NYC Angel Fan

Yeah, because the passive West Coast approach has led to way more championships in Anaheim than in the Bronx since 1961

You say that as if it's a bad thing.

Right. How many World Series have the Angels played in since their inception as a franchise? How many have the Yankees played in during that same time span? How many have even the lowly Mets played in during that time span? Or even the inept Phillies?

um... ok

How to say you haven't been to sporting events in NY or Philly without saying you haven't been to sporting events in NY or Philly.

Clearly, you've never been to a sporting event in NY or Philly. But sure, go ahead and make snappy comebacks to me while bleating for the owner.

What you're saying is not unreasonable, if you're an owner who wants to maximize profit from a sale. But I'm not that owner, and neither is anybody on this board (as far as I know). I do quibble with the idea of a cost-controlled multi-year manager's contract tying a team's hands, in the future-- other than the (relatively negligible) amount of money owed, it's not worth much more than the paper it's printed on, much less a long-term commitment. I think accepting that lets the team off the hook. More importantly though, I think Arte needs to hear it from Angel fans-- including on message boards (which he supposedly has had somebody monitor, at least in the past)-- that they won't accept him mailing in the 2023 season in October of 2022, and if he does, he's going to hear about it from the fans.

Because... Adell has shown that he's just one hot streak (just one) away from superstardom? And because Rendon's fresh, healthy starts went so well in 2021 and 2022 (and again at the end of 2022)? Because Mike Trout's condition is not degenerative or chronic, and he's had such a great track record of late in being able to play a full baseball season? Got it.

Sorry, but when you refused to engage with the substance of what I said after you spouted a what's-good-for-ownership position, that is how it came off. I'm glad we agree on Arte. Tell me what the evidence is again that "the stop-gap deal for Nevin is a necessary part of the process?" [my emphasis added]

Did you watch his 2022?

The reason I am questioning this is that this feels like apologetics for ownership/management who are thumbing their nose at the Angels fanbase.

Like Arte did? I get that there is this tendency to bring in your own people in modern-day sports, but I have yet to see evidence proving that this is universal. What is the evidence (not to be confused with the conventional wisdom among posters here) that if the Angels hired a manager who actually led them to a promising year in 2023 that— with 100% certainty— the new ownership would then want to hire their own person?

That's cool. You go have fun being a shill for ownership. Clever use of the Internets though.

I thought the sarcasm was modestly successful. :) I don't agree with your take on this. Number one, as fans, Arte Moreno's financial interests don't have to be ours. You can make the argument that these interests form the bounds of what is possible, but that doesn't mean posters on a fan forum have to internalize this perspective. (I mean, if I just want to engage with the management point of view, I'll go to the Angels' mlb.com website.) Number two, the need for a potential clean slate really would depend on the owner and on the manager's contract. If you are signing a Terry Francona (or even a Don Mattingly (yikes)) to a 5-year deal, then yes, that contract could theoretically be somewhat of a very limited albatross. I say limited, because, as best as I can tell, the manager's salary doesn't count against the luxury tax. If you get a relatively deep-pocketed ownership group, then a 3-year contract, for example, is a relative drop in the bucket to them (which is why it is not uncommon for managers and GMs get fired well before their contract is supposed to end). If you hire a less experienced manager, though— or sign Phil Nevin to a multiyear contract— then the money outlay is even more negligible, relatively speaking. If we get a new owner who finds eating 2 years of a manager's salary is too much of a financial burden, then there's going to be a lot worse long-term problems for the organization than making a single unsuitable managerial hire for this year. And when you look at the Angels' financial upside, I would be very surprised if they did not have an owner with deep pockets. So that brings us to the Nevin hire. What do we know about him? We have a body of work with this team. And he was 14 games under .500 after he took over a more or less .500 team with more than half the season to go. Yes, there were injuries (which there were under Maddon, as another poster pointed out), and the issues for this team did start under Maddon. However, the Nevin-managed Angels looked like an Angels team of the dark days of the 90's-- rudderless, lacking heart, not resilient. And say what you will about Joe Maddon, but the team played for him, in terms of effort. The team seemed to have an identity. Now, maybe it was a failed one, but Nevin was a whole other level worse. Instead, the Angels should have found somebody else to manage-- even somebody with no prior managerial experience-- because, at least in that scenario, you don't know that you're getting a manager who won't lead you to the promised land. (Though, to be clear, I am not expecting a trip to the promised land next year-- just would like to think they have a puncher's shot of getting to the postseason.)

Because, of course, that was the thinking the last time the Angels were sold and the new owner cleaned house. Makes total sense.