Wisconsin27

Game 6, I did that intentionally due in large part because I don't come to the forum to draw lines in the sand and argue my position to the point of getting personal with fellow Angel fans. Enough people do that here already. Instead, I tend to enjoy the varying perspectives and the rationale behind them (though I really come here for information more than anything). As I stated earlier, I don't pretend my opinion matters and quite honestly, don't have nearly enough insight to take a comfortable stand either way. For example, I have no idea what has/hasn't been done behind the scenes with the scouting department (international or otherwise), the competency level of those layered within the organization, what kind of owner Arte is when the door is shut, etc. I only know the circumstances Eppler inherited (quite honestly one of the worst situations in pro sports during my 40 years of following the Angels) and have very rarely not understood the rationale behind his decisions (though I didn't understand his first trade at all, but he was totally right). I also admit to being more patient than many in our society today. I also think we have to remember that with a new GM will come significant change at every level of the organization.....philosophy, minors, eventually coach (I know), player value, etc. To me, this means a 3+ year re-tool during Mike's final prime years. I would have to be damn sure I had the right guy this time. I also understand this is the very reason so many frustrated fans want him out....they are ready for wholesale change. In the end, I would be reluctant to fire him this year for a number of reasons that the anti-Billy folks will view as excuses. There is something really interesting and ironic that when the use of hindsight is viewed as a reason to keep a GM, it's excuse making. But when hindsight without context is used to argue for a termination, it's fact finding. Anyway, among those things to consider....admittedly given the advantage of hindsight on the season to-date.... *Covid. I mean, the whole thing. *Skaggs. If you have ever worked closely with someone in your organization that has passed, you know that doesn't just "go away" after a couple of months. That process can't be rushed and it sucks. *Mike- Slowest start to his career. Not on Eppler. *Rendon- Takes over 1/6 of the season to adjust to the AL/Angels. Not on Eppler. *Ohtani- Eppler should never have "counted" on him. That said, I'm not sure he really did as I don't recall a bunch of good arms without question marks behind them being available that fit Billy's budget. Instead, I think Eppler tried to build some semblance of an 8-9 deep rotation and rolled out what he had. What could or would he had done differently if he somehow knew Ohtani was going to be out early? My guess is there is nothing he could have done. Similar to Canning, who has had the good fortune to-date of being able to avoid further injury issues. - As a hitter, his performance is not on Eppler. *Upton- Could have and perhaps should have seen this coming. But I don't think anyone would have projected him to be THIS bad. Furthermore, this isn't something to be evaluated "this year" anyway. Eppler messed this up at resigning (again, using hindsight). Even IF Eppler knew Upton would hit under .200 in the first 30+ games, he would not have done nothing different as he didn't have the money to put into another OF'er with Goodwin serviceable and Adell/Marsh on the way. The extension is solely on Billy, but this level of poor performance is on Upton. *Young pitchers not developing at the rate we'd like. One could argue this is on Billy as he is overvaluing his own and that may be the truth. He did bring in a new pitching coach, so I guess we'll see the final results shortly. Game 6, I think I keep him around if I'm Arte. I just don't think I put the blame of so many players underperforming in a weird year on the GM. It's not to say I don't get it if he goes a different direction, but with what I know, he would stay. Respectfully, Wisconsin27

