Angelsjunky

And Scotty, you’ve gotta stop being so butthurt when professional scouts and paid analysts have different opinions than yours. ?

I think the question with Adell is whether he’s going to be a good but flawed mistake hitter like Justin Upton, maybe hitting .260/.320/.470 with 25-30 HR, or whether he’ll continue to evolve and adapt and be more well rounded, and be a true star, hitting .290/.350/.550 with 35 HR. We probably won’t know for several years to come, but the signs are encouraging.

Good stuff. It is worth noting that he hasn’t seen Rookie ball, and there are some injuries, so he hasn’t seen Chris Rodriguez, Jose Soriano, Trent Deveaux, Kevin Maitan, etc. The Jones comment was the only one I found particularly worrisome. We may be overrating him. And Marsh? I see if I in potential but what’s been wrong over the last two months? Maybe his report on him is that old.

As I said before, new stat: Wins Below Trout. The lower the better. Currently Jose Ramirez leads the majors at 1.7 WBT.

Well, a lot has changed since the offseason when he brought in Kinsler and Cozart. Dial back to game #163 last year and there were no good in-house options at 2B/3B for 2018. Fernandez wasn't an Angel, Fletcher was stil a limp-dick bat, Ward was a weak-hitting catcher, and Rengifo was a Ray. Even Jones was in the outfield. My guess is that next year the Angels go with Cozart at either 2B or 3B, and an internal option at the other. If Cozart's second chance to prove that 2017 wasn't a fluke fails, then another prospect might work his way into playing time. As you said above, the worst-case scenario for Cozart is that he is a very useful, if overpaid, utility infielder.

I very much agree with your first paragraph, not so much with the second. Why would the Angels spend money at 2B/3B when they have so many in-house options? Even if Fletcher, Fernandez, Ward, and Rengifo aren't future stars, at least one or two of them should be solid regulars. We can throw in Rojas and Cowart as useful options, even if more bench level. Anyhow, as the saying goes, "there's no such things as too much good starting pitching." I would say "There's no such things as too much depth." The Angels have been rich in resources, somewhow, after just a couple years of Eppler's overhaul. In some ways the Angels are in a similar place that the Cubs and Astros were a couple years before they became good...not quite as rich in the minors, but also stronger in the majors. In other words, we're on the upswing and should continue to get better.

The thing is, if Trout is "terrible" at 36 (and that's a stretch; a reasonable worst-case scenario is that he's an average LFer by then), he's earned being overpaid for a few years for the club he gave so much too. IThe Angels are playing Pujols for his service to the Cardinals. That's horrible. But if the Angels end up over-paying Trout for a few years--and it is probable that they will--it isn't so bad, because he already gave them his best.

Harper is an immense talent and when he's clicking there's no hitter quite like him. That said, I can't but enjoy when he's struggling. Schadenfreude, I guess, for an unlikeable personality, or maybe it is the Trout-Harper link. My prediction(s)....even if he continues as is and hits something like .220/.350/.500 with 40 HR, he'll get at least 10/$300MM. Everyone knows the talent is there to at least repeat 2017, even do more (2015 was ridiculous). Now maybe Harper will want more than he's offered, then he can take a Qualifying Offer to prove himself. This might not be a bad idea, as he'll be able to piggy-back off of Machado's contract and if he returns to 2017 level, that 10/$300MM becomes 10/$400MM. So maybe we have: 2018-19 offseason: Machado 10/$350MM, Harper QO 2019-20 offseason: Harper 10/$400MM, Trout extension 12/$550MM.

