Angels#1Fan

I just can't imagine Albert walking away from $100 million..hell, I can't imagine anyone doing that.

As far as Trout goes, no one here knows what he is going to do, but I will say this. The longer the Angels wait to extend him the more likely he is to leave and trading him isn't an option for several reasons. One of the main reasons for it being difficult to trade him is that any team trading for him must sign him or take the chance of giving up a lot for just a rental season. Second reason is that Trout has a no trade which has it's biggest impact if he intends to try the fa water. If the Angels really want to keep Trout it's my opinion that they need to extend him sooner rather than later.

The real question regarding Trout and free agency is whether or not he wants to stay in Anaheim and the truth is no one but him knows the answer to that question.

Mike Trout is the greatest WAR player of all time.

It's all about WAR and nothing else all the time. 

Trout is a great player.

4 minutes ago, fan_since79 said:

Probably the best thing we could do right now to right the sinking ship is to trade him.

Trout for a mega haul of players and prospects. With the rapidly improving farm system and a new manager, things could really be looking up for this franchise, which has been mired in mediocrity and dysfunction for most of the past decade. This constant 'rebuilding' is going nowhere.

 

 

Trading Trout would be worse than when Bavasi let Ryan go!

2 minutes ago, The Boogie Man said:

This is exactly how I feel. I am looking for a new bad guy though.  Someone who gets all the blame.  

Yeah if Scioscia is let go then some of these guys will just find a new guy to blame.

I'm not a Scioscia nutswinger but I'd laugh if he were given an extension.

1 minute ago, Lou said:

I'm not going to lie, I want Scioscia gone, but it would be so damn entertaining if he comes back next year 

It's already negative enough here.

Well the shitty bullpen turned another Angel win into a loss..mother*%#@.

Shades of the "Arson Squad".

1 minute ago, UndertheHalo said:

Exactly this.  It’s a no win situation for a manager.  It’s entirely on the players being miserable failures. 

The players eventually have to be able to do their job and that isn't on the manager when they can't.

Just now, Randy Gradishar said:

Watching on Gameday?

It has to do with the collective pieces of crap we have to march out there every night.

Just now, Dick Enberg said:

Really, I thought it was just cam, parker, drake, morris, padares, ...

To name a few. lol But seriously they f'n stink!

1 minute ago, Lou said:

Well said

Thank you. lol

Our bp is f'n TERRIBLE!

4 hours ago, Angel Oracle said:

Do something, it’s a total joke that your star has 23 HRs and is not even to 50 rbis yet!

IMHO one of the reasons Trout has so few rbi is because he's batting second most of the time..the dude needs to bat third.

It might only make a minor difference with this current team but that's my take.

Winning streak followed by losing streak..where have I seen this movie before?

6 minutes ago, eaterfan said:

I said "there are other factors".

I'm willing to concede Ruth was more dominant compared to his peers than Trout has been. But if you think MLB was better in quality in Ruth's era then there really is nothing to discuss.

If you think Trout is better than Ruth at this point in his career then there really is nothing to discuss!

BTW..I didn't make any claims of any kind regarding the overall quality of baseball when comparing eras.

The comparison was between Ruth and Trout and how WAR either does or doesn't do an accurate job of comparing the two!

9 minutes ago, eaterfan said:

I think this is getting to the point of willful obtuseness. If you can't even concede that a ball moving faster is harder to hit then there isn't much to discuss.

My "willful obtuseness" tells me at the ML level hitters can hit the fastball.

More minor leaguers have failed at the big league level because they couldn't hit the curve..not the fastball.

If you can't even concede the vagaries of the art of pitching then there isn't much to discuss either but you can find solace in believing that the fastball is everything.

BTW..this has what to do with WAR?

4 minutes ago, eaterfan said:

No. But it takes some real mental gymnastics to believe that velocity has steadily increased from the invention of the radar gun until now but decreased between Ruth's era and the invention of the radar gun.

So you assume that the speed a pitch is thrown is the yard stick for whether a pitcher is hittable or not?

It doesn't take much "mental gymnastics" to believe that deception is a key factor when discussing how effective a pitcher might be.

4 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

I mean sure, I guess it's my "opinion". But you don't think advancements in technology, work-out regimens, advanced analytics, scouting, diets, whatever else the F*ck has happened in the last century make today's players better? Ruth drank and smoked like a street hooker. Trout is a specimen of pure athleticism. 

All the things you mention might make a player a better athlete but it doesn't necessarily make them a better ball player.

All the analytics in the world won't make someone throw a better curve or give a pitcher the control of say a Greg Maddux..won't make your hand/eye any better either.

Players today are in better shape.

1 minute ago, eaterfan said:

If a stat isn't accurate doesn't that make it bad?

No..everything isn't black or white. Because I don't think WAR is accurate doesn't mean that it doesn't have some measure of validity.

1 minute ago, eaterfan said:

It's pretty well proven players are better today. Pitching velocity has steadily risen.

Uh, you don't know that for a fact because there were no radar guns in Ruth's era!

4 minutes ago, eaterfan said:

Nothing screams "coherent argument" like claiming a stat is bad because a player is the best of all time when that's exactly what the stat says.

Maybe he was better than the stat says?

BTW..I don't necessarily think the stat is bad (I in fact didn't say that either). I said imo it wasn't accurate.

BTW..I based my argument about the accuracy of WAR on Ruth having a far bigger season in 23 than Trout this year!

3 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

Because I live in the present? Baseball players are as good as they've ever been.

If you choose to disagree that's up to you.

That's only your opinion that players are better today..maybe they are and maybe they aren't.

If for example you are in the crowd that believes pitchers only threw 82 mph 100 years ago then I can see how you arrived at your opinion.

1 minute ago, tdawg87 said:

Babe Ruth played nearly 100 years ago. How could you possibly know this?

You also dodged the actual fact that Ruth faced nothing but white players and the same pitcher for the entire game.

How could you know otherwise? lol

2 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

Also Babe Ruth is the all-time WAR leader. There's a reason for that.

If WAR was really accurate Ruth's numbers would be even higher.

Ruth won 94 games and lost only 46 as a pitcher with a era of 2.28..how many games has Trout won?

If I was starting a team and I had a choice of Ruth or Trout being my first player I'd choose Ruth every time.

When Trout's career is over perhaps he'll equal Ruth and other HOF players but that hasn't been written yet.