The race to a top 5 draft pick(Gameday thread) Angels @ Braves Detmers pitching 10:35 A.M start

[beatlesrule]

2 minutes ago, Ace-Of-Diamonds said:

Why not bunt every AB until they quit shifting...

Aside from the fact that a lot of players either don't know how to bunt or aren't good at it, I've heard players say they would rather go 2-4 with a double or potential HR than go 4-4 with all bunt singles.

[CaliAngel]

1 minute ago, Ace-Of-Diamonds said:

Why not bunt every AB until they quit shifting...

Me and my dad have been doing nothing but saying this since the shifts started and have been doing nothing but saying this since people have started defending banning the shift. 

[CaliAngel]

Just now, beatlesrule said:

Aside from the fact that a lot of players either don't know how to bunt or aren't good at it, I've heard players say they would rather go 2-4 with a double or potential HR than go 4-4 with all bunt singles.

Which is spectacularly insane and lazy and MLB shouldn't reward them for that mentality.

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

Just now, beatlesrule said:

Aside from the fact that a lot of players either don't know how to bunt or aren't good at it, I've heard players say they would rather go 2-4 with a double or potential HR than go 4-4 with all bunt singles.

How do they feel about going 0-4 with 3 SOs...

[beatlesrule]

2 minutes ago, Ace-Of-Diamonds said:

How do they feel about going 0-4 with 3 SOs...

They think the risk is worth it and in this day and age, striking out is no big deal. OPS and SLG% are all the rage and so if a guy has a lot of bunt singles, his AVG and OBP would be high but players get paid to slug and drives runs in so the guy that hits into the shift and sneaks 1 or 2 through with either a home run or gets an rbi is likely going to get paid more even if he strikes out or hits into the shift the other at bats.

[beatlesrule]

9 minutes ago, CaliAngel said:

Which is spectacularly insane and lazy and MLB shouldn't reward them for that mentality.

There are a lot of posters here that would rather see Mike Trout play his entire career as an Angel and the Angels DON'T win a World Series than the Angels trading Trout and then WINNING a World Series. That blows my mind but it just shows you that people have different priorities and it's the same with these players that don't want to bunt.

[CaliAngel]

Love hearing this song on Sundays. 

Hope it never goes away.

[PattyD22]

1 minute ago, beatlesrule said:

There are a lot of posters here that would rather see Mike Trout play his entire career as an Angel and the Angels DON'T win a World Series than the Angels trading Trout and WINNING a World Series. That blows my mind but it just shows you that people have different priorities and it's the same with these players that don't want to bunt.

I’m not sure this is entirely true @beatlesrule.

But that’s just my opinion.

[Stradling]

12 minutes ago, beatlesrule said:

Aside from the fact that a lot of players either don't know how to bunt or aren't good at it, I've heard players say they would rather go 2-4 with a double or potential HR than go 4-4 with all bunt singles.

I’d love to see a link to that quote. 

[Angelsjunky]

6 minutes ago, beatlesrule said:

There are a lot of posters here that would rather see Mike Trout play his entire career as an Angel and the Angels DON'T win a World Series than the Angels trading Trout and then WINNING a World Series. That blows my mind but it just shows you that people have different priorities and it's the same with these players that don't want to bunt.

You're setting up a false premise, though: as if those are real choices. If they were real choices, I'm guessing 99% of posters would prefer trading Trout and winning a WS than keeping Trout and not. But the "lot of posters" you're talking about probably don't think that trading Trout inherently increases the team's chances of winning the WS.

 

[Blarg]

As usual, thread titles jinx the Angels. 

[PattyD22]

1 minute ago, Angelsjunky said:

You're setting up a false premise, though: as if those are real choices. If they were real choices, I'm guessing 99% of posters would prefer trading Trout and winning a WS than keeping Trout and not. But the "lot of posters" you're talking about probably don't think that trading Trout inherently increases the team's chances of winning the WS.

 

I’m pretty sure “a lot of posters” don’t give 2 shits about how the Angels win a World Series, with or without Mike Trout.

That was my point also.

[CaliAngel]

5 minutes ago, beatlesrule said:

There are a lot of posters here that would rather see Mike Trout play his entire career as an Angel and the Angels DON'T win a World Series than the Angels trading Trout and then WINNING a World Series.

I don't think one guarantees another as some drastic changes needed to be made long before the situation they're in now. Trout just seemed checked out before his current injury. Hard to blame Ohtani for not wanting to stay.

If winning a World Series means saying good bye then so be it, if it's hard to not see at this point the Angels have no business being a "big market team" beside their stupid Los Angeles name nothing will.

But combine that with their absolutely horrific reputation at recognizing and acquiring talent it's hard to let guys go (Trout & Ohtani) who actually have consistent success. 

[beatlesrule]

9 minutes ago, PattyD22 said:

I’m not sure this is entirely true @beatlesrule.

But that’s just my opinion.

 

3 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

You're setting up a false premise, though: as if those are real choices. If they were real choices, I'm guessing 99% of posters would prefer trading Trout and winning a WS than keeping Trout and not. But the "lot of posters" you're talking about probably don't think that trading Trout inherently increases the team's chances of winning the WS.

 

UGH, we've gone over this already:

21 posters here voted to keep Trout and no world series vs 31 that want the World Series. So no, 99 percent of those that voted wouldn't want a World Series more. 

[beatlesrule]

For anyone that doubts my posts about what players think of the shift:

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/24049347/mlb-hitters-explain-why-just-beat-shift

[Angelsjunky]

1 minute ago, beatlesrule said:

 

UGH, we've gone over this already:

21 posters here voted to keep Trout and no world series vs 31 that want the World Series. So no, 99 percent of those that voted wouldn't want a World Series more. 

