Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 01/06/2019 in all areas

  1. 4 points
    Worst off-season this year will be the team that gives Machado a 10 year contract.
  2. 2 points
    Kind of like the Angel's after 2002?
  3. 2 points
    You can never predict what will and won't go right, and that's maddening. 2014, pretty much everything that could go right, did. 2016-2018, pretty much everything that could go wrong, did. In these predictions, we assume neutral fortune, but nothing about the Angels in the last 5 years has been neutral as it seems to be for most teams. If it's neutral, I'm just going to go ahead and assume a few things I probably shouldn't. - Jon Lucroy is an upgrade both offensively and defensively. The numbers away from Oakland were much better and the way he handled that pitching staff was pretty miraculous. +1 win. - Pujols will continue to fall off the proverbial cliff, which makes the team worse, but Justin Bour's presence should make up for the deficit. +/-0 - Despite the lackluster offensive performance, Kinsler was still worth 2.5 wins in 2/3 of a season with the Angels. Putting Cozart or Fletcher or even La Stella out there, I think it's hard to predict them being worth more than that. +/-0. - It's hard to predict Andrelton Simmons being better than the 6 wins he was worth last year, though I do get the feeling he's going to have a career year at the plate this next season. Still, +/-0 - Cozart and Ward were hot garbage at third base last year, and both figure to get the majority of the starts at third base again. There's no way to confidently predict they'll be better. - Kole Calhoun will be better, but still not great. He's got the right environment, right coach, and he's in a contract year. +1 win. - Mike Trout will be Mike Trout. He might get hurt and be worth 8 wins, he may be healthy and in top form and be worth 13. I'm going to say he's worth 11, so +2. - Justin Upton is as consistent as they get. +/-0 - Shohei Ohtani is likely to miss Spring Training, which has proven to be a killer for most hitters. But he'll also log more at bats than he did last year, so I'll say it's break even. +/-0 - Starting rotation: They were blessed with a half year of Richards and Ohtani, and the staff this year quite frankly can't match that unless Harvey is in his rookie form, which no one predicts. They also had the best 2/3 of a season that Tyler Skaggs has ever pitched. And Jaime Barrie's performance does not appear to be repeatable based on his peripheral stats. However, these some room for optimism, Andrew Heaney is another year removed from Tommy John surgery and has been as consistent as they come. He's entering his prime now, so he'll likely improve. Tyler Skaggs has also reached his physical peak and can hopefully replicate last years performance but across a full season. The addition of Matt Harvey and Trevor Cahill has a lot of directions it can go. But it's fair to say both will likely be better than they were last year. But the big difference between last year and this year figures to be depth. Pena, Canning, Suarez, Sandoval are all a lot better than what was there beyond the starting five last year. Still, because of the lack of upside in this unit, I think they're pretty much going to break even with last year's staff, but will be better in one key way, working deeper into ball games. +/-0. Bullpen: Statistically, last year's unit wasn't bad, and statsticlaly' this years unit should be about the same, though they do figure to be deeper. I'll say +/-0. Conclusion: The pessimist in me says this is likely a 76 win team in 2019. The optimist says this is a 93 win team. The luck neutral version of this crap job at predicting/projecting says they're an 85 win team. And that's basically what I see right now, 85 wins. Not good enough for a wild card spot, they'll probably remain about 5 games out the majority of the season. But they will finish above the Rangers and Mariners, and probably even with the A's. If Eppler was willing to bring in Mike Moustakas or Jed Lowrie, then I could see them being an 87-88 win ball club, and if they brought in Shelby Miller or Drew Pomeranz and it actually worked out, they could be an 89/90 win team. These things are certainly doable within their budget. The Angels do have the available resources to win the second wild card and stay within budget. But I don't think do it. I think Eppler's pretty much done after spending 24 million.
  4. 2 points

    2019-20 Free Agent Class

    They’ve been rebuilding for 3 plus years, I can’t understand how someone who follows this team as closely as most here don’t see that.
  5. 2 points
    Something somethng.... Punting....
  6. 2 points
  7. 2 points
    lol I’ve seen this before Oh right the last couple off seasons... “The Angels MUST be saving money for next off season” Next off season comes and we get more of the same signings and on field results. At this point there is no reason to believe that they’re planning on doing anything more than seeing the farm play out and extending Trout while Eppler continues to fling poo against the wall during FA hoping something eventually sticks.
  8. 2 points


    I want to be one of those flying monkeys but with a MAGA hat.
  9. 2 points
  10. 2 points
    it really bums me out that they tendered that POS a contract.
  11. 1 point
    Insider-only article by a staff writer ranks the Angels in the "Big Gainers" category with the Nats, Reds, and Mets. Something for the "less is more" / "trust Eppler" partisans. 4. Los Angeles Angels Change: Gain of 5.6 wins Current forecast: 87.5 wins (2019 rank: 9 | 2018 final rank: 15) The Angels have added Matt Harvey, Jonathan Lucroy, Trevor Cahill and Justin Bour, and can also expect to get a key piece back from injury in Zack Cozart. More than anything, though, the Angels haven't lost anybody of impact except maybe starter Matt Shoemaker. Only two teams have lost less WAR from its season-ending 2018 roster than L.A. As it stands, the Angels are positioned to battle the Tampa Bay Rays for the second wild-card slot in the American League. Traditionally, that slot -- from the hot stove perspective -- is highly volatile. The Angels could stand to make major gains from the addition of another couple of impact pitchers.
  12. 1 point

