Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Transaction Oracle > Discussion
Transaction Oracle
— A Timely Look at Transactions as They Happen

Tuesday, April 13, 2004

Anaheim Angels

Signed OF Garret Anderson to a 4-year contract with an option for 2009.

The financial terms haven’t been released yet, but I’d guess that this is in the $40-$50 million range.  Over the last two years, Garret Anderson has been underrated by statheads, myself included, but I still don’t like this signing.  He has improved from the mediocre hacker he truly was through 2001, but the Angels should be looking to move Erstad back to center and putting an actual hitter at first.  Nobody’s centerfield defense improves as they get into their mid-30s and Good Garret is a very good player, but not a superstar.

Dan Szymborski Posted: April 13, 2004 at 07:23 PM | 14 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. Christopher Posted: December 20, 2001 at 06:52 PM (#552329)
If any team is run by the magic 8-ball its the Angels.

I still have a hard time believing this team is owned by such a media savvy corporation. There was a two week road trip last year where two games were televised, one as a part of the Fox game of the week. It's ridiculosly apparent that Disney has no interest in Baseball and this is precisely the thing the Commisioner should be spending his time on. There has to be hundreds of people willing to buy a team. They all have to care more about the game than Disney does.

And as far as the Padres go its equally frustrating. I can't think of ANY team that has been built from within more than the Angels. And with the Rangers modestly improving I doubt the Angels see even 3rd place in a 4 team division for the next 5 years.
   2. All you Need is Glove Posted: December 28, 2001 at 04:18 PM (#552430)
Wow, this is a real good trade for the Angels getting a front line pitcher for a player who was already on the Met's roster.

Think maybye the Phillies could get Piazza from the Mets for Alomar? :)
   3. Christopher Posted: December 28, 2001 at 07:16 PM (#552435)
Dan, I take exception to your comment "but they also trade one of the rare Angels that actually has the potential to hit."

The Angels went from being a decent offense in 2000 (5.33 RPG) to 2001's downright awful (4.27 RPG). Not all of that is attributable to the loss of Mo. Of the regulars I fully expect Salmon and Erstad to have MUCH better 2002's. I also think Glaus is capable of a season much more like his 2000 campaign this year.

Looking back at the roster I'd say there were only two offensive players who exceeded expectations in 2001. Eckstein proved to be at the very least a league average SS. And in 200 AB's Shawn Wooten showed he might be a capable DH. That's it the rest of the good news was in the pitching staff which is possibly a little bit better for 2002.

All that said I think this is a decent team. And under the old schedule they could probably compete for a wild card spot. In the AL West though they're gonna battle Texas for 3rd place in the division.

As for the trade for Zeile. This is just dumb. Shouldn't Appier have been able to fetch a bit more. After dumping Mo's contract it seems like they could have packaged Appier and some cash they're now paying Zeile for a decent 1B prospect. Texas and Chicago seem like logical choices.
   4. All you Need is Glove Posted: December 28, 2001 at 07:33 PM (#552437)
You know, I hadn't thought of it that way...maybe the Phils should just trade Rolen for Rolen and agree to a long term deal with the one who is more receptive to abuse and cheesesteaks...
   5. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: December 31, 2001 at 04:34 PM (#552442)
New Yorkers are spoiled rotten . I'd be turning cartwheels in the street if the Pirates managed to trade Kevin Young or Pat Meares for Zeile.
   6. Toby Posted: January 02, 2002 at 10:07 PM (#552444)
From an abstract Pythagorean sense this is a bad move for the Angels, all other things being equal.

The Angels scored 691 runs (call it 690, it makes the math easier if you don't have a calculator handy) and allowed 730. That works out to a Pythag winning percentage of .4719.

Let's say Vaughn and Appier are each better than replacement by 30 runs (the exact number doesn't matter, let's just assume they're equal). Trading Vaughn's 30 extra runs scored for Appier's 30 extra runs prevented, the Angels drop their Pythag winning percentage to .4706, a loss of .0013. Had they instead done the reverse -- added 30 extra runs of offense and subtracted 30 extra runs of defense -- they would boost their Pythag to .4730, a gain of .0011.

These are modest numbers, of course, but they go to show that when you're below .500, it's better to improve your weakness.

Interestingly, though, if you crunch the numbers I think it works out that if you're above .500, it's better to improve your strength! I haven't crunched the numbers myself to confirm this, though.
   7. SM in DC Posted: February 01, 2002 at 03:19 PM (#553834)
As a Yankee fan, I always like Clay.. played hard, never complained, fit easily in most storage containers for long road trips.. its good to see him get a job. Although I think his worth to the Angels will be more as an outfielder than anything else -- he was moderately impressive in filling in at all three OF positions in his time in the Bronx
   8. There are no words... (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: February 01, 2002 at 03:38 PM (#553835)
Nice to see Donnie ("They traded Bubba Trammell for ME??????") Wall land on his feet. Of course, during his Met days, I would have rather seen him land on his pitching arm...
   9. Shredder Posted: February 01, 2002 at 05:24 PM (#553836)
As a die hard halo fan (allow a few minutes for either stunned disbelief or hysterical laughter) there really isn't much to say about this deal. Neither figures to be a difference maker by any stretch of the imagination. Very low risk. Can't really do anything but help. Middle relievers tend to be up and down, anyway, so Wall may have some value, and whatever that is, its certainly better than signing mark Petkovsek to a multi-million dollar deal.
   10. Greg Franklin Posted: February 01, 2002 at 08:38 PM (#553837)
[Clay] fit easily in most storage containers for long road trips..

I have a question: Was he stowed in the overhead bin, underneath the seat in front of Torre, or in the cargo hold?
   11. Eugene Freedman Posted: February 09, 2002 at 01:52 PM (#554178)
Percival's arm troubles were actually nerve troubles due to too much nicotine from chew and caffeine from coffee. I believe his doctor required that he cut out both and he regained feeling in his shoulder down to the finger tips soon thereafter, resulting in his regained quality last season.
   12. Shredder Posted: February 09, 2002 at 06:40 PM (#554180)
As an Angel fan since birth, and a UC Riverside Highlander since 1991, I gotta say I love this signing, although I do agree its a lot of money. If Joe Strong can find his way back on to a maor league lineup, that would give 2 major leaguers.

