AngelsFanSince86

This will be interesting to see how he is used. An AL team could slot him in the rotation and opt out of using a DH for those games. Then have him DH in between starts.

I don't know if it's been said yet in this thread, but there is one major reason that baseball stars will never be at the celebrity status as basketball or football stars. In basketball and football, a casual fan or any random person can flip on a game and 90% of the time will see those stars do their thing. You can flip on a cavaliers game and watch a few minutes and watch Lebron James do Lebron James things. You can flip on a Patriots game and see Tom Brady or Gronk (if he isn't injured) do something great. With the Angels you can watch 20-30 minutes here and there and never see the ball hit to him or watch him strike out or ground out every at bat you see. Heck you could watch a whole game and see him make an error and go 0-5 with 3 strikeouts. Your never going to turn on a football game and watch a star QB fail to make a single completion and you'll never turn on a basketball game and watch a star player miss every basket. Its my opinion that this plays the biggest role in baseball stars not reaching the level of recognition that some other sports do.

It's definitely a strange move, but I get it. Richards is going to be limited this year and they aren't going to place him as the number 1 rotation guy. Shoe got hit in the head and they don't want to put any more pressure on him right now. There is a lot of pressure that can come with opening day and Nolasco is a vet that has already done it. Richards and Shoe both are still question marks to a degree. Why put the extra pressure off telling them they are the ace before they have had the chance to put it together again on the field in meaningful games? Scioscia has made a LOT of moves I don't agree with throughout the years, but keeping the pressure off of two guys that are still working their way back isn't one of them.

Yeah, I'm showing all the same info for the WBC games that I can get for the MLB games. Including box scores.

Yeah, I got my tickets for $40 a ticket at Tempe Diablo on the first base side close to home plate. Not sure how $60 is the average.

Agreed. It really got me too. After everything he had done you would think there would have been more respect. A lot of talk from people about how it sucks to pay for what aging players did as opposed to what they are going to do. The guy gave us some of the best years of any pitcher the Angels have ever had. Posted the second most wins in franchise history. He took a hometown discount and was one player you could always say was 100% loyal to the Angels. One of my favorite players to route for and the last couple years I was glad he was still pitching for us. Got my Weaver jersey the week after he signed the contract and will continue to wear it proudly. Thanks for many good years Weave.

http://deadspin.com/heres-facebooks-2015-mlb-fandom-map-1695021778 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/04/23/upshot/24-upshot-baseball.html These are from a couple years ago, but its basically the same idea. Angels do not play in LA. They just made the name change a few years ago. They have not solidified themselves as a large market team even though they are technically, tv deal and all, a large market team. It just doesn't work like that. Arte and the TV execs decided they would make Angels a large market team and I know 100% they would disagree with me because they don't want to be a small market team. That doesn't change the fact that they are actually located in a small market and have a small market fan base. The Angels are one Mike Trout lead deep postseason run from becoming a true large market team. For now its just a technicality that Arte has created. How many people living in LA do you know that suddenly became Angels fans just because the TV deal and the added "Los Angeles" to the name? I lived in San Francisco for nearly 10 years of my life, so to call my view "OC-centric" is off base. People who are avid Giants fans know the Angels only as the team that beat them in 2002. Casual fans know "Angels in the Outfield" and nothing more. They know plenty about the Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox, Cards, etc. But to everyone else besides Arte, the Angels are a small market team from a place nobody would know about if it weren't for "The OC" or "Real Housewives of OC". Also, trading Trout is crazy.

Ok, first thing: Angels are not a top three market team. Just because they put Los Angeles in their name doesn't automatically make them an LA team. Nobody in LA considers the Angels an LA team. They are an OC team and the fan base reflects that. Maybe if the Angels start making their presence know in the postseason with Mike Trout leading the way they will expand their fanbase and essentially become an LA team. That has not occurred yet. Second: What do you expect them to do? They have been quietly building a team that has the potential to contend while building the farm system and waiting out the years until the FA market matches their needs. If you think this year doesn't look promising you haven't been paying attention. This year there was no big name worth signing. You can't just snap your fingers and get rid of bad contracts, have a top 10 farm system, and have all the perfect FAs available. The Angels have improved a lot since last year. They will continue to do so if Eppler keeps making smart, conservative moves. Be patient. Even considering trading Trout is ridiculous. If only because the type of haul it would take to even consider it would never come their way.

