Angels

He did suck hard with the White Sox, though. I doubt they're going to offer him arbitration. If he comes back it's going to be at a reduced salary.

Yea, it's definitely not a huge loss or a big deal. If the Angels thought he was a fit to back up Freese (or anyone) they would've just kept him. They obviously didn't see him as a bench player. They were prepared to let him go, otherwise he wouldn't have been so exposed.

His career major league numbers: 1.3% BB% 27.2% K%

We don't know how much of an impact he truly made/makes with the glove, though...whereas with his stick we (for the most part) can see that he didn't quite cut it. The results looked Brandon Wood-ian in some ways. He spent 3 years in AAA and his results didn't suggest he was major league quality.

Who cares. His stick left a lot to be desired. Last thing we need is a complete hacker who can't hit qualify as depth.

Cain is really annoying. But props for being a great defender.

Wow. Terrible news.

That's weird, considering Trout had a higher wRC+ this year than Aaron did in 1957

Well deserved! Martinez wouldn't have been a bad choice but Trout slightly edged him in the wRC+ department. However, Trout plays a physically demanding position and gets banged up a lot more over the course of a season than a big plodding DH does. Health matters when it comes to offensive production.

You're so sweet, cez. Thanks for the compliments and, more importantly, for being my fan. It means a lot coming from you. I hope them boys appreciate that about you. Bet they go buck wild

It only took a few seconds to see that I made 28 posts in this thread. I think my math is okay on this one, though? Please correct me if I'm wrong, teacher. Thanks for being my fan though booboo. <3

In actuality, it's not even 15%.

Haha. I probably get some more than you, amigo ;>

Well, he has eaten some large if not long contracts before. I see no reason why he couldn't do it here.

He's the manager, though. He is responsible for getting these guys ready to win in the postseason. And he should shoulder the blame for their failures. Fair or not, he's the leader. For whatever reason his teams have failed in the postseason. Whatever he is doing is not working. Maybe it's time to let someone else give it a go?

Baseball is a "what have you done for me lately?" sport. Usually. Just not in this case.

2002 inflates that. A 10-22 record since then shows that. Or a 31.25% winning percentage.

Some fans are content with being perennial losers in the postseason. No accountability whatsoever. Scioscia's clubs can suck all they want in the real season/October, apparently. Let's also not forget that this was the first year the Angels made the postseason in five years.

You must be fine with it. After all, that's Scioscia's record. And I guess the Angels can't do better, right? So why fire Scioscia and see what another manager can do? May as well stick with him?

So how much longer should the Angels postseason failures be tolerated before a change in leadership is considered? Say the Angels win the division next year and then lose in the first round yet again. Pretty sure you would still be wanting him to manage in 2016. I don't think 10-22 since that one year is acceptable or something to be proud of.

You pretty much said it yourself. Wilson, Hamilton, bunts...and the team looking flat. Whether it's fair or not that's on Scioscia. If he's going to get credit for their success then he should also shoulder the blame for their failures. And I disagree about Wilson. He was one of the worst pitchers in baseball from the end of May all the way to the bitter end. He had no business starting. Playing Hammy every single game was a disaster. The bunt was beyond stupid. Wilson took us out of Game 3. Hamilton did nothing. And the bunts might've lost us the game. Yah, awful managing.

Or maybe it's just time for a change and see what another manager can do? Because 10-22 speaks for itself, does it not? Some people choose to overlook all these postseason failures for whatever reason. If a team fails so does the manager. I don't think he would still be managing if not for that 10/50 contract.

I don't think Scioscia did an awful just during the regular season. He had his flaws (Frieri, Ibanez, bullpen management earlier, etc) yet he threw all of that in the toilet with the way he managed during the postseason. That was awful managing. And it's hard to overlook that with all of his other postseason failures since the Angels won it all. It's been nothing but bitter disappointment

2002 was a long time ago. Your hair probably wasn't all too grey back then. What's your argument, though? 2002? Or maybe 2014, being his first year to make the postseason in this decade? Some people choose to overlook his postseason failures. That's fine. I wonder if Scioscia would still be manager had he not been given a 10/50 contract.

Nobody said he's perfect. But he sure would be a great replacement for Scioscia.