Dave Saltzer

I'd say how uncomfortable Billy sounded said a lot about what's going on. That was by far the most uncomfortable I've heard him when answering questions. Several times he had people clarify exactly what they meant so as to not be taken out of context or to answer out of context. That was a very defensive interview. I asked how all the other teams in the market for a manager would affect the Angels timeline, and he gave a stock answer of can't control other teams and that they will follow their timelines regardless of what other teams do. Combining that with the answer to another question about how the Angels can convince other candidates that they have a legitimate shot after at the position, especially in lieu of some of the articles that have been written, and I got the sense that the Angels are very cognizant and concerned about appearances, and really want to make this appear to be less than fait accompli with Maddon.

Good article. Thanks!

Interesting take Ettin. I'd take a totally different perspective, though. I'd rate it an 8/10 with potential to grow from there. One of our two top picks should pan out as a serviceable major leaguer. So, for me, it has far more to do with how the pitching pans out. If some of those turn out to be decent, then this draft could grow. By way of comparison, I would have rated last year's draft as a 7/10, and the year before that, with Adell as a 9.5/10. And, for the first 3 years after a draft, I'm willing to add or subtract a point on the ratings based on additional perspective in seeing how the players pan out.

I don't see Rutledge falling down to us, but if he did, that would be awesome! I agree, I'd like us to take Allan if he's available. We'd have to go a bit over slot, but can make uthat money in rounds 6-10.

You aren't the only one with that thought. But, there are many others who think he will stay a starter. The question is, what does Eppler think?

Interesting thing about Allan and Espino is that both don't have the most orthodox deliveries, yet both produce high heat, supposedly late into games. From what I'm hearing, Espino has 4 true offerings, with some skepticism (but also due to a lack of showing) on his changeup. We've done a lot teaching pitchers the changeup, so, that's not the most impossible thing to teach, at least to an average offering. Espino probably has the better FB, but not by too much.

Thanks. Espino would be an interesting pick for us as well. Huge FB and slider. With teams somewhat split on him (the issue is long-term move to closer or remaining as a starter), it might allow us to work more magic in the 2nd round whereas with Allan there is a strong concern that we may have to go a bit over slot to sign him. I really do hope that we take a top pitcher this year in the 1st round.

The latest from Bleacherreport. 15. Los Angeles Angels: RHP Matthew Allan, Seminole HS (Fla.) This is the first spot where it will take an above-slot deal to ink right-hander Matthew Allan to his $4 million asking price, albeit not much above-slot with a $3.89 million slot assignment. The 6'3" right-hander already has three above-average pitches and legitimate frontline upside, making him the top prep arm in a thin class. For an Angels team desperate for pitching, it's a price worth paying.

That was also me. I was really stoked that several college and HS pitchers fell to us last year when it was our turn to pick, and as I've said earlier in threads, believe that it is cheaper and easier to draft and develop pitching. So, I was rather let down with the selection of him. I liked the Jackson pick, but wanted a pitcher or even Gorman last year,not another OFer. At the time, we had Adell, Jones, Marsh, and others as OFers, so, taking another OFer (one whom I didn't think would be as good as any of those) didn't excite me as much as getting a pitcher or Gorman. This year, again, I'm hoping we get some top-shelf pitching and not another toolsy OFer.

Thanks for sharing an interesting article. I am really interested to see the results of how the Atlantic league will play out. I am concerned that pushing the mound back 2 feet may push pitchers to keep striving for higher and higher velocity as well as affecting release points on breaking pitches that may put more strain on the arm. That could result in more arm injuries. And, I can also see that with more time for a breaking pitch to drop, it could make it even more challenging for hitters. It will be interesting to see how baseball will evolve. Hopefully, we may see a return to more players who can make contact and work the count because I would find that more interesting for the game. But, I doubt that that will be the solution.

Looking at their most recent picks under Eppler, I'd say what they are looking for most is pure athleticism/physicality more than anything else. They are then looking for athletes with strong mental makeups. I disagree that they are focusing on putting bat to ball skills because one of the big questions with Adell (which allowed us to snag him) was how well that would develop with him. Same for Adams. But, in both cases, they were incredible athletes with great mental makeups. They have also shown the same style with their international signees suck as Knowles and DeShawn. I would say, you can't teach tools such as power, speed, or pitching hest. But theres more power generally available every year and there are more positions on the field to place power. That's for both the draft and through free agency. So, that makes the pitching more rare, desirable, and expensive. Given two players who are essentially equally talented athletes, I'd lean towards the pitcher because it would potentially net more savings and have a bigger effect on a game, I'd lean towards taking the pitcher. Lastly, I would add two more caveats. First, while not every prospect will pan out, at some point each year you have to factor in organizational depth (note, this is way different than organizational need, which I am opposed to doing in baseball). The goal is to create waves of talent that matriculate to the Majors at or near the same time. That makes it much easier to fill in pieces to make the parent club the best it can be through trades and free agency. That may shift the focus from high school (where generally the best raw talent is available) to college at times. For all of these reasons, drafting is an art, not a science, and always will remain so. We as fans are only privy to so little information for players compared to what the scouts and teams will know. I've had students with million dollar arms and 10 cent brains and have seen how that has affected them in the draft. Now, more than ever, that mental makeup and fortitude is counting for a lot more of a player's draft profile. And, I am sure that the Angels are very much focused on those intangibles as much as they are on the raw talent. As I said earlier, assuming all is good with the high school pitchers I listed earlier, and with Fletcher or Covaco, that would make for a great 1st and 2nd round haul for us.

