Angels

Not really. Only two of the players you listed are guaranteed to be with the club for 3 years or longer: Pujols and Hamilton. And they're unmovable. Iannetta, Kendrick and Freese will be free agents after 2015. Aybar is signed through 2016 and I wouldn't mind seeing him extended, actually.

Not sure how much the Angels can realistically do...assuming they don't want to go over the luxury tax. They won't have much to spend. I would hate to see the Angels move a player like Kendrick to create flexibility. Talk about a massive downgrade whoever replaces him.

Kendrick had the sixth-highest wRC+ among all second basemen (35 players) with a minimum of 300 PAs. Kendrick was one of the very best players at his position. Context matters.

How does that make sense? Choo is signed through 2020. And his contract will turn into a disaster soon (if it already isn't one).

So..what kind of production from Hamilton would you consider to be satisfactory?

It matters because Hamilton is being paid like a superstar. He is paid to hit like one. Anything less than star offense from him and it's not acceptable as far as expectations are concerned. The Angels would take anything positive at this point, I'm sure....but it's still disappointing and not what they were expecting or had in mind when they signed him. And of course his contract matters. It gives him a much longer leash. He can suck for prolonged periods and still be allowed to suck some more because his contract is too large to get rid of.

You wouldn't be expecting as much out of him, that's for sure. It would also be easier to get rid of him for sucking. And to answer your question, no.

Well, that's exactly why they are huge busts.

You just don't pay $6 million for a bench player.

$240 million over 10 years and $125 million over 5 years. Yeah. I think the expectations should be high...even though they're not going to play up to them.

Grichuk strikes out A LOT and doesn't walk much. Unless he shows some better plate discipline he's not going to amount to anything special. He also struck out a lot and didn't walk much at AAA and his overall numbers weren't anything to write home about. 102 wRC+ at AAA

It's also the way he struggles. He swings at any crap thrown at him. He's an extreme hacker who does not make contact. That's brutal. It hurts the eyes to watch

It's going to be really tough to keep him around if he plays as badly next year as he did since April of this year (particularly the second half). Or if he's injured a good portion of next year.

Why would you expect Pujols to improve? What you see is what you get. He's an above average player being paid like the best player in baseball. And there's really nowhere to go but down at this point. Why would he suddenly improve from last season? The Angels better hope he just stays the same for a few more years. And I wouldn't expect much of anything out of Hammy. I wouldn't be shocked if he gets released by around the end of next year.

Just because the rest of the offense sucked doesn't excuse the fact that Hammy was allowed to play (and suck) all 3 games. That was a fail on Scioscia. No adjustments whatsoever. And that Game 3 start defied all logic...especially after what we saw the first two games.

A different manager would probably adjust a little quicker, especially with so much on the line...it being the postseason and all. Just a hunch. Hey, explain why Hammy was in Game 3 please. You seem so hell-bent on making sure no criticism falls on Scioscia. So, explain his reasoning?

Cowgill probably makes that play. Hamilton hurt the Angels offensively and defensively.

Like falling on his ass after making a routine catch? And failing to catch a catchable ball that Cowgill likely makes? Yep. Sure did watch the same game.

And then Game 3! Hamilton had awful career numbers against Shields. Shields had owned him. That + Hamilton being awful the first two games (and clearly should not have been playing). So, what does Scioscia do? Play him. Scioscia failed to make any sort of adjustments. That's on Scioscia.

He was obviously viewed as a potential asset. As was every other player on the roster. But it should've been obvious to anyone after the first game (or even first AB) that he was not in any sort of position to help the club. Those god awful swings and results...not to mention looking lost on defense made it pretty obvious that he was not going to help. Scioscia failed to adjust. He just kept trotting him out there.

Dipoto didn't tell Scioscia to play Hamilton (especially not all 3 games).That was Scioscia's call since he's the manager. He's the one who writes that lineup card.

Show me a quote from Dipoto that proves it.

Exactly. We will never know for sure. In the end, you will think what you think and I'll think what I think.

It may have been a group decision but you assume that Scioscia and Dipoto agree with each other and think alike 100% of the time. Tell me... if Scioscia wanted a "proven" veteran like Wilson over Rasmus and Santiago in Game 3... and Dipoto wanted Rasmus or Santiago... who had the final say? Something had to give, right? Compromise? Were they sitting in a room for hours with their legs and arms crossed...waiting for someone to blink first? Who would have the final say in the event of a disagreement?

Ok, so... in the event of a disagreement, who has the final say? The manager or the general manager? If Scioscia wanted Wilson to start and Dipoto wanted Rasmus or Santiago, who got the final say?This is assuming that they don't agree with each other or think alike 100% of the time...