Gameday Thread (5/21/24 5:10 Pacific): Angels @ Astros: Canning on the mound

[AngelsHilo]

1 minute ago, totdprods said:

You gotta keep 

The BB:K numbers across the board are fantastic too.

Yeah, it's pretty crazy.  That's why I can't wait for them to come up.  This Angel's roster is not good.  Despite what Wash and Perry want to portray, this is a rebuilding year.  You can't win with this relief staff as it sits.  If the relief staff is going to take lumps, would rather see these kids get some experience.  Though it is amazing how many losses this team has, where they had a chance to win.  I get disappointed with games like today because they should have won.  I think Estevez has to be credited with 4 losses this season.  Would rather see a kid taking his lumps than watching Estevez get ripped once again.  And that Dragonball Z thing has to go.

[jsnpritchett]

52 minutes ago, AngelsHilo said:

On Saturday's broadcast, Gubi said he counts 7 games.  You can add tonight.

Again, that's just absurd. That would put them at 27-22. It is mind-boggling to me that Gubie and people on here actually think that's realistic. The "should be" discussion might actually drive me crazy before the season is over. 

[Swordsman78]

12 minutes ago, jsnpritchett said:

Again, that's just absurd. That would put them at 27-22. It is mind-boggling to me that Gubie and people on here actually think that's realistic. The "should be" discussion might actually drive me crazy before the season is over. 

The only one saying "should be" is you.   Most everyone else is simply pointing out that the team is currently underperforming based on the available talent on the roster.  

You are demanding specifics and people have offered a few such as "base runs" etc.

[samwum]

19 minutes ago, jsnpritchett said:

Again, that's just absurd. That would put them at 27-22. It is mind-boggling to me that Gubie and people on here actually think that's realistic. The "should be" discussion might actually drive me crazy before the season is over. 

Gubie is a great dude, but his opinions should be taken with a grain of salt. His job is very clearly to pump up the fanbase, not provide objective analysis.

[jsnpritchett]

23 minutes ago, Swordsman78 said:

The only one saying "should be" is you.   Most everyone else is simply pointing out that the team is currently underperforming based on the available talent on the roster.  

You are demanding specifics and people have offered a few such as "base runs" etc.

BaseRuns are literally supposed to measure "should be." My argument is that the whole concept of "should be" is silly, and that, no, the current talent on the roster really isn't better than they've shown so far. 

 

[jsnpritchett]

30 minutes ago, Swordsman78 said:

The only one saying "should be" is you.   

1 hour ago, Swordsman78 said:

Thats not what you heard.   We said the Angels have been underperforming (said nothing about .500).  Too many mental errors, poor baserunning, and defensive lapses have resulted in a record that is below where they should be.   Lets say -5 to -8 games.

 

14 hours ago, Swordsman78 said:

Correct.  Exactly why I have stated that they should have a better record than they currently do.   
 

You presented good quantifiable examples for Jason P to chew on. 

 

On 5/10/2024 at 5:49 PM, Swordsman78 said:

The talent we have should have a better record than we currently do.

 

[Swordsman78]

17 minutes ago, jsnpritchett said:

BaseRuns are literally supposed to measure "should be." My argument is that the whole concept of "should be" is silly, and that, no, the current talent on the roster really isn't better than they've shown so far. 

 

Different context.

My point is that the team is underperforming based on talent level.  In order to accommodate your request to specify underperformance, i gave examples of expectations.  You were unable to understand "expectations" so I had to dumb it down into your own term of "should be".   So all future statements on this topic will use "should be" so you can try to grasp the concept.

How is setting expectations (as I call it)  or "should be" as you prefer to use those words in that context, silly?  It's basically how everything is evaluated.  It is why stats exist, and functions as a baseline for performance expectations.

Is it silly to say that a major league pitcher "should be" able to throw a strike"

Is it silly to expect a player with a $300M contract to play a majority of games over the life of said contract?

Is it silly to expect that Angel Oracle "should be" able to refrain from disparaging peoples takes via childish use of emoji's

Is it silly that a professional baseball player "should be able to field a ball and "should be" able to make an accurate throw to home from 20 feet?

Is it silly to expect that a professional baseball player "should be" able to slide into a stolen base as opposed to running through it and being tagged out?

 

[samwum]

2 hours ago, totdprods said:

Perry’s running these guys out in hopes some of them build some trade value since pretty much all of them walk at end of year. He’s doing the right thing. The new guys will be up as these either get traded or DFA’ed. Next offseason they can sign an established reliever or two and have a pool of optionable guys to round out the bullpen as needed.