I don't know what he's talking about. Watching non-pitchers go up there and pitch is one of the most fun things about an extra inning game to me.

Your analogy you used previously is not a very good one. You are the one missing the point. The Angels play in a pitchers park. Thus, they play in an environment not as conducive to scoring runs. Yet, they were just hardly below average in runs scored. You would rather hold onto that arbitrary 10th out of 15 in the AL. White Sox were 11th, only one ranking below the Angels. Yet, they were 31 runs behind the Angels and 45 runs scored below the AL average. That is well below average. The Angels were 14 runs below the average and only 7 runs behind the #8 ranking Astros who by most accounts have a solid offense. And they play in a hitters park. The Angels were only 14 runs behind average and that average is largely skewed because of one single team that scored more than 100 runs more than the next team in the AL. If you put Boston a little closer to the rest of the pack the Angels are just a few runs shy of the average while playing most of their games in pitchers parks. That is the whole point of a stat like OPS+. Do you realize that the Rockies scored the second most runs in all of baseball, but have an OPS+ of 97? Meaning despite scoring more runs than every team besides the Red Sox, they were actually a below average offense. How is that possible, you say? Have you ever watched a Rockies game at Coors field? Every single game is like 9-13 or 12-10. Even a bad offense scores a lot of runs in Coors park. The point is that where you play effects how many runs you will score over the course of the year. So despite the fact the Angels were slightly below average in terms of runs scored, they were actually a bit above average in terms of actual hitting when you factor other variables out of the equation. But the real point is that we are really splitting hairs here. The Angels were about average. A little above or below doesn't make the difference for a team. What does make a difference was that they were around average last year with several gaping holes. Those holes have been filled with actual MLB caliber players. The Angels problem was largely their pitching, which suffered from an insane amount of injuries. They should have an above average offense this year and should be at least average from a pitching standpoint. That is usually a recipe for success.

17th in MLB in runs scored. 10th out of 15 in the AL, but only 7 runs behind the number 8 Astros. AL average last year was 731 RS, MLB average was 725. Angels scored 717. Barely below average without factoring in the pitchers park they play in. And as already stated, had an OPS+ of 101. This accounts for the park and states they were average. And that was with 3 grand canyon sized holes. Two of those holes have been filled.

Not true. Lets take the winners of the AL West for example, the Rangers. They got a collective OPS of .699 from 1B and .701 from their DH. Two positions that should be some of the best hitters were their worst. And until they traded for Lucroy, they had a gaping hole in their lineup with their catcher. Espinosa has a career .690 OPS and Maybin is about the same. Last year the Angels got a collective OPS of .620 from 2B and .584 from LF. If you plug those two guys in, the offense gets significantly better. Almost every team has a hole or two in their lineup. The ones that don't often have mediocre at best pitching. Heck, the Orioles were hardly better than the Angels as far as pitching goes if you go by ERA and they scored only 30 more runs than the Angels despite really not having any holes in their lineup. That's one extra run every 5 or 6 games. Angels pitching was below average in a year where they had an insane amount of injuries. They should be at least average this year. Their offense was average with 3 huge holes in it. Now, if they don't sign Weiters, they have one large hole with Maldonado and one minor hole in their lineup. However, overall they will have greatly improved to an above average offense. If they sign Weiters I think they will have one of the better offenses in the league this year. Depending on the moves they make the rest of the offseason to add depth they could end up with a slightly above average pitching staff. Like I said, even contenders have holes. No matter which way you swing it things have to go right to make it to the playoffs and then succeed in the playoffs. Last year, even if things went right the Angels wouldn't have made the playoffs. There are many teams that would not make the playoffs if things went right. If things go right for the Angels, they will contend. Espinosa is a big part of that.