    2019-20 Free Agent Class

    They had two players of value at that time that you wouldn’t want part of a rebuild, Simmons and Kole. There was zero chance they were trading Simmons as he was brought in to be there with Trout into this new era of Angels baseball.
  13. 1 point

    Fantasy Golf 2019

    The reason is that there is a limit on how often you can use a player, and Tank and I would be forced to spend uses that you guys didn't. Plus..this game goes on too long...it's about 8 months. This way the scores on the board will be the ones that count These weeks were going to be practice anyhow. Obviously you haven't read the rules yet because one of them is that the decisions of the commissioner are final and questioning them even a little can result in stiff penalties including banishment. So you are already on probation..
  14. 1 point
    Great article. The best bet we have is for Albert to retire on his own so the money won’t go against the payroll.
  15. 1 point
    Inside Pitch

    2019-20 Free Agent Class

    Jesus Christ... that Fangraphs article did more to support the opinion that the Angels would rise than support anything you're trying to say. You could have taken five seconds to look up who they were ranking among Angels farmhands -- you might have noticed that 6 of the top 20 weren't yet considered, or that when compared to everyone else listed the Angels players were the second youngest represented group. Why? Because we didn't have a farm system three years ago. The fact that they were as high as they are while essentially sticking to a sample size of two drafts plus Jones/Hermosillo/Ward is amazing. The Angels because they have focused so heavily on building their farm system will see a rise simply due to them having added more players. They don't actually even have to be good FFS .. FG considers their 40 grade guys as follows.. 40 Backend starters, FIP typically close to 5.00 0.0 to 0.9 40 Bench Player 0.0 to 0.7 So.. to avoid any further mistaking what that means -- they are talking about guys who's FIP is 5.00 -- so not even their actual ERA, just what their numbers suggest their ERA should be. In other words.. Five guys with actual ERA's over 6.00 but with enough sabermetric oomph to rate out as 5.00 FIPs would rank as 40 FV types. Offensively... the information is self evident. Try keeping track of your arguments better. The graduation of ranked prospects means teams with more talent further along than the Angels will take a dip in the rankings -- this is particularly true of Toronto and Houston. Future value doesn't represent actual production, it's a valuation of what players could be -- once those players graduate they cease to be potential future value -- which is what that FG article was trying to rank. Valuation rankings are massively impacted by the volume of players, so teams with established farm systems will always have more assets that can be counted, which again, is how Houston with it's entire top 20 prospects being ranked would be ahead of an Angels farm system with less established players. Honestly, this would be a lot easier if you just understood what those rankings actually represented and how they should be used. Oy vey.... So, you're using FG future value rankings, talking about the White Sox possibly adding Manny then turning around and arguing that will make them better.... You are counting something that hasn't happened, and then doubling down in saying the A's will likely make deals then turning around to argue those teams (who havent made those moves) will have better chances than we do. Tell me again how others have nothing but opinions and assumptions to bank on? It's been done -- I did it the last time you tried to make this argument. You didn't understand the data then, you still don't.... it's unlikely you ever will. You will just keep talking about how others will just assume that our guys will be better than other peoples when in reality NOBODY has made that argument. Why? because that's not actually what those particular FG rankings are trying to measure so nobody should actually be trying to argue that... Again, it's pointless
  16. 1 point

    Trout Extension Concern

    I agree with this. I have always felt that there is this tipping point in any major league lineup where the production in totality becomes greater than the sum of the parts. As an example, let's say you were 8 total wins below average on offense at 1b, 3b, C and RF and you added players as well as had some improve from the previous year that in total gave you what would be considered average production. I personally feel that you will end up benefiting the team by more than 8 wins in that case. I know that lineup protection has been debunked and all, but no one is going to convince me that Mookie Betts, while a great player, didn't have his overall production aided by the fact that there were so many other good hitters around him. I think you can get away with a hole or maybe even two in your lineup, but after that, the negative impact has more of an effect than is measured by normal analytics.
  17. 1 point
    field goals are boring
  18. 1 point
    I buy it. We haven't subtracted anything of impact, have several young contributors at the ready, and acquired a handful of interesting players cheaply so far.
  19. 1 point

    Random pics or Gifs for no reason

  20. 1 point

    Trout Extension Concern

    If trading Mike Trout is outside-the-box thinking, then outside-the-box thinking can be equated with losing.
  21. 1 point

    Napoli Retires

    the GMJ deal was in 2006 and a stoneman special. it was terrible but not anywhere on the level of the Vernon Wells deal. The Wells deal is equivalent to us trading Skaggs and Calhoun for Chris Davis.
  22. 1 point
    Erstad Grit

    Napoli Retires

    Wowzers that article took shots at Angels (and rightly so) "Persistent friction with skipper Mike Scioscia, though, who never quite seemed satisfied with Napoli’s work behind the plate, led the club to move Napoli in a bizarre 2011 swap with the Blue Jays, where the productive backstop was traded with outfielder Juan Rivera in exchange for the aging Vernon Wells, whose four years and $90MM in remaining salary placed him high on the list of least attractive assets in the game. " This trade and the GMJ signing, it seemed this board was united they were terrible deals right when they happened
  23. 1 point
  24. 1 point
    It would probably go for an even $5m. if Mr. Wicked didn't live down the street.
  25. 1 point
    It is politically incorrect to make fun of Mike Trout's weight. Mike Trout is off limits.
  • Newsletter


    Sign Up