Rosenthal: Scioscia expected to step down at end of season

[Stradling]

Just now, The Ghost of Bob Starr said:

Thanks Strad (I think). I do watch the games. I’ve been to three this year.  

Oh sorry man, I thought we discussed this in a thread earlier this year.  My bad. 

[robblin17]

4 minutes ago, Stradling said:

I find it hard to believe a grown up would believe that the persona a manager has while on tv is the same persona he has in the clubhouse, and not only that, but he believes that even though the manager has been here for 19 years.  My guess is if he was passive in the clubhouse he wouldn’t have lasted this long, but then again I am using logic.  

You live in a fantasy land. What happens on the field is very much indicative of everything else. 

Name Scioscia’s best characteristics of you don’t mind. 

Let me guess. Patient, unemotional, understanding, consistent, predictable. 

[kevinb]

1 minute ago, robblin17 said:

You live in a fantasy land. What happens on the field is very much indicative of everything else. 

Name Scioscia’s best characteristics of you don’t mind. 

Let me guess. Patient, unemotional, understanding, consistent, predictable. 

It’s a long season of 162 games. Would u prefer a hot head manager? How often does that work out? 

[Stradling]

1 minute ago, robblin17 said:

You live in a fantasy land. What happens on the field is very much indicative of everything else. 

Name Scioscia’s best characteristics of you don’t mind. 

Let me guess. Patient, unemotional, understanding, consistent, predictable. 

Keeping a good clubhouse.  Patience.  Consistency.  Performance through adversity.  

[robblin17]

1 minute ago, Kevinb said:

Curious and I’ve asked this before in a thread but I don’t remember seeing you there.  How many wins / losses do you over the course of a season put on a manager? 

5-10. Based on nothing scientific and just a guess  

Is there data on this?

And also, I would rather take Scioscia’s tenure as a whole when determining this. Not just season to season. He seems like a .500 manager to me. 

[robblin17]

Just now, Stradling said:

Keeping a good clubhouse.  Patience.  Consistency.  Performance through adversity.  

And what results has that produced? 

[Tank]

12 minutes ago, robblin17 said:

The point is that new blood has been needed for a long while. Who knows how far Scioscia’s influence poisoned this organization. 

A new voice has been long overdue. Scioscia has been able to get nothing extra out of his teams. It’s evident that teams like the Yankees and Red Sox understand how important a voice is in the dugout. They fired guys with far more success than Scioscia because they understand that a manager does have strong influence over the ball club. 

I find it hard to believe that Scioscia’s non-chalant attitude isn’t the same attitude that this team takes into the season year in and year out. 

   7 hours ago,  Jeff Fletcher said: 

I don’t know if anyone addressed this in the next four pages, but this is all still related to trying to climb out of the farm system hole. 

If you aren’t producing your own players, you take what you get from other teams. And they are often old, broken or both. 

JC Ramírez, Blake Wood, Parker Bridwell... all acquired for nothing because the Angels were desperate to fill holes. 

Guess what: all broken. 

You cant produce your own everyday players and you can’t pay for prime free agents (because you spent it all on Pujols, Hamilton, which also cost you draft picks), so who is left?

Espinosa, Valbuena, Cozart, Kinsler, David Murphy, Yunel Escobar, Matt Joyce.

All have something wrong with them because the players who don’t a) require good prospects to acquire or b) cost a lot of money. 

Oh, and the reason you all hate Scioscia is because he never plays his young players, but it’s maybe because those young players are no good and he knows it. 

It all goes back to a bad farm system. 

[The Ghost of Bob Starr]

6 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

Worst clubs of all time? Please tell me what place did the Angels finish in last year? What is their overall record in the history of baseball? 

I had this discussion recently.  They are barely over 500.  They have one title in 57 years.  Enough said.  I’ve enjuyed watching them suffer for the last 40 years. 

[Stradling]

Just now, robblin17 said:

And what results has that produced? 

Well he is a borderline Hall of Fame manager with one of the highest winning percents of any manager that has managed as long as he has.  

[kevinb]

U realize that if Mike is gone at the end of the year. Pujols is still starting next year. Doesn’t matter who the manager is. They don’t have a decision on that front. 

[robblin17]

Just now, Tank said:

   7 hours ago,  Jeff Fletcher said: 

I don’t know if anyone addressed this in the next four pages, but this is all still related to trying to climb out of the farm system hole. 

If you aren’t producing your own players, you take what you get from other teams. And they are often old, broken or both. 

JC Ramírez, Blake Wood, Parker Bridwell... all acquired for nothing because the Angels were desperate to fill holes. 

Guess what: all broken. 

You cant produce your own everyday players and you can’t pay for prime free agents (because you spent it all on Pujols, Hamilton, which also cost you draft picks), so who is left?

Espinosa, Valbuena, Cozart, Kinsler, David Murphy, Yunel Escobar, Matt Joyce.

All have something wrong with them because the players who don’t a) require good prospects to acquire or b) cost a lot of money. 

Oh, and the reason you all hate Scioscia is because he never plays his young players, but it’s maybe because those young players are no good and he knows it. 

It all goes back to a bad farm system. 

Sure. Who do you think had more influence on the organization as whole? Scioscia or Reagins? Dipoto or Scioscia? 

[Stradling]

Just now, The Ghost of Bob Starr said:

I had this discussion recently.  They are barely over 500.  They have one title in 57 years.  Enough said.  I’ve enjuyed watching them suffer for the last 40 years. 

Baseball is not for you.  Barely over .500, gives them a top ten all time record.  So one of the worst franchises?  Ok, if you count the bottom 21 teams, then I guess you are right.  

[Stradling]

Just now, robblin17 said:

Sure. Who do you think had more influence on the organization as whole? Scioscia or Reagins? Dipoto or Scioscia? 

