Lou E Ville

So reading through this thread, would it be fair to say most of you lean AGAINST the idea? I didn't realize he'd be ineligible for the postseason. Figured if Washington cut him he could play anywhere. I just want to beat the Yankees and go from there. I don't think we can do it with Morin, Gott or Salas pitching any innings, let alone the ninth. They'll get squeezed and they'll gag up whatever lead is handed to them. I hope I'm wrong. Morin got the save tonight and maybe Smith will make it back. I just know what happens to pitchers in that stadium in October.

Desperate times, desperate measures?

He started out with three scoreless today.

Really? You're going to compare Gott/Morin/Salas to what the Royals had last year? Jesus Christ.

Last time I listen to your mother.

All you guys saying no to this idea realize that Scioscia plans to start Weaver two more times before the season ends, right? Aw hell, this is all moot if Weaver doesn't say yes to the idea anyway. Just realizing that this isn't fantasy baseball and our only hope of replacing Smith and Street are what we have on staff right now. Maybe we can squeeze whatever is left out of Weaver as our closer for a few weeks. The other guys we have will be out there pissing all over themselves.

Dude, we're talking a couple of weeks, not a couple of months. And again, do you REALLY want to face the Yankees at New York in a close game late with Gott, Salas or Morin? They'll get eaten alive. We need experience more than talent in that situation. The strike zone shrinks. The crowd is going crazy. The moment will swallow them up.

I'm thinking he could be like that guy who got injured in 2005 and when he came back we saved our bullpen by moving him there. He'd pitch two innings one night, one the next. Our bullpen was a mess but suddenly he ate up innings and they got well because of it. He was signed the same year we signed Vlad.

Are Skaggs and Wilson officially out? I read somewhere recently that Skaggs wants to be available right now. Hey man, we're only due for heartbreak if we try to finish this thing out with bullpen by current committee. Let's get real. We need another option.

I'm hoping Texas clinches. Those last four would be a lot more winnable if they do.

If we make the playoffs we'll have to win the first game in New York. I'd rather have Weaver's playoff experience than any of the other schlubs we now have in the back end of the bullpen. That's the question. Not "Is Weaver an ideal bullpen closer" but "is he a better option than what we have?"

All that matters is can he get it done for 1-2 innings every other night or so. Only a week left in the season and then the playoffs (hopefully). Who would you rather have on the mound with a one-run lead, him or Salas? Gott? Morin? None of those guys are ready for that kind of pressure.

He's not getting it done any more as a starter, and he can handle the pressure. Who else is better suited for that role? Street didn't have a killer fastball, either.

Why not?

1. Get out of my thread. Now. 2. My real name is Francis, but everyone calls me Lou E. Anyone calls me Francis....and I'll kill ya. 3. I don't like anyone touching my stuff, so keep your meat hooks off. 4. And I don't like anyone touchin' me. Any of you "homos" touch me....and I'll kill ya.

The ump who made the AJ Pierzynski call represented one percent of all calls made in that game. Insignificant.

They still rotate which divisions you have to play every year. That's what I'm saying. If you're going to play the other conference, rotate so that it's fair. Yes, some years one division is tougher than another. But as long as you rotate it no one can complain. I'm looking mainly at the Twins here. We beat them five out of seven, including three out of four in September. Look at the six Dodgers games we played. Four involved Greinke or Kershaw, two did not. 0-4 against the first two, 1-1 in the remaining games. Now look at the Twins' permanent opponent, Milwaukee. I don't even know who starts for Milwaukee, but I can guarantee you it's no one in the ballpark of Greinke and Kershaw. And if the Angels win 86 games and the Twins win 87, there is the difference right there. Not because they happened to get the Phillies (just as an example) while we happened to get the Giants. Those things cannot be helped. But by God you have to make fair what you can.

No shit, Sherlock.

You're the one being stupid. Look at the NFL schedule. It's laid out as fair as it possibly can be. They don't make two teams from different conferences play every year because the fans want to see it and it would make money. They rotate everything evenly. Every year they have one team that beats another on a tiebreaker to make the playoffs, and no one complains because they have laid out everything fair and square. Yes, some teams still face more difficult schedules, but that's because the divisions ebb and flow. One year, every team in the NFC West was under .500. Three years later, the Seahawks and 49ers played in the NFC title game and the Cardinals won 11 games. Fans understand that. What they wouldn't understand is if the Patriots and Giants had to face off every year "because fans want to see it" while the Bills or Eagles snuck in one year because they got the benefit of playing each other because of the Pats-Giants game. Hey, the Angels and Dodgers draw more fans than other teams. Let's give them 84 home games next year and take three away from the smallest drawing teams. It's just three games, and hell, the Angels didn't have that great a home record anyway. That's what your logic sounds like.

Thanks, Scottlux. I swear I don't know what's so hard to comprehend about wanting a level playing field. If we can nab that last playoff spot, we have a chance with Mike Trout. Seen it happen too many times to dismiss it.

Yes, and the Giants play Arizona, Colorado and San Diego 19 times every year as well. Some of you are obtuse.

What the Angels record is against the Dodgers is irrelevant. Follow this logic.... ​ Angels: 19 games against Oak, Tex, Sea, Hou Twins: 19 games against Cle, Det, KC, Chi So far so good, right? Angels: 6 or 7 games against each AL East team and each AL Central team Twins: 6 or 7 games against each AL East team and each AL West team Still good. So far we are still as fair as humanly possible. Angels: 3 or 4 games against 4 rotated NL opponents Twins: 3 or 4 games against 4 rotated NL opponents Still fair. Or as fair as possible. Angels: 6 games against the Dodgers Twins: 6 games against the Brewers This is where it stops being fair. It's not fair to the Dodgers or the Angels, or the Mets, or the A's. The Angels would love to swap with Minnesota and get Milwaukee for these six games every year. Milwaukee is good like every five years. Just like Arizona. Just like Colorado. The Dodgers, meanwhile, have spent their way into perennial contender status. They can afford Greinke and Kershaw. Milwaukee couldn't afford either. All of you saying "well the Angels suck and they got swept by this crappy team so who cares", just remember that all you have to do is get in. The Giants have won three World Series in five years. None of those teams was the best in the regular season. The Cardinals won one World Series with a wild card team and one with an 84 win division champion. We won more games than they did both times but didn't get in. We won a World Series in 2002 between two Wild Card teams. ​I don't mind losing out fair and square to another team. The margin of error between these teams competing for the last spot is small to begin with. We're 5-2 against the Twins, but could lose out because of a scheduling gimmick.

Yes. If you have to play Kansas City six times instead of Cleveland, it is fair to say you are playing a harder schedule. Fortunately for the NL teams, their playoff teams were set a week ago. ​

You can't complain about who you face in your own division. You can't really complain about who you face in your own league. But when you get stuck with one of the winningest franchises for six games every year while other teams get Milwaukee, Arizona, Colorado, etc IT CAN MEAN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MAKING AND NOT MAKING THE PLAYOFFS. Baseball is a cruel enough sport without the schedule makers screwing you over. We have the same interleague mark as the Twins...8-12. Now consider that we went 0-4 against Greinke and Kershaw. If Minnesota gets that last spot over us by one game, there is your cause. If we are tied for the last spot on the last day and lose out on a bad call, every one of you would be on here saying that ump cost us a playoff spot. Not sure why you can't see that this is the same concept.