Shouldn't Scioscia be fired?

[TopChuckie]

The front office goes out and takes the ace away from his division rival giving him four would-be aces in his rotation (Weaver, Haren, Wilson, Santana), not to mention a quality rookie in Richards.

They sign arguably the best hitter of all time.

They have five would-be starting OF's.

They bring up a rookie having one of the best rookie seasons of all time.

They trade for a middle reliever who becomes a shut down closer to go along with at least two other could-be closers (Walden, Downs).

But all that wasn't enough, so they have to go out and add the best SP available at the trade deadline giving him five aces.

And they currently sit in 3rd place in their division and on the fringe of the expanded playoffs, 5 games behind the aforementioned rival who not only lost last season's ace to the Angels, but this season's "ace" to injury, and behind a team many picked to be the worst team in the league this season.

I mean come on, how much does this guy need to win?

[virgonomic]

Is it Scioscia's fault that Pujols is doing his best Torii Hunter impression?

Also, Greinke has made one start. Not really fair to claim he is part of the 'failure'.

Texas' offense is superior. There's a reason they have been to the past 2 WS. It isn't like the Angels are trailing the Mariners.

[cavebird]

Wow, TopChuckie, I am impressed. There are probably several good reasons for the Angels to consider firing Scioscia or to actually fire him, and you managed to mention absolutely none of them.

First, calling Ervin Santana a would-be ace is pretty laughable. Given his documented inconsistancy, it is hard to blame Scioscia for his suckitude. Garrett Richards is a decent rookie, but expecting a rookie to do anything more than be a mediocre fifth starter is pushing it a little bit. Weaver and Wilson have performed. Thus, of the rotation, the only one you can even remotely blame on Scioscia is Haren, and I am not sure why Scioscia is responsible there.

Second, Pujols has been good, not great this year. Whether he or not he is arguably the best hitter of all time is irrelevant to Scioscia's performance as a manager.

Third, just because they have five would be starting OF's, that doesn't mean that they are any good. Trout is, of course, very good. So is Trumbo, except that he really isn't an outfielder. He's a first baseman. Hunter is fine, but no longer great. Wells is crap, and Bourjous has never shown that he can hit major league pitching.

The bullpen behind Frieri has been shaky, and was bad before they got him. Downs has never had more than 9 saves in a season. If he's a would-be closer, so are half the middle relievers in baseball. Walden was yanked around (one of the actually strikes against Scioscia), but he's been hurt for a while now. And you can't blame Scioscia for that, it isn't like he overused Walden.

Yes, they just added Greinke. How you say that this shows that the Angels record should be different up until now is beyond me.

Yes, the A's have been surprising. But since they are well over .500, I don't think that the predictions of pundits are particularly meaningful.

In sum, your rant is: the Angels spent lots of money and acquired good players. That they have a poorly constructed roster with three first basemen is irrelevant. That their bullpen is pretty mediocre is irrelevant because I can claim that they have three would-be closers. That they have actually played very well since crapping their pants in April when Pujols was horrible and Trout was in the minors is irrelevant. If you spend money and get good players, you must win. Otherwise, how can I expect the Yankees to always win.

If you want a real rant, look at how Scioscia yanked around Walden. Look at how Scioscia refused to play Napoli and ran him out of town and insists on playing catchers who cannot hit.

[Stephen]

I actually stopped reading after Chuckie referred to Ervin Santana as a "would-be ace."

[TopChuckie]

Is it Scioscia's fault that Pujols is doing his best Torii Hunter impression?

Also, Greinke has made one start. Not really fair to claim he is part of the 'failure'.

Texas' offense is superior. There's a reason they have been to the past 2 WS. It isn't like the Angels are trailing the Mariners.

I don't think the A's were viewed as much better than the Mariners heading into the season, so it kind of is "like" they are trailing the Mariners.

I don't think the Rangers offense should be much better than the Angels. I don't see the Rangers as that much more talented up and down the lineup, and the Angels should be by far the better pitching staff.

And I'm not putting any blame on Greinke, only the fact they felt four aces still wasn't enough for Scioscia to win, they had to go out and get him a 5th.

[TopChuckie]

I actually stopped reading after Chuckie referred to Ervin Santana as a "would-be ace."

He was theirs at one time, maybe more than one time.

[cavebird]

He was theirs at one time, maybe more than one time.

And he has been a flaming pile of crap more than once, also.

