Baseball America 2021 Farm System Rankings

[Angelsjunky]

8 minutes ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

https://www.google.com/search?q=larry+crowbe+star+trek&oq=larry+crowbe+star+trek&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.6613j1j7&client=ms-android-verizon&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:ac000d24,vid:JE6HwWGYLZ8,st:0

Haha. I remember that scene - fun movie.

[ten ocho recon scout]

27 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

Haha. I remember that scene - fun movie.

One of those ones i dont know why i like, but watch whenever its on.

[Inside Pitch]

2 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

You don't have to convince me what a shambles Dipoto left the org in - and I agree that it wasn't only Arte and Scioscia meddling. I was only saying that there's not enough data (yet) to say whether he has done a better or worse job with the Mariners than Eppler with the Angels.

Oh, I won't waste any time on who did better with their respecting teams -- Eppler took over a far uglier mess and the only thing I'll ever care about is what their stewardships of the Angels were like.   I actually believe he's done a great job rebuilding the M's -- he deserves credit for it and any success the team may have moving forward.   

But yeah, we seem to be on the same page as far as what his time in Anaheim resulted in.

2 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

To be fair to all of them, while in hindsight we can say that the Angels should have rebuilt after the winning streak ended in 2010, at the time it kind of makes sense why they'd just retool: 80 wins in 2010 became 86 in 2011 and then 89 in 2012. After 2012, the Angels had a young superstar and the hopes that Pujols would return to form. But 2013 was a real joke, with the Hamilton-Blanton-Hanson acquisitions. But then they had their best year in half a decade in 2014, and there was no reason not to think that they couldn't continue as a 90+ win team. But then the pitching disasters hit in full force, Pujols completely collapsed, etc...

Maybe the Angels org is like the old Star Trek movies: alternating good even numbers with bad odd numbers. the 80s were pretty good, the 90s awful, the 00s the best decade, the 10s pretty bad (aside from Trout). So good times ahead?

I don't have any issues with the Angels choosing to retool .vs rebuild.  They had enough quality pieces in place, heck, had Jerry simply moved for Skaggs and Eaton instead of wasting time with Santiago I think the Angels would have been far ahead of where they were and likely avoid at least ONE mistake - they may have avoided the move for Upton too.

I wasn't one of the guys doing victory laps after the AP deal mostly because "10 years", but I won't ever go so far as to say that JD should have seen AP's decline being what it's been.   I'll do the opposite and say that had we not seen the move towards defensive shifts, chances are those early years would have been a lot less ugly.  While I will never absolve him of having played any part in obtaining him like many here do, I don't think he was an idiot for thinking he would age more gracefully than he has.

Jerry's failure as the GM of the Angels was 100% a result of how poorly they acquired and developed players internationally and in the draft.  I think he realized it as well because he took a deciding different approach in Seattle choosing not to fire everyone and installing his guys in their place.  

[AngelsLakersFan]

4 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

To be fair to all of them, while in hindsight we can say that the Angels should have rebuilt after the winning streak ended in 2010, at the time it kind of makes sense why they'd just retool: 80 wins in 2010 became 86 in 2011 and then 89 in 2012. After 2012, the Angels had a young superstar and the hopes that Pujols would return to form. But 2013 was a real joke, with the Hamilton-Blanton-Hanson acquisitions. But then they had their best year in half a decade in 2014, and there was no reason not to think that they couldn't continue as a 90+ win team. But then the pitching disasters hit in full force, Pujols completely collapsed, etc...

Maybe the Angels org is like the old Star Trek movies: alternating good even numbers with bad odd numbers. the 80s were pretty good, the 90s awful, the 00s the best decade, the 10s pretty bad (aside from Trout). So good times ahead?

Nah bro. The Angels remaining competitive was always contingent on them continually raising payroll, which is something Arte and the GM should've known wasn't going to happen. Repeatedly pushing all their chips in was just hubris founded on Arte's belief that he didn't have to rebuild and Dipoto's belief that he was always the smartest man in the room.

[Angelsjunky]

1 hour ago, Inside Pitch said:

 

I wasn't one of the guys doing victory laps after the AP deal mostly because "10 years", but I won't ever go so far as to say that JD should have seen AP's decline being what it's been.   I'll do the opposite and say that had we not seen the move towards defensive shifts, chances are those early years would have been a lot less ugly.  While I will never absolve him of having played any part in obtaining him like many here do, I don't think he was an idiot for thinking he would age more gracefully than he has.

