eaterfan

On 8/28/2021 at 10:00 PM, angelsnationtalk said:

It's a small sample size, a very very small sample size, but seeing how Marsh has adjusted at the plate already and seeing how Adell has handled the outfield as well as cutting down on chasing wild pitches has me at a crossroad. 

The outfield for 2022 is up in the air. I say this given the recent swarm of injuries Mike Trout has had and Justin Upton being practically non-existent. 

Over the last year and a half (and mostly since the trade deadline), I've loved the idea of trading one of Marsh or Adell to the Marlins for a front of the rotation piece. 

Now..... I'm not so sure I want to do that. I know the trade lines up well with the Marlins, but I think we are at a loss if one of those guys go and we have to deal with Upton on the decline and Trout with his history of injuries. 

Thoughts? Anyone else feeling like this?

The epitome of an arm chair GM. "When our players are duds I'd like to trade them for other teams best players. Now that they are good I would prefer to hang onto them." I get that you want to trade bad players for good players, but that isn't how trades generally work. Trades usually involve trading old players for young players to better fit a window, cheap players for expensive ones to reduce payroll, low ceiling high floor players for high ceiling low floor players to increase certainty, one surplus position for another in need, etc. 

What has changed over the last year (other than the performance of Marsh and Adell) that has changed your reasons for not making the trade? Did the Angels pitching get better so they have less of a need for pitching? Have Mike Trout and Justin Upton's injuries made you more worried about the need for 4 good outfielders for the Angels? If the answer is that it's really just performance, then the trade probably wasn't reasonable in the first place or that's it's probably still worth doing. MLB GMs aren't going off a player struggling for a month and a half or getting hot for a month and a half, either.

1 hour ago, Jason said:

Correct and a responsible adult will seek help when they have a problem 

Yeah, that's definitely how addiction works.

29 minutes ago, nando714 said:

Skaggs was a grown man. He knew what he was putting in his body.

I hope his family doesn’t get a handout from the angels bc he was a drug addict. 

Ummm... This wasn't cocaine. It was pain killer which Angels doctors may have put him on to start with. I'm not sure how much you have been following the issues with Oxycotin, but the company knowingly lied about how addictive it was. I'm not saying the team doctors are responsible for knowing about it either, but when a Dr. prescribes medicine for you, and you take it, you may be addicted before you know it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/08/health/purdue-pharma-opioids-settlement.html

On 8/11/2021 at 10:05 AM, Inside Pitch said:

I've always been a PITA about defense and run prevention so I've always keyed on that...

Its funny too because Adam Kennedy's defense caught a huge amount of bullshit from Angels fans early on which was pretty funny given how his career went.  Then HK comes up and everyone was whining he wasn't AK defensively so I can see where the impression may have come.

Both those guys got saddled with reps they didn't deserve... Only reason its so vivid for me is I remember beating my head into a wall defending them both... Lol..

I hope Stefanic gets a chance.  With Rengifo possibly hurt, maybe he gets one.

 

I think there were questions with Kendrick's defense in the minors. People (minor league evaluators) were pretty surprised with his defense when he came up. I think part of it may have had to do with the other guys in the system. Aybar and (I can't recall the second baseman that we traded to KC and eventually got back) were both supposed to be awesome defensively.

12 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

The delusion that these guys are victims and suffering continues. . . 

Minor league baseball players spend basically all day at the ballpark.

This is exactly why they have no need for anything more than sharing an apartment with other minor leaguers.

And again all the people upset over their income/living situation I guess are going to keep deliberately ignoring that lots of these guys got signing bonuses that they could choose to spend on better housing.

Most choose to save that money and choose the roommate situation.

That is their decision and my opinion is it is a good decision so they can save more for the future.

Then pay them for their time there! 

"These guys work hard all day, we shouldn't pay them. What use would they have for money when they spend all day at work?"

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think these guys work such long hours that they don't need money is a persuasive argument that the system isn't exploitative.

14 hours ago, eligrba said:

How much different is this issue and how student athletes are exploited by the NCAA profit machine?

Sadly, this may be worse than exploited college athletes. 

