ettin

I'll apologize too. Lately it has been very difficult to come to this board. The sh*t season (along with the other previous three) has people in a foul mood and I have found myself in an equally foul one at times. I write articles for the board and I see comments written about them that at times are legitimate and fair and at other times are just troll comments that make me wonder why I even try to start a discussion on something. E-mail and message boards aren't the best tools sometimes to communicate thought, emotion, and feeling. Sometimes we all, myself included, write a thought and it just doesn't quite come out the way we intended it too. The negativity is palpable and it is hard not to get caught up in the waves of posts about the state of the team. There is something wrong and the problem is that the 'wrong' is so spread out across the entire organization that it is difficult to pinpoint where it is we need to improve! Dipoto made a bunch of high risk moves and most of them fell through (Hanson, Madson, and Blanton), despite my belief that he is an intelligent GM with a vision of the Angels long term future. S-C-I-O-S-C-I-A, although a very capable and thoughtful MLB manager, has to take responsibility for the teams performance as the leader of this team because his message seems to be stale and his calls are sometimes questionable. The individual players have generally failed to perform to their expectations which seems to come from a lack of focus and a failure to string together good at-bats behind poor defense. My response was sharp so you have my apologies monkey. I'm in a foul mood these days. Maybe I need a break from the board.

Talking about making a mountain out of a mole hill. Okay let's go there then. If you can't get it through your brain that every team has a budget to handle and manage, you need to shut down your web site and go back and take an economics class. Money matters in Major League Baseball. Service time matters in MLB. Yes, Berg is 27 years old. Yes he has been doing fairly well in the Minors at AAA. Yes the Angels are perfectly capable of bringing him up for the cup of coffee that a lot of you are clamoring for. I really have no problems with any of these things. Why you feel the need to jump down my throat when I simply suggested that service time and budget might be a consideration is beyond me. Your tone and demeanor in your responses has an elitist edge to it that is just uncalled for especially on an issue that has very little bearing on the Angels season and probably beyond. In response to your comment about elite relievers if you go back and read my original post I never indicated that Berg was or is an elite reliever. I was merely talking generally that teams have to take service time into consideration and that you never know what player will rise to the occasion of playing at the Major League level and turn it up a notch when they reach the top. Baseball history is littered with players who were indiscernible from their peers in the Minors but then differentiated themselves after they reached the Majors. Is that Jeremy Berg? Probably not. In fact almost certainly not. Talent evaluation doesn't have to start and end in the Majors. If you don't think for a second that the Angels coaching staff knows if Berg is ready to try his hand in the Show you'd be fooling yourself. It is fun to sit back and watch a video clip of him throwing a couple of pitches down in AAA or pulling up his stat page and seeing the decent numbers in AAA and think, "Yeah we need this guy up to see what he can do for our team!", but we, as people on the outside of the organization, don't know about his makeup, his demeanor, and whether or not he truly is ready. Only the professional baseball people know that. Thanks for taking a minor comment and making it your own personal soapbox. I especially liked your belittlement of my suggestion that budget might be a concern and tossing in the "Flags Fly Forever" comment to emphasize your point. By the way have we won a f**king flag lately? Have we even gotten close? We have overspent in free agency (although we can probably afford it) and this has made budget a concern for the foreseeable future unless Arte wants to go even deeper into the well and that doesn't seem like it will happen this time around. So, yes, budget is a concern and that was my small contribution to this thread. I truly don't care if Berg is brought up or not. If he is great! If the Angels are willing to give him that chance, great! If they don't I totally understand! It's not our money right?

I think flute is trying to indirectly hint that, that is not what he had expected to see....

As a side note, the A's have used effective platoons over the last two seasons. Moss and Carter combined, last season, for 38 HR's out of the 1B position. This year John Jaso and Derek Norris have platooned at catcher. Less successfully, Chris Young and Seth Smith were platooning in the outfield (but it wasn't a bad idea). That is, in part, why the A's have done so well the last two seasons by taking strong platoon players and mixing them at a position to get strong production that most teams try to get from one single player. It is an inexpensive route to go, especially for a cash-strapped team like the Athletics (and a team like the Angels in 2014 that are dealing with large, sunk contracts).

