Pancake Bear

Player of the Year (not MVP): Martinez (Trout wasn’t a finalist)

Rookie of the Year: Andujar

Can we quit pretending that playing the game somehow gives players wisdom that the rest of us lack? Players...are *really* bad at analysis in general. We complain about the writers, but at least the bad analysts are becoming a minority. 

22 minutes ago, True Grich said:

I never said it didn't.  I just want my dime.

Geography is that wonderful argument that is great when it fits our preferred narrative but ‘insignificant’ when it doesn’t. The reality is we have no clue how much it actually matters to each individual player. Too much of a variable from one guy to the next. 

2 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

For reference 

Boston #1 offense

876 runs

Yankees #2 offense

851 runs

Boston #8 pitching 

3.75 era

Yankees #10 pitching

3.78 era

Yankees weren’t much different than the Red Sox this year.

I had some dude on here tell me that about Cleveland late in the season. Both of those teams folded in the playoffs when playing high powered offenses every game. 

Riddle me this: If NY’s pitching is so amazing, why are they reportedly replacing 3 spots this offseason? Answer: It isn’t as good as it looks. 

17 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

I don’t care how they get there as long as the Angels get to the post season. Yankees had a terrific bullpen. Sure they weren’t as good as the 108 win Red Sox but no one was this year. Yankees won 100 games. I’d settle for 100 wins every year I’m sorry that is unacceptable to you. 

I prefer 2002 to 2014. Apparently you’re satisfied with 2014. I have higher ambitions. That’s not a knock on the Yankees, btw - they didn’t blow the bank to go all-in. But in order to do what is being proposed (sign Harper),  the Angels would be wrecking their chances of contending because they wouldn’t be able to afford pitching unless Arte said, “Screw the budget”. It should be obvious to anyone by now that that isn’t ever going to happen. 

40 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

It wasn’t successful? The Yankees won 100 games and made it to the playoffs. Sure they didn’t win the ws but to say it wasn’t successful is a lie. 

They were clearly a rung down from Boston and Houston. Point is, no matter how good your offense (and bullpen) is, if you skimp on pitching, it’ll come back to bite you. I don’t want to go all out on offense if we’re going to trot the same awful rotation out there this year so we can get excited just for making the playoffs. That is not success. 

2 hours ago, Hubs said:

If there is one move, out there, that could be done in the Angels Budget AND make them a world series contender, it's adding Bryce Harper. I think he's going to cost more than people think, and arguably, Trout deserves more by at least $5M AAV, so it's not likely that Harper plays next to the only player definitely better than him offensively, but wow, what an offense.

Leadoff is likely Cozart at 2nd/3rd

Then, Trout #2, Harper #3, Ohtani #4, Upton #5 is a legit MOTO for the next 4 years.

I think the Angels are better off adding a C and a platoon RF / 1B, plus two starters for the money that Harper is likely to demand, but it does certainly make an impact for sure.

I saw the Phillies article about trying to sign Harper and Trout, and I was like, well the Angels can do that right now if they wanted. LOL.

The Yankees tried the all offense, no starting pitching strategy this year. It wasn’t successful. And they had an amazing bullpen. 

There is no ‘one move’ that makes the Angels contenders.  

2 hours ago, UndertheHalo said:

I agree that they’ve done a good job signing some of their guys but I’m pretty confident a guy like Lindor will reach FA and I doubt that the Tribe will retain him . 

As far as Trout I absolutely agree completely.  Trout is immensely valuable to the Angels.  They need to do whatever it takes to lock him up.  He’s our Stan Musial.  He can’t be allowed to walk. 

That’d be a first. 

3 hours ago, JAHV76 said:

That seems likely Ausmus will hire his own guys

I wonder if Ausmus being around the clubhouse in 2018 makes him more or less likely to want to keep guys like Paul, Ebel, and Griffin around.  

33 minutes ago, Kody Mac said:

I think Fletcher earned the starting job going into Spring Training.

Between Fletcher and Cozart (assuming both are still around come Opening Day), I would imagine at least 2 of 3 spots (2B, 3B, Utility IF) will be taken up. I think Fletcher is almost certain to be at least the backup infielder, regardless of how he does in Spring. 

1 hour ago, Halodays said:

Just curious, who are your starters around the infield?

Ask me again after ST. 

33 minutes ago, Halodays said:

At the very least Spangenberg  would be a better hitting utility guy  than Cowart. He hits righties at a pretty good clip and could fill in if the young guys are struggling.

