jessecrall

Ben Shapiro, is that you? I thought you were still building that rage-shrine to AOC...

Oh, so you're a homophobe as well! Well, here's to the younger members of your family slowly ostracizing you because you're just too pathetic to deal with.

It's right because of some combination of driving on roads, using public schools, supporting military interventions, flying on airlines that you absolutely did not want self-regulated, calling the police, having firefighters contain an inferno moving toward your neighborhood etc etc etc. If you want to complain about HOW your tax dollars are being spent, by all means do. But I feel ZERO sympathy that you only got 57% of your precious bonus. Most rich people got lucky. They didn't earn jack. I say this as someone who's made good money and been flat broke. It had nothing to do with me, my skills, my intellect or lack thereof. Mygyn Kylly made more money than everyone on this board put together for being terrible at her job so she can blow it on a luxe penthouse and pass more money onto her spoiled kids who will start life 6 steps ahead of the average person because Mommy insisted that Santa was black once and became a media rock star. If my sentiments sound like class warfare, that's only because they are.

Conservatives who want to Make America Great Again sure get quiet when you show them corporate and income tax rates under Eisenhower. Or Nixon. Or even Reagan. Also, when a 29-year-old congresswoman two weeks on the job has guys comparing her to a neighing horse, she's obviously gotten under their skin.

FYI Keith Law's top-100 rolls out next week and he was generally higher on Angels prospects than most last year, putting Adell at #10 on his midseason update.

If you don't believe Donald Trump is a racist who ran a racist campaign, you may want to take a deep look at yourself. I know, I know "I'm not racist, calling someone a racist is the worst thing you can say about someone, the PC left thinks everyone's a racist, it's ILLEGAL immigration we don't like etc etc,"

That's what the Very Smart Media People said in 2016. People voted for a guy who said "Grab them by the pussy," had 19 sexual misconduct allegations and ran a racist campaign devoid of any legitimate platform beyond getting Mexico to pay for a wall and increasing tariffs. Those people will vote for him again. Let Trump have 63 million votes. A lefty with integrity and a mediocre-but-not-bad campaign will get 68 and win.

Oh, well I certainly agree with you there. My argument is more "The right will attack any Democrat. Worry about what VOTERS would find unappealing." Corporate ties? Absolutely. Progressive politics? No, at least not to the constituency the left needs to win the general.

Then again, people hated Trump. People hated Obama...I'm just trying to get people to turn away from "on-paper" qualifications based on Beltway Wisdom from 1972 or something. Trump and Obama were, on-paper, incredibly dubious candidates. They beat candidates who were, on-paper, far more appealing. Reality proved different. To say someone can't win because they're black, a socialist, a woman, too progressive, underqualified, racist, unmarried, from a coastal state, stupid, Jewish etc etc doesn't apply. Supposedly racist Trump supporters would absolutely vote for Nikki Haley over, say, Joe Biden. Midwestern voters in supposedly non-coastal, not lefty states keep electing Tammy Baldwin and Sherrod Brown. The world is complicated. Simplifying it into words of conventional wisdom doesn't lead to understanding.

Worrying over what the right will do to attack Democratic candidates is pointless. Right wingers will portray every single Democratic candidate as a god-awful nightmare. It's the left's job to ignore it. Hillary ran a campaign almost entirely devoid of substance. Literally. No one in the television era has ever spoken less about policy in campaign ads than she did. The whole campaign was "Children are watching!" It didn't work. Run on progressive policy that appeals to poor voters and young voters, trust that the base will be motivated by their (legit) Trump hatred and work on expanding your own vote totals as opposed to converting Trump voters. If he gets 63 million votes again, he will lose as long as Dems make SLIGHT gains in purple states. It's not hard. We're down by one with no outs in the 9th, the bases are loaded and Trout is up. There's no need to sac bunt.

Bernie would have won.

Trump's approval rating is 15 points underwater and a moderate lost to him in 2016. I don't understand why media figures and even Democrats underestimate how popular progressive policies are when they're presented effectively.

So you're saying that if a progressive Democrat gets the nomination, you expect Trump to get 113 million votes?

