monkeywithahalo

Oh, hey, I knew my ears were ringing for a reason. Yeah, the Rodriguez link is done by the B-R linker mechanism. Totally automated. Clearly it makes bad choices, like me and the the Freese trade, apparently. It might very well be a pipe dream. There is a pretty good chance that I'm not very good at the imaginary trade thing, you know, like everyone else on the internet. My logic at the time was one season of Freese was worth more than two months of Andrew Miller, who Boston acquired him for. The transitive property may not apply to trades though. In fact, it almost certainly doesn't. I do think that Boston could be a landing spot for Freese though if the Sawx whiff on Panda. Like I said in the post, it is more the general idea I'm trying to convey which is add Holt as a superutilty guy and also bring back a back-of-the-rotation prospect for depth.

+100

#11 was Nick Maronde. I like him more than Scotty does, I think. He just completely lost the strike zone last year, which is really weird given that control was a big strength of his previously. There was definitely some mechanical and health issues there though, so I'm hoping that means a speedy turnaround. I think he has the ability to be the kind of lefty reliever that can take on right-handed pitching too. Also, for future reference, the entire top 30 list can be found here.

I'd say look at the 2009 line that Ryan put up (.292/.340/.400 and 14 steals) and that is probably Stamets' ceiling, probably with more steals

I think you are definitely onto something. Noticed it myself last week and wrote about it. The signings are beyond the point of being a coincidence. After a lot rumors last year that the clubhouse was lacking in leadership, it looks like Dipoto is trying to address that since at least one of these guys should make the team (along with Ibanez, another "good clubhouse guy"). Very interesting to see Dipoto pursue the fabled "team chemistry" even though he is more of a SABR guy.

I'd give Wood at least one more year. If he can get things to click, he is a frontline starter and those are hard to find. High leverage relievers are almost a commodity at this point (although the Angels haven't even been able to produce one of those in awhile). I think this applies to a lot of the Angel pitching prospects. Scoggins, Wood and Sappington all seem like they are destined for the bullpen, but they have so little quality starting pitching talent, the Halos owe it to themselves to try and make it work with those three.

You also have to factor in the value Balfour provides. If he can be worth two wins over those two seasons, the production on the field offsets the additional expenditure. Also, he makes the Angels better and isn't that ultimately the point? The monetary savings on Frieri are just a happy side effect.

No, not at all seriously. I specifically started this post that I only suggested it because it purely out of humor. There is nothing that will stop this channel from launching and making a ton of money, but it would amuse me if a campaign against it caused even a tiny bit of strife for the rival Dodgers and their fans.

I suppose I should add this. The channel is already trying to orchestrate a letter writing campaign to get the channel added. Seems like one could just as easily be run counter to that effort: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-dodgers-sportsnet-time-warner-cable-20140122,0,7610460.story#axzz2r9vPnPG5

OK, I will say upfront that I am only suggesting this for the pure humor of it. As most of you know, the Dodgers got their own fancypants cable network and they (and Time Warner) are now going through the process of trying to force other local cable carriers to add the channel to their package and charge customers an exorbitant amount of money. This feels like a situation prime to be messed with. I'd like to see an organized effort of Angels fans to petition all the cable companies to NOT carry SportsNet LA or at the very least stick it on a very specific programming tier rather than the basic cable tier like most RSNs. Why? Because RSNs are making all of our cable bills rise at alarming rates. Because Angels fans don't want to watch the Dodgers. Well, those are the reasons we can give the cable companies. Because cable companies run virtual monopolies. Because offering only tier packages and not a la carte programming in tyrannical. Really though, I just see this as an opportunity to tweak Time Warner, the Dodgers, and their fans. If it so much as causes a subset of Dodger fans to miss one game on TV, then I think we've done the Lord's work. Really, I don't give a crap. I live in Seattle. This won't affect my cable bill at all and it won't affect the Angels because FS West already has carriage agreements. I think with a coordinated enough effort, it might actually stand a chance at working (or at least make things a little harder for the Dodgers and Time Warner). Anyone in? Also, I'm far too lazy to actually coordinate this, so if anyone wants to run point, go for it.

I think you're spot on, wopphil. It would save the Angels a bit of money in arbitration as save numbers play well in that structure. Even without that, I think it is a pretty sound strategy to add Balfour to the bullpen and sign a lower end starter like Maholm, Hammel or Capuano rather than signing Garza if his price tag starts to get too high.

I love Petey's speed, but I don't think the Cardinals are going to allow him to steal 40 bases. The Cards aren't a team blessed with much speed, but they only attempted 67 steals as a team in all of 2013. That just isn't part of their gameplan so I have a hard time imagining him being given the green light enough to even attempt 40 steals.

