The Angels' Puzzling Off-Season
by Nico on Jan 13, 2009 4:41 PM PST
149 comments
I'm not quite sure what to make of the Angels' off-season - not that there is much to make of it, other than "a lot of doing nothing." Letting K-Rod go was decided, I believe, a long time ago as LAA used and over-used their closer freely as needed knowing he would be pitching elsewhere after 2009 anyway.
Keeping Teixeira was most certainly a goal, but the Angels had to know they may or may not be able to keep a Boras client who was sure to be coveted by other high payroll teams and who even had a known preference for the East Coast. So what was LAA's plan if they couldn't re-sign Teixeira but still hoped to be the class of the AL West in 2009?
Perhaps the economy has impacted the Angels more than it has impacted an average major league team, or perhaps they made a judgment call that they had won the 2008 division so handily, they could rest on their laurels and still take the division in 2009. Or...What?
I'm just surprised that a team so lacking in offense has shown no apparent interest in hitter after hitter, as Burrell and Giambi have found new homes, Dunn and Manny appear to be off the Angels' radar, and few options remain to supplement a lineup whose second most potent hitter may be a 33 year old Torii Hunter. For that matter, why did the Angels have no interest in Rafael Furcal, whose first choice was to stay in Southern California? Because Erick Aybar is just that great?
What is the Angels' plan and why is it - at least as of January 13th - so passive? Not that I'm complaining.
0 recs |
149 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
The Angels did sign Scoscia
that counts for something, right?
"I'm on hold for now"- Bobby Crosby
by DyeLongJustice on Jan 13, 2009 4:50 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I hear that
Amy Winehouse will be a free agent soon.
by somebodyelse on Jan 13, 2009 5:37 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
another couple of big free agents available in a week
a man has to have something to help the petite vanilla bean scones go down @('.')@
by monkeyball on Jan 13, 2009 5:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
A couple of comments
Dunn, Burrell, Manny, and Giambi don’t really seem to be the types of players the Angels pursue. They seem to value defense highly, even if they might not know how to evaluate it.
As for Furcal, they do have Brandon Wood knocking on the door. Although, they seem to have a problem with just giving him the job. 2008 would have been the perfect year to anoint him the SS since they really didn’t have much competition in the division and would have been fine if he struggled.
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized God doesn’t work that way, so I stole one and prayed for forgiveness. - Emo Philips
Neglectful father of David Quinowski
by marcello on Jan 13, 2009 5:44 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I think you hit the nail on the head with your first point
The Angels also have a manager who probably has more authority than Geren does, and they’d think long and hard before bringing in a player who wouldn’t gel in their clubhouse or who would give Scoscia headaches – Dunn’s perceived defensive apathy and work ethic question marks, Manny, Burrell’s partying, etc.
I am surprised that they’d allow Giambi to sign with the A’s as cheaply as he did. He’s a Southern Californian and I’m sure he would’ve at least entertained the idea.
Batting 4th for the 2014 San Jose A's: 26-year-old RF Justin Upton, in the 1st season of a nine year, $250M deal.
by notsellingjeans on Jan 13, 2009 5:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's a good point about Wood and 2008
By the end of July, it was clear they could win the division with anyone at SS and arguably should have given Wood 60 games there to assess his ability to handle the job.
I kind of agree about defense, though Rivera was put out there (and Vlad, but it’s kind of obvious why), and Figgins has been played a lot at positions where he does not excel. The absence of a good hitter who can also play league-average defense is striking with this FA crop. The Angels may have put all their eggs in one basket – Teixeira – and been burned.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 13, 2009 5:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
After Teixeira
Milton Bradley was the best all-around (offense+defense) player available, but obviously many teams were scared off by his health and temper issues.
Even if Teixeira was plan A (and even if Bradley was not someone they wanted), he signed early enough, and in fact the Angels announced they were out of the running even earlier, that they could have gone after a plan B if they had any real interest in doing so.
My guess is something in between your first two poll options: the Angels are pulling back a little bit on payroll, and while they were still willing to shell out free agent money for a player they liked, they felt like they had a big enough edge in the division going into the off-season that they aren’t going to overbid for anyone this time around.
Thanks for tomorrow 'cause I've had enough
by andeux on Jan 13, 2009 6:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
so, what does their putative calculus look like?
PT, among others, has crunched the numbers showing that the Slegna enjoy only a modest and tenuous projected advantage over the A’s this year. And all indications are that Beane may not be done.
a man has to have something to help the petite vanilla bean scones go down @('.')@
by monkeyball on Jan 13, 2009 6:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
As time goes by, I'm leaning more and more towards PT's projections
because I think I overestimated the Angels’ offensive potential and now see it as very, very iffy. Their rotation is still excellent and will keep them in contention/the driver’s seat all season – in other words, at worst they will still not plummet to third place and 13 games out – but given the likely regression of Saunders and possibly Santana, it has the potential to be “very good” but not “great.”
I think all the A’s have to do to be “favorites” is to add a solid middle of the rotation arm. Even Sheets (22 starts) combined with Gio or Outman (10 starts) could combine to make the starter the A’s need.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 13, 2009 6:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Play it, Sam
a man has to have something to help the petite vanilla bean scones go down @('.')@
by monkeyball on Jan 13, 2009 6:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh I can't remember it, monkeyball. I'm a little rusty on it.
Save Rajai Davis
by oakinboston on Jan 13, 2009 8:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You must remember this . . .
"You have to score to win"~Rickey Henderson
by lynnzgal on Jan 13, 2009 8:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Love it Nico!
Bring Sheets to Oaktown Billy! And bring Mulder home while you’re at it!
by mrod on Jan 13, 2009 7:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
2009 Angels are similar to the A's teams of yesteryore
in that they have good/great pitching, a bullpen, and an iffy, but not league worst, offense
"I'm on hold for now"- Bobby Crosby
by DyeLongJustice on Jan 13, 2009 7:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
excellent pitching?
isn’t the consensus on here that their pitching was pretty lucky, rather than good, in 2008?
by jlanning17 on Jan 14, 2009 11:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
they were a bit lucky last year
but they’re still good. The luck just made them look better.
"It's like déjà vu all over again." -yogi berra
by Cheezombie on Jan 14, 2009 1:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Their pitching was quite good and slightly lucky
Their hitting was quite poor but insanely lucky.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jan 14, 2009 1:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
really? which hitters?