I agree that in a strictly numbers sense, its hard to justify paying a closer this amount of money. But I think you have to look deeper, and excuse me if emotion gets involved. We're dealing here with a team that doesn't exactly have a great history of responding to adversity. They have a roster that can make some noise this year. If they lost Percival and a as a result blew some late leads in the first couple of months, this is the type of team that would probably collapse like a house of cards. I understand the importance of Sabremetrics, but I don't think you can completely take all of the intangibles out of the formula. I know a lot of people don't like that because you can't reduce intangibles to a number, but as a fan, and as a fan of this particular team, I think this is a good deal.

Go Highlanders!
   13. Steve Treder Posted: February 09, 2002 at 08:11 PM (#554181)
"The enduring belief of Baseball Men to the contrary, there's just no way a guy who pitches 55 or 60 innings a year (even if they do own the 9th) is worth this much, when middle-of-the-lineup boppers or slightly-above-league-average starters who will win more games for you are routinely available for less."

Right! Right! Right!

Pitch Percival 100-120 innings, have him factor in 20 w/l decisions and pick up perhaps only 20-25 saves, then he's this valuable. Otherwise he's replacable at a lot less cost.
   14. Shredder Posted: February 09, 2002 at 09:18 PM (#554183)
Percival was indeed a good field/no hit catcher at Riverside, but I'm almos postitive that the Angels drafted him to be a pitcher. He still holds the UCR defensive records at the position.
   15. Bob T Posted: February 09, 2002 at 10:47 PM (#554184)
Percival's official bio on the Angels website says that the Angel scouts who signed him "encouraged" him to make a switch to pitcher.
   16. Christopher Posted: February 10, 2002 at 06:53 AM (#554185)
As an Angel fan I've got to side with Shredder on this. I recently saw numbers stating that only Montreal had less revenue per person in their market than the Angels. This is embarasing for a corporation as media savy as Disney. Plain and simple signing Percival is a good move to keep what fans there are coming back to the yard. Its also a good PR move in the sense that the newspaper columnists and local sports guys are infatuated with the concept of a closer. And if that puts Anaheim headline above the fold just a few times it'll be worth the investment.

Now of course the stathead in me thinks $8M is a lot for a closer. I thought about what Olperfesser says in his comment that this signing will hurt the Angels down the line, and I can't believe that is the way these corporate entities work. I think there's a fundamental difference between the way an individual runs a team and a corporation does.

I used to work for Disney and I can say without a doubt their philosphy is not one to cut corners for the sake of a small saving. If they can find an opportunity improve their product they will. They realize that every cent they spend will come back to them. Besides if every signing counts against some longterm budget why do salaries/payroll keep going up so rapidly?
   17. Christopher Posted: February 10, 2002 at 06:28 PM (#554187)
It was a tad itchy but I found the Mickey costume tends to ride on you a bit. Either way it was a pain in the ass to type for 8 hours a day with those freakin' gloves on.
   18. Steve Treder Posted: February 10, 2002 at 10:45 PM (#554189)
Right, Gadfly. Revenue sharing -- THAT'S the Angels' problem!
   19. Shredder Posted: February 11, 2002 at 05:42 PM (#554192)
Tim,

I did see on the home page that the current team lost to the alumni, so I'm not sure that's a good sign, since the alumni were all D2 and we have finally gone D1. Although Andy Owen, who lived down the hall from me freshman year, hit a three run jack. He was D2 player of the year in '95. I agree that from what I've read pitching might be a weak point. Smitheran always put good D2 teams together, so hopefully he can keep up the trend at the new level. Maybe we can be the next CSU Fullerton.

I would like to point out that the Angels can suck (and often do) and still draw right around 2 million. I agree that they should not be considered a small market. Small interest, maybe, but that place will be full if they ever reach another post-season. I've been to Dodgers world series games and playoff games, and Dodger Stadium was nothing like the Big A when they used to get 65,000+ in there. I'll never forget the crowd at game 4 in 1986. They just need to win and they'll sell tickets.
   20. Shredder Posted: February 11, 2002 at 05:58 PM (#554193)
Tim,

I did see on the home page that the current team lost to the alumni, so I'm not sure that's a good sign, since the alumni were all D2 and we have finally gone D1. Although Andy Owen, who lived down the hall from me freshman year, hit a three run jack. He was D2 player of the year in '95. I agree that from what I've read pitching might be a weak point. Smitheran always put good D2 teams together, so hopefully he can keep up the trend at the new level. Maybe we can be the next CSU Fullerton.

I would like to point out that the Angels can suck (and often do) and still draw right around 2 million. I agree that they should not be considered a small market. Small interest, maybe, but that place will be full if they ever reach another post-season. I've been to Dodgers world series games and playoff games, and Dodger Stadium was nothing like the Big A when they used to get 65,000+ in there. I'll never forget the crowd at game 4 in 1986. They just need to win and they'll sell tickets.
   21. Shredder Posted: February 11, 2002 at 05:59 PM (#554194)
Sorry about that appearing twice.
   22. Christopher Posted: February 11, 2002 at 06:03 PM (#554195)
Tim, regarding local players, I can't think of any team that has more local talent than the Angels. Of the regulars I count Kennedy, Glaus, Anderson, Salmon, Fullmer, Appier and Percival. Add a few bench players and a whole minor league system full of Orange County / San Diego kids. I'd doubt there's any team with more of a local bent. And I wonder if this is perhaps a problem. How many teams have a racial composition like the Angels? By my count this years roster will feature one African American (Anderson) and five latins (Molina, Fabregas, Gil, Palmeiro and Ortiz).

