Angels sign Phil Nevin to a one year deal

[cysomeawfulpitcher]

3 hours ago, Hubs said:

Maddon would've made the playoffs. Sorry, but Nevin did a terrible terrible job and was in way over his head. 

Damn!

[Angels 1961]

2 hours ago, Swordsman78 said:

IF the Angels win tonight, I will donate my spare avatar to Hubs to use in 2023.  You guys can hold me to it.

Nevin's eyes looking up that is a very good sign. Manager of year in 2023 WS title number 2 I can see it happening.

[Angels 1961]

2 hours ago, T.G. said:

Take me off ignore

[Stradling]

15 minutes ago, Angels 1961 said:

Take me off ignore

Hey, stop trolling him. You know he has you on ignore, he does that to not have to deal with you. When you quote him he gets alerts.  Stop. 

[failos]

Good news. I like Nevin.

[khouse]

6 hours ago, Inside Pitch said:

I think Maddon was the biggest obstacle there was.  I fully believe he painted Minasian into a corner prior to last off-season.  I'd wager a great deal he was the reason the defensive positioning was as awful as it was those first two years and that those decisions hurt the team much more than any of his witticisms ever helped.   And we can all see from reading everything he's said since being canned that the man was not on board with baseball as it's played today and he was in conflict with the front office.  

Yes...because only when compared to Maddon can Minasian (even remotely) look good/competent...

[ArkyAngelsFan]

5 hours ago, Trendon said:

That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever read on this website.

So Maddon would’ve turned Kurt Suzuki, Phil Gosselin, Jared Walsh, Jose Rojas, Tyler Wade, Jonathan Villar, Juan Lagares, Jack Mayfield, Magneuris Sierra, Jo Adell, David MacKinnon, Ryan Aguilar, Steven Duggar, Aaron Whitefield, Michael Stefanic, and Chad Wallach from below replacement levels players into a quality supporting cast for a team that lost Trout and Rendon to injuries?

Not to pick or anything but you forgot Max Stassi.

Just sayin'

~ArkyAngelsFan~

[Vegas Halo Fan]

7 hours ago, Hubs said:

And Phil is 14 games under .500 entering today.

That has more to do with the roster than any strategic moves. As constructed from top to bottom, this is not a major league club.

[NYC Angel Fan]

7 hours ago, jsnpritchett said:

I'm genuinely surprised that anyone thought that this WOULDN'T be what happened.  It makes zero sense from either the Angels' side or a potential new manager's perspective to bring in someone new until the ownership situation is resolved.

Because, of course, that was the thinking the last time the Angels were sold and the new owner cleaned house. Makes total sense.

[khouse]

5 hours ago, Trendon said:

That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever read on this website.

So Maddon would’ve turned Kurt Suzuki, Phil Gosselin, Jared Walsh, Jose Rojas, Tyler Wade, Jonathan Villar, Juan Lagares, Jack Mayfield, Magneuris Sierra, Jo Adell, David MacKinnon, Ryan Aguilar, Steven Duggar, Aaron Whitefield, Michael Stefanic, and Chad Wallach from below replacement levels players into a quality supporting cast for a team that lost Trout and Rendon to injuries?

Um...I think you want to blame Minasian for most of these right? I mean...no fan of Joe's whatsoever as, I would, definitely like to forget all of his idiotic, in-game decisions that cost the Angels wins. But, sadly I can't because only in the world of make-believe has Nevin not equaled or even, seemingly, surpassed him in this department that no one can deny or even begin to debate...

[jsnpritchett]

1 minute ago, NYC Angel Fan said:

Because, of course, that was the thinking the last time the Angels were sold and the new owner cleaned house. Makes total sense.

I can't even tell if you're trying to be sarcastic, but in case you're not, obviously the situation was completely different the last time the team was sold. 

[BTH]

1 minute ago, khouse said:

Um...I think you want to blame Minasian for most of these right? I mean...no fan of Joe's whatsoever as, I would, definitely like to forget all of his idiotic, in-game decisions that cost the Angels wins. But, sadly I can't because only in the world of make-believe has Nevin not equaled or even surpassed him in this department that no one can deny or even begin to debate...

