TIme to cut ties with Escobar?

[Angel Oracle]

.232/.289/.331/.620 plus standing still on the 9th inning GB that pretty much every other 3B can get to =

No way to be a MLB 3B, son.

[Angel Oracle]

Can a mod move this post into the Cowart thread, which is appropriate for this post?   Thanks 

[Jason]

Escobar plays like he's expendable but I don't think the Halos have any better options at this time. 

[Blarg]

Tim Salmon batted .183 with a . 305 Slg% for April of 2002. They didn't tank the veteran left fielder because of a slow start, his resume said that wasn't the hitter he was. Even after he had batted . 227 for the entire 2001 season at age 32.  Escobar's resume isn't .232 and this is only one month of plate appearances. Maybe a little patience is in order. 

[Chuck]

4 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Tim Salmon batted .183 with a . 305 Slg% for April of 2002. They didn't tank the veteran left fielder because of a slow start, his resume said that wasn't the hitter he was. Even after he had batted . 227 for the entire 2001 season at age 32.  Escobar's resume isn't .232 and this is only one month of plate appearances. Maybe a little patience is in order. 

Don't ever compare Escobar to Salmon again. 

Ever. 

That said, Escobar is ONLY valuable if he's getting on base and hitting for average. He's got no power, no speed and no defense. The latter of the trio cost the Angels games, but if he's not hitting he's a black hole on the roster. 

[Angel Oracle]

Exactly Chuck, as Escobar's defense, baserunning, and lack of power are negatives to this team.

This is the one Eppler move (exercising $7 million option) that has been perplexing so far.

[Blarg]

The geniuses on this board would have thrown Salmon under the bus in 2002, backed over him and peeled out over his corpse if they were around back then. 

One month doesn't mean shit in terms of a veterans stats. Just because you guys don't like the guy,  think he's a flake, doesn't mean you've got a case for replacing him with any other player in the organization. There is no better option. 

[Chuck]

Just now, Blarg said:

The geniuses on this board would have thrown Salmon under the bus in 2002, backed over him and peeled out over his corpse if they were around back then. 

One month doesn't mean shit in terms of a veterans stats. Just because you guys don't like the guy,  think he's a flake, doesn't mean you've got a case for replacing him with any other player in the organization. There is no better option. 

No I don't believe anyone would because Salmon had a solid track record and every Angels fan was privy to his slow starts. 

[Second Base]

6 minutes ago, Chuckster70 said:

Don't ever compare Escobar to Salmon again. 

Ever. 

That said, Escobar is ONLY valuable if he's getting on base and hitting for average. He's got no power, no speed and no defense. The latter of the trio cost the Angels games, but if he's not hitting he's a black hole on the roster. 

Escobar actually has quite a lot of power. He's a strong guy, but he's smart enough not to go for HR's and instead hit for average and get on base. Yunel is a very good option to have at the top of your lineup, especially when he's hittingbover .300, as he's done that last two years in a row. Patience really is in order here.

[Angel Oracle]

Difference though is that Salmon provided solid enough defense, smart base running, and power hitting even when slumping at the plate.

Escobar provides nothing, if not providing a decent BA.

[Stradling]

15 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Tim Salmon batted .183 with a . 305 Slg% for April of 2002. They didn't tank the veteran left fielder because of a slow start, his resume said that wasn't the hitter he was. Even after he had batted . 227 for the entire 2001 season at age 32.  Escobar's resume isn't .232 and this is only one month of plate appearances. Maybe a little patience is in order. 

Yes and while he was struggling with the bat he was playing a very solid right field.  Escobar is hitting .230 and it is still his best quality, he is that bad defensively. 

[Stradling]

Just now, Angel Oracle said:

Difference though is that Salmon provided solid enough defense, smart base running, and power hitting even when slumping at the plate.

Escobar provides nothing, if not providing a decent BA.

Yep, this. 

[Angels#1Fan]

11 minutes ago, Blarg said:

The geniuses on this board would have thrown Salmon under the bus in 2002, backed over him and peeled out over his corpse if they were around back then. 

One month doesn't mean shit in terms of a veterans stats. Just because you guys don't like the guy,  think he's a flake, doesn't mean you've got a case for replacing him with any other player in the organization. There is no better option. 