"It's like déjà vu all over again." -yogi berra
by Cheezombie on Jan 14, 2009 6:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The whole bloody team
They essentially did all their hitting when they were tied or behind in games. The team’s OPS in high leverage situations was something like 150 points better than in low leverage situations.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jan 15, 2009 9:03 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's funny, because
about once a year I suggest the possibility that the Angels really do have proprietary metrics that help them identify players who can beat the conventional metrics, and every time I get people like you or Monkeyball saying, “I don’t buy it. It’s just luck, and it’s not repeatable”.
How often do they have to be “insanely lucky” before you wonder if they know something you don’t?
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
by iglew on Jan 15, 2009 4:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
OK, so assuming you're right, perhaps they were only lucky by 15 games instead of 16
Whoop-de-frigging-doo.
And the answer to your question, considering how much evidence there is for run differential controlling teams’ records, is probably something like “20 years in a row.”
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jan 15, 2009 9:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If we're talking only about run differential here,
how did you determine that their pitching was only slightly lucky while their hitting was insanely lucky? (Serious, non-rhetorical question.)
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
by iglew on Jan 15, 2009 11:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, I retract my earlier statement
Their pitching was luckier than their hitting. I confess to not actually looking their third-order stats up at BPro before making that statement and just going off of memory.
You can’t use Pythag to tell whether a team is lucky on one side of the ball, but you can use Equivalent Runs – Runs to do so.
You could get me to believe, I suppose, that the 15 extra runs they scored over their equivalent runs is somehow the product of “manufacturing.” It’s at least within the bounds of reason, though still highly speculative. (I can’t see any way that that could work in reverse. They don’t have a “unique pitching style,” at least not any that I’m aware of.) In which case, their third-order record is 85.5 wins instead of 84 wins. Like I said, whoop-de-doo.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jan 18, 2009 10:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Pythag does not work with every team
Teams like the Angels that are based off of scoring 3 or 4 runs and shutting the opponent down arent gonna have killer run differentials. The Angels strength has traditionally been in the bullpen. They in essence give the opponent 6 or 7 innings to score 4 runs, because theyre not gonna get any more. They won something like 162 straight games after leading at the end of the 7th inning. They give themselves 9 innings to score more runs than their opponent in 7 innings, which could mean that the Angels offense is 22% worse than league average and theyd still be about a .500 team. Couple that with a strong rotation, and the Angels have a good shot at winning every single night, even if the offense doesnt show up.
Lets go angels
by anaheim angels on Jan 17, 2009 12:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I totally agree
The Angels throw away a bunch of 12-3 losses that hurt their pythag, but don’t hurt their W/L record that much. Their style of play/roster suggests to me that you should take their pythag and tack on a couple wins if you want to make a best guess. Next year, though, this might not be the case if their offense is bad enough – it may be that the other team has 9 innings to push across enough runs to call it a night.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 17, 2009 3:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
i think the bullpen is just as strong
especially with the addition of Jepsen, and the possible emergnece of one of Loux/Bulger. Arredondo is better, Shields is about the same and Fuentes is approx Krod
Lets go angels
by anaheim angels on Jan 17, 2009 11:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm with PT on the issues of scale
The effect, if true, is probably marginal y-y, and would require a massive data set to prove.
The Angels certainly do have a definable “style” of player and in-game strategy; and it may have a marginally positive effect on their “luck”; but that positive effect I would guess is outweighed by the overall negative effect that their approach has on their runs scored—that is, they basically run themselves out of blowout wins and into tight games—which they then win.
And while they do have a clear preference for such players, I’ll eat sal’s pants if they actually have any proprietary metrics—they likely look at consistent AVG and raw# of steals, and then maybe some batted-ball stats. That’s all you need to identify those players.
my internet search says i have nothing to worry about unless i have problems breathing, or bleed when i use the toilet @('.')@
by monkeyball on Jan 16, 2009 9:36 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What Angus alluded to, so many years ago,
was analysis of getting from 1st to 3rd on a single.
Does the general community have good numbers on that now? I’d be curious to see how they stack up.
My impression was that the Angels’ analysis wasn’t so much about identifying players as identifying situational tactics that have better success rates than others.
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
by iglew on Jan 17, 2009 4:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I haven't done any number crunching myself
It’s pretty clear that since we’ve added Giambi and Holliday, and have reason to expect at least some improvement by Barton and Buck, while the Angels have lost Teixeira, the gap on offense has closed, and the A’s could even be the superior team in that department.
But at the same time I think they’ve taken a substantial lead in pitching: even with the expected regression their rotation rates to be pretty solid 1-5, while after Duchscherer we’ve got a whole bunch of “could be pretty goods” and “mehs.”
Overall, I think the A’s will be more competitive than in 2007-2008, but a bunch of things will still have to break right (or not break) to catch LAnaheim.
Thanks for tomorrow 'cause I've had enough
by andeux on Jan 13, 2009 6:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
About the offense, I actually think the A's offense
looks to be a clear cut above the Angels’ offense – partly because the Angels’ offense now reminds me a bit of the A’s 2007-08 offense and partly because adding Holliday, Giambi, and Chavez to any lineup will improve it a LOT.
As far as the rotations go, I agree the Angels have a clear edge but what the A’s have going for them with their “could be pretty goods” is that not only is there a fair amount of talent, but there is also quantity – the odds of finding four good starters out of four unproven-but-talented pitchers is very low, but the odds of finding four good starters out of 7-9 unproven-but-talented pitchers is a lot higher.
Strangely, if I had to put money on an AL West team right now, it would be on Oakland. Until Chavy and Duke break.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 13, 2009 7:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Duke
I would consider even Duchscherer a “could be pretty good”. Big question mark consider he had a career year and is a major injury risk.
by dbeach13 on Jan 13, 2009 7:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He had a career year...
Because it was his first year as a starter. He is an injury risk, but I don’t think you can question his effectiveness.
Bob Geren and Ken Macha both enjoy jai lai.
by CarGon's Jock on Jan 14, 2009 10:20 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't disagree with any of that
Though I’d subscribe to dbeach13’s and Nico’s caveat regarding Duke.
a man has to have something to help the petite vanilla bean scones go down @('.')@
by monkeyball on Jan 13, 2009 7:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
duke
his current projections (bill james, chone, marcel) depress me.
