Mike & Mike- Red Sox-Angels

[Swampdog]

Justanewguy said....."The Angels were NINTH in the AL in SLG% this season. That simply isn't going to win you an AL playoff series."

So this is how we determine who can win a playoff series now? So, the Angels finished ninth in slugging and cannot win a series, but the Rays finished 8'th and they can? You must be joking. Is this more of the "built for the playoffs" crap that the talking heads in the media spout ad nauseam?

Well lets see, in 2006 Oakland was 13'th in the league in slugging, and they swept a playoff series. In 2005 the Angels were 9'th, and they beat the Yankees in a series. Also in 2005, the White Sox were 7'th (maybe 7'th qualifies you though) in slugging, and they won the WS.

Yeah, watch that slugging percentage. Excellent observation.

[Reade]

Do you remember that about two days ago you called all Boston fans "extreme dicks"?

Maybe you should read again. I never said all fans and never used the word extreme

[Reade]

and as a matter of fact I never even call them dicks that was Moot.

[Reade]

And if you can find someplace where I've attacked or called someone a name show me and I'll eat that damn crow.

Boston fans are extreme dicks. Act like you've been there before.

That was Moot's statement and here's what I said in return

Thats probably true, its just the dicks seem to be louder than the one's on the other side of the fence.

[HoustonGM]

2. You not once but twice in the next ten posts stated that the player was out (which i agree with) but did so in a manner that was unequivocal and at no point acknowledged what others did (in fact it appeared you were refutting) and that was that there is more to this call. Your posts took the stance that the radio show and those posting that the call raised questions were wrong. If that wasn't your position, you did a poor job explaining it.

I simply stated my interpretation of the rule, and what I had heard myself. I wasn't responding to any specific posts, besides the overall question of what my opinion was on the play, and why, and then a clarification of what I interpreted the rule to be. This is why I quote posts when I respond to them, and the only post I quoted was in post #6, when Reade was asking for clarification, and I did so.

3. I then posted that its not as black and white as you make it seem, and used you in the quote because your two posts were so definitive that it was black and white. Seem is a pretty soft word meaning thats what I read from your post. If you disagreed with that, you could have easily claried your position and we would have moved on, but you did this (see #4);

4. You then highlighted my post that it was black and white and you stated 'uh, no'.....which based upon your earlier posts appeared i'm sure to any reasonable person to be a sarcastic response solidifying your earlier statements that it was a black and white correct ruling.

You're apparently the only one who took it that way. I stated "Uh, no" because I feel as though it was very clear that I was not "refusing to acknowledge that MLB did a poor job", particularly because I wasn't at all talking about MLB or anything beyond why I think he was out.

5. I did make a post about you being a homer, which apparently was a mistake as for some reason I thought you were rooting for the sawx. It was not sarcastic in anyway, unlike your uh,no...and in fact read that I was surprised you were taking this stance because you are usually more level headed.

My "Uh, no" wasn't sarcastic, and also, I'm taking the same stance as you. You're just attributing more to what I was saying than I actually was saying, which was simply that I think he was out (which you agree with, and that's my only "stance" on this topic), and what I heard about the rule and my interpretation of it.

6. You then made the thread about you, stating I was picking a fight with you. This then went back and forth and led to where we are now.

Yeah, I defended myself against you misrepresenting my opinion.

"Uh, no" after being very definitive in two prior posts which disagreed with my comments, and then coming in and stating you agreed with me all along really is kind of backhanded.

My posts did not disagree with your comments. In fact, THEY AGREE. You believe he was out, so do I. That is all my posts said (and why). I did not mention any play beyond this one, nor did I mention anything about MLB's handling of this play or similar plays.

You could have initially stated your full opinion at any point on the first page and avoided leading this thread down a juvenile 'stop picking on me' road.

I think I did. Repeatedly.

Yeah, my first post in response to you may not have been very clear, but that's because I didn't want to derail this thread and go off into an argument with you, which is what regretfully happened, because I didn't and don't disagree, which I stated immediately in my next response (quoted below), and then again multiple times in later posts:

I hadn't said anything that would go against anything you've said, nor have I refuted any of your points.

Also, this:

you have a way, maybe purposefully, of posting short open ended and often misleading responses and then get very argumentative and defensive when someone reads into them

First of, whatever it is, it's not purposefully. I just post my thoughts.

Secondly, this thread is certainly not an example of whatever it is that you're talking about. My first few posts are short, but they're too the point, not open-ended. And they're not misleading. I think he's out. I heard on TBS them discuss the rule for it and I posted what they said. I then clarified it more completely. And that's it. So, yes, I'm going to get defensive when someone tells me that I'm "making it seem like its so black and white", when all I did was paraphrase what I heard, and that I'm "refusing to admit that MLB mishandled it" when I SAID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT MLB OR ITS HANDLING OF IT.

But whatever, it's all my fault. That's fine. If you wanna continue this crap, you can always PM me, but let's keep the thread on track as best we can, thanks.

