is this the stupidest organization in baseball?

[mtangelsfan]

I find it hard to believe that the same basic group of people (sans dipoto) that won 5 American West Division Titles can all of the sudden become brain dead.

 

Now, does that mean that I agree or understand every baseball decision that has been made, no way.  Clearly that last two years for sure have been extremely dissapointing and I would have been fine if Sosh or Dipoto got fired, or both of them.

 

I just have a hard time with the theory that Sosh somehow forgot how to manage or that he was a player's manager at one time and now he's not.

[shellback]

we got lotsa money. that mekes es smart.

[nando714]

Marlins then Angels

[WallyWorld]

 we consistently have one of the top won-loss records in the majors.

 

we do? 

 

i think it's less about wins and losses and more about where we were last decade, and where we are now.  Some bad luck for sure, but some truly bad decisions as well.

[WallyWorld]

Marlins then Angels

 

see to me, the Marlins are actually pretty smart, just not fan-friendly.  They build for a very specific window of time, and then have no problem doing a complete tear-down.  The Angels should have taken a page out of their book post 2009, when Vlad/Figgins/Lackey all came off the books and all signs pointed to rebuilding.

[Docwaukee]

we are very close to the top of the list

 

here are the Angels rankings in various categories in terms of stupid:

 

Owner: 15

Front Office: 11

Manager: 9

Local Media: 4

Fans: 1

 

www.youhavetobereallysmarttofigureouthowtomakethislinkwork.com

[Torridd]

we do? 

 

i think it's less about wins and losses and more about where we were last decade, and where we are now.  Some bad luck for sure, but some truly bad decisions as well.

I won't deny that we've been bad lately or what's better described as " not fulfilling expectations," but does that make the organization stupid? In your own words, "some" truly bad decisions doesn't mean that the organizational is incompetent. Again, you have to compare it to all the others. Look at what Miami has done. Look at the debacle of the Sox last year. The Yanks this year? The perennial Cubs? OK, we're not the Cardinals, but we could be a lot worse.

[stormngt]

i think you're missing an 'if', and i think you meant "you're" as in 'you are'.  I'd be happy to post a link to a grammar site if you'd like.  

I was born in 1979, been an Angels fan my whole life.  Not sure what that has to do with the present situation.

 

I don't proof read my work on message boards.  I didn't know I was writing my dissertation again!

 

It is silly to be embarrassed about the team if you were an Angel fan through th the 1990's.  The franchise was a lot more embarrassing that decade.  

[stormngt]

i think you're missing an 'if', and i think you meant "you're" as in 'you are'.  I'd be happy to post a link to a grammar site if you'd like.  

I was born in 1979, been an Angels fan my whole life.  Not sure what that has to do with the present situation.

 

You should capitalize the word "I" as it begins the sentence.  Your last sentence is missing an subject and is fragmented.  I think you meant to say "I am not sure..."

[yk9001]

GRAMMAR WARS!!

[Torridd]

I don't proof read my work on message boards.  I didn't know I was writing my dissertation again!

 

It is silly to be embarrassed about the team if you were an Angel fan through th the 1990's.  The franchise was a lot more embarrassing that decade.  

And the 6os. We're three years into this decade so we still have a lot of time to beat the 70s and 80s.

[stormngt]

we do? 

 

i think it's less about wins and losses and more about where we were last decade, and where we are now.  Some bad luck for sure, but some truly bad decisions as well.

 

We had a great run, and our core players got old.

 

Our great mistake was trying to find that final piece and reload when we should have taken a step back in 2010 and rebuilt.  The Haren trade and later the Grienke trade are classic examples of that mistake.  

[WallyWorld]

I won't deny that we've been bad lately or what's better described as " not fulfilling expectations," but does that make the organization stupid? In your own words, "some" truly bad decisions doesn't mean that the organizational is incompetent. Again, you have to compare it to all the others. Look at what Miami has done. Look at the debacle of the Sox last year. The Yanks this year? The perennial Cubs? OK, we're not the Cardinals, but we could be a lot worse.

 

but you have to factor in resources as well.  Has any org done less with more in recent years?

[WallyWorld]

We had a great run, and our core players got old.

 

Our great mistake was trying to find that final piece and reload when we should have taken a step back in 2010 and rebuilt.  The Haren trade and later the Grienke trade are classic examples of that mistake.  

 

We're on the same page here.

And to me, ever since it's been one mistake piled onto another.

[Torridd]

but you have to factor in resources as well.  Has any org done less with more in recent years?

You can say the organization has made mistakes in getting Pujols and Hamilton, but if they hit like they were supposed to then we're not talking about this.