Between 90 and 140 IP, with an ERA between 3.12 and 3.96.
by dbeach13 on Jan 13, 2009 7:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think that in 2009, over a year since his original surgery, he will be ok. The surgery this offseason was just cleanup
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
by Eastbayjim on Jan 13, 2009 7:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You overlooked a more important system called NICO
(Nee-jerk Intuitive Calculation Ouiji), which has 2009 Duke at:
24 starts, 154 IP, 3.43 ERA.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 13, 2009 7:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
you came from Jumanji?
that explains EVERYTHING!
"I'm on hold for now"- Bobby Crosby
by DyeLongJustice on Jan 13, 2009 7:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'll go farther than that:
35 starts -200 innings pitched -22 games won
2.75 ERA. -Cy Young candidate -Repeat All Star
by mrod on Jan 13, 2009 7:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Shoot, if you're gonna go a bear, go a griz...
35 starts—300 innings pitched, 28-2, 1.98 ERA, MVP AND Cy Young. Voted Booker of Bookers…er, Pitcher of the Decade.
I see a deranged rabbit, on fire, cowering away from a vagina. I await the results of the Rorschaschererer. -Nico
by Leopold Bloom on Jan 13, 2009 7:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Very nice mate!
very nice indeed. I think and pray that Duke stays healthy he is definitely going to be one of the top starters in the AL this year. And if he does show he can stay healthy this year then I think it’s a no brainer for Billy to sign him to a nice 3 year extension.
by mrod on Jan 13, 2009 7:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I hope Billy would, but fear he won't
just because so many good young arms are coming up who will be cheap and might be successful that I’m not sure he’ll want to pay “real money” to an injury-prone guy in his 30s. Though I hope he does.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 13, 2009 7:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Edited
162 Starts 1458 IP, 162-0, 0.00 ERA, hailed as a baseball god.
Say something funny.
by muffinpryde on Jan 13, 2009 7:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
meh
been there, done that.
"I'm on hold for now"- Bobby Crosby
by DyeLongJustice on Jan 13, 2009 7:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Delightful!
and the perfect baseball nickname.
“Duke…..guns a’blazing!”
by mrod on Jan 13, 2009 7:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No way.
162 Starts, 1458 1,377 IP, 162-0, 0.00 ERA, hailed as a baseball god.
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
by iglew on Jan 13, 2009 10:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And the remaining 81 innings
— spread evenly, two outs per away game, one out for home duels — will be used to have three guys with 54 saves each, trading them after the season for a shortstop, an extra pair of obliques and a brand new goat for Nico.
by elcroata on Jan 13, 2009 11:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Wait, I just realized I'm thinking that backwards....
It’s the opposing teams that will pitch one less inning when we’re home.
Disregard my previous post: Muffinpryde had it right the first time.
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
by iglew on Jan 14, 2009 12:27 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
how many perfect games?
and will he be the first to K all 27 batters?
"It's like déjà vu all over again." -yogi berra
by Cheezombie on Jan 14, 2009 1:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He'll be the second,
following…himself a week earlier.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 14, 2009 5:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
and then he'll K 30 as it will go into the 10th inning a week later
"It's like déjà vu all over again." -yogi berra
by Cheezombie on Jan 14, 2009 6:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Also
Every award in baseball will be renamed after him. A new one, the “Justin Ducksher” award, will also be given out to the worst broadcaster of all year…with Joe Buck as the first recipient.
Say something funny.
by muffinpryde on Jan 14, 2009 7:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Money problems
In past years they went after and got the players they wanted. Not this year. They didn’t even try to sign k-rod or tex. Krod actualy didn’t sign for alot of money and they didn’t even care to pursue him. They lost 4 players in anderson, tex, krod, and garland. 4 starting players is a lot to lose with only picking up Fuentes.
by Arcman on Jan 13, 2009 6:01 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
37 mil for a closer is a lot of money…
Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up!!
by naq92 on Jan 13, 2009 7:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
perhaps a quasi-youth movement
Maybe the angels brass realized that bringing in expensive pieces to their aging core (Vlad specifically) is akin to putting a 5000$ stereo in a 92 honda accord with 250,000 miles on it. For years, the angles system has been touted as one of the best in baseball, maybe the higher-ups have decided to save their money, and wait for some of thier internal talent to develop. This idea was most likely hastened by the economic downturn as mentioned by others.
by deathby9 on Jan 13, 2009 6:08 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
They presently have $82m committed to 10 players ...
Figure on: (in arbitration or buying out arbitration)
$5m for Figgins
$3m for Oliver
$2m for Izturis
$1.5m for Quinlan
And you’re looking at $92-94m for 14 players or just shy of $100m if you fill out the roster with minimum wage players. That probably leaves them somewhere in the neighborhood of $10-$15m beneath their maximum budget … the team is desperately in need of a 1b and either a RF or DH. Now they have enough money to sign Adam Dunn to a depressed contract — but possibly not to give him what he’s looking for at this point. His signing would use up ALL of their cash and still leave a gaping hole at 1b … perhaps they think (and I would suggest, not without good reason) that they can do better with their money picking up whoever is left out of guys like Hinske, Abreu and Edmonds …
So, based on that line of thinking, I voted that they don’t have the money …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on Jan 13, 2009 6:10 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I think they feel pretty good about Kendry Morales at 1B -
but their infield is still pretty weak with any combo of Quinlan, Wood, Figgins, Aybar, Izturis, Kendrick, and Morales. Offensively and defensively, I think it’s pretty weak infield. Their OF, meanwhile, hits ok if you completely sacrifice defense (Rivera, Hunter, Vlad) and defends ok if you don’t care about offense (GMJ, Hunter, Figgins), but does not impress much overall in any combination.
The more I look at LAA the more I think the A’s can win the West in 2009 if anyone (current or brought in) pitches like a serviceable #2 starter, e.g., Blanton.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 13, 2009 6:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If they feel good about Morales ...
well he’s older than Barton and has hit considerably worse at the MLB level both for their careers and in ’08. If they feel good about him … well then I wholeheartedly support keeping the current leadership in place for as long as possible …
If Figgins can hit at more or less his career average, the infield (2b, ss, 3b) is more or less average offensively … there’s certainly room for improvement there, but it’s not the black hole (relative to position) that 1b will be if Morales does not step it up in a significant way.
