What is the recipe for long term success?

[Dtwncbad]

Just now, floplag said:

So... more of the same.
No im not rattled, its been proven a failed approach.
Weve done that for the last how many years now?   What have we achieved?  If anything weve gone backwards.
Are you aware of one of the modern definitions of insanity about doing the same thing expecting a different result?

No not more of the same.

The approach is not failed.  The execution has failed.

The team needs better drafting.  Better player development.  Better choices in free agent signings.

 

[jsnpritchett]

Just now, Dtwncbad said:

That’s fine but then tell me why it is better to fill those roles with different players, just for the sake of not bringing back the same players?

The team has to win more games.  I am not seeing the problem with winning more games being on the backs of the role players.  They seem to be OK.

I think this year’s team will miss the playoffs because of a massive amount of injuries and a couple of bad runs (which do just happen sometimes).

I don’t really care if that exact group comes back or not but I am just saying they don’t, to me anyway, seem to be the problem.

 

Because most of those guys are just interchangeable pieces.  Why not at least initially aim higher, rather than just settling for what's familiar, when those guys have contributed little, if anything, to the team this season?

Recency and familiarity biases are real things and baseball fans fall prey to them constantly.  I am not saying ALL of those guys are terrible and NONE will contribute next season to the Angels or whatever team they're on.  I'm simply saying that it doesn't make much sense to just say "re-sign all these guys" without seeing what the other options are.

[Dtwncbad]

5 minutes ago, jsnpritchett said:

Because most of those guys are just interchangeable pieces.  Why not at least initially aim higher, rather than just settling for what's familiar, when those guys have contributed little, if anything, to the team this season?

Recency and familiarity biases are real things and baseball fans fall prey to them constantly.  I am not saying ALL of those guys are terrible and NONE will contribute next season to the Angels or whatever team they're on.  I'm simply saying that it doesn't make much sense to just say "re-sign all these guys" without seeing what the other options are.

We don’t really disagree.  I am always all for aiming higher.  That would be great.

But all things performance-wise being equal, I don’t really mind if that (equivalent, no better option) player is like a Grichuk since he was drafted by the Angels.

But aim higher?  Of course.  Count me in.  Nothing is more fun to root for than a winning team, so that comes first.  That’s the larger point we fully agree on.

[halodground]

12 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Go forward with the good group of young players they have now, and carefully supplement that core with smart free agent signings.

Agree wholeheartedly with this part of your statement.
 

I’m less confident that it is what is actually happening right now. Minasian has been placed in a pretty impossible position by an owner who doesn’t seem to get that he needs to fully commit to player development regardless of whether he has stars and a high payroll if sustainable success is the goal. He had to go all in and the team is likely worse in the long run because of it. Does giving Shohei $50 mil plus per year help with sustained success? That’s a difficult question to answer and I feel  from a probability standpoint, it’s a better bet to go with no. I think Neto, O’Hoppe, Detmers, etc are nice pieces moving forward. But I don’t see anyone as untouchable, or at least they shouldn’t be. The GM needs to be free to make moves that improve the team’s success in a sustainable way, not a tantamount concern of “making the postseason” for one specific year. Particularly with a flawed team that has been further impaired by a ridiculous number of injuries and wasn’t positioned well to make a run to begin with.

[Dtwncbad]

2 minutes ago, halodground said:

and wasn’t positioned well to make a run to begin with.

Well we certainly disagree on one thing.  

I think this year’s team (without the injuries) was actually very well positioned to make a run.

And there seems to be some good evidence that Moreno is listening to Minasian better today than he was in previous years.

 

[halodground]

9 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Well we certainly disagree on one thing.  

I think this year’s team (without the injuries) was actually very well positioned to make a run.

And there seems to be some good evidence that Moreno is listening to Minasian better today than he was in previous years.

 

I meant more from the perspective of where they were at the trade deadline.  Injuries were a known factor at that point and they had to leapfrog a lot of better constructed, deeper teams. If Trout, Rendon, O’Hoppe, and others were healthy and productive, that certainly would have made me more hopeful and more willing to go for it.

[Dtwncbad]

2 minutes ago, halodground said:

I meant more from the perspective of where they were at the trade deadline.  Injuries were a known factor at that point and they had to leapfrog a lot of better constructed, deeper teams. If Trout, Rendon, O’Hoppe, and others were healthy and productive, that certainly would have made me more hopeful and more willing to go for it.