 

9 minutes ago, Scotty@AW said:

Escobar actually has quite a lot of power. He's a strong guy, but he's smart enough not to go for HR's and instead hit for average and get on base. Yunel is a very good option to have at the top of your lineup, especially when he's hittingbover .300, as he's done that last two years in a row. Patience really is in order here.

Agree with @Blarg and @Scotty@AW

Escobar has earned a little more time due to his success as our lead-off hitter the last couple of years. Plus we don't have a suitable replacement to lead-off.

Sure his defense isn't great, he doesn't have much range and his throws are at times erratic, but his role as our lead-off hitter is an important one. I know that the people here that hate him won't agree, but he's the only option we really have. Maybe we could call up Cowart and have him lead-off?

If we had a decent lead-off hitter I'd be more inclined to dump Escobar because of his defense, but the fact is we don't.

[Chuck]

1 minute ago, Angels#1Fan said:

 

Escobar has earned a little more time due to his success as our lead-off hitter the last couple of years. Plus we don't have a suitable replacement to lead-off.

Sure his defense isn't great, he doesn't have much range and his throws are at times erratic, but his role as our lead-off hitter is an important one. I know that the people here that hate him won't agree, but he's the only option we really have. Maybe we could call up Cowart and have him lead-off?

If we had a decent lead-off hitter I'd be more inclined to dump Escobar because of his defense, but the fact is we don't.

Escobar has unquestionably earned more playing time, no doubt. I'm hankering for Espinosa to grab some pine more than Escobar.

That said, if another month goes by and Escobar still isn't hitting and continues to play below average defense, you have to make a move. 

[LooneyPlatoons]

I really want to like Escobar and for the most part I do.  He is a pretty consistent contact hitter which the Angels need to have.  Just seems to be a little slump right now.  He has made some impressive defensive plays this year but then he makes some boneheaded plays and lets the ball play him at 3rd sometimes.  nonononono

[Troll Daddy]

News flash!

Escobar is here to stay ... suck on that. You know it and I know it.

[Angels#1Fan]

1 minute ago, Chuckster70 said:

Escobar has unquestionably earned more playing time, no doubt. I'm hankering for Espinosa to grab some pine more than Escobar.

That said, if another month goes by and Escobar still isn't hitting and continues to play below average defense, you have to make a move. 

I would agree that if Escobar continues not to hit for an extended period of time then it would in the best interest of the team to find a replacement.

[the dude abides]

Cowart looks more and more appealing each game.  Escobar is absolutely horrid at 3B.  

Hell, even Victor was calling him out yesterday.

[Angels#1Fan]

What most people don't seem to get is that if you get rid of Escobar it will take two players to replace him..a third baseman and a lead-off hitter and as far as I can see the only Angel on the roster that can lead-off is Trout and I don't think that would be prudent. I'm far more concerned about the pitching than Escobar.

 

[Troll Daddy]

The team is winning and everyone is still crying about most of the players. It's baseball ... full of ups and downs. 

[Stradling]

Hey we are winning so lets try not to improve.  Solid approach. 

[Blarg]

36 minutes ago, Chuckster70 said:

No I don't believe anyone would because Salmon had a solid track record and every Angels fan was privy to his slow starts. 

Look at his 2001 numbers and then tell how the guys on the board niw wouldn't have overreacted. 

[Troll Daddy]

7 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Hey we are winning so lets try not to improve.  Solid approach. 

That was done in the off season. Giving up on players one month into a season is shear stupidity. 

[Stradling]

It isn't stupidity to critique a players performance when that performance is just plain bad.  He provides the team with one asset and he is sucking at that one asset.  It would be like Albert not driving in runs. 

[Stradling]

10 minutes ago, Angels#1Fan said:

What most people don't seem to get is that if you get rid of Escobar it will take two players to replace him..a third baseman and a lead-off hitter and as far as I can see the only Angel on the roster that can lead-off is Trout and I don't think that would be prudent. I'm far more concerned about the pitching than Escobar.

 

Well currently our leadoff hitter is hitting .230.  So replacing that shouldn't be difficult and guess what, you get a glove at third instead of Escobar.