BritAngel

One way to compare teams is to consider how frequently they're in a place to compete. Every team goes through cycles from good to bad; even the franchises that we might characterize as bad, have periods of time in which they are good. Remember when the Orioles made the post season in three of five years? It wasn't that long ago: 2012, '14, and '16. Or remember when the Rangers made the World Series two years in a row (losing both times)? That was just a decade ago, and they reached the postseason five times from 2010-16.
On the other hand, some teams seem to always be good - and sometimes almost always are. Everyone knows the Yankees are the premier franchise in baseball history: they've won as many World Series (27) as the next three franchises combined (Cardinals with 11, Red Sox with 9, and Dodgers with 7). But what have you done for me lately? Well, after a characteristically poor period in which they didn't reach the postseason from 1982-94, the Yankees have reached the playoffs (including wildcard) in 23 of the last 27 years (1995-2021), including five World Series titles. Even though they haven't won--or been to--a World Series since 2009, they've reached the postseason in 9 of the last 12 seasons. In fact, the Yankees haven't had a losing record in 30 years: since 1992.
Very few franchises have the resources of the Yankees: pretty much the Dodgers, and that's it. But there are other franchises with lower payrolls who still manage to shorten their "contention cycle" -- meaning, their down periods are relatively short. 
What about the Angels? One striking fact about the Angels' franchise history, which now stretches to 61 seasons, is that they are rarely terrible. In 61 seasons, not counting three shortened ones (1981, 1994, 2020), they have only won fewer than 70 games three times: in 1968, 1974, and 1980; meaning, not in 41 years. On the other hand, they have only won 90 games 11 times, six of those between 2002-09, and only reached the postseason 10 times.
As everyone knows, the Aughties were, by far, their best decade. For long-time fans, it was a dream actualized: not only did the Angels win their first World Series, but they seemed to have turned a corner as a franchise and entered, if not the inner circle of premier franchises, then in the next group. In fact, during that decade, only the Yankees and Red Sox won more World Series (two each), and only the Yankees and Cardinals reached the postseason more times. 
But then that fell apart - for reasons we won't go into again - and the franchise reverted to form in the 2010s. Or to put it graphically, here is a chart:

The chart represents wins above or below .500, or 81-81 in a full season, the thick grey line being .500. The darker reds are postseason appearances; I'm counting a WC berth as 1 win, Division Series (DS) 3 wins, League Championship Series (LCS) 5 wins, World Series loss (WL) as 10 wins, and World Series win (WS) as 20 wins.
I also added in the General Manager, to remind everyone who was at the helm during those years.
One thing this chart illustrates is that the Angels didn't as much collapse in 2010 as fell down a notch, with 2011-12 both being winning seasons, and then a return to the postseason in 2014. Meaning, 2010-13 could have been just the typical down period in the contention cycle for a good franchise; it fits in with the cycles of good franchises such as the Braves and Cardinals, like so:

Here you have two of the top half a dozen franchises or so, along with the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, and Giants; the Astros are probably there as well, at least if we focus on the last half a decade only.
As you can see, both teams had down periods, but they were for very short periods of time. The Braves had two four-year spans in which they didn't reach the postseason, while the Cardinals were a bit more mixed, and no period longer than three years.
Or we can look at the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, and Giants:




In the above six charts you can see the variations of a premier franchise. But the one common factor is that they all have ups and down and their down periods are relatively short. The Giants are particularly unusual because they won the World Series in three out of five years from 2010-14, despite not winning 95 games in any of those seasons.
The Dodgers were a reasonably successful franchise in the first two-thirds of the century, and then have been consistently dominant since 2013 (although only one WS championship to show for it).
The Red Sox are somewhat unusual in that they've had down periods between their different WS titles, including a 2013 championship bookended by two losing seasons. And of course the Yankees just never seem to be worse than kind of good, although you can see that their last decade was less successful than the previous one.
Now let's look at the AL West. We've already seen the Angels, but here are the other four teams:




