Sign in to follow this  
Dollar Bill

LAT: Angels lease talks: Team says Anaheim name isn’t coming back; mayor says fine

183 posts in this topic

30 minutes ago, yk9001 said:

Long Beach again is interested in luring the Angels, and the team says it plans to decide between Long Beach and Anaheim by year’s end.

I will bet anyone here one thousand internet bucks that there will be no decision by year's end.

That’s Arte throwing out more propaganda. He’s not going anywhere. He’s got the best lease deal in professional sports. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sean-Regan said:

As noted in the article, a lot of teams play outside the locale their city name identifies them with. People need to get over it. The Anaheim mayor gets it. 

Everyone living in Anaheim/Orange County gets it. They just celebrate their own identity like Oakland does up in San Francisco. The 49er's I believe play in Santa Clara which is in the Silicon Valley.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, yk9001 said:

Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim was the g-damned stupidist thing ever.  

I still believe the "stupidest thing ever" was Disney renaming the team the "Anaheim Angels" when they bought the team from Gene Autry. The team became a billboard for Disneyland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Calzone 2 said:

Disney Championship Angels team. 

Sigh... this bullshit again.

Disney won with a core they inherited, and won despite their ownership.

Vaughnn was a worse deal than Pujols... the big pitching brought in was as duck as weve seen the last few years, here.

Under Disney, aside from 2002, every year ended roughly like the last 5....the Angels were one of the teams being considered for contraction during that time...it wasnt until Moreno took over that this team saw sustained success.

And Disney flipped the team as soon as they won, and cashed out the investment. Dont you keep saying thats what Moreno is aiming to do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

Sigh... this bullshit again.

Disney won with a core they inherited, and won despite their ownership.

Vaughnn was a worse deal than Pujols... the big pitching brought in was as duck as weve seen the last few years, here.

Under Disney, aside from 2002, every year ended roughly like the last 5....the Angels were one of the teams being considered for contraction during that time...it wasnt until Moreno took over that this team saw sustained success.

And Disney flipped the team as soon as they won, and cashed out the investment. Dont you keep saying thats what Moreno is aiming to do?

Didn’t Disney take over the day to day operations in 1996? Didn’t Disney hire Scioscia in 1999? Didn’t the Angels win their one and only championship in 2002? That’s six seasons of control. Didn't Disney sell Arte a nice core roster that was extremely successful.  

Edited by Calzone 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Calzone 2 said:

Didn’t Disney take over the day to day operations in 1996? Didn’t Disney hire Scioscia in 1999? Didn’t the Angels win their one and only championship in 2002? That’s six seasons of control. Didn't Disney sell Arte a nice core roster that was extremely successful.  

Disney took over in 97. Yes, they hired scioscia.

I already acknowledged they owned the team that won...why are you ignoring everything i wrote?....

You would filet arte for Vaughn... and for balking at Randy Johnson. Did they win the division or wildcard any other year besides 02? A few 2cd place finishes... more last place.

You say arte inherited the core from disney. Yes he did. Then added a cy young in colon, and our first hall of famer in vlad.

Disney inherited salmon, glaus, ga, erstad, percy, washburn and ortiz, in their young prime years... and beefed them up with guys like cecil fielder. 

If youre going to give disney credit for 02, you have to view the current situation the same way you do 97-01.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

Disney took over in 97. Yes, they hired scioscia.

I already acknowledged they owned the team that won...why are you ignoring everything i wrote?....

You would filet arte for Vaughn... and for balking at Randy Johnson. Did they win the division or wildcard any other year besides 02? A few 2cd place finishes... more last place.

You say arte inherited the core from disney. Yes he did. Then added a cy young in colon, and our first hall of famer in vlad.

Disney inherited salmon, glaus, ga, erstad, percy, washburn and ortiz, in their young prime years... and beefed them up with guys like cecil fielder. 

If youre going to give disney credit for 02, you have to view the current situation the same way you do 97-01.

Didn’t Disney hire Bill Stoneman 3 years before their championship? They made some good decisions. They could’ve chosen to trade some of the players you mentioned. They owned the team for 6 years so they absolutely should get credit for the championship. Dipoto took only 4 years to destroy the Angels. Disney certainly didn’t do that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

Disney won with a core they inherited, and won despite their ownership.

Not sure that's completely fair, given the Angels' futility up to that point.

