Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

IGNORED

MLB Network Segment on Angels


Recommended Posts

50 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

That was probably when they furloughed people when there were no games last year. They have a lot more now. 

That's good to hear, but it would be cool to find that out for sure. The previous report said the Dodgers still had 88 scouts while the Angels had 8. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Taylor said:

That's good to hear, but it would be cool to find that out for sure. The previous report said the Dodgers still had 88 scouts while the Angels had 8. 

Even if they brought the furloughed scouts back, they still only have about a third as many scouts as the Dodgers do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Catwhoshatinthehat said:

Sure but Arte bought the team in 2003.  I know Vlad and others were brought in 2004-2009 but there's quite a few players who were around from the prior regime who contributed.  There's also Bane and the impact of others who are no longer with the franchise.  Obviously the last decade made me realize how much fun that stretch was but that successful stretch yielded 0 trips to the WS and 1 trip to the ALCS which still stings.  Should have had at least 1 WS out of that stretch.

 

53 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

I wonder what percentage of team WAR during that stretch came from players who were already in the organization when Moreno bought the team.

That 2004 team is important to look at, because in a way 2002 was a truly unexpected catching of lightning in a bottle, while 2004 was the beginning of a very strong run, over six years.

To somewhat address ALF's question, the best players on the 2004 team were, by WAR. Homegrown players are in bold (I'm including guys like Figgins and Kennedy, both of whom were prospects for other teams when the Angels acquired them; AK had played 33 games for the Cardinals, but was still a rookie):

Hitters: Vlad 5.9, Figgins 3.5, Kennedy 3.4, Guillen 2.7, DaVanon 2.1, Erstad 2.1, Eckstein 1.9, Glaus 1.5, Quinlan 1.1, J Molina 1.1, Anderson 0.8, B Molina 0.4

Pitchers: Escobar 4.2, F-Rod 3.7, Lackey 3.1, Shields 2.1, Washburn 1.7, Colon 1.4, Gregg 1.4, Ortiz 0.8, Donnelly 0.7, Sele 0.6, Percival 0.1

As you can see, most of the players were homegrown, many of whom were part of the 2002 team, although most of those players were in decline.

It is important to note that the two top players were part of that "Big Splash" free agent crop, Vlad and Escobar, plus Colon as the third. It may be that this is partly why Arte seems to think that big splashes are the key: it worked well the first time he did it, when he was a rookie GM.

But even so, it serves the point that the core of 2004 was homegrown players. These would be augmented by homegrown guys like Santana, Saunders, Weaver, Napoli, Kendrick, Aybar, Morales, Mathis, Kotchman, etc, with targeted complementary free agents like Orlando Cabrera, Juan Rivera, Maicer Izturis, Gary Matthews, Bobby Abreu, Brian Fuentes, and Torii Hunter.

But the point is, the bulk of the team in 2004-09 was homegrown, with only one real huge free agent in that entire span in Vlad, and the rest being complementary players, with a lesser star or two sprinkled in. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Angel Oracle said:

Face, Arte Moreno!

They mention everything wrong with how Moreno oversees this franchise.

Need better scouting and development.

Need better FO, not drinking buddies like Carpino and Kuhl.  You need a true baseball savvy president of operations! 

Need to not avoid signing solid enough FA pitchers like Stroman to short enough deal.

This is all on Arte Moreno!

Question: is Matt Wise really good enough to be a SOLID MLB pitching coach?

Can you explain the “face” comment.  Really I associate that wirh cherryh 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

Dan O'Dowd is smart and I generally agree with his take here. This is pretty sharp: "It's not just about spending money in this game, it's about developing an organization that operates wholly, from every aspect to make your big league team good."

That is so crucial. Every year we all try to pinpoint what is wrong and make suggestions (or rants) on what the Angels need to do to fix the various problems they have. But rarely do we touch upon the holistic nature of the organization, and certainly it doesn't seem that the Angels know how to address it, even recognize it. Hopefully Perry will be different, but that remains to be seen.

That said, to piggy-back on what @Jeff Fletchersaid, the key is to build an "85-win base" from within, and then supplement via free agency and trades, and hope for the best with injuries. Some orgs, like the Dodgers, can build a 95-win base, but that's really hard to do, and that 85-win base is well within reach for the Angels - not someday, but right now.

Before the season, it really looked like the Angels had close to that base, but then lost their two best position players for most of the year. There's no way to understate the devastating impact of losing a 9 WAR and 6 WAR player for 71% of the season (they played a total of 94 games out of 324 possible). 71% of 15 WAR is about 11 wins, which is a huge amount to make up with replacement players, and obviously it didn't work out.

As a side note, this also points to something someone said about the problem of "top-heavy" teams. Top-heavy doesn't necessarily mean not having a couple really expensive contracts, but it means that if you do, you have to balance it with cheap talent and have depth to draw from.

