Dtwncbad

I was away from message boards for an eternity and I take a peek back in, and what do I see? Sherman Johnson talk. OK. How about seasoning it with some Andrew Romine talk?

Please sign Tyson Ross. Please? He is going to want one year to re-establish himself. So no long term risk, no massive amount of money risk. If he recovers fully then he is potentially the #1 starter on the team. Imagine adding like 14 wins to the rotation. Imagine the Angel offense does fine, Richards pitches well, Ross pitches well, and the volume of other pitchers make the staff competitive every single day. Imagine getting into that wildcard spot and actually looking at a postseason with two #1 level pitchers in Richards and Ross. Nothing about signing Ross to a one year deal would disrupt any other plans long term. It is all upside, and the only downside will be a modest one year contract. Come on Eppler, see the opportunity and move on it.

It "should" be Bedrosian at this point if you measure talent and getting Bedrosian into the role he belongs in. But I think the reality is they will put Street in there in the hopes he returns to being a reliable closer so that he has trade value as such mid summer.

Wondering out loud. . . Is Eppler the type of GM that carefully measures available opportunities? Or is he a GM that knows how to create opportunities? I think the difference between a decent functional GM and a really good one is if they are good at only the first or good at both.

www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-risk-of-a-justin-turner-deal/ Good argument that Turner could be a value. And yet Eppler was quoted as not willing to consider moving Escobar. I don't know if that means the Angels will not pursue a 3B, or if that means even if they do Escobar will not be moved to 2B. Eppler is on record saying the game is to watch for opportunity and value. I hope he sees what I see in Turner.

Not exacly. I am asking them to spend some money on making the team better. It is pro sports. It costs money. This is the Los Angeles Angels in 2017 with Mike Trout in his prime. You spend some money and try to win. Turner is a very good player that produces with the bat and is great in the field. You go get this guy. He makes the team better. I remember when people were freaked out by Adrian Beltre asking for 5 years and how "stupid" that would be for the Angels to get him. Yes there are lots of 5 year deals that don't produce for 5 years (like CJ Wilson) but that doesn't mean you don't pick a player that fits and try---especially when you have the money and your team is so healthy financially. The Twins or the Rays are different. My opinon is the Angels are not acting like the Angels should act. What would Dave Dombrowski do as GM of this team right now? There are two answers. One is aggressively tear it down around Trout, and the other is aggressively build it up around Trout. But I guarantee Dombrowski would not have left these Winter Meetings with unchecked boxes the way Eppler did.

A young man trying to get rich makes one set of decisions. Arte is not a young man trying to get rich. He is an old man who is already pretty filthy rich. And the one point I would make is I don't think it is even remotely possible for him to spend so much on this team that he ends his life not being filthy rich or not leaving an extremely financially healthy baseball team to his heirs. Spending foolishly is spending foolishly. I don't think anyone is asking for that. But open up a bit and sign Turner for 3B? Sign a free agent pitcher and then trade from pitching depth for a legit 2B (who may also have a healthy salary)? This doesn't sound to me like anything more than spending what you have to make the team better, with zero long term financial risk.

I also could not care less what that type of fan thinks. But that has nothing to do with the point I made about what more engaged intelligent fans are observing. I am not looking for trading Dante BIchette for Dave Parker or signing Gary Matthews Jr . . . I like to think I know a bit about baseball and I have been following the team since I moved to CA in 1977. I'm bored overall (except for obvious love of watching Trout play and other storylines). But bored OVERALL with the stagnant roster and the totally lacking in enthusiasm for 2017 being different than 2016. Just being honest.

All we need now is for the Angels to march out Scioscia to the media at the meetings to review four or five tired platitudes on what is nice about the current roster and playing it one game at a time, and blah blah blah. . . Shoot me.

I think what the front office/ownership is failing at right now is convincing the fan base that they really are doing everything they can with the resources available to them to put the best team on the field possible. When this is going to be most visual is during the Winter Meetings when fans are actually clicking and clicking to see updates on what is happening. Fans get restless when the team is not good enough AND it doesn't appear that the team is using available resources aggressively to fix that. Most can agree it is not smart to do something (stupid) just to do something. But that is not a good argument for not doing something that makes sense. Under the current circumstances fans want to see ambition, engagement and activity. We don't see it. If most fans cannot call what they see right now as ambitious, engaged and active then they are not likely to be very energized and optimistic about 2017 being different than 2016. Eppler very well could be the hardest working human being at the meetings. But it doesn't look like he is. And that matters to fans. I am not saying what is right or wrong, I am making the observation that the team should not be surprised if the fan base shows some frustration and criticism.

My only correction is this team would sell for $2b. premium franchise in a premium market with good TV contract and a well established reliable fan base along with the games best player to market. An ego owner would step up big and pay a HUGE price for this team.

