deakscauz

Sorry AO, no, it was in fact Gaylord Perry.

Well, you didn't score great 2. It was ruled a home run before 1931. 4. Bats were first regulated in 1859, before that it was common for players to use 2 x 4 in an effort to maximize the amount of wood they could get on a ball. 5. Negative, not an A's game. It was 347 in 2011 when the Reds played the Marlins in Miami. 7. While he was indeed named after his father, his first name is George. Hope you all enjoyed.

Correct

You are both correct in that it was Mantle, however it was at Briggs Stadium in 1960 which was estimated to be roughly 634-660 feet.

Correct on all 3! Well played.

Hey all, Just thought we might have some fun with some baseball trivia. Now I can't make any promises, but a cursory poll of my living room shows that an individual capable of answering all these questions correctly will be heralded among baseball keyboard jockeys everywhere! So let us begin. 1. What is unofficially the longest home run ever hit in an MLB game? Who hit it, where, and how far did it go? 2. What was a ground rule double ruled as before the 1931 season? 3. Who was the first African American player in the major leagues? 4. What year was the first year bats were regulated? 5. What is the record for the lowest attendance ever at an MLB game? 6. What player did a manager once joke that "They'll land a man on the moon before he hits a home run," only to have the player he mentioned score his first home run hours after the Apollo 11 landed? 7. What was Ken Griffey Jr's real first name? 8. Who is the only player to hit 60 home runs 3 times? 9. Who introduced shin guards for catchers? What year did this take place? 10. What pitcher invented the curveball? Tip: He is widely noted as the "Father of the Curveball." Hope you enjoy!

Umm, unless I missed something, aren't competitive balance draft picks able to be traded? Not that it matters, just thought the new CBA changed that portion of it.

I believe it was Rogers Hornsby if I'm not mistaken

Yes, and no. Will the team need to sign free agents next year? Of course. Just throwing up your arms and implying that no free agents can be acquired or that this course of action is folly are just flat out ridiculous. Most teams actually have to sign free agents simply to fill out their major league rosters due to their farm systems are long term plans...it's why people use the term "stop-gap" in baseball. What I am essentially saying is that of the $25-30 million the angels will have to spend next year, it should be spent wisely. If it were up to me, I'd rid the team of guys like Callaspo, Aybar, Iannetta, Kendrick, Bourjous, etc. I would sell them to the highest bidder and move on. Will it be the best course of action? Probably not, I'm not big on signing free agents and prefer teams that build within, but like it or not, the next 4-5 years are going to be free agent heavy unless this team does some serious rebuilding.

Here is the biggest issue, and CA nailed it on the head. We haven't seen much of Conger since he came up. Even back in 2011 when he had his most at bats he played behind guys like Mathis. This is the one real issue I can honestly look at and say that Scioscia has; dealing with catchers. It goes all the way back to when Napoli was here. Let's be honest, Conger isn't great defensively, but you will never know what type of player Hank is until you give him 350-450 at bats in a year.

Actually Adam, I think they can easily become much better by next year. Your stipulation was that neither Bourjos or Trumbo could be traded. If we take this into account very well. That leaves you with realistically very little to trade. You have maybe Kendrick or Aybar, though I don't know if Aybar's contract has a no trade clause or not. You might be able to squeeze a team at the deadline to get a low D prospect for Hanson or Vargas, and that's a big maybe. I think the thing that you want is to know how they get better, so I will tell you. If the entire team stays the same and no roster moves are made a lot of money comes off the books next year. Vargas at $8 mil, Downs at $5 mil, Hanson at $4ish mil, etc. I think if you add it up something like $20-25 million is coming off the books, more if you can trade Blanton for a bag of balls if the other teams takes on the contract. $20-25 million is roughly 1/4 of a small market team, closer to 1/3 with some. I think that at the end of the year we could easily rebuild a struggling bullpen and starting rotation with that kind of money, and that isn't even including possible trades by the end of the year. The deal is, there are a ton of options out there, it's just that the average fan thinks that getting (or getting rid of) 1 or 2 players will make the biggest difference, when it won't. What about management such as Scoscia? You could buy a great reliever for 2 mil a year, and watch as Mike misuses him. There is more wrong with the philosophy of the Angels than their actual skills at the game.

I have to say this is my favorite post I have seen so far in my short time here.