You might want to re-read my post and the post I was quoting.

My point was that Minasian built a team with horrible position player depth, making it impossible for any manager to take this team to the playoffs.

[fan_since79]

2 hours ago, Angels 1961 said:

Nevin's eyes looking up that is a very good sign. Manager of year in 2023 WS title number 2 I can see it happening.

You forgot the sarcasm tag.

 

[Jay]

2 hours ago, Angels 1961 said:

Nevin's eyes looking up that is a very good sign. Manager of year in 2023 WS title number 2 I can see it happening.

Yes and Ohtani signs an extension for life... roll credits.

 

[NYC Angel Fan]

1 hour ago, jsnpritchett said:

I can't even tell if you're trying to be sarcastic, but in case you're not, obviously the situation was completely different the last time the team was sold. 

I thought the sarcasm was modestly successful. :) 

I don't agree with your take on this. Number one, as fans, Arte Moreno's financial interests don't have to be ours. You can make the argument that these interests form the bounds of what is possible, but that doesn't mean posters on a fan forum have to internalize this perspective. (I mean, if I just want to engage with the management point of view, I'll go to the Angels' mlb.com website.)

Number two, the need for a potential clean slate really would depend on the owner and on the manager's contract.

If you are signing a Terry Francona (or even a Don Mattingly (yikes)) to a 5-year deal, then yes, that contract could theoretically be somewhat of a very limited albatross. I say limited, because, as best as I can tell, the manager's salary doesn't count against the luxury tax. If you get a relatively deep-pocketed ownership group, then a 3-year contract, for example, is a relative drop in the bucket to them (which is why it is not uncommon for managers and GMs get fired well before their contract is supposed to end). If you hire a less experienced manager, though— or sign Phil Nevin to a multiyear contract— then the money outlay is even more negligible, relatively speaking. 

If we get a new owner who finds eating 2 years of a manager's salary is too much of a financial burden, then there's going to be a lot worse long-term problems for the organization than making a single unsuitable managerial hire for this year. And when you look at the Angels' financial upside, I would be very surprised if they did not have an owner with deep pockets. 

So that brings us to the Nevin hire. What do we know about him? We have a body of work with this team. And he was 14 games under .500  after he took over a more or less .500 team with more than half the season to go. Yes, there were injuries (which there were under Maddon, as another poster pointed out), and the issues for this team did start under Maddon. However, the Nevin-managed Angels looked like an Angels team of the dark days of the 90's-- rudderless, lacking heart, not resilient. And say what you will about Joe Maddon, but the team played for him, in terms of effort. The team seemed to have an identity. Now, maybe it was a failed one, but Nevin was a whole other level worse.

Instead, the Angels should have found somebody else to manage-- even somebody with no prior managerial experience-- because, at least in that scenario, you don't know that you're getting a manager who won't lead you to the promised land. (Though, to be clear, I am not expecting a trip to the promised land next year-- just would like to think they have a puncher's shot of getting to the postseason.)

[jsnpritchett]

18 minutes ago, NYC Angel Fan said:

I thought the sarcasm was modestly successful. :) 

I don't agree with your take on this. Number one, as fans, Arte Moreno's financial interests don't have to be ours. You can make the argument that these interests form the bounds of what is possible, but that doesn't mean posters on a fan forum have to internalize this perspective. (I mean, if I just want to engage with the management point of view, I'll go to the Angels' mlb.com website.)

Number two, the need for a potential clean slate really would depend on the owner and on the manager's contract.

If you are signing a Terry Francona (or even a Don Mattingly (yikes)) to a 5-year deal, then yes, that contract could theoretically be somewhat of a very limited albatross. I say limited, because, as best as I can tell, the manager's salary doesn't count against the luxury tax. If you get a relatively deep-pocketed ownership group, then a 3-year contract, for example, is a relative drop in the bucket to them (which is why it is not uncommon for managers and GMs get fired well before their contract is supposed to end). If you hire a less experienced manager, though— or sign Phil Nevin to a multiyear contract— then the money outlay is even more negligible, relatively speaking. 

