OC Register: Angels planning to allow farm system to continue to grow

[GrittyVeterans]

Both of you probably need a break from the board

Maybe you guys can go to the mall and talk it out over a chai latte while getting your nails done. For the sake of all of us, just take it somewhere else

[floplag]

7 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Dude you’re pathetic, which is a personal attack.  Wear it, own it, I don’t really care.   You aren’t here to discuss, you’re hear to be clod and you’re doing a super job of it.   Lifetime would be impressed with your level of trolling.  This has been the off season of you being “That Guy” congrats.  

and your an asshole, own your own shit before giving advise 

[Inside Pitch]

17 minutes ago, Stradling said:

@Inside Pitch I can guarantee you that if the Angels were the team that had the 10 guys rated 40 level prospects, flop would bitch about what the team is going to do with all those 4th outfielder types.   But since it’s the Astros then the Angels are doomed because experts.  

They have 21 -- we have 11 and FWIW, the real value is that any of them could take a step forward and become more than that.    That's what we are currently missing -- that added layer of depth and potential for there to be more.   The draft being what it is, the Angels have been very fortunate to have seen as many of their prospects grade out at 45+ as they have.  But the fact that they have 11 guys ranked in the 60-45 range and only 11 at 40 is telling.   It's also why the team has had to go dumpster diving for RPs and the sort.   

I enjoyed this article and what's been reported because I'd hate for them to think everything is fine -- it's gotten better, but they have a ways to go still.

Edited December 13, 2018 by Inside Pitch

[Stradling]

4 minutes ago, floplag said:

and your an asshole, own your own shit before giving advise 

Ok I own it, your turn. 

[Stradling]

10 minutes ago, GrittyVeterans said:

Both of you probably need a break from the board

Maybe you guys can go to the mall and talk it out over a chai latte while getting your nails done. For the sake of all of us, just take it somewhere else

Deal, but first help me understand why while at the very same time don’t try to change my mind why I should do this.  

[floplag]

3 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Ok I own it, your turn. 

I will happily own wanting this team to be better, done.  

[floplag]

6 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

They have 21 -- we have 11 and FWIW, the real value is that any of them could take a step forward and become more than that.    That's what we are currently missing -- that added layer of depth and potential for there to be more.   The draft being what it is, the Angels have been very fortunate to have seen as many of their prospects grade out at 45+ as they have.  But the fact that they have 11 guys ranked in the 60-45 range and only 11 at 40 is telling.   It's also why the team has had to go dumpster diving for RPs and the sort.   

I enjoyed this article and what's been reported because I'd hate for them to think everything is fine -- it's gotten better, but they have a ways to go still.

Thank you for noting that.  This is exactly what i was referring to earlier which was dismissed. 

[Inside Pitch]

12 minutes ago, floplag said:

Thank you for noting that.  This is exactly what i was referring to earlier which was dismissed. 

Yeah okay... while at the same time dismissing the possibility that the Angels could see similar improvements.   

You realize moving from a 40 to 45 likely requires a prospect showing more than simply getting to 40, right?   That was the point I made and you attempted to dismiss by claiming it would require some massive breakout.  Nope.   The Angels BTW have 10 guys 45-50..   The Astros 5.    Apply your reasoning to those guys and tell me where that leads you.  

Right now they have Whitley and Tucker as 60s, both of them MLB ready-ish, but once they graduate the Angels likely grade out better.  It won't mean dick, but they will likely grade out better.

Edited December 13, 2018 by Inside Pitch

[floplag]

8 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

Yeah okay... while at the same time dismissing the possibility that the Angels could see similar improvements.   

You realize moving from a 40 to 45 likely requires a prospect showing more than simply getting to 40, right?   That was the point I made and you attempted to dismiss by claiming it would require some massive breakout.  Nope.   The Angels BTW have 10 guys 45-50..   The Astros 5.    Apply your reasoning to those guys and tell me where that leads you.  

Right now they have Whitley and Tucker as 60s, both of them MLB ready-ish, but once they graduate the Angels likely grade out better.  It won't mean dick, but they will likely grade out better.

yes and i realize that having twice as many of them increases that chance. 
Is it possible, sure, probable?

