Jump to content

Dave Saltzer

Premium Membership
  • Posts

    1,371
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Dave Saltzer

  1. Yep. Some would. I would not. I don't like hypocrisy and I don't like thwarting the system. More importantly, I would not at all like this deal if it meant eating up all of our resources so that we could not fix our holes this offseason at SS, C, RF, starting pitching and the bullpen. If we did this deal early in the offseason, and didn't have the resources to solve our other holes as a result, our ceiling might be higher, but our floor would be lower. Once again, a key injury or two, and we would be done for the year. To solve our other holes, we would have had to trade off a lot more of the farm, which would handicap us long-term. I don't think that we would have been a better team overall with just Bauer, as opposed to what we have done so far this offseason. So, not only would this deal not push us over the edge, it could have left us in no better shape if we couldn't solve our other needs. And yes, while salaries do inevitably seem to go up, there is something wrong with paying Trevor Bauer a lot more than Mike Trout. Trout brings so much more value to the team overall, through his fan interactions, positive image, etc., that I would have a problem paying Bauer more than Trout.
  2. AJ, a really good article. This should have been a blog post as well. You provide great analysis and should publish using your name. Chuck and I were talking about this on Friday. I think you hit the nail on the head (and was going to write something to this effect) that the plan is to raise the floor more than raise the ceiling for the team. For so many of the recent years, everything would have to go absolutely right (meaning no major injuries, players playing to their potential, etc.) for us to have a shot. But, if something bad did happen to one or two key players, the wheels came off for the team, and we fell apart. This year appears to be about building some depth so that we are far more likely to be an 82-85 win team with a shot at more than we have been in the past. It's also about bridging one more year to layer in some cost controls so that we can sign an expensive FA or two next year when Pujols comes off the book, several of our pitchers are likely to come off the books (and hopefully be replaced by Detmers, Rodriguez, etc.). I fully expect us to be in play for one of the top shortstops next year and possibly a pitcher. Minasian had a lot of holes to fill with this team and chose to spread the money he had around to solve multiple problems on a short term basis hoping that some of our problems would be solved long-term internally. He could have solved one problem long-term with a big splash, but that would have left us where we were--a higher ceiling but a much lower probability of reaching it. What is hard for us, as fans, is as you pointed out--we've been down a long road and waiting another year is never fun. What's worse is that the A.L. West seems more winnable now than it has for the past few years, so for us as fans, it's even more frustrating. Hopefully we will be in it enough to convince Arte to shell out some more money at either the trade deadline or in the offseason as next year. Again, I'd like to encourage you to post articles like this on the blog.
  3. I have nothing against a longer term deal with salary fluctuations within the deal. Paying a player a signing bonus is an example of a financial manipulation, and I'm not opposed to that. I can easily understand why players might want a much lower salary in 2022 because of the good chances of a strike, so again, I can understand the timing of money in a guaranteed. As I said in the article, I'm not opposed to opt-outs. There are valid reasons for them. I'm also not opposed to backloaded contracts--even with opt-outs. It's far less likely that a player would opt-out of a backloaded contract. What I am opposed to is the clear manipulation of the system that's going on here. It's not the years. It's the opt-outs AND the dramatic drop in salary for the third year. Why not add a 4th year to the deal with an opt-out at $10 million to further erode the AAV? Why not a 5th year at $5 million with another opt-out? If baseball lets it slide here with Bauer, they forever set the precedent that what the Dodgers did was okay and every other team will further try to expand and exploit this loophole. Better to stop it now and do what's right then allow it to get out of hand.
  4. Thanks Disarcina. I would truly prefer a hard floor and ceiling for the game and forcing those owners out of the game who refuse to spend the minimums or abide by the maximums. I have some ideas on how that can be enforced, and maybe will write something about that in the coming days. But, until we get there, all we have is the Luxury Tax to dissuade owners from overspending. Since that is the mechanism that the owners have chosen to police themselves, then a commissioner should see this as a serious threat to that mechanism. As for a showdown between the elite players and the average players, the union has 2 big advantages on its side. First, it prays upon the hope of every player that with a minor tweak here or there he will become one of those elite players, when in reality that won't happen for the overwhelming majority of them. And, the minimum payroll is so much bigger than what the average person makes that the average player doesn't really see how the system is rigged against him. So, the union can still cater to the elite players at the expense of the average or lower-tiered player. Unlike a true economy, baseball is essentially a closed system. In a real economy, if person A makes a billion dollars, that doesn't take anything away from the rest of us (and in many cases, often makes us better off). In baseball, there are only 30 teams, and a limited payroll for each team. When elite players soak up that money, it does come at the expense of other players. Look at how baseball is shutting down Minor League teams and looking to shorten the draft. That's fewer players playing and fewer dollars going around. I hope that the union does have a showdown and really works for the best interest of baseball. For me, that would be a floor and ceiling for all teams on payroll.