As presently constituted, the offense has basically no chance of being even average (unless several young kids step up and a 33 year old Vlad Guerrero plays like he did at 29 and younger). As we have discussed at tremendous length, there are few to no cost effective options for upgrading the middle infield and their middle infield is closer to average than replacement, unlike 1b and DH, so it makes a lot more sense to look there to improve …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on Jan 13, 2009 6:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I see the Angels as being "lower 1/3" offensively right now
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 13, 2009 7:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
you mean the same kendry morales that has a total of 377 ABs in the majors?
and the past three years in the minors had WOBAs of .381, .379 and .387? That guy?
The angels traded Kotchman knowing that in the worst case scenario of Tex leaving, Morales could do just as well of a job as Kotch, and they would basically have the same exact team the won the division last year.
Lets go angels
by anaheim angels on Jan 17, 2009 12:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
besides, Dunn hates baseball
and probably hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet too…
by scatterbrian on Jan 15, 2009 3:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Voted the 2nd option.
And, y’know, they’re not wrong. They can win the division just with the team they have now. I don’t think they have it wrapped up, but I’m damn sure we don’t either.
by Nate on Jan 13, 2009 6:13 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
promoting from within
This is the year, it seems, the Angels allow Kendry Morales and Brandon Wood to start. They remember Juan Rivera’s healthy production from ‘06 and think he is going to bounce back. Losing garland’s 4.90 era and contract doesn’t hurt. It appears they’re going cheap and young…Thank goodness for G. Matthew’s contract. I’m thinking we have a better offense, they have better starting pitching, bullpens are equal, and they have better defense. We win in terms of the intangibles/a Je ne sais quoi. They might be more injury prone….. We have a decent shot this year, thanks billy.
by greenpaddedgloves on Jan 13, 2009 6:31 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I happen to think that Hunter's contract was an ok one
because the Angels got very good productions out of him during years they really had a chance to win the division and aim to go deep into the playoffs. Still, they will pay for it on the back end when Hunter is expensive and declining, and I think those years begin now – he is already losing some of his defensive prowess and I expect his offensive numbers to steadily drop each year to around a .780, then .750, OPS.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 13, 2009 6:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
they've only had Hunter for one year
and he was expensiive and decliining when they signed hiim
by scatterbrian on Jan 15, 2009 3:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Given the A's recent history
What the hell would make you think the Angels might be more injury prone. NO ONE IS MORE INJURY PRONE THAN THE A’S! WE TAKE THE TITLE!!!
Bob Geren and Ken Macha both enjoy jai lai.
by CarGon's Jock on Jan 14, 2009 10:25 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So....
Does that make the A’s more likely to win the AL West in 2009 or become the first team in MLB hisrtory to place everyone one their 40 man roster on the DL at some point in 2009?
by A'sfaninNC on Jan 14, 2009 12:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Why can't we just vote "they want to stink"
That would be my vote anyways.
it is not possible to strategize while the ball is coming towards you
by eastcoasta'sfan on Jan 13, 2009 7:03 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I think it's just hubris
They think they’re really 21 games better than the rest of the division and that even if they give half of that away, they’re still commanding favorites.
From the perspective of the A’s, their behavior this offseason couldn’t have gone any better. They haven’t improved a single position on their roster except perhaps closer, and only slightly there.
Right now, I’m getting the following as values of the Angels position players:
Catcher: 108 games of Napoli is worth 2/3 (25-5)=+13, 54 games of Jeff Mathis is worth 1/3 (-10)=-3, so +10 overall.
1B: Morales is about 10 runs below average.
2B: Let’s be generous and give them 120 games of Kendrick and 40 of Izturis. Kendrick is worth about +6, Izturis about -1, so 5 runs above average.
SS: Aybar is about -5 runs.
3B: Figgins is about -5 runs.
LF: Matthews is about -10 runs.
CF: Hunter is about +10 runs.
RF: Vlad is about +15 runs.
DH: Rivera is about -15 runs.
I’d call their lineup half a win below average with full seasons from everyone. If they play any bench players at all, their rate production is dropping like a rock. Their rotation is probably about +40 runs, their bullpen maybe +15 more. Looks like a mid-80 win team on paper, with little upside and absolutely no depth.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jan 13, 2009 7:16 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I'll buy that. Currently I'd project them to win about 86 games
and the A’s to win about 87 games. That’s why I’m for the Cabrera signing – every win may matter a lot.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 13, 2009 7:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm with you on the Angels but I'm getting the A's around 79 Wins, about the same as the Rangers
and just ahead of Seattle. Just using CHONE for the A’s:
Position Players (Total 20.7 WAR):
C — Suzuki (140 G) + Bowen (22 G) = 2.7 WAR
1B — Barton (140 G) + Giambi (22 G) = 1.5
2B — Ellis (140 G) + Pennington (22 G) = 2.2
SS — Crosby (140 G) + Pennington (22 G) = 1.0
3B — Hannahan (130 G) + Chavez (32 G) = 1.8
LF — Holliday (140 G) + Buck (22 G) = 3.5
CF — Sweeney (120 G) + Buck (42 G) = 2.4
RF — Cust (120 G) + Buck (42 G) = 3.0
DH — Giambi (118 G) + Cust (44 G) = 2.6
Starting Pitchers (Total 8.6 WAR):
Eveland (28 GS, 165 IP) = 2.3 WAR
Duchscherer (24 GS, 120 IP) = 2.1
Gallagher (24 GS, 130 IP) = 1.5
Braden (28 GS, 155 IP) = 1.2
Gonzalez (24 GS, 120 IP) = 1.1
Outman (27 GS, 144 IP) = 0.7
Mazzaro (7 GS, 36 IP) = 0.1
Bullpen (Total 2.5 WAR):
Devine (50 IP) = 0.8 WAR
Blevins (66 IP) = 0.6
Casilla (59 IP) = 0.6
Ziegler (73 IP) = 0.5
The only major change I made to Chone was downgrading Braden from 2.4 WAR to 1.2. CHONE has Braden at a 4.02 ERA which I thought was unrealistic. ZiPS has him at 5.06. I basically just cut him halfway to replacement, which is still a bit better than ZiPS.