Jerry's failure as the GM of the Angels was 100% a result of how poorly they acquired and developed players internationally and in the draft.  I think he realized it as well because he took a deciding different approach in Seattle choosing not to fire everyone and installing his guys in their place.  

Albert's collapse was historical, at least among great players. I don't know if you remember, but a few years ago I did a study of comparable players and there were really only one or two who collapsed as badly, or close to as badly--and as "young"--as Pujols did. I remember that after 2012, I thought he'd bounce back for a few years. It still irks me that 2012 was the best he ever was as an Angel.

Yeah, the drafting and development was bad - but that really started in 2010 under Reagins' watch and then was compounded by losing top picks for Pujols, Wilson, and Hamilton. But 2010-14 was pure trash; the best player drafted during that span was traded for a mediocre relief pitcher. 2015 was also bad ("We got Ward!") but at least they drafted Fletcher.

I do think the Angels had monumentally bad luck with their pitching. They lost literally ever young pitcher to TJS in the mid-2010s. I've never really seen anything like it. 

[Angelsjunky]

1 hour ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

Nah bro. The Angels remaining competitive was always contingent on them continually raising payroll, which is something Arte and the GM should've known wasn't going to happen. Repeatedly pushing all their chips in was just hubris founded on Arte's belief that he didn't have to rebuild and Dipoto's belief that he was always the smartest man in the room.

Not sure what you are "nahing" me about. See my comment about their starters. After 2014, no one could have predicted that within the next couple years, not only would Jered Weaver turn into Gumby, but Richards, Shoemaker, Heaney, Skaggs, Tropeano, and Meyers would all go down with serious injuries. It is hard to remain competitive when you lose every decent pitcher you have. Most of those guys were young and thus low cost; the Angels didn't just lose one or two of them - they lost all of them for long periods of time. Eppler made it worse by having no clue about replacing them.

But yeah, the albatrosses piled up, but the other half of the equation is that the young guys didn't pan out - injuries to the pitchers and no real help for the lineup from within.

From a different angle, though, they went from 80 to 86 to 89 wins in 2010-12, had a bad year, then won 98 in 2014, and were still pretty good the next year, winning 85 games. In other words, 2011-15 saw four of five seasons of 85+ wins. Disappointing considering the money they had spent, but not a terrible run on the surface of things. Eppler inherited a team with a decimated rotation and no farm system and was never able to get it to crack .500 in five seasons. A lot of that is on Dipoto, a lot of it bad luck, but some of it Eppler. I like what he did with the farm, but he clearly had his own deficiencies.

[T.G.]

You're all wrong... the best farm system belongs to Old McDonald.

[Jason]

15 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

Albert's collapse was historical, at least among great players. I don't know if you remember, but a few years ago I did a study of comparable players and there were really only one or two who collapsed as badly, or close to as badly--and as "young"--as Pujols did. I remember that after 2012, I thought he'd bounce back for a few years. It still irks me that 2012 was the best he ever was as an Angel.

 

I've always wondered why this is. Was he not committed 100% to his in season and off season training regimen? Were there physical issues that he really never addressed? 

[Angelsjunky]

14 minutes ago, Jason said:

I've always wondered why this is. Was he not committed 100% to his in season and off season training regimen? Were there physical issues that he really never addressed? 

I don't think we can question Albert's commitment or work ethic. I do tend to believe that there's credence to the rumor that he's 2-3 years older than advertised, which would make his decline more age-appropriate, if still rather sharp for such a (formerly) great player. If you shift his career stat line up 2 or 3 years, it just makes more sense.

I think it was IP upthread who mentioned the defensive shift. That could play a part.

[Pancake Bear]

19 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

I don't think we can question Albert's commitment or work ethic. I do tend to believe that there's credence to the rumor that he's 2-3 years older than advertised, which would make his decline more age-appropriate, if still rather sharp for such a (formerly) great player. If you shift his career stat line up 2 or 3 years, it just makes more sense.

I think it was IP upthread who mentioned the defensive shift. That could play a part.

I wouldn't normally give credence to a rumor about Albert's age. Thing for me that makes it more likely is his own reminiscences where he tells stories of himself and other players way back when and his memory of their age compared to each other. They consistently place him a couple of years older than his age of record. Doing that once could just be misremembering. Doing it several times and all consistently the same 'wrong' age? That gives me pause. 

