Dave Saltzer

He is truly awesome. If you ever had the chance to hear him speak, you know that he doesn't shy away from the tough questions. He tells great stories and can talk baseball for hours.

I am all in favor of speeding up the game by doing the following: 1) requiring all batters to keep a foot in the batters box (with a penalty strike being called if the batter wanders off--and an exception allowed if the batter has to jump out of the way of a ball); 2) instituting a 20 second pitch clock starting the moment the pitcher gets the ball (with the penalty being a ball is called); 3) reducing the pitcher's pitch clock by 2 seconds for every throw or fake throw to a base made (again with the penalty being a ball is called). What I think really drags the game down is all the relievers who come in, take about a minute to get the signs, shakes off 5 signs (even though they only have 2 pitches), makes 5 throws over to first base, etc. Get the sign and pitch. Get the out out at the plate. If you throw over to first, you know what you want to throw so throw it. You don't need to go through 5 signs again. I would love to see a breakdown of the amount of time spent by inning. My guess is that innings 6-8 are the slowest, and that's when the pitching changes generally occur and the relievers start slowing the game down.

Too bad, but between the two, I would much prefer Moncada. We need more quality bats in the system.

Agreed. We took the time to look PAST the stats. For example, with Shoemaker, a lot of his ERA in the minors was inflated due to poor defending and bad calls. By getting to know him, I learned what was and what was not working. The major publications only saw that he was an undrafted player (the ultimate curse) and never looked at what he did, how he did it, or with whom he played. With Calhoun, his work ethic was so much higher than most of his peers. His attitude and mental makeup was immediately noticeable. His tools may not have shown to be as high, but getting to know him, I knew that he'd get everything out of all that he had and would be a success. With Trumbo, his drive and intelligence stood out. Had he stayed here, I expected him to become the go-to guy for all the reporters. There's a reason why he's so well liked, even if all the major publications didn't consider him a real prospect for so long.

He could also play pretty much any OF position. He's that good, and I think his bat could be special.

It's only a rebuild if it makes the team better for the future. I have serious questions about how they are truly better for the future with all the trades they made. I get their money issues, but, still, don't get what they've done to their team.

AJ, I don't mind admitting to having some homerism in my evaluations and reports. I've said many times that hope is the currency of baseball, and, I choose to be optimistic. I'd rather be the type of fan who foresees good things for players than negative things (I really loathe those who appear to relish in the failures of players). Most of the time, I'm pretty right and accurate. And I love it when players like Calhoun and Shoemaker succeed when so many other penned negative reports on them. They become my guys, and they have told me on many occasions that they appreciated the positive press they got when so many others doubted them. That's also why I work so hard to try and get them to come to our Fanfests--so that everyone can see them long before they become Major Leaguers, and we can see them for the people they are. If you are going to evaluate players, here's a secret you have to know: Almost every organization has about 170 guys in the Minors (or more), all of whom are dreaming of making a 25-man roster. Most will NEVER make it. Even all the guys on a Top-10 Prospect list for a team won't make it. So, just like in baseball where failing 7/10 times at the plate is a very good average, scouting and predicting also has a very low success rate. So, you have to ask yourself if you want to be the kind of guy who focuses on the 7/10 failures, or the .300 BA instead. I personally think that my evaluations are honestly told, putting a player's best foot forward. My rankings are usually pretty spot on with the organization's and work well with the criteria that I have outlined for how I evaluate the players (I've discussed those for the last 2 years).

I have heard some good reports on Lopez, and would like to see us sign him. Basically a little rough, but has a high-end live arm. That's what Sanchez had, only younger. So, with Lopez, we could get someone who'd slot in at High-A, and could be ready faster than Sanchez. And yes, I'm well on record for wanting Moncada. If Kubitza pans out at 3B, there are still plenty of other positions where he'd fit nicely into our lineup.

Here's an interesting idea. The Cuban, Lopez, age 21,who can hit 100 was just cleared to sign. We've already gone over our limit this year, and will have a $300k limit for the next 2 years. So, might as well sign him and essentially replace Sanchez, giving us a 3B for the future and another quality pitcher. One interesting g question I have about the next two years and international signing money. We can't sign anyone for more than the $300k max, but, could we trade more of that to another team so they can use it for their signing bonuses?

Thanks. A lot of people deserve a lot of kudos for the work so far, but I am not one. Chuck, Geoff, Eric, Bruce, Brian, and Nick all deserve way more praise for their work so far. Those guys do one hell of a job.

By the way, it goes without saying that if you haven't read any of the Rob Goldsman baseball books, such as Once They Were Angels and Nolan Ryan, they are an absolute must read.

Sheets! Don't say that. With a 10th anniversary interview and kudos like that, someone's going to demand a pay raise!

Getting excited for Baseball!

Congrats to the Shoemakers. Ever since Matt came to our Fanfest, he is one of our guys. Like Calhoun and Morin and all the others, I take tremendous pride in seeing our guys do well and hope life brings them nothing but success and happiness. A first child, and every child, is a blessing.

Definitely take the time to read "The Bullpen Gospels" and it's sequels. You will laugh out loud and really feel for th struggles of the guys in the Minors.