Now I'm not suggesting blatent organization wide racism here, but I think its possible that there is some bias somewhere along the scouting or front office.
   23. Shredder Posted: February 11, 2002 at 06:57 PM (#554197)
I don't know that its bias or stupidity (although it is the Angels, so it may well be both). A few years ago the Dodgers only had one African American player (Chad Fonville) and there was the same sort of talk then, but I certainly wouldn't accuse the Dodgers, of all organizations, of being racist. The Angels under Stoneman have started pumping a fair amount of money into Latin American scouting lately.

As for marketing, who can figure that out? The NHL was supposed to go big into marketing under Bettman, and they currently have their best African American players in Calgary and Edmonton.
   24. Walt Davis Posted: February 11, 2002 at 11:09 PM (#554198)
A couple years ago there was an article on the quality of the marketing by different baseball teams to the Latin market. My memory is that the Angels were held up as the worst example -- you couldn't even get a Spanish-speaking operator (or voice mail system) to buy tickets.

Does having local talent really matter? I've been a Cub fan for 30 years and I couldn't tell you if any of those guys (the American ones anyway) were from Chicago or not but I can tell you that I couldn't care less.
   25. Steve Treder Posted: February 11, 2002 at 11:45 PM (#554200)
Having locally-grown talent on your roster, other things being equal, can't be a bad thing for a team to do, although I doubt that it really makes a big difference. Reaching out and marketing to ethnic minorities is likely to make a much more significant and lasting impact. Having really good radio and TV broadcast networks and announcing teams is probably the single most impactful marketing approach any team can make.

Except for one, which far overshadows any other: put a contending team on the field. Nothing beats it for bringing those fans out to the ol' ball park.
   26. Christopher Posted: February 12, 2002 at 01:20 AM (#554201)
I think the "local kid" effect is probably a lot stronger in smaller communities. Cincinnati is probably the most well known for this with Rose, Larkin and Griffey. Also I remember Cliff Politte's old high school took the day off of school for his first major league start in St. Louis.

But I agree with Steve that the impact on ticket sales is negligible.
   27. Bob T Posted: February 12, 2002 at 04:23 AM (#554202)
There are so many Southern Californians in the majors that it has little or no effect on attendance in my opinion. The only time you might notice something is when a rookie from a non SoCal team makes his first trip in (Jack Wilson of Pittsburgh was a notable example), you might see a group of his family and friends sitting together.

I doubt that most people from Southern California know that Ozzie Smith grew up in L.A. Or that he had Eddie Murray as a teammate in high school.

The Dodgers never said, "Come out and see USC star Tom Seaver pitch tonight."

People in Southern California wouldn't know jack about history even if you hit CTRL-H on their keyboard while they were reading this.
   28. Shredder Posted: February 12, 2002 at 05:46 AM (#554203)
Come on now, Bob. That's simply a ridiculous statement. I don't know if its some pent up resentment or just jealousy, but to make such a general statement about such a large group of people is pretty stupid. I think people here would rather talk about baseball than make regionalistic attacks. There's no need for that.
   29. Bob T Posted: February 12, 2002 at 06:40 AM (#554205)
Hey, I was born and raised and still live in Southern California. I'm speaking from my personal experience with baseball fans out here. I love this area. I just wish that others felt the same way.

If you ask the average Dodger fan about who was a good player on the team in the 1960s, most will remember Koufax, some will come up Drysdale, but after that, memories will drop off. Have you ever read a good book on the history of the LOS ANGELES Dodgers. There is a cottage industry in publishing about the Brooklyn Dodgers, but the Roger Kahn of LA has yet to come forth.

Angel fans would be even harder pressed to remember players from the 1960s. Jim Fregosi's name may ring a bell and Bo Belinsky's might also, especially since he passed away recently. Dean Chance's Cy Young Award is mostly forgotten.

Southern California, even today, is still a place where most people don't have a deep attachment to the area. It shows up in local politics (which is rarely a big deal) and it shows up in sports. If you attend a Dodgers-Cubs or a Dodgers-Mets game, you would have a hard time discerning who the home team was. If you go to an Angels-Yankees or Angels-Bosox game, you would think that you are in a different time zone.

The Dodgers and Angels have never done a lot of marketing around the fact that they have players from Southern California. It's just not a draw. The Dodgers and Angels have to market their teams around superstars because that's what it takes to get the Southern California sporting crowd interested in a team.

It's a plan that has worked very well for the Lakers.
   30. Christopher Posted: February 12, 2002 at 07:32 AM (#554207)
Wow I never realized the Angels came only 3 years after the Dodgers.

I think the reasons for Dodger dominance in the media are many. First there's the success. 3 division titles versus 5 championships and 4 penants is tough to overcome. They also have a huge radio network with perhaps the greatest voice to ever say the words "Farmer John". Then there was Fernando Mania. And don't forget the value of a quotable manager. Also except Boston, has any other team had to suffer as much as the Angels. From heartbreaks in '86 and '95 to bus accidents, Mo's trip down the dugout steps and Lyman Bostock, its been tough to be an Angel fan.

And your also right about Angel players not being identifiable as Angels. Currently the retired numbers include Carew, Fregosi, Ryan, Gene Autry (!) and Jimmie Reese (!!!). Carew hit well but left his secondbasemen's glove in Minnesota. Fregosi's greatest value was in bringing Nolan Ryan west. And Ryan spent 8 of his 27 seasons with the Angels.
   31. Buddha Posted: February 12, 2002 at 04:09 PM (#554208)
I think I speak for the rest of America when I say, "Anaheim has a baseball team?"
   32. Shredder Posted: February 12, 2002 at 04:56 PM (#554209)
Point taken, Bob. As a SoCal living in Chicago, I'm a little sensitive to negative comments about Southern California. I agree that as far as baseball goes, overall there may be a poor sense of history. But if you talk to anyone with the guts to admit to being an Angel fan, I think you'd be surprised. I was six years old when they won the West in 1979, and that's really the earliest memory I have, but in most people's defense, there hasn't been a whole lot of history to speak of.