[Angelsjunky]

57 minutes ago, Pancake Bear said:

I wouldn't normally give credence to a rumor about Albert's age. Thing for me that makes it more likely is his own reminiscences where he tells stories of himself and other players way back when and his memory of their age compared to each other. They consistently place him a couple of years older than his age of record. Doing that once could just be misremembering. Doing it several times and all consistently the same 'wrong' age? That gives me pause. 

Yep. Even Fangraphs reported on that. 

[Docwaukee]

1 hour ago, Angelsjunky said:

I don't think we can question Albert's commitment or work ethic. I do tend to believe that there's credence to the rumor that he's 2-3 years older than advertised, which would make his decline more age-appropriate, if still rather sharp for such a (formerly) great player. If you shift his career stat line up 2 or 3 years, it just makes more sense.

I think it was IP upthread who mentioned the defensive shift. That could play a part.

my own theories:

He's older than he's stated.  I think there's a really good chance this is actually true.  

The shift - huge for a lot of those IF hits he used to get. 

Angel Stadium - Albert was an all fields guy.  Not a hr hitter as much as just an amazing hitter.  He just hit it right anywhere and so hard that it would go out.  There were slight clues that his oppo power was diminishing when he was in his contract year.  It wasn't horribly obvious but subtly there.  The AL west was really tough on guys with power to right field.  Led him to want to pull the ball more because...

His stats matter to him - I do think his numbers are important to him.  I think he saw an outside change of breaking the HR record and it became important.  Or that he just liked hitting hrs and it was a critical part to making him feel valuable.  When he realized he couldn't hit oppo hrs anymore, he changed his swing.  He pulled the ball more and went with the older player cheat.  That fraction of a second difference so he could still hit those hrs as opposed to waiting so he could better recognize the pitch.  

He didn't evolve - he had the eye, contact ability and eye hand coordination to continue as an elite hitter but he changed his approach.  He could have hit .300 with a .290 BABIP with 20hrs and 100+ walks.  I truly believe that.  But that adjustment he made so he could still hit a lot of hrs really hurt his discipline.  

He broke down - I know the commitment was there, but the body didn't necessarily oblige.  He has gotten heavier without a doubt.  If you know that you've got 30m coming regardless of what you do, that does make a difference.  I'm sorry, but your motivation as a 39 year old making that much money is different than someone in their 20's making a fraction of that.  

Overall, I truly believe that being a HR chaser was really what had the biggest impact on the late stages of his career coupled with the shift.  

[Angelsjunky]

28 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

my own theories:

He's older than he's stated.  I think there's a really good chance this is actually true.  

The shift - huge for a lot of those IF hits he used to get. 

Angel Stadium - Albert was an all fields guy.  Not a hr hitter as much as just an amazing hitter.  He just hit it right anywhere and so hard that it would go out.  There were slight clues that his oppo power was diminishing when he was in his contract year.  It wasn't horribly obvious but subtly there.  The AL west was really tough on guys with power to right field.  Led him to want to pull the ball more because...

His stats matter to him - I do think his numbers are important to him.  I think he saw an outside change of breaking the HR record and it became important.  Or that he just liked hitting hrs and it was a critical part to making him feel valuable.  When he realized he couldn't hit oppo hrs anymore, he changed his swing.  He pulled the ball more and went with the older player cheat.  That fraction of a second difference so he could still hit those hrs as opposed to waiting so he could better recognize the pitch.  

He didn't evolve - he had the eye, contact ability and eye hand coordination to continue as an elite hitter but he changed his approach.  He could have hit .300 with a .290 BABIP with 20hrs and 100+ walks.  I truly believe that.  But that adjustment he made so he could still hit a lot of hrs really hurt his discipline.  

He broke down - I know the commitment was there, but the body didn't necessarily oblige.  He has gotten heavier without a doubt.  If you know that you've got 30m coming regardless of what you do, that does make a difference.  I'm sorry, but your motivation as a 39 year old making that much money is different than someone in their 20's making a fraction of that.  

Overall, I truly believe that being a HR chaser was really what had the biggest impact on the late stages of his career coupled with the shift.  

