stormngt

Red Sox at Anaheim, 2009 playoffs!

250K is more than 500K I know for us it seems like monopoly money but it isn't. I don't like alienating Trout and agree he should have been paid more, but loyalty on one end doesn't ensure loyalty at the end. The Angels could have paid Trout the extra 250K and Trout still could leave in 5 years. That is how the business works.

I wonder what Wells would be paid if this wan in effect?

But that proves the point that I have been saying.....players in the mlb are over paid after they reach FA. The owners know they have to over pay them. That is they owners want to take advantage of the fact that they can under pay a player when they are in club control. Hey guys, If I knew giving Trout an extra 2 million this year and next year would guarantee him resigning with us than I would agree with you. The fact is Trout could take the Angels good kindness and five year pull a Grienke and say "i am going where the money is". So why shouldn't the Angels try to underpay him now?

Problem 3 is a valid argument. Except, there is no guarantee that if the Angels pay Trout better now that he would give the team "a home town discount" later. That is why I am torn on the idea of paying him less. Problem 4: Who gives a SH**. It doesn't matter if there is a bad precedent or not. Minor Leaguers just want to get a shot at the majors. They are not going to be less motivated to make the majors just because their parent club doesn't pay their ROY candidates better. Rookies want to stick in the majors and have a career. They are not going to be less motivated just because their pay is "unfair". That is quite the contrary, they would work harder, build up great numbers and then strike it big in free agency. Your argument on problem 5 doesn't make sense. NO, no one gives back their money. However, I do think there is an argument that the players take advantage of the system once they reach FA. Therefore, why shouldn't the owners take advantage of their control prior to the player reaching FA?

In five more year Trout will be over paid enough. Paying fairly doesn't make a lot of sense. In baseball players under club control get paid less than they are worth. Players in FA usually get paid way more than they are worth. That is how it is done.

Does giving Trout let's say 900K instead of 500K guarantee the Angels to resign Trout to a long term deal later? That is what goes through my mind. You have a good point that you don't want to piss Trout off with a low ball number, but let's remember, after FA players are all over paid and until arbitration every player is under paid. Personally, If was Dipoto I would have offered Trout a 10 year deal now! Thus over paying him during his club control days and then underpaying him four years after that. However, the club may feel that is too much of a risk for a player with less than one year of performance, or Trout may not have been interested. If Trout wasn't interested in a long term deal now, than I say the Angels were smart low balling him now because your going to have to over pay him later. This issue is a tough call for me. If treating Trout better now ensures a long term deal later than I think it would have been a dumb move by the Angels. However, there was no guarantee of the so called long term later so why would the Angels pay him more when they don't have to?

Sosh doesn't let his guys steal during spring training

How the hell did this thing go 8 pages! It is spring training folks!

I know you like to think you are an expert, but Save/save opportunity ratio is the most important stat for a closer.

He salvaged Santana and Haren who couldn't pitch against little leaguers in August and had some decent games from them in September.

Whats funny is that I remember when the Angels didn't make the playoffs for 20 straight years. I remember when the Angels had 3+ years of losing seasons. I remember 3 plus seasons where the Angels were 10+ games out of it in September. So no, I am not upset about three seasons of merely not making the playoffs after making the playoffs five out of six years.

PBK???? Outside of yesterday's game wasn't he doing pretty good? Isn't his BA over 370 or something? I am not worried right now because at least half of the lineup are minor leaguers. Also it has been our pitching that has really sucked and none of our major league pitchers have played yet.

Let's fire Scioscia because he doesn't have enough intensity in this team during spring training games!

OK, don't piss off the guy because you want to save a few hundred thousand dollars.

Good, just in time for 24 million to come off the books!

I know this is only spring training, but wow our pitching really sucks so far!

I know this has been debated to death, but I would agree with Duck about banning collisions where the catcher is not blocking the plate. However, as Scioscia said in this articles, it would be very difficult determining if the catcher adequately gave the runner half of the plate. It would be very subjective for the umpire to determine if the collision was not necessary or not!

Don't go there, because you will lose in a debate if I list all of the examples of where the government waste our money. For example the 13 million dollars the government spent recreating sesame street for Pakastani TV!

Its not just AROD but most charitable organizations. They claim to be nonprofit, but part of the revenue goes to salaries. Hell AROD could pay himself a salary for appearing at the golf event and it would still be considered nonprofit. That is why I am very cynical in donating to charites. Even organizations like the red cross spend too much money on "administrative" costs. Adiministrative cost could mean a plasma TV in your office!

I have no problem with calling the runner out if he leaves the base paths to collide with a catcher. That would be consistent with the rules.

Obviously Pete Rose was trying to win. That was one thing that made Rose great, he always competed to win. I know some people do not understand that mentality, but that is the mentality of a winner.

So let me get this straight. Erstad had half of the plate to slide safely and ensure a run. Instead he was a dick, took an extra step toward the catcher, hit him full speed despite the catcher wearing protective gear and Erstad not wearing protective gear and risked being thrown out all because Erstad wanted to run into the catcher. Got it.

brain trauma?????isn't the catcher wearing a helmet?

it makes no sense for a runner to run over a catcher who is off the base path trying for a sweep tag. That would force the player to take an extra step or two away from the plate. If the goal is to score first and hurt someone second, why would someone run over a catcher who has protection when they could try to slide around the tag?