Spring Training is a week in and I'm back to watching/listening/consuming Angels baseball.
What, are you surprised? I'm not that much a bandwagon fan.
If you truly care about someone/something, you never walk away after the first fight. You come back and try to work it out.
So I'm (somewhat) reconciled with the thought that the FO (cue Gob Bluth) made a huge mistake. But I'm still struggling to regain the faith and trust I held for FO moves. It's an ongoing process.
I'm actually not too concerned that I'm still skeptical of the FO. Isn't that a hallmark of any good relationship? That each challenges, inspires, and pushes the other? I want the Angels to be the best that they can be. They in turn, challenge and inspire me to be the best fan I can be. And of course, I give them unconditional love. Er, I just can't quit them!
It took me a long time (as you can see from the archives) to come back here. I tend to post when I feel like I have something to say - when the Angels give me something to say, to feel. And the past month or so, I've been sifting through how I feel about the FO and this season.
Showing posts with label the FO. Show all posts
Showing posts with label the FO. Show all posts
05 March 2011
21 January 2011
confusion, derision
I was obviously disappointed when CC signed with the BoSox.
I was obviously frustrated when Beltre signed with the Rangers.
But I am completely out of my mind now that the Angels have acquired Vernon Wells.
(No disrespect to Wells. It's not his fault that the FO got swindled.)
I'd say that I'm pretty even-kneeled when it comes to criticizing the FO. There's no doubt that I was skeptical about their offseason moves, but I generally give them the benefit of the doubt. But then again, the FO isn't known to do such epically inexplicible things that even I, a common observant baseball fan, know is foolish.
Napoli and Rivera are useful pieces, to a degree. I'm not a particularly big fan of either. I know that Naps is getting expensive and that Rivera is moderately priced. I know that Vernon Wells is a useful piece. He had some good years before a string of bad years, but he rebounded nicely last year. Oh, the asterisk? He's massively overpaid to the tune of $86/4Yrs remaining - widely regarded as one of the most unmovable contracts in baseball.
I had a bad morning and well, just had a feeling that some Angels trade news was waiting for me at home. I was thinking that Tony traded for someone to upgrade the LF situation. So I was excited to hear that Naps was being traded. I was even optimistic when it was revealed that Wells was the one coming to Anaheim. I could have accepted a trade that brought cash along with Wells, to offset his ridiculous contract. But its unbelievable that the FO would bring in that contract without any compensation. The Angels FO is doing the Jays and AA a very big SOLID by not only bailing them out, but by paying them Naps and Rivera! I don't see the reason, Tony, I don't!
I was obviously frustrated when Beltre signed with the Rangers.
But I am completely out of my mind now that the Angels have acquired Vernon Wells.
(No disrespect to Wells. It's not his fault that the FO got swindled.)
I'd say that I'm pretty even-kneeled when it comes to criticizing the FO. There's no doubt that I was skeptical about their offseason moves, but I generally give them the benefit of the doubt. But then again, the FO isn't known to do such epically inexplicible things that even I, a common observant baseball fan, know is foolish.
Napoli and Rivera are useful pieces, to a degree. I'm not a particularly big fan of either. I know that Naps is getting expensive and that Rivera is moderately priced. I know that Vernon Wells is a useful piece. He had some good years before a string of bad years, but he rebounded nicely last year. Oh, the asterisk? He's massively overpaid to the tune of $86/4Yrs remaining - widely regarded as one of the most unmovable contracts in baseball.
I had a bad morning and well, just had a feeling that some Angels trade news was waiting for me at home. I was thinking that Tony traded for someone to upgrade the LF situation. So I was excited to hear that Naps was being traded. I was even optimistic when it was revealed that Wells was the one coming to Anaheim. I could have accepted a trade that brought cash along with Wells, to offset his ridiculous contract. But its unbelievable that the FO would bring in that contract without any compensation. The Angels FO is doing the Jays and AA a very big SOLID by not only bailing them out, but by paying them Naps and Rivera! I don't see the reason, Tony, I don't!
21 December 2010
a small victory
No, the Halos' offseason has not been salvaged. But I'm encouraged that the Angels FO and PR staff have broken the string of stumbles.
News was broken that the Angels have walked away from the Beltre negotiations. You can see that the halosphere reaction was quite indignant and angry. But I certainly applaud the Angels' reaction - Victor Rojas tweeted that the stumbling block is a 6th year. I guess it's presumptuous to assume that Rojas is releasing that information at the request of the FO, but if so, it's a great move. First of all, Rojas is pretty well respected among baseball media and among Halo fans. He also maintains great fan interactions through twitter and fbook. Secondly, it's generally thought among Halo fans that 6 years is too much and that Beltre won't be getting a sixth year from another team. This gives some leeway if the FO fails to sign him. I certainly don't fault the FO from stepping away and challenging Boras to find a better offer.