My sense is that the worst thing for the Angels to panic and go crazy in attempt to please Ohtani and Trout and improve appearances. That is, to make a bunch of trades--especially of young guys like Marsh and Detmers--and spend big to try to "fill the holes." What they should do is address specific needs from without, but remember what they have and build upon that:

  • Three superstars in Trout, Ohtani, and Rendon
  • A handful of cheap young pitchers in Sandoval, Suarez, Canning, Detmers, Rodriguez.
  • Two very talented young outfielders who showed positive development this year and should continue to improve in Marsh and Adell.
  • Some strong secondary players in Stassi, Walsh, and Fletcher.
  • An improving farm system, with a bunch of at least decent depth in the high minors, and some higher upside prospects in the low minors.

That's a solid core, and a lot to build with. It is enough to do two things at once:

- Focus on improving the organization holistically, specifically through scouting and player development (including better treatment of minor leaguers). It also seems that Perry is going to take a look on medical and training procedures, as he said he is going to look at every injury closely, to see how it happens (please make Trout do some yoga, Perry!). And...

- Supplement the team via smart free agent acquisitions and maybe a trade or two, but with the long-term in mind, not just immediate impact. 

But leave the above core untouched. Don't trade Marsh or Adell, and certainly not Detmers and Rodriguez. Those four aren't problems that need to be addressed, but the first signs in years that some degree of progress is being made in player development.

 

I've been ringing this bell for years.  Organizational culture is yuge.  The year to year mentality just stalls the process of doing things the right way.  Knowing when you have no shot at actually winning is as important as knowing when you do.  

Adding a Rendon is the right move if the timing is right.  Just like trading for Simmons.  Finish the puzzle or don't bother if you have no intention of doing so.  Don't sign Rendon and then Quintana or Bour or Teheran or Harvey or Cahill.  

We keep buying that $4000 suit and then put on flip flops and a swatch.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

I've been ringing this bell for years.  Organizational culture is yuge.  The year to year mentality just stalls the process of doing things the right way.  Knowing when you have no shot at actually winning is as important as knowing when you do.  

Adding a Rendon is the right move if the timing is right.  Just like trading for Simmons.  Finish the puzzle or don't bother if you have no intention of doing so.  Don't sign Rendon and then Quintana or Bour or Teheran or Harvey or Cahill.  

We keep buying that $4000 suit and then put on flip flops and a swatch.  

I think its more accurate to say we have a rolex and italian shoes, and are completely naked aside from that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dochalo said:

I've been ringing this bell for years.  Organizational culture is yuge.  The year to year mentality just stalls the process of doing things the right way.  Knowing when you have no shot at actually winning is as important as knowing when you do.  

Adding a Rendon is the right move if the timing is right.  Just like trading for Simmons.  Finish the puzzle or don't bother if you have no intention of doing so.  Don't sign Rendon and then Quintana or Bour or Teheran or Harvey or Cahill.  

We keep buying that $4000 suit and then put on flip flops and a swatch.  

Yup, this is exactly it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

Yup, this is exactly it.

and my point is that you don't need the rolex and the $600 pair of italian loafers to complete the outfit.  And also, it's not a fashion show.  It's about function over style.  This analogy is getting away from me a bit but here's a thought.  What if they'd been spending an extra 10-15 mil per year over the last 6 years on that next tier up of free agent and maybe a bit more on their scouting and development?

How much of that 60-90 mil would you have back right now if you had stretched the budget a bit and got a couple better performances on a team that wasn't really in it.  Then traded said player(s) at the deadline for guys that would now be cheap major league players.  Or guys that could be trade assets. 

they might value drafting and developing as much as the average team.  Which is kinda sad considering their resources but nonetheless it's probably about average or a bit below.  I just hate the half-assed year to year mentality.  There's seemingly been no consideration on how certain moves can actually be a value play for 2-3 years from now if you're realistic about your chances.  In other words, what if you had taken all the money you spent on Harvey, Cahill, Allen, Bour and Lucroy and sunk that into one really good player instead?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

and my point is that you don't need the rolex and the $600 pair of italian loafers to complete the outfit.  And also, it's not a fashion show.  It's about function over style.  This analogy is getting away from me a bit but here's a thought.  What if they'd been spending an extra 10-15 mil per year over the last 6 years on that next tier up of free agent and maybe a bit more on their scouting and development?

How much of that 60-90 mil would you have back right now if you had stretched the budget a bit and got a couple better performances on a team that wasn't really in it.  Then traded said player(s) at the deadline for guys that would now be cheap major league players.  Or guys that could be trade assets. 

they might value drafting and developing as much as the average team.  Which is kinda sad considering their resources but nonetheless it's probably about average or a bit below.  I just hate the half-assed year to year mentality.  There's seemingly been no consideration on how certain moves can actually be a value play for 2-3 years from now if you're realistic about your chances.  In other words, what if you had taken all the money you spent on Harvey, Cahill, Allen, Bour and Lucroy and sunk that into one really good player instead?  