The fact of the matter is that a lot of SoCals either didn't grow up there, or are children of people that didn't grow up there. Everyone seems to have an out of town team that they root for. Due to the nature of the area, that may never change. There may never be the shared identity with the local teams that people have in other parts of the country (myself being one excpetion, as I would give a kidney to see the Angels win the world series). That type of identity is what brings people out to the ballpark after, how many is it now Buddha, eight straight losing seasons? The only way to build that identity in the Southland is to start winning, a lot.
   33. Shredder Posted: February 12, 2002 at 05:08 PM (#554210)
I would also add that having attended only a couple of games in Anaheim in the last couple of years (due to living out of the area), both games against Boston, throughout most of the game it has seemed like a home game for the Sox. I would submit, thought, that most of that has to do with the behavior of the fans in general. In every sport, Southern Californians are pretty quiet until Something happens, and many players have commented on that. There just isn't the energy that exists in an East Coast ballpark from the first pitch to the last, and the East Coast fans bring that energy with them. That being said, for both games, the stadium was MUCH louder when the Angels did something good than when the Red Sox did something good.

Tim, I agree with a lot of what you say. Marketing for the ANgels has been pretty unforgiveable, but I disagree about media coverage, at least in the Times. I think they do a pretty good job of covering both teams equally.
   34. Bob T Posted: February 12, 2002 at 05:57 PM (#554211)
Shredder,
   35. Buddha Posted: February 12, 2002 at 06:21 PM (#554212)
"Shredder": I'll take 8 straight losing seasons and one world series in my lifetime over 30 (is it 30 or 40, no one really knows...or cares) years of nothing. Being a Lions fan, I know all about rooting for a terrible organization that no one outside of a certain geographical area cares about.

And as for all this argument as to why people don't like the Angels, it is because 1) they NEVER WIN. The Dodgers have won consistently in the past and they were SoCal's first major league baseball team. If the Angels won 4 or 5 (or 1) world series they would be more "loved" by SoCal "fans" too. 2) Shredder is right, it's LA and you need to have "stars" to succeed in the land of fake breasts and even faker personalities. 3) It's LA and I don't think sports there mean as much as they do to those of us here in the heartland of America (it's a balmy 40 here today). So we live and die with our perennial losers like the Cubs and Red Sox because they are more of a part of the fabric of our communities than the Angels, Dodgers, Lakers and whomever is playing hockey there will ever be.
   36. Shredder Posted: February 12, 2002 at 06:30 PM (#554213)
Can't argue with those comments, Bob. All the Angel heroes like Fregosi, Grich, Joyner, Abbot, and my all time favorite Brian Downing, either finsished somewhere else, started somewhere else, or had rough times in between. I still blame Jackie for a lot of that.

I just took umbrage with the earlier comment because I did my minor in history seminar paper on the open shop movement in LA around the turn of the century.
   37. Bob T Posted: February 12, 2002 at 06:50 PM (#554214)
Umbrage should only be taken on a full stomach!

Shredder, at least there at two people here on this board, who have good knowledge of Southern California history.

But if you notice most of the other threads on Baseballprimer.com, the Dodgers and Angels are the most frequent targets of ridicule aside from Red Sox fans making fun of Duquette and Mets fans making fun of Phillips.

It's Bay Area provincialism I tell you!
   38. Bob T Posted: February 12, 2002 at 09:47 PM (#554217)
If booing denotes passion, then the Phillies must have the most passionate fans by far.
   39. Bob T Posted: February 12, 2002 at 10:31 PM (#554219)
The Civic Center thermometer is reading 78 at 12:47 pm

The heat index is the same.
   40. Buddha Posted: February 12, 2002 at 11:23 PM (#554220)
Gee, it sound like there is a lot of hot air coming from LA. What a surprise...
   41. Steve Treder Posted: February 14, 2002 at 12:46 AM (#554222)
I completely agree, Tim.

And speaking of really dumb moves: wasn't the Jim Edmonds-for-Kent Bottenfield trade one of the absolutely stupidest, most lopsided deals of all time? Way dumber than Frank Robinson-for-Milt Pappas, and nobody ever seems to comment on it.
   42. Bob T Posted: February 14, 2002 at 01:34 AM (#554224)
Back in the days when the Orange County edition of the LA Times was actually noticeably different than the LA edition, the Angels got better coverage. And the OC Register does have a pretty good penetration rate I think in Orange County and it covers the Angels well. (And has better writers).

But a lot of this still comes down to community interest and stability. Orange County is perceived by a lot of people as a large monolithic group of white Republicans, when in reality, it is a fairly diverse community and has significant Latino and Vietnamese populations. And Orange County has a lot of people who have moved there from other places, including Los Angeles County. Many of those people are more likely to retain their Dodger loyalty rather than transfer it to the Angels. When the Dodgers and Angels play in Anaheim, the crowd usually has a majority of Dodger fans. (A similar phenomenon occurs at Kings-Ducks hockey games.)

I don't know if Disney is afraid to stick with one plan out of incompetence or intense competition, but it's always hard to figure just where the Angels are headed. It will be harder now with the guy who thought of Disney's California Adventure, Paul Pressler supervising Bill Stoneman.
   43. Shredder Posted: February 14, 2002 at 05:39 AM (#554228)
No one can really argue with the results of the Edmonds deal, specifically that it was bad for the Angels. But in their defense, Edmonds isn't in a clubhouse full of guys that he basically screwed out of a season. He could have had his surgery at the end of the 1998 season, but he decided to wait until the beginning of 1999, costing his team the use of his servies in the balance. When you've got a clubhouse full of guys like Erstad, Salmon, and Vaughn, two of whom played virtually entire seasons on one foot, that kind of stuff doesn't go over too well.

