Dtwncbad

When entire months go by with no posts, can this thread be retired yet?

It was also quite deliberately orchestrated to add the HOF to what was covered in a lifetime ban after he agreed to a lifetime ban. Pete is a piece of garbage, but that was wasn't on the up and up.

I understand your position. If you understood mine you would know why what you wrote above has literally nothing to do with my position. I have no issue, at all, with Rose never being allowed to work in baseball or ever be allowed to even attend a game. Starve him of a ceremony and never let him set foot there. . .whatever. I just stop short of sacrificing historical accuracy. I smell an element of deliberately punishing Rose personally in all of it and my opinion is that is worthless if it is at the expense of accuracy. Rose is a jerk and if he were in the HOF he would probably get off on it. But I don't care what Rose feels in this context and it feels pretty undisciplined to even consider it. Does Rose "win" or "get away with it" if there is a bust of him there? What in his brain? I can't make myself assign any weight to that at all.

With a media not willing to actually bring up the subject, total silence on it, why would Albert not be fine with it? Why would he not think everyone is happily drunk on his historical greatness when nobody around him is willing to say otherwise?

The Hall of Fame has room after room of interesting stuff and memorabilia and displays. Then you go into the rooms that is focused singularly, without any distractions, on "this is the group of players who were the greatest of all time." Not including Rose in that room, like it or not, despite Rose personally feeling rewarded or deprived, makes tjat room historically inaccurate. It's a subject people will disagree over forever, but here is the point I attempt to make. When push comes to shove, being historically accurate should take priority over trying to emotionally punish Rose. I don't care how he feels either way. Imagine it this way. If baseball had some other lousy player that they really wanted to punish, and they truly believed putting them IN the Hall of Fame would do the trick. . .should they do It? Of course this is a silly what if. I'm just using it to underscore my opinion that exclusion or inclusion is a pretty stupid thing to be used as a punishment when it really is a sidenote that players personally feel rewarded for being elected. I think being historically accurate should drive it. The argument that Rose is "there" in the other rooms of novelty and memorabilia means very little. So is Mark Whiten for hitting 4 homers in a game. That one room is the most important room and just be accurate. Tell the truth on the plaque. Pick words that make Pete's head explode in anger if you want, as long as they are accurate.

I vividly remember being openly mocked for projecting Beltre to be a future Hall of Famer.

2017 trade deadline for the Angels or opening Al Capone"s vault? Which was more anti-climatic?

Among the 99% of Pete Rose HOF comments engulfed in the idea that being in the HOF is an award to the player personally so that keeping them out is a dependable punishment to them personally. I don't give a rat's ass how Pete Rose personally feels about being in the HOF. I just want them to get it right historically as a museum. And just tell the truth on the plaque. "Rose is considered one of the All time greats for his hustle and career numbers. In the end, Rose personally destroyed his own reputation with his choices after his playing days and remains banned from baseball to this day."

It would be at least equally stupid to count on him. Hundreds and hundreds of players. . .

Calhoun is no Salmon (or Harper). It's a stupid comment. There are literally hundreds and hundreds of players that have had three decent seasons in the majors and then never really produce much thereafter. I guess if we all want to pretend there is no possibility that Calhoun will simply be one of these hundreds and hundreds of players. . .then OK cool. We love you Kole! But that isn't living in reality. I like Kole and want him to do well. But baseball history is chock full of guys who are decent for 3 years and then fade. I apologize for having my eyes are open.

Yeah sure if this is the snarky nonsense you need to have fun on the board. If Bryce Frickin Harper struggled for part of a season I would cut him. . .You know because Kole Calhoun is exactly like Bryce Harper. Kole was, since he was literally 10 years old, just like Harper, the most recognized consensus baseball prodigy on earth and continued to mind-numbingly dominate at every level to the point that he was excelling in the majors as a teenager. Yeah I mean the comparison is so exact it is almost scary.