Show me a lineup that has zero holes and I will show you the best offense in baseball. Every lineup has its holes. The real thing here is that Espinosa is as good a hitter as anyone we have had at 2B since Howie. Johnny G had that one year where he seemed better than he was because he came through in the clutch so often. Didn't take long to realize that was a fluke. Johnny G was worth 1.0 WAR and 0.5 WAR the past two years (actually worth 0.1 fWAR last year). That is virtually nothing. Espinosa has been about as effective as Giavotella was in 2015 offensively. Add his defense alone is more valuable than anything we have had at 2B. Even more so because he is paired with Simmons. It really isn't that far fetched to think he could put up a 3.0 WAR season given that he has done it twice by fWAR standards and has hovered around it twice by bWAR standards. He has also been about 2.0 WAR player the past two years, which is the minimum a starting player should be worth on a team hoping to contend. Hopefully, the Angels sign Weiters and that limits the possible holes in the lineup. Truth is that a lot of things have to go right for just about any team hoping to make the playoffs. How often do we see teams hyped in the offseason that fall flat on their face? What happened to the 2015 world champion Royals? What happened to the 2011 and 2013 Giants? Thats why its great to add guys like Espinosa and Maybin who are guys in the middle of their prime and have shown at points in their career that they can be above average players. If things click just right you could get a chance at the ring. If they don't click then you get to start over without many ramifications.

I'm pretty optimistic. This offseason has been exactly what an intelligently run team should do. This is largely how the giants' offseasons went for years. Extend the good players you have and make smart, low risk, under the radar moves that improve your team while not sacrificing the farm. Big free agent signings rarely pan out and the expectations that are created from the hype and optimism that comes with them is usually never met. There are times and places to sign big names and this is not one of them. I'm optimistic because the team has clearly gotten better as well as the farm and we are headed in the exact right direction to be annual contenders when trout is in his prime and when he will be making the decision to stay or leave. All this and the fact that I believe if everything goes right we have a shot at the playoffs this year. Worst case scenario is this year is a stepping stone to our future contention and it seems we finally have a competent GM we can trust to not screw it up.

Could be solid signing if the price is right. Angels would be in good position with their pen if they are a contender. If not, and he is doing well then they could sell him at the trade deadline for the exorbitant price teams seem willing to pay for high quality relievers. Or he doesn't pan out and they don't have too much sunk into him and have other options for closer anyways. And if he had the opt out and didn't perform the first year it would be possible as Scotty said that after shaking the rust off he would be much better in 2018. It all comes down to the price. Not sure what that price would be for me. I'd have to look at what relief pitchers are getting paid. 2/8?

This is what I am looking at. Chris Carter, Luis Valbuena (younger and more versatility), Trumbo (not getting much interest so may be cheap), or Pedro Alvarez are all reasonable options if you considering adding some power. Bautista's OBP makes him stand out from the rest, but is that really worth the extra cash and getting rid of a cost controlled player like Cron? Cron and Bautista had the same OPS+ last year. Bautista has played the entirety of the successful part of his career in a hitters park. He has shown decline the past few years. His BABIP was only slightly lower then that of his career last year. He will likely be a bit better than last year, but then again so will Cron. I think you have to give Cron a chance. He has shown improvement every year: he's been more consistent and has drawn more walks. Given the state of the Angels and where it seems they are heading you have to be on the 2-3 year plan. Bautista makes the Angels slightly more competitive for one or two years. Those same years where the farm is still developing and their pitching staff is healing. When that 2018/19 FA class hits the Angels should be in the best position possible to compete. If they sign Bautista and trade away Cron then all they will have left at that point from a power standpoint is 38 yo Pujols. I think best case scenario is that Cron continues to improve and becomes the power bat he has the potential to be. Thaiss comes up and performs and that gives us our 1B/DH duo. 38 yo Pujols will not be playing every day by then. The thing is, as listed above, there are plenty of guys available that have power and are cheap. Bautista is a very short term solution to a problem the Angels don't really have. Why not stick with Cron and see if he can develop the on base skills and become more valuable than the Chris Carter/Trumbo types? If they were going to spend that kind of money on anyone it should be pitching, not hitting.

