Perry's Plan Revisioned (or Solved?)

[Lou]

Just now, Torridd said:

This may be correct, but what happened to jumping in the job feet first? I thought the Angels planned to win now and not develop another 4-5 year plan. I really wonder if Moreno has stifled his GMs with strict pay stipulations.  

I think your confused. That isn't Minasian stating what his thinking is.

[Torridd]

19 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

Pancake Bear is right, though. You're taking one phrase out of context and misunderstanding, or at least skewing, what I'm saying.

Perry raised the floor and the hope is that the Angels are good enough to contend this year, but he obviously wasn't going "all in" - and presumably his approach (or as I understand it) was sanctioned by Arte.

We also have to remind ourselves, as fans, that Arte's priorities are different than ours, as fans. We want the team to win; Arte does too, but more so he wants the franchise (as a business) to be profitable. He's not a fantasy team owner; he's the owner of a $2B sports franchise - which is ten times the price he paid 17 years ago ($184M). From his perspective, the Angels are a success in the most important way (to him), and the best way to continue being a financial success is recapturing the sustained excellence that the team experienced from 2002-09, and the best way to do that is building from within, which ends up being far more cost-effective (talent for dollar ratio) than "Steinbrennering it."

So my guess is that Perry's pitch was something like this: "Billy did a good job laying the ground-work, but I'm the man to take the team to the next level. But in order to do so, I need a year to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the franchise, from top to bottom. I can plug holes on the major league team, build depth, and the team has enough talent to be competitive this year. But my plan will see sustained increases over the next few years, as the young talent matures."

I wouldn't even be surprised if Arte told him, "No big, long-term contracts." Arte, via Jerry Dipoto, already tried the Steinbrenner approach. It didn't work and crippled the franchise for a decade, with albatross contracts given to Vernon Wells, Albert Pujols, Josh Hamilton, and Justin Upton. Arte has to look at all four of those and think, "Not gonna do that anymore." So Minasian isn't, and we can hope that the focus will be on farm building, which takes time and patience.

So they are not "punting" the season, they're just not robbing the future to spend in the present. The Angels already have a pretty good core. Minasian plugged some holes, and raised the floor and gave them a better chance at contending, in a way that doesn't close any doors for the future or saddle the team with more albatross contracts.

We still might see a trade before the year starts, but we can hope it won't be one that guts the farm, and I doubt it will - unless it is an offer Perry can't refuse. I think, more likely, we're done--or close to done--and any trades between now and July will only involve secondary minor league talent, if at all. They'll re-assess in July and, if a strong contender, trade from excess talent. 

But isn't this essentially what Eppler was doing, plugging holes and hoping? I don't understand the difference. We're still spending pennies on pitching when pitching is what we absolutely need. 

[Torridd]

3 minutes ago, Lou said:

I think your confused. That isn't Minasian stating what his thinking is.

No, I based my statement on the initial analysis.

[T.G.]

2 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

No, but you can turn on CBS for something more your speed.

The Super Bowl is the only football game I watch nowadays. My take away from this game was how great Tom Brady is and even though Mike Trout may go down as the best player of all time, he likely won't ever be "Tom Brady great" and that's a shame. 

[Lou]

4 minutes ago, Torridd said:

No, I based my statement on the initial analysis.

Who's?

[T.G.]

Winning in the MLB is freakin’ hard. If you’re the best player in the NBA or NFL, you have a shot at winning it all because you can have that kind of impact.  Not so in baseball.

Minasian has his work cut out for him. He has a tough job. Trout only gets to impact the offensive side of things 3-5 times a game. Minasian has to find players that will help make those times count.

Yes, I’m rambling.

[ThisismineScios]

2 hours ago, Torridd said:

This may be correct, but what happened to jumping in the job feet first? I thought the Angels planned to win now and not develop another 4-5 year plan. I really wonder if Moreno has stifled his GMs with strict pay stipulations.  

I think the plan should be to win now, develop all our talent, win over the next 4-5 years, then keep winning, and win forever. 

Baseball is the hardest sport to be be successful in. I'm old enough to remember when Dodgers fans were boycotting game because of Frank McCourt. Now they have a juggernaut of a franchise that's going to contend for the next 5-7 years, easily. It's not a simple science--it takes a lot of investment and shrewd moves. You can't just buy it--Yanks haven't won in 12 years. You can't just "win now". Culture matters, flexibility matters, and a strong farm system matters. All of the world series teams the last few years have their foundation built in their own developed players. Then, you go out and put the finishing touches by signing/getting just the right guys: Smith, Seager, Bellinger, Kershaw, Urias + Mookie; Strasburg, Rendon, Soto, Turner + Scherzer/Corbin; Altuve, Bregman, Correa, Springer + Verlander/Morton/Cole; Devers, Bogaerts, Benintendi +  Sale/Price/Eovaldi; Rizzo, Russell, Bryant, Baez + Lester/Arrieta/Chapman. My point is you HAVE to have a foundation of 5-6 young guys that become great (and are on relatively cheap contracts) to have the ability to then go and make a big signing or swing a big trade. You can't do it in reverse order because you don't know what you have. 