Yes, I think you're onto something, which is also why I put the in the "pretender" category in that other thread I started.

Related to that, is spending $8-10M on a named veteran who ends up providing mediocre or worse production, vs. filling that spot with a no-name, cheap minor leaguer. I know not all--or most--minor leaguers can translate to the majors, but are Cahill and Harvey and Teheran really better than Barria? And if so, better enough to spend $8M+ on, vs $550K for Barria?

That isn't a problem if you have a deep farm, and draw upon the types of players we're just starting to see percolate up to the high minors: Daniel, Criswell, Diaz, Tyler, Naughton, etc. Maybe none of them (aside from Daniel) turns into anything more than an up-and-down guy, or a #6 starter, but they're a cheap option to fill in as necessary. So many of the one-year guys that Minasian and Eppler have plugged in have produced mediocre or worse results, and for far more money, which could be better used elsewhere. I mean, how many scouts would Cody Allen's salary have paid for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Angelsjunky said:

Yes, I think you're onto something, which is also why I put the in the "pretender" category in that other thread I started.

Related to that, is spending $8-10M on a named veteran who ends up providing mediocre or worse production, vs. filling that spot with a no-name, cheap minor leaguer. I know not all--or most--minor leaguers can translate to the majors, but are Cahill and Harvey and Teheran really better than Barria? And if so, better enough to spend $8M+ on, vs $550K for Barria?

That isn't a problem if you have a deep farm, and draw upon the types of players we're just starting to see percolate up to the high minors: Daniel, Criswell, Diaz, Tyler, Naughton, etc. Maybe none of them (aside from Daniel) turns into anything more than an up-and-down guy, or a #6 starter, but they're a cheap option to fill in as necessary. So many of the one-year guys that Minasian and Eppler have plugged in have produced mediocre or worse results, and for far more money, which could be better used elsewhere. I mean, how many scouts would Cody Allen's salary have paid for?

I really thought Quintana was the model for a high floor low ceiling pickup.   And it just goes to show that guys in that one year range for less than 10m are a complete and total crapshoot.  I'd love if one of the SS's ends up needing to sign a 1yr deal for about 18-20m.  But the team is in a different spot now than it was 5 years ago.  It's realistic to think they can make the playoffs.  4-5 years ago, it really wasn't.  So now maybe the approach gets a bit different.  They could be really good for 5 years if they play their cards right.  There's still gonna be a decent amount of adding and subtracting but I see a core of guys that was only a distant glimmer a few years ago.  I just hope they don't throw it all away for just the next two years.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

I really thought Quintana was the model for a high floor low ceiling pickup.   And it just goes to show that guys in that one year range for less than 10m are a complete and total crapshoot.  I'd love if one of the SS's ends up needing to sign a 1yr deal for about 18-20m.  But the team is in a different spot now than it was 5 years ago.  It's realistic to think they can make the playoffs.  4-5 years ago, it really wasn't.  So now maybe the approach gets a bit different.  They could be really good for 5 years if they play their cards right.  There's still gonna be a decent amount of adding and subtracting but I see a core of guys that was only a distant glimmer a few years ago.  I just hope they don't throw it all away for just the next two years.  

Yes, I'm on the same page. The most damage I worry about is trading away the young guys and/or high upside prospects. I don't think Minasian would do that, and hope he gets the "O'Dowd Perspective," but we just don't know him well enough yet.

Some damage can be done via free agency though, as well, like handing out another mega-contract to a position player. But given the franchise's history, it is hard imagining them doing that yet again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

Yes, I'm on the same page. The most damage I worry about is trading away the young guys and/or high upside prospects. I don't think Minasian would do that, and hope he gets the "O'Dowd Perspective," but we just don't know him well enough yet.

Some damage can be done via free agency though, as well, like handing out another mega-contract to a position player. But given the franchise's history, it is hard imagining them doing that yet again. 

that's my biggest concern.  That Minasian won't have any more money than usual to spend and that he gets bullied into making some damaging trades.  The farm went 180 from before where we had a few high end guys but no depth.  Now we have some depth and few if any high end guys.  

My ideal route would be to spend for the next 2-3 years only.  Stay away from the mega contracts.  Even if it means spending a bit more on 1 year or maybe 2 year deals.  

As I've said many times around this joint, meaningful trades are the very last thing you do to complete your team.  Stick with the conservative route until the team proves they're worthy of that big trade.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

that's my biggest concern.  That Minasian won't have any more money than usual to spend and that he gets bullied into making some damaging trades.  The farm went 180 from before where we had a few high end guys but no depth.  Now we have some depth and few if any high end guys.  