If we get a new owner who finds eating 2 years of a manager's salary is too much of a financial burden, then there's going to be a lot worse long-term problems for the organization than making a single unsuitable managerial hire for this year. And when you look at the Angels' financial upside, I would be very surprised if they did not have an owner with deep pockets. 

So that brings us to the Nevin hire. What do we know about him? We have a body of work with this team. And he was 14 games under .500  after he took over a more or less .500 team with more than half the season to go. Yes, there were injuries (which there were under Maddon, as another poster pointed out), and the issues for this team did start under Maddon. However, the Nevin-managed Angels looked like an Angels team of the dark days of the 90's-- rudderless, lacking heart, not resilient. And say what you will about Joe Maddon, but the team played for him, in terms of effort. The team seemed to have an identity. Now, maybe it was a failed one, but Nevin was a whole other level worse.

Instead, the Angels should have found somebody else to manage-- even somebody with no prior managerial experience-- because, at least in that scenario, you don't know that you're getting a manager who won't lead you to the promised land. (Though, to be clear, I am not expecting a trip to the promised land next year-- just would like to think they have a puncher's shot of getting to the postseason.)

[Swordsman78]

28 minutes ago, NYC Angel Fan said:

I thought the sarcasm was modestly successful. :) 

I don't agree with your take on this. Number one, as fans, Arte Moreno's financial interests don't have to be ours. You can make the argument that these interests form the bounds of what is possible, but that doesn't mean posters on a fan forum have to internalize this perspective. (I mean, if I just want to engage with the management point of view, I'll go to the Angels' mlb.com website.)

Number two, the need for a potential clean slate really would depend on the owner and on the manager's contract.

If you are signing a Terry Francona (or even a Don Mattingly (yikes)) to a 5-year deal, then yes, that contract could theoretically be somewhat of a very limited albatross. I say limited, because, as best as I can tell, the manager's salary doesn't count against the luxury tax. If you get a relatively deep-pocketed ownership group, then a 3-year contract, for example, is a relative drop in the bucket to them (which is why it is not uncommon for managers and GMs get fired well before their contract is supposed to end). If you hire a less experienced manager, though— or sign Phil Nevin to a multiyear contract— then the money outlay is even more negligible, relatively speaking. 

If we get a new owner who finds eating 2 years of a manager's salary is too much of a financial burden, then there's going to be a lot worse long-term problems for the organization than making a single unsuitable managerial hire for this year. And when you look at the Angels' financial upside, I would be very surprised if they did not have an owner with deep pockets. 

So that brings us to the Nevin hire. What do we know about him? We have a body of work with this team. And he was 14 games under .500  after he took over a more or less .500 team with more than half the season to go. Yes, there were injuries (which there were under Maddon, as another poster pointed out), and the issues for this team did start under Maddon. However, the Nevin-managed Angels looked like an Angels team of the dark days of the 90's-- rudderless, lacking heart, not resilient. And say what you will about Joe Maddon, but the team played for him, in terms of effort. The team seemed to have an identity. Now, maybe it was a failed one, but Nevin was a whole other level worse.

Instead, the Angels should have found somebody else to manage-- even somebody with no prior managerial experience-- because, at least in that scenario, you don't know that you're getting a manager who won't lead you to the promised land. (Though, to be clear, I am not expecting a trip to the promised land next year-- just would like to think they have a puncher's shot of getting to the postseason.)

 

[Puget Sound Angel]

Lazy move.

Management is just blowing off the hiring of a real manager on to the new owners.

[Angels 1961]

8 hours ago, Puget Sound Angel said:

Lazy move.

Management is just blowing off the hiring of a real manager on to the new owners.