(I apologize for the inconsistency of formatting - some of these charts still have the cells marked, and don't include postseason labels, but I think you get the picture).
The Astros are rather striking, because after a period of success in the first few years of the century, they fell into mediocrity and then a really bad spell for a few years, before becoming one of the most dominant teams of the last 5-7 years. 
It must be frustrating to be an Athletics fan, because while their contention cycle is more comparable to a premier franchise, they don't have a WS championship--at least in three decades--to show for it, and rarely go deep in the playoffs.
The Rangers are feast or famine, with a strong period between two long bad periods. The Mariners, on the other hand, have mostly been mediocre to bad, with their last good period almost two decades ago.
As you can see, the AL West has two successful franchises and three mediocre ones. And yes, the Angels count as a mediocre one. Not only do they have six losing seasons in a row, but they're tied with the Tigers for the third longest period without a playoff berth (2014), after the Phillies (2011) and Mariners (2001). Even lower tier franchises--most with lower payrolls than the Angels--like the Rockies, Diamondbacks, Padres, Pirates, Marlins, and Orioles have been to the postseason more recently.
So the big question is, how do the premier franchises do it? We all know that the Yankees, Dodgers and Red Sox spend big, but so do the Mets and other teams at various points. And more so, we know that the Braves and Cardinals tend to have lower payrolls, and the Athletics are consistently in the bottom third of payroll.
In other words, the Angels really have no excuses. I mean, the Athletics can rightfully complain that they don't have the revenue to hold onto star players, but the Angels are not a small market team, and their payroll is usually in the top 10; there's really no reason that they can't be as successful as the Giants, Braves, or Cardinals, even without spending like the Yankees, Dodgers, and Red Sox.
I think you'll find another commonality among the better franchises: they all dedicate resources to player scouting and development. While this is hardly a revolutionary idea, it seems odd that some teams still haven't been able to crack this egg, including the Angels. Hopefully the tide is turning, with former GM Billy Eppler--and perhaps current GM Perry Minasian--placing more emphasis on the farm system. But the proof is in the pudding, and so far there's no pudding. Yet.  
Just to be clear, I don't think farm development is the only factor in perennial success, just probably the biggest one, or the most obvious to single out. Other factors include major league player analysis (especially with regards to free agents), trades, and just pure luck (or lack thereof). A lot of the reason the Angels fell apart after 2014 is because their promising young rotation was hit by a rather uncanny string of injuries. But I also think it likely that a smarter franchise would have been able to better adjust for this, whether through having more options to fill from within due to a stronger farm system, or better free agent and trade acquisitions. But again, the key point with farm development is that it provides a resource from within.
It is like having a strong immune system; it won't necessarily stop you from getting sick, but it will likely both lessen the duration and potency of whatever illness you're exposed to. Or to apply the metaphor to a baseball franchise, if you have a good farm system, you have a source of talent to draw from, regardless of what hardships the major league team encounters, and thus you're less reliant upon trades and free agency.

My take is that they better get ready because the front office/Arte has not added the necessary veteran starters. I say that liking the Thor move but he is far from certain. Ohtani has finished a season as a pitcher 1 out of 4 times. We are going to be very reliant on them. 

Time to accept that Rodriguez isn't a starter. He's got extremely violent mechanics that have led him to being oft injured for much of his career so far. His future is in the pen where he can make an impact(as we saw glimpses of to start the season)

Greinke and McHugh combined would cost less than Stroman and probably help the team more. 

If Greinke can be had for anywhere near the $9MM estimated market value on Spotrac, the Angels should be all over that.

Billionaires vs Millionaires.
What could go wrong?
 
 

I'm an optimist by nature, typically. I believe the Angels identified something with Syndergaard and I believe he's fully healthy, so I'm expected him to be a mid or top of the rotation starter. And I think Lorenzen profiles better as a starter than he did as a reliever, but even then, he's still a back end starter. Personally I would've signed him as a reliever, because this bullpen needs him. 
But what I'm not personally optimistic if, is Ohtani replicating his 2021 season. That was one for the record books and it's hard to predict that happening every year. If he gets hurt, this team is in trouble, even if Trout and Rendon are healthy. 
They need another front end starter, they need Ohtani, Rendon, Trout and Sandoval healthy, they need breakouts from Adell and Marsh, and a return to form from Fletcher.
This just isn't a playoff team right now. Not yet. 

I'm not a fan of Chris Taylor. I hope the remainder of the money we have to spend is spent on another starting pitcher that can log quality innings and one more reliever. 
Let Wade, Rengifo and B. Davis fight for the starting SS job...or sign Freddy Galvis on a one year deal until one of our own internal guys are ready in 2022. 
 

