In Defense of Arte Moreno

[AngelsLakersFan]

14 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

This is where I have to add a little speech that some of you guys are tired of hearing.

The Angels farm system became horrible at precisely the time that Mike Trout became generational. At that moment, it’s like the franchise got stuck. They can’t fix the farm system by trading big leaguers (tanking with Trout) and they can’t fix the major league team by trading prospects because they didn’t have any. The only way to get better is through FA and most FA deals are bad because guys become FAs when they’re old and their previous team doesn’t want them. Obviously the return out of that player Pool is going to be bad. 

The team should've been rebuilding two years before Trout got here. Additionally no one knew how good Trout was going to be when we signed Pujols. Yes, the team couldn't realistically rebuild once Trout came aboard, but either way they had already committed.

[Jeff Fletcher]

5 minutes ago, Trendon said:

Do you really believe they would've traded away big leaguers and rebuilt/tanked if they didn't have Trout? I thought Arte Moreno is against rebuilding?

Maybe not all of them in a Houston Astros type tanking, but they certainly could have traded away some in an Atlanta Braves type rebuilding.

But it really wasn't an option with Trout on the roster. 

[Duren, Duren]

Not the best, not the worst owner. His preference for big name established stars versus investment in scouting/development/analytics reflects the way ownership shapes a franchise. A different owner, then probably a different approach and type of team. 

But from an instant gratification perspective, signing big names does bring box office and stoke immediate fan excitement. Important factors in running a franchise. And some of the big name flops were because of factors beyond anyone's control. Bad luck and perhaps some lack of due diligence on the part of others in the front office.

Personally I wouldn't place too much blame on his approach. He owns the team, pays the bills and does want to win. There is only so much he can do. The front office puts the structure in place.  He has also adapted somewhat more recently. 

What happens with Ohtani will be the big story going forward 

[Jeff Fletcher]

13 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

The team should've been rebuilding two years before Trout got here. Additionally no one knew how good Trout was going to be when we signed Pujols. Yes, the team couldn't realistically rebuild once Trout came aboard, but either way they had already committed.

Maybe, but that's a mistake that lots of teams make, and it's really hard to avoid.

In 2009 they were in the ALCS. They were around .500 in 2010 and then good again in 2011 and 2012. In 2013 they stunk, but in 2014 they had the best record in baseball and in 2015 they missed the playoffs by one game. When in that run were you going to say "yeah, we are good now, but I'd rather strip down and bulk up the farm system so we can be sustainably good"? Would you have been happy as fans if they'd done that?

The only team that ever does that is the A's (like right now), and they do it more because they have to financially than because they are afraid of having a bad farm system. The Cubs did it last year, but they had recently won a World Series so they had a pass from their fans to do anything.

Edited April 5, 2022 by Jeff Fletcher

[AngelsLakersFan]

2 hours ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

Maybe, but that's a mistake that lots of teams make, and it's really hard to avoid.

In 2009 they were in the ALCS. They were around .500 in 2010 and then good again in 2011 and 2012. In 2013 they stunk, but in 2014 they had the best record in baseball and in 2015 they missed the playoffs by one game. When in that run were you going to say "yeah, we are good now, but I'd rather strip down and bulk up the farm system so we can be sustainably good"? Would you have been happy as fans if they'd done that?

The only team that ever does that is the A's (like right now), and they do it more because they have to financially than because they are afraid of having a bad farm system. The Cubs did it last year, but they had recently won a World Series so they had a pass from their fans to do anything.

I definitely was pushing for it at the time, and it was clearly the right move. From the 08-09 offseason through the mid point of the 2010 season they lost Lackey, Vlad, Teixiera, Figgins, KRod, Scot Shields, Nick Adenhart was killed, and Morales snapped his ankle. There was only ever one play and their refusal to accept it is 100% the reason why they have been under .500 the last 6 years.

[Docwaukee]

12 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

Maybe, but that's a mistake that lots of teams make, and it's really hard to avoid.

In 2009 they were in the ALCS. They were around .500 in 2010 and then good again in 2011 and 2012. In 2013 they stunk, but in 2014 they had the best record in baseball and in 2015 they missed the playoffs by one game. When in that run were you going to say "yeah, we are good now, but I'd rather strip down and bulk up the farm system so we can be sustainably good"? Would you have been happy as fans if they'd done that?

