Angels in 2030

thought for sure Angels would be leading league in giving up BBs -- nope. Only 12th. However, we have 2-3 less games than most teams, so really we're around 5-7th range.

He forgot where he was supposed to stand. Go the the X and throw the ball Quintana. Listen to your teacher.

Rojas sucks

Velocity is down. That’s a concern. He’s not throwing his FB. And when he does, he’s working more 94-96. Hit 98 once I think. Hopefully it’s just The blister. But always a concern especially with Ohtani

He’s missing. If anything he’s gotten a couple calls shouldn’t have

I don’t really care what the owner, espn, the jersey, online, etc. says - they are the ‘California Angels’ to me.

Who is that? She has a bit of a Kate Beckinale look to her.

Well done all -- this thread has been freaking gold

Mets: Well he seemed like a great guy when we hired him...

If only the league gave us control over who we put on the taxi squad. Too bad they don't have a system in place to select and acquire young/vet players to develop over the years throughout your organization to provide depth throughout and give you an advantage over other teams for when there are injuries, etc. We could even hire people to identify these people and help bring them in and teach them. If only they had that. It would really benefit a team and give you a big advantage over the long course of a grueling 162 game season. Not to mention with CV issues causing some roster havoc.

you’re right - The angels and their bench and the whole team is awesome.

Anger much dude?!? It’s a game and entertainment. Geezzz

I didn't say anything about Rojas when he made the team -- because i'd never seen nor heard of him before. Was hoping for the best and that he'd never play. It's early -- what i've seen i haven't liked to say the least. But i've talked about lack of depth being an issue for years. That's what mediocre teams have -- lack of depth. Exactly what the angels have been the past few years -- mediocre (record wise it's worst actually but i'm being nice). Jon Jay has an OPS+ of 21 & 68 for the prior two seasons (2020 & 2019). Not good....not good at all. If you feel like we have good-to-great depth -- hey, more power to you. I'm not going to shove my head into the ground and pretend. The AAAA level guys we have are in the lower of MLB. Even our AA & AAA is lower level. Most of our MiLB talent are very young. We have great top end talent on the big league team. We have a long ways to go to fill out our ML depth and minor leagues too. Ignore reality if you want.

7 games for Rojas. Regardless, you're any absolute idiot if you think Jose Rojas, Jon Jay, Juan Lagares and Jack Mayfield are semi-decent (very, very low bar) players to get ABs. Let alone start consistently for an injured player. We can, and should, do better.

2021 - this year

Someone's trying to get laid. Wrong message board for that lol.

I'm not asking for much. How about we aim a little lower. I'll take someone who isn't a negative OPS+ guy....even a single digit OPS+ would be an improvement over -39, -30, -100, -100 bench guys.

If you are going to quote me, please at least do me the favor of doing so accurately. didn't say "average major leaguers". I said "just somewhat close to league average would be great". Further, that was after basically saying i wasn't looking for anyone to come up and kick butt or anything. As Strad (i think) mentioned, we actually have some others that were better and would have been the right guys to bring up (Ward, Rengifo). Whether they would perform or not is unknown. But those are much better options. Still, i don't understand why you get so defensive. Angels lack of quality depth (position players, SP, RP) has been a problem for several years. If you want to deny it or pretend it's not, then so be it. Proof is in the results -- until proven otherwise by future performance. It is what it is.

This is why the Angels are not a top team currently. They have some amazing top talent. The top 3 players are arguably the best in MLB (at least easily top 5). Some good players within the top 15-20 roster players as well. But the depth is bad...really bad. Bench ughhh...worse yet, having to reach down to minors is really not ML-level players. I don't mean bring up and kick butt -- just somewhat close to league average would be great. Currently it kills us though. It's coming, hopefully, when some of the young guys develop and are ready. But man it's like scrounging for change in the glove department & car trying to pay a freaking $1 toll. Brutal.

BP amirite

Instacart

It’s early in the season. But for as bad as Q has been to start, Cobb has been the opposite. Dude has been great. Jam Jones who? Who cares!

lol....ok, that's odd & weird (in a good way) finding something that far back. Well done. You likely were correct in that i was thinking of a different poster or maybe a different FA when referencing you with Heyward. although, to be fair, it does sound like you are saying you would want Heyward at that time for a contract less than 10 years (5-7+) and even willing to pay extra per year for a shorter time. My main point was not meant to hit at you at all. Your original response in that thread got me thinking about the annoyance of some who feel they are always right and using analytics to support it. As if baseball can give you anything that's a probable outcome...let alone 75-100% of the time (some posters think they are right 100% of the time). Baseball by it's nature is unknown and uncertain. Whether that be the greatest hitters of all time (being out way more often than not) or the best GM. That's what makes baseball so great. Who'd have expected the 1988 LADs ragtags winning it all against a few of the best teams (even w/out Gibson). So how can randoms on a fan board be so right all the time. GMs get paid millions and they are wrong all the time. Just admit you are wrong...it's ok (not YOU Inside pitch....i'm speaking in general). Ironically, you are one of the few who i put value in from a player evaluation comment perspective. I was just using your comment to bounce off of.

The problem is when people who use "analytics" think it's the end all and ALWAYS correct. It is a great tool to help find something that's not obvious (immediate results). Many times it's correct -- especially compared to simply a scout/evaluator. But when it's used as the 100% always correct and the other guy is wrong argument -- that's when i have a problem. You can tout the examples that support analytics proofs on guys.....but it's not 100%. There are many, many analytic misses. Just like the greatest talent evaluator/scout isn't 100% right all the time. It drives me crazy when someone uses analytics to support their position and they arrogantly think that that automatically makes them correct every time. No it does not. For example, I am pretty sure you (IP) were a big proponent of Jason Heyward when he was a Cardinal FA back in the day and you were hoping/suggesting the Angels sign him. How did that $184M contract turn out analytics wise? I'm not crapping on analytics -- it's a fantastic tool (maybe the best non-scouting tool). But it's not a perfect tool. It's part of the overall evaluation tools that are available for scouting -- with great results but nowhere near infallible.