  5. They didn't break the rules? That's like all the social media companies saying that they aren't doing anything wrong by shutting down accounts and users they don't like because technically they are a private company and people don't have 1st Amendment rights when it comes to private companies. Sure, it's technically accurate, and we all know it is BS. The Dodgers and Bauer didn't do anything wrong--they just pushed the boundaries beyond all credibility. As for whether or not AngelsWin would have written such an article if we had signed Bauer, I guarantee you, I would have written it. Sure, I wanted Bauer, but not at the expense of doing permanent damage to the game or by thwarting the system so much. This is just a game, and it is not a case where one needs to win at all costs. Part of my article is pointing out how we do not have a real commissioner, one with real power, who would see right through these shenanigans and shut it down. A real commissioner would come out with a rule, like what I proposed, in conjunction with voiding the contract and forcing it to be reworked. I would want a strong commissioner to do so whether it was the Angels or any other team, as I want this game to be strong and still very popular for future generations to enjoy. I don't blame the Dodgers for trying this, but, I do blame the lack of a commissioner for letting them get away with it.
  6. Because there are many, many things that are already prohibited from being in baseball contracts (as I noted in the article, personal services and milestone achievements are a couple of recent clauses that have been banned). So, other things can be banned as well for the better interests of the game. Trades and other moves have been voided by the past as being against the better interests of baseball. So, this is a fair game to discuss. As a fan of the game, who wants future generations to have a healthy game to enjoy as I did, I think it's fair to discuss and point out how certain practices are ruining the game.
  7. Thanks for the reply AJ. There definitely is something wrong in the state of Denmark. Supposedly, baseball has a commissioner to prevent bad things from happening. But, that is clearly not the case, and this current commissioner is a puppet. I very much agree that all fans suffer for it when there is such disparity. When it becomes a viable model for teams to intentionally lose, and for many teams the only model for a chance at a winning season, then changes really need to happen. What's ridiculous is that the players union is just as much against making the reforms as the owners are because they don't want to offend the top end of the sport. It's very foolish as it is clearly hurting more players than it benefits..... I am very much in favor of both a hard floor and a hard ceiling on payroll. Owners that refuse to meet the floor should be forced out. More players would make more money, but a few players might not make as much money. More fans would be interested in the sport as more teams would be in it to win it every year, and the game would grow. Moves like this will shrink the fanbase long-term. Look, I get the rivalry between San Diego and LA and for that, signing Bauer is good. However, it really sucks if you are a Giants, Diamondbacks, or Rockies fan. And, the question remains how long San Diego can afford to keep this team together to compete with the Dodgers. If they can't hold it together for too long, that division will be a one-trick pony.
  8. Agreed . . . although it seems like some on the other thread would want us to do that just to jinx the deal!
  9. Do we need some more takes on him, or does he have a couple already? I can't remember.
  10. So who was our #31 that will now get bumped up into the prospect list? We should consider some updates on that player.....
  11. One of the big take aways from doing this draft was that our system has a lot more talent than many realize. A cursory examination of our system doesn't show that because most of our talent is very ry young and didn't get to put their talent on display in a real season last year. Someone asked where we'd rank our system. Right now, I'd say in the upper teens with a chance to move into the low teens with a good draft and some of the players developing as projected.
  12. Too early to tell for me. I'd like to talk with the people I know to get a better feel for where to rank him. Somebody must have liked him, though, to drop that kind of coin on him. Most likely we will rank him in a mid-season update. Let's just hope that there is a season for the Minor Leagues so that they can develop him and we can get a better idea of where he ranks.