The injuries to the offensive side have also complicated the 40-man for the time being. 

I guess I'm kind of splitting hairs here but I would much rather see that pool of optionable guys proving themselves and developing right now. I don't feel like the current the 2025 bullpen outlook is very promising.

Relievers under contract for 2025 and on the 2024 Angels 40 man roster - 

Pitchers pitching well in the MLB

• Adam Cimber
• Carson Fulmer - 4.80 xFIP is a huge red flag for significant possible regression

Injured relievers who may be healthy and have proven to be MLB caliber

• Robert Stephenson
• Jose Quijada

Lottery Tickets and unproven pitchers

• Sam Bachman
• Kelvin Caceres
• Roansy Conteras
• Davis Daniel
• Ben Joyce
• Victor Mederos
• Jose Suarez
• Guillermo Zuniga
• Andrew Wantz

Not exactly a stellar group. 

And hoping Jose Cisnero or Hunter Strickland have trade value does not feel like a worthwhile venture, at least to me.

• "“I kind of made peace with my career and was grateful for it. I thought I was probably done,” said reliever Hunter Strickland of his mindset last year. He didn’t sign with another team following a May release by the Reds."

 

[jsnpritchett]

6 minutes ago, Swordsman78 said:

Different context.

My point is that the team is underperforming based on talent level.  In order to accommodate your request to specify underperformance, i gave examples of expectations.  You were unable to understand "expectations" so I had to dumb it down into your own term of "should be".   So all future statements on this topic will use "should be" so you can try to grasp the concept.

How is setting expectations (as I call it)  or "should be" as you prefer to use those words in that context, silly?  It's basically how everything is evaluated.  It is why stats exist, and functions as a baseline for performance expectations.

Is it silly to say that a major league pitcher "should be" able to throw a strike"

Is it silly to expect a player with a $300M contract to play a majority of games over the life of said contract?

Is it silly to expect that Angel Oracle "should be" able to refrain from disparaging peoples takes via childish use of emoji's

Is it silly that a professional baseball player "should be able to field a ball and "should be" able to make an accurate throw to home from 20 feet?

Is it silly to expect that a professional baseball player "should be" able to slide into a stolen base as opposed to running through it and being tagged out?

 

The answer to almost all of your questions, as they apply to the specific players currently on the Angels roster, is "yes," given what we've seen from them in previous years and so far this season.

The Angels haven't had a winning record in almost a decade. A significant portion of their roster is made up of guys who've either been let go by bad teams, have bounced around the minors for years, have shown that they're incapable of consistently putting up even marginally decent numbers, are constantly injured, etc. If you "expect" them to be better than they have been, that's on you. You can speak in theoreticals all you want, but when what ACTUALLY occurs is more or less the same thing over and over again, you're a fool to expect something different. 

[totdprods]

20 minutes ago, samwum said:

Relievers under contract for 2025 and on the 2024 Angels 40 man roster - 

• Sam Bachman
• Kelvin Caceres
• Adam Cimber
• Roansy Conteras
• Davis Daniel
• Carson Fulmer
• Ben Joyce
• Victor Mederos
• Jose Quijada
• Robert Stephenson
• Jose Suarez
• Guillermo Zuniga
• Andrew Wantz
• Ben Joyce

So... Stephenson, Cimber, Quijada, maybe Suarez? Not a very reliable (or good) group. 

Not sure that trying to get a low level prospect for Hunter Strickland is a more worthwhile venture than using low leverage innings to test out some of the unproven guys and allow them to develop. 

The below excerpt from Sam Blum's article earlier in the year doesn't exactly scream "Trade Value!" -- 

• "“I kind of made peace with my career and was grateful for it. I thought I was probably done,” said reliever Hunter Strickland of his mindset last year. He didn’t sign with another team following a May release by the Reds."

No one is gonna care what Strickland said last offseason if he keeps producing the way he has been. It’s a slightly different era at this point, but Ryan Madson returned from near retirement to be traded along with Sean Doolittle for Jesus Luzardo, Sheldon Neuse, and Blake Treinen. Good relievers will always draw interest at the deadline. Do I expect that return? Absolutely not. But given the state of our farm, virtually any return we receive for any of these relievers on expiring contracts is likely to be an upgrade somewhere, even if it’s just acquiring organizational depth that helps round out rosters and eat innings. I think I’ve seen recently a couple of our farm teams aren’t even playing with the total number of max players allowed. 

