ScruffytheJanitor

5 minutes ago, failos said:

We'll need @EnglishCop's take before this is settled.

This concept comes from the Old English word Furþor, which came from "fore-ther" or "more fore." "Farther" is just an form that developed when people stopped thinking of "Fore" in the way we used to.

2 minutes ago, failos said:

*farther

Further works just as well, my dude.

Patrick Sandoval. Projections (even the super stingy ones) suggest that he is an average-ish pitcher right now; any development or new pitches could make him a sneaky mid-rotation starter by the end of the year.

2 minutes ago, floplag said:

This is so unrealistic though, especially now.  Where do you propose to get 2 bonafide aces?  Especially at this point?  
4 guys projected over 160 innings... 4.  Want to guess how many we had last year?  pick up that donut your eating and notice its shape. 
Now it may or may not happen, time will tell, but it would take multiple injuries to even get close to last years debacle.  To suggest this rotation isnt improved or wont be any better is just plain silly.
I'm sorry but you can argue many things around here, this is not one of them logically. 

I don't know where to begin.

1) I wasn't suggesting that are definitely going to get two great pitchers. I was simply saying that there is enough in our rotation NOW that two aces would make our rotation look "deep" rather than "fairly suspect."

2) Look at that list again. Ohtani, Bundy, Canning,Tehrean and Heaney don't have perfect track records of health. It wouldn't shock me if only two or three of those guys broke the 160 inning limit. I don't think that our health will be that bad, but there are going to be plenty of starts made by pitchers not in the rotation.

3) Our having a talented (if limited)#2 (Ohtani), 2 solid #4s, and a pile of good #5 pitchers IS a massive improvement over last year. NEVER FORGET CHRIS STRATTON.

Remember, this was a response to a post about CONTENDING rotations; compared to average, we probably have a #2, a low-end #3, and a couple of #4s.   It's just not enough to make us legit WS contenders.

9 hours ago, Dochalo said:

yet again, your arrogance has clouded your ability to comprehend what people are even arguing.  

go find a post where I said that we are amazing.  go find another where anyone makes an argument that we have a good starting staff.  anyone.  using one year of anything to draw a conclusion is just dumb.  

I'm defending a system that tends to be more right than wrong and one where you can easily know where it could be right or right based on knowing how it works.  

The Angels rotation likely isn't as good as any of those teams you mentioned.  I have had my mind wrapped around that for awhile now.  The rotation isn't that good but again, it's not terrible.  Last year it was terrible.  horrible.  awful.  

you gave me a number salad of virtually meaningless info and you pivot to your opinion as opposed to fact when you are losing ground in any discussion because you don't understand.  I am sorry this is going nowhere because of that.  

This is where I am at.  Our current rotation is a punch in the gut, but last year our rotation was a punch in the nuts with brass knuckles. Certainly not ideal, but I think we should avoid major testicular damage.

Could I be wrong? Could be. I am sorta just assuming that Tehran runs out of magic juice and has like an era of 6. But I also think it's probable that we have 5 pitchers (Ohtani-Canning-Bundy-Sandoval-Heany) that are average-ish or better. (Remember: the average starter is roughly 4.30 ERA.) Is that good enough? Hell no. Even if all five pitchers had an ERA of 4.00, that rotation is not exactly the most durable. But it is better than last year.

17 hours ago, Second Base said:

So to summarize....

The Angels have four #5 starters. Two of them are the inning eater types (Teheran and Bundy), one of them should be better (Heaney) and the last figures to be better someday (Canning). 

The Angels are probably going to have the worst rotation in baseball, among teams that will contend. I mean the Yanks, Red Sox, Rays, Twins, Indians, White Sox, Astros, Rangers, A's.... They're all better than the Angels on the mound. 

The real reason why the Angels will contend is that offense. They figure to be every bit as good as any team in the AL outside of Minnesota.

Eh... I think it's more like 2 #4s  (Heany/Bundy) and 3 #5s.

But your point stands. You put two bonafide aces at the top, and that would be workable. However, since we don't have that, we look like an injury  or a drop-off away from.... last year again.

Man, if

• Price were just a tad bit better/3 years younger (or they would take Upton)

AND

• We could do this without giving up Adell

I'd be all over this -- even if we'd only get Betts for a year. Because, Man, what a fun year. Trout, Betts, Rendon, Ohtani, Simmons - in other words, five of the top 15 most entertaining players in the world -- on the same team? With Fletcher, La Stella, and Castro providing support? And Adell in the wings? Heck, Pujols' corpse is probably going to move up a spot or two in the HR list.

I know it's daft - but, like drinking tequila  in Florida trailer park,  it would be DAMN fun.

Christ people- Tehran isn't coming here to be Noaln Ryan 2.0. He's coming here to soak up innings. It's almost like none of you remember Chris Stratton started like 7 games last year.

One thing I haven't seen considered: The Angels could bring on a mid-level guy (like Tehran or even Gio Gonzales) and then include Heaney or even Canning in a trade. The addition of a promising mid-tier pitcher might be enough to make an ace a viable option.

1 minute ago, Chuckster70 said:

Back to Simmons. That left side of the infield, we have to go after a couple of lefty groundball pitchers. 

Best part?  We have David Fletcher (who would start at short for a bunch of teams) on our roster with Paris, Jackson, and Vera  in the pipeline. Should have a solid-to-excellent player there for the next decade.