  13. Here's a link to an interview I did with him 2 years ago, when he was 18, I believe. Most 18 year Olds are hard to interview and barely give more than a one or two word response to a question. Compare his responses. He really is advanced for his age in terms of mental makeup. Yes, he looked a bit lost last year in some games, but I think most people would find the game getti g ahead of them playing in the majors with that pressure at any age, let alone his, especially with all that was happening last year. Let him get some time in AAA and he should be fine. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.angelswin.com/blogs/entry/2980-angels-of-prospect-jo-adell-talks-with-angelswincom/&ved=2ahUKEwiqnsjitqfuAhVxNX0KHUbvDe8QFjAAegQIAxAC&usg=AOvVaw31BL-Un9BgZjw-Xx3MMNc4&cshid=1611039814483
  14. Time to start a new thread. And, it's time for us to form a new Top Prospect list. The only problem is with how slowly this offseason has gone, and with the potential for trades, it doesn't seem to make too much sense to make the list right at the moment.
  15. Thanks for chiming in Jeff with some thoughtful replies. First, this isn't a criticism of you or your voting habits. I do not think that you need to defend your vote to anyone but yourself. There are some voters out there whom I would question, but knowing the person you are, I'm sure you take the deep time and consideration to give it the seriousness of the vote that it deserves. But, here is what I would point out. From what I can find online (I know, not always the most reliable source), in 2015, there were 549 votes for the HOF by members of the BBWAA. This year, it's down to 397 eligible voters. (If my numbers are off, and you have better information, please correct them). That's a 27.7% drop in just 5 years. Additionally, from what I've been told (and have seen online), several media outlets have created policies that their writers cannot vote for the HOF, even if eligible. Others have made it a negotiable item for their writers. Either way, that is a rapid and sharp decline in voters. Worse yet, that trend seems to be continuing. At some point, it will be too few gatekeepers for the HOF. While I'm not privy to the membership of the BBWAA, I would be curious to see how it compares with that of fans in general. I think that it would be wise for the BBWAA to come up with a way to expand its voting membership so as to maintain relevance while it still has a sufficient number of members who have the experience to develop the criteria for eligibility. I fully understand the need and requirements of 10 years of writing. As I said multiple times, there would need to be criteria established for any "blogger" to have voting privileges. I would rather see the BBWAA work towards that while there is a sufficient number of members who have experience in the old system (so as to create decent thresholds for the future) than to wait another 5-10 years and see another drop of 27%+. If the discussion for this doesn't happen now, and the continued drop continues to happen, it may become too late to have the thoughtful discussion and process, and that would lead to a worse outcome. It would be better to plan for a change in advance. As for your idea of allowing some bloggers to vote and have that vote count for a percentage, that would be an interesting starting point. It would be interesting to see if the BBWAA would be willing to run a trial for a few years where some bloggers could vote hypothetically for maybe 15-20% of the total (not in a real vote, but in a simulated vote--much like MLB trying out rules in the Minors or Independent Leagues to see how they play out). Has there been any discussion of the dwindling number of voters and possibly making some changes?
  16. If all the teams could vet and choose a set number of bloggers to represent their fanbases, this really wouldn't be a problem. If every one of those voting were just homers, and voted just for their players, they would cancel each other out. So, it wouldn't lead to non-deserving players getting into the HOF. If the numbers were relatively balanced for each team, along with some independent bloggers (such as those who write for analytical sites), then they wouldn't lead to any bias towards any team. I did not say that the 75% threshold should be dropped. If the concern is that it would lead to an East Coast bias, or something similar, that seems a bit more difficult with free agency and increased player movement. Almost all of today's bloggers have grown up with free agency (whereas for the longest time, most BBWAA voting members did not), so, bloggers today are more willing to look at the player's on the field performance rather than team identity. More importantly, bloggers would be better able to recall which players they truly coveted in free agency and also the ones that they were grateful that their team avoided. Most of the voting members don't feel those pangs, but those pangs are part of what leads to a player's fame, and should be a factor for enshrinement in Cooperstown (or not). Look at the endless threads and discussions on here about signing this player or that. I'm not so certain that the voting members of the BBWAA have the same sentiments about the Hot Stove and the potential player movement in it. The voting members look at the hot stove season as news to report. Bloggers look at it as a way to improve a franchise and focus on those players who are most likely to improve their franchise. That basically is "fame" which the present voting members of the BBWAA most likely don't factor as heavily. Along those lines, for the longest time, the voting members of the BBWAA had their litmus tests and sacred numbers for enshrinement (such as 300 wins, 500 HRs, etc.). It wasn't until bloggers came along and really starting pushing a lot more of the modern analytics that got the voters to change some of their opinions. It was bloggers who were far more likely to support someone like Blyleven making it in to the HOF even though he didn't have the requisite 300 wins. And, it was bloggers who were pushing for Edgar Martinez to make it into the HOF before the voters got over the whole "he's just a DH and therefore not worthy" issue. The game of baseball is always changing. For a variety of reasons I believe that some bloggers (again, not all) are better able to recognize and adopt these newer trends and analysis to their thought process and writing. With careful vetting, these bloggers would bring a diversity of viewpoints that would encompass more of the fanbase's opinions. That would generate more discussion and interest in the sport and the HOF. If for no other reason, as legacy media dies, the voting membership of the BBWAA will continue to shrink, until it achieves irrelevancy. At some point, the Hall of Fame will have to move on, so it would be best to start the discussion now while there are enough voting members of the BBWAA to develop a smooth transition. Otherwise, we will end up with very few voting members left, and in all likelihood, almost no one making it into Cooperstown as it will become more and more difficult to achieve that 75% threshold (and the biases of those few voting members will have a greater and greater impact on that 75% threshold). Do we really want the voting members of the BBWAA to become like the "veterans committee" in terms of the difficulty in voting players into the HOF?
