Proceeds from the ads below will be donated to the
Bob Wuesthoff scholarship fund.
Sunday, July 31, 2005 |
Regarding Alfred E. Stoneman
Alfred E. Stoneman
Second, Bill Stoneman doesn't seem to make trades because he's not successful at it. The call, therefore, to have him execute a trade to improve the team is a non-sequitur. The only one he's made that has been successful that I can remember is the Mo Vaughn for Kevin Appier trade. He certainly has done a bad enough job with his offseason free agent signings; Orlando Cabrera, until today (when he actually went 3-4 with a double) has been an offensive black hole the likes of which the team hasn't seen since Alfredo Amezaga who could have been had for free. I think Stoneman would make a great director of scouting, but he's a weak GM.
And that brings up my last point: who do you get to replace him? I suspect Sandy Alderson, former A's GM and now working in the Padres' front office as President, would be a good choice, but I expect that technically GM would represent a downshift from his current responsibilities. Maybe J.P. Ricciardi, if he gets fired from Toronto... but here I dream.
Update: Another thought: You could be stuck with a blowhard like Jim Bowden. He makes lots of trades...
Comments:
Matt -- I can't get myself too worked up about Stoneman for just the reasons you mentioned. But at the same time, he's made one too many bad acquisitions for me to put him in the top ranks.
Cabrera's alleged defensive superiority cost the Angels a game today; as I said a few days ago, they're vastly overpaying for a player who could be had for nearly free. Eckstein wouldn't have been this bad offensively, and all they would have had to do would be to keep him another year. Agreed that in general he's had a good sense at the other end of the scale to let guys go who weren't going to contribute, with the caveat that Eckstein is doing pretty well for the Cards.
Let's wait until the season is over before we call the 2005 Angels successful, shall we? I think the Dodgers may recall a similar problem that happened just after everybody picked them to take the division, just after they went 12-2.
Cabrera's alleged defensive superiority cost the Angels a game today; as I said a few days ago, they're vastly overpaying for a player who could be had for nearly free. Eckstein wouldn't have been this bad offensively, and all they would have had to do would be to keep him another year. Agreed that in general he's had a good sense at the other end of the scale to let guys go who weren't going to contribute, with the caveat that Eckstein is doing pretty well for the Cards.
Let's wait until the season is over before we call the 2005 Angels successful, shall we? I think the Dodgers may recall a similar problem that happened just after everybody picked them to take the division, just after they went 12-2.
Rob,
Depo has accomplished nothing without Beane, has fielded a sub .500 team in his first full year as a GM.
Stoneman has done an excellent job fielding not only a team that is a winner, but a team that is exciting to watch.
the dodgers are dreadful as a team, and even worse performing as an entertainment option. What could be worse than watching JD Drew watch a fourth ball or third strike go by without swinging?
This love for depo is based soley on hype and perception. he has accomplished nothing. NOTHING.
Depo has accomplished nothing without Beane, has fielded a sub .500 team in his first full year as a GM.
Stoneman has done an excellent job fielding not only a team that is a winner, but a team that is exciting to watch.
the dodgers are dreadful as a team, and even worse performing as an entertainment option. What could be worse than watching JD Drew watch a fourth ball or third strike go by without swinging?
This love for depo is based soley on hype and perception. he has accomplished nothing. NOTHING.
# posted by 
: 7/31/2005 05:41:00 PM
: 7/31/2005 05:41:00 PM
Anon -- I agree with you to some extent; some of the injuries the Dodgers have suffered this year were foreseeable. However, those players at risk didn't get re-injured in ways you could have expected (e.g., Brad Penny's nerve injury, when his earlier problem was a biceps problem). Broken ligaments (Bradley), torn knee ligaments (Valentin, sliding into second), Drew (broken wrist on a hit by pitch) -- how many of those could have been foreseen?
I'll agree with you that Drew is incredibly frustrating to watch as a player. He would make a really nice 2-3 hitter on the Cards once Jim Edmonds retires, especially with Rolen and Pujols behind him.