1) NCAA players get to pick where they play. MiLB (and MLB players for that matter) are assigned where they play

2) NCAA players are housed, fed, and provided an education which is worth more than what MiLB players are paid (salary, not signing bonus)

3) NCAA players can transfer. You don't like the situation at school one, you can move to school two. MiLB can't change teams.

This isn't true for all athletes and all sports. Baseball players on partial scholarships aren't in as good a situation as football or basketball players, obviously. 

Also, there are certainly advantages to MiLB. If you are drafted early, you get a signing bonus. (NIL rules may mitigate these advantages going forward). And coaches in the minor leagues are trying to develop players and not win at all costs. Pitchers don't throw 130 pitches in a game or 250 in a week in the minors. Hitters aren't bunting every 5th PA, etc. 

Stop comparing the crappy job you had in high school or college to minor leaguers. You didn't get drafted to out of high school to flip burgers at McDonald's halfway across the county. They didn't cap how much money you could make based on when you were drafted. When Burger King offered you more money or better conditions you could go there and work for them. MLB isn't a free market. Everyone saying "you're worth what someone will pay you" are using that in the wrong way. As MLB owner Steve Cohen pointed out, draft picks are worth 5x their investment costs. 

But beyond that, everyone pointing out that Arte should invest in minor leaguers is right. NCAA programs invest so much money is food and training facilities. Owners spend so much money on their big league teams (I'd argue they should put more in payroll). But for the price of a decent middle reliever you could pay every minor leaguer in the system enough to be able to afford food and rent and they could focus only on being a good baseball player instead of making ends meet. It's classic penny wise pound foolish behavior from Arte.

31 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

That would make it easier for bad teams, probably encourage tanking too since the worst team gets first pick at the best player in each category.

If you have separate HS and college drafts then you are essentially eliminating a lot of the risks involved with taking a HS player early because everyone would be choosing HS players in that draft.

 

I think it would be a nightmare to set up, though. There are bascially 3 options:

1. Keep the money the same as now and have equal high school and college draft pools (moneywise) - High school kids are not getting as much money and might go to college instead of signing.

2. You have a smaller college player draft pool and a larger high school one - People will complain that MLB is screwing over kids who "did the right thing" and went to college.

3. MLB increases the draft allowance and keeps the pools even - I still think the high school players will be more apt to go to college, because they still have more leverage and will feel like they are getting screwed. Plus, MLB isn't going to approve spending more money than they have to.

If you want to keep the draft (and a cap on draft signing salary) and have the teams draft for talent instead of signability, I think the obvious answer is hard slotting for each pick. This means the first pick gets $7 million (or whatever) and the 2nd pick gets $6.8. The NFL and NBA have hard slotting and teams there draft for talent. In the NFL signability was a little bit of a thing before. Middling QB prospects used to go later in the draft because they were harder to sign. 

19 hours ago, Angel Oracle said:

I still don’t understand MLB’s thinking.

Once September arrives, it’s good to have reinforcements.

They couldn’t have allowed 30 players in September instead of just 28?

30 is reasonable, but they are just trying to limit the number of relief pitchers a team has. I know the new rules limit pitching changes, but I'm sure they are worried about teams figuring out ways around it and games taking forever.

I don't like to see people fired, but I really didn't like him as a broadcaster and I'm not particularly hard on them. I am even okay with everyone else on the broadcast. I just found him unlistenable. The timing is weird, but whatever.

Hopefully, they can find someone better.

22 minutes ago, stormngt said:

Choose:.

Keep Adell and keep throwing out the Teheran, Bundys, Cobbs, and Quintana on the mound.

Or trade Adell and actually get a controllable quality starting pitcher!  And then go with Ward until Adams is ready.

What do you think we'll get for Adell at this point? Are those guys worse than Lagares?

19 hours ago, Blarg said:

Unless you really don't ever want to lose weight there is no reason in the world to go through a McDonalds or Chic-fil-a. 

McDonalds switched the Quarter Pounder to fresh beef. It's actually really good. 

12 hours ago, Stradling said:

I wanted to start this thread about our opinions of baseball today versus how maybe we viewed it 20-30 years ago.  