It is all on our mind, especially as the team struggles: how to keep Trout beyond the 2020 season and make him a lifetime Angel? I don't claim to know what is in Trout's head, but here are some thoughts on what to do and what not to do: Show him respect - They're already doing this, so just keep doing it. Make it clear to him that this is his team, and that he is the Greatest Angel Ever. I'd even add some kind of line like, "Other teams, especially on the east coast, have a long history of great players, but we don't. You can be the face of this team's history in a unique way - you are the Great Angel." Show him the money - After Harper and Machado get their mega-contracts this offseason, show Trout the money. I think you start by offering something like 30% more than the highest of the two. Let's say that' 10/$350MM. Offer Trout 10/$450MM or 12/$500MM. Hard to turn down half a billion dollars. Don't tank the season - Make some moves to improve the team, namely a reliever or three, but... Don't rob the future to pay the present - Hold onto the best prospects, and only trade from surplus. Keep Building the Farm - continue what the Angels are doing, which improves the long-term prospects of the team. Treat Pujols with Respect...to a point - As much as I hate to say it, putting Albert out to pasture sends a bad message to Trout, like putting grandma in a crappy nursing home. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Pujols is being given such a long leash because of his relationship with Trout. That said, the Angels also need to field the best team they can, so it doesn't have to be either/or: either Pujols plays every day or is released. A phase out approach is probably the best way to go, especially once Thaiss really starts forcing the issue (which is already starting to happen. Similarly... Don't abandon Garrett Richards - I know, we're all sick of his inability to stay healthy and CJish ways on the bound. But I think at this point he could be had for a pretty big homefield discount, whether that means a Qualifying Offer or an affordable three year deal. He's Trout's best friend, so there's a similar situation as with Pujols. If Trout, or his wife, ultimately wants to live full-time on the east coast, there's nothing the Angels can do about it. And, in the end, the Yankees can always outbid. But the above will, I think, maximize the team's chances of keeping him an Angel for life.

I totally agree. Another way to put it is that he's already made more money this year than most of us will make in our lives, and while playing the great game of baseball. Not a bad life.

Utah and Colorado are both incredibly beautiful states in terms of nature, but Pueblo is both a dump and very remote - an old steel town that is a couple hours from Denver. At least Orem is close to Salt Lake City. Either way, they're pit stops along the way and should prove incentive. There's a reason (beyond distance) that there isn't a minor league club in Maui.

I have no idea how you figured that out, Doc. Maybe you're just making shit up, but either way well done. Anyhow, I remember that question being asked during the Bondzilla era (2001-04). I think the answer was the same: as good as Bonds was, it didn't make sense to walk him every time. But most of the time? Maybe. Remember when the Angels walked Bonds with the bases loaded in the World Series? Yeah, that doesn't happen much. I would suspect someting similar of Trout now. I wouldn't walk him with the bases loaded necessarily, but with two men on base...yeah, maybe.

Shut your whore mouth.

Cool. I wouldv'e liked to proofread and polish a bit, but no biggie. Not sure you want the cloth comment on the blog, though. LOL.

Common denominator since 2000. I'm not a huge Scioscia fan, but let's at least include his whole body of work. Of course the second act hasn't been as good as the first, but I put that more on Reagins and Dipoto and their terrible moves.

By @Angelsjunky, AngelsWin.com Contributor What I'm about to share with you is so mind-blowing that it is worth its own thread outside of the Troutstanding one. Let me take you for a journey... I went through every seven-year span in baseball history, from 1871-77 to the current one, 2012-18, and looked at WAR leaders over those seven year stretches. Why seven years? Because that is how long Trout has been a major league regular, so it encapsulates the fullness of his career thus far. I then compared the WAR leader to the runner-up, and noted the gap the two. Why? Well, when we are talking about dominance it is always relative to his peers. I would argue that the best definition of dominance is just that: how good a player is relative to his peers. There have been many players who have had truly amazing years, but seven years gives us a sense of sustained dominance, and the true greats combine peak greatness and sustained dominance. For instance, Norm Cash (10.2 fWAR in 1961), Darin Erstad (8.7 fWAR in 2000), and Jacoby Ellsbury (9.4 fWAR in 2011) have all had seasons that could safely fit into a Hall of Famer's peak, but the difference is that players like Mantle, Bonds, and Trout have those kinds of performances season after season. Anyhow, so we're looking at 142 seven-year spans of time, from 1871-77 to 2012-18. There are 33 players who have had the most dominant seven-year spans, from Ross Barnes to Mike Trout. Trout has done it for three years in a row, starting in 2010-16 even though he didn't play in 2010 and barely in 2011. The current span, 2012-18, is his first full seven-year stretch and, of course, we've still got 90 games to play. Here's the current WAR leaders (Fangraphs) for 2012-18: 1. MIke Trout 60.4 2. Josh Donaldson 35.9 3. Andrew McCutchen 34.9 Anything look funny there? Well, the gap between Trout and Donaldson is huge: 24.5 WAR, or 3.5 WAR a year! Trout has averaged 8.6 WAR during that span vs. Donaldson's 5.1. Think about that for a moment. OK, so how does that 24.5 seven-year gap compare to the rest of baseball history? How many seven year gaps are as big or bigger? The answer is.... NONE. And none are particularly close. The second largest gap is 1989-95 when Barry Bonds accumulated 58.5 fWAR over Cal RIpken's 38.6, a gap of 19.9 WAR. And no, it wasn't early 00s Bondzilla, when Alex Rodriguez was always relatively close and a terrifically great (if roided) player in his own right. And no, it wasn't Babe Ruth, when the often under-remembered Rogers Hornsby was a strong second fiddle (although the two of them were often quite far ahead of the rest of the pack). So let me put this another way: Mike Trout has been more dominant relative to his peers over the last seven years than any position player in major league history. Let that sink in. I'll say it again in a slightly different way for effect, so you really get it: Over the course of Trout's full-time career, he has been more dominant relative to the field of position players than any player has been in all of baseball history. According to fWAR, of course. So let me ask you. If that is the case, is it not then the case that Trout--so far, at least--has been the greatest player ever? I mean, isn't that the logical extension? We can leave that as an open-ended question, because I'm not quite ready to answer in the affirmative, even though the numbers say as much. But let's finish up with a bit more. So there have been 33 "7WAR" leaders (seven-year span fWAR leaders). Of the 33, 20 have done it at least three times - which is Trout's current total. Given Trout's lead over the lack, he is an absolute lock to do it at least two more times, so five. So far only 12 players lead 7WAR five or more times. Chances are Trout will do it a time or two more. And the most? No, it isn't Ruth, its Bonds, with 15. Yes, that's right. Bonds has been the 7WAR leader 15 different times, every year from 1986-92 to 2000-06. What a beast. OK, I'm done. Hope you had a cloth of some kind nearby.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Brendan McKay and Keston Hiura are up there as well. Hiura was the guy I was hoping for, although I'm not at all disappointed with Adell.