I've been reading this forum multiple times daily for the past few years, but rarely post. I come here for information, insight, and enjoy the dialogue held by many of the regulars. This particular thread really speaks to the overall perspective of many on the board. We have people who love to use hindsight as a means by which to determine their perspective, but in the process lose track of all reality of the things that were in play when the moves were made. So "FIre Eppler" is the obvious response because, somehow, someone else would have made the right decisions had they been in charge. We also have many engaged posters who remember the circumstances that truly existed when said moves were made. Those are the ones that I appreciate reading and the reason I come back to this site every morning, lunch break, and evening. I can see Arte going either way on Eppler. It's his choice and I'm not naive enough to wonder if what I think really matters. That's on him. And quite honestly, I won't blame him for either direction he chooses. I'll still be a fan and following them daily. What I get a kick out of is how folks are so eager to lay blame at Eppler's feet. And quite honestly, to give him more props than he deserves for the ones he hits on. He gets beat up for Cahill and Harvey. Yet, do folks remember what was really available at 10 mil at the time of their signing? He had a rotation to fill with a limited budget. He took a chance on a guy with a decent past in terms of stability (Cahill) and a project. He lost. For one year, he lost. This year, he's in the same situation. He struck out on the expensive pitching for all the reasons stated here, which were almost entirely out of his control. He went Rendon, which will pay dividends. He again went for some career stability (Teheran) and a project (Bundy). In an extremely small sample size, he's judged. Yet, if this was a 162, I would wager Teheran would get closer to his career norms and Bundy would fall back closer to his. We are over-reacting to both, imo, but what can't be lost is the cards he was dealt. He had to do something (!) and went Rendon after the top pitches said no. Even with hindsight, was he to avoid Rendon and wait for another day while Trout was in his prime? This board would be on fire. As many have stated, until this organization develops its own (which Covid certainly didn't help), it will be in trouble. I really think the lack of development from guys like Heaney, Canning, Sandoval, etc. is what has hurt more than anything...outside of unfortunate injury luck (and inherited contracts) out of Eppler's control. And yes, he can "own" Upton. But to look back with hindsight and say he shoulda and coulda without context is an exercise in futility.

I'm not at all upset. I am simply trying to suggest that this might not work out quite like we have been led to believe. I hope I am wrong and Eppler kicks ass. If/when it doesn't, I look forward to posters like yourself that will be quick to bitch and complain about how much we gave up after all the details are out, shocked that we got screwed and pissed at Eppler for giving up way too much.

Totprods, I respect the hell out of you and your insight. Love reading your stuff here daily. But I disagree with your premise. Okay, Joc hit 30 homers once. He also has hit over 25 in three years and is 27 years old. Spin it as you will. Stripling comes to us as no worse than a 3rd starter. His remaining potential, despite being 30, suggests he could be a strong benefit to our current club as constructed. Feel free to disagree. Your comment about Pages is entirely accurate. His high leg kick scares the hell out of me. But your statement related to the "significant" drop off after #5 was truly my point. How are we to believe the BEST deal the Dodgers GM can muster with these (his) three is a deal centered around Rengifro, some cap relief that may teams can offer, and a prospect from a middle-of-the-road farm that rates below their top 5 despite the large drop off? I really hope you are correct and we aren't disappointed.

While we anxiously wait to see if the Betts deal will go through, I can't help but wonder if we are ultimately going to be disappointed when the final details of our end of the trade comes to fruition. Right now, we are led to believe we will acquire a 30+ home run guy, a young and proven starter, and a top 10 prospect in our organization. And the primary piece in return, Rengifo, is a relatively unproven middle infielder. I understand the salary component of it. But here is why I am preparing myself to be disappointed despite the tweets that claim we won't need to give up our top prospects. The Dodger's GM isn't an idiot. His job is to find the best available deal or deals he can. In all of MLB, are we to think the best he can do for that return (salary, Rengifo, and a mid-level prospect from an average minor league system's club) is what has been proposed? If this actually goes down, I have to think either Eppler took him to the woodshed or the Rengifo is being dramatically under-rated in the minds of most fans. In all honesty, if I hadn't been aware of the Joc/Pages component of all of this, I think I would have been elated to learn that Rengifo/mid-level/salary for Stripling would have been a win on it's own. I just can't fathom the idea that our prospect isn't going to be one that's going to lead to disappoint here, even understanding that you (typically?) have to give something to receive. I am optimistic to a fault at time, but I just can't wrap my head around it.

I agree. Ultimately, I think the Twins actually hold the cards here. There is no way Betts and Price can return to the Boston dugout. Furthermore, there aren't many suitors out there willing/able to take on both in the manner the Dodgers have. Despite the negative press, Boston doesn't have a lot of options but to find a way to make it work. If the deal falls through, the Dodgers can easily find partners for the three (two) who might be too hurt to return. And the Twins' clubhouse will be fine due to the medical report.