No, and please, let's not even pretend that unloading Wilson, Pujols and Hamilton are realistic scenarios. Pujols didn't have a great year by his standards, but he had a great year for an average player, even what an average player would consider a "career year." So yes, Pujols may have had a "down year," but still quite good in most regards. Also, what upsets people so much is that he didn't have a "great year" for Albert Pujols standards. So he didn't hit .340/45-50HR/125+RBI. The best thing for Albert right now I truly believe is to go on the DL for 15 days and do absolutely nothing but rest his foot. You don't play a $200million+ investment in the condition he is in. When he returns you have hit become a full time DH and allow Trumbo to solidify himself at 1st. Hamilton is bar none the streakiest hitter I have ever seen. To think that he will a) yield anything on the trade floor right now is just plain idiotic, and b ) he will not have this type of year all year. Once again, he will have what most likely will be a below average year for Hamilton, but an above average year for most players. I foresee a .250/25HR/85RBI type year give or take. Is that atrocious? No. Is it for the type of money he makes? Of course, and that is the sticking issue again. People just need to realize that you aren't pissed that these players are having bad years so to speak, you are most likely pissed that they make so much and are having bad years. But to throw out trade scenarios where guys like Wilson, Pujols, and Kendrick are traded as one package for C level prospects is....well I don't know exactly how to put it. Face the music. On this roster you have very few trade options. Kendrick is one, but most likely this year only as a partial no trade kicks in next year. You could theoretically trade Trumbo or Trout, though management would be fired very quickly I imagine. And you have Bourjos and maybe Aybar. Outside that you have prospects. You don't contend for years straight by renting players, you do it by renting your players to other teams for their prospects.

Here is the thing that frustrates me the most about Angels fans. What dictates a quality pitcher? Is it a guy who is going to eat 200 innings a year? A sub 4.00 ERA? An ERA+ of around 160-180? There are multiple things that a pitcher can excel at to be considered quality. The bottom line is I think most Angel fans at this point in time would just be happy with a guy with an ERA around 5.00 and can pitch 6-7 inning while allowing under 5 runs. Like it or not, out of Vargas, Hanson, and Blanton you are not getting much return were you to trade them, even then you have to wait it out until after the trade deadline via a waiver trade. Even then you are hoping someone over reaches. Blanton isn't going to go anywhere this year, he is locked up for 2 years for roughly double what he should have been paid. In terms of quality vs cost it's an albatross contract. The only thing you can really do this year is start by maybe making a trade involving someone like Bourjos or Kendrick or Callaspo, then realizing that you aren't getting an A prospect. Realistically you are getting maybe a B but most likely a low C propsect. Out of those 3 players, Bourjos nets you the best return, but there is constantly outcry about keeping Bourjos. The only option right now to provide an influx of arms is to call them up and see how they do. We don't have a lot of talent in the system, but in terms of what you are getting from your "veterans" the statistical difference would be minimal, possibly even better. What prevents the organization of doing something like this is that there is no history with prospects. We can look at Vargas' body of work and realize that he will most likely return to form sometime during the season and pitch quite well.

I think a couple things need to be remembered here. Trout is young, as in real young. He is 21, think of what you were doing at 21, and then compare that to Trout. The kid is entitled to struggle a little bit given that the average major league player doesn't ascend to this level until usually around age 23-25. Trout is a sophomore who didn't play a full season last year. While yes, he played the majority of the season, he had a very minimal book that opposing pitchers could pull from at the start of last year. Teams have had a full year of major league scouting on him, and they will be making serious adjustments against him. Now given his stats over his minor league career i don't foresee Trout struggling all year or not panning out as a player or anything. You can look at some serious prospects over the past few years. Harper, Hosmer, Hayward (lots of H's apparently), etc. These guys had great first years, and only Harper has shown no sign of a sophomore slump with Homser and Hayward performing well below their rookie year statistics. There is reason for this in my opinion. Trout is like Harper; different. We don't know what kind of player either of them can be. Why is this? It's because unlike most prospects they both shot through their respective systems at incredible speeds. So while they both played exceptionally well in the minors, it's not like they logged 1,000 or 1,500 at bats. They are still both very raw, ridiculously talented kids playing well above their age level. We never got a chance to see the full body of work, we just saw 2 kids putting up insane numbers. We didn't see struggles all that often. This year provides a good learning experience for Trout. He hasn't really had to deal with massive struggles. Granted he played mediocre upon first call up back at the end of 2011, but people saw potential. The first few years players have to decide what type of player they are going to become. Are they a power hitter? Are they a speed demon? Are they a guy who is going to worry more about getting on base, and be patient. People like to throw great players out there and wonder why everyone can't play up to their level. But it is rare that 1 player can assimilate himself to all these aspects of the game quickly and for the long term. Trout could easily be a guy who hits .300+ with 50-70 steals a year, and maybe pops 10-15 out. He could be a guy who hits .260 and jacks 40 out. He could be a guy who gets on base at a .400 clip. The jury is out, not just for us, but for him as well. Also it begs to be mentioned that Trout had a year that nobody expected...sometimes even being labeled the greatest rookie year of all time. While I disagree with that sentiment that it is the greatest ever, it should be mentioned that it's difficult to transition from that. How do you top that? Hit .400 and jack 50? Not likely. Not to mention that because of this success there is a ridiculous amount of scrutiny on the handling of him. Let's say the Angels send him down, there would be unimaginative amounts of public outcry. So while he may struggle, he isn't going anywhere. It's a similar situation to Hamilton, no matter how bad they play, their successes have cemented them where they are.