[RedsoxRockies]

I simply stated my interpretation of the rule, and what I had heard myself. I wasn't responding to any specific posts, besides the overall question of what my opinion was on the play, and why, and then a clarification of what I interpreted the rule to be. This is why I quote posts when I respond to them, and the only post I quoted was in post #6, when Reade was asking for clarification, and I did so.


You're apparently the only one who took it that way. I stated "Uh, no" because I feel as though it was very clear that I was not "refusing to acknowledge that MLB did a poor job", particularly because I wasn't at all talking about MLB or anything beyond why I think he was out.


My "Uh, no" wasn't sarcastic, and also, I'm taking the same stance as you. You're just attributing more to what I was saying than I actually was saying, which was simply that I think he was out (which you agree with, and that's my only "stance" on this topic), and what I heard about the rule and my interpretation of it.


Yeah, I defended myself against you misrepresenting my opinion.


My posts did not disagree with your comments. In fact, THEY AGREE. You believe he was out, so do I. That is all my posts said (and why). I did not mention any play beyond this one, nor did I mention anything about MLB's handling of this play or similar plays.


I think I did. Repeatedly.

Yeah, my first post in response to you may not have been very clear, but that's because I didn't want to derail this thread and go off into an argument with you, which is what regretfully happened, because I didn't and don't disagree, which I stated immediately in my next response (quoted below), and then again multiple times in later posts:




Also, this:

First of, whatever it is, it's not purposefully. I just post my thoughts.

Secondly, this thread is certainly not an example of whatever it is that you're talking about. My first few posts are short, but they're too the point, not open-ended. And they're not misleading. I think he's out. I heard on TBS them discuss the rule for it and I posted what they said. I then clarified it more completely. And that's it. So, yes, I'm going to get defensive when someone tells me that I'm "making it seem like its so black and white", when all I did was paraphrase what I heard, and that I'm "refusing to admit that MLB mishandled it" when I SAID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT MLB OR ITS HANDLING OF IT.

But whatever, it's all my fault. That's fine. If you wanna continue this crap, you can always PM me, but let's keep the thread on track as best we can, thanks.

Somebody is a little grumpy... . And wow, that must be a record for most quotes in one post

[Pavelb1]

anyway back to the actual topic...
I agree fully with you. The angels need to make a run at resigning texeria and then find a big bat... the problem is... WHERE. I guess you could try and trade mathews but what are you going to get for him??? And who is out there to sign???
Frank Thomas, Giambi,
Adam Dunn may be the best bet.

Then how about this... Let Vlad and Anderson walk, that puts you down to 3 outfielders right??? Manny 3 years 65 million and Dunn 3-4 years 15 or so million each. I think their pitching is fine and those 2 leaving saves 30 million. Garland is also of the books at another 12 million. K-Rod leaves thats another 10 Million.

Questions tho... what do you do about a closer, and do they then weaken their pitching roo much if garland is not resigned?

1) Why would they let Vlad walk?

2) Arredondo and Shields are just fine as candidates as closers.

[TheNamelessPoet]

I just think unless vlad goes for a 2 year contract take him but he can get more for that on the open market. Unfortunatly even with that GUN for an arm hs knees (from what I've read) are starting to fail him. If they can dump mathews I say DEFINATLY keep vlad ans still go for the big bat. I say make a push for manny instead of keeping vlad. he would be a beast inthe lineup... lol what the hell hehehe go for them both

I dont know their bullpen well enought to know wether those guys could close. I honestly dont ay anyattention to bullpens because its far to often a guy is great one year then hoeeible the next. I want guys that pitch 8-9 inning not 3 guys that can pitch an inning each.

[HoustonGM]

I just think unless vlad goes for a 2 year contract take him but he can get more for that on the open market.

The Angels have a team option for 2009 on Vlad.

[Pavelb1]

I just think unless vlad goes for a 2 year contract take him but he can get more for that on the open market. Unfortunatly even with that GUN for an arm hs knees (from what I've read) are starting to fail him. If they can dump mathews I say DEFINATLY keep vlad ans still go for the big bat. I say make a push for manny instead of keeping vlad. he would be a beast inthe lineup... lol what the hell hehehe go for them both

I dont know their bullpen well enought to know wether those guys could close. I honestly dont ay anyattention to bullpens because its far to often a guy is great one year then hoeeible the next. I want guys that pitch 8-9 inning not 3 guys that can pitch an inning each.

I didn't know anything about the Angels pen either until the ALDS and I saw Arredondo had a 1.62 ERA and 61 innings. Off observational data he and Spiers looked dynamite and K-Rod looked overrated, and not just because of the results. I couldnt wait to get those guys out of there and get to krod.

[HoustonGM]

I didn't know anything about the Angels pen either until the ALDS and I saw Arredondo had a 1.62 ERA and 61 innings. Off observational data he and Spiers looked dynamite and K-Rod looked overrated, and not just because of the results. I couldnt wait to get those guys out of there and get to krod.

I think you mean Shields, not Speier, as Speier was pretty atrocious this season and left off the Angels playoff roster.

