Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to comment and join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium Member today for an ad-free experience. 

     

IGNORED

AngelsWin.com Today: The Scioscia Era – Where did it go wrong?


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, nate said:

Totally agree, Shields is the unsung hero of the whole playoff run.  Most consistent and dominant reliever the Angels ever had.

Its crazy too how much we took it for granted. We went so long with a strong pen that it seemed like we could just slap one together every year.

When we let percy go, i was pissed. A friend of mine pointed out krod was a beast and could replace him. But i was greedy and wanted franky for the 8th.

Damn....we had percy, krod, donnelly and shields at the same time once upon a time....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Inside Pitch said:

You know whats sad....  The Angels have had exactly ONE season with a positive or even ERA+ since 2012.....  that year we won 98 games.   I think after tonight, the team might be at an even 100 ERA+ again.  

You pointed out in another thread recently how some used to bash santana. I was bummed to see him go. We didnt have as big of names as the dodgers, giants etc pitching wise, but when we had a feont 3 core of lackey, weave and santana, we were as good as any team out there. 

We didnt really replace lackey (weaver moved up, santana moved up, no one replaced santana in the 3), and we never replaced santana. Haren was great for 2 years, but short lived.

Frustrating because richards/heaney/skaggs at least in theroy should be pretty solid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

Along the same limes, Darren Oliver. Another guy who we all were fine with, but didnt realize how solid he was until we missed him.

The only other black relief guy after was latroy hawkins. Wasnt very good, but pretty badass name.

yeah, i actually liked both. i think hawkins ended up pitching well after he left here to finish his career....obviously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, gurn67 said:

Since Stoneman left, every GM has had ZERO previous experience as a GM. There have been plenty of proven GM's available during that time at a tiny fraction of the cost of what Arte has shelled out to Wells, Pujols, Hamilton, etc...

Bill Stoneman had never been a GM either prior to taking the Angels job.   Like Dipoto, he had a stint as the interim GM in Montreal but Anaheim was his first GM gig...  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, gurn67 said:

Since Stoneman left, every GM has had ZERO previous experience as a GM. There have been plenty of proven GM's available during that time at a tiny fraction of the cost of what Arte has shelled out to Wells, Pujols, Hamilton, etc...

Dodgers, NYY, Nats, Cards, SF, Houston, Texas, Atlanta ....

Just a few teams that currently have GMs with ZERO GM experience before being hired.  It's not uncommon in MLB. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, nate said:

Dipoto was just incompetent, he was a huge mess when it came to running the org.

I can't believe nobody has shown any love for Ken Hill and his perfect Eddie Murphy mustache.

Man, I thought he was a great acquisition. . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

@Dave Saltzer, John Sickels--who is about as objective as they come in terms of prospect analysis--saw Adenhart as a B- prospect in the last list he was on, so according to that my grade B is generous. But you accepted the #3 starter, so let's go with that. The Haren trade was more because of the failure of Kazmir than the lack of Adenhart; the Angels had hoped Kazmir would be the staff ace, or at least co-ace with Weaver, but he was a disaster in 2010. I think more likely, if Adenhart had survived and stabilized as a decent pitcher right away, the result would have been no Joel Pineiro, which had minimal impact.

So most of your argument is irrelevant, in my opinion, because I don't see any relationship between Adenhart's death and the Haren trade - or at least a very tenuous connection at best. Adenhart surviving would have likely given the Angels a solid mid-rotation starter, but not an ace.

Just to be clear: I'm not saying it didn't have some rippling effect, but that we disagree on the size of the "stone."

The problem with using Sickles final evaluation as the end all be all of measures is that Adenhart had hit a snag, struggled and his prospect status had dimmed some at the time Sickles made that last projection.  I mean, the actual comments have less to do with scouting and more to do with results which IMO was a reach given it was in fact the PCL and he was a curveball first pitcher...  In truth, he was essentially arguing in favor of disregarding the scouting reports and paying greater attention to the results - given his age at the time, that seemed a bit rushed IMO..   

Regardless, the B- was a solid grade when you consider he was 21, nearly 6 years younger than was the average age in the PCL that year and 3 years below the optimal age -- he wasn't close to a finished product.  

People can speculate all they want the thing is nobody knows what he was going to ultimately become -- he never got the chance to grow into it.   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Inside Pitch said:

The problem with using Sickles final evaluation as the end all be all of measures is that Adenhart had hit a snag, struggled and his prospect status had dimmed some at the time Sickles made that last projection.  I mean, the actual comments have less to do with scouting and more to do with results which IMO was a reach given it was in fact the PCL and he was a curveball first pitcher...  In truth, he was essentially arguing in favor of disregarding the scouting reports and paying greater attention to the results - given his age at the time, that seemed a bit rushed IMO..   

Regardless, the B- was a solid grade when you consider he was 21, nearly 6 years younger than was the average age in the PCL that year and 3 years below the optimal age -- he wasn't close to a finished product.  

People can speculate all they want the thing is nobody knows what he was going to ultimately become -- he never got the chance to grow into it.   

 

Yes, which is why I stand by my grade B prospect rating (which wasn't based on Sickels, btw, just an ad hoc thought as I was typing that first response to Dave). Sickels gave him a B+ the two years previous. His comment in that last list was that " I know it was the PCL, but at some point the numbers have to start matching the scouting reports." Maybe Adenhart would have re-claimed his B+ status or performed at a major league level that actualized that B+ status, but unfortunately we'll never know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...