Angelsjunky

Hard to imagine Bachman ever becoming anything. We'll probably all forget about him and he'll eventually resurface somewhere else and maybe have a decent year or two as a reliever. But no way he becomes a starter.

"Sandoval on the mound."

He didn't realize he was actually the modern day Chris Farley*. (*RIP)

I still believe... ...that the Angels can win a game or two more than last year.

Again, we have to take into account context, particularly: Where in the season ("its early") Where the Angels are at, in terms of contention (not good, but not disastrous...yet) Who would replace him (Daniel? Rosenberg?) Ergo...give him another two or three starts. I've been saying he's toast since last year...I'm not sure if he's recoverable, to be honest, and if he is it is going to take time. But it isn't like he's blocking anyone, at least not until Dana is ready - and that likely won't be until Aug/Sept at the very earliest, if that. But if he continues with the suckage, sure, put him in the pen and give Daniel or Rosenberg some starts.

Seattle is 7-3 in their last 10...maybe they deserve tier 4.

Tiers are gay.

Think of it this way: He hasn't done any more damage. That's one of the things I like about this year - no more albatross contracts, no more prospects given away. The worst of it is probably Stephenson, but even that might prove somewhat useful next year. And guys like Paris and Adams are still around. If the Angels fall deep into a hole, there's no real loss to releasing Hicks and calling Adams up (for example). And it isn't like Adams (and Paris) can't use more seasoning in AAA. The real damage, of course, was done in July of last year. That was a debacle that will likely haunt us for year's to come (look at Edgar Quero's numbers this year). I know, hindsight and all, but the end result was still devastating. And we can give Perry and the Angels credit for getting Soriano back.

This might be true, but goes against what we've heard - that he was given increased payroll. So my guess is that he was told to spend if the deals and players were right, but don't spend just to spend (like previous years). It may also be that players didn't want to sign with the Angels. Sure. There are lots of things that savvy GMs do, that Angels GMs don't seem able to do. In that regard, I haven't seen anything about Perry to think he's particularly special or even above average. I basically agree with this, though think Paris and Adams are even more green than Neto and Schanuel.

Edgar Quero update: he's hitting .306/.426/.639 in his first 12 games.

You might be right, but I'm not sure 22 games is enough to pull the plug. I think you give it another couple weeks. Also, Schanuel has 7 hits in his last four games, hitting .467. Clearly you're not sending him down right now. If he falls into another abyss, maybe. Neto looks really lost, but who are you going to replace him with?

If 2024 wasn't primarily about taking stock, why didn't Perry spend more? He signed no major free agents - just a bunch of bench guys and relievers. As you say, they've got some trade fodder and the rest of the guys you mention are cheap filler. They're on the team because the Angels don't have enough minor league depth to fill a major league roster. I agree that it is a "shitty team with ton of journeymen," but there's also some young talent. And again, who do you want to see playing that isn't playing? We can nitpick details, like giving Hicks playing time over Adell, but I'm guessing that will change eventually. Or to put it another way, if they accept that they need to take stock and rebuild, what else could they have done? Rebuilding a team takes time; signing and developing young players takes years. The fact that the Angels didn't max out their payroll with (more) dubious free agent contracts is a good thing - it means they've accepted the fact that their approach of the last eight years hasn't worked, and they need to try something else.