[Stradling]

Then you gotta love the Angels chances since they have twice as many of the ones that rank higher   

[Docwaukee]

If the experts are correct and we are ranked 10th (bba), then we passed 20 teams in 3 years and the gap between us when we were #30 and the next closest at 29 was huge.  Just this year, we graduated Ohtani (who was included last year), Fletcher, Ward, Barria, and Anderson while letting go of guys like Bard, Fernandez, Paredes, etc who aren't great prospects but still contributed to previous years expert calculations.  Since we haven't traded anyone from the top of our system (who essentially all improved or stayed the same), we still have them plus a bunch of new international and draft acquisitions rolling around at the lower end of the calc in Yan, Soriano, English Bradish, Hernandez, Swanda, Rodriguez, Acquino, Rivera, Deveaux, Knowles, Martinez, Del Valle, Soto, Jackson, Rivas, Millard, Kruger, Wenson, Walsh, Rojas, Beasley, Gatto, Matthews, Madero, Ortega, Jewell, Lillis-White, Rhoades, Procopio, Hanewich, Ryan, Tavarez etc.  And that doesn't include Rengifo, Adams, Marsh, Jones, Adell, Canning, Sandoval, Maitan, Suarez, Thaiss.  

In 2019, we stand to graduate 4 or 5 more guys.  Then we'll draft a bunch more and intl sign a bunch more and several of those 35's and 40 will become 45's and 50's.  And the new guys will become 35's and 40's.  And then the same thing will happen next year.  

and as an FYI, that huge jump we've made in 3 years has come with us drafting in the first round at 10th, 16th, and 17th.  This year we draft 13th.  And exactly one player in our top ten was acquired via trade.  And exactly two players in the top 10 were acquired before Eppler took over.  

by the time everything is said and done, we'll likely have 15 prospects graduating to the major league team from 2018, 19, and 20.  Of course they all won't be starts, but a couple will.  A couple others will be good.  A few others will be avg, and a few more still will be just ok.  Do you know how many prospects we've graduated in the 3 years prior to 2018 that weren't picked up off waivers?    The answer is 4.  Andrew Heaney, and 3 relievers.  We've graduated three starting position players in the last 7 years.  Trout, Calhoun and Cron.  

that's why a lot of us are optimistic that it's working.  

[Docwaukee]

11 minutes ago, floplag said:

yes and i realize that having twice as many of them increases that chance. 
Is it possible, sure, probable?

you do realize that just about every single major league player was once a prospect correct?  Where do you think these guys come from?

[Lou]

1 hour ago, Dochalo said:

you do realize that just about every single major league player was once a prospect correct?  Where do you think these guys come from?

[WeatherWonk]

2 hours ago, Lou said:

LOL! That is the most amazing image! I dont know HTF it applies here, but I dig the chai latte out of it!!!!

Lou, you are the master of the amazing animated GIFs and images. I bow down to you, in this area.

[floplag]

4 hours ago, Dochalo said:

you do realize that just about every single major league player was once a prospect correct?  Where do you think these guys come from?

REally?  i thought they just sprung from potted plats in GMs offices.... 
Honestly ive stated both volume (we have less of them) and their ratings (ours are lower) as reasons to have tempered excitement and the assumption that we will need more than patience to pass them.  But im tired of the same old same old, well see when we see.
Have a peachy night    
 

[Docwaukee]

1 minute ago, floplag said:

REally?  i thought they just sprung from potted plats in GMs offices.... 
Honestly ive stated both volume (we have less of them) and their ratings (ours are lower) as reasons to have tempered excitement and the assumption that we will need more than patience to pass them.  But im tired of the same old same old, well see when we see.
Have a peachy night    
 

the only reason anyone may respond with 'we'll see when we see' to you is that they're tired of pound their head into a brick wall.  You're basing your conclusions on what? A single snapshot in time where the 'experts' have us ranked?  then you're flabbergasted how anyone could see things any other way.  Then you ask people to explain why.  Then we do by presenting a progressive timeline with an entire body of work that denotes an obvious pattern.  And then you ignore that and go back to talking about your snapshot.  Then you're appalled and personally offended that people are trying to get you to look at more than a single snapshot.  

It's like a bunch of people were at a party trying to get you to stop by because they were having fun and you asked them why it was so fun because normally that party is pretty lame and they said to stop by and you'll find out.  But you saw a picture someone took from the party and posted and it looked good but not worth going to.  And all the people at the party kept saying is was good and it was going to get better because Sully and T-bone were stopping by later.  Even though you knew Sully and T-bone are normally hilarious, they could be jerks once in awhile.  So you tell your friends that the photo you saw didn't look like the party was all that great.  And they kept telling you that it was good and that it was likely going to keep getting better as more people showed up but you kept talking about the picture and they said the picture doesn't tell the whole story but then you get mad at them for telling you that you're wrong and that the party is fun.  And then you threaten to hang up on them multiple times and keep talking about the picture.  Then they call you an idiot for not wanting to come to the party and then you say 'but the picture' and then they throw their hands up and say 'wait till we tell you about it tomorrow'.  And it turns out the party was awesome and it led to more and more parties that you didn't get invited to because you didn't go to this one party.  And at the final party Mike Trout was there wearing ski goggles and spraying champagne on everyone and it was the best time ever.  And you were still taking about the picture.  

the moral of this story?  you're missing the party.  

