Barrett

27 minutes ago, Stradling said:

So even with the subtraction of the payroll we are doing to see without paying Kinsler and Richards and Johnson, which the three of them made about $25 million, you believe the team will probably only take on $30 million in commitments for this coming year?  I would assume because of some raises we will be seeing to players already here?  

That's what it sounds like. To make room for more payroll is there any chance this team can trade Cozart and have some other team eat his salary?

1 hour ago, WeatherWonk said:

Well, I first noticed that I was buffering much more in June.........right after the repeal of net neutrality.

I wouldn't expect you would have been affected, paying 105/month for 100-300 mb/s. You're just the kind of client they favor.

You may be buffering more because your modem or router need to be updated. I haven't had any lag or buffering. Even at my office which has awful internet speeds. If it's not either of that I would call your provider there could be something they can do on their end. 

2 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

Same thing with Comcast -- they did it to try to deter cord cutters. 

I signed up for their unlimited plan which is only 20.00 more per month but even after that, I'm paying about $120+ less for every pay channel and everything else I wanted via Direct TV Now.   Best of all, I didn't have to get locked into a contract.

Ya I pay about 105 bucks for 1TB and 300 plus speeds

4 minutes ago, WeatherWonk said:

Cable cutting ain't as cheap as it used to be.

What's going on, since the Trump administration rescinded net neutrality, is that ISPs that also have cable TV, have begun reducing speeds and bandwidth allocations to the point where it forces you into a higher speed/bandwidth package if you watch a lot of streamed programming. Or high quality Ultra HD programming. Lots of us have 4k, smart TVs now.

And you were told by Trump's FCC stooge that removing net neutrality was for going after big corporate users like Amazon and Netflix who suck up all the bandwidth................never mentioned that they would begin throttling speeds for John Q. Public, did they?

My allocation is 300 gigs/month. I set my Firebox at the lowest quality setting while still maintaining 1080p/60. I doubt I could watch two hours per night without going over. Looks like I will have to go to the next level which is 80.00/month. That's for internet alone, no land line or cable TV. There is no other internet option here. Century Link is woefully slow and a poor ISP. Some nights I am getting only about 4-5 mgs/sec, when I originally signed up for "up to 100 mgs/sec"!  And it was that before net neutrality went away. This is not DSL, by the way. Cable modem.

Besides, the more an avid baseball fan cuts the cable cord, the more that cable middleman is avoided, by paying for MLB.TV directly. I dont know if MLB IS actually making less from cable cutting. I pay 130.00/year for the MLB Premium Service. And I cant believe they still black me out for ANY game Seattle plays and any game on Facebook and ESPN. I have to pay extra for DirectTVNow to get ESPN.

It's the corporate workaround to cable cutting.

Your logic is wrong. These cable companies that have internet allocations like Cox, which  mine is at 1 TB started doing this at the beginning of the year before Net Neutrality happened. It will be interesting though. Cable companies and internet companies have gotten there's for so long similar to telephone companies. Market will shape what the market will shape. AT&T had unlimited data then they didn't now they do again similar to Verizon. But unlike the wireless companies Cox and other home internet companies have a monopoly on service. I know in my area the only choice is Cox because it is the only company that offers over 100 speed. But I digress. 

Ya I don't pay for cable and wouldn't. I have Sling for about 10 bucks a month. The Angels say they have 3 million fans, and that's great 3 million times someone bought a ticket. But the stadium is an absolute ghost town. I have been to 4 games this year, the latest one was Friday night and they claimed 27k fans were there, there was maybe ....maybe 10k if that. This will eventually catch up with baseball and the other sports leagues where attendance is down.

Shocking 1st base is a giant dumpster fire. All this team needs to do to be competitive next year is Fix SP, 1st, 3rd, and who the heck knows with Calhoun in right. Oh and get a closer.

9 minutes ago, mulwin444 said:

Now, if he's traded to the Angels in this hypothetical scenario, I highly doubt his OPS is near .850 since Angels Stadium isn't exactly a hitter's haven.