  17. Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I can think of several bloggers who would fit this profile. Many baseball books have been written by people with blogs/podcasts (I guess I'd be using the term "blogger" a bit loosely to encompass a more wide range of people). As I said earlier, the people working for MLBTradeRumors would easily be qualified to vote. And, for reasons that I'll post below, I think even some dedicated team sites could be and should be allowed to vote. The goal should be to expand the thinking and to generate more interest in the sport. As I said in the article, it is the Hall of Fame, and to that end, it should be represent the interests and thoughts of the fans who go there. Bloggers, even some team site bloggers, would be in the best position to represent those interests. Again, I'm not talking about the vast majority of bloggers, but, with some vetting and criteria, it would be easy to weed out those who lack the depth of knowledge and analytical abilities to be voting. But, then again, looking at the voting totals of the BBWAA (particularly those who did not get 100 percent of the vote), it's not like the BBWAA can claim that all of their voting members have the knowledge and analytical abilities to always get it right either.
  18. There'd have to be a way to balance it out for all teams so that all teams are represented. Teams should be allowed to vet and recognize the bloggers that they know and trust, and teams should get equal numbers to represent them. And, there would need to be some generic positions as well, for those writers at MLBTradeRumors.com and some other sites as well. If the voting membership were expanded, it would lead to more writing as more people would want to participate. And, that would lead to more interest in the sport. That would be a good thing for baseball. I don't see many of the voting members of the BBWAA getting over their issues as easily as you suggest. The better solution would be to expand the voting and open it up more to a greater diversity of opinions.
  19. Thanks. As I said, the eligibility requirements would need to be flushed out. But, think about the writers are MLBTradeRumors.com. How many hundreds of thousands of fans read their material. They will never get to vote for the Hall of Fame, and yet, fans consider them "experts" on the game. Many legacy media sites have essentially "bloggers" writing commentary about teams and the sport. So, again, they will never get a vote even though they are writing constantly about it. I believe that there could be and should be some ways to vet some bloggers (again to separate the idiots with keyboards from those who have more writing experience and analysis) to represent teams and the fans. Leaving the vote to just those members of the BBWAA no longer makes as much sense as it did in 1936. The world has changed a bit from then.
  20. I wouldn't be so certain of that. With the threshold for admittance still remaining at 75%, my bet is that they wouldn't get in at a higher rate, but players from other teams would get a better chance of admission.
