Angels bullpen is the ultimate Eppler gamble

[stormngt]

3 hours ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

By my point is the “proven” guys barely exist. 

Maybe I was spoiled by following percival, Krod. Shields  for so long.  In addition watching the likes of Rivera. And Papelbon at the same time. 

[VariousCrap]

3 hours ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

By my point is the “proven” guys barely exist. 

I understand that is the narrative being pushed by some.  Not all GM's agree with that though.

[Inside Pitch]

13 minutes ago, stormngt said:

Maybe I was spoiled by following percival, Krod. Shields  for so long.  In addition watching the likes of Rivera. And Papelbon at the same time. 

And yet none of the 2002 bullpen was "proven" prior to that season save for Percy.    Donkey was picked off off the scrap heap as was Weber.  Al Levine had been a waiver wire pick up from the Rangers the year before and Scot Shields was a nobody going into that season.  

 

 

Edited January 17, 2019 by Inside Pitch

[Docwaukee]

12 minutes ago, VariousCrap said:

I understand that is the narrative being pushed by some.  Not all GM's agree with that though.

what does that have to do whether it's right?  

[Pancake Bear]

36 minutes ago, VariousCrap said:

I understand that is the narrative being pushed by some.  Not all GM's agree with that though.

Really? Who are the 'proven' guys? How proven are they? Do they consistently put up sub 3.00 ERA numbers? If not, can you call them reliable? This isn't about who agrees or doesn't agree. There's actual data that the guys who make a lot of money often suck the next season. 

[Second Base]

3 hours ago, Stradling said:

I keep saying this.  It is much better to trade for someone that is actually performing this year.  

Even that is risky. Joe Smith pretty much sucked for the Cubs after they acquired him. 

[Second Base]

51 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

And yet none of the 2002 bullpen was "proven" prior to that season save for Percy.    Donkey was picked off off the scrap heap as was Weber.  Al Levine had been a waiver wire pick up from the Rangers the year before and Scot Shields was a nobody going into that season.  

 

 

Even more reason to believe Eppler shares many of the same philosophies of Stoneman.

[VariousCrap]

1 hour ago, Sean-Regan said:

Really? Who are the 'proven' guys? How proven are they? Do they consistently put up sub 3.00 ERA numbers? If not, can you call them reliable? This isn't about who agrees or doesn't agree. There's actual data that the guys who make a lot of money often suck the next season. 

 

And there is actual data that guys who make a lot of money often do great the next season.

[VariousCrap]

1 hour ago, Dochalo said:

what does that have to do whether it's right?  

 

It's not right.  It's an opinion.

[Chuck]

I would still like to sign Ottavino or trade for Will Smith if the cost is right 

[Pancake Bear]

6 minutes ago, VariousCrap said:

 

And there is actual data that guys who make a lot of money often do great the next season.

A high enough percentage fail compared to other positions on which you can spend your money that unless you’re a legitimate top 5 team with championship expectations for this season it is stupid to waste money on high end relievers.  The benefit simply isn’t there. 

You can spend some, but 10 or more per season? It’s riskier than almost any other investment in the game. 

[Quinlanforthewin]

I understand this argument that bullpens are a complete crap shoot so you might as well fill them with cheap guys with upside, but if you're going to go with that strategy I would expect them to spend some elsewhere on proven, reliable talent. Cahill and Harvey are injury prone and underwhelming to say the least and the offense hasn't been upgraded at all.  It seems cheap with upside is the strategy for the entire team, not just the bullpen, which is basically how the Rays and As build their team and not how I would expect to see a team with Trout and Ohtani intend to compete. 

[Pancake Bear]

13 minutes ago, Quinlanforthewin said:

I understand this argument that bullpens are a complete crap shoot so you might as well fill them with cheap guys with upside, but if you're going to go with that strategy I would expect them to spend some elsewhere on proven, reliable talent. Cahill and Harvey are injury prone and underwhelming to say the least and the offense hasn't been upgraded at all.  It seems cheap with upside is the strategy for the entire team, not just the bullpen, which is basically how the Rays and As build their team and not how I would expect to see a team with Trout and Ohtani intend to compete. 

You’re right. Definitely don’t want to emulate those two teams. 

