Is it a bad thing that the Angels keep winning?

[Brandon]

Looking forward to joining the tank group here that gets excited for a draft position and hoping to see the next Luke Hocheaver in five years.

Maybe I'll see these same dudes in line next year renewing their season tickets because we got a protected draft pick.

[YouthofToday]

Looking forward to joining the tank group here that gets excited for a draft position and hoping to see the next Luke Hocheaver in five years.

Maybe I'll see these same dudes in line next year renewing their season tickets because we got a protected draft pick.

Yes, because all top 10 picks are busts... Edited September 7, 2013 by YouthofToday

[mancini79]

Yes, because all top 10 licks are busts...

 

Most are.

[Halos of Anaheim]

Most are.

Look at all the pitchers taken in the top 10 in the past 5-6 years. Alot of them have panned out. Position players are more likely to bust.

Edited September 7, 2013 by Halos of Anaheim

[Angel Oracle]

Even not signing a premium FA and getting say the 14th, 60th, and 90th picks isn't too bad. It's much better than this past June.

[YouthofToday]

Most are.

Really? Not all are All-Stars yet most make the show and are productive MLB players when they are under team control.

A better draft pick also nets you more $$ to spend at the draft. A big f-ing deal.

http://www.sbnation.com/mlb/2013/6/4/4395338/mlb-draft-2013-team-budgets-and-first-round-values

[SoWhat]

Most are.

Lol

[mancini79]

Really? Not all are All-Stars yet most make the show and are productive MLB players when they are under team control.

A better draft pick also nets you more $$ to spend at the draft. A big f-ing deal.

http://www.sbnation.com/mlb/2013/6/4/4395338/mlb-draft-2013-team-budgets-and-first-round-values

 

They are a top 10 pick. They should be close to AS quality. Especially if fans are "OK" with losing to obtain them. Below is a 10 year snap shot of top 10 picks. I stopped at 2009 since 2010-2013 is inconclusive right now.

 

2000- Adrian Gonzalez

2001- Mauer, Prior, Teix

2002- Fielder, Grieke, Upton

2003- Markakis Weeks

2004- Verlander, Bailey

2005- CRAZY DRAFT! Upton, Gordon, Zimmerman, Braun*, Romero, Maybin

2006- Longoria, Kershaw, Lincy

2007- Price, Weiters, Buamgarner

2008- Alvarez, Hosmer, Matusz Posey

2009- Strasburg, Leake

 

That is 29 players, out of 100 picks. So 70% fail to make an impact at the MLB level. Of course that is a higher success rate than later position picks. I would say that 70% is "most".

[Brandon]

Couldn't agree more. If you are tanking to get your protected pick, you better make sure you are getting an all-star instead of hoping he just pans out into a major leaguer.....which is more likely than getting a star.

[Brandon]

Another funny thing is the tankers were the ones calling others pollyannas earlier in the year but seem to be extremely optimistic that this protected pick is going to be some ace since they are vying so hard to lose and pick in the top 10.

[Inside Pitch]

If we are winning because of legitimate player development where players will continue new developed skills into future years production, and this is greater than the difference in talent between draft pick slot in each round, then this is a good thing.

I doubt that is the case though.

 

This is a fair argument. But it begs the question..   Do you think Green and Calhoun are "developing" as players by playing everyday at the MLB level?   They could play everyday while losing too..  But if their play is directly impacting the W/L record....  Where do you draw the line?

 

For me personally, the losing sucks -- but if they had all just started mailing it in, not sure I'd be able to stomach that at all.

Edited September 7, 2013 by Inside Pitch

[Angel Dog and Beer]

The way I see it:

Angels win = Great!

Angels lose = No problem!

 

Now I'm happy either way.

[OregonLAA]

I want to ruin the Rangers season. Keep winning, Angels

[JB Abell]

my only issue with ending the season hot is it tends to make the org think the regular season was maybe just a fluke

and this hot team is how they should have actually played

so they dont make any changes during the offseason, and we suck again next year

the ducks did this for years and its really annoying

finally they booted the coach and w/ the new voice they immediately moved back into the elite

If that were true then Hunter, Haren, Morales and Santana would still be on the angels and Hamilton would be sucking elsewhere.