After twice failing to spin (or even cut their losses on) the CC debacle, this gets an approving nod from this Halo fan.
News was broken that the Angels have walked away from the Beltre negotiations. You can see that the halosphere reaction was quite indignant and angry. But I certainly applaud the Angels' reaction - Victor Rojas tweeted that the stumbling block is a 6th year. I guess it's presumptuous to assume that Rojas is releasing that information at the request of the FO, but if so, it's a great move. First of all, Rojas is pretty well respected among baseball media and among Halo fans. He also maintains great fan interactions through twitter and fbook. Secondly, it's generally thought among Halo fans that 6 years is too much and that Beltre won't be getting a sixth year from another team. This gives some leeway if the FO fails to sign him. I certainly don't fault the FO from stepping away and challenging Boras to find a better offer.
After twice failing to spin (or even cut their losses on) the CC debacle, this gets an approving nod from this Halo fan.
20 December 2010
waffle
Yum, waffles.
Anyways, Arte did some waffling last Friday. After starting off the offseason with some feisty-ness, losing out on CC has gotten the FO backpeddling.
I love that Arte is the Angels' owner. I've always thought of him as a top-5 owner in baseball. I love that he's an everyday, approachable guy. I love that he cares about the common fan, building the fanbase, and creating a fan-friendly atmosphere at the ballpark. I love that he's a genuine baseball fan and doesn't use the Angels as a cash cow, a side project, or a status symbol. And I love that he cares about the long-term health and stability of the franchise.
But even I had to shake my head when I read his comments in the LATimes on Saturday morning. It's not that I necessarily disagree with him that outrageous contracts in baseball can hurt the long-term interests of a club. But there are several things I take issue with.
First, the overall assertion that there is a limit on the amount of money that he will spend and a limit on the payroll. I understand that the Angels do not have endless revenue streams. But I wonder how this will change perceptions in the baseball world. There have been reports that CC chose Boston partially because they have a fearsome lineup. It's understandable that players want to go to a team that can win or a franchise that is motivated to win. The Angels are in that category, but what happens when there are doubts on whether the owner will spend? It's not only FA that may think twice about the Halos. Would Weave or Kendry question staying if it's clear that the FO can't improve the club because of a restricted budget? It's all about perception. It's possible that this is simply strategy in the Beltre negotiations. I certainly hope so because voicing the deficiencies of the club may have opened a can of PR worms.
Anyways, Arte did some waffling last Friday. After starting off the offseason with some feisty-ness, losing out on CC has gotten the FO backpeddling.
I love that Arte is the Angels' owner. I've always thought of him as a top-5 owner in baseball. I love that he's an everyday, approachable guy. I love that he cares about the common fan, building the fanbase, and creating a fan-friendly atmosphere at the ballpark. I love that he's a genuine baseball fan and doesn't use the Angels as a cash cow, a side project, or a status symbol. And I love that he cares about the long-term health and stability of the franchise.
But even I had to shake my head when I read his comments in the LATimes on Saturday morning. It's not that I necessarily disagree with him that outrageous contracts in baseball can hurt the long-term interests of a club. But there are several things I take issue with.
First, the overall assertion that there is a limit on the amount of money that he will spend and a limit on the payroll. I understand that the Angels do not have endless revenue streams. But I wonder how this will change perceptions in the baseball world. There have been reports that CC chose Boston partially because they have a fearsome lineup. It's understandable that players want to go to a team that can win or a franchise that is motivated to win. The Angels are in that category, but what happens when there are doubts on whether the owner will spend? It's not only FA that may think twice about the Halos. Would Weave or Kendry question staying if it's clear that the FO can't improve the club because of a restricted budget? It's all about perception. It's possible that this is simply strategy in the Beltre negotiations. I certainly hope so because voicing the deficiencies of the club may have opened a can of PR worms.
14 December 2010
musings on the FO and FAs
Incredible.
This has been an offseason of surprises and jaw-dropping splashes. And I'm not talking about Hisanori Takahashi.
Jayson Werth for $126M/7Yrs to the Washington Nationals. Carl Crawford to the BoSux at the last minute for $142M/7Yrs. Now Cliff Lee to the Phillies for $120M/5Yrs.
Who would've predicted that Cliff Lee would get less than Werth and Crawford? Who would've predicted that he wouldn't go to the Yankees but back to the Phillies?
It's been mind boggling.
-------------------------
It's been a busy week finishing finals and settling at home for winter break. But I've come to terms that CC is a RedSox.