This video is so good I think it deserves its own topic. I think we sometimes forget the potential this guy has. He could easily become our ace. 

I’m glad they didn’t give Scherzer 40 million.  Even for two years.  I’d rather that they sign Stroman and Iglesias then figure something out at SS without trading Adell but I guess if they miss on both pitchers then other scenarios need to open up.  I just hope we don’t get the trademark desperation Arte move.  Which I’m sorry.  I can’t help but feel coming. 

I think wisest plan for Thaiss is give him 2022 to catch every in SLC with next crop of young arms, and have him as a theoretical internal “replacement” for 2023 if they let Stassi walk, either as a primary, tandem, or back-up option. 
Having him get sporadic playing time in Anaheim wouldn’t be best for his development, and having him catch Detmers, Daniel, Bachman, Yan, etc at AAA will foster a lot of familiarity and set him, the pitchers, and the Angels up for a good 2023. 

Agreed. Time and time again though I read all of us posting here about the wisest plans and the smartest plans, spreading the money around, but it should be abundantly clear by now that the Angels simply do not operate under Arte that way. 
It's top-heavy. A ton of expensive players, a bunch of league minimum players, and risky one-year stopgaps has been the norm for almost a decade now, under three different GMs. 
Spreading that $30m left across three good $10m players makes sense to us as a good way to safely build a team, but history tells us that's almost certainly what the Angels won't do.

I think Stroman makes the most sense in terms of available SPs (not including Scherzer, who is in a different tier as the rest of the mentioned SPs).  Not as much upside as Ray or Gausman, but he's very consistent and steady, and considering we have a high-risk, low floor gamble (Sydnergaard, in terms of health), it makes sense to pair his signing with higher floor, lower ceiling acquisition.

I’d read something about Davis being great this year at SS and something about Wade being defense first. If not great then good defensively. Iglesias had very little lateral range this season for some reason but I hope that one of these two takes the job over Rengifo or we add.

That idea is insane. OF duty for Ohtani will impact his legs too much.  Shohei is too valuable to us as a premier pitcher.  We are extremely fortunate Ohtani was able to handle last year's DH workload by Maddon, the Mad Scientist.

The Angels need a shortstop and back up catcher to complete the fielding for next season. Any proposal to aquire an expensive 1st baseman is saying, fuck it, let's continue to do the same bullshit that led to the last 6 years of mediocrity by tying up payroll on luxuries. You guys are chasing shiny objects not the division lead. 
1 shortstop
1 back up catcher
1 Grade A staring pitcher 
1 Closer
Off season completed. Payroll about tapped out. 

but the problem is, which ones do you use?  Only the ones that are depth and not the one who are going to make it?  
maybe you know the Braves farm better than I but at cursory glance I don't see a heck of a lot of pitching left.  
I think there's a bit of outcome bias here.  The braves traded 11 pitchers and won a world series.  I've said that their move at the deadline was bold but grounded in reason and actually made a bunch of sense.  It worked out but it would be tough to stomach if they had gotten ousted in any other round like every other team who made it.  
the mentality of using volume and depth can be where you end up with Dylan Bundy and half a season of good performance on a team where it ended up not mattering.  And you give up four prospects who are all likely more valuable now than they were at the time of the trade.  
And here's one of my main points.  If they want to go out and give up a chunk of the farm to get a TOR starter with two years of control then so be it.  I'm not a fan of that but I can live with it with a caveat.  Don't trade Marsh to make that happen and then leave upton or grab someone like Dexter Fowler to replace him.  Don't leave Rengifo as your starting SS.  Or David Fletcher at 2b without some legit backup.  Or Adell in LF without legit backup.  And don't leave holes in the pen where Guerra is gonna end up pitching 60 innings.  
They want to make that level of commitment, then complete the friggin team.  Either go for or don't.  

Yup, I have Angels PTSD too. AW is my support group (although I have sneaking suspicion that it's making my condition worse).

$50 million isn't gonna be enough to make this team a championship team, unless they get significant internal improvements (which I wouldn't count on)
Arte needs to expand the payroll from where it has been, otherwise this team will be in the same place it is every year.

