AngelsSurfer

Meh .261/.294/.641

Considering that right now there are six guys on the active roster beneath the Mendoza Line and another two or three who are pretty damn close to it, I still fail to see how Green's .261 would not be an improvement.

I don't read article comments...it's usually land of the trolls. The article says that the beat reporters for the Cubs actually asked and were not given a clear idea of what would happen to the bricks.

They had Green playing 1B today -- you may be seeing him come up soon.

About time. He was hitting .273 in 43 games in the majors last year, so he absolutely can do well if he's brought up. At this point if the Angels don't want to use him they should trade him and let him go to a team that WILL give him a chance to play on a regular basis. 

I was wondering why the heck there seemed to be a puff of smoke every time a ball or foot hit the turf. Weird.

I agree that the Jays' turf seems kind of low-budget, and it drives me nuts that they don't have dirt on the base paths, but I wish we could have some (nicer) synthetic grass here in Anaheim because of the drought.

That's pretty mean, considering that people usually buy those bricks with the idea that they will be there for a while. They could have at least given people the chance to take their bricks home instead of throwing them away.

What Joyce needs is a new team. And it's somewhat disheartening, but par for the course with Scioscia, that the only reason he was out of the game was due to the lateness.

There is truth to this but it's a lot closer to asking the music industry to give up on CDs and embrace digital downloads. Eventually the customers always get what they want, but that doesn't mean that it is good for the industry. Where the music industry failed MLB has actually been quite successful. The fact is that we are complaining about blackouts and not complete lack of legal access to streaming (which is how the record companies handled their situation). MLB Advanced Media has proven that MLB's early investment in streaming has been well worth the effort. I don't think there is nearly enough demand or fan pressure at the moment to force their hand on the blackout issue.

MLB has definitely embraced changing times more than the music industry, and I think it's true that displeasure with blackouts hasn't yet reached critical mass. But I think it's on its way. In LA, the thing with the Dodgers being held hostage by Time Warner has definitely angered a lot of people and had a negative backlash on TW, and there have been similar concerns in NYC with YES, and I think that the level of dissatisfaction, and people who are so disgusted by it that they decide to walk away, will only continue to grow.

The thing with the music industry is that they've kept CDs alongside digital downloads so people can choose what they want. Customers can either buy an entire album or pick a song or two that they like. And they've also finally figured out that they can package and sell vinyl as a collectors' item to get people to buy. That's akin to picking one or two cable channels, or teams, or buying the whole package. Part of the death of the music industry also has a lot to do with the rise of indie recording, and the fact that artists no longer have to deal with record labels to efficiently and cheaply get their products to the public, and that's not something MLB has to worry about.

I just remembered Sling, too - it's a streaming service that does allow people to buy a very reasonably priced package of basic cable channels, and then pick other channels as they wish. Some cable channels are embracing the a la carte model...

At the end of the day, I think there are three things that will happen here: a) Cable subscriptions will continue to diminish, so that model, and those networks, will become less profitable. That's happening regardless of what happens with baseball broadcasts; b ) Some people will choose not to buy MLB.com subscriptions at all and will find, ahem, other means to watch the games, so neither cable nor MLB.com will make a dime off them; c) other people will choose to buy MLB.com will, ahem, travel a lot to get around the blackouts, which means the cable companies still won't make any money off them. If MLB and the regional sports networks don't fully address this and find ways to get customers who are not buying their current products, they will lose in the end.

meh the hardcore fans will figure out ways. The rest will just stop watching and when(not if) the MLB finally does put an end to blackouts, those fans will be long gone.

 

Instead of the MLB trying to bring in new fans, they are scaring away the dedicated ones.

That's really it. MLB is the one who will lose by continuing to restrict viewing access at the end of the day, because many fans will just give up.

The way a business is run is always influenced by what customers want. If a business does not provide a product that consumers want to buy, their profits decrease. If they listen to what consumers want to purchase and adjust their product offerings accordingly, their profits increase, and that's what the business wants. Many businesses are willing to spend millions analyzing market information so they can better serve their customers.

A lot of industries have had to adjust their business models and product offerings to keep up with advances in technology and trends. This is no different. Phone companies like at&T and Verizon would have gone out of business if they had decided to only offer landlines and ignored the rise of cell phones. Instead they adjusted their product lines and plans, embraced the new technology and now generally make most of their money from mobile phones and data plans.

By continuing to cling to the blackouts and expecting people to purchase cable to watch local games, and not embracing new technology and ways of watching TV, MLB is missing out on an opportunity to make more money, and it will only hurt them in the end. People are ditching cable in record numbers, and with or without blackouts, they will find ways to watch the games online. The question will become whether MLB.com and these channels decide to capitalize on that and profit from it by offering new subscription options or if they still will insist on following a business model that is quickly becoming obsolete.

Any chance Rucinski is doing well enough to bring him back up to the bullpen?

Maybe Ianetta was right when he called the trainers over at the beginning of the inning, and something's physically up with Morin. Getting rattled on those later ABs couldn't have helped.

 

People in their 20s and 30s people continue cancel their cable subscriptions.  The last thing the MLB should be doing is driving away young fans.

 

I even talked my 65 year old dad into canceling his cable subscription so he could save money. He's been a angels fan all his life yet hasn't been able to watch a game since he canceled(almost 2 years).

 

So with that being said. **** you MLB.

This. While I'm sure that there are some people who keep their cable subscriptions to see the team they like, that ship is sailing fast, especially among xennials and milennials. MLB should be doing whatever it can to embrace that demographic. They're missing a huge market in not offering a la carte options that would allow fans to see ALL games of their chosen team. The blackouts only deter people from even considering MLB.com.

