer to a World Series than they were previously to him restoring order. 

This is no disrespect to the great job Eppler has done. I just don't think you swap the two out in the same circumstances and get a World Series berth in 2002. 

[UndertheHalo]

You make great points.  Like I said before, I’m not articulating this well.  Stoneman in many ways was a good Angels GM.  Given the very good argument you’ve made, I wouldn’t want to argue against you saying he was the best.  But for me it still doesn’t change how brutally disappointing not getting over the hump for a 2nd championship was when I really felt like it was within our grasp.  I’m probably a bit irrational about it.  Definitely greedy I guess.  Trust me lol, I know the Angels were just terribly bad during the 90’s.  I know the Disney years were very rough.  I was in grade school in ‘95 and I knew it was terrible but I guess it just didn’t impact me the same way then.  Anyway,  I guess that when you’re very good and you don’t win, for me anyway that burns more then when you’re just flat out bad.  Mostly in the 90’s were we just awful.  So I didn’t really expect anything.  

 

Edited January 18, 2018 by UndertheHalo

[Inside Pitch]

Thank you Blarg for saving me the trouble of going over the Tony Tavares situation, I doubt I could have done as good a job or done so in as few words.   

People ride Stoneman for what he didn't do, which is fine but they ultimately end up ignoring the reality that what he didn't do kept the team afloat.  The Angels rode on the coattails of his work/players long after he had moved up and out.   

But for me it comes down to this...  Billy Eppler was famously quoted as saying losing/tanking was not a part of this team's DNA -- people mocked him for it...  But prior to Bill Stoneman, it was.  Losing, heartbreak, failure..  those were the things the Angels were famous for, that's what Angels fans expected.  Before he came along simply finishing above .500 was touted as a success.  

Bill Stoneman changed this team's DNA...  and like it or not -- Mike Scioscia was a key instrument in that.

[UndertheHalo]

1 minute ago, Inside Pitch said:

Thank you Blarg for saving me the trouble of going over the Tony Tavares situation, I doubt I could have done as good a job or done so in as few words.   

People ride Stoneman for what he didn't do, which is fine but they ultimately end up ignoring the reality that what he didn't do kept the team afloat for long after he was gone.  The Angels rode on the coattails of his work/players long after he had moved up and out.   

But for me it comes down to this...  Billy Eppler was famously quoted as saying losing/tanking was not a part of this team's DNA -- people mocked him for it...  But prior to Bill Stoneman, it was.  Losing, heartbreak, failure..  those were the things the Angels were famous for, that's what Angels fans expected.  Before he came along simply finishing above .500 was touted as a success.  

Bill Stoneman changed this teams DNA...  and like it or not -- Mike Scioscia was a key instrument in that.

I think Arte Moreno had a lot to do with changing the complexion of the team as well. 

[Homebrewer]

Damn...now I really want some lasagna. 

[RallyMo]

On 1/16/2018 at 4:02 PM, ANAHEIMBOB said:

I like to win, Guillen is a asshole. I wish Scioscia could have handled Guillen differently. 

If you actually liked winning, you'd argue a hell of a lot less on this board. You're such a doofus.

[bruin5]

I haven’t seen this in this post, but I was told that Guillen did go after Sosh, but Donnelly not only intervened but pinned him up against the was and was ready to beat the crap out of him.  Perceval was involved as well.  Donnelly was a big guy (the roids also helped).   No question who the clubhouse supported in this one.   Please forgive me if this was posted already. 

[Taylor]

On 1/15/2018 at 8:30 AM, Stradling said:

Are you sure you didn’t give Mike the vibe that it was consensual sex?  It sure seems like you feel he raped you.  You two didn’t cuddle enough afterwards, or what?  Did he stop calling you?  

Bump

[nando714]

I was at this game .