Yes, agreed. I think your theory is borne out by his generally much better stats with RISP. He seems to revert to a better approach, less focused on the long ball and more on making contact. If he had evolved, as you say, he might have had a few less HR, but I don't think too many less. Kind of unfortunate and rather stupid, to be honest.

[ten ocho recon scout]

19 hours ago, Inside Pitch said:

I wasn't one of the guys doing victory laps after the AP deal mostly because "10 years"

I vividly remember the night before we signed him, being on top of the world. The constant updates on here were "omg, this is actually happening"

I had run into a player a few months prior who told me they were getting him that year, and i said bullshit, no way that happens.

Then it actually starts to happen, and its "wow"

I remember the night before, the last rumor i heard before i was going to sleep was "210 over 8 years" or something like that. Think the rumors first broke around 180 million

"Wow.... thats a ton of money.... yikes.... but hey, you gotta pay if you wanna play!" Went to sleep.

Woke up, reached for my phone super pumped, saw we signed him!

Then saw the terms, and was instantly like "..... uhhhh.... wow......"

I think we all knew the last few years were gonna be bad, but holy smokes, there really never was a "good/fun" era for albert here. And thats sad. Sad for the fans, sad for the org, sad for him. 

Pujols went from the undisputed best in the game, and beloved by all, to mocking joke other teams make about us. 

And we went from constant success to constant mediocrity, a lot of it because of him.

In dipoto / arte / AWs defense, I think pujols pre us was about a sure bet of greatness as anyone out there. Not sure anyone could have predicted how bad that would turn out.

[Cosmo_Kramer]

2 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

I don't think we can question Albert's commitment or work ethic. I do tend to believe that there's credence to the rumor that he's 2-3 years older than advertised, which would make his decline more age-appropriate, if still rather sharp for such a (formerly) great player. If you shift his career stat line up 2 or 3 years, it just makes more sense.

I think it was IP upthread who mentioned the defensive shift. That could play a part.

He absolutely is 2-3 years older. So then his prime is shifted, and the decline starts to look more natural.

The signing made sense from the business side more than the baseball side, and that was clear in the beginning. So the Pujols deal is fine by me.

On a separate note, Richards hurting his knee while covering first is the turning point in my head

[Angelsjunky]

11 minutes ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

I vividly remember the night before we signed him, being on top of the world. The constant updates on here were "omg, this is actually happening"

I had run into a player a few months prior who told me they were getting him that year, and i said bullshit, no way that happens.

Then it actually starts to happen, and its "wow"

I remember the night before, the last rumor i heard before i was going to sleep was "210 over 8 years" or something like that. Think the rumors first broke around 180 million

"Wow.... thats a ton of money.... yikes.... but hey, you gotta pay if you wanna play!" Went to sleep.

Woke up, reached for my phone super pumped, saw we signed him!

Then saw the terms, and was instantly like "..... uhhhh.... wow......"

I think we all knew the last few years were gonna be bad, but holy smokes, there really never was a "good/fun" era for albert here. And thats sad. Sad for the fans, sad for the org, sad for him. 

Pujols went from the undisputed best in the game, and beloved by all, to mocking joke other teams make about us. 

And we went from constant success to constant mediocrity, a lot of it because of him.

In dipoto / arte / AWs defense, I think pujols pre us was about a sure bet of greatness as anyone out there. Not sure anyone could have predicted how bad that would turn out.

My memory of my reaction was something "Hmm...10/$250M for a 32 year old showing signs of decline, but...we got Pujols." It was hard not to be excited, especially when there was no reason to think that--at the very least--he wouldn't continue to hit .300/.900 with 35+ HR for a few years.

But there were worrying signs that presumably the Angels ignored. His wRC+ had dropped from 180 to 164 to 147 in 2009-11.  He had slowed on the basepaths and his defensive numbers were diminished. My guess is that Arte wasn't aware of this, or just didn't care as he wanted the big Latino star to bolster sales.

Either way, as others have said, no one thought he'd decline as quickly and fully as he did. I think the reasonable expectation was that he had a few years in the 5-6 WAR range, a few in in the 3-4, and then a few in the 2-3 range. Instead we got, well, one of the biggest busts and most overpaid players in baseball history.