In seriousness, they could spend some more money and I hope they do. But I’d rather they spend it intelligently and in view of where the team is at the moment, rather than just throwing money at guys asking for a lot of money because of what they’ve done in the past, whether it reflects their future performance ability or not. 

[VariousCrap]

34 minutes ago, Sean-Regan said:

A high enough percentage fail compared to other positions on which you can spend your money that unless you’re a legitimate top 5 team with championship expectations for this season it is stupid to waste money on high end relievers.  The benefit simply isn’t there. 

You can spend some, but 10 or more per season? It’s riskier than almost any other investment in the game. 

I don't think the Angels should just throw money at any arm, but to not invest in your bullpen with a proven arm doesn't seem the right.  This bullpen could end up really hurting this team in 2019.

[Pancake Bear]

16 minutes ago, VariousCrap said:

I don't think the Angels should just throw money at any arm, but to not invest in your bullpen with a proven arm doesn't seem the right.  This bullpen could end up really hurting this team in 2019.

It didn’t last year. They were an average crew, performance wise, and their results were actually worse than they probably should have been due to all the innings they had to pick up. 

[Quinlanforthewin]

35 minutes ago, Sean-Regan said:

You’re right. Definitely don’t want to emulate those two teams. 

In seriousness, they could spend some more money and I hope they do. But I’d rather they spend it intelligently and in view of where the team is at the moment, rather than just throwing money at guys asking for a lot of money because of what they’ve done in the past, whether it reflects their future performance ability or not. 

Got me there, I guess I meant historically in relation to the Rays and A's ...if we didn't have generational talent I'd be fine with the thrifty approach. I also don't want to throw money at just anybody, but when Machado's best offer is $175 million why not go after him and actually try to take advantage of Trout's prime.

My main concern is they're wasting Trout's prime, clearly this year with stopgap rotation solutions who are oft injured, a bullpen of nobodies, and basically the same offense, there's not a guaranteed improvement from what we've seen since Eppler took over.  Which means Trout again likely to be back in Millville in October and dreaming of the post-season.  That can't bode well for him signing an extension. 

[Glen]

For some reason the bullpen makes me think of this:

 

[Docwaukee]

Our pen will be an area of strength this year and for years to come.  

[Jeff Fletcher]

9 hours ago, VariousCrap said:

I understand that is the narrative being pushed by some.  Not all GM's agree with that though.

Ok then. Give me some objective definition of “proven” and I’ll look up exactly how many pitchers fit that description. 

[Angel Oracle]

I guess the best strategy then is to contend in late July, and then acquire a closer having a strong season?   And still has another year of control after that so that it’s not a pure rental?

[AngelsFaninGA]

7 hours ago, Sean-Regan said:

It didn’t last year. They were an average crew, performance wise, and their results were actually worse than they probably should have been due to all the innings they had to pick up. 

I wasn't able to find the specific splits but I'd be curious to see the bullpen ERA by month. It seemed like it only got better toward the end of the season when we were already out of contention and weren't playing in meaningful games. First part of the season we couldn't buy a good appearance from anyone outside of Middleton.

[Jeff Fletcher]

50 minutes ago, AngelsFaninGA said:

I wasn't able to find the specific splits but I'd be curious to see the bullpen ERA by month. It seemed like it only got better toward the end of the season when we were already out of contention and weren't playing in meaningful games. First part of the season we couldn't buy a good appearance from anyone outside of Middleton.

http://bbref.com/pi/shareit/G0Ozm

April was the bullpen's best month. They were also good in July and August. 

Edited January 17, 2019 by Jeff Fletcher

[VariousCrap]

2 hours ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

Ok then. Give me some objective definition of “proven” and I’ll look up exactly how many pitchers fit that description. 

Pitchers who hold leads and save games on a regular basis is a good start.

[VariousCrap]

9 hours ago, Sean-Regan said:

It didn’t last year. They were an average crew, performance wise, and their results were actually worse than they probably should have been due to all the innings they had to pick up. 

 

How many leads did the bullpen give up last year?

[Stradling]

5 minutes ago, VariousCrap said:

 

How many leads did the bullpen give up last year?

They had 26 blown saves.  Same as the Dodgers and one more than Milwaukee, who I believe we would all agree has an amazing bullpen.