Which new owners would want

[Hubs]

13 hours ago, NYC Angel Fan said:

I thought the sarcasm was modestly successful. :) 

I don't agree with your take on this. Number one, as fans, Arte Moreno's financial interests don't have to be ours. You can make the argument that these interests form the bounds of what is possible, but that doesn't mean posters on a fan forum have to internalize this perspective. (I mean, if I just want to engage with the management point of view, I'll go to the Angels' mlb.com website.)

Number two, the need for a potential clean slate really would depend on the owner and on the manager's contract.

If you are signing a Terry Francona (or even a Don Mattingly (yikes)) to a 5-year deal, then yes, that contract could theoretically be somewhat of a very limited albatross. I say limited, because, as best as I can tell, the manager's salary doesn't count against the luxury tax. If you get a relatively deep-pocketed ownership group, then a 3-year contract, for example, is a relative drop in the bucket to them (which is why it is not uncommon for managers and GMs get fired well before their contract is supposed to end). If you hire a less experienced manager, though— or sign Phil Nevin to a multiyear contract— then the money outlay is even more negligible, relatively speaking. 

If we get a new owner who finds eating 2 years of a manager's salary is too much of a financial burden, then there's going to be a lot worse long-term problems for the organization than making a single unsuitable managerial hire for this year. And when you look at the Angels' financial upside, I would be very surprised if they did not have an owner with deep pockets. 

So that brings us to the Nevin hire. What do we know about him? We have a body of work with this team. And he was 14 games under .500  after he took over a more or less .500 team with more than half the season to go. Yes, there were injuries (which there were under Maddon, as another poster pointed out), and the issues for this team did start under Maddon. However, the Nevin-managed Angels looked like an Angels team of the dark days of the 90's-- rudderless, lacking heart, not resilient. And say what you will about Joe Maddon, but the team played for him, in terms of effort. The team seemed to have an identity. Now, maybe it was a failed one, but Nevin was a whole other level worse.

Instead, the Angels should have found somebody else to manage-- even somebody with no prior managerial experience-- because, at least in that scenario, you don't know that you're getting a manager who won't lead you to the promised land. (Though, to be clear, I am not expecting a trip to the promised land next year-- just would like to think they have a puncher's shot of getting to the postseason.)

Thank you for someone coming on my side finally. It's like the rest of you are excusing Nevin's atrocious management for June and July.

 

[NYC Angel Fan]

13 hours ago, jsnpritchett said:

That's cool. You go have fun being a shill for ownership. 

Clever use of the Internets though.

[NYC Angel Fan]

2 hours ago, Angels 1961 said:

Which new owners would want

Like Arte did?

I get that there is this tendency to bring in your own people in modern-day sports, but I have yet to see evidence proving that this is universal.

What is the evidence (not to be confused with the conventional wisdom among posters here) that if the Angels hired a manager who actually led them to a promising year in 2023 that— with 100% certainty— the new ownership would then want to hire their own person? 

[NYC Angel Fan]

The reason I am questioning this is that this feels like apologetics for ownership/management who are thumbing their nose at the Angels fanbase. 

[jsnpritchett]

26 minutes ago, NYC Angel Fan said:

That's cool. You go have fun being a shill for ownership. 

Clever use of the Internets though.

LOL.  Calling me a shill for ownership is truly hilarious.  Saying that I completely understand why this decision was made from a business standpoint is in no way "shilling" for ownership.  It's just facing reality.  I wish the Angels had a better owner who was more interested in investing in things that actually contribute to long-term success rather than putting window-dressing on the team year after year in an attempt to rope in the low-hanging fruit who'll come out to the stadium because of "names" on the roster.  And Moreno selling the team is (hopefully...) a huge step in that direction. The stop-gap deal for Nevin is a necessary part of the process.  Again, I'm honestly stunned that even the most rabid fan can't understand that.  Acknowledging that doesn't mean someone is a shill.  Grow up.

[Swordsman78]

2 hours ago, NYC Angel Fan said:

The reason I am questioning this is that this feels like apologetics for ownership/management who are thumbing their nose at the Angels fanbase.