Position (20.7) + Starters (8.6) + Bullpen (2.5 + Replacement Level (47) = 79 Wins
The only way I can see getting to 87 is:
1) Make Chavez play 130 G and Hannahan 32 — Add 1 Win
2) Add Sheets for 30 starts — Add 3 Wins
3) Replace Crosby with Orlando Cabrera — Add 1 Win
4) Get a 4.02 ERA from Braden like CHONE says — Add 1 Win
5) Get Mulder or a rookie starter (Cahill, Anderson, Mazzaro, Simmons, Gio) to give you 140 IP at a 4.10 ERA — Add 2 Wins
I guess you can also hope that all of the starting position players play 150 rather than 140 G and that Duke is a 200 inning workhorse.
I can see one or two of those things happening but all of them? What am I missing?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 13, 2009 11:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Something is off about these numbers
Suzuki has a CHONE projection of about 13 runs above average, which is actually worse than he’s done in either of his first two seasons. Bowen drops that by like a run. That’s a WAR of 3.4— well in excess of what you’ve listed. Ellis is a league-average hitter with +15 defense (again an extremely conservative projection) at second base— +17.5 in all. 22 games of Pennington would drop that by like 3 runs— leaving a WAR of, again, 3.4, this time more than a win higher than the stated value here.
I don’t know where these errors are infiltrating, but they’re definitely infiltrating.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jan 14, 2009 12:13 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks I think I found the error. I'll redo the thing.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 14, 2009 12:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
OK I fixed it. Other than the two you identified, LF goes up to 4.2 but RF down to 2.4
I’m now getting 81 wins. It’s still quite a bit short of the Angels though. I’m still seeing the Angels as a 88 win team, that can go to 91 by adding Dunn….with the A’s, Rangers and Mariners all around .500 or just below.
How did your numbers turn out after the roster changes since you last did them?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 14, 2009 12:36 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm also with CHONE on Suzuki. His minor league numbers count too.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 14, 2009 12:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I did a projection and got about 86 wins
Here’s a link to my spreadsheet:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=p3Qxlw5XtNczDX1kERhXtMw&hl=en
I basically used CHONE projections across the board. I gave a slight bump to Deno and Sweeney’s wOBA since I’m assuming they platoon in center. I also have yet to add in base-running figures.
If you guys are interested, the folks at Beyond the Box Score are hoping to get community projections for all thirty teams using the WAR spreadsheet I linked to. As of yet, no one has signed on board for the A’s. I know a couple of others here have already done their own projections. I’m sure a collective effort here could produce an unbiased projection.
by CapgrasDelusion on Jan 14, 2009 4:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Is this with offense and defense for the starting players?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 13, 2009 7:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes
although they’re pretty average overall on defense, so it doesn’t make that much difference.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jan 13, 2009 7:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Aybar playing fulltime SS is not -5 runs
He is -5 with the bat, but +8 with the glove, and that was in a half season. He was 2 wins above replacement,
Lets go angels
by anaheim angels on Jan 17, 2009 12:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
wood
What’s your projection on brandon wood? Does he differ much from figgins or aybar? It seems like they lack depth in the oufield, but with izturis and wood their infield isn’t horrible right?
by dbeach13 on Jan 13, 2009 7:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Wood has a lot of potential,
but I think he’s got a ways to go to reach it. First he’s coming from a hitters’ league and playing home games at altitude to playing at sea level against major league pitching, and second, his pitch recognition and plate discipline just aren’t there yet. Starting Wood in 2009 probably makes them better in 2010, but this season I’d expect him to be worth less than either Aybar or Figgins.
by Nate on Jan 13, 2009 7:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Given this, it looks to me like signing Dunn would make a big difference at DH -- he's +16
by CHONE, which is about a 3 win difference over Rivera.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 13, 2009 9:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Little to no depth?
They have a glut of middle infielders, and can move Figgins to the outfield and put Wood at 3B. They also have GMJ (i know, bad, but not replacement level) and Willits (same story basically). Napoli is going to play more than 108 games.
Are these numbers including positional adjustments, because if they are, switching Vlad and Rivera would increase their run total by alot, as Rivera is likely slighty below average RF as Vlad is an above average DH. Vlad is not going to play 100 games in the field, which also helps the angels defense.
Lets go angels
by anaheim angels on Jan 17, 2009 12:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You think moving Figgins to the outfield would HELP the team?
I see you’re an optimist. Well, so are they, and good thing, too.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jan 18, 2009 10:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Im not saying necessarily that
Im saying that they COULD do that and then they would have more outfielders, and could easily plug in a middle or corner infielder (Quinlan, Sean Rodriguez, Maicer Izturis) if they need to without a huge dropoff in production
Lets go angels
by anaheim angels on Jan 19, 2009 2:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think they still will make a couple of moves, but the larger point is that Texas
is at least a good a candidate as Oakland to win the division. They were a much better team than the A’s at the end of 2008, and adding Sheets and getting better defense — from Arias/Andrus at SS/3B and Borbon or someone in CF will help them a lot. I’d worry about them just as much as Anaheim.
Seattle’s got a good management team — from early indications anyway — and their defense should be massively improved with Gutierrez.
SG of RLYW has projected the four teams to all be pretty mediocre/bad with the winner, in his preliminary simulations. It’s got some bugs, but it’s still somewhat telling
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 13, 2009 7:19 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
SG of RLYW has projected the four teams to all be pretty mediocre/bad with the winner, in his preliminary simulations. It’s got some bugs, but it’s still somewhat telling
O RLYW?
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jan 13, 2009 7:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I thought it was, like, a Welsh nobleman or something
a man has to have something to help the petite vanilla bean scones go down @('.')@
by monkeyball on Jan 13, 2009 7:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No, that would be WYLR O
Maybe he’s dyslexic.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jan 13, 2009 7:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not following your question. Are you asking what the heck is RLYW?
If so, it’s Replacement Level Yankees Weblog, featuring Larry Mahnken and SG, who are Yankee fans and experienced saberists.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 13, 2009 7:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think it's a joke on
O RLY? (“Oh really?”)