I agree with Junky; Perry needs to know what he has. Will Adell/Marsh be stars, or good? Is C Rodriguez a potential ace or not? Is Detmers a #3, or just average? Can Ohtani pitch (I'd mark this as the most important)? How good is Canning? Is Walsh real? There are so many questions to answer. But the fact that he's bringing in a ton of talent from historically successful franchises (Braves, Dodgers, Brewers, Royals, Blue Jays) is a good sign that he's building a quality front office. I think this team has a very solid foundation to contend for the Division this year, but has a ton of flexibility going into 2022 to do what it takes to take another step forward. 

[Dave Saltzer]

AJ, a really good article. This should have been a blog post as well. You provide great analysis and should publish using your name. 

 

Chuck and I were talking about this on Friday. I think you hit the nail on the head (and was going to write something to this effect) that the plan is to raise the floor more than raise the ceiling for the team. For so many of the recent years, everything would have to go absolutely right (meaning no major injuries, players playing to their potential, etc.) for us to have a shot. But, if something bad did happen to one or two key players, the wheels came off for the team, and we fell apart.

 

This year appears to be about building some depth so that we are far more likely to be an 82-85 win team with a shot at more than we have been in the past. It's also about bridging one more year to layer in some cost controls so that we can sign an expensive FA or two next year when Pujols comes off the book, several of our pitchers are likely to come off the books (and hopefully be replaced by Detmers, Rodriguez, etc.). I fully expect us to be in play for one of the top shortstops next year and possibly a pitcher. 

 

Minasian had a lot of holes to fill with this team and chose to spread the money he had around to solve multiple problems on a short term basis hoping that some of our problems would be solved long-term internally. He could have solved one problem long-term with a big splash, but that would have left us where we were--a higher ceiling but a much lower probability of reaching it.

 

What is hard for us, as fans, is as you pointed out--we've been down a long road and waiting another year is never fun. What's worse is that the A.L. West seems more winnable now than it has for the past few years, so for us as fans, it's even more frustrating. Hopefully we will be in it enough to convince Arte to shell out some more money at either the trade deadline or in the offseason as next year. 

 

Again, I'd like to encourage you to post articles like this on the blog. 

[Angels Fan Forever]

19 hours ago, Second Base said:

Hopefully, the outcome of these one year deals. Eppler failed on every single one of them. The strategy wasn't wrong, it was the execution. 

Or in simple terms, Harvey < Quintana. Cahill < Cobb.  Teheran < Barria. Maybin/Nava/Gentry < Fowler.

And I think much more specifically, Iglesias = Simmons for 7 million less, Fletcher being better than La Stella, and Raisel Iglesias bring better than Hansel Robles. 

I don't think it's that bold of an expectation to believe that Minasian's acquisitions will fare better than Eppler's and thus produce a better team. 

I just want the team I have loved my entire life to be competitive. We have not been competitive recently. We have had 5 consecutive losing seasons. I thought Eppler was turning it but it did not show up in victories so he was out and Minasian was in. Perry has not impressed me so far. I think Eppler could have made these same moves...

[Stradling]

12 hours ago, stormngt said:

If we are doing that let's just trade Trout!.  He will be 33 or 34 when we are supposed to be good!

No I am not advocating trading Trout.  I just think we owe it to him to build a winner and not rebuild for three or four years.

We owe him his contract. 

[Stradling]

1 hour ago, Angels Fan Forever said:

I just want the team I have loved my entire life to be competitive. We have not been competitive recently. We have had 5 consecutive losing seasons. I thought Eppler was turning it but it did not show up in victories so he was out and Minasian was in. Perry has not impressed me so far. I think Eppler could have made these same moves...

He probably hasn’t impressed you because you want to improve the ceiling and he’s improved the floor. He’s also improved the depth and he’s given up zero impact prospects and no real future commitments after this season.  If this team performs well out of the gate then at the deadline they can improve the ceiling. 

[T.G.]

10 minutes ago, Stradling said:

We owe him his contract. 

I don't owe him anything.

[Stradling]

14 minutes ago, T.G. said:

I don't owe him anything.