This is Scioscia's big blind spot. I feel like he wants the rooks to realize that they can't just earn more starts by playing well - they have to earn their place in whatever way Scioscia feels it necessary. I don't think it actually helps. He lets Proven Veterans suck for months on end, but rooks get pulled after having a great game and rarely get a chance to play consistently, to develop. Furthermore, it is just stupid in the sense that Fontana is, at best, a bench guy, while Fletcher actually has a chance to be a regular player - as soon as next year. Let the kid audition now, get some reps, so that when he comes to ST next year he's ready to play.

Trout reminds me that there's something more important in the game of baseball than winning - it is the sheer beauty of the game itself, embodied in a man who plays it as well as anyone ever has.

His triple-slash through his first four PA today (3-3, 1 walk) is up to .323/.450/.690. Holy crap.

Yeah, I agree. The surface numbers are disappointing and we’ve yet to see him totally dominate at any level, but it’s almost like there’s subtle development that is going on below the surface; at some point that is going to translate...and it might not be until he reaches the majors. I ultimately see him as .290/.800 with 15+ HR and 30 SB...with average defense that’s 3-4 WAR, or 4-5 with excellent defense.

I see our 2020 opening day infield being Thaiss, Rengifo, Simmons, and Ward, with Fletcher as UT and Cozart traded. Our outfield will be Upton, Trout, and Adell, with Marsh on the cusp and Hermosillo the 4th outfielder. Ohtani will be the primary DH, with Pujols part-time DH and coming off the bench (if we must). Rotation will be Ohtani, Canning, Skaggs, Heaney, Barria, and Suarez. Bullpen...whothafuk knows.

Check this out. If you're confused as to why Mike Trout's stats look like something out of a video game, that's his career adjusted to the 2000 Rockies - which was the highest run scoring context (park, league, year) in major league history. Career numbers: .373/.486/.698...and how about 2018: .371/.507/.809.

Rengifo has definitely become my favorite Angels middle infield prospect. Rivas has been kind of disappointing - not adjusted well to A ball, although still taking his share of walks. Fletcher has really impressed of late, but like Rengifo's overall game better. Hold your horses on Adell, folks. I think "sooner than later" means 2020, not 2019. At most I think they promote him to AA for a few weeks at the end of the year. I think also they want to keep him paired with Marsh as much as possible, and Brandon is just holding his own. Not sure what is up with him, but he's been mediocre to bad for awhile now, going back to A ball. But yeah, Adell is virtually a lock to be a plus player, very possible a true star. The 30-30 potential is there. What seems in question is whether he'll hit for a decent average or not and if he'll develop better plate discipline. I'd like to see his plate discipline take a step forward before they rush him to the majors.