I hope you don’t find me argumentative here but just making a point. . .

My frustration at the trade deadline is way too many fans view any deals at the trade deadline as being “buyers” going all in, or “sellers” committed to a rebuild.

The Angels were “buyers” to shore up the team because they did not want to surrender, but in no way were they “all in.”

They simply made a couple of trades willing to spend some of their capital to improve their chances of reaching the postseason.

But because they were “buyers” we have so many fans upset that they “went all in” and “traded away the future.”  I just can’t objectively get on board with this characterization of what happened.

There never seems to be space for honest conversations about what we are really witnessing.  Over reaction, I guess, is just more fun?

[floplag]

50 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

No not more of the same.

The approach is not failed.  The execution has failed.

The team needs better drafting.  Better player development.  Better choices in free agent signings.

 

And im sure that will all change before nest season starts.
Of course it is more of the same, how is this any different than whats been done year after year after year that has yet to yield and positive results.
When does your plan see this team being relevant again as we collectively have had this same discussion on this board every off season for as long as i can remember... and gone nowhere!
If there was ever a time for drastic, this is it. 

[Revad]

16 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

I hope you don’t find me argumentative here but just making a point. . .

My frustration at the trade deadline is way too many fans view any deals at the trade deadline as being “buyers” going all in, or “sellers” committed to a rebuild.

The Angels were “buyers” to shore up the team because they did not want to surrender, but in no way were they “all in.”

They simply made a couple of trades willing to spend some of their capital to improve their chances of reaching the postseason.

But because they were “buyers” we have so many fans upset that they “went all in” and “traded away the future.”  I just can’t objectively get on board with this characterization of what happened.

There never seems to be space for honest conversations about what we are really witnessing.  Over reaction, I guess, is just more fun?

We’re all a little pissed off about the way things unfolded.  What your saying makes good sense to me.

[halodground]

Discussion is healthy, not argumentative. I don’t agree that they weren’t all in however. I think that was as “all in” as Perry was able to go, either due to budget constraints or availability of equitable return. I have no doubt that if he could’ve landed a Verlander or Scherzer in a way that made them better this year, he would have. He just didn’t have the prospect capital to do it, and what it would’ve taken from the 26 man roster didn’t position them better to succeed. From my viewpoint they didn’t really trade away the future with the moves they made (we aren’t talking about surefire all-stars that were traded, just the kind of talent we should have in our system continuously), I just don’t think those moves help with sustainable success AND they weren’t enough to push them ahead of the other teams in the race. It’s the combination that irks me. 

[Dtwncbad]

4 minutes ago, floplag said:

And im sure that will all change before nest season starts.

No it has already changed over the last two years and has taken two years to see results.

The 2024 opening day lineup will likely have 8 of the 9 starters either drafted by the Angels or traded for and promoted to the bigs by the Angels.

They haven’t had that kind of results in a long, long time.

You are being chicken little and ignoring reality.

 

[Revad]

5 minutes ago, halodground said:

Discussion is healthy, not argumentative. I don’t agree that they weren’t all in however. I think that was as “all in” as Perry was able to go, either due to budget constraints or availability of equitable return. I have no doubt that if he could’ve landed a Verlander or Scherzer in a way that made them better this year, he would have. He just didn’t have the prospect capital to do it, and what it would’ve taken from the 26 man roster didn’t position them better to succeed. From my viewpoint they didn’t really trade away the future with the moves they made (we aren’t talking about surefire all-stars that were traded, just the kind of talent we should have in our system continuously), I just don’t think those moves help with sustainable success AND they weren’t enough to push them ahead of the other teams in the race. It’s the combination that irks me. 

Perry was trying to do this in a weird sellers market.  He overpaid because he had to, I think the roster has improved during this period.  Not his fault the players aren’t producing.

Edited August 8, 2023 by Revad

[Dtwncbad]

12 minutes ago, Revad said:

We’re all a little pissed off about the way things unfolded.  What your saying makes good sense to me.

I’m not pissed they made the trades they made.  I am pretty annoyed they are losing.  But shit happens and you have to move on.

I will keep some minuscule hope until they are eliminated.  Basically they need like a 10 game win streak or a 12-2 streak right now to correct for what just happened.  That’s very unlikely but they are not eliminated yet.