The only benefit he provides, IMO, is salary. If we’re that determined to save money, I’d go all in on the other three. I wouldn’t bring in waiver wire bait to clog the roster. 

1 hour ago, Halodays said:

I'm not sold on Cozart. He had a good year with the bat in 2017 and that is his only year he produced offensively.

Maybe they dump him, but I doubt it happens before he’s given another shot. Anyway, his mediocre career batting numbers are still better than anything Spangenberg has ever done. This fascination by some with other teams’ castoffs is as unproductive as overvaluing our own guys. I don’t know what we have at 2B/3B, but unless we’re bringing in an impact player, I see no chance whatever that we bring in a gloveless lite-bat option, whether Spangenberg or anyone else.  

Trick question: Nobody.

1 hour ago, Kevinb said:

I don’t know if the Angels like Rengifo as much as the site. When the Angels were out of it and rosters expanded they didn’t bring him up. If he has a future this year with the Angels I’m sure he would have been up here in September...

I don’t know enough about his contract details to know whether that was feasible. Someone else who knows more about that can address it. I do know that Ausmus name dropped Rengifo as someone with potential to take a spot this season at his press conference interview. If getting called up this season would have had no effect on Rengifo needing to be added to the 40 man roster or anything of that kind, I would imagine one reason he wasn’t called up is that Fletcher was doing well and Ward had higher priority for them in a call up. Spring Training is a different situation. 

Why call him up in September to sit on the bench? He’s better off getting at bats in the minors than getting occasional at bats that were probably still over his head in a situation where one of himself, Ward, or Fletcher would be sitting every day. Does it make sense to have that many young guys up and sitting? Doesn’t to me, but maybe I’m missing something. 

22 minutes ago, Halodays said:

Please enlighten us who these 3-4 better options are....

Fletcher and Cozart both look plainly better. Too early to say on these two, but I’d easily rather give a shot to Rengifo or Ward between 2b/3b than bring in a random player who had a minor breakout and then never even got back to that point again. It’s one thing if we’re grabbing an actual impact player, but people suggesting players like Spangenberg? I just don’t get it at all. 

The dude has played several seasons and has gotten worse. Fletcher has actually showed something, Cozart wasn’t great in 2018, but you don’t have to squint hard to imagine him being better than Spangenberg. If we’re already counting out Rengifo and Ward, to me that’s as silly as telling 2011 Mike Trout that he’s not a big leaguer because his obp was sub .300 (obviously I don’t expect them to be anything like Trout, just pointing out we haven’t even given either a real shot yet). 

52 minutes ago, TroutField said:

Dude he’s 27

Look at his numbers - he’s gotten worse since he broke in to the league. In other words, he probably isn’t very good. We have 3-4 guys already who are better options. 

6 minutes ago, TroutField said:

Decent speed, good baserunner, good defense, can play 2nd, 3rd and OF. Has a .330 OBP in 2017. 

 

Tough crowd

He’s worse defensively than Fletcher and isn’t really a better hitter or base runner. His best season wasn’t really better than Fletcher’s half season. Maybe Fletcher declines in a bigger sample size but Spangenberg is already clearly declining. Only real advantage I see is more power. Pass. 

1 hour ago, TroutField said:

Pads released Spangenberg, he would be a good option for 2nd. 

Why in the world would we want to do that? What exactly does he bring to the table?

His elbow was damaged goods. Everyone knew it. Only the Angels were dumb enough to take him. 

Or something. 

At least, that’s what everyone was claiming for ages. 

“Bullet dodged” 

10 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

Jesus what is wrong with you.  The numbers are what they are.  Obviously there has to be wiggle room.  Obviously they need to anticipate having to space necessary for upcoming contracts that need to be signed.  All teams do that.  We have a  difference in opinion on Samueli.  I’ve at no point seen anything from Stephens or anyone else that suggest that the “purse strings are open”.  What is known is that they work within an internal budget. If you think Murray is entirely responsible for every aspect of the teams failure to win a cup.  That’s fine, I’ve agreed to that mostly.  I’m just saying that the Samuelis are not an ownership that is particularly aggressive about winning championships.  And the existence of an internal cap in addition to the actual numbers that are public figures support that.  

They should have traded for Kesler at the deadline that year.  He may well have made the difference for the Ducks in that series against the Kings.  If you don’t think that ownership has input on those decisions, that’s opinion you’re entitled to. 