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 13, 2009 7:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ah. I'm not good at internet misspellings at my age.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 13, 2009 7:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Is Pellings Cindi's surname?
a man has to have something to help the petite vanilla bean scones go down @('.')@
by monkeyball on Jan 13, 2009 7:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's a pun
relating to the “O RLY” internet meme, viz.
and the like.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jan 13, 2009 7:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
the O'Riley Factor?
"I'm on hold for now"- Bobby Crosby
by DyeLongJustice on Jan 13, 2009 7:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
{shudders}
{dies a little}
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 13, 2009 7:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You got a problem with The Who?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 13, 2009 7:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
they need more cowbell.
"I'm on hold for now"- Bobby Crosby
by DyeLongJustice on Jan 13, 2009 7:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
the world will be a better place when that show is gone
"It's like déjà vu all over again." -yogi berra
by Cheezombie on Jan 14, 2009 1:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ya I'm not good at internet memes.
In fact I only learned what a meme was a few months ago….on the internet.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 13, 2009 7:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It'z the "internetz"
I owns it.
Say something funny.
by muffinpryde on Jan 13, 2009 7:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
we are aware of all Internet traditions
a man has to have something to help the petite vanilla bean scones go down @('.')@
by monkeyball on Jan 14, 2009 10:05 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
At this point, I find the A's lack of interest in Ben Sheets pretty disturbing.
"We were s--, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Jan 13, 2009 7:50 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I'm thinking he's not medically sound
No team has exactly jumped at the chance to add him.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 13, 2009 7:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
True
But hopefully that would also cause him to be had for a bargain price.
Personally, if I was A’s management right now, I’d pull a Boston and sign some bargain priced high risk/upside pitchers (Mulder, Sheets, etc), hoping something would stick. Because this team is that close to surpassing the Angels…I’d say we just need one more #3 quality pitcher.
"We were s--, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Jan 13, 2009 8:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You're blowing this a bit out of proportion
It’s not THAT important to go into the season as the favorites. The difference in playoff chances between a team that projects as a win worse, and a team that projects as a win better, is… I don’t know, maybe 10%? At most?
That’s to say, the difference between “going from -1 to +1” and “going from +1 to +3” is minimal. You’re making a mountain out of a mole-hill.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jan 13, 2009 8:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I want Sheets.
If something really scary isn’t going on.
"And you just don't get it, you keep it copacetic..."
by Blicks on Jan 14, 2009 8:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think we may be underestimating their pitching....
Lackey, Saunders, Santana, Weaver and Escobar (if healthy). Throw in Adenhart…he’s probably at least as good as Braden, Eveland, and Gonzalez at this point. Their bullpen, Fuentes, Arredondo, Speier, Oliver and Shields. I know I’ll get some heat for this, but I think the Angels pitching is vastly more dominating than the A’s and will make up for their mediocre offense. Duke is the only known quantity. Gallagher, Braden, and Gonzalez are big question marks and Eveland wasn’t that impressive. Combine that with the fact the A’s weakened themselves defensively so far this offseason, does not convince me enough to say the A’s closed the gap…or to commit that they will win the division. I think we’ve all overestimated the A’s “unknown” starting rotation. Possible sophmore slumps by Devine, Blevins and Ziegler, Casilla never gets his head on straight or Brown doesn’t return to full health, well…that’s a whole other set of problems. Sorry, I’m feeling very pessimistic today.
"just a beating heart ... plasma that we'll put into our uniform." - Billy Beane
by athleticsBB4life on Jan 13, 2009 8:22 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Adenhart?
Faugh. CHONE projects him at replacement level as a starter. And frankly that might be optimistic.
Gallagher, Braden and Eveland are each projected as league-average pitchers, give or take a few runs. Even Gio gets more love from projection systems than Adenhart— and why shouldn’t he? At least he did reasonably well in AAA.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jan 13, 2009 8:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ya please bring on Adenhart!
My only concern is that Hunter has another solid season, Vlad rebounds a bit and Napoli steps up and hits nearly 30 bombs.
www.punditpolitics.com - Political IQ Tests, Pundit Blog, News and Opinion.
by ChadGod on Jan 13, 2009 8:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
OK but digging deeper into his scouting reports I see a guy who was rated as a top pitching prospect
and could have a high upside suprise on his CHONE projections — you know like you wanted us to do for Lee and Ludwick. ZiPS has a different view than CHONE:
Braden — 5.06
Adenhart — 5.16
Gonzalez — 5.66
So he is about as good as Braden and better than Gio. As a prospect, he was considered at least as good as Gio and a lot better than Braden.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 13, 2009 8:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Agree with this.
Angels rotation is considerably better than ours. Park effects will disguise this somewhat, but since that cuts both ways it won’t actually help us.
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
by iglew on Jan 13, 2009 10:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Escobar is not healthy.
He’ll pitch solely out of the pen.
by Nate on Jan 13, 2009 11:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
escobar is missing an arm ligament
He wont be a starter, but he could be a very effective bullpen arm like he was in his early Toronto years. 5th Starter is a competion at the moment, but then again it was last year, between two players named Joe Saunders and Ervin Santana (before the injuries started)
Lets go angels
by anaheim angels on Jan 17, 2009 12:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
angels not pursuing dye either
mlbtraderumors link and LA times link.
not sure getting dye would really help them but it seems like another indication that there not that intent on improving the offense
"My group runs some frogloks down the hall to finish them off and POP! RASTER! If there was a way to scream louder than caps in EQ I was doing it. Man I am straight panicking because I know I have NO CHANCE soloing and the party has run off. I'm in my hotel room; it's like 5am, and I am straight hollering, in EQ and in real life. Bottom line is the group comes back, heals me, and kills Raster! WOOT!" -Curt Schilling on his favorite memories in the video game "EverQuest"
by travdog6 on Jan 14, 2009 12:34 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Has anyone checked-in with the sages over at Solah Nevaeh to see up to what they think their Seoreh are?