[JB Abell]

The way I see it:

Angels win = Great!

Angels lose = No problem!

Now I'm happy either way.

I second this

[tdawg87]

They are a top 10 pick. They should be close to AS quality. Especially if fans are "OK" with losing to obtain them. Below is a 10 year snap shot of top 10 picks. I stopped at 2009 since 2010-2013 is inconclusive right now.

 

2000- Adrian Gonzalez

2001- Mauer, Prior, Teix

2002- Fielder, Grieke, Upton

2003- Markakis Weeks

2004- Verlander, Bailey

2005- CRAZY DRAFT! Upton, Gordon, Zimmerman, Braun*, Romero, Maybin

2006- Longoria, Kershaw, Lincy

2007- Price, Weiters, Buamgarner

2008- Alvarez, Hosmer, Matusz Posey

2009- Strasburg, Leake

 

That is 29 players, out of 100 picks. So 70% fail to make an impact at the MLB level. Of course that is a higher success rate than later position picks. I would say that 70% is "most".

 

I'm on your side in this debate because I want the Angels to win every game no matter what the overall context of the season is. However I do kind of see where the "tankers" (as they will now be colloquially dubbed) are coming from. It isn't just about having 1 high, protected draft pick; It's about having higher picks through all the rounds of the draft, as well as more money to spend on said picks. So while no draft pick is guaranteed to be successful in the majors, the higher picks have a better overall chance than the lower ones.

[2002_halos_II]

I have NO problem with them playing SPOILER

Edited September 8, 2013 by 2002_halos_II

[YouthofToday]

They are a top 10 pick. They should be close to AS quality. Especially if fans are "OK" with losing to obtain them. Below is a 10 year snap shot of top 10 picks. I stopped at 2009 since 2010-2013 is inconclusive right now.

2000- Adrian Gonzalez

2001- Mauer, Prior, Teix

2002- Fielder, Grieke, Upton

2003- Markakis Weeks

2004- Verlander, Bailey

2005- CRAZY DRAFT! Upton, Gordon, Zimmerman, Braun*, Romero, Maybin

2006- Longoria, Kershaw, Lincy

2007- Price, Weiters, Buamgarner

2008- Alvarez, Hosmer, Matusz Posey

2009- Strasburg, Leake

That is 29 players, out of 100 picks. So 70% fail to make an impact at the MLB level. Of course that is a higher success rate than later position picks. I would say that 70% is "most".

Your premise a player has to be an all-star level pick to be a successful top 10 pick is ludicrous.

[YouthofToday]

There are roughly 60 All-stars every year. Maybe 40 of the them, at most, come from the Rule 4 draft...

[mancini79]

Your premise a player has to be an all-star level pick to be a successful top 10 pick is ludicrous.

 

Then how about you go through those 10 years and let me know who I missed that was worth a "top 10 pick". You think it's worth losing games to get a player like Jeff Clement?? That would be ludicrous.

[jshep]

No, but losing a few more games in a meaningless games for a chance to grab a player like Troy Tulowitzki(who you left off your list) or Evan Longoria wouldn't hurt. (And I say that even as someone who isn't particularly rooting for the Angels to tank for the sake of a draft pick)

 

See, I can cherry pick extremes to prove a point too!

 

 

The Angels having a Jarrod Parker(another good Top 10 draft pick) would be pretty nice as well.

Edited September 8, 2013 by jshep

[jshep]

Also, the 2010 draft already has 3 guys in Harper, Machado and Harvey who look "worth a Top 10 draft Pick".

[DW711]

No, no..keep winning for another couple games!

[NrM]

I don't think I've ever agreed with anything said by mancini. 

Edited September 8, 2013 by Poozy

[mtangelsfan]

shep, do you want the players to tank to get higher picks?

 

See, I doubt you do.  I'm guessing there are only a couple of posters who are actually wanting players to play poorly to move up in the draft.  I'm guessing it's more like "oh well, they lost.  At least they will get a better pick."

 

If there is anyone who actually believes that players should or will tank on purpose probably hasn't played sports very much.  These guys still have to play for their futures too.