Angels in the Outfield (2022 Version)

[Chuck]

Pretty awesome that like Salmon, Erstad, GA and Edmonds we drafted and developed all of the current crop of outfielders.

[Jason]

The outfield looks set to be productive for years to come. Now if they could just get the infield guys on board

[bloodbrother]

Time to trade Trout for 7 good pitchers and profit!

[Second Base]

Edmonds and Marsh make a fine comp. Statistically, GA and Adell, if you squint (I'd be thrilled if Adell had a career like Anderson). Erstad and Ohtani wear the same number and Trout and Salmon both have the aquatic theme. 

Iglesias can be our Percival. Who would be our K-Rod though? Chris Rodriguez? Sam Bachman? 

[Second Base]

@Taylor Which part, the Adell-GA or the C-Rod/K-Rod?

[Taylor]

8 minutes ago, Second Base said:

@Taylor Which part, the Adell-GA or the C-Rod/K-Rod?

Rodist.

[Second Base]

4 minutes ago, Taylor said:

Rodist.

C-Rod speaks as much Spanish as @Chuckster70 does. 

[Taylor]

1 minute ago, Second Base said:

C-Rod speaks as much Spanish as @Chuckster70 does. 

[Chuck]

FWIW, this wasn't a post to compare our current outfielders to GA, Salmon, Erstad and Edmonds...but to point out that this is the first time we've had production of this caliber in the outfield and from our own farmhands to boot.

[Taylor]

Marsh should be playing every day.

[Angelsjunky]

3 minutes ago, Taylor said:

Marsh should be playing every day.

Ignoring context, sure. But are you saying that Adell and Ward should platoon? What is your solution?

I personally like the fact that there four outfielders who (arguably) should be starters. Maybe it becomes clear that one of the three (not including Trout) is significantly worse than the other two, but that will be sorted out in time. But it is a good problem to have, like the old saying "There's no such thing as too much starting pitching."

If that occurs, then the Angels either reduce one of them to a 4th outfielder role, or have a nice trade chip. But I think we need to get much deeper into the seasons, maybe to the point of getting all three about 150-200 PA or so to really assess where they're at.

[Taylor]

37 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

Ignoring context, sure. But are you saying that Adell and Ward should platoon? What is your solution?

I personally like the fact that there four outfielders who (arguably) should be starters. Maybe it becomes clear that one of the three (not including Trout) is significantly worse than the other two, but that will be sorted out in time. But it is a good problem to have, like the old saying "There's no such thing as too much starting pitching."

If that occurs, then the Angels either reduce one of them to a 4th outfielder role, or have a nice trade chip. But I think we need to get much deeper into the seasons, maybe to the point of getting all three about 150-200 PA or so to really assess where they're at.

I'm still not sold on Ward and think he should be the odd man out so that Marsh and Adell continue to get ABs.

[DMVol]

I'm good with 4 OF'ers.....just don't want to see Perry trade one for Kent Bottenfield.....

[Chuck]

Here's a question for you guys.

If you had to start your franchise with four Angels outfielders, which four would they be?

Current: Trout, Marsh, Ward, Adell

or 

Past: Salmon, Anderson, Edmonds, Erstad? 

[T.G.]

1 minute ago, Chuckster70 said:

Here's a question for you guys.

If you had to start your franchise with four Angels outfielders, which four would they be?

Current: Trout, Marsh, Ward, Adell

or 

Past: Salmon, Anderson, Edmonds, Erstad? 

That's easy. Salmon, Anderson and Erstad netted the Angels a WS title.

[Chuck]

7 minutes ago, True Grich said:

That's easy. Salmon, Anderson and Erstad netted the Angels a WS title.

Well it was just those four. I would say K-Rod, Lackey, Shields, Washburn, Ortiz, Speez, AK, Glaus, Molina, Eckstein had something to do with it too.

I wonder if GA, Salmon, Erstad would win a WS with Rendon, Ohtani, Sandoval, Syndergaard, Iglesias, Wade/Fletcher, Stassi, etc. etc.?

[T.G.]

Just now, Chuckster70 said:

Well it was just those four. I would say K-Rod, Lackey, Shields, Washburn, Ortiz, Speez, AK, Glaus, Molina, Eckstein had something to do with it too.

I wonder if GA, Salmon, Erstad would win a WS with Rendon, Ohtani, Sandoval, Syndergaard, Iglesias, Wade/Fletcher, Stassi, etc. etc.?

I was over simplifying the decision process...

But... the four guys you mentioned had long, strong careers... the current group is unproven (except for Trout, of course).  Bird in the hand...

[Angelsjunky]

3 hours ago, Taylor said:

I'm still not sold on Ward and think he should be the odd man out so that Marsh and Adell continue to get ABs.

I felt that way before the season, but started to think differently, and after ST I thought that Ward might have another level - which is pretty much what Maddon was saying.

Meaning, so far Maddon has been proven right by playing Ward every day. That doesn't mean it will continue all year long - and I imagine that as Ward cools off and finds whatever his level is, his playing time will adjust. But it is hard to bench a guy with a .528 OBP.