[TopChuckie]

Wow, TopChuckie, I am impressed. There are probably several good reasons for the Angels to consider firing Scioscia or to actually fire him, and you managed to mention absolutely none of them.

First, calling Ervin Santana a would-be ace is pretty laughable. Given his documented inconsistancy, it is hard to blame Scioscia for his suckitude. Garrett Richards is a decent rookie, but expecting a rookie to do anything more than be a mediocre fifth starter is pushing it a little bit. Weaver and Wilson have performed. Thus, of the rotation, the only one you can even remotely blame on Scioscia is Haren, and I am not sure why Scioscia is responsible there.

Second, Pujols has been good, not great this year. Whether he or not he is arguably the best hitter of all time is irrelevant to Scioscia's performance as a manager.

Third, just because they have five would be starting OF's, that doesn't mean that they are any good. Trout is, of course, very good. So is Trumbo, except that he really isn't an outfielder. He's a first baseman. Hunter is fine, but no longer great. Wells is crap, and Bourjous has never shown that he can hit major league pitching.

The bullpen behind Frieri has been shaky, and was bad before they got him. Downs has never had more than 9 saves in a season. If he's a would-be closer, so are half the middle relievers in baseball. Walden was yanked around (one of the actually strikes against Scioscia), but he's been hurt for a while now. And you can't blame Scioscia for that, it isn't like he overused Walden.

Yes, they just added Greinke. How you say that this shows that the Angels record should be different up until now is beyond me.

Yes, the A's have been surprising. But since they are well over .500, I don't think that the predictions of pundits are particularly meaningful.

In sum, your rant is: the Angels spent lots of money and acquired good players. That they have a poorly constructed roster with three first basemen is irrelevant. That their bullpen is pretty mediocre is irrelevant because I can claim that they have three would-be closers. That they have actually played very well since crapping their pants in April when Pujols was horrible and Trout was in the minors is irrelevant. If you spend money and get good players, you must win. Otherwise, how can I expect the Yankees to always win.

If you want a real rant, look at how Scioscia yanked around Walden. Look at how Scioscia refused to play Napoli and ran him out of town and insists on playing catchers who cannot hit.

It's always the players on the field that perform or don't perform, so I guess no manager should ever be fired. When you are handed far more talent than you should need to win, and you still don't win, and then they have to go out and get you even more talent, eventually you have to take the blame. It's the same reason Andy Reid won't be around next year if the Eagles don't make the playoffs. Reid won't be tackling anyone, but they have given him all he should have needed and he hasn't gotten the job done. The Angels should not have needed to go out and get Greinke.

Scioscia thought Downs was closer worthy, so does your argument against Downs contradict my position on Scioscia or support it?

Fact of the matter is, manager's seldom get fired because of bad decisions, they get fired because of the way their team performs, or more accurately, under performs, and this team is pretty much the epitome of under performing.

[cavebird]

I don't think the A's were viewed as much better than the Mariners heading into the season, so it kind of is "like" they are trailing the Mariners.

I don't think the Rangers offense should be much better than the Angels. I don't see the Rangers as that much more talented up and down the lineup, and the Angels should be by far the better pitching staff.

And I'm not putting any blame on Greinke, only the fact they felt four aces still wasn't enough for Scioscia to win, they had to go out and get him a 5th.

1. The logic you use regarding the A's/Mariners is false. Your argument is that because the Angels are behind the A's and the A's and Mariner's were both expected to suck, it is like the Angels are behind the Mariners who have sucked like they were supposed to instead of the A's who have been surprisingly good. That the A's have overperformed expectations has essentially nothing to do with the Angels and doesn't mean that the Angels are behind a bad team like the Mariners. That's crazy logic that makes no sense whatsoever.

2. Given your insistence that Santana is an ace, what you think the Angels' offense should be is irrelevant.

3. I am fairly certain that all the players in the world wouldn't help Scioscia win. The team wins. It isn't all on the manager. The Angels's problems have been poor player performances, mostly. Second, there should be a law mandating a forced lobotomy for anyone calling Ervin Santana an ace.

[cavebird]

It's always the players on the field that perform or don't perform, so I guess no manager should ever be fired. When you are handed far more talent than you should need to win, and you still don't win, and then they have to go out and get you even more talent, eventually you have to take the blame. It's the same reason Andy Reid won't be around next year if the Eagles don't make the playoffs. Reid won't be tackling anyone, but they have given him all he should have needed and he hasn't gotten the job done. The Angels should not have needed to go out and get Greinke.