I am very happy with this signing, but still want Moncada in the fold as well.

Here is a different take on the HoF voting. This was the first year that I was able to participate in the Internet Baseball Writers Association of America's (IBWAA) Hall of Fame voting. I took the responsibility very seriously. I am still debating whether or not to publish the names of the players for whom I voted. I respect Jeff Fletcher as a reporter very much, and respect his decision to publish the names of those he voted for to get into Cooperstown, as well as those reporters who do not, and will continue to reflect on my decision to reveal my ballot. IBWAA SELECTS FIVE IN 2015 HALL OF FAME VOTEJanuary 6, 2015 · by Howard Cole · in 2015 Hall of Fame Los Angeles– In its 2015 Hall of Fame election the IBWAA selected Randy Johnson (with 98.24% of the vote), Pedro Martinez (95.15%), John Smoltz (82.82%), Jeff Bagwell (81.94%) and Tim Raines (79.30%). A 75% threshold is required for election. Curt Schilling finished in sixth place, with 65.64%. Roger Clemens garnered 64.76% (after receiving 56.64% in 2014) and Barry Bonds received 63.44% (57.52% last year). There are 338 members in the IBWAA, of which 227 voted in this election, both essentially doubling last year’s totals. Per a group decision in January, 2014, the IBWAA allows members to vote for 15 players, instead of the previous 10, beginning with this election. With their first opportunity to do so, 136 members voted for more than 10 candidates. Fifty-two members voted for 15 players. The average vote per member was 11.084. The 2015 IBWAA Hall of Fame ballot compared identically to the BBWAA ballot, with the following exceptions: 1. Craig Biggio’s name did not appear on the IBWAA ballot because he was elected by the group in 2014. 2. Mike Piazza’s name did not appear on the IBWAA ballot because he was elected by the group in 2013. 3. Barry Larkin’s name did appear on the ballot because he has not reached the 75% threshold in an IBWAA election. Complete voting results are as follows: Player Name Votes Percentage Randy Johnson 223 98.24% Pedro Martinez 216 95.15% John Smoltz 188 82.82% Jeff Bagwell 186 81.94% Tim Raines 180 79.30% Curt Schilling 149 65.64% Roger Clemens 147 64.76% Barry Larkin 146 64.32% Mike Mussina 146 64.32% Barry Bonds 144 63.44% Edgar Martinez 129 56.83% Alan Trammell 113 49.78% Larry Walker 89 39.21% Mark McGwire 81 35.68% Gary Sheffield 74 32.60% Jeff Kent 70 30.84% Lee Smith 52 22.91% Fred McGriff 49 21.59% Sammy Sosa 46 20.26% Don Mattingly 35 15.42% Nomar Garciaparra 17 7.49% Carlos Delgado 16 7.05% Tony Clark 4 1.76% Jermaine Dye 4 1.76% Brian Giles 4 1.76% Tom Gordon 3 1.32% Eddie Guardado 2 0.88% Rich Aurilia 1 0.44% Cliff Floyd 1 0.44% Troy Percival 1 0.44% Aaron Boone 0 0.00% Darin Erstad 0 0.00% Jason Schmidt 0 0.00% Ballot tabulations by Brian Wittig & Associates.

A good writer can't sell print without a publicist. Thanks for helping make the big bucks on here Geoff!

Wow! I want him signed by the Angels. Let's see, Freese is a FA next year, and we have no real replacement for him in the system. There aren't that many high profile 3B available, and if we went the FA route, we'd pay well over $10 million/year to sign one. With his bat speed and base speed, he's got huge upside. Assuming his mental makeup is good, he looks like he could zip through our Minor Leagues like Trout did. Pair him up with Trout, bat him second, that could be very dangerous. IMHO, we have to go all-in to sign him.

For a lot less money, and for a lot more interest to Angels fans, why not go out to many (if not all) of our Minor League affiliates, such as the IE 66ers, the Orem Owlz, and the Salt Lake Bees? Minor League baseball is a hell of a lot of fun, less expensive, and fan friendly. You could also hit all the Cal League parks (and see why you NEVER put home plate facing west--I'm looking at you Lancaster). Either of those are realistic trips, and can be done on a budget.

I really do NOT see the point in this. We can get similar, if not better, production from the guys we have than from Drew for a LOT less money. If we aren't going to somehow spend the money on Scherzer (and trading Wilson to stay under the luxury tax), we'd be far better off holding onto the money and using it in the season and/or near the trade deadline to shore up any needs we have throughout the season. Pass on Drew. Pass on Boras.

Great story and great job indeed!

Depends . . . most likely OF with Hamilton getting the lion's share at DH. When facing tougher lefties, Hamilton would sit and Pujols would DH.

This is why I wanted the Angels to focus on getting a leadoff hitter this offseason, so that we can do exactly this. I'd love to see Calhoun bat 2nd, Trout 3rd, and Pujols 4th, if we had a legit leadoff hitter.

I still hope we land one or both of Moncada and Lopez. Our farm system needs and infusion of talent, and they look to have quite a bit of talent.