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on Jan 14, 2009 9:49 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Christ, what a bunch of selohssa
a man has to have something to help the petite vanilla bean scones go down @('.')@
by monkeyball on Jan 14, 2009 12:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
'Holes Heaven
Thanks for tomorrow 'cause I've had enough
by andeux on Jan 14, 2009 1:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
boy am I not googling that at work
a man has to have something to help the petite vanilla bean scones go down @('.')@
by monkeyball on Jan 14, 2009 1:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The Angels Are STILL The Team To Beat
I hate the Angels. I’m sick of watching them win. However, all the Sabermetrics, VORP, GORP, WAR, Standard Deviation, E=mc squared crap aside, they are still a better team than the A’s. They have more $$$ to spend. More fans show up to their games. They don’t tarp off their upper deck. Since Torre left for the Dodgers, Mike Soscia is the best manager in the A.L. He knows how to get the maximum from his players. I remember a Sunday game in July at The Coliseum. Duke pitched fantastic, good enough for the win. 9th inning. Tie game 3-3, runner on 1st. Soscia pinch-runs Willits, BUNTS him over to 2nd (Unconventional when playing on the road). Willits scores from 2nd on an infield groundout. Are you KIDDING me? Soscia and the Angels played with a sense of urgency. They wanted that game period. Soon after, the A’s started their losing streak and the season was done.
Also, despite being excited about the new additions to the A’s offense, who’s gonna match up in a 3-game series against Lackey, Santana, and Saunders? Maybe a healthy Duke, but who else ya got? Eveland? Gio? Outman?
Without the Angels signing any big names this off-season, 2009 looks like a good chance for the A’s to make some noise in the division. Anything is possible, but they’re going to have to get some stellar pitching, clutch hitting, and limit their trips to the DL to beat the friggin’ Angels.
by FurVault on Jan 14, 2009 6:06 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
On what planet was Torre the best manager in the AL? He could fall asleep and the yanks would win.
That situation where the Angels scored after moving the guys over, how many times do you think that failed? Sure it worked that time, but it’s kicked them in the ass before. Having another opportunity(out) is HUGE. You just make reason for when things go wrong. It’s like the News, you only hear the bad things. They’re not going to report the firemen saving the cat in the tree. Mathematically, bunting is pointless, don’t argue against it until you do the math.
Sure their pitching looks pretty good, but who’s going to score runs for them? Have you taken a look at their lineup? They have Aching Vlad, Napoli, Aging Hunter, and the rest is basically a steaming pile of poo.
"It's like déjà vu all over again." -yogi berra
by Cheezombie on Jan 14, 2009 6:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
A couple corrections, FurVault -
Bunting the runner over in a tie game was not unconventional – “play to tie at home, win on the road” is CW and that means playing for that 4th run.
Also, the fact that the Angels don’t tarp off their third deck is not a good argument for why their roster is better, nor really is the fact that they have more $$$ to spend or that more fans show up to their games, though indirectly this may have an effect on how the teams can or can’t change their rosters in the near future.
And I’m with you on Joe Torre being a terrific manager.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 14, 2009 7:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Only reason that play worked is because Barton screwed up
and threw behind the runner, yes?
It’s not genius to make a play that’s going to fail 80% of the time and happen to hit the other 20%.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jan 15, 2009 9:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I joined AN just to comment on this post.
I’m an Angels fan and I am not here to be a troll or anything. I just have some points I want to make.
About Manny supposedly not being a “Mike Scioscia” type of player, that apparently is not the case according to the skipper himself. He came on AM 830 KLAA twice in the past few weeks and both times he said that he believed Manny would be a great fit on the team and that he would love to have Manny. During the first time he came on AM 830, the host asked him if he would consider consulting Terry Francona about what it’s like to have Manny in the clubhouse and the first words out of Scioscia’s mouth were “already been done”. Arte Moreno also acknowledged Manny’s accomplishments and what he did for LA over with the Dodgers and Arte loves Hispanic players. So I’m not really sure why the Angels don’t want Manny. I have a feeling that the front office was divided on the issue because Tony Reagins really did not seem interested in Manny at all for whatever reason. As for Adam Dunn, Reagins had preliminary discussions with his agent and then quickly stated “Adam will not be an Angel” so it’s possible that they had interest but that they were so far off in contract negotiations that they saw no point in continuing. And I don’t think the Angels want to sign a guy to be a full-time DH since they want to leave that spot open for Vlad in case he can’t man RF everyday after his surgery.
I believe that the Angels think that the division is weak enough that they can win it with what they have now (so that’s obviously what I voted for in the poll). With no disrespect to the A’s, I just don’t think they have the pitching (since it was all traded away) to compete but adding Holliday and Giambi should make their offense not so pathetic. I think Oakland could compete for 2nd place with Texas.
by Chzburger Jones on Jan 14, 2009 9:18 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for posting
I’m curious how you feel about the Angels’ offense. I think we all agree the Angels’ starting pitching will be better no matter how well the A’s young pitchers progress. The question, in terms of Oakland’s ability to contend, is whether the A’s new offense will be as much superior as the rotation is inferior. Your thoughts on this?
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 14, 2009 9:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
BTW, please feel free to keep posting
I really like hearing from fans of other teams when they really want to join the conversation (rather than annoy, gloat, disrupt, etc.). I actually think it makes AN a lot richer to have perspectives from fans of other teams.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 14, 2009 9:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oops...
I accidentally pressed enter too soon. Please ignore that.
Anyways, as for the A’s offense, I think it definitely will be better than last year but I don’t think it will be enough to make up for their lack of starting pitching. I think Giambi was the more significant acquisition than Holliday. Giambi’s power translates to pretty much any park. Holliday on the other hand, has really benefited from coors field. For his career he has 84 homers and 307 RBI in 1517 plate appearances at Coors and just 44 homers and 176 RBI in 1451 road PA’s. His Coors line is .357/.423/.645 (1.068 OPS) and his road line is .280/.348/.455 (.803 OPS). As you can see, his power production severely tails off away from Coors and the Coliseum isn’t exactly a hitter friendly park. It will be interesting to see how he adjusts to the new league and the new ballpark in 2009.
by Chzburger Jones on Jan 14, 2009 10:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Just using road stats
is a really bad way to account for the vagaries of playing home games in an extreme park. By removing the home numbers you’re taking out the half of plate appearances that come in a familiar park and a familiar environment. Focusing on road games also oversamples three very strong pitchers’ parks in Petco, Chavez Ravine before they shortened foul ground, and the Phone Booth.