[Blarg]

I sort of wonder why I read this entire thread. It's kind of like War & Peace but without the peace and, really, it's probably no better than the Brothers Karamazof that is extremely long and kind of dull as well but at least in the movie version it had Yul Brenner that was awesome in almost everything he did but tragically died of cancer too young, which is sad. Like this thread. 

[BackUpTheTruck]

I just hope the emphasis on the farm system going forward will be pitching.

[Angel Oracle]

13 minutes ago, BackUpTheTruck said:

I'm more optimistic on 2019 now after the Bour signing. We'll probably sign a quality catcher and a closer in free agency, add to pitching depth, only to have the team expected to miss the playoffs. Sports teams that are both talented and disrespected are dangerous in my mind.

Machete, Robertson, and an innings eater with a halfway decent ERA/WHIP would be alright.

[floplag]

11 hours ago, Dochalo said:

the only reason anyone may respond with 'we'll see when we see' to you is that they're tired of pound their head into a brick wall.  You're basing your conclusions on what? A single snapshot in time where the 'experts' have us ranked?  then you're flabbergasted how anyone could see things any other way.  Then you ask people to explain why.  Then we do by presenting a progressive timeline with an entire body of work that denotes an obvious pattern.  And then you ignore that and go back to talking about your snapshot.  Then you're appalled and personally offended that people are trying to get you to look at more than a single snapshot.  

It's like a bunch of people were at a party trying to get you to stop by because they were having fun and you asked them why it was so fun because normally that party is pretty lame and they said to stop by and you'll find out.  But you saw a picture someone took from the party and posted and it looked good but not worth going to.  And all the people at the party kept saying is was good and it was going to get better because Sully and T-bone were stopping by later.  Even though you knew Sully and T-bone are normally hilarious, they could be jerks once in awhile.  So you tell your friends that the photo you saw didn't look like the party was all that great.  And they kept telling you that it was good and that it was likely going to keep getting better as more people showed up but you kept talking about the picture and they said the picture doesn't tell the whole story but then you get mad at them for telling you that you're wrong and that the party is fun.  And then you threaten to hang up on them multiple times and keep talking about the picture.  Then they call you an idiot for not wanting to come to the party and then you say 'but the picture' and then they throw their hands up and say 'wait till we tell you about it tomorrow'.  And it turns out the party was awesome and it led to more and more parties that you didn't get invited to because you didn't go to this one party.  And at the final party Mike Trout was there wearing ski goggles and spraying champagne on everyone and it was the best time ever.  And you were still taking about the picture.  

the moral of this story?  you're missing the party.  

I've based my opinion on sources that ive listed, none of which are made up or fabricated and are posted by people that get paid to know the game better than anyone on a forum message board. 
You choose to disregard since it doesnt match your view and youre explanation is purely opinion that this group of kids will outpace the projections.  
Im sure it never occurs to you that you might just be wrong, time will tell.  I hope you are not as it if you are it means this org is in deep shit. 
Youre entitled to whatever view you wish, its unfortunate that this forum has become a place where others aren't extended the same courtesy. 
As for the party, ill politely decline that invitation thanks. 

[Stradling]

We won’t try to change your mind about attending.  

[T.G.]

3 minutes ago, Stradling said:

We won’t try to change your mind about attending.  

Are you sure?

We need someone to sit in the... well, you know...

[Docwaukee]

2 minutes ago, floplag said:

I've based my opinion on sources that ive listed, none of which are made up or fabricated and are posted by people that get paid to know the game better than anyone on a forum message board. 
You choose to disregard since it doesnt match your view and youre explanation is purely opinion that this group of kids will outpace the projections.  
Im sure it never occurs to you that you might just be wrong, time will tell.  I hope you are not as it if you are it means this org is in deep shit. 
Youre entitled to whatever view you wish, its unfortunate that this forum has become a place where others aren't extended the same courtesy. 
As for the party, ill politely decline that invitation thanks. 

sigh.   

[beatlesrule]

12 hours ago, Dochalo said:

Sully and T-bone were stopping by later.

[Lou]