How would I address shortstop?
After I fix the pitching.  If you can’t land the high end starting pitching, it really doesn’t matter who plays short.

the Angels are screwed if any of their key offensive pieces suffer significant injuries again and that the nit with the stars and scrubs approach.  But they're kinda locked into some version of that because depth comes from the farm and their upper level position player depth is pretty weak.  Unless you get some breakout performances from the like of guys like Davis, Rengifo, Stefanic.  That's why I think an add like Chris Taylor becomes important.  If Trout get's hurt, you're f'd.  As any team would be.  But you need a couple of actual major leaguers to create more depth and you're not gonna get that by going cheap on ST invites or league min deals unless you get really lucky.  My point is that they should consider spending in that area and I view that as being nearly as important as trying to find additional pitching.  Taylor and/or a guy like Villar instead of Mayfield and Gosselin.  There's enough at bats in there somewhere for guys like that.  Villar made 3.5 mil this year and got 505 PA with time at 2b, 3b, and SS.  and a 102 ops+ with solid defense.  

I wanted to tease out a specific element from this thread, specifically a remark from Dan O'Dowd that I addressed in a long post on the second page, but had a follow-up thought that I wanted to develop more fully. Dan O'Dowd said:
"It's not just about spending money in this game, it's about developing an organization that operates wholly, from every aspect to make your big league team good."
This "holistic approach" is key, and what separates the really successful organizations from the pack. Or rather, I would posit three general types of organizations:
The contenders: These are the teams that understand the holistic perspective, who are perennial contenders or, at least, go through cycles of contention and short fallow periods between. 
The pretenders: These are teams that, on paper, should contend--they have the resources and certainly at least make a show of doing so--but for whatever reason, rarely seem to get there, and only for short periods of time.
The fakers: These are the organizations who clearly aren't really trying, with owners for whom their teams are just cash-cows. 
Now it is really more of a spectrum and not every team can be so cleanly categorized, but think it is clear from the above which category I'd place the Angels in, but just to be blunt, they're a classic "pretender." During the first decade of the century, they looked like they had finally arrived as a "contender," but then that horrible 2010-13 phase occurred in which the front office flailed in trying to get back to previous glory, making moves that proved to be devastating for the next decade.
But to return to the O'Dowd quote, what set me off to start a new thread is that I saw several posts discussing whether or not the Angels would be able to attract a top free agent starter. I mean, we all remember losing out to Gerrit Cole a couple years ago, which prompted the Angels to sign Anthony Rendon, and most of us remember losing Zack Greinke to free agency, which led to the ill-fated Josh Hamilton contract. There is an obvious similarity in the two, separated by seven years: You want one thing that your team actually needs, and if you don't get it, you go after the shiniest consolation prize available (another such instance that comes to mind is the Beltre/Wells debacle of 2011).
What a I see happening, time and time again, is that fans, including myself, are caught in a vicious cycle that echoes this repeating GM error: We recognize clear needs that the Angels have, and then feel a kind of almost desperation that either the Angels get what they need, or all is lost, which leads to the kind of surrogate compensation like Wells, Hamilton, and Rendon.
(As an aside, to be fair to Rendon, he was and presumably still is a very good player, who should be expected to bounce back next year. Meaning, I don't think he's a Wellsian or Hamiltonian blunder, just a very expensive player that the Angels probably didn't absolutely need, and thus those resources--$35M a year--could have been spent more wisely elsewhere)
But here's the key point: the problem is not that the Angels don't get the guy they desperately need, it is that they desperately need him in the first place. 
Meaning, the problem is holistic: that the organization doesn't have the depth to churn out the players it needs from within. If you look at the very top orgs, they often seem to sign big free agents or trade for star players that they don't need. Did the Dodgers "need" MVP-candidate Trea Turner or Cy Young candidate Max Scherzer? Not really, but they're great players and not only solidified their playoff chances, but improve their already very good chances of going deep into the postseason. 
The point being, they were acquisitions made not out of desperation, but more a sense of augmentation. They added to what was already a very good team. The Dodgers were 62-43 (.590) on July 30, the day they acquired Scherzer and Turner, just three games behind the Giants and 6.5 games ahead of the second wildcard. Meaning, they were probably already going to make the playoffs; Scherzer and Turner just made them even better, and the team went on a 44-13 (.772) run.
What we can learn from this, and probably many other similar instances, whether during the season or offseason, is that premier free agents should not be acquired as a way to make a bad or mediocre team good; they should be acquired to improve an already good team. Why? Because they are just one player.
I think you could say that almost all of the Angels big free agents and trade acquisitions over the last decade were made from the perspective of hoping that the "big splash" would turn the team from mediocrity to contention. Compound that with the fact that such moves were often made in desperation and/or as consolation prizes and, well, you get Vernon Wells, Albert Pujols, Josh Hamilton, and even Justin Upton and Anthony Rendon, to some extent. 
SO here's my recommendation for Perry Minasian and even Arte Moreno. No single free agent is going to get the organization to where we all want it to get to. No two or even three free agents.  If the Angels make the playoffs next year, the primary reason likely will not be whoever you acquire this offseason, but who you already have and how they developed and played.
Meaning, the homegrown and already present core: the big three of Trout, Ohtani, and Rendon; the complementary players like Fletcher, Walsh, and Stassi; the young starters like Ohtani (again), Sandoval, Suarez, and Canning; and the talented up-and-comers like Adell and Marsh, Detmers and Rodriguez. And furthermore, the increasing depth on the farm, which is seeing the upper levels fill out with, if not future stars, then at least a bunch of players who could play a role over the next few years. And a deepening farm system with higher upside talent in the low minors.
In a way, it comes back to what we all know (or should know): Build from within, supplement from without. And, to say it once more: The problem is not missing out on the free agents you want, but in desperately needing them in the first place, and compounding that problem by spending big on guys you don't really need or aren't very good.
In a way it is as if the Angels keep making the same mistake: "Going for it" before they're ready, as if they can fake it until they make it. Thankfully Perry seems to be taking a slightly different approach*, thus the lack of long-term contracts last offseason. Hopefully he continues, and doesn't start working out of desperation to please the big man (Arte) or the illogical fan-base, or even the superstars (Trout and Ohtani). I hope Trout means what he says, that he trusts Perry. And moreso, I hope that Perry deserves our trust, in undestanding the dynamic that I've laid out here.
Only time will tell. This offseason won't make or break the Angels--that is kind of part of my point--but it will tell us a lot about where Perry's head is, and to what degree he understands what O'Dowd said, and I tried to elaborate on.
*Addendum: Just to expand upon this a bit more, I will repeat what I said last offseason, when some were disappointed that Perry hadn't made a "big splash." I said that my guess was that he is taking a year to assess the organization, to really get to know it, how it runs, what its strengths and weaknesses are. This was implied by short-term deals and no major commitments. I think that is still basically true and, the silver lining of this past year, now should have a better sense of how to proceed forward. 
 