The only team that ever does that is the A's (like right now), and they do it more because they have to financially than because they are afraid of having a bad farm system. The Cubs did it last year, but they had recently won a World Series so they had a pass from their fans to do anything.

there are plenty of teams that somehow maintain an at least decent farm system despite winning on a regular and not selling off their more expensive pieces on a regular.   There has been a slow burn of ineptitude and lack of commitment to the farm and player development since Arte took over.  And it's been pervasive ever since.  The Angels have the resources to be quite the opposite.  Yet the action has been to clearly put as many of their resources into the major league club and ghost the rest.  

The farm has had variable ranks since Arte's tenure.  Good when he first came on as a holdover and occasional bumps into the teens due to one or two players like Trout, Ohtani, Adell.  But mostly anywhere from poor to scorched earth.  

And free agents are expensive relative to an arb or pre arb player on a relative basis in terms of value.  But you typically get more production than a waiver wire pickup.  

How can the padres afford to have a payroll of 20m more?  

If you're caught in between, you still have options.  They're not ideal but at some point the commitment to winning has to be real and not just lip service.  

[Jeff Fletcher]

1 hour ago, Dochalo said:

There has been a slow burn of ineptitude and lack of commitment to the farm and player development since Arte took over.

I really don't know that the failures of the farm system can be pointed to any sort of ownership-level decisions about funding. I know people like to believe the Angels spend less on scouting and player development, but I have no idea if that's actually true. I don't think I'm going to be able to see the budgets for 30 teams. If you've got the data on that, I'd love to see it.

The farm system has been bad because they've drafted poorly and developed poorly. Period.

That's the result of a thousand tiny decisions made by hundreds of people. I can't tell you what all of those decisions have been, but I have a very hard time believing that Arte Moreno made very many of them. I don't think he was telling them which players to draft, which ones to teach a new pitch, etc.

The Arte-level decisions are the ones I addressed before: Should they trade away established big leaguers to take a step back at the big league level to improve the farm system? When you've got Mike Trout on your team, I don't think you can do that.

So the Angels have needed to be really good at drafting and developing, and they haven't been.

[T.G.]

The farm started to go down hill when they released Eddie Bane. At least that's one  opinion I've heard.

[Docwaukee]

42 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I really don't know that the failures of the farm system can be pointed to any sort of ownership-level decisions about funding. I know people like to believe the Angels spend less on scouting and player development, but I have no idea if that's actually true. I don't think I'm going to be able to see the budgets for 30 teams. If you've got the data on that, I'd love to see it.

The farm system has been bad because they've drafted poorly and developed poorly. Period.

That's the result of a thousand tiny decisions made by hundreds of people. I can't tell you what all of those decisions have been, but I have a very hard time believing that Arte Moreno made very many of them. I don't think he was telling them which players to draft, which ones to teach a new pitch, etc.

The Arte-level decisions are the ones I addressed before: Should they trade away established big leaguers to take a step back at the big league level to improve the farm system? When you've got Mike Trout on your team, I don't think you can do that.

So the Angels have needed to be really good at drafting and developing, and they haven't been.

Well if it's not funding, then what is it?  I agree that the whole '8 scouts' thing is probably BS and you know I don't have the data any more than you.  The players don't even have it.   And of course Arte isn't micromanaging the drafts.  Also a disingenuous assumption that I would never make.  It's never been about what decision he's made on a micro level.  But the decisions he likely makes is who's in charge of hiring and how much money they spend on certain things.  Either he's really bad at who to bring in to make those micro decisions as it relates to the farm and player development or he's restricted the resources.  Take your pick.  

All we have are results.  And lets look at those results from when Arte took over to the pre Trout era.  The drafts from 2005 to 2008 are an S show.  All of them.  Prior to that their minor league system was a consistent pipeline.  Does that strike you as a string of bad luck or a lack of resources?  Did the personnel change?  

Then they had an excellent draft in 2009.  Then back to pretty bad again sans a couple players.  A consistent string of bad micros. 

