No, but this doesn't just make the Angels better, it makes the Rangers worse. That's nearly as valuable as Hamilton's himself.
The Rangers will miss his power and presence, but they won't miss everything else that came along with it. The constant excuses, the babysitting etc. They may be worse on the field, but as a team their chemistry should improve.
It also frees up a spot for Leonys Martin, who imo will be a very good player. Gentry is also very adequate.
I also don't think the Angels are a better team right now than when the season ended. There is still time for moves but their bullpen and starters are very suspect.
I also don't think the Angels are a better team right now than when the season ended. There is still time for moves but their bullpen and starters are very suspect.
There's questions about the BP, but I'm not sure suspect is the right word. If all goes well, they just made two very big additions, and it should improve greatly.
Also note they don't have to be better than when the season ended. They were the best team in baseball after Trout's call up(I believe, it was somewhere around there). Assuming Pujols doesn't have another brutal slump(which is highly unlikely), if they can be as good as the team that ended last season, they should be in fine shape.
The Rangers will miss his power and presence, but they won't miss everything else that came along with it. The constant excuses, the babysitting etc. They may be worse on the field, but as a team their chemistry should improve.
It also frees up a spot for Leonys Martin, who imo will be a very good player. Gentry is also very adequate.
I also don't think the Angels are a better team right now than when the season ended. There is still time for moves but their bullpen and starters are very suspect.
That doesn't mean much since the Angels pitchers as a whole pitched well below average last year. It won't take much to improve on that, but I do agree they still need a number three or better to really threaten.
I think some of the questions over attitude or "falling off the wagon" might be mitigated by the stable environment of the Angels or the clubhouse leadership at LAA. The religious thing should fit in well with Pujols, even if it annoys some of their teammates
Last I checked, Greinke was set to make $24.5 million annually (147 divided by six). Half of that per annum is $12.25MM. What's so hard to comprehend?
I thought you said Greinke was going to make $12.25M annually for half of his contract (3 years). You said "Half of his new contract is 12.25 per year", which lead me to believe that you thought Greinke was going to make only 12.25 M per year. I didn't read the post that you quoted.
There's questions about the BP, but I'm not sure suspect is the right word. If all goes well, they just made two very big additions, and it should improve greatly.
Also note they don't have to be better than when the season ended. They were the best team in baseball after Trout's call up(I believe, it was somewhere around there). Assuming Pujols doesn't have another brutal slump(which is highly unlikely), if they can be as good as the team that ended last season, they should be in fine shape.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Static
That doesn't mean much since the Angels pitchers as a whole pitched well below average last year. It won't take much to improve on that, but I do agree they still need a number three or better to really threaten.
I have no doubts that the Angels will roll out of bed and win 85-90 games, but there will be times the offense goes through a slump and the pitchers will need to keep them in games, and I don't have faith that Blanton, Richards and Hanson can consistantly do that.
Hyperbole from me saying hes not worth 12 mill a year I guess, but really I wouldn't give him much more, and I'm hesitant to give any pitcher a long term big money deal.
Just look at the numbers. Outside of a fantastic, Cy Young award winning 2009 was it? every other year has his ERA at around 3.5. Theres nothing elite about that, especially recently with pitchers numbers getting better.
What's the point that article is trying to make? That Hamilton and Pujols won't be MVPs at the end of their respective contracts? Of course not, everybody knows that. Everybody knows that they will decline, and perhaps already started to decline. But the Angels didn't sign them to the contracts they signed them to to win the World Series in 2017, they did it to win it in the next year or two, when their chances are greatest having both guys. Either you go all-in, or you go through some rebuilding or being satisfied with being a middle-of-the-class team.
The Angels have the resources to overpay for those guys, which obviously they have to do to get them, and they did, hoping that they will be able to win a World Series out of it. They will deal with the players and how they perform at the end of their contracts when it's time, but now, they just want to win and any idiot will agree they have a better chance winning with those two guys that they got for free (i.e., not having to give up a roster player), than trading for any pair of 22/23-year olds (since it'll cost a ton to trade for guys of that age who will put up numbers equal to Pujols and Hamilton over the next two years). So throwing a bunch of statistics up in an article doesn't do me anything.