[TheNamelessPoet]

The Angels have a team option for 2009 on Vlad.

Its not vested tho its jsut an option. let him walk or keep him and trade him. ill tell u this... us braves will take him. Francouer has already shown he can play center. more him there if we dont trade him away and Vlad for 1 year in right. Wren has 40 mill to work with and adding vlad is just 15. so that still leaves 25 million. I say offer smoltz about 3-5 mill to come back in the bullpen, offer hamptin 2 mill with about 7 mill in incentives. thats about 15 mil or so to offer to Lowe for 3 years. id be happy with that.

Diaz and Blanco can platoon in left, Francouer in center, vlad in left
Chipper, escobar, johnson/prado, kochman
with mccann at catcher. not terrible. Id like another thumper but wouldnt we all. if we can get francouer back to about 25 HR and we add vlad I think we can do alright.

Maybe this for a lineup
Blanco
escobar
chipper
vlad
mccann
johnson
francouer
kochman (can move to the #2 spot if he starts hitting again)

with
Lowe
Jurrjen
Hampton
campillo
james/reyes/glavine

closer smoltz
setup sorriano/gonzalez.

the question is...

what do you think the Angels would want?

would a young pitcher be enough??? James,Reyes, Campillo.

[HoustonGM]

Its not vested tho its jsut an option. let him walk or keep him and trade him.

Right. It's an option, which means they have the ability to keep him for exactly one more year no matter what. You said:

I just think unless vlad goes for a 2 year contract take him but he can get more for that on the open market.

Unless the Angels decide that they don't want Vlad anymore, he has no leverage, as there's no negotiations to be had, and he won't go to the open market.

Vlad is not going to be a free agent, and the Angels are not going to trade him. It's a given that they'll pick up his option, and they'd really be stupid not to, as that'd leave their lineup completely devoid of any big bats unless they manage to sign Teixeira, who IS a free agent and who they'd have to negotiate with and compete with other teams for, whereas with Vlad, all they have to do is pick up the option.

[justanewguy]

Justanewguy said....."The Angels were NINTH in the AL in SLG% this season. That simply isn't going to win you an AL playoff series."

So this is how we determine who can win a playoff series now?

Yep! That's how! That's exactly what I was saying! And that's THE ONLY THING I was saying!

So, the Angels finished ninth in slugging and cannot win a series, but the Rays finished 8'th and they can? You must be joking. Is this more of the "built for the playoffs" crap that the talking heads in the media spout ad nauseam?

There is such a thing, if you want to believe it or not. The Angels were built to win lots of games over the course of a season. They play NL style ball. They don't match up well in short series against a team like the Red Sox. They didn't acquire Teixeira to help win the division, they acquired him to be able to match up with a team like the Red Sox, White Sox or Yankees in the playoffs.

Well lets see, in 2006 Oakland was 13'th in the league in slugging, and they swept a playoff series.

They swept an almost equally feeble hitting club. Then they went on to get swept by the Tigers. Oh boy, that sure blows holes in my "argument." You know, the one I wasn't even really making.

In 2005 the Angels were 9'th, and they beat the Yankees in a series. Also in 2005, the White Sox were 7'th (maybe 7'th qualifies you though) in slugging, and they won the WS.

Yeah, watch that slugging percentage. Excellent observation.

So you've given one whole example of an average slugging team winning a World Series. Good work!

You're just lacking in reading comprehension skills. Seriously.

A series CAN be won "with poor slugging," on account of good offense otherwise, great pitching, and good fielding.

"Poor slugging" will work itself out over the course of a season if all the other pieces are in place for the team... but it's not likely to carry you through 2 AL series. When one or two hitters "don't show up" (by the way, before you go out of your way to jump on this statement, I'm not talking about lack of "clutch," I'm talking about a statistical slump and lack of hits), you need to have a powerful lineup outside of those hitters to make up for it. Again, in the regular season, this works itself out. But in a series that turns into a shootout, you're going to find yourself in a quick hole. Hmm... I wonder if there have been any recent examples of THIS...

The Angels need more power bats. Period. They're not stacked. They're CAPABLE of winning a World Series, but they don't have the firepower to SOLIDIFY their chances in the playoffs.

Now, pick out one thing I said and write an entire post about it. And don't forget to remove it from context.

[TheNamelessPoet]

Right. It's an option, which means they have the ability to keep him for exactly one more year no matter what. You said:

Unless the Angels decide that they don't want Vlad anymore, he has no leverage, as there's no negotiations to be had, and he won't go to the open market.

Vlad is not going to be a free agent, and the Angels are not going to trade him. It's a given that they'll pick up his option, and they'd really be stupid not to, as that'd leave their lineup completely devoid of any big bats unless they manage to sign Teixeira, who IS a free agent and who they'd have to negotiate with and compete with other teams for, whereas with Vlad, all they have to do is pick up the option.

The only reason I thought they might not pick it up was that they have too many outfielders. But you are right... ther will take the option... blows my whole theory up lol