Its pretty clear that they've had some problems, mostly due to bad decisions. The Dodgers came to LA with an ownership that was committed to the team. It was always the O'Malley's only real business. They built a great stadium early (despite pissing off all of the people that lived in Chavez Ravine) and got a strong foothold in the community early. They stuck with managers for long stretches. They brought guys who were stars with them when they moved, which allowed them to tap into the Brookly history.

The Angels got off to a decent start. The Cowboy loved that team as much, if not more than the O'Malleys loved the Dodgers. They had some colorful guys, some good players, but they went through the expansion growing pains. Then they threw it away. 1)They failed to keep Nolan Ryan. 2) Just when they're getting good, they turn a great baseball park into a cavernous football stadium. 3)They have a great season in '86, should have gone to the world series, start a rookie first baseman who not only replaced Rod Carew, but should have won rookie of the year and became a fan favorite. What happens next? When the poor guy is the hospital with a staph infection, he's criticized by the owner's wife (what does that stadium do to women who own sports teams?). 4) Jackie then runs fan favorite Brian Downing out of town. 5) Jackie then runs previously mentioned fan favorite Wally Joyner out of town. 6) Jackie then runs fan favorite Jim Abbot out of town. 7) Dinsey takes over, which isn't so much committed to winning as they are committed to making nice with the powers that be in Orange County (I struggle to reconcile my love for the Angels with my hatred of Disney every day). Their first move is to introduce a mascot and put cheerleaders on the dugouts. Mix in a share of bad luck (see Mo jumping into the dugout; DiSar walking into a fungo) and its not surprising that they lack an identity.

That being said, I like what they're doing with the farm system. They've finally started to rebuild a talent base. They've got a few likable young guys they can build around, and some good arms on the way. What can I say? I can't explain it, but they'll always be my favorite team.

Oh, and Tim, Ducks games are like that because the Ducks suck. Once all those kids with kazoos realized that, they stopped going. SoCal will always be Kings territory.
   44. Dan Szymborski Posted: February 15, 2002 at 03:29 AM (#554230)
DiSarcina being injured so that he can't play at all is bad luck?
   45. Bob T Posted: February 15, 2002 at 08:40 AM (#554231)
Well, after I dutifully copied out all the names from the announcer register in TB, I forgot to put my name in and my comment was lost.

Anyway, the Angels, including the Spanish language announcers and the two new TV guys, have had 36 different TV/Radio guys.

If you include the Spanish language announcers and a few oddballs from the time when the Dodgers had a pay-TV cable deal, I counted up 15 different announcers.
   46. Shredder Posted: February 15, 2002 at 03:42 PM (#554232)
The worst broadcasting decision they ever made was not bringing back Bob Rowe.

And I think it was really bad luck losing DiSar. For a defensive shortstop on an offensive team, he had some decent years, especially for a number nine hitter. All you have to do is look back to 1995. With DiSar: 13 games up. Without DiSar: out of the playoffs. Once again, this may be an emotional argument, but he was the glue that held that team together, and when he went down in 1995, they never recovered.
   47. Klobedanz Posted: February 15, 2002 at 05:55 PM (#554233)
Regarding Angels bad luck, didn't they also have some sort of near-death travelling experience when Buck Rogers was the manager?
   48. Bob T Posted: February 15, 2002 at 08:48 PM (#554234)
Yeah that Nolan Ryan guy was underappreciated when he pitched.

The LA Times buried his four no-hitters on the back pages. And his 383 strikeout season barely registered a blip on the radar.
   49. Shredder Posted: February 15, 2002 at 08:59 PM (#554235)
I think his point is that nobody thinks of Nolan Ryan as an Angel, except possibly long time Angel fans. Heck, I forget sometimes that he was an Angel. He was gone before I got old enough to remember and appreciate going to the Big A. To this day, in my mind he's an Astro.
   50. RJ in TO Posted: February 15, 2002 at 09:47 PM (#554236)
Shredder has got it richt with Nolan Ryan. Even though most of his (single season) records were set with Angels, I always remember him as either a Met (just because the Miracle Mets is such a big part of history) or a Ranger, because thats where I remember watching him pitch (and that no-hitter against the Jays really hammered the Rangers thing into my mind). Basically, there has never been a HOF player that I have identified with the Angels, even though a whole pile of HOF players have moved through the franchise at 1 point or another.
   51. jwb Posted: February 15, 2002 at 11:06 PM (#554238)
It saddens me that the Bobby Knoop era is lost in the fog of history.
   52. Bob T Posted: February 15, 2002 at 11:19 PM (#554239)
OK, I am a little bit older than Shredder it seems, but to me Anaheim is the place where Nolan Ryan became NOLAN RYAN.

And the Angels did win a divisional title with Ryan. And right after he left, the Angels had their worst season ever.
   53. Steve Treder Posted: February 16, 2002 at 12:14 AM (#554240)
"... to me Anaheim is the place where Nolan Ryan became NOLAN RYAN."

I agree. I always think of him as an Angel.

But then, to my mind, the Angels started going downhill when they traded Dean Chance for Don Mincher and Jimmie Hall.
   54. Repoz Posted: February 16, 2002 at 02:28 AM (#554241)
Steve....Angels also got RH Pete Cimino as part of that immoral deal and threw in light hitting (9 year career .520 OPS)SS Jackie Hernandez as Twinkie fodder.
   55. Mike Emeigh Posted: February 16, 2002 at 03:22 AM (#554242)
Hey - Jackie Hernandez won the Pirates a World Series in 1971, with a little help from guys named Clemente, Blass, et. al...

1971 is the first Pittsburgh WS title I remember (I was a little too young in 1960). Gene Alley was hurt, and Hernandez was considered (with good reason) to be a huge question mark, but when he got through the series without any major screwups and a couple of nice players he was praised out the wazoo, and out of all proportion to what he really contributed.

-- MWE
   56. Steve Treder Posted: February 16, 2002 at 05:47 AM (#554243)
Jackie Hernandez had a really strange career.