My ideal route would be to spend for the next 2-3 years only.  Stay away from the mega contracts.  Even if it means spending a bit more on 1 year or maybe 2 year deals.  

As I've said many times around this joint, meaningful trades are the very last thing you do to complete your team.  Stick with the conservative route until the team proves they're worthy of that big trade.  

Yes, agree 100% on trades. Even more so, when their most tradable assets are all guys with good upside who could help the team for 6+ years (Marsh, Adell, Demters, Rodriguez). Those four should be protected at almost any cost, unless, of course, they could pry an equally high quality young player at a needed position (e.g. I'd be tempted by an Adell for Rutstchman swap, but I don't think it will happen...although it almost should. How about Adell + Barria?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

Yes, agree 100% on trades. Even more so, when their most tradable assets are all guys with good upside who could help the team for 6+ years (Marsh, Adell, Demters, Rodriguez). Those four should be protected at almost any cost, unless, of course, they could pry an equally high quality young player at a needed position (e.g. I'd be tempted by an Adell for Rutstchman swap, but I don't think it will happen...although it almost should. How about Adell + Barria?).

I would consider moving Detmers as the centerpiece for a guy that's TOR and has at least 3 years of control.  

And teams just don't give up top C prospects to my memory.  The position has almost become disposable unless you've got a top guy.  Stassi is one of the most underrated players on the Angels and I hated that trade.  But I hope they extend him.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Dochalo said:

they might value drafting and developing as much as the average team.  Which is kinda sad considering their resources but nonetheless it's probably about average or a bit below.  I just hate the half-assed year to year mentality.  There's seemingly been no consideration on how certain moves can actually be a value play for 2-3 years from now if you're realistic about your chances.  In other words, what if you had taken all the money you spent on Harvey, Cahill, Allen, Bour and Lucroy and sunk that into one really good player instead?  

I've been banging that drum for years - under Arte, there's been symptoms that baseball operations/player development are badly under-resourced compared to the class-leaders.  We can't know for certain, but on the other hand, teams that prioritize those things like the Dodgers, Rays, Cardinals, baseball people talk about them as model organizations - no one as *ever* said anything like that about the Angels - ever.

And the  results speak for themselves.  If we hadn't drafted Trout, this team would be the, uh, I dunno, what team is even more mediocre than the Angels the last 10 years, especially when it comes to developing talent?

Sadly, if Arte got religion *today* and began building an organization centered around "baseball", not marketing and advertising, and the finest scouting and development organization in baseball, Trout will be retired before we see the result.

Going back to the Autry years, we learned you can't build a team on expensive free-agents - the team core has to be built from within.  

The frustrating thing to me is that during the McCourt years, we could've raided the Dodgers for their operations and development system talent.  We might've had the chance to sign Friedman (guess we'll never know what happened there.)    We didn't do a thing.  

Most serious Angels fans wanted an owner who invested in an organization that could field a team that would compete for titles every season.  Instead we got slightly cheaper beer, a laughingstock of a name change and an endless parade of historically expensive and under-producing contracts.

And post-seasons spent watching other teams in the playoffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, DCAngelsFan said:

I've been banging that drum for years - under Arte, there's been symptoms that baseball operations/player development are badly under-resourced compared to the class-leaders.  We can't know for certain, but on the other hand, teams that prioritize those things like the Dodgers, Rays, Cardinals, baseball people talk about them as model organizations - no one as *ever* said anything like that about the Angels - ever.

And the  results speak for themselves.  If we hadn't drafted Trout, this team would be the, uh, I dunno, what team is even more mediocre than the Angels the last 10 years, especially when it comes to developing talent?

Sadly, if Arte got religion *today* and began building an organization centered around "baseball", not marketing and advertising, and the finest scouting and development organization in baseball, Trout will be retired before we see the result.

Going back to the Autry years, we learned you can't build a team on expensive free-agents - the team core has to be built from within.  

The frustrating thing to me is that during the McCourt years, we could've raided the Dodgers for their operations and development system talent.  We might've had the chance to sign Friedman (guess we'll never know what happened there.)    We didn't do a thing.  

Most serious Angels fans wanted an owner who invested in an organization that could field a team that would compete for titles every season.  Instead we got slightly cheaper beer, a laughingstock of a name change and an endless parade of historically expensive and under-producing contracts.

And post-seasons spent watching other teams in the playoffs.

actually they used to.  For awhile right before and early on when Arte bought the team.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I skim thru and didn't read all the post. Did anybody find it a little strange that Trout says "We have a lot of money, I trust Perry and the guys at the top, WE TALK EVERY DAY."  

 Do players talk to management every day? How much weight is given to Mike's input about team direction or which players they should try to get? I like Trout but shut up and hit the ball. 

Trading Ohtani and Adell should be strongly considered.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...