In defense of Arte Moreno

[Second Base]

I don't believe the lack of organizational success is on Arte. He spends money, which is what you'd expect an owner to do. He has his limits, which are largely arbitrary and pointless, but that's his decision. In the past, he had meddled, but at least he's personally invested. 

Really, I just think we've had some GM's with fundamental and philosophical flaws that have screwed the system long term.

Stoneman and Scioscia did such a great job together. They drafted and developed well, has good international presence, made some great moves in FA and won a World Series and several division titles. They were a perfect match. 

The result of this is era is that Arte understandably wanted to keep the good times rolling when he hired Tony Reagins. Reagins was an extension of Scioscia, and he made two decent moves in acquiring Hunter and Haren, and he had drafted very well, but they had no international presence, no rapport with other GM's, and made moves out of desperation that hurt the team financially. He clearly, was no Stoneman.

The result of this was the organization breaking away from the Stoneman-Scioscia-Reagins way of doing things. Dipoto was to bring an analytical approach that other teams experienced success with, and he had buckets full of money to spend. Dipoto was to, "modernize" the team building approach and create a powerhouse. He had the farm, and he had the money.

Dipoto, like most other GM's, made good moves and bad moves. The difference with him is that his bad moves were colossal and they lingered. And worse, they still had no international presence, and they drafted horribly. This resulted in a bloated payroll, and depleted farm. A broken system, top to bottom. Dipoto really did some damage that would be difficult to repair. 

The result of this was they needed to hire someone to course correct and fix everything Dipoto destroyed. A blend of Stoneman and Dipoto, as they both had their strengths. Billy Eppler was brought in, and he did his best. He reestablished an international presence, drafted well, got spending back under control, amazingly. And he maintained an analytical approach. But unlike Stoneman, he wasn't able to make the key moves that pushed them over the edge into contention. He was terrible in FA, but the differences is, his mistakes were short term, not like Dipoto's. Still, he was replaced, though fans will likely remember him fondly.

The result of the Eppler era was the team bringing in someone that could harness the fruits of Eppler's labor with the farm producing prospects, but also make the necessary acquisitions that would bring them back into contention. And that's where Perry comes in. He needs keep up the farm work Eppler did, while making a positive impact on FA. 

So far, I'm a little skeptical, but I'm willing to give him some time. But the overarching theme of the post, I think we are collectively too hard on him. 

What do you think?

[mmc]

Did you start typing this before or after the Iglesias news dropped?

[Second Base]

Before. Originally it was going in the hot stove thread but then it got too lengthy and so I made a new post. 

[eaterfan]

6 minutes ago, Second Base said:

I don't believe the lack of organizational success is on Arte. He spends money, which is what you'd expect an owner to do. He has his limits, which are largely arbitrary and pointless, but that's his decision. In the past, he had meddled, but at least he's personally invested. Arbitrary limits and meddling are exactly what people are critical of. The guy has no idea what he's doing. He shouldn't be meddling. Yeah, it's his right to do that. It's our right to be critical of that.

Really, I just think we've had some GM's with fundamental and philosophical flaws that have screwed the system long term. Who has hired the GMs with the fundamental flaws and philosophical flaws? It really sucks for Arte that he's been saddled with these terrible GMs.

Stoneman and Scioscia did such a great job together. They drafted and developed well, has good international presence, made some great moves in FA and won a World Series and several division titles. They were a perfect match. 

The result of this is era is that Arte understandably wanted to keep the good times rolling when he hired Tony Reagins. Reagins was an extension of Scioscia, and he made two decent moves in acquiring Hunter and Haren, and he had drafted very well, but they had no international presence, no rapport with other GM's, and made moves out of desperation that hurt the team financially. He clearly, was no Stoneman. Reports are that Arte didn't want to spend in the international market. He also refused to overspend in the draft when he could have like the Yankees and Red Sox were doing before they had penalties for going over slot. 

The result of this was the organization breaking away from the Stoneman-Scioscia-Reagins way of doing things. Dipoto was to bring an analytical approach that other teams experienced success with, and he had buckets full of money to spend. Dipoto was to, "modernize" the team building approach and create a powerhouse. He had the farm, and he had the money.