First of all, he was a catcher converted to shortstop -- the only other one I'm aware of in history was Ray Boone. And Boone played shortstop like a catcher -- too big, clearly out of position, not successful until they finally figured it out and moved him to third base.

But Hernandez was your classic skinny no-hit shortstop. Why the hell he had ever been a catcher is anybody's guess. The problem is he played shortstop defensively about the way you'd expect a catcher to play shortstop: not well. Anyway, the Twins pick him up as a throw-in from the Angels. But then Zoilo Versalles decides he's never going to get a base hit again, and the Twins are forced to get rid of him. So with nothing else to do, the Twins give Hernandez a shot at shortstop in 1968.

Hernandez fails miserably, as the Twins spend most of the year trying to find someone -- anyone -- other than Hernandez who can play shortstop.

This earns Hernandez an expansion draft chance with the Royals in '69. The Royals decide, for no apparent reason, to play Hernandez every day, and he keeps to his previously established policy of not hitting at all. Finally in mid-1970, the Royals eventually decide that Hernandez isn't really first-string shortstop material.

But the Pirates are then persuaded to take Hernandez as part of the deal in which they send Freddie Patek to KC. He's expected to be just a utility man in Pittsburgh, but because of the chronic injuries to Gene Alley, Hernandez ends up playing a great deal of the time in '71, especially down the stretch and in the post-season. He proves to be really, really bad, but the Pirates win it all anyway.

This gives Hernandez a roster spot on the Lumber Company for two or three more years, in which he never provides any reason to justify his inclusion.

Hernandez played about five times as many major league games as he deserved.
   57. Bob T Posted: February 17, 2002 at 01:26 AM (#554245)
Buddy Blattner, Bob Kelley, Al Wisk, Al Conin, Brian Barnhart, Ken Wilson, Ken Brett, Don Wells, Joe Torre, Reggie Jackson, Joe Garagiola, Jerry Ruess, Sparky Anderson, Steve Physioc, Rex Hudler, Geoff Witcher, Ron Fairly, Don Drysdale, Bob Jamison, Steve Bailey ...
   58. Repoz Posted: February 17, 2002 at 03:46 AM (#554246)
Bob T...Are those the pitchers invited to this years Texas Rangers Spring Training camp?
   59. Shredder Posted: February 18, 2002 at 03:17 AM (#554247)
I got the name wrong. Bob Rowe did the post game show. In a previous post I meant to say they should never have let Al Conin go. He had a great call of Schofield's grand slam against the Tigers in '86 that more or less sent them to the Division title. They day they failed ot renew his contract Jim Healy kept playing that call back to back with a similar call by Enberg when he was in Anaheim and they were practically identical. I would mind having a guy in the booth now that modeled himself after the former Central Michigan Chippewa.
   60. Voros McCracken Posted: February 18, 2002 at 04:51 AM (#554248)
Tim De Walt,

Could you do me a favor and send me an e-mail. I wanted to ask you something that really isn't on topic for the site. Thanks.
   61. Bob T Posted: February 18, 2002 at 08:25 AM (#554249)
The Angels worst decision regarding broadcasters was getting rid of Al Wisk IMO.

Shredder, you may the only member of the Al Conin Fan Club.
   62. Voros McCracken Posted: May 02, 2002 at 07:09 PM (#556243)
What's even better about DaVanon is that unlike other Phelpsers, he has some speed and is by reputation a pretty decent outfielder able to play Centerfield at least adequately.

DaVanon deserves a shot to play.

How many at bats did he get this year. I know he went 2 for 2 with a three run homer in the 21-2 game two days ago.
   63. Christopher Posted: May 02, 2002 at 07:46 PM (#556244)
At the time of the aborted Erstad deal I was hoping it would mean some good playing time for DaVanon. I know its only winterball stats but his line last year was 327/514/615. He's a very good defender and has good speed. I guess a couple things hurt him this year. First he missed most of Spring Training with a hamstring or calf injury. Then Orlando Palmerio got hot when stepping in for Salmon and Erstad. Finally DaVanon failed at least twice this year in late inning bunt attempts. All that limited him to only 30 ABs this year. I think given the chance he could be an average centerfielder. What the Angels really need from that roster spot is a lefty masher who can platoon with Fullmer, and I don't think that's what Ramirez brings.
   64. Michael Posted: May 03, 2002 at 12:21 PM (#556250)
DaVanon had 32 AB+BB in 27 games. Maybe the Angels figured they'd let him play regularly in AAA for 10 days so if they really need him he's ready to contribute. Ramirez was a minor league free agent -- hard to think that the Angels really think that Ramirez is better than DaVanon.
   65. Shredder Posted: July 01, 2002 at 02:00 AM (#557366)
I'm a little disappointed, in that I thought Schoeneweis was really going to break out this year. At the same time, I'm excited to see Lackey get a shot. It seems that over the last year or so, the other pitching prospects have had a lot more ink, and Lackey has quietly gotten the job done. Hopefully he'll make the staff that much stronger.
   66. Christopher Posted: July 12, 2002 at 06:05 PM (#557642)
Spiezio's actually just about a league average 1B. Not so much an endorsement for Spiezio as there have been some truly awful performances by firstbasemen across the league. The following all have more than 200 PA's and have a lower EQA: Jeff Conine, Tino Martinez, Mo Vaughn, Mark Grace, Randall Simon, Sean Casey, Travis Lee, Nick Johnson, Jose Offerman, Julio Franco, J.T. Snow, Kevin Young, Lee Stevens and Tony Clark.