What bad contract (that expires in one or two years) attached to a good player can the Angels acquire to help in 2017/18? Since no prospects to trade, absorb some money if it is expiring sometime soon?

Sale traded and now Eaton just traded. . . Gee I wonder if Frazier is available?

"For the best night's sleep in the Winter Meetings, watch My Angels dot com." (endorsed by the National Sleep Foundation)

This is supposed to be fun. . . paying attention to the Winter Meetings and watching all the possible transactions develop, all in hopes your team makes a move that is energizing. Instead this is about as thrilling as that same lame My Pillow commercial that runs pretty much non stop on cable. As an Angel fan, can I get more bored? Is it possible?

General comment: Escobar is the current 3B on the depth chart, but I believe there is no good reason to have that in anything other than light pencil. He just, flat out, is not a high enough impact player to be THE plan at 3B at this point. The team needs to improve, and while there are obvious holes like 2B, that does not for one second make me not see that 3B is at best a one year bandaid right now. And it is a dirty used bandaid that smells like toejam. If the team wants to get better, 3B should be in play.

I'm not sure I agree with a concentrated effort to get a left handed bat to "solve" a right-handed heavy lineup. It seems like commons sense to me that if you are right handed and you cannot hit right handed pitching, you are probably not good enough to be in the bigs. So as long as the right handers you have are OK, then it isn't a problem to solve. It is not like left handed hitters who sometimes feast on right handers but struggle against the less frequent at bats against lefties. . . The point is lefties who don't hit lefties can have long careers because they can be used 80% of the time against righties. Righties that don't hit righties are most likely not big leaguers, so who cares if you have 9 right handers in the lineup? (brought up in the context of Eppler looking for a bat from the left side)

Well then let's catch them while their brain is malfunctioning and trade them some garbage for LeMahieu.

I agree you are properly citing the previous budget. But I tend to believe that the budget is set attached to the lux tax. If I had to say, I would say Moreno is willing to spend up to the lux tax. . . for the right player. And I think Moreno will remain an active voice in whether a player is right or not, especially after his brutal marriage and divorce with Hamilton where he is stuck paying alimony.

Everyone knows the team is stuck in the middle with some financial obligations and not much to trade from the farm. But I would hope that Eppler is smart enough to know that only one team wins the World Series every year, and all the others don't. Realistically, realistically I don't see the Angels among the top 1/3 of teams in the conversation to be a real contender. So the very least they can do is create some buzz around the team. Signing Crisp and Norris do not do that. I want a bold GM willing to make bold moves to create some excitement. Getting Simmons last year was a move that both created some noise for fans to consume and also did something for a plan moving forward. I want to bark at Eppler to please, please, please do not have an offseason where nothing energizing happens. The team from a marketing perspective needs some kind of message that 2017 will be different from 2016. Norris and Crisp do not accomplish that. . . For example, If they think Turner can be productive for a few years, then go get him. I know that signing Hamilton was a disaster, but that sticks out as unique. I don't want to miss out on a true impact player due to being gun shy from Hamilton, or due to a few dollars at or around the luxury tax.

All I said is I wouldn't mind trading Shoemaker for a different critical piece, and that I never am comfortable with any discussion about a rotation with Shoemaker counted on near the top. My goodness, I don't see what is wrong with that. He is a great story. Again I am not pulling against the guy! He is on team and I want him to do well. I would think a fan should be able to express a player here and there that maybe they subjectively don't quite believe that the best days are ahead instead of behind.

I'm not pulling against Shoemaker, but I do believe he is a guy that will turn into a pumpkin at midnight. I would never second guess trading him for a core piece needed. He seems to be a gamble I can't mentally resolve. My brain is constantly chanting to me that he is really a swingman/#5 starter at best who sometimes pitches over his head. To me, any and all talk of Shoemaker in the top half of a rotation makes me cringe.

Ugh. Bud Norris? I hate useless depth. How many 4th and 5th starters can you use? I know money matters, but I want my team's GM to never add to the back of a rotation--I want them to add to the top of a rotation and have better pitchers pushed down. . . so you have a legit #3 as your #4, etc.

I don't think Ross is going to sign a multi-year deal. He is going to want to pitch well for a year to re-establish his value and then hit the market healthy for a big payday. He will be pitching for his contract. A savy team with an appetite for some risk might tempt him with a two year deal hoping to "steal" him in the second year of the contract if he is pitching well, but that will have to play out. I just like his upside for a team like the Angels that I think is a little soft at the top of the rotation.

Not picking on Escobar, but I view him as a final piece to plug into a hole on a team that has enough premium players in other spots. The Angels don't have enough premium players, so Escobar is in the way of a potential difference maker. I don't want the organization to mentally check off 3B as taken and miss out on an opportunity to get a premium player. Turner's glove is also awesome. If he hits anywhere close to what he did last year, he is such an overall upgrade to this lineup. . .