Ouch!!!

by tklawless on Dec 20, 2006 11:26 AM CST Comment 25 comments

From Buster Olney

* Mike DiGiovanna addresses the contract of Angels GM Bill Stoneman within this Q&A. Given the Angels' incredible advantages in resources right now -- a farm system loaded with major-league-ready prospects, Arte Moreno's cash, a solid rotation and an established closer -- the team will have no excuses if it doesn't win the AL West next year, given the relative weaknesses of the other three teams in the division. Oakland doesn't have much money to spend to augment its solid core of players, and the Rangers and Mariners don't have a lot of talent yet. The Angels losing the AL West next year would be like USC football losing in a conference populated by Vanderbilt, Northwestern and Duke; there's no reason why they shouldn't win, unless they get hit by an incredible series of injuries.

0 recs | Comment 25 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I think he is right

about how weak the AL West is gonna be. I think there is a very good chance its the weakest in Baseball, but I really don't see the Angels standing out.

"Strippers dude, I tell you, I really respect the cunts now. . . I'm not gonna lie to ya." - Voice of Her Generation, Lindsay Lohan.

by DJCahill on Dec 20, 2006 11:28 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

The AL West isn't that weak.

Right now, I'd take all AL West teams over Baltimore, Tampa, and KC. Seattle isn't the same caliber as Minnesota, Cleveland, Chicago or Toronto, but if any of Texas, Oakland or Anaheim finished better or worse than those teams, I wouldn't be surprised. And I wouldn't be surprised to see at least one, and maybe two of those teams with better records than Boston and Detroit.

The West lacks a power team, but all 4 teams have talent could finish in the upper half of the league. Remember, if Seattle wins just 4 games against Oakland last year (instead of 1) and we win just one more game, the entire division is at 500 or better. Hardly the weakest in baseball.

by JBImaknee on Dec 20, 2006 11:34 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Your argument is a bit weak

you mention two AL East teams and one Central team. But the rest of the teams in those divisions would almost all be hard to beat if they were in the AL West, except maybe Toronto. The AL Central is the most competitive, than the East, than the West.

by t ball on Dec 20, 2006 11:39 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

What AL teams have gotten better this offseason?

It hasn't exactly been rosy for anyone else either. The argument that the Angels should win because the other teams suck is stupid, especially when the other teams don't suck. the AL West was not weak last year, and there is no reason to believe that they will be any weaker this year.

I'm not saying that Texas, Oakland and Anaheim would win those other divisions. But I'm saying that it is no guarantee that any team in the American League - with the exception of the Yankees - would win the AL West if it were dropped in there this year.

by JBImaknee on Dec 20, 2006 11:46 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Winnable

is perhaps a better word than weak. But my main concern is still the Angels. Their rotation is good enough to cover a middling offense. The Rangers rotation right now is not. If some of their bats have good years the Rangers are going to have to add offense to compete even if they have Zito.

by t ball on Dec 20, 2006 11:50 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Olney is an idiot

And the Angels aren't that much better on paper than Texas or Oakland. More like USC losing to a conferance with Oregon St, UCLA and Cal. Not national contenders, but teams that could all finish .500.

But then again, this is what happens when you read ESPN.com.

by JBImaknee on Dec 20, 2006 11:29 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

I could see that point of view

if I weren't a Rangers fan. The Angels scare me a lot more than the A's. They have the best rotation in the division, hands down. They have a lot of young hitters who so far haven't been great, but could grow significantly this year. That team could win anything from 80-95 games.

The Mariners will win 70 games.

The A's just lost Zito, and Piazza is not going to do what Frank Thomas will do.

I think people underestimate the Rangers, and perhaps rightly so. They underachieved last year, lost a bunch of players who were productive, and have two good pitchers in the rotation and three question marks. Why should any outsider think the Rangers are going to win?

Of course we know that they'll get another pitcher and be right in it. But if I had to pick the AL West today, right now, it would go Angels, A's or Rangers 2nd or 3rd, and Mariners.

by t ball on Dec 20, 2006 11:32 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

70 games?

Seattle is better than that. You think losing Meche is going to hurt them???

They've made stupid moves, but they aren't going to destroy that team.

The only AL West team to get worse this offseason is Oakland. The other teams didn't get better - but not worse and each one a little older.

Stop letting the media (who thinks that the AL East is a two team division) convince you that the AL West is bad.

by JBImaknee on Dec 20, 2006 11:38 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Ok, maybe 75

I don't mean the AL West is bad, it's just not nearly as good as the Central. The East, well you have two teams that will be quite good, and three that will be looking up at them from the bottom by June 1. Overall the AL West is a shadow of the competitive group that was there a few years ago.

by t ball on Dec 20, 2006 11:42 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

we underestimate how good the LAAs are...

Lackey, Weaver, Escobar, Santana, K-Rod, Bartolo (if his arm works), Vlad, Kotchman, Kendrick, Garrett, GMJ...

They have a very good team (by AL West standards).

by jasun on Dec 20, 2006 11:36 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

I'm really just wondering.........

does Olney consider us Vandy, NW or Duke?

by tklawless on Dec 20, 2006 11:41 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

The USC comparison is over-the-top.