I'd love to see another bat come to Anaheim and I don't think it has to be at first. Fullmer hasn't played much at there so far but the times he has played he's actually looked pretty good out there.
   67. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: July 12, 2002 at 09:09 PM (#557644)
Agreed, Wooten's a lot of fun, though he's in danger of getting the same raw deal as guys like Matt LeCroy and Craig Wilson. Why can't teams handle the idea of a power-hitting catcher?
   68. Mike Piazza Posted: July 13, 2002 at 09:01 PM (#557645)
I think some teams are just hesitant to play people who enjoy both giving it and receiving it.
   69. Bob T Posted: July 14, 2002 at 10:34 PM (#557742)
I wouldn't count on Mulholland making it to the end of the year either. However, he's not hurt, just washed up.
   70. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: August 01, 2002 at 12:12 AM (#558216)
Chad Hermansen to the Cubs for Darren F-ing Lewis. Between that, the failure to deal any more of the bullpen guys, and the callup of Brian Meadows, I'm losing faith in Littlefield in a hurry.
   71. Robert Posted: August 05, 2002 at 09:49 PM (#558314)
Bill Stoneman is the wrong guy to blame for this. He had a trade of Erstad to Chicago all worked out and Disney killed it.
   72. Chris Reed Posted: August 06, 2002 at 03:53 AM (#558320)
Doy ou remember the deal he had worked out with Erstad??? Chris Singleton!?!?!?

Who was the other player? Jon "Everyone thinks the Cubs were ripped off when they traded me but I still suck" Garland?
   73. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: September 20, 2002 at 06:35 PM (#558848)
Any chance of Fasano getting a spot on the postseason roster? From where I'm sitting, it looks like his skills line up nicely with the gaps in Molina (B)'s game.
   74. Bob T Posted: September 20, 2002 at 07:07 PM (#558849)
The LA Times is reporting that the Angels are thinking of adding Rodriguez to the postseason roster however.

The Angels pen is pretty good with Percival, Weber, Donnelly, Schoeneweis, and Shields, but one extra arm might help out. Especially if that arm isn't Cook or Sele.
   75. Chris Reed Posted: September 22, 2002 at 04:49 PM (#558850)
I, too, will NEVER forgive Enrique Wilson. Hell, I had him rated beind A-ROD as a future great shortstop. B*stard.
   76. Shredder Posted: September 23, 2002 at 06:06 PM (#558852)
Frankie can flat out deal. His slider is pretty nasty, and he looked pretty awesome in his few outings. I think they'll probably use him like they used Percival when he was preparing to take over the closer role from Lee Smith. It wouldn't surprise me to see him set up next year, and the beginning of 2004, after which Percy's contract is up. They deal him mid-season and move Frankie into the closer role.

To this point, he has faced nine batters, given up one hit, retired 8, and struck out 7. That's pretty good.
   77. Shredder Posted: September 24, 2002 at 03:05 PM (#558854)
I wouldn't be surprised to hear anything up to 24, which in my opinion, really isn't a problem. If he's throwing this well, it doesn't matter how old he is. It's not like its going to come out that he's 37. Anyway, I thought they were checking all the records on these guys. Were they only doing that for 40 man roster guys?
   78. Shredder Posted: November 14, 2002 at 10:58 PM (#558336)
C'mon Dan, where's the DiSarcina crack. You're slipping.
   79. Bill Posted: January 07, 2003 at 02:48 AM (#562427)
Fullmer is a first baseman? Where have I been?
   80. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 07, 2003 at 04:05 AM (#562431)
OK, a platoon "1B."

Edgar Martinez is a DH. Everyone else is a 1B or OF!
   81. Walt Davis Posted: January 07, 2003 at 06:11 AM (#562434)
Tim D, I agree. At the same money (or even a bit more) I think Fullmer's the much better bet.
   82. Shredder Posted: January 07, 2003 at 06:50 AM (#562435)
Tim, I only assumed they'd go after Fick because I thought he would be cheaper than Fullmer. I don't think Fullmer is that much better at the plate than Fick, but for equal money, I'd take Fullmer over Fick. Obviously, at this price, I think he's a steal for the Angels. So Owens replaces Palmiero, Quinlan replaces Ochoa, and Fullmer replaces....Fullmer.
   83. Shredder Posted: January 07, 2003 at 04:17 PM (#562440)
Walt wrote (on the Clutch hits thread): "Are we sure there's not a million in easy incentives hidden in there somewhere?"

According to today's Times, the Braves offered Fick $1M plus $350K in incentives. The Angels didn't offer Fick or Fullmer that level of incentives. They also report that the Angels offered the same deal to those two and David Justice. And, according to Fick, the Braves offered the starting job at first base, which the Angels obviously weren't prepared to do. Here's the article (reg. req'd).
   84. Brian Posted: January 07, 2003 at 06:02 PM (#562443)
Kent,
   85. Bill Posted: January 07, 2003 at 06:09 PM (#562445)
The Braves needed someone who can play in the field, and Fick potentially gives them a band-aid at any one of their three weak positions. The Angels could afford the luxury of a guy you don't want to put in the field. So I think the right players landed with the right teams regardless of the nuances of their salaries.
   86. Walt Davis Posted: January 08, 2003 at 12:25 AM (#562448)
I've always hated the arbitration process, where even when the team wins, it loses, and salaries spiral upwards.

This is a misunderstanding of the arbitration process. In arbitration a player is compared to similar players with similar years of experience (i.e. other guys who have not been eligible for free agency) and the salary is set according to these market rates.

At its best, arbitration leads to players being paid what they're worth. In practice, arbitration leads to players being paid somewhat less than what they're worth (on average). Prior to arbitration, teams are reaping a HUGE BENEFIT. Arbitration only serves to balance the scales to the point where a player is almost being paid at the market rate.

Arbitration was a concession BY THE PLAYERS. The players had won the right to free agency. They conceded to give teams exclusive rights to a player for 6 years, but insisted some sort of system be put in place so a player only got royally ripped off for 3 of them.

People look at arbitration, see a guy who made $250,000 getting a raise to $2.5 M and thinking "that's outrageous." And yes, it is outrageous that for the first three years, this player was paid about 10% of what the market deems a player with his ability to be worth. Arbitration is only "unfair" if you think teams have some inalienable right to the first 6 years of a players' career AND to pay him as little as they want.