1 hour ago, UndertheHalo said:

Santa isn’t real you dopes.

I keep asking my wife to let me tell the kids the story of St. Nicholas' bifurcated corpse, but at this point I think I am just supplying her with divorce-fuel.

12 minutes ago, Lou said:

Go Conquistadors!

or Q's, if you prefer.

But "Conquista-Qs" doesn't make any sense.

3 minutes ago, Second Base said:

Is there enough money to get Ryu, take on Darvish's contact AND get Rendon? Because if there was, chances are Gerrit Cole would be an Angel.

It is possible that the Angles are more willing to pay three players instead of one.

Just now, Second Base said:

No thanks to 35 million a year on a 3B you don't need when your starting rotation is currently Bundy, Heaney and Canning.

3 minutes ago, Second Base said:

Uh Rendon is not a pitcher, and you don't pay 35 million to a player you don't need in order to trade the player he's replacing in exchange for one that you do need. It makes you overly reliant on an inconsistent and unpredictable market and is just plan reckless and unwise. 

Aren't the Angels already relying on an inconsistent and unpredictable market as we stand now? Even if we sign Ryu and Madbum, there is a pretty high chance those guys all decline.  Another way to say it: Rendon would be the third best player on our team right away, and would probably give Simmons a a challenge at #2 right now. You would pass on that production -- which may not affect other FA decisions,, but will certainly free-up trade assets- just because pitching sucks? This is like telling a fat guy not to lose weight because he's also short.

5 minutes ago, Second Base said:

No thanks on Rendon. As we recently learned, "all-in" doesn't actually mean all in, and if the Angels have 50 million to spend, is rather they spend it on pitching, rather than veining an offense that can already stand on its own.

Eppler has been great with building position player depth on the farm. This isn't a short term need, not a long term need and the depth is there already. 

But pitching.....well let's just say it, he's sucked at developing and had been even worse at acquiring it. 

Let's use that money wisely.

Uh, Rendon would definitely be in improvement over everyone in our infield except Simmons. I also think he'll make a pretty good 1B over the latter half of this contract, which is definitely a big need.

Not to mention - it's not like having an abundance of Infielders is a bad thing. It would allow us to include Fletcher, La Stella, Rengifo, or even Simmons in a trade for a pitcher.

1 minute ago, Stradling said:

Why?  What’s he done on the trade market to make you feel this way?  

Exactly what I was thinking. If anything, his past suggests we sign like 2 "re-bound" starters that end up cut by July, then make a couple of minor trades for an under-the-radar bullpen arm and a mediocre catcher.

If we get something like Rendon + Darvish/Contreras Trade + Ryu, I'd be pretty happy actually.

I also half expect us to land an arm that no one is talking about. Something like the Rays trading Blake Snell or something.

This is too good. You need to sprinkle in some more hot takes so I can complain more!

• Rodriquez at #4 is bold, but I don't hate it. Could easily be a #3 starter before we realize it-- JUST. STAY. HEALTHY.
• Hermosillo was perfectly ranked. Could contribute, could be the classic "AAAA" player.
• Similarly, Jackson was perfectly ranked as well. He's going to be the Brandon Marsh of the 2020/2021 off-season.
• Nailed it on Stallings--- heck, I may have moved him up a couple of spots. He feels like a guy that ends up starting 20 games as a rookie (holding his own) and then being a better-than-he-should-be #5 starter for 10 years.

I still think this group is a tad too low on Will Wilson. I think his bat speed is underrated (not top-shelf, mind you, just underrated) because his swing is longer than it needs to be. I also think there is a better shot that he sticks at short than most people give him credit for.

I was interested until he brought up GREG (not Craig) Kimbrell.

15 hours ago, Chuckster70 said:

We had a good offline talk today with a mod, myself and Claude so I think (I hope) we'll see a different guy going forward. 

2 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

So I think .285/.350/.450 is a reasonable expectation.  He was also solid at 3b - not great but solid.  Not so good at 2b.  I would like to see him mix in at 1b/3b/DH this year and get a full season's worth of at bats.  I think he could end up a 3-4 WAR player.  

I see I am not the only one that wants La Stella at 3rd and Fletcher at 2nd, then.

4 minutes ago, floplag said:

To be fair i think most are more concerned about the second singing, which most think should also come from that pool, than they are Cole.
Is Wheeler for example worth the contract plus the lost of draft pick and money? 

Whenever I think this, I remember that Dillon Peters, Matt Harvey, and Trevor Cahill started 35 games combined last year. I'd probably sell one of my children to avoid that again.

3 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I imagine you’d have been pretty excited if they got Eovaldi instead of Harvey last year. Or Happ. 

This is sorta my prospective. After we whiffed on Corbin, I am not so sure that any other options would have justified their cost. Even Keuchel wasn't worth surrendering a pick for.

17 hours ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

I tried that once. All that happened was someone caught me and I got internet shamed.

I wasnt wearing pants, but so what?

To be fair, that Preschool wasn't particularly close to Angels Stadium....

On 10/17/2019 at 10:29 AM, Chuckster70 said:

I hope. Man that would be a winning formula. That said, pitching pitching pitching. I'll take a lesser upgrade at C on the cheap if we can bolster the rotation. 

But man, Grandal would improve our lineup immensely. 

 

At this point, I'd take Kurt Suzuki.