Dipoto, like most other GM's, made good moves and bad moves. The difference with him is that his bad moves were colossal and they lingered. And worse, they still had no international presence, and they drafted horribly. This resulted in a bloated payroll, and depleted farm. A broken system, top to bottom. Dipoto really did some damage that would be difficult to repair. None of us were in the room, so none of us know exactly what happened, but many people have reported that Arte wanted Pujols. If that's true it's hard to blame anyone else for a lot of the bad moves that lingered. As for the international presence, of course that continued. When the owner doesn't want to spend money on international signings changing GMs won't change that unless the owner changes his mind. A lot of the reason the farm system was never built up or developed is because the Angels were always trying to win in Pujols window, then Trout's window. Arte refuses to rebuild or even take a step back for a season. They've been going for it since the day they signed Pujols. If Arte was the one who signed Pujols, who else can you blame?

The result of this was they needed to hire someone to course correct and fix everything Dipoto destroyed. A blend of Stoneman and Dipoto, as they both had their strengths. Billy Eppler was brought in, and he did his best. He reestablished an international presence, drafted well, got spending back under control, amazingly. And he maintained an analytical approach. But unlike Stoneman, he wasn't able to make the key moves that pushed them over the edge into contention. He was terrible in FA, but the differences is, his mistakes were short term, not like Dipoto's. Still, he was replaced, though fans will likely remember him fondly.

The result of the Eppler era was the team bringing in someone that could harness the fruits of Eppler's labor with the farm producing prospects, but also make the necessary acquisitions that would bring them back into contention. And that's where Perry comes in. He needs keep up the farm work Eppler did, while making a positive impact on FA. 

So far, I'm a little skeptical, but I'm willing to give him some time. But the overarching theme of the post, I think we are collectively too hard on him. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. We're on GM number four. At some point maybe it's time to look at someone other than the GMs.

What do you think?

 

[AngelsLakersFan]

I disagree. The organization has a philosophy that cannot work in today’s game, and that philosophy is Moreno’s.

[Angelsjunky]

24 minutes ago, mmc said:

Did you start typing this before or after the Iglesias news dropped?

Funny, that was my first thought.

[Second Base]

I promise, I wrote it before the Iglesias news broke. I stopped halfway through to put my son to bed (which is like a 30 minutes endeavor) and came back to it. 

[Second Base]

9 minutes ago, eaterfan said:

 

I appreciate your viewpoint and do agree with you on some of those. 

[Angelsjunky]

25 minutes ago, Second Base said:

I don't believe the lack of organizational success is on Arte. He spends money, which is what you'd expect an owner to do. He has his limits, which are largely arbitrary and pointless, but that's his decision. In the past, he had meddled, but at least he's personally invested. 

Really, I just think we've had some GM's with fundamental and philosophical flaws that have screwed the system long term.

Stoneman and Scioscia did such a great job together. They drafted and developed well, has good international presence, made some great moves in FA and won a World Series and several division titles. They were a perfect match. 

The result of this is era is that Arte understandably wanted to keep the good times rolling when he hired Tony Reagins. Reagins was an extension of Scioscia, and he made two decent moves in acquiring Hunter and Haren, and he had drafted very well, but they had no international presence, no rapport with other GM's, and made moves out of desperation that hurt the team financially. He clearly, was no Stoneman.

The result of this was the organization breaking away from the Stoneman-Scioscia-Reagins way of doing things. Dipoto was to bring an analytical approach that other teams experienced success with, and he had buckets full of money to spend. Dipoto was to, "modernize" the team building approach and create a powerhouse. He had the farm, and he had the money.

Dipoto, like most other GM's, made good moves and bad moves. The difference with him is that his bad moves were colossal and they lingered. And worse, they still had no international presence, and they drafted horribly. This resulted in a bloated payroll, and depleted farm. A broken system, top to bottom. Dipoto really did some damage that would be difficult to repair. 

The result of this was they needed to hire someone to course correct and fix everything Dipoto destroyed. A blend of Stoneman and Dipoto, as they both had their strengths. Billy Eppler was brought in, and he did his best. He reestablished an international presence, drafted well, got spending back under control, amazingly. And he maintained an analytical approach. But unlike Stoneman, he wasn't able to make the key moves that pushed them over the edge into contention. He was terrible in FA, but the differences is, his mistakes were short term, not like Dipoto's. Still, he was replaced, though fans will likely remember him fondly.

The result of the Eppler era was the team bringing in someone that could harness the fruits of Eppler's labor with the farm producing prospects, but also make the necessary acquisitions that would bring them back into contention. And that's where Perry comes in. He needs keep up the farm work Eppler did, while making a positive impact on FA. 

