Wisconsin27

Don't f-ing say it!

Love this move. Adell and Marsh have nothing left to prove; let's play them! So glad it happened now, while the roster is being constructed, as opposed to mid-July. I love it.

Thanks and very well stated. Your post and Warfarin's as well both emphasize a common thread; more time is needed for our prospects/pitchers to develop. I don't disagree at all and organizationally I believe it's the correct pathway (and I think why I appreciate the work Billy did here more than most). It's just so hard to come to terms with knowing the solution you guys are suggesting will move us beyond the two year window. I am optimistic Mike will be in the playoffs in an Angel uniform, I just hope it is time for him to be a true asset on ."that team and not the "one-time annual MVP candidate". Where the three of us disagree is in the value of the TOR starters. I am likely a bit old school and know it's not a requirement to have 3 TOR's (I live in Brewer country and they have been successful with a strong bullpen), but on the whole, it just seems teams in October have tremendous pitching. I don't see ours as comparable at the moment and am not optimistic it will be developed or attained in the next two years. Again, I suppose I just need to come to terms with it.

Nothing personal here for you or Dawg. My concern is this. If we aren't willing to overspend in FA for a top of rotation starter and our mindset is we don't want to trade the potential of a young potential ace to acquire a proven one, then why do we also complain the FO/Arte aren't acquiring one during Mike's prime years? What is the solution?

I almost "liked" Strad's post, but didn't want to be the first without an explanation:-) We have gone through 3 (maybe four?) GM's and over 7 years of knowing we need a frontline starter. We get the same narrative from all of them, yet haven't delivered at even a second-tier level (i.e. someone like Stroman or Ray). Allow me to reverse the question. How many really think all of these GM's have been comfortable with this approach? I honestly believe it's all about the money with Arte. We can lament and even attempt to rationalize the "splashes" Arte has been behind with (Albert, Hamilton...even Upton and Rendon) as sound baseball moves at the time. But to me, a pattern has been established. He's reactionary as it relates to marketability and attempts to spin it as good for the team. I bought into that for too long. It's about the money and revenue. It's been clear for years to most of us what we "need" out of FA. However, when we fail to land it, we rationalize. We failed at the top flight pitchers the team desperately needed when we signed Rendon out of the blue (even though it wasn't our first or even second highest area of need in terms of position to address). Look at us now. We failed once again and folks are wondering if we are in play for a mega-deal SS knowing full well that's not what is bringing a championship. I have no way of knowing if Arte has told his GM's to avoid multi-year (especially 3+ year) SP contacts. I just know the preponderance of evidence suggests it's highly likely he has interfered to a degree that has put restrictions on all of the GM's under his control to have the leeway to address what they and the fans have easily identified as the greatest need.

We do this every year when our FO (or Arte) fails to land a quality starter on a multi-year deal. Tiresome.

Since the question isn't what other options I would have preferred we do with the money, I would take Max. I just so badly want to win in Mike's window and believe, with health, we have the core offense to get it done. The current moves aren't going to do it and Max would at least give us hope over the next year or two that we've got a shot. This circus we go through every year hoping the F.O. will make the right move, only to be disappointed, has grown tiresome. Personally, I can't recall being more disappointed in an offseason to-date. Mike is 30 and committed to us....and this is our response. While venting, I have lost most all organizational hope that a GM can succeed here while Arte owns the team. It's become very clear that Arte is running the show and his GM is merely a puppet with directives to stay within a budget until such time as he intercedes (which almost always turns out poorly). My short answer is give me hope (Max).

Option 5--he doesn't care about anything than making money for his business.

Joe's wrong about a lot of things. This isn't one of them. Our offense, if healthy, is fine. Our defense, by individual abilities, is fine (pull your head out, Joe). A rotation that "counts on" Suarez, Canning, Detmers, C-Rod, Barria, etc. is not going to put on par with the elite. It's that simple. We need more MLB proven arms in both the rotation and the BP if we want to compete for a championship.

So to anyone following closely, Arte is the biggest problem with the Angels, right? I mean, where else could the arrow possibly point?

Failos, I realize what you are referring to. I get frustrated by the same. I just get tired of all of the blame going to the manger. How about: - The GM finds someone better that Reng. - Cishek gets his shit together - Mayers (our set-up man) produces. - The offense scores more than three. - We have better options than Quintana. Sometimes it's the players. I do appreciate what you are saying. I see it all the time as a daily luker.....it's super-quiet here when we are winning and I don't post often (the buzzards come out when we are losing). So I get it. Respectfully, Mike

we just don't have the players/coaches combo to be successful. Common themes here: Defense sucks BP sucks Wise sucks Depth is lacking (Rengifo, Suz, most of the BP, and a few SP's). Maddon sucks Regarding the latter, I'm not a Maddon fan and can't for the life of me understand why he brought in Quintana tonight. With that said, he didn't own the loss. - Watson gives up an ER in his one inning as Cishek sucked. - Mayers was awful. - The offense scored 3 runs. None of those things were on Maddon. He's been given Rengifo, who f-d up 2 other runs. We can all look back and say it's on Maddon/Quintana, but tonight had plenty of blame to go around on the guys who actually play. Pick your all-time manager and I'm not sure they win tonight with the players on the roster. This is a collective effort of suckage. If...all the sucky players (Renifo, Cishek, Mayers, and many offensive collapses) didn't occur, we may have won. That shit is on the players. I, like many, look forward to being healthy. Until then and we find a BP arm or two, I suspect we'll continue on this rollercoaster.