There is no question that I am disappointed that the FO wasn't able to bring him into the Angels fold. In the immediate aftermath of the news breaking, there was considerable fury and debate in the halosphere over why the FO didn't put up the money to sign him and if it would've been a good idea to even offer more money. Personally, I thought that paying CC the tenth largest contract in baseball history would be a significant risk. I think the Angels FO and a lot of Halo fans are aware of the financial limitations of the club and generally follow a cautious approach in making FA decisions. This is especially evident in big-ticket signings. The FO has generally been good in signing mid-level FA (think Pineiro and the first Abreu contract) and semi-stars (think Torii). The FO in the past have also signed some stars (Vlad, Guillen, Colon), but that was before the high-stakes of $100+M men. If the Halos are going to play in this new FA market, is this cautious approach effective? So far, it has not been. I'm not advocating a wild, irresponsible spending spree, but that the Angels may need to re-evaluate their risk-adverse caution. Sometimes I get the sense that the Halos FO is half-in-half-out, closing their eyes and holding their breath because they can't fully commit on a high-risk-high-reward FA. (Which is somewhat ironic since that has been their drafting strategy for quite some time now, as was pointed out at Halosheaven.) Assessing risk is a tricky business, but I agree with some in the halosphere - the FO needs to learn to take a leap of faith once in a while.
This has been an offseason of surprises and jaw-dropping splashes. And I'm not talking about Hisanori Takahashi.
Jayson Werth for $126M/7Yrs to the Washington Nationals. Carl Crawford to the BoSux at the last minute for $142M/7Yrs. Now Cliff Lee to the Phillies for $120M/5Yrs.
Who would've predicted that Cliff Lee would get less than Werth and Crawford? Who would've predicted that he wouldn't go to the Yankees but back to the Phillies?
It's been mind boggling.
-------------------------
It's been a busy week finishing finals and settling at home for winter break. But I've come to terms that CC is a RedSox.
There is no question that I am disappointed that the FO wasn't able to bring him into the Angels fold. In the immediate aftermath of the news breaking, there was considerable fury and debate in the halosphere over why the FO didn't put up the money to sign him and if it would've been a good idea to even offer more money. Personally, I thought that paying CC the tenth largest contract in baseball history would be a significant risk. I think the Angels FO and a lot of Halo fans are aware of the financial limitations of the club and generally follow a cautious approach in making FA decisions. This is especially evident in big-ticket signings. The FO has generally been good in signing mid-level FA (think Pineiro and the first Abreu contract) and semi-stars (think Torii). The FO in the past have also signed some stars (Vlad, Guillen, Colon), but that was before the high-stakes of $100+M men. If the Halos are going to play in this new FA market, is this cautious approach effective? So far, it has not been. I'm not advocating a wild, irresponsible spending spree, but that the Angels may need to re-evaluate their risk-adverse caution. Sometimes I get the sense that the Halos FO is half-in-half-out, closing their eyes and holding their breath because they can't fully commit on a high-risk-high-reward FA. (Which is somewhat ironic since that has been their drafting strategy for quite some time now, as was pointed out at Halosheaven.) Assessing risk is a tricky business, but I agree with some in the halosphere - the FO needs to learn to take a leap of faith once in a while.
07 December 2010
thoughts: winter meetings & the angels offseason
The offseason is in full swing with several high-profile players already signed - much to my surprise. So much for collusion.
The Angels so far have made only one signing and appear to be (at this time) mostly an observer. Which has gotten some fans to be impatient, and maybe a bit desperate. Though I'm not thrilled that Tony took a day off from the Winter Meetings, I don't think it signifies anything drastic in the Angels' game plan for this offseason.
I trust that the FO knows what it's doing. And I'm sure they (+Arte and Sosh) know that the team cannot go into Spring Training as is. Last offseason I advocated for the Halos to fill small holes rather than go for the big fish. It's quite clear that that plan does not apply this offseason. The big debate in the halosphere has been how and who should be targeted by the FO. The Halos have been linked (by the media) with Crawford, Soriano, and Beltre, who all fill needs.
I'm undecided on who I think would best fit.
Before the season ended, I hoped that CC would be joining the Angels. He's young, dynamic (on both sides of the ball), could vastly improve the outfield defense, and has numerously been described as perfect for Sosh's style. However, with the rise of Mike Trout, would a long term deal for an outfielder be the most efficient use of Arte-anger spending? Maybe you could wait until Torii's contract runs out after 2012. And you never know if Bourjos will actually hit enough. I guess you can always make room for a prospect that is deserving, but I've come to doubt if CC is really the big prize this winter. And of course you have all the uncertainties and risks of bringing in a speed-reliant guy on a 6 or 7 year deal.