I don't think anyone here would argue the top of our rotation is weak and could use another frontline starter or even two. I suspect those damning the thread have this in mind.....kind of the "beaten horse" line of thinking. Others are trying to point out there are ways to win/be successful without having a dominant front half of a rotation. In other words, being strong in other areas such as the bullpen, defense, offense/run production, etc. can surely offset the lack of frontline starters to some degree. Most would agree the surest bet to a successful season and playoff run is to have tremendous frontline starting pitching. We don't have that and no one is arguing it. What folks are defending is that with the development from the group we do have along with growth from other areas, we can contend. In addition, we have the resources to add one later, if things play out and the deal makes sense long-term. Finally, related to the original post, I believe the Brewers fans could have asked a similar question entering the 2018 season. Considering they finished one game away from a World Series appearance, I suspect they were quite happy with how things turned out despite having a rotation that couldn't compete at the top. 1 SP Jhoulys Chacin 30 15 8 .652 3.50 35 35 0 0 0 0 192.2 153 83 75 18 71 3 156 11 0 5 796 116 4.03 1.163 7.1 0.8 3.3 7.3 2.20 2 SP Chase Anderson 30 9 8 .529 3.93 30 30 0 0 0 0 158.0 131 71 69 30 57 0 128 7 0 1 644 104 5.22 1.190 7.5 1.7 3.2 7.3 2.25 3 SP Junior Guerra 33 6 9 .400 4.09 31 26 1 0 0 0 141.0 143 74 64 19 55 0 136 4 0 11 611 100 4.24 1.404 9.1 1.2 3.5 8.7 2.47 4 SP Brent Suter* 28 8 7 .533 4.44 20 18 0 0 0 0 101.1 102 55 50 18 19 2 84 4 0 1 424 92 4.49 1.194 9.1 1.6 1.7 7.5 4.42 5 SP Wade Miley* 31 5 2 .714 2.57 16 16 0 0 0 0 80.2 71 28 23 3 27 1 50 5 0 1 338 159 3.59 1.215 7.9 0.3 3.0 5.6 1.85 6 SP Freddy Peralta 22 6 4 .600 4.25 16 14 1 0 0 0 78.1 49 37 37 8 40 1 96 4 1 3 321 96 3.72 1.136 5.6 0.9 4.6 11.0 p.s. The comments on cankles really hurt!

No, thanks for the details. There are a number of guys who post regularly that I really appreciate and you are one of them, so I appreciate your insight. After reading your reply, I better understand you disdain for Eppler. I hadn't realized it was related so much to his choices on drafting. I was thinking you were peeved about this year's free agency. I knew from your prior posts you weren't excited about Keuchel or MadBum (for the record, I'm not either, especially Baumgarner). Like you, I would have jumped for joy had they been able to lure Wheeler here for more than he actually signed for. I'm just not sure he could have been persuaded and it's important to note that Billy was likely saving his chips thinking he was truly a player for Cole at that time. I understand your favorites were Pineda and Gibson. I'm not as sold on them as you are, but I get that had he signed one or both, you would have felt better about him. Your biggest disappointment is not getting Ryu and we share that sentiment. That said, half this board wanted little to do with him at that price (given his age/durability). We can look back at Corbin/Eovaldi with hindsight, but I'm not sure that is totally fair (I admittedly had optimism about some of the guys he did sign last year) AND we have little idea what kind of financial constraints he was or wasn't under at that time. Personally, I think there is a reason everyone he signed was for one-year only. He's been in contract hell and this is the first year he's been able to hand out a sizeable, long-term contract to a free agent. I take your word for it with regards to the draft. Most of what I learn/know is from you and a handful of others anyway. Not having a stronger group of arms this far into his tenure does seem very negligent. I have been drinking so much Koolaid on the prospects that have brought us from the deep that I hadn't looked at it through the "pitching only" lense. I have obviously given Eppler too much credit in the "farm rebuild" side of things in that regard, so thanks.

Second, I have enjoyed your posts for a long, long time. You keep stating how you are disappointed in Eppler with regards to the SP market this summer. While everyone is disappointed we didn't land a top tier pitcher or two, I would like to know what you would have liked Eppler to do. We know of the four who were never coming here. Would you have liked him to outbid the contracts for Ryu and/or Keuchel or are you referring to not pursuing the Homer Bailey's of the world? I'm just wondering who some of the guys are you have in mind when you express your disappointment in Eppler.

