Trout to NYPost on Angels keeping Ohtani: “Ultimately, it’s going to come down if we get to the playoffs”

[Jason]

36 minutes ago, arch stanton said:

Isn’t it better to give them early days off against bad teams than to fret them being worn out in a potential playoff push in September?

Yep. With Ohtani pitching last night it was the best time to give them the day off. It worked exactly as planned too 

[Jason]

36 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Yes.  It also make sense to give them days off during the longest stretch of games of the season.  

Even if they had an open DH spot I think you have to give these guys more days off than we would like to see. Their injury history has to be taken into account. I’d rather have a 100% Trout through September and only play 120 games 

[Inside Pitch]

55 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

Don't forget that the further you go back, the more expansive teams peel away from the total. So we've got:

2000+: 10th out of 30

1990+: 10th out of 26

1970/80+: 10th out of 24

I'm not forgetting anything, I knew what I was saying when I made my initial post.  Reality is they have been in the upper half of MLB when it comes to wins since 1970.

They aren't remotely close to being the "loser" franchise most of the fanbase likes to make them out to be ,even if being .500 does paint them as decidedly mediocre. Again my focus was on that 14-15 year run where they were one of the winningest teams in MLB and how they have completely fallen off.

When push comes to shove the Angels have been above .500 since 1970, 53 years worth of baseball.  There are 20 teams that CAN'T say that -- the Mets are super close. 

It may not be much but I guarantee you if you ask most of the fans they'd tell you that isn't the case.

[mmc]

20 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

I'm not forgetting anything, I knew what I was saying when I made my initial post.  Reality is they have been in the upper half of MLB when it comes to wins since 1970.

They aren't remotely close to being the "loser" franchise most of the fanbase likes to make them out to be ,even if being .500 does paint them as decidedly mediocre. Again my focus was on that 14-15 year run where they were one of the winningest teams in MLB and how they have completely fallen off.

When push comes to shove the Angels have been above .500 since 1970, 53 years worth of baseball.  There are 20 teams that CAN'T say that -- the Mets are super close. 

It may not be much but I guarantee you if you ask most of the fans they'd tell you that isn't the case.

A lot of it just depends on how old you are I think.  I’m 22, I was 2 years old when we won the World Series, and while it’s hard for me to pinpoint exactly when I would say I got into baseball, the earliest playoff series I remember watching was against the Red Sox, believe in 2007 (could’ve been 2008 though?  I just remember later watching the 2009 one thinking about how we could never beat them).  So I’ve at most seen this team make the playoffs 4 times, only win a series in one of those years, which last happened when I was 9 years old.  So to me, this team is absolutely going to feel like a loser franchise, though I completely understand why those that were around for the World Series win and the entire success of the 2000s would feel differently.  Definitely glad they won the World Series and of course understand and appreciate what it means for the franchise but I didn’t get the euphoria of seeing this team win it all that most here did.  My highlight was the 2009 ALDS, and 2 years prior to that my Ducks won it all, and I’ve since seen my Rams win a Super Bowl and the Lakers win multiple championships, and multiple conference finals for the Ducks. 

[Stradling]

I say this with zero negative intent. The younger you are the more difficulty you will have with overall context because you haven’t experienced nearly as much. 

[TroutField]

8 minutes ago, mmc said:

A lot of it just depends on how old you are I think.  I’m 22, I was 2 years old when we won the World Series, and while it’s hard for me to pinpoint exactly when I would say I got into baseball, the earliest playoff series I remember watching was against the Red Sox, believe in 2007 (could’ve been 2008 though?  I just remember later watching the 2009 one thinking about how we could never beat them).  So I’ve at most seen this team make the playoffs 4 times, only win a series in one of those years, which last happened when I was 9 years old.  So to me, this team is absolutely going to feel like a loser franchise, though I completely understand why those that were around for the World Series win and the entire success of the 2000s would feel differently

I’m 29 and most of my vivid memories of the angels are of them being a top tier franchise, even getting best professional sports franchise from sports illustrated right around like 2008ish. I probably still have that SI issue stored away somewhere. 
 

I definitely remember not being able to beat the Red Sox year after year… finally overcoming them with that clean sweep and comeback victory in the ALDS felt like magic. 

 

2010 was kind of the end of what stoneman had built and Reagins had sort of started to do the damage of overloading the payroll with bad contracts and not replenishing the farm. Stupid moves like not re-upping Vladdy and Torii Hunter started to leave a bad taste in fans mouths as the losses started to pile up.
 

 
It was a super successful franchise that just let it get away. Dipoto came in and did the rest of the damage and ruined whatever farm we had left. Here we are almost 15 years removed from being a great franchise. 

 

[Inside Pitch]

11 minutes ago, mmc said:

A lot of it just depends on how old you are I think.  I’m 22, I was 2 years old when we won the World Series, and while it’s hard for me to pinpoint exactly when I would say I got into baseball, the earliest playoff series I remember watching was against the Red Sox, believe in 2007 (could’ve been 2008 though?  I just remember later watching the 2009 one thinking about how we could never beat them).  So I’ve at most seen this team make the playoffs 4 times, only win a series in one of those years, which last happened when I was 9 years old.  So to me, this team is absolutely going to feel like a loser franchise, though I completely understand why those that were around for the World Series win and the entire success of the 2000s would feel differently.  Definitely glad they won the World Series and of course understand and appreciate what it means for the franchise but I didn’t get the euphoria of seeing this team win it all that most here did.  My highlight was the 2009 ALDS

Absolutely time as a fan impacts the view -- and I'd argue people these days have become more impatient than ever, it's not just sports it's everything, and that's fine too.