I'll agree with you that Drew is incredibly frustrating to watch as a player. He would make a really nice 2-3 hitter on the Cards once Jim Edmonds retires, especially with Rolen and Pujols behind him.
Rob - Wasn't it a slide into home where Valentin injured himself?
# posted by : 7/31/2005 06:28:00 PM
: 7/31/2005 06:28:00 PM
The Alfred E. Stoneman thing is a really low thing to do. The man built his roster over the winter. You have no idea what offers were made and whether they might have actually weakened the team. It really astounds me how people think the Angels just make some stupid move just to prove to a few whiners on the Internet that they "did something." A lot of teams do something and wind up losing.
This is probably the worst it will get for the Angels this year. This is probably the best it will get for the A's. Show a little faith.
This is probably the worst it will get for the Angels this year. This is probably the best it will get for the A's. Show a little faith.
# posted by : 7/31/2005 09:22:00 PM
: 7/31/2005 09:22:00 PM
It really astounds me how people think the Angels just make some stupid move just to prove to a few whiners on the Internet that they "did something."
You have me confused with Richard. I absolutely concur with Stoneman not making any moves in this instance. (BTW, the Alfred E. Stoneman graphic is Richard's.) My big complaints about the Angels offseason were
1) Cabrera, who should not have been signed at all (certainly not for $32M/4 years, anyway), and
2) Finley, about whom I can only complain in the rearview mirror; I thought it a good signing at the time and rue it now.
This is probably the worst it will get for the Angels this year. This is probably the best it will get for the A's. Show a little faith.
You think so? I hope you're right. But the A's have unloaded the big-name chokers that plagued them down the stretch and in the postseason for five years running, and stocked up on strikeout artists for their pen. Meantime, the reliability of the Angels' bullpen continues to diminish; what is this pen minus Shields? In 2002 you could point to Weber or Donnelly as guys you could call in for tight situations. Not any more; there's nobody remotely like them now. The Angels' rotation has been pitching over their peripherals all season; the A's, under theirs. This is where Oakland blasts past the weakening Angels and never look back.
You have me confused with Richard. I absolutely concur with Stoneman not making any moves in this instance. (BTW, the Alfred E. Stoneman graphic is Richard's.) My big complaints about the Angels offseason were
1) Cabrera, who should not have been signed at all (certainly not for $32M/4 years, anyway), and
2) Finley, about whom I can only complain in the rearview mirror; I thought it a good signing at the time and rue it now.
This is probably the worst it will get for the Angels this year. This is probably the best it will get for the A's. Show a little faith.
You think so? I hope you're right. But the A's have unloaded the big-name chokers that plagued them down the stretch and in the postseason for five years running, and stocked up on strikeout artists for their pen. Meantime, the reliability of the Angels' bullpen continues to diminish; what is this pen minus Shields? In 2002 you could point to Weber or Donnelly as guys you could call in for tight situations. Not any more; there's nobody remotely like them now. The Angels' rotation has been pitching over their peripherals all season; the A's, under theirs. This is where Oakland blasts past the weakening Angels and never look back.
"It really astounds me how people think the Angels just make some stupid move just to prove to a few whiners on the Internet that they "did something."
If you think my argument is that a move should be made simply for the "shock and awe" of it, you need to go back and re-read. If you think this club didn’t need any help, you need to open your eyes.
"The man built his roster over the winter."
And what a great job he did! He took a division winner, spent $50,000,000, did a little wheeling-and-dealing and wound-up with a club that, if you squint, looks almost as good as last year’s! Way to go Bill!
If you think my argument is that a move should be made simply for the "shock and awe" of it, you need to go back and re-read. If you think this club didn’t need any help, you need to open your eyes.
"The man built his roster over the winter."
And what a great job he did! He took a division winner, spent $50,000,000, did a little wheeling-and-dealing and wound-up with a club that, if you squint, looks almost as good as last year’s! Way to go Bill!
Newer› ‹Older
 |
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.