  21. By David Saltzer, AngelsWin.com Senior Writer With the MLB offseason moving at a glacially slow speed, a lot of time, columns, and commentary has been devoted to which players, if any, might be voted into the Hall of Fame. As of the time this article was written, there are 57 public ballots and 5 anonymous ballots. There’s even a Hall of Fame vote tracker, where fans can see which players are likely to gain admittance into the Hall of Fame. Again, as of the time of this article, it appears that 2021 may not produce a single Hall of Fame admittance for a player. With all the public ballots known, representing about 16.4% of the eligible voters, that presents a problem for the Hall of Fame and for Major League Baseball, as the induction ceremony is where baseball has a chance to celebrate and glorify its past and connect it to its present. Rather than debating the merits of which players deserve enshrinement, I’d like to debate the question of who gets to vote for the Hall of Fame. More specifically, should some baseball bloggers be allowed to vote for the Hall of Fame? The immediate answer would appear to be “no” to that question. However, with all due respect to those writers that I know who can vote for the Hall of Fame, I’d take issue with that response. I get it that “any idiot with a keyboard” is a “blogger”. I want to be clear that I’m not at all advocating that all bloggers be allowed to vote for the Hall of Fame. Not all baseball writers are eligible to vote, so I can certainly see some need to create criteria for bloggers who would be eligible to vote. Since 1936, the Baseball Writers’ Association of America (BBWAA) has had the exclusive privilege to vote for those players to gain admission into the Hall of Fame. At that time, that made a lot of sense. Most baseball fans did not “see” most of the games, and instead heard the games over the radio or read about the games in the newspaper. The beat reporters were the ones who saw the players on a daily basis and were in the best position to determine those players who played at a level far above their peers. However, times change. With cable TV, fans today can watch as many games as the beat reporters. In fact, there are plenty of fans who may watch more games than reporters. More importantly, by watching the games on TV, with multiple commentators, fans will be exposed to multiple opinions about the play of individual players as they hear different broadcasters call the game whereas a beat reporter may only hear the same opinions from reporters on the same beat. The days where the members of the BBWAA serve as the sole or main “eyes” of the game are no longer upon us. Therefore, it is fair to ask if they should be the sole “guardians” of the history, the lore, and the mystique of the game (I would also argue that radio and TV announcers should also be given a vote for the Hall of Fame along with some bloggers). More importantly, the Hall of Fame is exactly what the name implies, the Hall of Fame. It is not the Hall of Stats. It is not the Hall of Personality. It is the Hall of Fame. If it were the Hall of Stats, then there wouldn’t be a need for a vote on eligibility for players, as the stats would speak for themselves. And, if it were the Hall of Personality, then several players presently in the Hall of Fame would need to be removed for what we now know about them, whereas others may deserve admission but did not receive it because they were not well liked by the voting members, or held ideological/political views that differed from the voting members. With all due respect to the members of the BBWAA that I know, while they are all fans of baseball, many of them are not fans of the team that they cover. They may like the team that they cover, but, in many cases, their beat doesn’t encompass their truly favorite team. While this may help them with their coverage for the team(s) that they write about, their experience is not what fuels and funds the game of baseball. It is the fans who do that. It’s truly the fans who determine “fame”, not the writers. Enshrining a player in Cooperstown essentially asks a question that the voting members of the BBWAA cannot truly answer. Essentially, it asks, which players over a prolonged period of play, were with the price of a ticket. Since the voting members of the BBWAA generally do not pay to attend games, and instead are paid to be at the games, that’s not a question that they can answer. Only fans can truly answer which players were worth paying to see. And, today’s fans are best represented by bloggers, not the BBWAA. That creates a real problem for the Hall of Fame. Having been there several times, I can tell you with absolute certainty that the overwhelming majority of people who visit it are there to visit and see things about their favorite team and players. One of the most crowded and slowest moving sections of the Hall of Fame is at the beginning, where every team has its locker full of memorabilia specific to that team. Fans stop for long periods to study their favorite team(s)’ lockers before spreading out to see the exhibits on baseball in general. That’s because they want to see the fame and glory for their team. They will stop to look at all displays for their favorite players, most of whom played for their team. They will take pictures with the plaques for their favorite players because that is fame for them. The Hall of Fame doesn’t exist just for the BBWAA; it exists for the fans and is attended by the fans. If it is truly supposed to be a hall of “fame” then the fans deserve to have a voice in the process of selecting those players enshrined within it. While the members of the BBWAA will have the factual knowledge of the best players of an era, and may recall which players played the most prominent roles in their stories over the seasons, they don’t always share the same passion and feelings towards players like dedicated fans. While they will have written about the plays and wins, it doesn’t always carry the same sting to them as knowing that a certain player is coming in for a homestand did to a diehard fan. Bloggers do know those pains, and are in the best position to represent the interests and beliefs of the fans who fuel the game. More importantly, in