Edited February 16, 2021 by Angelsjunky

[AngelsLakersFan]

17 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

Not sure what you are "nahing" me about. See my comment about their starters. After 2014, no one could have predicted that within the next couple years, not only would Jered Weaver turn into Gumby, but Richards, Shoemaker, Heaney, Skaggs, Tropeano, and Meyers would all go down with serious injuries. It is hard to remain competitive when you lose every decent pitcher you have. Most of those guys were young and thus low cost; the Angels didn't just lose one or two of them - they lost all of them for long periods of time. Eppler made it worse by having no clue about replacing them.

But yeah, the albatrosses piled up, but the other half of the equation is that the young guys didn't pan out - injuries to the pitchers and no real help for the lineup from within.

From a different angle, though, they went from 80 to 86 to 89 wins in 2010-12, had a bad year, then won 98 in 2014, and were still pretty good the next year, winning 85 games. In other words, 2011-15 saw four of five seasons of 85+ wins. Disappointing considering the money they had spent, but not a terrible run on the surface of things. Eppler inherited a team with a decimated rotation and no farm system and was never able to get it to crack .500 in five seasons. A lot of that is on Dipoto, a lot of it bad luck, but some of it Eppler. I like what he did with the farm, but he clearly had his own deficiencies.

I don't like the angle that not rebuilding is 'hindsight.' 

I've never completely bought the idea that the team was especially unlucky. Aside from Richards all the guys you mentioned were brought in from outside the organization; Shoemaker (NDFA), Heaney (trade), Skaggs (trade), Tropeano (trade), and Meyers (trade). These guys were brought in because we didn't have the pitching in the organization we needed to remain competitive. The acquisition of each one of these guys was praised for its low cost, but we really did end up getting what we paid for. The Meyers trade is a great example, as I remember trashing that deal the day it happened because I thought Meyer was going to go on to have the exact same Angel career he ended up having.

Moreno went on to commit something near a half billion dollars to that roster, and had the greatest player of this generation fall in his lap and yet outside of 2014 this remained a mid to upper 80's win team. I think those results really speak for themselves. The fact that Dipoto also decimated the farm system to maintain that record is more proof. There are very few organizations in the league right now who couldn't turn Mike Trout, a half billion dollars and a complete disregard for the future health of the organization into a better than .500 team for four or five years.

The only thing hindsight has really shown us is just how much better off we would've been had we actually rebuilt around '10/'11.

[AngelsLakersFan]

56 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

my own theories:

He's older than he's stated.  I think there's a really good chance this is actually true.  

The shift - huge for a lot of those IF hits he used to get. 

Angel Stadium - Albert was an all fields guy.  Not a hr hitter as much as just an amazing hitter.  He just hit it right anywhere and so hard that it would go out.  There were slight clues that his oppo power was diminishing when he was in his contract year.  It wasn't horribly obvious but subtly there.  The AL west was really tough on guys with power to right field.  Led him to want to pull the ball more because...

His stats matter to him - I do think his numbers are important to him.  I think he saw an outside change of breaking the HR record and it became important.  Or that he just liked hitting hrs and it was a critical part to making him feel valuable.  When he realized he couldn't hit oppo hrs anymore, he changed his swing.  He pulled the ball more and went with the older player cheat.  That fraction of a second difference so he could still hit those hrs as opposed to waiting so he could better recognize the pitch.  

He didn't evolve - he had the eye, contact ability and eye hand coordination to continue as an elite hitter but he changed his approach.  He could have hit .300 with a .290 BABIP with 20hrs and 100+ walks.  I truly believe that.  But that adjustment he made so he could still hit a lot of hrs really hurt his discipline.  

He broke down - I know the commitment was there, but the body didn't necessarily oblige.  He has gotten heavier without a doubt.  If you know that you've got 30m coming regardless of what you do, that does make a difference.  I'm sorry, but your motivation as a 39 year old making that much money is different than someone in their 20's making a fraction of that.  

Overall, I truly believe that being a HR chaser was really what had the biggest impact on the late stages of his career coupled with the shift.  

I think it is probably all of these things. There is ego at play with his seeming preference for homeruns, but there is also his complete lack of speed that makes just about anything that doesn't go over the fence an out or a single that will require at least 3 more hits to score him.

I do hold his weight against him. I understand it's hard to maintain that drive but I see guys like Nelson Cruz and David Ortiz, who were never known for their fitness, maintain their fitness levels and their production into their late 30's.