The budget is sealed now, I'm sure. Murray's said multiple times in recent years that the team isn't good enough - that's why he didn't do anything last year at the trade deadline. The window is effectively shut. You obviously don't follow the Ducks closely; you shouldn't pretend you do. The Samueli's are willing to spend if the team is close. It isn't and only has been for 3-4 seasons. As to why they didn't spend to the cap? I explained in the previous post which you either didn't read or are too thick-headed to understand. I'm done trying to explain this.

They aren't really much different than Moreno: They'll spend if they're close, but they won't spend just to say "Look at me, I'm spending to the cap!". But they aren't hockey people. At all. They leave it all to Murray (for better or worse). They haven't spent to the max, necessarily, but that has to do with Murray being overly cautious. 

And just as a closing note: (From CJ Woodling - one of the editors of Anaheim Calling)

This is well known to anyone who actually follows the team.

14 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

Ya ok.  You’re arguing for the sake of it.  A 5 or 6 million dollar forward is a solid top 6 player in the NHL.  Do you imagine that wouldn’t have made a difference for the Ducks ? 

They spent up to within 2 million of the cap once in the last 10 years.  Which is what you’re trying to argue that they do frequently.  Sometimes, like 3 or 4 times in the last 10 years they’re way under the cap.  Again like I said.  Like 13-14 million.  Not exactly the aggressive payroll of an owner that really wants to win.  Especially in a cost controlled league like the NHL.  

One last time. I don't know if you don't follow the Ducks closely or else you just are slow, but here it is: Eric Stephens has made clear on multiple occasions that Bob Murray had permission to spend up to the cap if necessary when they were in their window. I haven't checked the exact numbers, so I'll assume you're correct on that. Basically, this isn't a jigsaw puzzle where you can simply max out against the cap. It doesn't work that way.

Part of the spending involved was related to the trade deadline. In a couple of seasons, Murray balked at the prices in trades (he tends to be cheap on the trade market). One year, as another example, he tried to trade for Kesler but was unsuccessful at the deadline before finally trading for him in the off-season. Failed trades doesn't mean the pocketbook isn't open - that's what you're missing. 

Where you argued against yourself: You admitted that the payroll fluctuated - exactly what I said - which shows that they spent more when competitive, and less when they weren't. You also seem to miss the difference between a hard and a soft cap - generally speaking, you need to leave some wiggle room when you're up against a hard cap. Murray also was managing based on which young players required imminent extensions. 

The evidence is clear that Samueli opened the purse strings, you just miss it because it's not what you expect to see. If you account for multiple factors, though, the evidence is actually what you should expect to see.

1 hour ago, UndertheHalo said:

False man.  Since 2010 they’ve spent to within 2 million of it once.  5-6 million a bunch of times a few times where they were as much as a 14 million cap hit below.  You can go look it up.  The numbers are on the nhl website and others. 

You literally just proved me correct. Kudos on arguing against yourself. 

1 hour ago, UndertheHalo said:

I agree that Murray mostly is to blame, but I don’t buy that the Samueli’s just have no idea what’s going on.  And a few million dollars is a good player in the NHL.  The Ducks undeniably never truly went all in in pursuit of a cup and I think the Samueli’s have a big hand in that.  They have their internal number and that’s full stop it as far as I can tell. 

Let me say it again since it didn’t register the first time: They did spend to the cap for a few seasons when they had a legit shot at the Cup. Samueli was unwilling to go all in every year, but when their window was open, he approved the higher payroll. The story that the Ducks wouldn’t spend to the cap was slightly erroneous. 

40 minutes ago, stormngt said:

Sorry I meant "in the game".  However I know some posters on here have argued he is better than Babe Ruth so that isnt too much of an exaggeration.

Historically? George Herman Ruth has better career numbers.

But, given the game has developed? Many of those guys wouldn’t be nearly as dominant today. Trout is the best player today by a considerable margin, which probably means he’s better than any player ever. Debatable, certainly, but not an unreasonable position. 

56 minutes ago, robblin17 said:

You're probably right, especially because of the way things look right now. But, there still were opportunities to improve those teams and the Ducks were never really close to the cap or did they ever push above their set internal budget for a few of those years where they were oh so close.

False narrative. Common misconception, but the Ducks were actually up against the cap for several years there. The notion that the Samueli’s handicapped Murray is bogus. Where he is at fault is not firing his GM (Murray) who can’t see how awful the coach is (Carlyle). Both should’ve been gone after last year’s playoff debacle. Samueli just doesn’t know anything about hockey and trusts his ‘hockey guy’. This makes it virtually impossible to win because Murray either doesn’t know or is unwilling to do what needs to be done.