That, my friend, is why he only comes in at #22 on the list. The results don't match the stuff. The issue for now appears to be that he has a bit of Blanton-itis. He can consistently get the ball over the plate, but he can't hit his spots. He's over the middle and up in the zone. Even with good stuff, that is hard to get away with. If he ever figures it out though, watch out.

Tagging up on Scotty's behalf, here is our first prospect profile: Brian Moran at #30 Obviously not the most exciting of prospects, but he is at least a guy who could log some time in the bigs this season.

An agent who is arrogant and ego-driven? I, for one, am shocked, SHOCKED, to think such a person could exist in the venerable profession of sports agency.

If the Angels go over the tax line this year, it actually makes more sense to have Trout sign an extension before 2014 starts. That would actually lower his luxury tax number versus if he signed it after the season started. Getting his cheap 2014 salary to drag down the average will help th get under the tax line in 2015 and avoid the harsher penalty.

I think we are all forgetting one very important factor:

100% agree and I think that outlier season of "unclutchness" has fanned the flames of him not living up to the hype. Also, I'd like recommend that in 2014, we keep a community scoreboard of who watched what game so that Marsaka knows who really does and doesn't watch the games since that is obviously becoming such a big problem. I, for one, am shocked at how many people apparently spend so much time on this message board yet have not seen one of these, I believe it is called "based ball" games.

Not cherrypicking so much as providing context for the imaginary scenario that WallyWorld described. 2012 was an outlier, but it was what people who are banging him for being unclutch saw. I was simply pointing out that what they saw was real and not just selective memory or straight up fabrication. He has struggled in high leverage the last few years, and though everyone is prone to those kind of fluctuations, the receny of Kendrick's struggles has tainted people's opinion on him. More to the point of the general discussion, Kendrick's warts are very visible. Seeing him hit into a GIDP is very visible and memorable. On the other end of the spectrum, when Aybar goes three weeks without drawing a walk, it is a big wart, but one that is not easily noticed. I like Kendrick. He is a great second baseman who provides a lot of value. That value just hasn't come in high leverage situations the last two years. That doesn't necessarily mean it won't this year.

So here I was about to throw shade at WallyWorld for providing an anecdotal narrative and not supporting it with actual evidence at all. I thought for sure that it would be poppycock, but lo and behold, Kendrick had a -2.25 WPA in 2012 (5th worst in the majors that year) and -0.39 last year. And his career Clutch score according to Fangraphs is -2.81. So, um, yeah. Good call, WallyWorld. That doesn't mean he is a bad player though. It just suggests that he doesn't deliver in high leverage situations, or at least he hasn't the last few years. A big reason for that is the GIDPs. But that is always going to be part of the package with Howie, who has the 15th highest groundball rate in the majors over the last three years. He has warts, everyone does. I just think that Howie's are more readily visible to those of us who watch the games. And us stat guys. Wait, guys who watch the games and appreciate advanced statistics? Those aren't mutually exclusive? Who knew?!

Every report I've seen was Green was a disaster at SS. Oakland never kept him at any other position long enough for him to get good though, so I don't think we should write him off totally. He probably won't ever be a quality defender, but he could learn and become solid. It is not unlike what happened with both Figgins and Callaspo who started off as poor defenders at third before becoming pretty good. However, if they aren't going to let Green focus on a position, they might as well let him go full superutility. He has a bit of experience at 2B, 3B and OF already. Send him to the minors this year and have him get used to working at several positions then go forward with him as a really useful and flexible bench player who can hit a bit. In the age of 7-man bullpens, having a bench guy that can play just about everywhere is very valuable.

I don't think that Trumbo has "such minimal trade value." I think the issue is that he doesn't have tremendous trade value. From what I can gather, the Angels are seeking an elite pitching prospect in return for Trumbo. Early rumors were that they asked the Pirates for Gerrit Cole for Trumbo and Cole was a top 10 pitching prospect in baseball at the time, a future ace. Trumbo has too many flaws to net that kind of return. The Angels probably can get a solid AAA pitching prospect for Trumbo, but I don't think that is worth it to them. They aren't going to give him up so that they can get a guy with a #3 or #4 starter ceiling. That's how I read it, anyway.

I, for one, am just sad that we never got to see him in the majors so we could use the "SPOOOOOOON!" battlecry.

I'm getting on the Hunter Green bandwagon early.

Why does it matter that he has no ties to the Angels organization? Not even just Girardi, but any managerial candidate. Scioscia had no ties to the Angels before he was hired and that worked out pretty well, no? Not trying to pick on you either, WallyWorld, I just see this sentiment a lot and fail to understand why it is a major criteria in hiring a new manager, coach or GM. Just ask yourself who the best managers in baseball have been over the last several decades, then examine whether or not they had a link to the team previously. In a majority of cases the answer is that they had no ties whatsoever.