There isn't much of anything going on right now. Its not as if there is a plethora of moves happening right now and the Angels are just sitting on their hands. They'll probably sign a relief pitcher or two and same with starting pitchers for depth.

Yeah, that is why I said "more likely". It all comes down to how you draft. However, if you are a savvy drafter, you are going to end up with more talent when you have higher draft picks. If you are poor at drafting, you are still most likely going to end up with more talent if you have higher picks. That was my only point to his statement that he wants to remain competitive while also trying to flush the farm with talent. Even if you draft intelligently, you still have a list of players you want and the higher your pick the more likely you are to get those players. I do hope they stay competitive though and I hope that time shows us that Eppler is a savvy drafter. I hope that Cron and Marte progress and that Jones and Thaiss can progress into top prospect status. I hope that our pitchers can make good come backs and I hope that Trout is extended before his contract is up. If all that happens the Angels will be an elite team a few years from now when the prospects hit the MLB, Trout is in his prime, all pitchers are healthy, and possibly a solid signing or two is made from the 2018/19 FA class. We'll see.

The less competitive they are in the mean time, the more likely their farm system is to get flushed with talent. Not that I hope for that. Just something I wanted to point out. My hope is that they draft well, that the guys they have already drafted make big strides and play to their potential, our pitchers come back from injuries and perform well, and that we get a few Kole Calhouns along the way. If those things hold true we can stay competitive and still get solid talent from the farm. And that means when that talent comes through it will push the Angels to the top rather than just bringing them out of the bottom in terms of competitiveness.

Yeah he clearly has shown potential. Who know, maybe being home will help his mental state and keep him from getting in his head too much and he can maintain a more steady approach. I went to K-8 grade with him and I remember a bunch of us that went to school with him went to watch his first game at Angels stadium and he smacked a HR. Hard to say how it will affect him, but it could potentially bring out the best in him.

Don't they update this during the offseason? I was just wondering if those two might make their way into the top 100 when they redo the list.

Although this may help him to a degree, it doesn't really work that way. That is more true for pitchers and IP throughout their lifetime than it is for position players and innings played with the exception of catchers and maybe SS in terms of their defensive value. The typical "prime" years of baseball players correlates with their actual physical prime. Just because Cespedes hasn't necessarily played as many innings doesn't mean he is going to last much longer. Most positions in baseball are not that demanding physically. It has to do with how well his sight, reaction times, fast-twitch muscles, etc. hold up. Its like Pujols. His health problems have little to do with baseball. While playing baseball frequently may exacerbate the issue, the issues themselves stem from genetics.

I just do not understand the whole, "its not a best player award, its the most valuable player award" argument. I hear it all the time from writers and fans. Isn't the best player by definition also the most valuable? How can anyone be more valuable than the best player?

He is currently having his best offensive season. Best OPS+, AVG, and OBP he has ever posted if you take out his first year where he only played 50 games.

Thurs. 9-8: Carolina -3 @ Denver +3 Sun. 9-11: Buffalo +3 @ Baltimore -3 Chicago +5.5 @ Houston -5.5 Cincinnati -2.5 @ NY Jets +2.5 Cleveland +4 @ Philadelphia -4 Green Bay -4.5 @ Jacksonville +4.5 Minnesota -2.5 @Tennessee +2.5 Oakland +1.5 @ New Orleans -1.5 San Diego +7 @ Kansas City -7 Tampa Bay +3 @ Atlanta -3 Miami +10 @ Seattle -10 Detroit +3.5 @ Indianapolis -3.5 NY Giants +1 @ Dallas -1 New England +6 @ Arizona -6 Mon. 9-12: Pittsburgh -3 @ Washington +3 Los Angeles -2.5 @ San Francisco +2.5