That was four years ago. Why don't you make the same poll now, and let's see. The situation is a bit different now.

[Stradling]

Another solid contribution 

[CaliAngel]

How did that Acuña hit get past our infield? Looks like there were almost 2 defenders within 20 feet of the line?

[Angelsjunky]

@beatlesrule, I made a poll for you:

 

[beatlesrule]

1 minute ago, Angelsjunky said:

That was four years ago. Why don't you make the same poll now, and let's see. The situation is a bit different now.

So what? 4 years ago, posters here wanted to see Trout over a World Series. Why would it matter now? It wasn't would you rather have Trout for 4 more years with no World Series or no Trout for 4 years with a World Series win. The poll asked for Trout's whole career. Sure, posters can change their mind in 4 years but when the poll was made, 21 posters said they want to see Trout play his whole career with the Angels. Read some of their responses as to why.

[CaliAngel]

1 minute ago, beatlesrule said:

So what? 4 years ago, posters here wanted to see Trout over a World Series. Why would it matter now? It wasn't would you rather have Trout for 4 more years with no World Series or no Trout for 4 years with a World Series win. The poll asked for Trout's whole career. Sure, posters can change their mind in 4 years but when the poll was made, 21 posters said they want to see Trout play his whole career with the Angels. Read some of their responses as to why.

I agree.

You can't just make a poll 4 years after the fact when hindsight is 20/20 and act like NOW you'd rather go the other way.

It doesn't work that way.

4 years ago this is what people wanted, so this is what they'e getting. The organization made that bet too, and this is the outcome.

Now they're in a big effing hole and nobody seems to have any quick fix except rebuild and hope we have any semblence of a team in 5 years.

[Angelsjunky]

3 minutes ago, beatlesrule said:

So what? 4 years ago, posters here wanted to see Trout over a World Series. Why would it matter now? It wasn't would you rather have Trout for 4 more years with no World Series or no Trout for 4 years with a World Series win. The poll asked for Trout's whole career. Sure, posters can change their mind in 4 years but when the poll was made, 21 posters said they want to see Trout play his whole career with the Angels. Read some of their responses as to why.

It matters because what you say above is that "a lot of posters WOULD RATHER," which implies the present. At the least, might as well see what the current tenor is. Four years is a long time, in baseball years.

[DMVol]

Walsh should have bunted again….

[beatlesrule]

On 6/14/2018 at 12:26 PM, The Ghost of Bob Starr said:

This was an excellent post in the thread about how we’d feel about Mike leaving. 

So would you rather have him for life and fail to win another ring, or would you rather say adios to win one or more titles during his career?  

As someone who almost died when the Angels let Ryan go, I’d rather have Trout for his entire career over the title.  

Which would you prefer? 

 

On 6/14/2018 at 2:38 PM, mtangelsfan said:

Trout may be the best player that has ever played this game.

Nuff said.

 

On 6/14/2018 at 3:21 PM, Taylor said:

Trout for life, assuming the Angels can at least contend every year and make the postseason several times while he's on the team, even if they never win the WS.

 

On 6/14/2018 at 6:50 PM, Stradling said:

Bullshit I’m not a fan of the team.  I would rather have Trout for his entire career than win a World Series without him during his career.  

 

On 6/14/2018 at 6:55 PM, Stradling said:

I agree with this.  I have seen the Angels win the World Series.  I have never seen The Angels have an inner circle HOFer play his entire career here.  To me that holds more value.

 

On 6/15/2018 at 7:28 AM, T.G. said:

I've given this some additional thought...

For me, what made 2002 extra special was the fact that most of that team was home grown.  Salmon, Anderson, Glaus, Erstad, Molina, Kennedy, Washburn, Lackey, K-Rod, Shields, etc.  That made it more meaningful, IMO.  Seeing that particular group win it all felt amazing.  They were "our" guys and that made 2002 extra gratifying.  As great as it was as a fan - I really wanted it for that group of guys. 

I don't have the same affinity for this team.  I love Mike Trout - but most of the team came from somewhere else (except for the starting pitchers). The Angels haven't put together a home grown team of top talent in years.  Even though I still want to see this team win it all, it just won't mean as much.  I came to that realization in the last couple days. 

If the Angels never win another title, I will be grateful for 2002.  If they win another title, I will enjoy every moment of it - but it won't be as special as 2002. 

So... what does that mean?  It means that I could live with having Mike Trout as an Angel for the rest of his career and not see the team win a WS with him because I will always have 2002.  Obviously, my preference is to see the Angels win it with Trout - but I can live with the idea that they might not with him.  As I typed that - I will admit that I cringed.  Again, I want championships.  I really do.  But... I do get a certain satisfaction in knowing that the player who may go down in history as the greatest of all time is "ours."  It's hard to give that up.  The thought of Trout wearing another uniform would make me sick. 

Maybe one of the reasons many of us are so excited about what the Angels have in the minor leagues is because we are hoping for a similar story to 2002 - where "our" home grown talent rises up to do the amazing thing of winning it all.  When that happens - it may or may not happen with Trout on this team.  Who knows?

I'll also add that I will always be disappointed that Jered Weaver didn't make it to the biggest stage in baseball.  I would have loved to see him have that experience because he has meant so much to this franchise and its fan base. 

One last thing... I may change my mind again tomorrow about all of this.  It's not an easy question to answer and despite what some of you are posting - there really is no right or wrong answer.  We all have different perspectives. 

 

[daygloman]

Remember earlier in the season they played like "today", often.

WTF happened?