I would agree that on paper the Angels appear to have more talent, but certainly not USC compared to Duke. That's silly. But, then again, he does work for an entertainment rather than news and analysis company.

by rooster on Dec 20, 2006 11:42 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

what exactly is the point?

Is Olney saying that if the Angels don't win, its the GM's fault? But then he also goes on to talk about all the talent the angels have both in the major's and the minors. So then would he pointing the finger at Sciosia?

I guess it can't be that Olney and the media aren't giving enough credit to the other teams or are overestimating the Angels' dominance.

by ab03 on Dec 20, 2006 11:42 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Division records last year

AL East: 401-409; .495
AL Central: 421-389; .520
AL West: 340-308; .525

WOW... they really should demote the west to AAA. Its so bad... Good thing that Anaheim is there to boost the divisions records.

by JBImaknee on Dec 20, 2006 11:42 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Not really the best indicator

Since Cleveland, for example, had to play Chicago, Minnesota, and Detroit 19 or so times each. Yes, they also got to play KC, but overall that's a tough schedule.

by t ball on Dec 20, 2006 11:45 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, and playing teams in your own division

by definition pulls the divisional record towards .500.

The true measure would be to look at the division's record against the other divisions (discounting the NL games)

by JBImaknee on Dec 20, 2006 11:48 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

so

why didn't you do that?

anyway, this is just a semantic debate. you guys essentially agree on which teams are better than which and really you're arguing whether a division with two elite teams is better than a division with 4 decent teams (roughly speaking).

by ab03 on Dec 20, 2006 11:52 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I suppose

My real argument is that the AL West has 4 decent teams. Which by definition does not make the division weak. Weak is the NL West 2 years ago which was won by San Diego with an 82-80 record. A division where 78-84 gets you last place is a good division.

Anyway, my problem is with Olney, not anyone here. I get tired of hearing people say it, because it provides false justification for only paying attention to the other divisions.

As for why I didn't originally separate records... adding up standings is much much quicker.

by JBImaknee on Dec 20, 2006 12:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I grade divisions strength

by how good the best teams in the division are. Not by how bad the worst teams are.

I still think 88 or so wins could win the division this year. Its probably not going to be as weak as the NL central was last year, but I don't see any great teams there either.

"Strippers dude, I tell you, I really respect the cunts now. . . I'm not gonna lie to ya." - Voice of Her Generation, Lindsay Lohan.

by DJCahill on Dec 20, 2006 12:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Or the World Series by a 83-79 team?

by tklawless on Dec 20, 2006 12:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Team vs Team

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/standings/grid

So forgive any slight errors - I'm doing this in my head.

Texas went 22-22 vs the Central (19-19 against non-KC teams)
Seattle went 20-23; 15-20 vs non-KC
Oakland went 22-20; 17-17 vs non-KC
Anaheim went 24-18; 17-15 vs non-KC.

Overall 88-83 in favor of the West; 68-71 without KC

Hardly overmatched, either way

by JBImaknee on Dec 20, 2006 11:55 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

He's right

At this point, the Angels should be the favorite to win the division. They have the best rotation, and they've added a bat in GMJ that they missed last year.

The Rangers still have gaping holes in both the starting rotation and the lineup. As weak as our offense was last year, it's not silly for a professional sports writer to dismiss the idea that the Rangers are in a better position this year than they were last.

Realistically, I don't think this team can win the division with the pieces that are in place right now. Now, add Zito and a big bat, and I think we do... but again, that's playing what-ifs.

you jackin' it?

by chief on Dec 20, 2006 11:43 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Someone check my math

the AL West was a combined 102-74 against the AL East last year, and 88-84 against the AL Central.

"He's not gonna sign with the Mets" - C.J. Wilson, on B. Zito

by SteveP on Dec 20, 2006 11:56 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Off by one

I was off by one against the central (only one I did), but that was in my head... so I could be wrong.

by JBImaknee on Dec 20, 2006 12:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Rangers chances

For some reason, the Rangers always go into the season with a huge amount of uncertainty, relative to the other teams.

Obviously right now, we don't know if Tejeda will be our 3rd starter or 5th, so it is hard to judge. But here are our question marks.

1> Teixeira - is the first half slump a fluke or is he really streaky?
2> Wilkerson - healthy? good?
3> Tejeda/Kinsler/Laird - will a full 2nd season treat them as well as their first?
4> Lofton/Gagne - will these old Dodgers be Lofton/Gagne of years past, or Brian Jordan and Jeff Zimmerman?
5> Blalock - will surgery help him return to even half his potential? Or are we looking at a Sean Burroughs situation here?

The problem with some of you people, and all of the national press, is that you see uncertainty and discount the value to zero - can't rely on Gagne, so pretend he doesn't exist. Others look at it and assume the maximum value. That is just as foolish - we cannot rely on Blalock to be an all-star.

But it isn't a stretch to say that this Ranger team, as it is, COULD win 90 games. It could just as likely lose 90 games. It is a huge question mark.

In that respect, Mr. Olney, the Texas Rangers are Oregon St to LAA's USC. We may go 5-7 or we may go 10-2 - you just don't know...

by JBImaknee on Dec 20, 2006 12:15 PM CST reply actions 0 recs