And referencing again Ivan Armstrong. We dealt a middling Tony Watson for three arms, two of which gave us MLB innings (Marte and Selman, even if mediocre) and the third is Armstrong, who very well could be useful. This is arguably one of the best ways to actually build a bullpen, by acquiring guys like him or Carlos Espinosa (Trey Cabbage deal) in mass volume and hoping a few of those live arms give you cheap, effective bullpen pieces to option back and forth. We haven’t had that in years and it’s been a thorn in the side for most of the last decade.

Of those names you listed, I’d bet 4-5 of them won’t even be on the 40-man this time next year. Again, that’s the nature of the beast and sort of my point…the Angels would behoove themselves to run out these vets for another month or so in hopes they can turn a couple of them into a few more names and a couple dozen years of control to continue feeding that pool. It’s how you avoid having to sign a couple guys like Loup, Tepera, Estevez and Stephenson every winter. It won’t make a measurable difference in the development of the AA arms if they start in late July or August instead of a month or so earlier.

Taking a quick glance at relievers traded last year, almost all of them were for a MILB pitcher, most not really noteworthy, but almost all pitching at least reasonably well in their new club’s farms. We lost a lot of depth last year in Crow, Madden, Albright, Marceaux, Van Scoyoc…this is a good chance to fill some of that out, even if it’s just a bunch of lotto tickets. The farm needs all the depth it can get in order to start and sustain a pipeline of cheap relief pitching.

Edited May 22 by totdprods

[samwum]

52 minutes ago, totdprods said:

No one is gonna care what Strickland said last offseason if he keeps producing the way he has been. It’s a slightly different era at this point, but Ryan Madson returned from near retirement to be traded along with Sean Doolittle for Jesus Luzardo, Sheldon Neuse, and Blake Treinen. Good relievers will always draw interest at the deadline. Do I expect that return? Absolutely not. But given the state of our farm, virtually any return we receive for any of these relievers on expiring contracts is likely to be an upgrade somewhere, even if it’s just acquiring organizational depth that helps round out rosters and eat innings. I think I’ve seen recently a couple of our farm teams aren’t even playing with the total number of max players allowed. 

And referencing again Ivan Armstrong. We dealt a middling Tony Watson for three arms, two of which gave us MLB innings (Marte and Selman, even if mediocre) and the third is Armstrong, who very well could be useful. This is arguably one of the best ways to actually build a bullpen, by acquiring guys like him or Carlos Espinosa (Trey Cabbage deal) in mass volume and hoping a few of those live arms give you cheap, effective bullpen pieces to option back and forth. We haven’t had that in years and it’s been a thorn in the side for most of the last decade.

Of those names you listed, I’d bet 4-5 of them won’t even be on the 40-man this time next year. Again, that’s the nature of the beast and sort of my point…the Angels would behoove themselves to run out these vets for another month or so in hopes they can turn a couple of them into a few more names and a couple dozen years of control to continue feeding that pool. It’s how you avoid having to sign a couple guys like Loup, Tepera, Estevez and Stephenson every winter. 

Taking a quick glance at relievers traded last year, almost all of them were for a MILB pitcher, most not really noteworthy, but almost all pitching at least reasonably well in their new club’s farms. We lost a lot of depth last year in Crow, Madden, Albright, Marceaux, Van Scoyoc…this is a good chance to fill some of that out, even if it’s just a bunch of lotto tickets. The farm needs all the depth it can get in order to start and sustain a pipeline of cheap relief pitching.

I edited my post a bit and don't think you had a moment to see the revised so I apologize for that. Didn't really change my point.

Strickland if he continues pitching this way is very comparable IMO to Dominic Leone in age and performance. The Halos traded Jeremiah Jackson for Leone at the deadline last year. So I kind of look at it like the best scenario from having Strickland is getting a Jeremiah Jackson type of prospect at the trade deadline. I'm not sure that level of prospect is actually more valuable than getting Wantz, Zuniga, Joyce, or whoever 30 more big league innings. My gut feeling is those guys really could use 30 big league innings to learn, and we need to see if we can count on them next year. 

I do appreciate the comparable trades you mentioned which suggest you can actually get a competent prospect for an average reliever on the cusp of retirement. Hard to believe, but I guess maybe its possible.

I have read good things about Armstrong. I'd fine calling him up instead of Strickland if you want.

That is a fair point too about replenishing last year's pitching prospect losses. I hadn't thought about that and that's interesting.

I think overall I just get a little concerned that we aren't using the bottom of the roster to develop and evaluate depth for next year, and maybe we are a little too optimistic about trade values.

I see one healthy and sustainably performing reliever we can pencil in the bullpen for 2025, and I just can't imagine that is an industry standard strategy for any team whether they are competing or rebuilding. As you mentioned signing relievers for significant payroll in free agency is generally one of the biggest sins a front office can commit and building a bullpen organically is non-negotiable.