I continue to have faith in Eppler as I have really appreciated his big-picture approach to running the organization. For the life of me, I can't understand what those that are stating that we should have spent money on FA pitching so as to avoid having to trade our prospects for pitching are thinking. While I wholeheartedly agree with the premise, as I believe Eppler would as well, given hindsight, what reliable plan are those of this mindsight thinking would have been viable? Cole, Wheeler, Madbum, and Stras were never coming here. Furthermore, given their contracts, many of us here would have passed on them anyway. Ryu/Keuchel were available for some time. While they were, multiple threads were posted on the negative effects to signing either of them. Knowing what they received in compensation, are those that are arguing we should have spent on FA pitching essentially saying Eppler made a mistake by not offering them more than what they received? If so, I would agree that signing them may have helped us improve this year's club and perhaps bought him a little more time. But 2-3 years from now I believe the same people would be holding him accountable for signing either of those two pitchers to the very contract they would endorse now. So what SP FA did Eppler miss out on or make a mistake by not signing that would have put us in a better position this year and in the future? Again, I appreciate Eppler's big-picture approach. It just sucks that Mike has had to endure the rebuild.

I don't think Mulwin or anyone else is arguing that Eppler has fallen short on the FA SP additions he's made in his tenure. His record there has been rather abysmal. With regards to the 7 players the A's acquired, they certainly had some success for them. Perhaps it's organizational? Heck, Chacin had better results after he left us. But you will also note none of the 7 are they types of #1/2 pitchers we are all longing for, either. Bean is pretty damn special. I don't think the level of mismanagement that occurred for literally years was ever going to result in an organizational turnaround in less that 5 years. We were in the worst situation possible....contract hell, depleted farm, and no tradable assets. Billy deserves some level of criticism, for sure. But people acting like the performance of this team over the last 3-4 years is solely on him is misplaced. I agree with Mulwin and others in that he's the best GM we've had since Stoneman and we will sadly miss him if we cut ties too early. This is the first year he's been able to truly be a player in the market. He's attained the best position player available while in his prime. He may choose to gut the farm he built and go for it to "win now" or keep his job, but I just don't think that would be consistent with his vision. I think that's why we've seen him exercise restraint in the FA market. Heck, if he didn't think he would be here in two years he would have bitten on some of these larger contracts that most of us consider a bit of a stretch. One could argue that he has been experiencing what it's like to be contract hell with declining performers and doesn't want to go through it again 4+ years from now. It's a lot to ask, but I think we need to find a little bit more patience and see what plays out. We still have some time. Most here have already braced for the "overpay" of either prospects or FA contract costs...and that's fine. I just hope it's via FA/contract costs as I really hope to see his vision of developing a strong farm that replenishes the major league club with affordable, controlled talent come to fruition. Hell, we've waited this long, so now is not the time to grow impatient.

I'd like to see you elaborate on this with a trade of Simmons for a combo of pitching/prospects and the insertion of Fletcher/Rengifo to cover SS. It would open up $ for FA as well (late-tier innings eater, established vet MIF, bullpen, etc.).

I debated posting the same thing and agree that McHugh is the top target after Cole. You have to get the best players/fit you can regardless of what team they are on, but boy, does it help if they are on the ones you are chasing.

Good post. I honestly think Eppler is going to need to find a trade partner for mid-rotation pitching using some of the young, cost-controlled IF prospect capital we currently have. I don't think Cole's signing impacts this need one way or the other. If this happens and we lose some combination of those players, I can see where an established available veteran on a reasonable contract could come into play. Otherwise, I don't see the value in using the available dollars we have on a large-price IF'er. We need pitching. No need for anything significant in the OF. I suspect they like where they are at with C. Smith is serviceable and I have to believe Sassi is better defensively than we've seen and they feel they can work with his bat. So the larger, initial point (if we miss out on elite SP's, what about a paradigm shift to establishing a really strong pen ala Milwaukee), I love it. If we miss on Cole and Ryu and are unable to trade for a 1-2 SP, then I would be all for exploring the idea of building a really nasty pen. As weird as it may sound, I really like the core we have. Buttrey, Robles, Key, etc. Hell, even Bedrock (this board's modern-day version of Mathis) is solid when used appropriately (I realize I lost a few of you there!). If we could pull a couple of multiple-inning arms from the list you included and were willing to move our guys with options up and down like we do with our starters, I can envision a formula that could work. Though I do think it would go against Eppler's nature (i.e. spending on relievers).