No, presently I'm leaning more towards wanting Beltre. With the struggles of BWood, third base this offseason is a huge question mark. Personally, I don't think that BWood should be handed another chance at the full-time gig. Heck, I'm wary of a BWood/Callaspo split. Or even a BWood/Callaspo/Izturis third base. I didn't like the Callaspo trade last summer, but even I grudgingly admit that some stability at third was needed. I don't think that Izzy can provide that due to his injuries, I don't think BWood can provide that due to his performance, and though I think Callaspo gives a pretty steady performance, it's a mediocre one. With offense being one of the major deficiencies last season, third base is an opportunity to upgrade. So why not upgrade as best as the Angels can? The Halos are thin on even-a-little-bit-close-to-MLB-ready 3Bmen. Having a multi-year contract, say 4-5 years won't lead to complications, except for the usual questions of age and worth. The good thing is that Beltre's market is narrowing. I think one of the common thoughts against Beltre in the beginning of the offseason was that Boras was going to make his price out of the Angels' comfort area. But that concern looks like it won't be a concern.
So is Beltre really worth giving a long-term, big splash, contract? I'm not convinced either way. Some in the halosphere accuse him of only performing when he's in a contract year. And others have tried to debunk that notion. Beltre is certainly an above-average 3Bman and is a superb defender. Like CC, he's a dynamic player on both sides of the ball. He's older than CC, but is generally thought to command less years.
With a lot of things being equal, I'd prefer Beltre. But I would also be very happy with CC. Between those two, I don't think that the Angels could really lose, unless they give a Werth-like ridiculous contract.
No, I chiefly have two concerns: that the FO will spend unwisely and that the FO will do too little.
The Angels so far have made only one signing and appear to be (at this time) mostly an observer. Which has gotten some fans to be impatient, and maybe a bit desperate. Though I'm not thrilled that Tony took a day off from the Winter Meetings, I don't think it signifies anything drastic in the Angels' game plan for this offseason.
I trust that the FO knows what it's doing. And I'm sure they (+Arte and Sosh) know that the team cannot go into Spring Training as is. Last offseason I advocated for the Halos to fill small holes rather than go for the big fish. It's quite clear that that plan does not apply this offseason. The big debate in the halosphere has been how and who should be targeted by the FO. The Halos have been linked (by the media) with Crawford, Soriano, and Beltre, who all fill needs.
I'm undecided on who I think would best fit.
Before the season ended, I hoped that CC would be joining the Angels. He's young, dynamic (on both sides of the ball), could vastly improve the outfield defense, and has numerously been described as perfect for Sosh's style. However, with the rise of Mike Trout, would a long term deal for an outfielder be the most efficient use of Arte-anger spending? Maybe you could wait until Torii's contract runs out after 2012. And you never know if Bourjos will actually hit enough. I guess you can always make room for a prospect that is deserving, but I've come to doubt if CC is really the big prize this winter. And of course you have all the uncertainties and risks of bringing in a speed-reliant guy on a 6 or 7 year deal.
No, presently I'm leaning more towards wanting Beltre. With the struggles of BWood, third base this offseason is a huge question mark. Personally, I don't think that BWood should be handed another chance at the full-time gig. Heck, I'm wary of a BWood/Callaspo split. Or even a BWood/Callaspo/Izturis third base. I didn't like the Callaspo trade last summer, but even I grudgingly admit that some stability at third was needed. I don't think that Izzy can provide that due to his injuries, I don't think BWood can provide that due to his performance, and though I think Callaspo gives a pretty steady performance, it's a mediocre one. With offense being one of the major deficiencies last season, third base is an opportunity to upgrade. So why not upgrade as best as the Angels can? The Halos are thin on even-a-little-bit-close-to-MLB-ready 3Bmen. Having a multi-year contract, say 4-5 years won't lead to complications, except for the usual questions of age and worth. The good thing is that Beltre's market is narrowing. I think one of the common thoughts against Beltre in the beginning of the offseason was that Boras was going to make his price out of the Angels' comfort area. But that concern looks like it won't be a concern.
So is Beltre really worth giving a long-term, big splash, contract? I'm not convinced either way. Some in the halosphere accuse him of only performing when he's in a contract year. And others have tried to debunk that notion. Beltre is certainly an above-average 3Bman and is a superb defender. Like CC, he's a dynamic player on both sides of the ball. He's older than CC, but is generally thought to command less years.
With a lot of things being equal, I'd prefer Beltre. But I would also be very happy with CC. Between those two, I don't think that the Angels could really lose, unless they give a Werth-like ridiculous contract.
No, I chiefly have two concerns: that the FO will spend unwisely and that the FO will do too little.