Even if we were to legalize every drug tomorrow, I don't think anyone would agree that doing drugs in excessive amounts to the point where it controls and ruins your life and potentially harms other people are positive. The same way we recognize drunk driving and alcoholism as things with negative effects on people, while being fine with moderate and responsible alcohol consumption.

Hamilton had addiction issues to the point where he had been suspended and had been placed on a MLB treatment plan. Under those circumstances it was entirely reasonable for him to be compelled to agree not to use drugs in order to remain employed. He went back on that deal, period. And he did so in such a way that he could not be held culpable for his actions or even ordered to get treatment or other supportive measures to keep the situation from potentially getting worse for him. That's the issue. 

In most companies does the CEO fly to your state, take you to dinner and woo your family into joining his business?

I don't think it's unreasonable that he'd want to discuss his struggles with Arte. It's clear Arte disliked him before the relapse.

When you're being wooed to sign on you very well might hear from upper management or the CEO. It doesn't mean the door will be open when you're hired any time you want to stop in and chat. Josh had plenty of avenues to get a message to Arte. He could have sent a letter or fax through his agent for instance.

There's no reason Arte should have liked Hamilton, after watching him flail for the better part of two seasons and mouthing off in the press.

Hey, I'm as liberal as they come, and I think the entire idea of not holding Hamilton accountable for his actions is bullshit. Stupid and enabling people are on both sides of the aisle.

From what I read Arte refused talking to him well before Hamilton relapsed. That's an issue.

Here's a question. At most large companies, can you just stroll into the CEO's office or get them on the phone whenever you want? This seems like more entitlement on Josh's part to me. If this is even credible, and knowing Josh that's iffy to start, he talked to the front off and they said they'd pass on the message, that's what generally happens in most companies.

Plus, as mentioned, there really wasn't anything to talk about here. Josh had obligations to the team in terms of performance, et al; he wasn't living up to them. Some sort of hollow, self-deprecating "yes, I know, I'm not playing well" speech from Josh wouldn't have done anything to change that. I tend to think that Arte was more interested in Josh's actions, not his explanations. Arte wanted to see Josh hit the damn ball, not make excuses about why he didn't.

confirmed piece of shit for the umpteenth time

This. Right, Josh, we got it. You really were an "Angel" with a halo over your head and nothing was ever your fault.

It's such a relief that this jerk is the Rangers' problem now.

I agree, they wouldn't be detrimental at all to either consumers or MLB.com. MLB.com would probably get a lot more subscribers if the blackouts were lifted. They could even set up new a la carte packages for people who just want to see one team and don't need or want the unlimited coverage of every single game for every team.

The only ones I could see losing would be cable companies -- because there are probably people who subscribe just for the team coverage, and if the blackout-free MLB.com was available, they'd just go with that instead. I know that's a big thing in LA right now; Time Warner basically is holding the Dodgers broadcasts hostage. I really don't particularly care if the cable companies lose on this, though. Let them lose for setting up this situation in the first place. 

Sucking last year and pitching well this year is definition of inconsistency.

In case of Wilson

2012 pitched well.

2013 pitch well first half. Blew the second half.

2014. Pitch well for two months. Blew the other four

2015 pitching well for six weeks.

now let's talk about consistency!

Semantics, and you know it. Bottom line,he's pitching well right now, and since we're down to three starters who are pitching well, getting rid of one of them would be idiotic. Who pray tell would you replace him with, factoring in that Tropeano might be needed to cover for Weaver or Wilson already? They'd end up trading for another pitcher.

Wilson is a consistent pitcher? My my how perceptions have changed within the past 12 months.

 

Perceptions have not changed; Wilson's performance has improved. Last year he did suck. Now he's playing well. And unfortunately two of the starters who were consistent last year seem to have declined, at the same time. There's no reason not to acknowledge that.

One option you guys are failing to mention is to trade Wilson. It frees up payroll and we don't have to give up on our young pitchers. Plus a pitcher like Wilson would bring a couple of players our way as he has had proven success and is in the midst of his best season (which I don't think will last).

Wilson's very much needed this year, though. IMHO it would be an iffy idea to trade him because they can't really afford to lose a consistent pitcher from the starting rotation. Yes, there's Tropeano, but if Shoemaker continues to flounder, Trop could take *his* spot. And Heaney's an unproven entity as of yet.

Green can't play SS at a major league level and Featherston can. At least, in the eyes of the Angels front office.

If Featherston loses his job, it will be to Rutledge before its to Green.

But wouldn't Green be considered more as a Cron/Joyce/Cowgill replacement, platoon or utility player, and thus be in outfield or 1B? He's been fine in those spots.

Mattheus was up for a few games. Was called up last week IIRC.

I am wondering at this point whose s**t list Green is on...

He was hitting .380 like 2 weeks ago.

A .791 overall OPS with 1 walk isn't impressive in Salt Lake.

 

We probably shouldn't replace Cron with another version of him.

He's hardly another version of Cron. As mentioned he was batting high .200s last year when he was up. And he certainly seems to be producing more than Cron, Navarro or Joyce. He did well in the two games he played this season. Why not give him a month or so up to see what he can do?

According to milb.com Green is batting .319 with 30 hits in 21 games. That's not struggling...

Especially when the offense has been so bad. If you don't want to play him now, then I doubt they ever will.

Yeah. I mean, here's a guy who averaged .333 in the two games he played this year. In a grand total of SIX ABs when he was briefly up, he accomplished the same number of runs that Matt Joyce has accomplished in 93 ABs, and only two less than CJ Cron has had in 82 ABs. He had a .270ish average last season when he was up. He's got good defense.

And yet they're keeping him in AAA and keeping players like Cron, batting in the .100s, in the lineup. It just doesn't compute. Did Green actually piss someone off?