You know that last year I very much wanted the Angels to take one of the available pitchers with our pick. I agree that I do not want another toolsy OFer, and would much prefer a pitcher. But, I wouldn't take the best pitcher available if there is a marked difference between the pitcher and best overall player available. My premise is that it is cheaper and easier to draft and develop top-tiered pitching than it is to acquire it through free agency. Hitting is a lot easier to acquire (our recent bad experiences aside) than pitching. So, if two players are equally talented, I'd take the pitcher over the hitter due to the better financial windfall that could result. But, I wouldn't just take the best pitcher and overlook all position players, because the windfall from the best player is still greater than the windfall from a potential average pitcher. Yes, last year we took a lot of pitchers. But, we took pitchers after the top-ranked ones were mostly off the boards. And, we took several in certain rounds to shore up money to allow us to sign our top two picks last year. Getting Kirby, Allen, or Priester in the 1st round, and Cavaco or Fletcher in the second round would be really nice.

From: https://blogs.fangraphs.com/mock-draft-2-0/ 15. Angels – George Kirby, RHP, ElonThe Angels have been tied mostly to high school players: Henderson (who GM Billy Eppler has seen), Priester, Florida prep RHP Matthew Allan (rumors have him seeking $4 million, so he’d be overslot starting at this pick), Tennessee prep CF Maurice Hampton, and NorCal prep SS Kyren Paris, who is another polarizing prospect with interest in the mid-first round, but isn’t a top-40 prospect for some clubs.

A new name. From: https://thebiglead.com/2019/05/17/2019-mlb-mock-draft-adley-rutschman-witt-vaughn-abrams-bleday/3/ 15. Los Angeles Angels: Quinn Priester, RHP, Cary-Grove High School (IL) Quinn Priester is a Midwestern prep pitcher with excellent athleticism and great stuff. He can hit 97 mph with his fastball, has a heavy two-seamer and owns probably the best curveball in this high school class. At 6’3″ and 198 pounds, Priester has the frame and athleticism to be a long-term starter. The Angels are looking closely at the prep prospects in this year’s draft and Priester would be an excellent add here. If they can get him to improve his changeup, he could wind up being the best pitcher in this class.

I watched some video of Cavaco. I think there's the potential to unlock a good bit more power out of him. And, I can see the appeal of Trejyn Fletcher, but I'm not sure he'll be there for our second pick. As much as I would love to get a great pitcher in the draft, I'd have to admit getting these two would be an impressive haul. An interesting pitcher, if available in the second round (I'm hearing mixed things about where he might go) is Alek Manoah. We have his brother Erik pitching for us at IE. Alek is supposed to be better, with an even harder fastball. The concerns are about his build and secondary offerings (whether he stays as a starter or moves to the pen). If Fletcher is gone and Manoah is available, that might be an interesting pick. But, I've also heard other teams willing to take Manoah earlier. The biggest thing I'm hearing is that outside of the top 3 picks, it's anyone's guess as to how the draft will go, and teams are doing a lot of "what if" scenarios for their first few rounds because a lot of planning will change on draft day.

I think the question should be instead whether or not starters deserve to be paid a premium for "starting". If more and more teams go to openers, and with fewer and fewer pitchers going 6+ innings for a quality start, shouldn't it really come down to the number of innings pitched and the quality of those innings rather than when the pitcher pitches those innings?

Thanks. Glad you enjoyed. Stuff like this is baseball at its best. It's not arguing about numbers, pontificating and projecting, etc. It's just the game at its best, and getting through the grind of 162 games. I will try and get another interview with him later in the season.

I think the bigger issue is the whole Jose Guillen episode. Imagine being the guy filling in for Guillen during that stretch when he was one of our better hitters. But yes, Angees was awesome, especially hearing how that may have come to happen.

This a great win for baseball and a sadness (but not a loss) for the Angels. Tim has been that voice of history and wisdom for the team with all of his years of service, but, he has left an office and staff fully prepared to continue on past him. To me, that is one of several great hallmarks of a great leader. I hope that while Tim is the president, the Angels can and will add several more players into the HoF wearing the Angels uniform, meaning that we have the players and that he serves long enough to see them inducted!

Good job on this @totdprods!

You didn't so much miss on Wesely. He was hurt off and on all last year, and even the year before, which has greatly affected his pitching. For a while, he was hitting 94, then hurt his arm, lost the velo, then the control, and it's been a bad ride for him. Good kid, but health hasn't played out.

It really depends who writes it @Jeff Fletcher I will read anything that you write about Mike Trout because you provide great coverage and insights as the beat reporter. You get stories and things that fully contextualize any quotes that you get, so, if anything, it would make me want to be there more. As for national reporters, most of them write very generic articles that regurgitate the same statements and things, and don't provide the insights that you provide. So, I'd probably skip those. There are a few national reporters that I'd read And, writers like me, who provide different takes, such as a fan perspective, I would read. And that would make me want to go more because that is a voice with which I can connect. So, if you are thinking of writing an article with quotes, I'd say go for it. Your take around here inspires people and encourages fans, so, I'd encourage it.

You are too kind to him!

Younger/Newer Angels fans won't get this, but I think March 19, 2019 atones for November 19, 1979. It's good to see that the organization learned something in 40 years.

I would pass on this. He will get far more in arbitration than he would get as a FA. Why waste the time, when the reality is we should wait to see what it would take to get him as a FA. At $1 million, that's a palatable option as a FA. at $5+ million in arbitration, or evern $2+ million in arbitration, I'd say it's too much for a platoon 1B only.