I keep seeing people on here and elsewhere talking up Democrats who can appeal to "moderates," or conservatives who don't like Trump, ignoring the fact that the Dems spent 2016 chasing moderates, failed to land them and alienated parts of their base. What do Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan & Pennsylvania have a lot of? Union workers and college students. Who can appeal to them? Lefties. If Sherrod Brown can win Ohio and Tammy Baldwin, a progressive, pro-single-payer lesbian can win Wisconsin by DOUBLE DIGITS, it's crazy for Democrats to think they need some big tent, half-assed, watered-down candidate who yammers about the need for bipartisanship and common ground and then watches all the moderates they courted fall in line with Trump because they like tax cuts and dislike immigration. Court disillusioned voters, young voters, poor voters...people who are on your side but not necessarily inclined to make the effort to vote. Trump landed JUST enough in the right spots to win. Democrats can easily do the same if they run FOR progressive issues as opposed to AGAINST Trump.

Sanders is the best option even though he's 131 years old, Sherrod Brown and Elizabeth Warren are solid consolation picks, Jay Inslee seems interesting enough that I hope he runs and Biden should pack it in.

I can't find specific data quickly enough to make it worth my while but he definitely improved statistically against lefties as the season went on. Coming into September, he had a .509 OPS against them so if he ended at .654, he obviously made serious progress over the last month. He also LOOKED much more comfortable against them in the 2nd half. He didn't have the "bailing out on pitches that hit the inside corner" or "flailing at breaking balls low and away" at bats that we saw early on.

Nah. It's entirely reasonable for Trout to want to see the Angels develop for one more season. Also, they're currently a fringe contender that could obviously use a 9 WAR megastar on their roster. If he's wishy washy in January 2020, then sure, you look into trading him for a smaller but not-insignificant return. But why tick him off now by putting him on the block?

Calhoun's value is rock-bottom and Upton has a no trade clause. I think it makes a lot more sense to play out 2019 with the expectation (and hope) that Adell can take over in right, Marsh will push Upton to 1st if he's ready in a couple of years and if he isn't, Knowles or Adams should be by the time Upton's deal is done. And if you extend Trout at some point in the next 11 months, you can then fill in blanks with, say, Arenado or Cole depending on how the farm develops.

It's entirely reasonable for Trout to wait another year to see how the Angels look moving forward. The Angels will be competitive financially and they have a strong fan base/market. If the Angels look like a strong team with a young core by the end of 2019, I'd be surprised if he didn't sign.

Well, Jeff flat-out said on here that he wouldn't want Machado anywhere near his clubhouse and since he isn't prone to hyperbole, that's a pretty bold statement. Do you want a full decade of headaches? Do you want a bad clubhouse guy hanging around when his skills start to erode? And from a stats perspective, would you expect a non-hustler with clear attitude problems to age well? Machado MIGHT age well, he has a broad enough skill set that it's possible. But he also may very well be the kind of player who looks at his bank account and job security and decides he really doesn't need to put in 100% effort on the field, off the field, in practice, in training...That's not a huge deal if you're 24 and under team control. But if you're expecting that guy to make ~$300 mil and hang around into his mid-30's, it's an issue.

Trout. Mookie. Extensions for Acuna & Soto. Bregman. Lindor. Obviously, the AAV matters but the odds of them either remaining productive for the next 10 years or being big enough stars for the 1st half that you can live with the ensuing decline are pretty good.

And an absolute monster (1.083 OPS) the year before. It's fluky, he'll be fine.

Ozzie played at an All Star-level through the age of 37 and Omar held his defensive value into his 40s...they're anomalies and it would be incredibly naive to EXPECT Simmons to repeat that paradigm...but it is possible.

Marsh is probably the best defensive outfielder in their system. I imagine Upton would move to 1B if Marsh is good enough to start (assuming Trout's extended & Adell's a regular by 2021).

It should be noted that Machado's defense did a complete 180 with the Dodgers and so even with the drop in offense, he was more valuable on a per-game basis with the Dogs than he was with the Orioles in 2018. Not that I'm advocating signing him, nor do I think the Angels will...