 

I just think it's easy to say the organization is stupid in hindsight after they've made moves that were almost across-the-board hailed as fantastic.

 

I don't think not firing a manager is necessarily a stupid move especially in Scioscia's case. I don't think getting Pujols or Hamilton were stupid moves. Sometimes things are done with the right motives and don't work out. These are mistakes, but not necessarily stupid.

[tdawg87]

The Angels foWAR was -1.8 this year. That was among the worst in baseball.

[WallyWorld]

You can say the organization has made mistakes in getting Pujols and Hamilton, but if they hit like they were supposed to then we're not talking about this.

 

I just think it's easy to say the organization is stupid in hindsight after they've made moves that were almost across-the-board hailed as fantastic.

 

I don't think not firing a manager is necessarily a stupid move especially in Scioscia's case. I don't think getting Pujols or Hamilton were stupid moves. Sometimes things are done with the right motives and don't work out. These are mistakes, but not necessarily stupid.

 

look, I believe the underlying motive behind all of the moves has been to win, so that I cannot fault.  But there is a lack of, or at least some fuzzy logic at work.  The Pujols deal was actually very controversial - 10 years to a 32 year old player is never a good idea.  Same with Hamilton with his history and trends.  Not firing MS may not qualify, but what about the unprecedented record-length contract he was given.  And we haven't even gotten to Vernon Wells yet!  

[gotbeer]

You can say the organization has made mistakes in getting Pujols and Hamilton, but if they hit like they were supposed to then we're not talking about this.

 

I just think it's easy to say the organization is stupid in hindsight after they've made moves that were almost across-the-board hailed as fantastic.

 

I don't think not firing a manager is necessarily a stupid move especially in Scioscia's case. I don't think getting Pujols or Hamilton were stupid moves. Sometimes things are done with the right motives and don't work out. These are mistakes, but not necessarily stupid.

 

You could also say that according to reports, Pujols, Hamilton and the 10 year Scioscia contract wasn't an organization decision, but an Arte Moreno decision.  

 

That's the tough part, separating what was an organizational decision and what was a Arte decision.  How far back does it go, and who else does it include?  Because the two Arte signings cost us not only money to burn, but also first round picks.  

 

If Arte is the organization, then yes, we are down there.  If it's just the baseball people making the baseball decisions, then I think they do a good job with what they have to work with.

[WallyWorld]

You could also say that according to reports, Pujols, Hamilton and the 10 year Scioscia contract wasn't an organization decision, but an Arte Moreno decision.  

 

That's the tough part, separating what was an organizational decision and what was a Arte decision.  How far back does it go, and who else does it include?  Because the two Arte signings cost us not only money to burn, but also first round picks.  

 

If Arte is the organization, then yes, we are down there.  If it's just the baseball people making the baseball decisions, then I think they do a good job with what they have to work with.

 

Arte is the head of the organization, so I don't see how you could not include him.

[shellback]

we got lotsa money. that mekes es smart.

[Torridd]

The Pujols and Scioscia deals are definitely questionable, but I don't think Hamilton's is. I guess "stupid" is relative. If we didn't bid so high for Pujols, a one-of-a kind player, we don't get him. I'm leerier with the Scioscia deal as I never understood it. I could make sense of the Wells deal.

[WallyWorld]

The Pujols and Scioscia deals are definitely questionable, but I don't think Hamilton's is. I guess "stupid" is relative. If we didn't bid so high for Pujols, a one-of-a kind player, we don't get him. I'm leerier with the Scioscia deal as I never understood it. I could make sense of the Wells deal.

 

by itself I don't hate the Hamilton deal, though it has always been questionable - 32 years old, shady past, never hit well in our ballpark, bad 2nd half in 2012, and his own team didn't make much of an effort to re-sign him.  

and then you also have to factor in the circumstances around the trade, i.e. the club's biggest need was SP, it was one year after an already bad-looking Pujols deal, etc.

[shellback]

what are they paying hamilton's accountability coach?

[Torridd]

by itself I don't hate the Hamilton deal, though it has always been questionable - 32 years old, shady past, never hit well in our ballpark, bad 2nd half in 2012, and his own team didn't make much of an effort to re-sign him.  

and then you also have to factor in the circumstances around the trade, i.e. the club's biggest need was SP, it was one year after an already bad-looking Pujols deal, etc.

I don't think a 5-year deal for someone his age and talent is shaky however you have some good points. Still, I wouldn't call the moves stupid.  

[gotbeer]

Arte is the head of the organization, so I don't see how you could not include him.

 

I put Arte different than the baseball organization.  Just like I put George and to a lesser degree Hank separate from the Yanks organization.  IMO, some owners involve themselves with the baseball side a bit too much.