I mean, as much as I've been looking forward to an outfield of Marsh-Trout-Adell every day for years (or, really, Trout-Marsh-Adell), I think in the end you have to go with the best player. So far it has been Ward > Marsh > Adell. Long-term it might be reverse, or maybe Marsh equal or ahead of Adell. But as far as this season is concerned, I think there's a good chance that Ward will be better than at least Adell, maybe Marsh.

In the end, I think you play the best player. I imagine that all three will get hot and cold, and all will end up starting 110-130 games a piece.

 

[Blarg]

1 hour ago, Chuckster70 said:

Here's a question for you guys.

If you had to start your franchise with four Angels outfielders, which four would they be?

Current: Trout, Marsh, Ward, Adell

or 

Past: Salmon, Anderson, Edmonds, Erstad? 

I think Trout, Marsh, Salmon and Edmonds would be the best mix. 

[Vlad27Trout27]

It took a bit longer than what we wanted, but this was the ideal outcome we had hoped for when Eppler took over! We're finally getting that young spark into our rosters!

so far the young talent;

1st. Walsh; a close to an all-star gold glove type player that we have for cheap

2nd: Flecther: he hit his peak and kind of has fallen. Hopefully he can rebound

Rf; Marsh, Marsh is looking like an All-start out there

Lf: Ward,A little older and took sometime, but he looks like above-average player

Lf/Rf: Adell, the Jury is still out but he has damn looked much better after  the 1st series.

Sp: Sandy: looks like a boarderline 2, and at worst a solid 3 for us.

Sp: Detmers; I still see more of a 3 in him, just needs to command better what is gettign there.

Sp: Suarez: jury still out on if he should be a starter ot not. But, has shown to be a dominate Bp

SP/RP: Barria: has shown an un and down career as a starter, More of a 4/5. Has done a good job in the Bp this year

Sp: Canning; up and down. When healthy he looks like he could be a solid 3/4. 

RP: Ortega, at times looks like he's unhitable, and other types has trouble with Control. But has had a solid start to the year, and could play himself in as an late innin options

Rp: Warren; has struggle with command, but I'll give him time

 

Over all I would say a solid group of guys.  

[Angelsjunky]

1 hour ago, Chuckster70 said:

Here's a question for you guys.

If you had to start your franchise with four Angels outfielders, which four would they be?

Current: Trout, Marsh, Ward, Adell

or 

Past: Salmon, Anderson, Edmonds, Erstad? 

It is too soon to tell - mainly because we don't know how good three of the four current guys will become. 

Also, I know some used to get sick of hearing this back in the day, but Anderson was an overrated player, at least among Angels fans. He played during the height of the high-offense era, so his already only pretty good offensive numbers weren't quite as good as they looked. He had only two really good seasons by wRC+, and those were just in the 120s (meaning, at his best as a hitter, he was Jared Walsh last year). Most years he was just an average regular - only two seasons above 3 WAR, and only one true "star caliber" year (2003). I know they didn't have WAR back then, but I think it paints a decent picture of his value.

Salmon declined on the young side, and we didn't see the best version of Edmonds. Erstad had one great year, and a bunch of mediocre to pretty good ones.

With all three of Ward, Marsh, and Adell, we don't know their upside or their longevity. And of course there's the simple fact that players are rarely as good as you hope they'll be. But I'd probably take the current bunch, both because there's the promise of their upside and because, well, Trout. 

Edited April 25, 2022 by Angelsjunky

[Angelsjunky]

11 hours ago, Taylor said:

I'm still not sold on Ward and think he should be the odd man out 

@Lou for the alley-oop?

[Chuck]

7 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

It is too soon to tell - mainly because we don't know how good three of the four current guys will become. 

Also, I know some used to get sick of hearing this back in the day, but Anderson was an overrated player, at least among Angels fans. He played during the height of the high-offense era, so his already only pretty good offensive numbers weren't quite as good as they looked. He had only two really good seasons by wRC+, and those were just in the 120s (meaning, at his best as a hitter, he was Jared Walsh last year). Most years he was just an average regular - only two seasons above 3 WAR, and only one true "star caliber" year (2003). I know they didn't have WAR back then, but I think it paints a decent picture of his value.

Salmon declined on the young side, and we didn't see the best version of Edmonds. Erstad had one great year, and a bunch of mediocre to pretty good ones.

With all three of Ward, Marsh, and Adell, we don't know their upside or their longevity. And of course there's the simple fact that players are rarely as good as you hope they'll be. But I'd probably take the current bunch, both because there's the promise of their upside and because, well, Trout. 

Good take AJ. 

Just to be clear and I apologize for not making this 100% clear, I meant would you rather have the current outfield or past outfield quartet? 

[Angelsjunky]

2 minutes ago, Chuckster70 said:

Good take AJ. 

Just to be clear and I apologize for not making this 100% clear, I meant would you rather have the current outfield or past outfield quartet? 

Yeah, I know. In my last sentence I said I'd probably take the current bunch, but part of that is the promise of what could be, which is hard to resist.

I still smart at losing Edmonds, though, especially when you consider that if he had played his whole career as an Angel playing at the level he did with the Cardinals, he would have been the all-time franchise WAR leader until Trout surpassed his career total in 2019.

 

[arch stanton]

If you give me Trout and 3 cripples that's the group I'll take