[Stradling]

I still don’t believe he’s older than his stated age because he came to the states and went to high school.  So if he’s 2-3 years older then he came to the states and decided to do TWO years of high school, not just one.  I have never met a single person graduating from high school and said, “sign me up for two more”. Then he wasn’t drafted out of high school, went to a JC and got drafted in the 13th round.   

[Angelsjunky]

15 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

I don't like the angle that not rebuilding is 'hindsight.' 

I've never completely bought the idea that the team was especially unlucky. Aside from Richards all the guys you mentioned were brought in from outside the organization; Shoemaker (NDFA), Heaney (trade), Skaggs (trade), Tropeano (trade), and Meyers (trade). These guys were brought in because we didn't have the pitching in the organization we needed to remain competitive. The acquisition of each one of these guys was praised for its low cost, but we really did end up getting what we paid for. The Meyers trade is a great example, as I remember trashing that deal the day it happened because I thought Meyer was going to go on to have the exact same Angel career he ended up having.

Moreno went on to commit something near a half billion dollars to that roster, and had the greatest player of this generation fall in his lap and yet outside of 2014 this remained a mid to upper 80's win team. I think those results really speak for themselves. The fact that Dipoto also decimated the farm system to maintain that record is more proof. There are very few organizations in the league right now who couldn't turn Mike Trout, a half billion dollars and a complete disregard for the future health of the organization into a better than .500 team for four or five years.

The only thing hindsight has really shown us is just how much better off we would've been had we actually rebuilt around '10/'11.

None of which I disagree with. I am merely pointing out that it is one thing making decisions in the moment, quite another to know how they'll pan out over time - or how they'll look in hindsight. I agree that the franchise would likely be in much better shape if they had rebuilt in 2010-11, but at least some of the decisions made in the years following were more understandable at the time they were made then they seem now. Or rather that, considering the success of the team in 2002-09, and that they had averaged 97 wins in 2007-09, it is understandable why Arte didn't want to spend the next few years rebuilding. The Angels had been one of the best teams of the Aughties, and he wanted to keep it going. Or rather, he wanted to continue raking in the dough.

On the other hand, because of what was essentially hubris, the Angels made three moves from 2011-13 that utterly handicapped the franchise for years to come, spending over $450 million on three dud players: Vernon Wells, Albert Pujols, and Josh Hamilton (as you said). There is no denying that the Angels have been a poorly run franchise for over a decade. They've compounded mistakes with more mistakes. So it may be that it wasn't as much the fact that they didn't rebuild, but how they retooled: very poorly. 

 

[Pancake Bear]

21 minutes ago, Stradling said:

I still don’t believe he’s older than his stated age because he came to the states and went to high school.  So if he’s 2-3 years older then he came to the states and decided to do TWO years of high school, not just one.  I have never met a single person graduating from high school and said, “sign me up for two more”. Then he wasn’t drafted out of high school, went to a JC and got drafted in the 13th round.   

At this point it doesn't matter especially, but I've seen reasons given why the HS issue would be relevant to his stated age.

E.g. https://www.sbnation.com/2011/11/21/2577356/how-old-is-albert-pujols

"Pujols was reportedly 16 when his family came to the United States. Had he been 17 (or 18, or 20), he would have been ineligible to attend high school (or play high school baseball). This seems like an obvious motive."

Ineligible for HS if he was older. And, I mean, he was drafted in the 13th. Does he get drafted at all if he's 19-20 instead of 17?

Just some food for thought. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

12 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

None of which I disagree with. I am merely pointing out that it is one thing making decisions in the moment, quite another to know how they'll pan out over time - or how they'll look in hindsight. I agree that the franchise would likely be in much better shape if they had rebuilt in 2010-11, but at least some of the decisions made in the years following were more understandable at the time they were made then they seem now. Or rather that, considering the success of the team in 2002-09, and that they had averaged 97 wins in 2007-09, it is understandable why Arte didn't want to spend the next few years rebuilding. The Angels had been one of the best teams of the Aughties, and he wanted to keep it going. Or rather, he wanted to continue raking in the dough.

On the other hand, because of what was essentially hubris, the Angels made three moves from 2011-13 that utterly handicapped the franchise for years to come, spending over $450 million on three dud players: Vernon Wells, Albert Pujols, and Josh Hamilton (as you said). There is no denying that the Angels have been a poorly run franchise for over a decade. They've compounded mistakes with more mistakes. So it may be that it wasn't as much the fact that they didn't rebuild, but how they retooled: very poorly. 