I really really want to believe it's a misallocation of resources because otherwise it's that they've hired a bunch of people who are consistently poor at their job.  Either way, what is consistent is poor decision making. 

Since 2010, my guess is that Arte's spend on payroll is probably in the top 5 or damn close.  With one three and out to show for it.  And the best player in the world pretty much that whole time.  And the 1b for the last couple years.  Isn't that a tremendous indictment of poor decision making at some level?  Of putting the wrong people in charge?  

So whether it's a lack of resources below the major league level (which I still think it is) or just ineptitude relevant to the lack of results.   You pick.  But someone's in charge of the decisions that have led to that.  

[Jeff Fletcher]

1 hour ago, Dochalo said:

I really really want to believe it's a misallocation of resources because otherwise it's that they've hired a bunch of people who are consistently poor at their job.  Either way, what is consistent is poor decision making. 

I really doubt that Arte is involved in the hiring of anyone below the GM level. And all of these bad baseball decisions come from the GMs and the people that they hired and the people those people hired. 

Also, we should be clear on what the difference between a great farm system and a horrible farm system is. It’s probably something like 10 players. A great system will have 10 of the top 150 prospects and a terrible one will have one. Each system has about 200 players, so you’re talking about a pretty small difference. It doesn’t necessarily have to be this gigantic systemic failure. It’s just a lot of little things. 
 

And then it doesn’t help when you can’t add many good prospects from outside the system and also don’t pick at the top of the draft. 
 

It’s hard to do. No one, especially not the owner, can push a button and say “I have decided to make the farm system good.”

Edited April 5, 2022 by Jeff Fletcher

[Lou]

Finally, after all these years, a voice of reason. 

[Angel Oracle]

7 hours ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I really doubt that Arte is involved in the hiring of anyone below the GM level. And all of these bad baseball decisions come from the GMs and the people that they hired and the people those people hired. 

Also, we should be clear on what the difference between a great farm system and a horrible farm system is. It’s probably something like 10 players. A great system will have 10 of the top 150 prospects and a terrible one will have one. Each system has about 200 players, so you’re talking about a pretty small difference. It doesn’t necessarily have to be this gigantic systemic failure. It’s just a lot of little things. 
 

And then it doesn’t help when you can’t add many good prospects from outside the system and also don’t pick at the top of the draft. 
 

It’s hard to do. No one, especially not the owner, can push a button and say “I have decided to make the farm system good.”

Then maybe the big thing is the GMs that Arte Moreno hired since Bill Stoneman retired?

If so, how does one owner have so many poor GM hires?   Jury still out on Perry Minasian

[Docwaukee]

7 hours ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I really doubt that Arte is involved in the hiring of anyone below the GM level. And all of these bad baseball decisions come from the GMs and the people that they hired and the people those people hired. 

Also, we should be clear on what the difference between a great farm system and a horrible farm system is. It’s probably something like 10 players. A great system will have 10 of the top 150 prospects and a terrible one will have one. Each system has about 200 players, so you’re talking about a pretty small difference. It doesn’t necessarily have to be this gigantic systemic failure. It’s just a lot of little things. 
 

And then it doesn’t help when you can’t add many good prospects from outside the system and also don’t pick at the top of the draft. 
 

It’s hard to do. No one, especially not the owner, can push a button and say “I have decided to make the farm system good.”

Again, to me. even more indicative that it is something more systemic.  We've had 4 GM's yet none of them have been able to put together a group that does a good job of drafting and developing?

I think we've had a fair number of smart people in this org actually.   So it's puzzling as to why they haven't got much traction.  Not to say there haven't been some major strides in fact.  I do admit that one GM regime in particular truly impacted the system in a negative way and left scorched earth on their way out which was devastating.

Also, the 10 you mention is a lot.  In an given system of 200 guys, anywhere from 140 to 160 of those guys are filler.  So the true difference between a good system and a bad one is closer to 20 guys of 60 at the top, 10 of 50 in the middle and about 40 guys who have legit shots at being major league players from the bottom tier.  And we're talking about an accumulation of that over years.  Having 20 more guys as legit prospects vs. the 40 we have now is 50% of the total.  Even 10 to get us middle of the pack is 25%.  That's significant.  