A better way is just to take all his stats and neutralize them, and by those standards, he was worth 8-9 wins last year, and that’s top-notch regardless of what park he’s playing in.
by Nate on Jan 15, 2009 12:58 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
As for the Halos offense...
I don’t think it will be really good but I believe it can range anywhere from pretty good to bad. The X factors will be Brandon Wood and Kendry Morales. Morales is already basically guaranteed the 1st base job and Brandon Wood could either start at SS or 3B but I don’t think he is a lock for a starting job. He should be on the major league roster full time for the first time in his career however. I really hope that he gets a starting job because I don’t think he will get any better unless he gets regular AB’s. Wood has the potential to be the next coming of Evan Longoria. I don’t think he will hit for a high average. He’ll probably hit somewhere around .240 or .250 but I think the BA will come with time since he was a perennial .290-.300 hitter in the minors. He’ll probably jack 20 to 25 homers if he gets 500 or so ABs though he was more of a 30 homer hitter in the minors. Kendry Morales doesn’t have the same kind of power that Wood has but he hits for a better average and I can see him putting up Casey Kotchman type numbers, maybe with a bit more power and a bit less average. But really, it’s up in the air. What they do strongly influences what the Halos offense will do.
Also, Mike Napoli emerged as a true power hitter last season belting 20 homers in just 227 ABs. That projects to over 40 in 500+ ABs. His .960 OPS led all catchers with more than 200 ABs last season. He is the one guy in the Angels lineup that will actually take a walk. He’s kind of like Jack Cust/Adam Dunn in that he hits for a low average but K’s a lot, walks a lot, and hits a lot of homers. The Angels need more high OBP hitters with power like he is. Napoli’s problem is that he can’t stay healthy. He never has played more than 99 games but if he can stay healthy, he can be a 30 homer threat.
by Chzburger Jones on Jan 14, 2009 10:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't count Seattle out of the 2nd place sweepstakes
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 14, 2009 9:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I would - and I like Seattle
They’re one of my favorite non-A’s teams, but I just don’t think they have improved enough to get beyond .500 in 2009. I’d consider an 81-81 season to be a big plus for them going forward.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 14, 2009 9:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think Seattle has the offense.
Ichiro is in decline and they lost Raul Ibanez who was by far their most consistent and most productive hitter. Their rotation has the potential to be very good. King Felix is solid, Erik Bedard has the potential to be an ace and he wasn’t even THAT bad last year….he was just hampered by injuries but I think he can bounce back. Same with Carlos Silva. I highly doubt he is going to be that terrible again. He was the Andruw Jones of pitchers last season. But yeah when the middle of your lineup consists of Adrian Beltre and Jose Lopez, you are going to struggle.
by Chzburger Jones on Jan 14, 2009 11:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Their offense is indeed terrible, but they really improved their defense with Gutierrez.
That gives them four very good to elite defenders with Beltre, Suzuki and Johjima, if he gets back in good with the pitchers.
I can see Washburn and Silva being non-horrible with that park and defense, sort of like the A’s in the first half of last year. A Bedard rebound in the second half would really help too.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 14, 2009 11:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think Seattle 2009 will be very similar to Oakland 2008. Their offense is horrific, although they should end up with above-average run prevention. It’s not going to be enough.
If Ichiro is your best HITTER, you’ve got serious problems.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jan 15, 2009 9:40 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think that's a good summary. They should win about 76 games, but could get
lucky and finish 2nd in a weak division.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 16, 2009 9:01 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
how exactly do you rate a catchers defense?
its pretty hard to quantify
Lets go angels
by anaheim angels on Jan 17, 2009 1:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree
I think the Scioscia/Manny thing is hot air. After watching him jettison Jose Guillen for character issues and hearing him speak of team chemistry, I find it hard to imagine a scenario where Scioscia truly welcomes Manny into their clubhouse. Maybe I’m wrong, maybe Scioscia saw what Manny did in LA and feels he could overlook the circus in order to add that much offense. But I’m suspecting this is just talk, with a slight possibly that it’s motivated by market rivalry, i.e. driving up Manny’s price to screw the Dodgers.
by scatterbrian on Jan 15, 2009 3:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure that Manny is as bad of a person as Jose Guillen.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 16, 2009 9:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
maybe not
though is Jose Guillen really a bad person? aside from the nonsense between him and Scioscia, Guillen hasn’t been a bad person….possible PED user, yes, but not necessarily a bad person.
My point is that Scioscia doesn’t like distractions in the clubhouse, and the Manny circus just doesn’t compare with someone like Guillen.
by scatterbrian on Jan 16, 2009 12:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Guillen called out Scoscia, yelled at him, and i think threw something at him
after being lifted for a pinch runner. Although Manny’s dedication to his team is suspect at best, I dont think hes ever had a problem with his manager.
Lets go angels
by anaheim angels on Jan 17, 2009 1:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
according to Phisioc and Hudler maybe
but those guys fellate Scioscia on the regular. That guy is a saint in their eyes.
According to Retrosheet: Guillen was not happy about being replaced; he threw his helmet towards the end of the dugout where Mgr Scioscia was standing, walked to and entered at the other end of the dugout, and threw his glove against the wall; he was suspended for the rest of the season the next day by the team;
Guillen was lifted for a pinch runner after getting hit by a Chadford pitch. Granted showing up your manager isn’t cool, but I can see being a little pissed after being hit by a pitch, especially from someone on [one of] his former team[s]. I remember watching this thinking Scioscia completely overreacted. It didn’t seem to me that Guillen was throwing his helmet at Scioscia, but it went in his general direction. I don’t think that constitutes a bad person. In fact, I kinda like a player showing some competitive fire in a tie game against your division rivals on September 25th.
And I think shoving 60 year-old man is probably worse.
by scatterbrian on Jan 19, 2009 5:14 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Physioc and Hudler
fellate a lot of players. Physioc has a special taste for old, broken down, mediocre players that used to be great.
by Chzburger Jones on Jan 22, 2009 7:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
re: Manny
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=manny
did anybody else read that? and if so, what do you think? i am an unabashed simmons fan, but that aside i think the piece sounds pretty realistic, if not probable. boras is obviously concerned about his payday above allllllll else, and if manny stays in boston and the ship sails smoothly, boras gets nothing.
thoughts?
by jlanning17 on Jan 20, 2009 9:55 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
