"Nathan Miller" <nate.miller1 DeleteThis @verizon.net> wrote in message
news:qd0eh.194$dh.2@trnddc03...
>
> "LACountyRefugee" <LACORefugee DeleteThis @spamsux.net> wrote in message
> news:AZZdh.3008$Ga1.1427@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
>>
>> "Nathan Miller" <nate.miller1 DeleteThis @verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:13Zdh.4749$Jg.3929@trnddc08...
>>>
>>> "mrpbjnance" <mwnance DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1165512433.576510.91800@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Listening to the Radio and hearing all the moves the Dodgers are making
>>>> I was getting a little frustrated.
>>>>
>>>> It was nice to hear the Angels made a play for Soriano but they were
>>>> shocked when the cubs bid 21 million more than they did and the Angels
>>>> thought they were the high bidders... I think the cubs overpaid.
>>>>
>>>> But it was frustrating to know that Stoneman showed up a day late to
>>>> the meetings and was leaving a day early! He needs to be there to make
>>>> a deal. My opinion is he will need to give up a few prospects to make
>>>> a move. No use having a bunch of prospects when only 1 can play each
>>>> position!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Unfortunately that isn't the case. The prospects we had pretty much all
>>> came up and played on the team last year. Some proved themselves and
>>> stayed on the team (Saunders, Napoli and Weaver) and others flopped with
>>> their value now worth half what it was before.
>>
>> I remember in 1970 when a 20 year old named Bill Buckner was first called
>> up to the Dodgers. He had a great spring that year. He batted .225 and
>> was back in the minors in May. It took three years before he really
>> started to produce. I haven't given up on Morales, McPherson or Kotchman
>> either. I noticed no mention the successful debuts of Hendrick, Weaver
>> or Saunders.
>
> I did mention Saunders, Napoli and Weaver.
Sorry about that.
> You're right...I didn't mention Kendrick and Morales. Kendrick is proven
> but he's staying and should be better offensively than Kennedy. Morales
> and Napoli were great until the rest of the baseball world figured them
> out and they couldn't adjust. I like Napoli better than Morales just
> based on effort, heart and attitude.
Napoli's problem are correctable. When you think about it, his hitting style
(wants to pull everything) is tailor made for Angels Stadium. His problem is
that he doesn't adjust well to outside pitching. Morales should be better
than last year too.
>
>> The Angels still have Gourneault, Aybar, Wood, Adenhart, Arredondo and
>> others that are still developing their games too. The cupboard is far
>> from bare IMO.
>
> You are right. They do have a lot of great talent still left but most are
> a couple of years out.
>
Arredondo and Adebhart have been consistently clocked in the mid to high
90s.
> The biggest threat to the Angels IMO is that other teams have
>> recognized the outstanding coaches in their system and have lured them
>> away. As someone who grew up a Dodger fan, I truly appreciate that the
>> Angels are investing heavily to develop young players and continue to
>> build their club from their farm system. Making it to the world series
>> each year is secondary (IMO) to fielding a competitive team each year and
>> giving the fans some continuity from one season to the next.
>
> Agreed about the coaches. Notice how no one wants Hatcher?
LOL
> I really don't hate Hatcher, I think he is a great and positive guy...I
> just think he is a terrible hitting coach. I agree about the world series
> too...I'd be happy with every other year 
>
The thing about Hatcher is the intangibles. He came up with the Dodgers but
they traded him to the Twins for former Angel Ken Landreaux. He was known
for being a true team player and a positive force in the clubhouse. He
wasn't a great talent but got the most out of what he had. He came back to
the Dodgers in 1987 and played a vital role in their last World Series in
1988. Scioscia obviously loves the guy and it looks like their bond is
solid. You have to admit that they have instilled a winning atitude intoa
franchise that was pretty much a perennial loser.
> I would not be so attached to this
>> team if it we just a bunch of new mercenaries every year like the Dodgers
>> and A's have become. Yes, it's painful to see fan favorites like
>> Eckstein, Kennedy and Spiezio move on, but that's part of the business of
>> baseball. Father time waits for no one.
>
> Agreed...
>
>>
>>>
>>> They don't want our prospects this year, they want Santana, Shields and
>>> some were even crazy enough to ask for K-Rod. I don't blame Stoneman
>>> for not moving on something like that. Our pitching is really right
>>> where it needs to be right now. Our bullpen strength ought to be back
>>> with the acquisition of Speier and our rotation is good because we have
>>> one deep to fall back on should Colon not be able to return or get
>>> injured again. Other clubs would kill to have our pitching...like the
>>> Dodgers. They've got nothing in that department compared to the Angels.
>>> Fortunately for the Dodgers there are a lot more quality number 2 or 3
>>> pitchers available so they are being active.