As I mentioned in some other threads it would not surprise me if Kendrick is traded this off season and we see Chris Nelson, Luis Jimenez, Grant Green, Lindsey Taylor, and Tommy Field platooning at 3rd and 2nd base with Aybar switch-hitting at SS. You could have Jimenez in against RHP with Green in against LHP at 3rd while Taylor hits RHP and Field hits LHP at 2nd. Nelson or Green might be the odd men out unless they serve in a bench role (possibly Nelson would be out or possibly traded).

I should clarify a bit. I still think S-C-I-O-S-C-I-A is an effective manager to a degree. He did make some blundered calls this year that shined the spotlight on his managerial skills. I also think he is organized and understands the game very well compared to other managers. However the point I am trying to make is that it seems like the message that Mike is sending out has grown stale somehow. Whether it is the way Mike delivers it or some type of clubhouse chemistry issue it "feels" like the team is drifting and not maximizing its potential. Yes it could simply be player performance. I am not in the clubhouse day to day and neither are the rest of you. It could be a lot of things. Speculation and observation are all we have and it is clear that the team seems disoriented at times. Mike is the leader of this team and it is his ultimate responsibility whether it is player performance or bad leadership that is impacting our ability to win. I am all about giving people another chance. As I said Mike should have a short leash in 2014 if he is kept. If I were him I would consider upturning the apple cart in Spring Training and get the guys in as early as possible and just switch up what he has normally done and "shock" the players a little to get them focused and on point.

To be honest I really don't care personally but to suggest, as monkeywithahalo did, that service time and team budget doesn't matter because Berg is a reliever is just not realistic. Every player matters.

I'm not sure why you are so indignant on the idea that a Major League Baseball team has a budget to manage? They could call him up for the normal cup of coffee but that means he might not be on the roster to start the season. Just because he's a reliever doesn't mean that the front office doesn't want to keep him around as long as they are able too. In fact if he is that good then they DEFINITELY want to retain his services as long as possible. You never know which reliever is the next Rivera/Papelbon/Shields type that stays with the club for multiple years because they have reliable, healthy arms. In case you haven't noticed the season is over. If they call him up for a look, great! If not I TOTALLY understand and appreciate that we are saving him for the full season next year.

Considering that the budget is tight I see no reason to start his service clock, pay him the big league miinimum simply to pitch when we are out of contention. It all adds up, even the little stuff.

Players accumulate service time every single day they are in the Major Leagues. Here is a link: http://www.fangraphs.com/library/principles/contract-details/service-time-super-two/

FanGraphs has him at 2.9 so far this season. Even if you take the best seasons of Stanton and Fernandez they are still the equivalent of Mike Trout but not only are you having to give up two rosters spots for one you also have to pay two star salaries instead of one? You need more than those two in my opinion. Actually my real opinion is that we never trade Mike Trout and we pay him to stay here the rest of his career.

Is there a reason to start his service clock to come up to the Majors on a team that is out of contention?

Stanton at 3 years/4 WAR per season = 12 WAR Fernandez at 5 years/4 WAR per season = 20 WAR Trout at 4 years/10 WAR per season = 40 WAR Not to mention that Trout takes up one roster space. We can and should get more. Even if you up Stanton's yearly WAR to 6 per season you are still short of what Trout produces.

Boy I hate losing seasons. More importantly I hate losing seasons back-to-back-to-back-to-back. Sometimes we all need a fresh look and a new voice. I have defended S-C-I-O-S-C-I-A over the last couple of years but beyond what you may or may not think about his managerial skills it seems like it might be time for a change in Anaheim. Maybe Mike needs a change too? If the Angels don't fire him (or trade him) this offseason, he should be on a short leash to start 2014. As a leader you ultimately have to take responsibility for the success or lack of success of those you lead. Mike has had four disappointing seasons in a row and it is time for the Angels to really evaluate what each and every component of this team is doing to drive the club towards success. Those that are standing in the way of that should be cast-off the boat.