Don't misread this. If the Angels had more solid core guys to build around then uou can have the luxury of lots and lots of patience. I don't want 2018 to be a throw away season. The Angels have Trout and Simmons at this point. The Angels need more reliable offense in many spots in the lineup. The reality is Kole has not performed well enough right now to have me not consider RF as a position to upgrade. Maybe I shouldn't say I am almost done with Calhoun. Maybe I should say I am done with having like 6 holes in the lineup and in order to fix it, I'm not excluding Calhoun as a possible movable piece. If the Angels can solve three other spots sure I can roll with Calhoun. Calhoun was in the All good group of three. Now he isn't. I don't know that RF is set now. If that makes me "ignorant". . .I disagree. It makes me a realist.

No I am saying he has lost his position of "we don't have to worry about RF". I am worried about RF now. If you are not good for you. For me, RF is now among the positions on the GMs desk as part of the "gotta figure this out" items and now he could be a moving piece. . . .rather than being in the "no issue here and build around" group with Trout and Simmons. I wouldn't now hesitate to make an aggressive move that involved Kole when before he wasn't in the possible moving pieces group.

I'm pretty close. I know the Angels have many problems so I am not putting it all on Kole. But he used to easily be among the things I didn't think needed fixing. Now he is right in the middle of all the things that need fixing. Maybe he just isn't good enough.

Harper totally gets away with it with me. I am fully entertained watching him and I have a massive amount of respect for his game. I pull for him to be great. I respect Trout's calm and mature approach. And I respect Harper's attitude approach. Each approach "works" for each player. I don't have to pick one to like and hate the other. Harper is awesome and I would love to have him on the Angels. Harper is one reason I pull for the Nationals. He is a beast.

I don't understand how this is a bombshell story. Is there anyone anywhere that didn't already know smashing your head repeatedly isn't good for your brain? People choose to do things accepting the risk and danger. People smoke and drink. People drive on the freeway. People skydive. People eat donuts. People ride motorcycles with no helmets. People play football.

Julio Teheran

Go on record and predict one player the Angels will acquire before the deadline.

Everybody assumes after he hit better his rookie year that the only thing holding him back is Petco. I wouldn't mind having him compared to some of the bodies taking up space on this roster but I don't view him as a big bat.

We all have opinions so I don't say thus to say I am right. I am just being honest that my personal problem with the 38 starting pitchers the Angels have is specifically a lack of upside and potential. What I see overwhelmingly is a ton of depth for the back half of a rotation. How many of these really, honestly can you see as a #1 or #2 ? Richards when healthy and then?

I don't want a decent pitching staff. I want a good pitching staff. The team needs a bona fide horse at the top.

The guy constantly uses that phrase for swinging strikeouts. To my knowledge, and from my own history, a punch out is a called strike three. . .like the umpire punches you out in his call letting you know you just struck out. The phrase seems misused when the guy swings and misses. Am I wrong?

My only comment is when you have lots and lots of easy choices that sometimes means none of them are very good. I personally am sick of accepting easy pedestrian plug ins. You can't have an entire lineup of All Stars so even championship caliber teams often have a couple of plug ins. But just because a plug in can work, meaning reasonable fans should be fine with a plug in player or two. . .that doesn't mean I am supposed to be fine with 6 or 7 plug ins. So then when we isolate one position to discuss, lots of people reasonably are OK with a plug in player at that spot. Fine!! But let's keep things in context. Lots of these players on the Angel roster could play an adequate role on a championship. But it's time to start deciding which ones because when you carry them all your team sucks. The team needs two large upgrades offensively. When push comes to shove I don't really care what positions they upgrade.as.long as they do it. But I personally don't want to check off first base as covered and good enough unless I know my improvement is happening at other positions. Otherwise heck no I am not OK at first base with any of the bodies listed.

He might at some point do that for his "career year." The problem would not be with that year. The problem is what you have to get through to finally get that year. I am not very excited to have to breathe through five years of bench player level production to be paid back by a .280/25 hr year. You let guys like this toil with the Padres until maybe they look good enough and then maybe take a look. I know the Angels don't have a lot of choices right now so I get why he is here. But I would hope the long term goal would be to have either a much more productive, established hitter playing first, or a younger guy with way, way more upside than Cron.

An article in a local newspaper? I think you have anwered your own question right?