>>>
>>> If you haven't noticed though...they are also looking for a big bat to
>>> replace Drew and they haven't been any more successful than the Angels.
>>> I do think that they made a better move getting Pierre than the Angels
>>> did getting Matthews.
>>
>> Why would we acquire a guy like Pierre when we already have Chone
>> Figgins?
>
> The same can be asked about why would we acquire a guy like Matthews when
> we already have Chone Figgins?
> My response to you...He's as fast as Figgins, is much better in Center
> than Figgins, is a better leadoff hitter than Figgins. You can say the
> same about Matthews as well, but only for one season...So Far...
All players have differences, but Pieere is more like Figgins than Mathews.
If the Angels are looking for more clout, then Pierre is not the guy. I know
a lot of people don't like the Mathews signing, but would you agree that it
weakened the Rangers? Also, looks like the A's are weaker than last season,
so why make a risky trade when it looks like the Angels are the strongest
team in their division. The A's and Rangers have to plug holes because of
attrition. Beside Mathews the Rangers also lost DeRosa and Carlos Lee. The
Mariners also appear to have leaped over the A's and Rangers.
>
>>
>>>
>>> It doesn't appear that any deal is going to come without losing Shields
>>> or Santana and to me that is a dumb move. So we add a Big Bat that can
>>> help us score 3 more runs a game. Doesn't help when our pitching is now
>>> giving up 5 runs a game because it has been depleted. Remember too that
>>> we have a new pitching coach this year who hasn't proven himself. We
>>> also have Hatcher still who will probably wreck Matthews as a batter and
>>> destroy any power bat we acquire with his fine, fine batting guidance
>>> skills...
>>
>> LOL. After the all-star break, the Angels were one of the best teams in
>> baseball last year. I'm hopeful they will build on that.
>
> Yeah, but their team average only improved slightly in the second half.
> IMO it was a mixture of a platoon of new players everyday who would get
> hot for a day, and improved pitching in the second half.
> Remember...That's when the younger Weaver replaced the older one too.
Agreed about Weaver and the pitching but every team has hot and cold
streaks. Also remember that Juan Rivera was recovering from injuries in May
and june and got healthy and hot in July. His presence improved things for
GA who finished very strong. We need GA and Rivera healthy from the outset,
and if they are, I would expect a different result in the first 2 months.
>
>>
>>>
>>> As far as Stoneman leaving or arriving early makes no difference.
>>> People know how to get a hold of him and he knows more than us what his
>>> options are. There is a lot we don't know about. There could still be
>>> some sort of deal, but like it has been stated many times...probably not
>>> a big blockbuster type.
>>>
>>> I can't believe I am protecting Stoneman....what is happening to me?!?
>>> I will still never forgive him for letting Glaus go as he would still be
>>> the answer to our problems right now. I'm also still a little bitter
>>> about not trading any of our prospects (Some that proved they were just
>>> that this past season) when they actually had some value and he could
>>> get something for them.
>>
>> The Dodgers did the same thing with Steve Garvey in 1982. They had this
>> "huge" prospect named Greg Brock who tore it up in AAA in 1982 and they
>> also had Mike "Moose" Marshall come up after 1981. Glaus did not help the
>> situation when he stated on the radio in April of 2004 that the Angels
>> had not talked to him about an extension and then wound up getting hurt
>> again. It sounded like he was trying to publicly embarrass Angel
>> management. Arte hadn't even owned the team more than seven or eight
>> months at that point and here he is being called out on the radio.
>>
>
> I was unaware of that.
Yeah, IIRC, it was on the pregame show when Glaus was taking calls from the
fans and was asked about whether he had been contacted about an extension.
The correct answer would have been something to the effect the he wants to
prove that he's healthy and able to perform for several more years. Instead
he came off as a bitter multimillionaire whose ego was insulted that hadn't
been approached yet.
>
>>>
>>> Give 'em some offense Stoneman...and not of the Gary Matthews
>>> type...please!
>>
>> I still believe that Mathews will work out nicely for the Angels. The
>> best way to improve the team is for every player to improve individually.
>>
>
> I hope it is only the beginning of Matthews Highlight career...
Here's an excerpt from the Press Enterprise on Nov 30th:
The Angels may have Chipper Jones to thank for their new center fielder.
... after signing with Texas six days after being released (by the Braves
in April of 2004) and heading to Class AAA affiliate that year, Matthews
adjusted his stance to emulate that of (Chipper) Jones - open and closer to
the plate.
There was also this quote from Mathews:
"It's been like a steady progression these last three years, basically every
year I had offensive highs. These three years I've been playing more and I
understand what to do mechanically and how to correct it."
>
>>>
>>> Nathan
>>>
>>
>>
>
> >> Stay informed about: Interesting Angels Notes 
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