So far, I'm a little skeptical, but I'm willing to give him some time. But the overarching theme of the post, I think we are collectively too hard on him. 

What do you think?

I like your way of characterizing the various GMs, both their strengths and weaknesses. And yes, with Perry it is too soon to tell. I think we'll need to see two full seasons plus his response to both. So right now we're exactly halfway in our "Judgement of Perry Window." A year plus a month or two from now should give us a better sense of him.

As for Arte, with the above said, there's no denying that he still has a penchant to stick his nose into baseball operations, with generally poor--if not devastating--results. As I see it, the Angels made three terrible moves in 2011-13 that absolutely crippled the team for the next decade: Wells, Pujols, and Hamilton. We can blame Wells on Reagins, but Pujols and Hamilton are on Arte. Sure, maybe Dipoto should have known more or argued against those signings, but from everything we've heard, it was Arte who pushed those two.

That said, Hamilton was in 2013, and everything since then has been guided by the GMs, to the best of my knowledge. But there also haven't been any albatrosses, with the exception of the "semi-albatross" Upton, or if Rendon doesn't regain his form. But Dipoto's gutting and neglect of the farm, the implosion of the young rotation in the mid-2010s and Eppler's inability to assess pitching talent are not on Arte. But we can't separate Arte's crippling of the team in 2012-13 from everything that came after.

[arch stanton]

I think it's as simple as this. He's had the greatest player alive for a decade and had one of the greatest spectacles in modern sports last year and drew 1.5 mil. He's fully convinced now that if he doesn't put a winning product on the field he'll destroy a huge part of the value of the franchise he's worked to build

[T.G.]

41 minutes ago, Second Base said:

I don't believe the lack of organizational success is on Arte. 

You lost me right there.

[Angel Oracle]

At least the Halos FINALLY for the first time in TEN years signed a solid pitcher to more than a 2 year contract.

Now do that with a starter (Stroman), and the pitching should finally be acceptable for the first time since the 2015 season?

[HanfordGuy]

[ScottT]

Somebody or everybody deserves blame.

[Dtwncbad]

Let’s keep it simple.  Moreno is a better owner than Disney.  He means well.  He tries.  He makes mistakes.  When a team sucks for this long, it’s the owner.  He can do better and we should expect better.

But be careful what you wish for in hoping he sells.  We could also do much worse.

[Erstad Grit]

He spends and cares. That's better than half the league. Can you imagine being a Pirate fan? A Rockies fan? 

Yet he meddles, has a "take it or leave it" philosophy, and is far too involved. (Stripling/Joc trade)

Hopefully he sits in his box and enjoys the product he empowers Perry to put on the field. 

[Docwaukee]

I totally disagree.  I don't know if it's worth qualifying my opinion but I will anyway.  Much of it is based on speculation and hearsay but some of it on inside info.  So take it for what it's worth.  

The direction of this franchise from a leadership standpoint has been broken for a long time.  Stoneman and his influence has been helping to partially hold it together.  

First off, the balance of power within the org isn't 'conventional'.  You need to empower one person to call the shots and that hasn't been the case with any Angel GM during his tenure.  

Secondly, his willingness to spend has entitled him to the above as well to influence baseball decisions he should really not be a part of.  Yes, he owns the team and it's absolutely his right to do whatever the F he wants with it.  But if he's going to be that big of an influence on player personnel decisions, he better be good at it and he's not.  

The distribution of resources is backward relative to what creates sustainability.  There are several very successful orgs out there that are well run mostly because someone has been empowered to guide the org from the top down.  It actually surprises me that so few orgs seem to do it the right way.  So the Angels aren't alone in that regard.  I really do envy teams like the Dogs and A's.  There is no question who is running the baseball ops components of those orgs and how obvious it seems to me as to what works and what doesn't.  

From the word go, Arte has put pretty much every GM in an unwinnable situation.  He completely undid everything that was working well when he first acquired the team.  He's had years to correct the problem yet we keep seeing the same mistakes being made.  

In my opinion, an owner should hand money and responsibility to the right people and then let them do their job.  They create a specific type of culture and environment for success or failure.  

Can we honestly say he's done that?  To me, his biggest weakness is that he doesn't recognize his weaknesses.  That he keeps repeating his mistakes.   And that there isn't a single person in a position to hold him accountable.  That might sound odd considering that he's the owner but true leadership is surrounding yourself with people who can do that.  

Until this franchise starts thinking beyond the major league team they'll continue to run in place.  

