Not signing Beltre was the turning point

[Homebrewer]

I rode an elevator with Beltre once, and came away thinking that he had a weirdly shaped head with sort of a flat face.

Add to that the fact that I was still getting over Steve Findley and Jeff Weaver, and didn't want any more ex-Dodgers in Anaheim....so I didn't want some weird looking ex doggie and was willing to wait for the home-grown stud we had raking up in SLC

[James]

Not signing Beltre did not doom the franchise. 

[markb]

I think people forget just how consistently average Beltre was for five straight years with the Mariners.  The glove has always been there, but at the time, he'd had just 2 good years at the plate in a 12 year career, both being contract years.  A mid-high .700's OPS guy with his defense is certainly a valuable player, but for 16 mil a year?  ehh

 

Only thing that would've made me want to sign him back then is a functioning crystal ball.

[ScottT]

His defense made him far better than average.  

[Brent Maguire]

I wanted him over anybody that offseason. 

 

I thought he'd be an .850 OPS bat for a few years with his tremendous defense. Did I expect him to be this great? Nope, but a 4-5 win player at 3rd base would've been awfully nice. 

[ispy45]

 

I disagree, the turning point was when we haven't signed a legit closer since Frankie Rodriguez left.

[markb]

 he and Arte panic and they trade Naps and Rivera for Big Vern.

 

*retunes crystal ball*

 

Contrary to what I said above, if I could've foreseen that Beltre would have even a .750 OPS every year with us, while 100% guaranteeing that we never make the Wells trade, oh lord, sign me up.

[Angel Oracle]

You guys realize that virtually every team in the major leagues can go through this exercise, right? Hindsight is the easiest thing in the world to apply. None of that matters now, it's what the team does starting tomorrow that counts. The power shifts constantly in baseball, you can analyze the past all you want, but I hope this organization is only dealing with the future and they have a solid overall plan in place.

True, but it can help in future endeavors to realize what went wrong before, to know better how to approach the present and future.

Of course it helps to have a real GM who knows what he is doing.

[YouthofToday]

I remember this debate very well. I was one of the leaders of the sign Beltre brigade.

Just another horrific decision by Reagins/Scioscia and ownership. Not shocking.

[wopphil]

I badly wanted the team to sign Beltre. And though when he signed with the rangers my first reaction was that they overpaid, as soon as Reagins spent essentially the same amount of money on Wells I became pretty pissed. Even without hindsight, Beltre was far less of a risk than Wells.

[Inside Pitch]

None of that is correct.

 

 

That was a Mark Trumbo at bat of a post.... 

[Inside Pitch]

There were a lot of people on this board who wanted him signed as an Angel.

I'll admit that I wasn't one of them though. I thought he was a juicer. I thought his stats would decline. I was wrong.

 

Well, he's still juicing.  Medical exemption due to his having lost one of the twins.

[xboom28x]

Even if Beltre would have put up Trumbo numbers, it would have been better than Callaspo/Harris/Nelson/Lucho combination since then.

[Inside Pitch]

Even if Beltre would have put up Trumbo numbers, it would have been better than Callaspo/Harris/Nelson/Lucho combination since then.

 

Yup...  his defense is ridiculously awesome.

[jimbo]

Lets not forget the litter box they call a stadium he's been playing in. Eckstein coulda hit 25 bombs in that place.

[Angelsjunky]

Hindsight is 20/20.

 

If I recall correctly, Beltre was signed for 6/90. At that time he had just come off a terrible contract by the Dodgers and gave no signs of turning his career around. Yes, looking at his numbers now, it appears that we should have signed him. But nobody wanted him based on what he had previously done to the Dodgers.

 

Two things:

1) Beltre was coming off his second best year, his only season with the Red Sox, in which he hit .321/.365/.553 with 28 HR and 6.6 fWAR.

2) His years in Seattle were better than they looked - his numbers were partially down due to Safeco. But during his five years as a Mariner, he accrued 16.3 WAR, an average of 3.3 WAR - which is solidly above average.

 

All that said, I was one of the fools people who didn't want him signed, for the reasons I didn't want Crawford signed and I was leery about Pujols and concerned about Hamilton: huge free agent contracts rarely work out.

 

You guys realize that virtually every team in the major leagues can go through this exercise, right?  Hindsight is the easiest thing in the world to apply.  None of that matters now, it's what the team does starting tomorrow that counts.  The power shifts constantly in baseball, you can analyze the past all you want, but I hope this organization is only dealing with the future and they have a solid overall plan in place.

 

Yes, the "hindsight is 20-20" argument. But why is it, tomsred, that we keep on saying this with almost every move in the Reagins-Dipoto era? Nearly every move turns out looking bad in hindsight. Certainly not literally "every," but the vast majority.

 

As I said elsewhere, one of the lone deals that Dipoto was lauded for was Amarista/Roach for Frieri. Even that one is starting to look not so great.

[AngelsFaninGA]

To be fair, if we had signed Beltre, he'd be a .250/15/60 player for the duration of his tenure here. 

[YouthofToday]

To be fair the decision not to sign him was when "walks were a false stat."

[Torridd]

of this team no longer becoming a serious contender.  2010, the year was over with Kendrys going down.  Reagins and company fail in getting Beltre even though it was a position of need and he had a great year with the Red Sox.  Beltre goes on to be a high .800-.900 OPS player with the Rangers.  Reagins makes a panic move and trades for Vernon Wells.  Napoli ends up in Texas and goes out and leads them to the World Series.  If Reagins signs Beltre, we don't trade Napoli.  Pretty good chance we make the playoffs.  2012, Reagins sticks around and doesn't make any drastic changes cause they had a good year previous.  So, the team doesn't sign Pujols, then Trout takes it from there. 

I agree, but I think we tried to sign him and he went to the Sox. Stuff happens.

[Tank]

1. Maybe Beltre didn't want to play here. People tend to forget things like that in these debates.

2. There was plenty of negativity here about the length and amount of the contract he reportedly wanted. It now pails in comparison to what Pujols and Hamilton were signed for, but that wasn't a fair comparison at the time.

[Torridd]

That video is depressing to watch. 

Very, if it's true. Major screwup.

[Torridd]

Was Wood still a factor then? That would explain our hesitation.

[Inside Pitch]

Lets not forget the litter box they call a stadium he's been playing in. Eckstein coulda hit 25 bombs in that place.

 

 

Only he's posted an OPS over .850 on the road the previous three years and has more road Hrs than home this season.   

[jshep]

Was Wood still a factor then? That would explain our hesitation.

 

That was coming off Wood's wonderful 2010 season where he put up a .382 OPS and was replaced by Callaspo.

 

At that point, there was no reason for him to be a piece that blocked them from making a move. And considering they gave him a whole 15 PAs in 2011 before deciding they had seen enough, I don't think he was.

[Stradling]

Gammons said it in an interview after the Angels signed Pujols that he(Beltre) was begging the Angels to sign him.

http://wapc.mlb.com/play/?content_id=20024525&query=gammons%2Bpujols

Am I reading this wrong, because the way I am reading it sounds like Beltre wanted the Angels to sign him after hearing they got Pujols? If I'm not mistaken Beltre was a free agent the year before Pujols was.