You weren’t part of the “we”

[Rollinghard]

"Can Ohtani pitch (I'd mark this as the most important)? How good is Canning? Is Walsh real? "  

And I would add, can Bundy continue to pitch well?

If these 4 scenarios pan out, Angels could make the playoff this year. Got to have some good luck at some point.  

 

[stormngt]

1 hour ago, Stradling said:

We owe him his contract. 

We owe him a competitive team.  He would have received more with free agency.

Sorry but I believe in the virtue of loyalty  

Edited February 8, 2021 by stormngt

[Stradling]

11 minutes ago, stormngt said:

We owe him a competitive team.  He would have received more with free agency.

Sorry but I believe in the virtue of loyalty  

Ok.  He had a lot more faith in the direction of the club than most of our fans.  I trust he gave this ample thought.  He’s owed his contract. 

[T.G.]

INO fries suck.

[Angelsjunky]

12 hours ago, Torridd said:

This may be correct, but what happened to jumping in the job feet first? I thought the Angels planned to win now and not develop another 4-5 year plan. I really wonder if Moreno has stifled his GMs with strict pay stipulations.  

I once dove into a river without looking when I was 16. Hit my head, came out bleeding and needing stitches. Luckily I just skimmed the rock, otherwise I'd be paralyzed.

Obviously "feet first" is different, but I'm stretching the analogy. Again, the basic point:

- Don't saddle the team with lots of long-term contracts without first knowing what you have for internal solutions.

- Internal solutions are more cost-effective. If a prospect develops into a #3 starter, you get six years of relatively cheap performance (say, 6/$30M), rather than paying a free agent 6/$90M or more.

What some have missed about my hypothesis is that it is not a 4-5 year plan to contention, it is more of a gradual build up, but building from a solid foundation of homegrown players with more financial flexibility than they have now. The long-term plan is sustainability, not winning in half a decade.

12 hours ago, T.G. said:

The Super Bowl is the only football game I watch nowadays. My take away from this game was how great Tom Brady is and even though Mike Trout may go down as the best player of all time, he likely won't ever be "Tom Brady great" and that's a shame. 

I hear you, but a quarterback in football is not the same thing as a superstar in baseball. A QB impacts the game far more than any baseball player possibly could. One point of evidence that comes to mind is that after losing three of the ten best players in the game (Randy Johnson, Ken Griffey Jr, and Alex Rodriguez), the Mariners had the best record ever. Ted Williams nor Barry Bonds ever won a WS.

 

 

[T.G.]

1 minute ago, Angelsjunky said:

I hear you, but a quarterback in football is not the same thing as a superstar in baseball. A QB impacts the game far more than any baseball player possibly could. One point of evidence that comes to mind is that after losing three of the ten best players in the game (Randy Johnson, Ken Griffey Jr, and Alex Rodriguez), the Mariners had the best record ever. Ted Williams nor Barry Bonds ever won a WS.

Exactly.

[Angelsjunky]

7 hours ago, Dave Saltzer said:

AJ, a really good article. This should have been a blog post as well. You provide great analysis and should publish using your name. 

 

Chuck and I were talking about this on Friday. I think you hit the nail on the head (and was going to write something to this effect) that the plan is to raise the floor more than raise the ceiling for the team. For so many of the recent years, everything would have to go absolutely right (meaning no major injuries, players playing to their potential, etc.) for us to have a shot. But, if something bad did happen to one or two key players, the wheels came off for the team, and we fell apart.

 

This year appears to be about building some depth so that we are far more likely to be an 82-85 win team with a shot at more than we have been in the past. It's also about bridging one more year to layer in some cost controls so that we can sign an expensive FA or two next year when Pujols comes off the book, several of our pitchers are likely to come off the books (and hopefully be replaced by Detmers, Rodriguez, etc.). I fully expect us to be in play for one of the top shortstops next year and possibly a pitcher. 

 

Minasian had a lot of holes to fill with this team and chose to spread the money he had around to solve multiple problems on a short term basis hoping that some of our problems would be solved long-term internally. He could have solved one problem long-term with a big splash, but that would have left us where we were--a higher ceiling but a much lower probability of reaching it.

 

What is hard for us, as fans, is as you pointed out--we've been down a long road and waiting another year is never fun. What's worse is that the A.L. West seems more winnable now than it has for the past few years, so for us as fans, it's even more frustrating. Hopefully we will be in it enough to convince Arte to shell out some more money at either the trade deadline or in the offseason as next year. 

 

Again, I'd like to encourage you to post articles like this on the blog. 

Thanks, Dave. I think @Chuckster70 turned it into a blog - he has the green light to turn anything I write into blogs, and he does so knowing that I'm too lazy to set it up myself ;).