 

I just don't really see a path to success that wouldn't require hindsight to navigate. To me not rebuilding was sort of like not going back home at the end of your seven day bender in Vegas and thinking your job and your wife would be there when you finally did go back. It was probably easy to talk themselves into but it was never going to work.

[DCAngelsFan]

4 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

My memory of my reaction was something "Hmm...10/$250M for a 32 year old showing signs of decline, but...we got Pujols." It was hard not to be excited, especially when there was no reason to think that--at the very least--he wouldn't continue to hit .300/.900 with 35+ HR for a few years.

But there were worrying signs that presumably the Angels ignored. His wRC+ had dropped from 180 to 164 to 147 in 2009-11.  He had slowed on the basepaths and his defensive numbers were diminished. My guess is that Arte wasn't aware of this, or just didn't care as he wanted the big Latino star to bolster sales.

Either way, as others have said, no one thought he'd decline as quickly and fully as he did. I think the reasonable expectation was that he had a few years in the 5-6 WAR range, a few in in the 3-4, and then a few in the 2-3 range. Instead we got, well, one of the biggest busts and most overpaid players in baseball history.

When I saw the terms, I wanted to be excited - I convinced myself we might get 3 or 4 good "Pujols" years - then 2 or 3 mediocre years, then 3 or 4 disastrous years staggering under the weight of that contract.   And that was the best case, which we obviously never saw.  

The drop-off in production you note was worrying - the declines were right there, and it was hard to rationalize them - it wasn't an injury or bad luck or an aberration - no stat that said "aha! This is all just a temporary thing" - no, the obvious explanation was that he was in physical decline.  

What really set my alarm bells off was the Cardinals - who grudgingly made him a 5-year offer they didn't seem to want to make.

  When he refused, I got the pretty clear sense that the Cards front office and most of their fans were relieved that he was "insulted" and later signed with us.  The Cards FO were certainly aware of what he did for the franchise, and likely offered him more than they though he was worth.  And were happy they could save face by offering something, only to have him reject it.  

I remember lots of Cards fans saying - to summarize "suckers!" - I think they had a pretty good of what was coming.   When a club is happy to see a franchise hero and hall-of-famer depart, you have to wonder if you're doing the right thing signing him.    

 

 

[ten ocho recon scout]

5 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

My memory of my reaction was something "Hmm...10/$250M for a 32 year old showing signs of decline, but...we got Pujols." It was hard not to be excited, especially when there was no reason to think that--at the very least--he wouldn't continue to hit .300/.900 with 35+ HR for a few years.

But there were worrying signs that presumably the Angels ignored. His wRC+ had dropped from 180 to 164 to 147 in 2009-11.  He had slowed on the basepaths and his defensive numbers were diminished. My guess is that Arte wasn't aware of this, or just didn't care as he wanted the big Latino star to bolster sales.

Either way, as others have said, no one thought he'd decline as quickly and fully as he did. I think the reasonable expectation was that he had a few years in the 5-6 WAR range, a few in in the 3-4, and then a few in the 2-3 range. Instead we got, well, one of the biggest busts and most overpaid players in baseball history.

In all honesty, id be lying if I said I was worried about him being 32 at the time. Prior to the current age, guys like him played until they were 40 or so

Baseball card stats wise, i expected .330/30/120 the first 5 years or so, then like, you know, 290/20/100 at the end. Because he was albert pujols.

After what we got from albert pujols, the machine, now im scared to sign guys older than like 24

Its like me dating pretty much. I dont like to date women over 30, because of albert pujols. Or at least thats what i tell them when they call me shallow.

[ten ocho recon scout]

4 hours ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

I do hold his weight against him. I understand it's hard to maintain that drive but I see guys like Nelson Cruz and David Ortiz, who were never known for their fitness, maintain their fitness levels and their production into their late 30's.

Theres a 52 year old woman at my gym that runs circles around everyone but the pro fighters in cardio. And she does crossfit before she comes to my place every morning...

Also a 53 year old dude thats a sparring partner for 2 pros 5 days a week.... his body looks like hes in college.

I get that you have to work harder as you age. But albert has zero excuses. He can afford a personal chef with a phenom diet. He can build a world class gym at his house. He gets roughly 5 months off a year, and during his worktime, hes actually paid to train. Its on him that he let it go