Boy, a rough couple of days at work haven't allowed me to get back in on the conversation (though I admit I did go fishing right after work last night!). First, I certainly meant no slight to the many regulars here that I didn't name in my original post. My goodness, read this site daily for a few years and you get to feel like you actually know most of the guys on here! And I will add, when you don't post and just take it in as fans of the same team debating with each other, it's not personal at all. So cheers to all of you guys. And seriously, it's my favorite source and there is a ton of knowledgeable folks here, so much appreciated. Second, I didn't articulate the "Cole or bust" comment as I intended. I was really thinking more along the lines of how Eppler is going to address the offseason (and less so on the idea of whether the Angels get him does or doesn't mean a successful '20). In other words, if you were in Eppler's shoes (i.e. clock ticking despite doing many things wonderfully well), what approach would you take? Wait as long as Boras decides the game will be played or put your best offer out there and walk if it's not accepted? There are so many awesome points made in this post already that I wish I could bundle them into something that makes sense. We know Arte's history of making an offer and moving on if it's not accepted or swooping in at the last minute unexpectedly. I can't recall many significant signings in-between where we waited a long time along with 2 or 3 other finalists and won the race. Unfortunately, that runs counter to Boras' approach. Rarely does he ever take the "first, best offer" and he often overplays the market. Of course, this always comes with the now-traditional hoopla.....his media cronies post demands, fake teams being interested, "mystery teams" involved to drum up anxiety and interest, etc.. If you are Eppler, how long do you give him knowing the pressures you face (contract, Mike approaching his 30's, the need to be competitive in '20, the little availability after Cole, the need for more time for young talent to develop and the expiration of AP's contract, etc., etc.)? I have a ton of respect for Eppler, but outside of Cole agreeing early to a "first, best offer," I don't envy the position he is in at all (not that I wouldn't LOVE to take a crack at it!). Thanks to those who have replied. Glad we are able to have some good discussion at an otherwise tough time. Mike

Thanks, TP. But honestly, thanks for all you add. I don't feel like I add a ton to the discussion, so I have always treated the site as my news source (or comic relief in the case of TDawg!). I hope you are correct. That said, I can understand why your last paragraph puts Eppler in a tough spot; It may be a case of what's best for the team doesn't jive with him getting another contract. That would be tough on anybody.

Hi, I have been reading this board multiple times daily for years. I really want to express thanks to the many long-time contributors; particlary Doc, Second, TPod, and the many more who offer the routine contributions on the state of the farm; I have no other trusted source. I have chose to write for the first time in many years because I quite simply don't understand the "Cole or nothing" mantra that appears to have become etched in stone. Let me start by saying that I agree that if we were to draw it up, Cole is at the top of the list. The reasons have been discussed ad nauseum. And I agree with most we need a 3/4 innings eater "in addition to Cole." All of that said, I suggest we pump the brakes. I get the whole "local connection," White, Sassi, etc. But lest we need to be reminded he is a Boras Client. If we know anything about Boras, we know he's going to holdout until very late in the process and likely take the largest offer regardless of location. This leave Eppler, who I admire but also understand currently has one year to prove himself, in a very difficult spot. Does he "plan" on acquiring Cole and proceed by adding that 3/4 starter, only to potentially be left out of the other top players available via FA or trade? Or does he make a "best offer" and proceed with a secondary plan unwilling to wait around? As a Laker fan and recently impacted by the KL debacle, I can fully understand why he would move on despite my desire to roll-the-dice and put us in contention in the most obvious way possible. Am I wrong for feeling it's not a "Cole or bust" offseason? Are people truly of the mindset our '20 season rests largely on attaining Cole? Mike