Forbes: Mike Scioscia, On Path To Hall Of Fame, Should Get A New Contract With Angels On The Way

[stormngt]

2 hours ago, nate said:

If keeping Trout meant firing Scioscia, would you do it?

Hell yes.  But that's contrary to what Trout says in the media.

[Dave Saltzer]

1 hour ago, GrittyVeterans said:

I think some of you greatly overestimate the influence Scioscia has on Trout wanting to be here.

Lol at that being the difference between him staying or leaving.

If Trout leaves, it will be because either someone paid him more or because he wants to be closer to home. All the other stuff about Pujols and Sosh is just noise. Also if he feels he has a better chance at winning somewhere else the last 10 years of his career, he'll leave. 

The Angels need to focus on setting themselves up so they can put a better team around him in the future. Also making the playoffs the next 3 years of his current contract would go a long way.

Strongly disagree. I think with Trout it comes down to comfort. At $35 million/year, money REALLY isn't the issue. If Trout really wanted more money, he'd just do more endorsements and things. Since we don't see that, I don't think money is the issue. He could easily generate so many more millions doing that than what he'd make as a player.

As for the tail wagging the dog (that someone else said fire them both over), baseball is a business. Trout draws fans in the seats and generates ridiculous surplus value, even at his salary. You don't kill a cash cow. Now you don't allow him to control everything that the organization does, but, you sure as heck make him happy and comfortable. If you fired/got rid of both, no major Free Agent would come play for you, and you'd destroy your franchise's value. Not a good way to run a business.

And, between Trout and Scioscia, if Trout came to the Angels and said he's no longer happy playing under Scioscia (like a vote of no confidence), Scioscia would be gone. Don't believe me? Ask Terry Collins how that went. http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-mets-terry-collins-20151007-story.html

[stormngt]

1 hour ago, nate said:

If they miss the playoffs again this year, he will have only been to the playoffs once in the last 9 seasons.  A first round sweep.

In 19 seasons he will have 7 post season appearances, 1 WS and 1 pennant.  People overrate the hell out of Scioscia because of how good the Angels were from 2001-2009, but the reality is, he is just mediocre and cashing in on a gigantic contract extension that never should have been awarded.  Any other manager would have been fired five seasons ago.

Maybe people give so much credit to Sciosvis because of how bad we were in 1999.  As you said, we got pretty good 2 years after hiring Scioscia...and winning the WS with pretty much the same players that couldn't. Win shot before he came to Anaheim.

[GrittyVeterans]

7 minutes ago, Dave Saltzer said:

Strongly disagree. I think with Trout it comes down to comfort. At $35 million/year, money REALLY isn't the issue. If Trout really wanted more money, he'd just do more endorsements and things. Since we don't see that, I don't think money is the issue. He could easily generate so many more millions doing that than what he'd make as a player.

As for the tail wagging the dog (that someone else said fire them both over), baseball is a business. Trout draws fans in the seats and generates ridiculous surplus value, even at his salary. You don't kill a cash cow. Now you don't allow him to control everything that the organization does, but, you sure as heck make him happy and comfortable. If you fired/got rid of both, no major Free Agent would come play for you, and you'd destroy your franchise's value. Not a good way to run a business.

And, between Trout and Scioscia, if Trout came to the Angels and said he's no longer happy playing under Scioscia (like a vote of no confidence), Scioscia would be gone. Don't believe me? Ask Terry Collins how that went. http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-mets-terry-collins-20151007-story.html

Money won't be the issue but years certainly will be. Remember when Pujols felt disrespected by the Cardinals offer of 5 years 125 million? That was actually more per year than the Angels gave him but half the term.

I agree with some of the rest of what you wrote, but I still think you greatly overestimate the influence the manager will have in his decision. Trout gets along with everyone. He's that type of guy

[Stradling]

2 hours ago, Dave Saltzer said:

I've asked it before, and I'll ask it again: If keeping Trout meant keeping Scioscia, would you do it?

Yes of course

[Stradling]

2 hours ago, nate said:

If keeping Trout meant firing Scioscia, would you do it?