Eppler and his crew actually did a pretty nice job of turning that around and undoing the disaster that Dipoto left.  But there's something missing in general that other teams have been able to figure out more consistently.  

It is tremendously hard to do.  But do you think allocated resources matter in terms of giving an advantage?  If you don't think that then we're probably on different wavelengths.  It burns my ass to use them as an example but I watch the LAD reload their system on a regular.  And they actually use that currency to improve their major league team on a regular.  We don't have their revenue but we also don't have their payroll.  

And to your original point of the org kinda being stuck in between Mike Trout's generational greatness and not having the farm resources to support that, there is a point where other teams are willing to support a window financially.  The padres payroll is 24m more than the Angels this year.  So I acknowledge that you and I probably disagree as to why the farm system hasn't been better, but we both know it's not as supportive as the team would like and Arte knows that too.   So then, if you're acknowledging that there needs to be support of the Trout era without much of a farm system, then why hasn't there been more support?

190m payroll is great.  Awesome.  Thanks.  But you know you've got holes and you know you don't have the minor league currency to fix them.  You have a 90ish win team that's likely projected to win the division who you're going up against.  Another 3 teams in the division who, arguably, aren't really huge contenders yet two of which have done a fair amount to improve.  The opportunity is there.  Or at least it seems such.  The padres, as an example, are leaving their MIF to waiver pick ups and one of the worst hitters in mlb last year.  Crossing their fingers and hoping.  No, they're spending to make sure that no stone is left unturned.  Are they right in doing so?  I have no idea as of yet but they're not leaving holes on their roster because they believe it's their time even though there is way more competition in their division.  

Match your approach with your rhetoric.  You've got Ohtani, Trout and Rendon.  And a ton of other talent on the roster.  A weak farm system isn't a good enough reason to trot out Wade, Velazquez, Rengifo, Fletcher and whoever and have limited backup for a ton of other spots.  To put together the rotation they have.  To leave as many questions unanswered as they have.  If you're gonna tell us they're doing all you can then do all you can. 

Finish the job.   

[Jeff Fletcher]

5 hours ago, Dochalo said:

Also, the 10 you mention is a lot.  In an given system of 200 guys, anywhere from 140 to 160 of those guys are filler.  So the true difference between a good system and a bad one is closer to 20 guys of 60 at the top, 10 of 50 in the middle and about 40 guys who have legit shots at being major league players from the bottom tier.  And we're talking about an accumulation of that over years.  Having 20 more guys as legit prospects vs. the 40 we have now is 50% of the total.  Even 10 to get us middle of the pack is 25%.  That's significant.  

You’re looking at it in terms of percentages and I’m looking at it in raw numbers. 
 

One year you have a good draft and two of your lesser guys vault up the charts and you go from 1 to 4 top 100 prospects and all of the sudden your system goes from 30th to 13th. That’s what I mean. 
 

My main point is this, and I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree:

I don’t have any evidence to suggest that the state of their farm system is because of an ownership-level commitment to how it’s funded. Period. 
 

And I don’t believe you have any evidence either other than “Arte is the one who has been the owner so it’s his fault.”

[BTH]

19 hours ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I really don't know that the failures of the farm system can be pointed to any sort of ownership-level decisions about funding. I know people like to believe the Angels spend less on scouting and player development, but I have no idea if that's actually true. I don't think I'm going to be able to see the budgets for 30 teams. If you've got the data on that, I'd love to see it.

We don't have access to team's individual staffing budgets for scouting/player development, but we do have access to how many employees each team employees via Media Guides.

 

The Angels fall behind in many of these staffing departments. Be it scouting (amateur/international/pro scouts), be it research & development staff, etc.

The Angels have 4 people listed in their R&D department. I saw a tweet yesterday from a Red Sox writer that they have 25 people in their R&D department.

That shows less spending in R&D comparatively.

[BTH]

13 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I don’t have any evidence to suggest that the state of their farm system is because of an ownership-level commitment to how it’s funded. Period. 

But you do have evidence to suggest that they don't have as many staff members in the front office/scouting staff as other teams do.

That shows they aren't putting as many inputs as other teams are, hence where the disparity may lay.