Overall Scioscia.  Who had the most negative influence, it is Dipoto hands down, no doubt about it.  

[robblin17]

2 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Well he is a borderline Hall of Fame manager with one of the highest winning percents of any manager that has managed as long as he has.  

Great. What has he done over the last 5-10 years? 

[kevinb]

1 minute ago, The Ghost of Bob Starr said:

I had this discussion recently.  They are barely over 500.  They have one title in 57 years.  Enough said.  I’ve enjuyed watching them suffer for the last 40 years. 

I’m not 100 so can’t really talk about the 57 years but since he’s been here they’ve had a World Series title. Multiple division titles and playoff appearances. Could they have won more sure. But they also were never really the favorite to win the title either so who knows. Baseball is a long season so being over 500 sounds good to me. 

[Inside Pitch]

11 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Yep, totally classless as well as incapable of any type of perspective as it relates to the history of this team.  It’s these kinds of hot takes that make it really difficult to value anything he posts about.  It really is that level of stupid.  

Are you really expecting class, intelligence, or perspective.....from someone sporting a "team dipoto" avatar?   That's like betting on the kid wearing a dunce cap to win the spelling bee.

Today is a great day for MS haters, best to let them have their day.  Say what you will, they have been wanting this a long time.   

[Stradling]

Just now, robblin17 said:

Great. What has he done over the last 5-10 years? 

Well he has been subjected to a worse team year after year after year.  So he did what he could with bad teams.  But then again you know that because of all the respect you have for Scioscia.  

[robblin17]

Just now, Stradling said:

Overall Scioscia.  Who had the most negative influence, it is Dipoto hands down, no doubt about it.  

So Scioscia deserves a lot of the blame for where we are at then, right? Or the negative blame only goes to what fits the Scioscia defense argument? 

[The Ghost of Bob Starr]

2 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Well he is a borderline Hall of Fame manager with one of the highest winning percents of any manager that has managed as long as he has.  

He’s the Carlos Beltran of managers.  Lasted long enough. I don’t argue that he had a good record but his teams choked in the playoffs many times. 

Had the Angels won in 79 would Fregosi have been a great manager?  Had the Angels won in 82/86, would Mauch be a great manager?  

This is why I love sports.  Hypotheticals are fun to debate. 

[kevinb]

4 minutes ago, robblin17 said:

5-10. Based on nothing scientific and just a guess  

Is there data on this?

And also, I would rather take Scioscia’s tenure as a whole when determining this. Not just season to season. He seems like a .500 manager to me. 

I don’t know mine is only a guess as well. But I’d say more likely 1-5 wins does a manager win a year. And u don’t have to guess what kind of manager he is. He is a well above 500 manager. He’s been here for 19 years. I’m not saying he’s the greatest of all time. But he’s pretty good. U didn’t answer the second question. Who would u choose as the next manager?

[robblin17]

Just now, Stradling said:

Well he has been subjected to a worse team year after year after year.  So he did what he could with bad teams.  But then again you know that because of all the respect you have for Scioscia.  

Yet, you just said Scioscia had the most influence. So which is it? Scioscia didn’t have influence over the roster? 

[Stradling]

Just now, robblin17 said:

So Scioscia deserves a lot of the blame for where we are at then, right? Or the negative blame only goes to what fits the Scioscia defense argument? 

Dude, he isn’t to blame for shitty teams.  He isn’t to blame for injured rosters.  If you think so, then you are pretty damn dense.  

[Tank]

4 minutes ago, robblin17 said:

Sure. Who do you think had more influence on the organization as whole? Scioscia or Reagins? Dipoto or Scioscia? 

doesn't matter what i think when you're going to twist everything to fit your narrative.

[Stradling]

1 minute ago, The Ghost of Bob Starr said:

He’s the Carlos Beltran of managers.  Lasted long enough. I don’t argue that he had a good record but his teams choked in the playoffs many times. 

Had the Angels won in 79 would Fregosi have been a great manager?  Had the Angels won in 82/86, would Mauch be a great manager?  

This is why I love sports.  Hypotheticals are fun to debate. 

March was a great manager.  Fregosi was a really good manager.

[Inside Pitch]

13 minutes ago, tomsred said:

I didn't know so many people would trust Rosenthal's reporting on this matter.  There is actually no confirmation of this from the organization.  Until some actual facts emerge, I think some of you are being quite premature.  The fact remains that there is no word on this from the organization, and facts do not cease to exist just because they are ignored.

IF this report is true, the replacement of Mike Scioscia will be pretty complex.  There will be a whole lot of consequences and decisions that will have to be crossed.  Not the least of which will be just how much responsibility and decision making will be given to a new manager.  What kind of contract will he have, and who will be making the selection (Eppler alone, Eppler with Arte's approval, or will Carpino be involved). How will a change of this type affect the baseball philosophies within the organization.  Changing a manager can sometimes stall progress that is underway.  I think Fletcher is dead on when he said that fans overplay the role of a manager, and exactly how much influence he has on the performance of the team in daily winning or losing - it's the players who make or break an organization, it is almost totally in their hands.  It's totally silly to look and individual managerial decisions made in the past and say that was a make or break it moment, like an Aybar bunt for example.

What we know so far is just the tip of the iceberg, a change of this magnitude has rippling effects throughout the organization. And this organization can't stall, and expect to keep Trout.  This may be a really good decision for the long run, but I fear it could have dangerous consequences in the short run. 

Rosenthal isn't a rumor monger..... I've read the article, it reads like MS has basically said he's done, or feels like he's done.  It further states/seems that all the info he's getting is that it's not coming from anyone other than MS.

Edited August 5, 2018 by Inside Pitch