Disney did a lot for the Angels including renovating the stadium. Angels were truly irrelevant prior to Disney.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Long Beach Angels, Anaheim Angels, Tustin Angels, Orange County Angels, Golden State Angels, Southern California Angels.... Just playing around with names. 

None of them sound as good as Los Angeles Angels, and that doesn't sound as good as California Angels.

But Arte won't pass up the opportunity to market the team as an LA team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

losing a lawsuit does that to you.

or, perhaps the city council, mayor and city manager watched the recent Texas series.........."Please let it say Los Angeles on their uni's" may have been the reaction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Calzone 2 said:

Didn’t Disney take over the day to day operations in 1996? Didn’t Disney hire Scioscia in 1999? Didn’t the Angels win their one and only championship in 2002? That’s six seasons of control. Didn't Disney sell Arte a nice core roster that was extremely successful.  

Stoneman and Scioscia were told point blank the team had zero interest in being a serious competitor. They nodded their heads and then tried to win anyway. And did. Disney just happened to be there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jay said:

Not sure that's completely fair, given the Angels' futility up to that point.

Disney did a lot for the Angels including renovating the stadium. Angels were truly irrelevant prior to Disney.

 

Meh.... yes, no ring. And that cant be taken away. But the 80s werent bad.

My take is Disney barely held the keys for 6 years(?) or so. One phenom year, a few decent, a few really bad. 

Again, the core team, aside from AK, Molina and Fullmer were here before they took over. And to bolster that core, which had the best young outfield in baseball, they added Vaughn...nothing else. They balked at Randy johnson... and had far more money than Arte. (Or the rangers, seattle and Oakland).

Calzone mentioned disney brought sosh on board. Very true. They also brought in Collins....

The core group in the late 90s was right there in 1995... it was still in place. And instead of spending money they had, we brought in jack mcdowell. Alan watson. Ken hill. Etc etc. Again, aside from Mo, what guy did they bring in? And this was back when FAs were far more available. 

Put it this way. The Marlins won a ring, twice. But take all their other years into account with it. I look at disney ownership like Brady Andersons 96 season. Amazing, came out of nowhere, and never came close to duplicating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Calzone 2 said:

Didn’t Disney hire Bill Stoneman 3 years before their championship? They made some good decisions. They could’ve chosen to trade some of the players you mentioned. They owned the team for 6 years so they absolutely should get credit for the championship. Dipoto took only 4 years to destroy the Angels. Disney certainly didn’t do that. 

They did hire Stoneman. And that was a phenom decision.

But he got here in 2000. None of the World Series core was him. The only positives he added were trading Mo for appier, and signing Sele... neither long term fixtures.

The Core was developed by Bavasi, and mostly under Autry.

You say they could have traded guys from that core. They did. Edmonds for AK... 

But all of the core guys were cheap... they had a nice little, homegrown cheap core with years of control... drafted before them. And they refused to spend almost anything to bolster it.

In 2001 they finished 41 games out. If we did that today, after how 95-2000 went, youd be all over it.

Disney gets credit for owning the WS team... but not nearly the bulk. As Ive said, the core team, almost entirely, was in place before them. They brought in Sosh and Stoneman, and a few spare pieces. They could have and should have done so much more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ScottT said:

2002 was the fluke of all flukes

Meh. Theres some truth to that. 

But the core team, with some adds like Vlad, was still pretty dominant afterwards... 2003 sucked, but injuries destroyed them. 

Teams like the yankees, dodgers, boston, giants etc are kind of the rare that have sustained long term success.

Most of the rest (if you just consider core teams, not decade to decade history) are pretty much the same. It all comes together for a couple of years, but it took awhile to get there, and disappears soon after. 

Last 20 years: dbacks, us, white sox, cards (though they came back a few years later) KC, marlins etc... the rest were the powerhouse teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sean-Regan said:

Stoneman and Scioscia were told point blank the team had zero interest in being a serious competitor. They nodded their heads and then tried to win anyway. And did. Disney just happened to be there. 

This point is often overlooked.
According to Sciocia,  both he and Stoneman were summoned to a meeting with Disney officials soon after Disney assumed ownership and were directly told that they wanted a consistent contender to fill the seats, but could not justify the expense of building a championship caliber team. After the meeting, Scioscia and Stoneman met privately and decided they were going to win a world series in spite of what ownership said.
The World Series victory is on Scioscia and Stoneman, NOT on Disney.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  


  • AngelsWin.com Ad-free Membership Options