And yes, I think you are right: Perry is trying to lessen the blow if and when the "wheels come off." Even last year we saw a team that began with wobbly wheels but once it got going, was pretty good.

I think, as you say, we're continually judging things from past experience, forgetting that the context is always changing. This isn't the same team as it was five years ago. The farm system is much stronger, there's a better core of talent, and a lot more upside. Even with Ohtani: yes, there's questions, but just because he got hurt before doesn't mean he can't be healthy. Or Chris Rodriguez: It is tempting to think, "of course he won't work out - our pitching prospects never do." But all current evidence points to a healthy young pitching stud. Or Brandon Marsh: Adell sucked last year, so Marsh will too. Or Adell himself, forgetting that he was a young guy who shouldn't have been in the majors last year. But the same talent is still there. We get pretty doomy.

[T.G.]

2 hours ago, Stradling said:

We owe him his contract. 

There are two sides to that contract. I'm guessing, when they negotiated that deal there were expectations.  I'm guessing the Angels expected Trout to play to the best of his abilities and I'm guessing Trout expected the Angels to do their best to put players around him that would help him get to the post-season.  If Trout mailed it in and didn't play up to his normal standard - most fans would say he's not living up to his contract.  If the Angels "mail it in" and don't do everything they can to put the best possible team on the field, some might say they're not living up to their end of the deal.

BTW... I'm not saying this is what's happening...

So, technically Strad, you're right.  But this is also about a relationship between a generational player and an organization.  In some ways - the  Angels do owe Trout, IMO

Edited February 8, 2021 by T.G.

[Stradling]

5 minutes ago, T.G. said:

There are two sides to that contract. I'm guessing, when they negotiated that deal there were expectations.  I'm guessing the Angels expected Trout to play to the best of his abilities and I'm guessing Trout expected the Angels to do their best to put players around him that would help him get to the post-season.  If Trout mailed it in and didn't play up to his normal standard - most fans would say he's not living up to his contract.  If the Angels "mail it in" and don't do everything they can to put the best possible team on the field, some might say they're not living up to their end of the deal.

BTW... I'm not saying this is what's happening...

So, technically Strad, you're right.  But this is also about a relationship between a generational player and an organization.  In some ways - the  Angels do owe Trout, IMO

 

51 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Ok.  He had a lot more faith in the direction of the club than most of our fans.  I trust he gave this ample thought.  He’s owed his contract. 

 

[T.G.]

So Strad, do you feel that way about your employees?  You just owe them for the work they do and nothing more? 

[stormngt]

52 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Ok.  He had a lot more faith in the direction of the club than most of our fans.  I trust he gave this ample thought.  He’s owed his contract. 

Legally he is owed his contract and nothing else.  However, like I said I believe in the virtue of loyalty.   Not everyone believes in that any more.

[Angelsjunky]

1 minute ago, T.G. said:

There are two sides to that contract. I'm guessing, when they negotiated that deal there were expectations.  I'm guessing the Angels expected Trout to play to the best of his abilities and I'm guessing Trout expected the Angels to do their best to put players around him that would help him get to the post-season.  If Trout mailed it in and didn't play up to his normal standard - most fans would say he's not living up to his contract.  If the Angels "mail it in" and don't do everything they can to put the best possible team on the field, some might say they're not living up to their end of the deal.

I'm not saying this is what's happening...

So, technically Strad, you're right.  But this is also about a relationship between a generational player and an organization.  In some ways - the  Angels do owe Trout, IMO

Whether we like it or not, baseball is business and it is subject to all the dynamics and manipulations of other businesses.

Whether we like it or not, or it is right or not, a baseball owner doesn't "owe" anything to either their players or fans, who enter into contracts and buy tickets and swag out of their free will. But players and fans do have choice and thus power. An unhappy player can demand a trade, or simply sign elsewhere. If a fan doesn't like the product being offered, they don't have to buy tickets.

I think of the Pirates or Orioles and wonder why fans buy tickets. Maybe they don't care and just want to drink beer and watch baseball, or maybe they believe the delusion woven by ownership that the team is trying to win, even if it is obvious that ownership is just mailing it in on the field in order to fill their coffers. 

Either way, it is becoming more and more clear that there are a handful of dynastic organizations in baseball that are set up--and willing--to win for years to come (e.g. Yankees, Dodgers, etc), a handful of others that are vying for the scraps (e.g. the Twins, Athletics), and then a bunch of teams that just provide opponents for them to beat, while their owners make huge profits. As a baseball fan, I don't like this - but until we get a new sheriff in down (commissioner) who can deal with both the billionaire owners and players union, we're going to see more of the same.