I started thinking about how pitchers are used today, where the manager for most pitchers ask the average pitcher to give the team about 5 innings.  Obviously there are stud pitchers out there that give their team close to 7 innings per outing, but that is the outlier and not the expectation.  So if you think back to 20 or 30 years ago pitchers were often getting into and out of trouble in their outings.  You would see a pitcher allow a couple of base runners in the 5th or 6th inning and then get out of the jam or even give up a run or two, get out of it and then come back out the next inning to pitch.  It certainly feels like that doesn't happen anymore.  Sure for a lot of teams you will see a pitcher in the first 3 or so innings give up a couple of runs and they get to continue to pitch.  But almost never does a pitcher give up a couple in the 5th and they are given the 6th to go get outs.  Maybe some of you disagree with this but it is just how I see the game.  So my question is this, 20 or 30 years ago when a pitcher got into trouble in the 5th or 6th innings were you pissed off that the manager didn't have someone warming up and clamoring to have the pitcher pulled?  I don't remember feeling that way.  I remember expecting the starter to go 7 innings.  Watching a game today it feels like I am EXPECTING a pitching warming up the minute a starter gets into trouble from the 4th inning on.  I am wondering if that has changed our perceptions of good outings or bad outings.  Has that changed our expectation as a fan of what we expect from managers or pitchers?  Does it make us blame the manager more than we once did?  Does it make us think a starting pitcher is worse than we once did?  I am not saying this just as Angel fans, but throughout baseball.  Curious what people think.  

I think you're looking at this the wrong way. 20-30 years ago Percival was a stud with a rocket fastball that hit 95. Now everyone has 6 arms out of the pen that sit at 95. The alternatives out of the pen are better.

On 5/13/2021 at 11:11 PM, Brandon said:

Might have found the edge of insanity in an everyday easy to get form. The hot sauce at Halal Guys is probably the hottest non-special hot sauce I have ever had. It burns, I cough, it clears my sinuses, and I can drink a whole can of soda water hoping to get rid of the burn and it still sticks for a while. It's great and has a good flavor, but if you get a solid dab of that shit it has fire in there.

I eat there way too often because I love their hot sauce. I keep extra packets and put it on stuff at home.

2 hours ago, beatlesrule said:

https://sports.yahoo.com/albert-pujols-mlb-mega-contract-list-rodriguez-cabrera-kershaw-scherzer-220532734.html

Author of the article fails to mention that Cabrera was an extension but a lot of the big contracts are there with varying results. Some worked out, others too soon and others didn't. Cabrera has put up .293/.370/.476 since the 2014 extension and I'd have to think would have even better numbers with Trout in the lineup. I really need to let that non trade go LOL. 

Not only was it an extension, it was signed with two years left on the current deal. There was no need to extend him that early! 

I am a little sad I didn't get to see him play one last time.

It will be weird watching without him on the team. I've gotten used to it.

I'm very happy with the Chargers' pick!

I hated the Herbert pick, so what do I know?

3 hours ago, Catwhoshatinthehat said:

Denver acquires Bridgewater from Carolina https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/panthers-trade-teddy-bridgewater-to-broncos-for-6th-round-pick-on-eve-of-the-2021-nfl-draft/

It cost them a 6th round pick this year and $3M as Carolina will pay the remaining $7M of his 2021 salary.  Not bad given the cost but if neither Lock nor Bridgewater are the long term solution at QB and Denver doesn't draft one they go into next off season still needing their QB of the future.  In a division that has Mahomes and Herbert they really need a guy they can pencil in for the next 5+ years at QB at least but so do a lot of other teams. 

I am no fan of the Broncos, but I think this is a good move for them. It brings in some competition for Lock, and it doesn't cost so much that they can't take a QB if their guy falls to them. This keeps them from having to trade up to get a top flight QB if they don't want to. 

Better than Trout, I would say he is more talented than Trout. Trout is more valuable, but Ohtani can do more things than Trout. A team of 25 Ohtanis would beat a team of 25 Trouts and I don't think it would be close. 

If I were trying to win a WS though, I would take Trout.