Yes of course

[GrittyVeterans]

12 minutes ago, stormngt said:

Maybe people give so much credit to Sciosvis because of how bad we were in 1999.  As you said, we got pretty good 2 years after hiring Scioscia...and winning the WS with pretty much the same players that couldn't. Win shot before he came to Anaheim.

This is bogus. Glaus was a kid until Scioscia got here. Erstad had his best seasons in 2000 and 2002 (Scioscia manager for both). Angels middle infielders were a disaster before Sosh got here (and Stoneman got Kennedy/Eckstein). 

The only players that fit your argument are Salmon, Anderson, and Percival really. Look at the roster in 1999. It wasn't very good. There was no K-Rod on that team, Glaus was 22, Disarcina was a train wreck, etc.

Sosh did a great job with that 2002 team but to say the rosters before he got here were the same and the team just couldn't win shit is hilarious

[stormngt]

6 minutes ago, GrittyVeterans said:

This is bogus. Glaus was a kid until Scioscia got here. Erstad had his best seasons in 2000 and 2002 (Scioscia manager for both). Angels middle infielders were a disaster before Sosh got here (and Stoneman got Kennedy/Eckstein). 

The only players that fit your argument are Salmon, Anderson, and Percival really. Look at the roster in 1999. It wasn't very good. There was no K-Rod on that team, Glaus was 22, Disarcina was a train wreck, etc.

Sosh did a great job with that 2002 team but to say the rosters before he got here were the same and the team just couldn't win shit is hilarious

Glaus broke into the majors in 1998 two years before Scioscia.  Erstad broke into the majors in 1996, four years before Scioscia.

Nice try!

I would like to thank you in supporting my argument that those players played better under Scioscia.

[GrittyVeterans]

4 minutes ago, stormngt said:

Glaus broke into the majors in 1998 two years before Scioscia.  Erstad broke into the majors in 1996, four years before Scioscia.

Nice try!

I would like to thank you in supporting my argument that those players played better under Scioscia.

Well that's just dumb. They were just getting established as MLB players until Sosh got here. You know, like every player (other than Trout) does

[stormngt]

13 minutes ago, GrittyVeterans said:

This is bogus. Glaus was a kid until Scioscia got here. Erstad had his best seasons in 2000 and 2002 (Scioscia manager for both). Angels middle infielders were a disaster before Sosh got here (and Stoneman got Kennedy/Eckstein). 

The only players that fit your argument are Salmon, Anderson, and Percival really. Look at the roster in 1999. It wasn't very good. There was no K-Rod on that team, Glaus was 22, Disarcina was a train wreck, etc.

Sosh did a great job with that 2002 team but to say the rosters before he got here were the same and the team just couldn't win shit is hilarious

So according to you the only significant upgrade to the roster were Eckstein and Kennedy.   Wow according to you Eckstein should have been AL MVP because he had so much impact.  Kennedy I believe was platooned.

[GrittyVeterans]

Just now, stormngt said:

So according to you the only significant upgrade to the roster were Eckstein and Kennedy.   Wow according to you Eckstein should have been AL MVP because he had so much impact.  Kennedy I believe was platooned.

K-Rod, Donnelly, Eckstein, Kennedy, Spezio, Bengie Molina, Fullmer, Lackey, Shields,,,the list goes on.

Honestly go look up the roster from 1999 and their stats and then go look at the one from 2002. Night and day. Pitching in particular got way better

[stormngt]

2 minutes ago, GrittyVeterans said:

Well that's just dumb. They were just getting established as MLB players until Sosh got here. You know, like every player (other than Trout) does

Erstad was in the league four full season.  When the hell do you become an established player?  Glaus had a full season as a starter the year before.  He was not a rookie by any means.

And dont let you hate for Scioscia cloud the facts.  Those two were established before Scioscia.  Glaus I thought was rookie of the year.....but I must be wrong because I can't confirm it.

[GrittyVeterans]

You have so much of Scioscia's nut sack in your face it's hard to read your posts...at least it explains the spelling errors

[stormngt]

5 minutes ago, GrittyVeterans said:

K-Rod, Donnelly, Eckstein, Kennedy, Spezio, Bengie Molina, Fullmer, Lackey, Shields,,,the list goes on.