I'm guessing a healthy season puts him in the .820's 115 OPS+ 3.5-4 WAR territory, which would give us another Upton, but hopefully at 3B/1B.

Could you move him to 1st base and then get Arenado/Machado for 3rd? If they add a catcher that team would be awesome. Trout would finally have players to play with.

11 minutes ago, m0nkey said:

It's not a thing, it's math

Math is hard. I am not asking how splits work you numb nuts. I am asking how are his splits that crazy. What is it about Petco versus the other ball parks that he either blows or is good. 

1 minute ago, mulwin444 said:

2018

 

 

Again I don't understand how that is a thing.

2 minutes ago, Lou said:

what I posted doesn't say that this isn't true

I don't understand how this guys splits can be that crazy. Seeing him in person I am just not that impressed. 

1 hour ago, SoPas Angel said:

I didn't realize how true this is until I just tried to remember every one going back to '02. I got last year (which undoubtedly I would have forgotten by next season), '02 (which I will never forget for obvious reasons), Freese in '11... and that's it. I'd completely forgotten about the legendary performances from Sandoval and Bumgarner in '12 and '14. 

You are a fan of baseball and forgot about Bumgarners crazy postseason? David Eckstein killed it as well. If we are talking about forgetful MVP honors, all of them really are forgetful. We as a society are all about what have you done for me today. With out google can people really name MLB, NBA, NHL and NFL MVP people and their correct years? 

5 minutes ago, Lou said:

Myers at Petco:

.216 BA

.278/.381/.659

Myers away from Petco:

.288 BA

.343/.515/.858

 

Where are you getting his OBP numbers? The guy has a 310 OBP this year and a career 328 OBP.

I saw him play in San Diego. He was a highly regarded prospect, but the guy is meh...Guy doesn't walk and barely hits. Maybe he is a good fielder but I am not a fan of him. He plays in the weaker NL as well. No thanks.

7 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

The WS MVP is kind of a dumb award because it’s based a super small sample. I don’t think people even remember who wins the WS MVP. It’s voted on basically by the sponsors. 

But, yes, I’d have voted for Bonds. 

Well ya. It is the WS MVP the most the games could go would be 7 games. I don't know this answer so I guess I am asking. But I would imagine getting a WS MVP would help someone get into the Hall of Fame? I remember for Smoltz or Schilling when their names were brought up in the media about getting into the HoF, the first thing they would talk about was their post season records. But that might be me remembering it wrong, so who knows. 

1 minute ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I do take into consideration that Betts has a higher WAR.

I do not take into consideration that the Red Sox are a better team.

Wow. That is interesting. So would you have given the World Series MVP to Bonds instead of Glaus? 

Just now, mulwin444 said:

Trout was clearly the better player in 2012 and 2013 but finished 2nd both times...I don't think record should matter that much in terms of MVP, in my opinion.

I guess the question is then how much should record matter? If the Sox were the worst team in baseball and Trout was on a 120 win team but Betts had a 10 WAR and Trout had a 9 WAR would you choose Betts over Trout?

2 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

In my opinion the most “valuable” player is the best player. 

If you have a $20 bill sitting with a pile of $1s and a $10 bill sitting with a pile of $5s, which is the most valuable bill?

If you have a Porsche sitting in front of a trailer, and a Civic sitting  front of a mansion, which car is more valuable?

The value of something doesn’t change based on its surroundings. 

My opinion. 

I understand that concept. I disagree but understand it. If ESPN and baseball references have Betts ahead of Trout in WAR and Fangraphs have them tied. Wouldn't Betts be the better player on the better team this year? Do you not take into consideration how the team did in terms of winning at all? 

4 minutes ago, mulwin444 said:

I don't think the record matters as much to the voters though, at least not as much as it used to, otherwise Trout wouldn't have won in 2016.

Trout 10.5 WAR on a 74-88 team vs Betts 9.7 WAR on a 93-69 team, and there was no one else close to them.