4 minutes ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

I could be crazy (and maybe you remember better), but I swear one of those was extended, like 6 weeks or so, because his brother in law.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2018/08/23/mike-trout-emotional-message-brother-law-social-media/1077279002/

Trout went on the DL on August 1st and his brother-in-law died August 15th. I am unsure when he would have returned had that not happened, but he returned to play on 8/24. So the most it cost him was a week. His foot injury was extended for a long time, in 2019 because the season was out of hand. 

8 minutes ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

To be fair (and i agree w you), wasnt one of those years an actual injury, and another his brother in law dying, so took family leave?

That plus covid year is gonna drop his averages, where only one year actually counts

Trout was on the DL with an injury in 2017, 2018, 2019. I'm not counting 2020 for anything.

2 hours ago, AngelsFaninGA said:

Trout's getting the LeBron treatment; most years he'll be an afterthought to the flavor of that year (Westbrook averaging a triple-double, Curry making a bunch of 3's, etc), but over a 15-20 year time span his consistency and longevity makes him the clear frontrunner. 

Yes. I think this describes it pretty well.

My thoughts are that we've gone from Trout being the best player each season to Trout is the most consistently great player and if I were betting on a player to have the best season he would still be my top choice even though one or two guys may have a better season one year and it will rotate which guy it is.

6 hours ago, Don said:

That's a really interesting question honestly. Trout isn't showing any signs of slowing down right now, and if he plays like he has the last few full years for another 6-8 years with another few years of decline toward the end, he's in the conversation for best position player ever. And it would be freaking awesome to have a guy of that caliber as a lifelong Angel. So, in that sense, I can't really justify trading Trout for anybody from a historical/franchise-lore perspective.

But from a value perspective? That's certainly debatable. I probably wouldn't do it for Acuna. And that's not to say he won't be the best player in the league at some point in the next few years. It's just that I could see Acuna's career going either the Eric Davis route: Crazy talent, some injuries and bad luck, but still a really really good to elite player for about a decade when healthy; or the Willie Mays route: Elite athlete that manages to stay healthy and maintain peak, elite level production for 12-ish years, followed by another 5+ years of still really good. Those two outcomes and pretty much anywhere in between are possible for Acuna IMO.

Soto would intrigue me a bit more just because of the numbers he's putting up at such a young age. I really wish last year would have been a full season, because this question would be so much easier to answer. I mean a 142 and 143 OPS+ at age 19 and 20 are insane. But a 217 at age 21 is just like orders of magnitude more insane than those seasons. It was over the course of 47 games, so we'll have to see what he does over a full season this year. But if he's in the range of 180 in his age 22 season this year, then I'm pretty sure we know that offensive leap he displayed last year is real. For the record, Trout rocked a 168, 179, and 169 in his age 20-22 seasons. So if Soto gets to that 180+ area, and maintains that level for another 10+ years, then MAYBE he becomes more valuable than Trout offensively just because of his age. That said, defense and speed are still areas where Trout has him beat, and nobody knows about Soto's ongoing health (or Trout's for that matter, though he does have a decent track record). So it's kind of a coin flip there I guess unless five years from now a 27 year old Juan Soto has been rocking a 210 OPS+ for six straight years and the argument about who the best hitter in baseball is is officially over. It's just a question of whether or not last year was a short season fluke or an honest progression for one of the best young offensive talents of this generation.

I am not saying I'd do it, but I think pretending Trout hasn't shown some signs of slowing down isn't helpful. From ages 21-25 Trout played 157+ games every season. Since then he hasn't played more than 140. 

Yeah, last year was a short season, but it was also his worst OPS since his age 24 season and his defense has declined. His stolen bases in 2018 24 to 11 in 2019, and 0 so far this year.

Trout is still awesome and the SB numbers don't really matter that much, but the games played trend at least has me concerned.

It's weird how my employer infringes on my right to free speech to call my boss a jerk and express myself through nudity and my right to carry a gun on their premises. They also violate my freedom of religion by making me work on the Friday past sundown. How is any of that legal? Forget the fact that mandating vaccinations effects public health.