Scioscia thought Downs was closer worthy, so does your argument against Downs contradict my position on Scioscia or support it?

Fact of the matter is, manager's seldom get fired because of bad decisions, they get fired because of the way their team performs, or more accurately, under performs, and this team is pretty much the epitome of under performing.

Scioscia thought Downs was the best option when he refused to pitch Walden and Frieri wasn't there. Someone will be annointed closer in Milwaukee and Houston, too. That doesn't make them closer-worthy. The Angels are also 8 games over .500, and 16 games over .500 since April 29th. Even the premise to your flawed logic is itself flawed.

[Stephen]

He was theirs at one time, maybe more than one time.

Eh, it's a stretch. He ended up the best statistically the best pitcher in 2008, but a Lackey injury had something to do with that. I won't take that season away from, but I think it's the exception rather than the rule.

Ervin Santana's rookie season was 2005 and while he's shown some flashes of being a great pitcher he's also extremely inconsistent.

Let's look year by year:

2005
Santana: 12-8 4.65 ERA, 1.39 WHIP 99/48 K/BB
Colon: 21-8 3.48 ERA, 1.16 WHIP 157/43 K/BB
Lackey: 14-5 3.44 ERA, 1.34 WHIP 199.71 K/BB

Granted, Santana came up mid season so I'm willing to toss that year out for the purpose of this comparison despite the fact he clearly wasn't the ace of tha team.

2006
Santana: 16-8 4.28 ERA, 141 K, 70 BB
Escobar: 11-14 3.61 ERA, 147 K, 50 BB
Lackey: 13-11 3.56 ERA, 190 K, 72 BB

Santana was solid, but certainly not Ace numbers and was the 3rd best starter.


2007
Santana: 7-14 5.76 ERA, 126 K, 58 BB
Lackey: 19-9 3.01 ERA, 179 K, 52 BB
Escobar: 18-7 3.40 ERA, 160 K, 52 BB
Weaver: 13-7 3.91 ERA, 115K, 45 BB
Saunders: 8-5 4.44 ERA, 69 K, 34 BB

Bad year. 5th best starter. Far from an Ace.


2008
Santana: 16-7 3.49 ERA, 214 K, 47 BB
Lackey: 12-5 3.75 ERA, 130K, 40 BB (8 fewer starts)
Saunders: 17-7 3.41, 103K, 53 BB

He was the best starter on the Angels in 2008. I'll give you that by comparison he was the closest thing the Angels had to an ace that season.

2009
Santana: 8-8 5.03 ERA, 1.475 WHIP, 107 K, 47 BB
Weaver: 16-8 3.75 ERA, 1.24 WHIP, 174 K, 66BB
Saunders: 16-7 4.60 ERA, 1.430 WHIP, 101 K, 64 BB
Lackey: 11-8 3.83 ERA, 1.27 WHIP, 139 K, 47 BB

Not even a discussion.


2010
Santana: 17-10 3.92 ERA, 169K, 73 BB
Weaver 13-12 3.01 ERA, 1.07 WHIP, 233 K, 54 BB

Not even close.

2011
Santana: 11-12 3.38 ERA, 178 K, 72 BB
Haren: 3.17 ERA, 1.02 WHIP, 192 K, 33 BB
Weaver: 2.41 ERA, 1.01 WHIP, 198 K, 56 BB

Not even close.

He's never sniffed an opening day start, he isn't a guy that anyone should feel comfortable having on the mound with a series on the line. He's an inconsistent pitcher and a #3 at best.

I don't mean to derail the topic of your thread, but if Ervin Santana is an ace quality pitcher then so are guys like Joe Blanton, Jake Westbrook and Jose Guzman.

[BuckyBuckner]

He was theirs at one time, maybe more than one time.

Is Bruce Chen an ace? Is Scott Diamond an ace? How about Wei-Yin Chen? Or Lucas Harrell?

I think it would be best to quit while you are behind in this debate.

[TranaGreg]

well don't misunderstand me, I'm not agreeing that Santana is an ace ... but I do think there is some merit in the original post ... the Angels have a ton of talent; if they were to miss the playoffs in a year with a second wildcard, it would have to be seen as a hugely disappointing year.

[Erik]

It's the same reason Andy Reid won't be around next year if the Eagles don't make the playoffs.

We don't know that. He won a front-office power struggle this offseason.

[Pauly]

this argument would be a lot easier against Ozzie Guillen...