some cases, the members of the BBWAA may at times become too close to the players to always be entirely objective about it. It is easy to see that when players like Ken Griffey Jr. (99.3%), Nolan Ryan (98.8%), Ted Williams (93.4%), Jackie Robinson (77.5%), etc. did not achieve 100 percent of the vote for their admission into the Hall of Fame. It seems quite plausible that in some members of the BBWAA may have been swayed by personality conflicts with players and did not vote for those players or other players simply for reasons other than those that were part of the game. Personality conflicts appears to be the reason why one candidate on this year's ballot may not be enshrined in Cooperstown even though his stats would argue otherwise. Several members of the BBWAA have openly discussed this problem and their difficulty detaching his play on the field from their ideological conflicts with the player. Similarly, the members of the BBWAA may be a bit too close to some scandals in baseball, such as the steroid scandal, to truly be the objective and sole voters for the hall of “fame”. To fill in the time for the lack of movement this offseason, many voting members of the BBWAA have appeared on shows such as MLB Now and MLB Tonight to discuss the schism between older voting members and younger voting members when it comes to the steroid scandal. In both cases, though, both the more senior and the more junior writers may not share the same feelings about the steroid scandal as the fans do. In both cases, those members of the BBWAA may not understand the impact that those scandals had on the passion for the game because it was their job to watch and report the game, rather than making the choice to dedicate time and money to following the sport like fans did. The last point I would make about why some bloggers should be allowed to vote for membership in the Hall of Fame is the recognition of the obviously changing economics of sports coverage. To say that the legacy media is on the ropes is an understatement. The number of baseball writing jobs and positions in newspapers is shrinking annually. Again, with all due respect to the current voting members of the BBWAA that I know, at some people, they may become extinct. There may not be that many writers left who meet the voting eligibility requirements for the Hall of Fame to truly make it or their vote relevant. That would be a serious blow to the sport, the coverage, and the Hall of Fame. It would be far wiser to develop new criteria to reflect the times and realities by letting some bloggers be eligible to vote for the Hall of Fame than to wait for a foreseeable crash to happen and have no plan for how to proceed. If Major League Baseball truly wanted to capture the younger, more diverse audience, then it needs to adapt with the times. Baseball coverage and thought is not the same as it was in 1936 when the BBWAA became the official voting body of the Hall of Fame. Not only do some bloggers represent a way forward for continued baseball coverage, but they also represent a diversity of opinions. Bloggers are more likely to challenge the orthodoxy on certain viewpoints, such as whether or not a pure DH should be in the Hall of Fame, how to recognize the most outstanding middle relievers, etc. (focusing just on issues concerning Hall of Fame voting). By allowing some bloggers to vote for admission into the Hall of Fame, Major League Baseball will ensure the diversity of opinions continue to matter and will continue to carry the history and legacy of the sport forward. Again, I want to be clear that I am not advocating for all bloggers to be given a vote. Just as there are eligibility requirements for baseball writers to be eligible to vote, so too should there be eligibility requirements for bloggers. What those eligibility rules should be, and how those rules would be balanced out can be discussed once the idea of allowing some bloggers to be able to vote becomes acceptable and official. Until then, the question needs to be continuously asked: should some bloggers be allowed to vote for the Hall of Fame?
  22. Thanks for writing this Robert. I always look forward to and enjoy reading your articles.
  23. Yes he has, but he is better defensively in the infield. Putting him in the outfield might not be as bad as Thaiss at 2B, but, it wouldn't be the best either.
  24. Definitely a good kid and a bright spot in our organization. So much of our talent is so young, like William, that our system will become much better as they mature. You can see in the video that William has a lot more projectable power and should pick up a couple of MPHs on his FB. With improved control, he has the potential to be a great threat on both sides of the game.
  25. By David Saltzer, AngelsWin.com Senior Writer To say that 2020 has been a strange year is clearly an understatement. Not only has it dramatically disrupted Major League baseball, but it has all but shutdown Minor League baseball. The long-term effect of that will not be known for years. As fans, we know that the Minor Leaguers are our future. Their development is critical to the success of the Angels organization. To find out more about how those players who are not part of the limited training program are doing, we recently met online and spoke with William Holmes, the Angels 5th round draft pick in 2018. For William, development is critical, as he is trying to become part of the wave of 2-way players, following in Shohei Ohtani's footsteps. Drafted out of high school, William has posted a .252/.357/.329 line with 18 walks and 1 HR in 168 PAs and a 5.18 ERA with 38 Ks in 24.1 IP. He's done that all while being one of the youngest players in the leagues in which he played. We spoke with William about his goals, how he's progressing, and what he's doing this offseason to continue his development. As a player, he shows plenty of promise with lots of athleticism that should lead to success on both sides of the game. At AngelsWin.com, we believe that as he matures, and improves, he will shoot up our prospect charts over the next couple of years, and is definitely one of our prospects worth getting to know. Please click below to watch our interview with William Holmes.
×
×
  • Create New...