 

It would be worth considering if Ohtani weren't one of the most marketable players in all of professional sports.  And it's not just an 'arte marketing' thing but I think any franchise with such a high profile player would have to get such a boat load of prospects that I'm not sure you could ever achieve proper value.  Maybe from a value to the 'team on the field' but perhaps not to the overall value to the franchise.  
Here's a funny statement (or at least I think it is).  The Angels have players that have either been too good or too bad to trade.  

I do not trust the organization to evaluate the prospects - or even the "front-line starter" - that it would get in return. 
I can see the Angels ending up with a few crappy prospects and a front line starter who isn't as good as Ohtani.

https://www.latimes.com/sports/angels/story/2021-10-04/another-mediocre-angels-season-met-by-shrugs-because-it-was-expected
Most here will dismiss the article because they refuse to except the ineptness of their favorite team. Pretty much like what's the point of focusing on all the negatives? It doesn't matter that the Angels payroll continues to be top 10 every year. It doesn't matter that so many mistakes are made on and off the field. It doesn't matter that every year there is dysfunction. Most will continue to make excuses or choose to live in fantasy land. It's pretty much worked out too. Moreno has gotten his 3 million fans for many of those losing seasons.  A lot of fans were coming to only watch Trout, Ohtani and maybe 1 or 2 others. They didn't care if the team won.
Hell, the poll here proved that many would rather see Trout play his entire career with the Angels and NOT win a World Series rather than trading him and the Angels winning a World Series. That is mind bottling to me. They put an individual above the team but it just goes to prove that a lot of Angels fans are just different. Like the article states, most Angels fans don't expect to win and have just accepted that Arte Moreno doesn't know how to win a World Series or hell, even get to the playoffs. When you choose your teams you root for, you just have to hope the owners of those teams know how to properly run said team. So far, we have an owner that has been clueless for the last 12 years. It sucks but he's the owner of our favorite team.