I also think the team can contend next year with the right offseason moves, and this is why I am not bothered by the trades they made.

 

[Revad]

4 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

I’m not pissed they made the trades they made.  I am pretty annoyed they are losing.  But shit happens and you have to move on.

I will keep some minuscule hope until they are eliminated.  Basically they need like a 10 game win streak or a 12-2 streak right now to correct for what just happened.  That’s very unlikely but they are not eliminated yet.

I also think the team can contend next year with the right offseason moves, and this is why I am not bothered by the trades they made.

 

I think people are underestimating our chances next year.  

[jsnpritchett]

8 minutes ago, Revad said:

I think people are underestimating our chances next year.  

I don't think anyone has any clue how the team will do next year, given what is known at the moment (i.e., the actual players they have under control for 2024 and not speculation on who else might/might not be on the team).

[floplag]

27 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

No it has already changed over the last two years and has taken two years to see results.

The 2024 opening day lineup will likely have 8 of the 9 starters either drafted by the Angels or traded for and promoted to the bigs by the Angels.

They haven’t had that kind of results in a long, long time.

You are being chicken little and ignoring reality.

 

If thats how you measure success over the actual standings, all i can say is good luck with that. 

[floplag]

15 minutes ago, Revad said:

I think people are underestimating our chances next year.  

We have no clue what the roster will even look like next year right now.  We have like 10 guys on the 25 man looking at being UFA.
Assuming anything about next year right now makes little sense. 

[Dtwncbad]

1 minute ago, floplag said:

If thats how you measure success over the actual standings, all i can say is good luck with that. 

Bingo.

Yes, I am able to look at, and make a judgment on, the condition of the roster independent of the standings.

 

[Revad]

9 minutes ago, jsnpritchett said:

I don't think anyone has any clue how the team will do next year, given what is known at the moment (i.e., the actual players they have under control for 2024 and not speculation on who else might/might not be on the team).

If you read the national writers the narrative is that we’re screwed.  Listen to MLB network and you’ll hear the same.  No one knows, I agree with that.

[Lazorko Saves]

I think 80-90% of it comes down to this:

Meanwhile, the prospect rankers have been peering into the future and telling us how good the Orioles were going to be:

And before you say, "Yeah but the O's sucked so long and got so many high draft picks..."

[greginpsca]

Maintain payroll flexibility, more resources for scouting and player development. Don't let lack of  budget to dictate losing out on top scouts and minor league coaches. As for coaches, i don't understand how the big league club carries close to 10 coaches, yet the minor league teams have about 3, including the manager. Along with the occasional roving instructor. For development reasons, shouldn't it be the other way around?

[Lazorko Saves]

And to follow up that... I think Perry has our farm and development on the turn-around and moving in the right direction.

Arte should support that however he can...

[Angel Oracle]

2 hours ago, jsnpritchett said:

I'm going to continue to ask this when people mention these guys: why do you want to re-sign this exact group of guys?  Is it just because they're here and you're familiar with them? What has Grichuk shown to make you think he'd be a good option next year?  Same for Cron.  He's been below replacement level this year.

I implore people to think more outside the box and not just say, "Hey, let's bring back the same group of cast-offs that got us nowhere this year."

On the surface, that’s true.

But until they can produce better MLB players here as support, what other alternative plan is there?

Signing age 30+ big money FA’s has gotten them nowhere.

[jsnpritchett]

1 minute ago, Angel Oracle said:

On the surface, that’s true.

But until they can produce better MLB players here as support, what other alternative plan is there?

Signing age 30+ big money FA’s has gotten them nowhere.

I think you're missing my point entirely.  I'm in no way saying that they have enough guys in the system to fill out the roster for a winning team next season.  What I'm saying is that simply accepting expiring-contract veterans who are on the roster now as the best options for next season seems to be extremely short-sighted.

[Angel Oracle]

15 minutes ago, greginpsca said:

Maintain payroll flexibility, more resources for scouting and player development. Don't let lack of  budget to dictate losing out on top scouts and minor league coaches. As for coaches, i don't understand how the big league club carries close to 10 coaches, yet the minor league teams have about 3, including the manager. Along with the occasional roving instructor. For development reasons, shouldn't it be the other way around?

And beef up the payroll to get better medical/conditioning people in here.

Too many seasons having more than the average number of total IL days