Honestly go look up the roster from 1999 and their stats and then go look at the one from 2002. Night and day. Pitching in particular got way better

I have. It's most of the roster and regulars. Shit let it go....your argument is stupid!

The key offensive players were Glaus, Salmon, Anderson, Erstad.  Plus Molina were all members of the team two plus years before Scoscia.

Their starting pitching of Wasburn, Schoeneweis,  Ortiz were on the team in 1998.

Their closer Perceivel was on the team in 1998.

 

[GrittyVeterans]

3 minutes ago, stormngt said:

Erstad was in the league four full season.  When the hell do you become an established player?  Glaus had a full season as a starter the year before.  He was not a rookie by any means.

And dont let you hate for Scioscia cloud the facts.  Those two were established before Scioscia.  Glaus I thought was rookie of the year.....but I must be wrong because I can't confirm it.

Do us all a favor and go look some stuff up before you embarrass yourself further...run along

[stormngt]

Just now, GrittyVeterans said:

Do us all a favor and go look some stuff up before you embarrass yourself further...run along

Quit making shit up! I gave you facts!

[JustATroutFan]

Angels won the World Series in Scioscia's third year with the team, not his first or second. It wasn't like they won anything significant just right after he was the manager of the team. Regardless of how you feel about him for what he has done as manager of the team, he's done a terrific job overall as manager of the Angels but these last few years hasn't been good . He no longer wants the team to play NL-like baseball even though he has a few guys who would no doubt fit that style of play. And on top of that, he doesn't fire these guys up when the team is struggling. Where's that leadership?

[Ohtani&Trout]

3 hours ago, Dave Saltzer said:

I've asked it before, and I'll ask it again: If keeping Trout meant keeping Scioscia, would you do it?

No player is going to make $400 million decisions based on the manager they play for. That's ridiculous. 

Trout would never make this a requirement. Nor would any player.

[tdawg87]

40 minutes ago, stormngt said:

Quit making shit up! I gave you facts!

Well, Glaus was not ROY.

[Inside Pitch]

51 minutes ago, GrittyVeterans said:

K-Rod, Donnelly, Eckstein, Kennedy, Spezio, Bengie Molina, Fullmer, Lackey, Shields,,,the list goes on.

Honestly go look up the roster from 1999 and their stats and then go look at the one from 2002. Night and day. Pitching in particular got way better

None of those guys got any playing time though because MS hates young players...   

[Pheenom07]

If we’re gonna give credit to Scioscia shouldn’t we give credit to Maddon, Roenicke and Bud Black?

 

[nando714]

I’d boycott the franchise 

[JAHV76]

If Scioscia is not resigned who would you want the Angels to hire to manage the team next season? A Trout extension contract could be impacted by that decision. 

[GrittyVeterans]

44 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

None of those guys got any playing time though because MS hates young players...   

Again, I don't disagree Sosh did an exceptional job for a long time as Angels manager. 

I also think it can be true that he had more to work with than Terry Collins (who was awful)

[Inside Pitch]

On 6/4/2018 at 10:26 PM, GrittyVeterans said:

Again, I don't disagree Sosh did an exceptional job for a long time as Angels manager. 

I also think it can be true that he had more to work with than Terry Collins (who was awful)

He had more to work with in part because he wasn't in a rush to run guys off the team and because he took care not to blow out people's arms.   You're forgetting that under Collins, Glaus had been put into the bad apple category -- because like Jim Edmonds he wasn't moping around in the clubhouse after losses.  Mike Colangelo had his career destroyed by Collins.  Ditto Jason Dickson.  Young players under Collins had to deal with Larry Bowa's constant criticism and Disarcina and Hollins' gestapo routine in the clubhouse..  the same Dave Hollins that was quoted as saying he wasn't going to do a damn thing to help Glaus take his position from him.   

Collins empowered all the assholes and made life hell for young players

Edited June 6, 2018 by Inside Pitch