[Docwaukee]

7 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

You’re looking at it in terms of percentages and I’m looking at it in raw numbers. 
 

One year you have a good draft and two of your lesser guys vault up the charts and you go from 1 to 4 top 100 prospects and all of the sudden your system goes from 30th to 13th. That’s what I mean. 
 

My main point is this, and I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree:

I don’t have any evidence to suggest that the state of their farm system is because of an ownership-level commitment to how it’s funded. Period. 
 

And I don’t believe you have any evidence either other than “Arte is the one who has been the owner so it’s his fault.”

Fair enough.  

You are absolutely correct about a couple guys vaulting up the system and that's actually occurred for the Angels variably in the last several years.  Having a 60-65 grade guy or two like Adell and Marsh can move you from 30 to 13 pretty easily.  

And your point is understood.  I certainly don't have hard evidence to support my theory.  Just the idea that other teams have been able to do a much better job under similar or even more challenging circumstances in regard to their farm system.  And the difference is that I don't have to have journalistic integrity which I appreciate you maintaining in all your posts.  I can make assumptions based on what I consider to be inference.  And in this case the inference is that either the guys put in place to do their job were bad at it or they were handcuffed by a lack or resources or a little bit of both.  And there have been rumors of over time of this being the case.  Which I certainly take with a grain of salt. 

And this isn't some twitard reaction based on one or two moves but an accumulation of information that has occurred over years.  Under multiple people with an opportunity to improve the situation.  Maybe some of that info is BS.  Maybe it's not.  But I think it's more than fair and reasonable to presume certain things even without hard financial data.  

We wouldn't have anything to talk about on here if we didn't have our presumptions because none of us know the real story on 90% of what's discussed.  

[Inside Pitch]

 

[Lou]

2 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

 

Ha. He responded with: disagree.

 

 

Dumbasses 

[AngelsLakersFan]

9 minutes ago, Lou said:

Ha. He responded with: disagree.

 

 

Dumbasses 

Milk Trout water bottle confirmed (again)

[Angel Oracle]

Bump

How does one owner hire so many mediocre GMs?   The only good one working under Moreno’s watch was hired by Disney.

No solid GM wants to work for Moreno?

[BTH]

1 minute ago, Angel Oracle said:

Bump

How does one owner hire so many mediocre GMs?   The only good one working under Moreno’s watch was hired by Disney.

No solid GM wants to work for Moreno?

It’s pretty well documented at this point:

1. Arte Moreno doesn’t pay his GMs commensurate with the position.

2. Arte Moreno doesn’t give as much autonomy to his GMs as they get in other places.

[Angel Oracle]

35 minutes ago, BTH said:

It’s pretty well documented at this point:

1. Arte Moreno doesn’t pay his GMs commensurate with the position.

2. Arte Moreno doesn’t give as much autonomy to his GMs as they get in other places.

In other words, he thinks he’s a baseball scout and is cheap with important infrastructure.

Edited June 21 by Angel Oracle

[floplag]

Arte is not cheap, anyone saying that is not accurate.
He has spent, he just hasnt been willing to spend more when it was obvious that he didnt spend wisely. 
He had a very clear limit, and when the signings didnt work out he let them become and albatross rather then fixing them in the only way he could which was spending more. 
Now hes just unwilling to do what needs to be done to fix the future and do a full rebuild.  The path were on this team will not be relevant till after Trout is done. 

[The Ghost of Bob Starr]

On 4/4/2022 at 5:57 PM, Duren, Duren said:

Not the best, not the worst owner. His preference for big name established stars versus investment in scouting/development/analytics reflects the way ownership shapes a franchise. A different owner, then probably a different approach and type of team. 

But from an instant gratification perspective, signing big names does bring box office and stoke immediate fan excitement. Important factors in running a franchise. And some of the big name flops were because of factors beyond anyone's control. Bad luck and perhaps some lack of due diligence on the part of others in the front office.

Personally I wouldn't place too much blame on his approach. He owns the team, pays the bills and does want to win. There is only so much he can do. The front office puts the structure in place.  He has also adapted somewhat more recently. 

What happens with Ohtani will be the big story going forward 

Checking to see if Arte has cemented that worst status yet?