But historically speaking even taking into account their mediocrity they have been better than most.  What chaps me is they went from what was easily the team's most successful era and period of sustained success to it's most brutal and most sustained era of utter garbage.

Worst of all -- most of it was IMO self inflected damage.

[Inside Pitch]

1 minute ago, TroutField said:

It was a super successful franchise that just let it get away. D

This right here.  They had BECOME a supper successful franchise and then they butchered it -- all while having the best player of his era.

[Jason]

12 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

This right here.  They had BECOME a supper successful franchise and then they butchered it -- all while having the best player of his era.

Very sad 

[Docwaukee]

19 hours ago, Inside Pitch said:

It's not about MS, so much as the standards he (and Bill Stoneman), helped usher in.  He earned his exit, but nothing they have done since has lived up to the standards he had helped establish and the end result has been a constant state of flux.

But it's all good, Arte has unfinished business to take care of.  

Chasing year to year success is the death nail of any professional sports team.  Every franchise from every team has pretty much done this at some point in their history and the Angels were no different as this was their primary MO for about the first 30+ years of their existence.  Stoneman changed that and provided stability by hiring MS with the two of them following a consistent plan for almost two decades.  

The second he stepped down, they went back to chasing the rabbit down a hole on a yearly basis and have been doing that ever since.  

[mmc]

39 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

Absolutely time as a fan impacts the view -- and I'd argue people these days have become more impatient than ever, it's not just sports it's everything, and that's fine too.

But historically speaking even taking into account their mediocrity they have been better than most.  What chaps me is they went from what was easily the team's most successful era and period of sustained success to it's most brutal and most sustained era of utter garbage.

Worst of all -- most of it was IMO self inflected damage.

Oh yeah I know in the grand scheme of things the Angels aren't nearly as much of a loser as the last stretch has made them feel, but I also don't think anyone should be surprised or see it as wrong that there's now a generation of young adults growing up whose age was in the single digits the last time they saw this team win a playoff game who has this image of the franchise.  Ultimately we only really have emotions and a connection to the seasons we experienced.  

[Taylor]

3 hours ago, Stradling said:

I say this with zero negative intent. The younger you are the more difficulty you will have with overall context because you haven’t experienced nearly as much. 

This is true.

This is also true: the older you are, the more blind spots you have picked up and the more entrenched you are in long-held notions that may or may not still be relevant or accurate.

It's why we all need each other.

[Inside Pitch]

27 minutes ago, Taylor said:

This is true.

This is also true: the older you are, the more blind spots you have picked up and the more entrenched you are in long-held notions that may or may not still be relevant or accurate.

It's why we all need each other.

.... all I need is this ashtray, the paddle game, this chair and the lamp.... that's all I need.

[Lou]

53 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

.... all I need is this ashtray, the paddle game, this chair and the lamp.... that's all I need.

 

I'm picking out a thermos for you

Not an ordinary thermos for you

[Jason]

1 hour ago, Taylor said:

 

It's why we all need each other.

You complete me 

[Stradling]

1 hour ago, Taylor said:

This is true.

This is also true: the older you are, the more blind spots you have picked up and the more entrenched you are in long-held notions that may or may not still be relevant or accurate.

It's why we all need each other.

This isn’t necessarily true.  

[Angelsjunky]

1 hour ago, Taylor said:

This is true.

This is also true: the older you are, the more blind spots you have picked up and the more entrenched you are in long-held notions that may or may not still be relevant or accurate.

It's why we all need each other.

Gayest post ever. But true.

Does that mean I'm gay?

[Revad]

13 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

Gayest post ever. But true.

Does that mean I'm gay?

Yes.

[Stradling]

15 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

Gayest post ever. But true.

Does that mean I'm gay?

That and your love of wiener. 

[Jason]

17 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

Gayest post ever. But true.

Does that mean I'm gay?

Taylor will take this as a challenge. It’s cool if you’re gay 

[Taylor]

28 minutes ago, Stradling said:

This isn’t necessarily true.  

You're proving my point.

[Taylor]

8 minutes ago, Jason said:

Taylor will take this as a challenge. It’s cool if you’re gay 

Yeah there are some cool gays. And some lame gays. And some cool straights. And a lot of lame straights.

[Docwaukee]

13 minutes ago, Taylor said:

You're proving my point.

10 years ago, you wouldn't have stated that.  

[Stradling]

29 minutes ago, Taylor said:

You're proving my point.

So you can be wrong assuming older people don’t change their beliefs but I am wrong because I mention that it isn’t necessarily true?  I mean I guess it prevents you from being wrong in this case in your mind, congrats on that.  

[Taylor]

11 minutes ago, Stradling said:

So you can be wrong assuming older people don’t change their beliefs but I am wrong because I mention that it isn’t necessarily true?  I mean I guess it prevents you from being wrong in this case in your mind, congrats on that.  

That's not what I'm saying. Just like I didn't take what you said to mean that young people never try to understand context.