I don't think that it is enough to be honest. Stanton and Fernandez, over their remaining controllable years would still give us less production overall than Trout over his remaining controlled years. We'd have to get more to make it even a consideration.

Sneaking in after the game was over and placing your Chuck Norris sex dolls all over the field doesn't count.

You guys really make me laugh sometimes. I remember all of the talk about Weaver leaving and that there was no way we would be able to convince him to not go out into free agency. I was one of the handful of people who argued otherwise. There is absolutely no reason that the Angels won't lock Trout up in the near future for an extended contract. They will do everything in their power to make this happen. An extension that at, the VERY MINIMUM, keeps him in Anaheim through his age 28-29 seasons is a doable thing. As far as the other contracts on the books you just back-load the contract so that when Wilson's and Hamilton's contracts are expiring you are paying him more in those years. Money is not the issue here and I know Moreno sees the potential to not only have the best player in baseball play for his team, he also sees the marketing opportunites and the chance to have Mike Trout go into the Hall of Fame (yes I went there) as an Angel. These are not invaluable things to him as both an owner and a fan of baseball. If I were the Angels I would seriously consider offering him a 20 year contract at $400 million+. This would not only be a record-breaking contract but it would also allow the Angels to load the contract more heavily in Trout's prime years (26-29) while keeping the AAV at a number more reasonable for luxury tax purposes. The Angels either need to go short extension through some of his prime years or they need to go really long term over the rest of his career. I believe they will get it done and get it done within the next year.

It is amazing what can happen in a short 12 hours on this board.

That is probably true about the lack of disparity in talent level but baseball is played more prolificly in California, Arizona, Florida, etc. Then it is a numbers game where you have thousands of players in those states to scout where you may only have hundreds in states that don't have a strong baseball system. Then it does become about resource allocation for MLB teams as they want to scout more heavily in the larger populations of players. I do agree that they should broaden their horizons more (and in fact they are expanding into countries like China, Phillipines, etc.) but until those areas develop more advanced baseball leagues and systems, the teams are putting their resources into the known commodity areas.

You know what AO, the Madson signing wasn't a bad risk move. The problem was that we didn't have enough depth behind him and we kept thinking "when is our bullpen savior" coming and he never did. A low base salary signing for a, formerly ace, relief pitcher coming off of TMJ surgery was a risk move and it didn't pay off. It's just that the rest of the bullpen really didn't meet the standards of a MLB relief corps.

I don't think he has even resumed baseball activities yet? It does open a chance for us to expand the trade and send Aybar and Iannetta to the Cardinals for Carlos Martinez or Michael Wacha. Apparently, before the deadline, there was some discussion between the Angels and the Cardinals on Aybar but I don't think the Cardinals wanted to give up either one of those young arms. Perhaps an extended Molina injury might change the Cardinals minds? I'd love either one of those pitchers but Carlos Martinez is my personal choice.

Maybe, but Iannetta is relatively cheap at $4.975 (2014) and $5.525 (2015) the next two seasons. As of today, among catchers with 100 or more plate appearances, he is ranked 27th out of 54 catchers in OPS, so there might be a team like the Tigers that would have interest in acquiring him (or perhaps the Cardinals if Yadier Molina is out longer than they expect). A team weak in OBP might want him too (or a team that wants to keep its OBP high, like the Tigers and Cardinals).

As I mentioned in the other Iannetta thread, it could simply be that they are showcasing Iannetta right now for a trade and S-C-I-O-S-C-I-A is saying nice things to support the idea that Iannetta is good. That could be totally wrong but if you are trying to sell a product you don't talk about how shitty it is?

It wouldn't suprise me either, AO, if they had Hank also DH on some of the days he's not catching. His bat has value.

Did any of you stop to think that perhaps (and this may not be the case I'm just sayin'!) they are trying to "showcase" Iannetta for a possible trade? I'm pretty sure the Angels think Conger is their main catcher moving forward but if another team or teams have shown interest in catching, Iannetta is a tradeable asset.