If recent events keep up, I predict this will be the battle ground of the next CBA and it will be bloody. Brad Fullmer just got hit with a 75% reduction in pay. Teams have finally figured out that they should only offer arbitration to those players who are likely to come out of the process underpaid. From the owners perspective, arbitration used to be basically a win-tie situation; now it's win-win. And it will get better for them in a few years as the players who signed bigger contracts earlier move out of the comparison pool.

Note, all of this was possible before the recent CBA, so it's not due to that. If the Union has a justified collusion claim, it may be here -- that suddenly all these teams started non-tendering all these quality players -- especially if most of them end up signing with their old teams at bargain rates (suggesting other teams didn't bother to even make an offer).
   87. Jimbo Jones Posted: January 08, 2003 at 07:41 PM (#562453)
Tim D, I don't understand why. Certainly, salaries for mediocre to pretty good players with 6+ years would probably be lower, but why would overall salaries (including players in their first six years of service) be lower? It's not like supply and demand would go out the window, they would just more efficiently allocate money to better players, regardless of their age. Am I missing something here?
   88. Mark S. is bored Posted: April 24, 2003 at 03:15 PM (#565775)
The bereavement list seems like a great idea. Put one player on the bereavement list and you can replace him with two players.
   89. Bob T Posted: April 24, 2003 at 03:59 PM (#565776)
Rich Rodriguez is replacing OF Julio Ramirez who was sent to Salt Lake City.
   90. True Blue n/k/a "DeJesusFreak" Posted: April 24, 2003 at 04:00 PM (#565777)
IIRC, the bereavement list was something established in the latest CBA, to recognize that people will need a few days off without putting teams into a bind.
   91. Bob T Posted: April 24, 2003 at 05:04 PM (#565779)
Neither did the Angels at first:

From today's San Gabriel Valley Tribune:

Angels General Manager Bill Stoneman said Major League Baseball adopted a bereavement clause this winter that enables teams to recall players for a minimum of three days and a maximum of 10 days without having to put the grieving player on the disabled list. After 10 days, the team must send a player to the minor leagues, but it doesn't necessarily have to be the player recalled under the clause.

The San Francisco Giants became the first team to utilize the clause earlier Wednesday after pitcher Jason Schmidt left the team following the death of his mother. A few hours later, the Angles were the second, recalling Turnbow, who spent the 2000 season with the Angels as a Rule 5 draft pick before before suffering a fractured right forearm that required three surgeries. He had three saves and 19 strikeouts in 14 innings at Arkansas and is considered by some the hardest thrower in the organization.

"It's a brand new rule,' Stoneman said. "We were scrambling to find details on it, and we haven't even gotten the new pages of the rulebook that cover it. But we made a phone call to the commissioner's office and found out it was available.'
   92. Russ Posted: April 24, 2003 at 09:49 PM (#565782)
Sorry Bereavement List, but you're missing the point of your existance. For guys who aren't coming back soon, we can use the regular ole disabled list (as it was used in the past). The nice thing about the BL is that players can take a couple of days to a week to gather themselves and get back to work if they want (without taking the full two weeks). If they need longer, they can just move over to the regular DL where they can stay for a longer amount of time.

My guess that MLB created the BL because you can't really predict when someone will be able to come back from a death in the family. I think it's a *really* good idea.
   93. True Blue n/k/a "DeJesusFreak" Posted: April 25, 2003 at 03:47 PM (#565788)
I believe Orin is correct -- at least a significant reason for the Bereavement List is not just because of the shorter duration, but because the players aren't "injured" so they can be put on the DL (although hijinks do occur). I also recall Bernie Williams being cited as an example and reason behind it.
   94. Cris E Posted: April 25, 2003 at 04:16 PM (#565789)
The nice thing about the BL is that players can take a couple of days to a week to gather themselves and get back to work if they want (without taking the full two weeks). If they need longer, they can just move over to the regular DL where they can stay for a longer amount of time...My guess that MLB created the BL because you can't really predict when someone will be able to come back from a death in the family. I think it's a *really* good idea.

This is the sort of thing that MLB and/or the union should be talking up in the offseason: they did something good for the players by showing compassion and understanding in difficult times, etc etc. But even the teams didn't even hear about it. You'd think someone in the office (tiny bud's or the union's) would have whipped up a quick press release making everyone look good. As it is, the only news you hear is about drugs, labor problems and financial distress. How hard can it be to shovel some sunshine out there once a month?
   95. Shredder Posted: April 25, 2003 at 07:34 PM (#565790)
Re: the transaction itself, Turnbow has been lighting up Arkansas. I think at the time of the call up he had thrown 14 innings, had given up no run, 4 hits, and had struck out 19. I can't remember his walk total OTOH, but it was pretty good. He was a rule five pick a couple of years ago, then had big time arm problems last year, I think. Another free pickup that could look good in that bullpen when Webber or Donnelley get too expensive.
   96. Bob T Posted: April 30, 2003 at 08:44 PM (#565794)
My contract with my employer has a specified list of relatives for whom I can take bereavement leave. It's 3 days (although they don't have to be 3 straight days) or 5 days if you have to travel more than 2500 miles.

When my father passed away last year, I turned in a copy of his obituary.
   97. Vance W Posted: April 30, 2003 at 10:42 PM (#565795)
Bob T--you need a new job.
   98. Bob T Posted: May 01, 2003 at 12:08 AM (#565796)
Nah, it pays really well and lets me play around on BP on company time.
   99. Bob T Posted: May 01, 2003 at 05:42 PM (#565798)
Mom's dead, dad's dead, last grandparent died two years ago.

Have pity on me, I'm a poor orphan!
   100. Bob T Posted: May 06, 2003 at 12:35 AM (#565800)
Just trying to use the same technique that Larry David used in an episode of "Curb Your Enthusiasm."
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
BFFB
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.8044 seconds
47 querie(s) executed