I think it is different this year being as Betts and Trout are closer in WAR and Boston is going to have 110 plus wins and the Angels might get to 80? I wouldn't have voted for Trout in 2016 either if it is any consolation. 

Edit: Fangraphs has Trout and Betts at 9.1 each

Just now, arch stanton said:

I'm not making a case for Trout or anyone else. I'm just posting the actual criteria used which clearly makes him a viable candidate

He is a viable candidate. I never said he wasn't. But in my opinion he won't finish top 3 and I don't think he deserves it this year. Being valuable to your team is key, Trout is the best player in baseball. But he isn't the most valuable this year. To me winning matters and other players are putting up similar numbers to Trout this year on ball clubs that are winning a ton of games.

9 minutes ago, arch stanton said:

Dear Voter:

There is no clear-cut definition of what Most Valuable means. It is up to the individual voter to decide who was the Most Valuable Player in each league to his team. The MVP need not come from a division winner or other playoff qualifier.

The rules of the voting remain the same as they were written on the first ballot in 1931:

1.  Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense.

2.  Number of games played.

3.  General character, disposition, loyalty and effort.

4.  Former winners are eligible.

5.  Members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team.

You are also urged to give serious consideration to all your selections, from 1 to 10. A 10th-place vote can influence the outcome of an election. You must fill in all 10 places on your ballot. Only regular-season performances are to be taken into consideration.

Keep in mind that all players are eligible for MVP, including pitchers and designated hitters.

How valuable is Trout if when he is on the team we are a 4th place team 20 plus games out and if he wasn't on the team we'd be 5th and 20 plus games out. This year he isn't the MVP. He is the best player on the planet. But this year it isn't by a lot. Betts Martinez and Bregman all deserve a nod over Trout. Sorry.

9 hours ago, Dochalo said:

@Jeff Fletcher I am sure you already know this, but WPA is very much dependent on the rest of your team to give you those opportunities.  I would like to point out that Mike Trout has the highest negative WPA in baseball.  meaning he's had the lowest negative impact on his team.  What does that tell us?  Can the true value of a player be diminished by true opportunity?  

Trout has been intentionally walked 23 times.  The next closest in the AL is Jose Ramirez at 15.  Then JD Martinez at 10.  

Overall he's walked 115 times.  Jose Ramirez is next at 96 and then Bregman at 89 times.  both have played 15 more games.  How many of those walks were intentional unintentional?

When determining 'most valuable', I would encourage you and your brethren to not only consider what certain players produced, but what was available for them to produce.  

I would contend that Trout produced more in his true opportunities than any other player.   

Most. Valuable.  Player.  

If you put Jose Ramirez, Mookie Betts, Alex Bregman, JD Martinez and Mike Trout on the same team, who would be the 'most valuable'?  That's the question the voters should be asking themselves.  

Trout is on a team that is finishing 20 plus games out of 1st. The term valuable doesn't apply. So if he was off the team we'd be in last place, with him on the team we are in 4th. Meh... Trout doesn't deserve it this year and that's fine. Maybe if the Angels put together a better team this next year than this year he will deserve it.

Just now, Scotty@AW said:

Do you remember my original response?  About handing over ownership?  How much of that goes on the luxury tax?

Either answer the question or don't. 

3 minutes ago, Scotty@AW said:

I think your numbers are incorrect. 

My numbers are incorrect? I guessed that the cap is 190 its just a little bit over that now. So you are not answering the question. Would you be willing to pay Trout 100 mil a year?

1 minute ago, Scotty@AW said:

How much of it counts toward the luxury tax?

The cap is what now $190 million? So next year it goes up I imagine. Would you be willing to give 50% of your payroll to one player which is 100 million dollars. 

35 minutes ago, Scotty@AW said:

Mike Trout makes this team better than any single player in the major leagues.  And it isn't even close.  So yeah, I'm willing to pay a lot.  A lot a lot.  

Ok let's play the game then. Would you pay Mike Trout 100 million dollars a year?