But I suppose the lower end of the minor league system does need to be restocked a bit and that's important. Maybe I just want to have my cake and eat it too. I think selfishly as a fan, I probably just wish there was someone, anyone, in this year's bullpen who was young and exciting and worth watching. I'm not asking for much here!

 

[Tank]

17 hours ago, Blarg said:

The Angels are already the 4th worst record in baseball. I don't think winning the series against the Astros is pushing them up the rankings much. 

tiers, blarg. it's all about the tiers!!

[Swordsman78]

59 minutes ago, Tank said:

tiers, blarg. it's all about the tiers!!

This!   A few more series wins will get them out of Tier 6 which would be totally unacceptable. 

Edited May 22 by Swordsman78

[Dtwncbad]

7 minutes ago, Swordsman78 said:

This!   A few more series wins will get them out of Tier 6 which would be totally unacceptable. 

authored by a tier 7 poster

[totdprods]

13 hours ago, samwum said:

I edited my post a bit and don't think you had a moment to see the revised so I apologize for that. Didn't really change my point.

Strickland if he continues pitching this way is very comparable IMO to Dominic Leone in age and performance. The Halos traded Jeremiah Jackson for Leone at the deadline last year. So I kind of look at it like the best scenario from having Strickland is getting a Jeremiah Jackson type of prospect at the trade deadline. I'm not sure that level of prospect is actually more valuable than getting Wantz, Zuniga, Joyce, or whoever 30 more big league innings. My gut feeling is those guys really could use 30 big league innings to learn, and we need to see if we can count on them next year. 

I do appreciate the comparable trades you mentioned which suggest you can actually get a competent prospect for an average reliever on the cusp of retirement. Hard to believe, but I guess maybe its possible.

I have read good things about Armstrong. I'd fine calling him up instead of Strickland if you want.

That is a fair point too about replenishing last year's pitching prospect losses. I hadn't thought about that and that's interesting.

I think overall I just get a little concerned that we aren't using the bottom of the roster to develop and evaluate depth for next year, and maybe we are a little too optimistic about trade values.

I see one healthy and sustainably performing reliever we can pencil in the bullpen for 2025, and I just can't imagine that is an industry standard strategy for any team whether they are competing or rebuilding. As you mentioned signing relievers for significant payroll in free agency is generally one of the biggest sins a front office can commit and building a bullpen organically is non-negotiable.

But I suppose the lower end of the minor league system does need to be restocked a bit and that's important. Maybe I just want to have my cake and eat it too. I think selfishly as a fan, I probably just wish there was someone, anyone, in this year's bullpen who was young and exciting and worth watching. I'm not asking for much here!

 

Good response with lots of nice insight, ‘preciate it. I’m certainly anxious to see more youth up, but I don’t think waiting a month-ish is going to keep them from getting ample MLB innings later this year to learn. As minute as it is, it’s still early enough in the year that tearing it all down is a bit premature, even if delusional - they’re still not terribly far out of division or WC.

Two other points I didn’t really bring up…

1) there’s very much a 40-man roster element that prevents this right now too. With so much mediocre/injured infield depth currently (Tucker, Adrianza, Sano, Guillorme, Stefanic, Drury, Rendon) the Angels don’t really have a lot of guys they can cut just for the sake of promoting a couple AA arms for more innings. Once some of these guys start coming back it’ll be easier to cut the fringe hitters and open up a spot or two on the 40. If you cut vet RPs right now, what happens if the pitchers start getting hurt and you start advancing guys in a hurry? Sometimes, as we’ve seen with Daniel and Kristofak in particular, they simply have to call up someone who is physically available. A bad weekend could wrench 40-man plans and lead you to lose guys (see Livan Soto) that you don’t really want to lose.

2) part of my insistence on building out the farm, even if it’s with trade returns that have little shot at making the bigs, is because our farm teams are really, really unbalanced. We have a couple good prospects, a few interesting prospects, and the rest seem to be subpar even by career minor league standards. Lifting the floor of that bottom pool of prospect could help the MILB teams perform better overall. Less pressure on other guys. Less need for them to be everything. There’s something to be said about productive career journeyman minor leaguers and what they contribute…and we don’t have that. It’s a sign of a healthy farm for even the worst players to be average for their league, and I don’t think we can make that argument with our current guys. 

[Swordsman78]

On 5/22/2024 at 10:45 AM, Dtwncbad said:

authored by a tier 7 poster

FYI the pre season NFL Tiers are out 

@Blarg