[Billy_Ball]

Dipoto's closers

Eppler's closers

Minasian's closer

[tdawg87]

31 minutes ago, Billy_Ball said:

Dipoto's closers

Eppler's closers

Minasian's closer

This looks like @Taylor's entourage.

[DCAngelsFan]

6 hours ago, Dochalo said:

I totally disagree.  I don't know if it's worth qualifying my opinion but I will anyway.  Much of it is based on speculation and hearsay but some of it on inside info.  So take it for what it's worth.  

The direction of this franchise from a leadership standpoint has been broken for a long time.  Stoneman and his influence has been helping to partially hold it together.  

First off, the balance of power within the org isn't 'conventional'.  You need to empower one person to call the shots and that hasn't been the case with any Angel GM during his tenure.  

Secondly, his willingness to spend has entitled him to the above as well to influence baseball decisions he should really not be a part of.  Yes, he owns the team and it's absolutely his right to do whatever the F he wants with it.  But if he's going to be that big of an influence on player personnel decisions, he better be good at it and he's not.  

The distribution of resources is backward relative to what creates sustainability.  There are several very successful orgs out there that are well run mostly because someone has been empowered to guide the org from the top down.  It actually surprises me that so few orgs seem to do it the right way.  So the Angels aren't alone in that regard.  I really do envy teams like the Dogs and A's.  There is no question who is running the baseball ops components of those orgs and how obvious it seems to me as to what works and what doesn't.  

From the word go, Arte has put pretty much every GM in an unwinnable situation.  He completely undid everything that was working well when he first acquired the team.  He's had years to correct the problem yet we keep seeing the same mistakes being made.  

In my opinion, an owner should hand money and responsibility to the right people and then let them do their job.  They create a specific type of culture and environment for success or failure.  

Can we honestly say he's done that?  To me, his biggest weakness is that he doesn't recognize his weaknesses.  That he keeps repeating his mistakes.   And that there isn't a single person in a position to hold him accountable.  That might sound odd considering that he's the owner but true leadership is surrounding yourself with people who can do that.  

Until this franchise starts thinking beyond the major league team they'll continue to run in place.  

Well-said.

We often hear Arte is "cheap" - which seems to be sort of laughable on its face, b/c of his often very-high payrolls.

But he's spending entirely on the major league team, at the expense of everything else (it seems.)

I always wonder what happened with Friedman - I can't help but imagine he turned *us* down, because Arte wouldn't give him the authority he'd need to change the culture.

I just google'd Carpino - a little description of his role as President kind of says it all:

Quote

John Carpino was named the eighth president in Angels' history November 14, 2009. He oversees all areas of business, sales, marketing, finance, and communications. Carpino’s top priority is fan value and experience in all areas of the game including concessions, merchandise, promotions, and ticketing

We measure our GM's on getting us to the playoffs, now - or you're fired.  That's not the environment the club needs to succeed long-term.  The President needs to be focused on baseball operations, top to bottom with a long-term vision - those things I highlighted above?  That should be the job description of VP, Marketing, who reports to the President - not "President"

 Arte has had plenty of time to get better at this. His focus on real estate development around the park the last several years, and not on a winning culture says it all.  IMO, he needs to sell.

 

[T.G.]

I just want to say that even though I honestly believe Arte deserves blame for any overall failures, he also deserves praise for any organizational success.

[Dtwncbad]

40 minutes ago, True Grich said:

I just want to say that even though I honestly believe Arte deserves blame for any overall failures, he also deserves praise for any organizational success.

If and when Arte accomplishes the correct formula for “balance of power” and decision making, and organizational order and player development etc etc etc. . . and this results in people viewing things as healthy and the team is winning. .  .

There will be many people saying this happened despite Arte.  And that will be pretty much impossible.  It will most certainly be because he evolved or accepted that he needed to be different.

So the rational assessment would then be to give him full credit for being the right owner at that point.

[HeavenlyHalos]

1 hour ago, True Grich said:

I just want to say that even though I honestly believe Arte deserves blame for any overall failures, he also deserves praise for any organizational success.

Okay, if that happens I’ll give a like to all posts praising him.

[Taylor]

5 hours ago, tdawg87 said:

This looks like @Taylor's entourage.

It includes everyone except @cals' stepdad, who is my creative solutions guy.

[UndertheHalo]

2 hours ago, True Grich said:

I just want to say that even though I honestly believe Arte deserves blame for any overall failures, he also deserves praise for any organizational success.

So true