A .926 OPS slump. Boy, are we spoiled.

Wow, I hope you can find a little bit of class, Arch. I wasn't sharing anything personal with you, just sharing an opinion on a forum. I suspect you watch 70+ Angel games a year because you are an Angel fan. I don't watch quite that many, but close. You would need to read and comprehend the thread to understand your comment has nothing to do with my point, but I'd prefer you just let it go.

By definition, absolutely nothing. In reality, for the average baseball fan in America, playing on the west coast (time zone) for a sub-.500 team that does not go the playoffs results in fewer prime time games, including the joys of October. I live in Wisconsin and can tell you there are many teams broadcast here more than the Angels in large part because east coast and winning teams are network priorities. Strad, I don't own a FB account, so I'm unsure where I came up with the crazy idea that the best player of our generation should not have to wait more than 10 years between playoff appearances if the organization makes a concerted effort to begin a rebuild on this 31st birthday.

To follow up, you make some great points and I get it. My only request is that if this is our plan, please free him for his sake and the rest of baseball to enjoy.

I couldn't agree with you more, MMC. We have been beating the mantra shared by Ten (honestly, no offense, I understand the perspective) for 5 years. Each of those years we have gotten really excited about potential free agent arms that would put us in the running, only to be asked to understand the reasoning why it can't or shouldn't be done. And each of those years we went into the season convincing ourselves that it is really best that we didn't "overpay" for the player(s) that we were so excited about. Second is correct in that JD hurt us badly and we feel it to this day. But at some point (perhaps long past), Arte needed to step up and not be outbid. I don't buy for a moment that Arte is losing money on the Angels. He's currently on pace to go down as the owner who wasted the career of one of, if not the best, players to ever play the game. I will be SO upset if by the time we are truly able to compete, we have a 34+ year old Trout who is a shade of what he was in prime. That would be, for me, just tragic for such a perfect individual to represent the game as one of the all-time greatest.

Barria doesn't play in the pen; he needs to be apart of a deal for an additional SP We need a FA ace; Bauer makes sense of multiple levels, but I don't have as much faith in him as I did with, say, Cole. I do think we need two, losing Barria. Pushes everyone down a slot and frees up options. We do need another reliever. I don't see the RF need as many here do.

Sorry, I tried to capture your quote about putting anything past him, but apparently I'm not tech savvy enough to know how!

I wouldn't put anything past him, either. That said, it can't hurt to drive the price up!

I'm thinking this is about risk/reward as it's the only reasonable explanation to leave him off. He's not ready for the majors and they didn't want to start his clock. They rolled the dice knowing a team would have to stash him for a year and we lost. They responded by picking up a similar profile guy. Other than outside issues we wouldn't know about (attitude, work ethic, etc.), there is no reasonable explanation that I can think of.

I read this board multiple times a day and rarely post. That said, I haven't seen any mention of the first thing that crossed my mind and am wondering if anyone else has consider it. I see the Mets and Dogs as the primary competition for Bauer. The Mets want a catcher and have been linked to McCann and, to a lesser degree, Realmuto. They are also heavily linked to Springer. It's likely they won't go so far as adding Springer, Realmuto, and Bauer. Is it possible that Perry is attempting to drive McCann's price up and/or forcing the Mets hand to prevent them from acquiring Bauer? A higher priced McCann and Springer might make it difficult to squeeze Bauer in. I would honestly be a little disappointed if we allocated 10M for 3 years to an over-30 catcher, regardless of the value our GM places on the position.

I voted no. Then I learned that Second and Doc voted "yes" and I questioned myself! I keep coming back to a few things. For all of his faults (namely, FA starting pitching on a budget that maxed out at 10 mil or so, he struck out almost every time), I honestly think we will look back as him being a foundation builder. He brought the farm back from one of the worst in baseball's recent history to middle of the pack in 4 years. He signed key players (Trout, Rendon, Ohatani), he fixed the BP on next to nothing most years. He made a few mistakes, like Upton's extension, but no GM in baseball doesn't make mistakes. In the end, I would have given him one more. To judge him in a shortened season Covid year only months after the death of a beloved player and with a new manager/coaching staff is just too short-sighted for me. Finally, he's well respected throughout the league and a pretty classy guy, IMO. Everyone knows he will land on his feet. If we undoubtedly made the right decision, why? Given Arte's reputation, I'm just not willing to believe that we are some sort of destination location for a quality GM, despite having one of the 3 best players to ever wear the spikes being in their prime, great weather, wonderful fans, a strong budget, and excellent core. We should have young up and comers banging down the door to get this job. Why don't we? My guess is the answer is those within the industry, they know. If knowledgeable, respected and classy guys like Eppler can't make it work, why would they? I think we pulled it one year prematurely.

Thanks, Second. It's information like this causes me to visit this site multiple times daily. As a high school principal, I only wonder how you are able to post throughout the school day:-) I kid!!!! Thanks for all of your contributions, I'd love to buy you a beer! Mike

I think you're spot-on, Doc. But in all fairness, I think having Mike Trout on your team has, in large part, served as the impetus behind the approach for years. There has undoubtedly been pressure to build a winner rather immediately during his entire career (particularly before the extension). I'm not saying it's been a correct or incorrect approach (I'm not a fan of hindsight), but am only pointing out I understand the reasoning behind the approach. Heck, we have all wanted Mike to get to the playoffs asap for his entire career.