Welcome to the Orioles Nation Forums! Like most online communities, you must register to post on our message board. However, posting is free--it always will be--and registration is a simple process. Become part of the growing Orioles Nation community and register now!

The Dodgers Claimed Matt Angle

Re: The Dodgers Claimed Matt Angle

PostPost #16 by Tucker Blair » February 23rd, 2012, 10:32 pm

I agree for the most part shorebirdfan.

The Orioles simply don't know what they could have gotten from all the players they let walk. I wish they would have kept about half of them, while the other half I didn't really mind losing.

They might not completely know what they can get from Teagarden, Eveland, etc. But they have a MUCH better idea than the guys they let go.

I am mainly angered that they gave up legitimate RP prospects for Eveland and Teagarden. Those guys were SO expendable and could have even been dumped for little to nothing!

Regardless of whether Martin or Henry ever become good RP, there is still that chance they could.

Back to Angle... It's fine to me that they DFA'd him. I don't love it, but there is really no need. Especially if they think they are keeping Jones and that Jai Miller is legitimate. I don't necessarily agree with it, but i understand their process
User avatar
Tucker Blair
Orioles Nation Staff
Executive Editor
 
Posts: 1602
Joined: October 2011
Location: Elkridge, MD
Reputation Score: 45

Re: The Dodgers Claimed Matt Angle

PostPost #17 by thezeroes » February 23rd, 2012, 11:26 pm

The whole process from signing players to a MiLB contract and bringing them through the system will have and has had its flaws. When you add in the changing of Managers, Coaches, General Managers, Player Development Personal, Scouts etc.. every year or several times in a seven year span there is no continuity to any system for its players. Players that are perceived as a fit for one regime may not be for another. The process of developing players through out the entire system has never seemed to be on the same page.
Low level Managers and Coaches should be more interested in getting there assigns prepared and ready to excel not only at their level but to be able to hit the floor running when advanced. If a Low A ball Managing staff is unable to advance players on a regular basis that excel at the next level it should be deemed a failure and they should be released of their duties and moved out of the system entirely.

So what does this have to do with Matt Angle??? He is a product of the Orioles System that at this point and time is not what the Parent Club seems to be looking for. The club seems to be shifting to an AL East Style Power Club. Given the hitter friendly park we play in and the competition we play against it probably seemed like these punch and judy hitting-speedsters would not fit in so you release them to enable the parent club to get the type of players that will play the style of ball they want.
thezeroes
GCL Orioles
 
Posts: 255
Joined: April 2011
Reputation Score: 38

Re: The Dodgers Claimed Matt Angle

PostPost #18 by Rising O's » February 24th, 2012, 1:40 am

I felt Angle provided a bit of a spark for the team so I'm sorry to see him go. The organization still needs a top of the order hitter and have no one in the organization to provide it. The Yankees did okay with a guy like Angel starting for them.
Rising O's
Aberdeen IronBirds
 
Posts: 1019
Joined: April 2011
Reputation Score: 10

Re: The Dodgers Claimed Matt Angle

PostPost #19 by Zach » February 24th, 2012, 9:04 am

Im not sure what exactly we lost in those players. We weren't going to get anything through trades for the players we DFAd and like previously said the chances of them adding to the 25 man roster was minimal.
Zach
DSL Orioles
 
Posts: 227
Joined: June 2011
Reputation Score: 3

Re: The Dodgers Claimed Matt Angle

PostPost #20 by birdwatcher55 » February 24th, 2012, 9:25 am

Are you upset that Peter Angelos is suing Facebook??? :lol:
birdwatcher55
Aberdeen IronBirds
 
Posts: 1624
Joined: November 2011
Reputation Score: 11

Re: The Dodgers Claimed Matt Angle

PostPost #21 by A_K » February 24th, 2012, 2:35 pm

I agree with those that regret the team's decisions to give up on a group of low probability prospects in exchange for a group of low value veterans. Incremental improvement is irrelevant for a last place team.

My initial post-- though pessimistic on Angle's chances of ever becoming a worthwhile major leaguer-- was primarily meant to convey that I'd rather have him than worthless pieces like Jai Miller.
A_K
GCL Orioles
 
Posts: 608
Joined: April 2011
Reputation Score: 43

Re: The Dodgers Claimed Matt Angle

PostPost #22 by osforlife » February 24th, 2012, 4:04 pm

Zach wrote:Steals and hustle don't matter if you can't get on base. He hadn't posted a .350+ OBP in two years at the AAA level. Plus if that is all we are hoping for in this organization we are going to some rough years in front of us. He is not the solution as an everyday starter in the major leagues.

He had a .351 OBP and and .347 OBP. All I'm saying is he could be USEFUL even at the major league level.
User avatar
osforlife
Aberdeen IronBirds
 
Posts: 1629
Joined: October 2011
Location: Southern Maryland
Reputation Score: 59

Re: The Dodgers Claimed Matt Angle

PostPost #23 by ofahn » February 24th, 2012, 4:57 pm

osforlife wrote:
Zach wrote:Steals and hustle don't matter if you can't get on base. He hadn't posted a .350+ OBP in two years at the AAA level. Plus if that is all we are hoping for in this organization we are going to some rough years in front of us. He is not the solution as an everyday starter in the major leagues.

He had a .351 OBP and and .347 OBP. All I'm saying is he could be USEFUL even at the major league level.


I think, given time, that he could have been productive member of this team. I believe he would have more productive than Jai Miller.
User avatar
ofahn
Aberdeen IronBirds
 
Posts: 4411
Joined: May 2011
Reputation Score: 85

Re: The Dodgers Claimed Matt Angle

PostPost #24 by thezeroes » February 24th, 2012, 5:52 pm

I believe that the concept of someone being "productive" as a Major League Ballplayer comes in several different ways. Matt Angle would have been the fourth outfielder on the Orioles in 2012 if they had not brought in these other roster fillers.

His production would have been to add defense when a starter got injured during a game and to allow the manager a chance to allow him to hit for himself without using another bench player. He was the opposite of Caesar Izturis for an example. When he would have been thrust into a starting role for an extended stretch the lack of power would have been the biggest downer.

I do believe his skill set will play better in the National League where he hits for a pitcher and remains on the field for defense or is part of a double switch. As far as the Orioles loss of a developed player, I feel that if he is the best that the minors can produce that this club going forward is in big trouble.
thezeroes
GCL Orioles
 
Posts: 255
Joined: April 2011
Reputation Score: 38

Re: The Dodgers Claimed Matt Angle

PostPost #25 by ofahn » February 24th, 2012, 6:11 pm

thezeroes wrote:I believe that the concept of someone being "productive" as a Major League Ballplayer comes in several different ways. Matt Angle would have been the fourth outfielder on the Orioles in 2012 if they had not brought in these other roster fillers.

His production would have been to add defense when a starter got injured during a game and to allow the manager a chance to allow him to hit for himself without using another bench player. He was the opposite of Caesar Izturis for an example. When he would have been thrust into a starting role for an extended stretch the lack of power would have been the biggest downer.

I do believe his skill set will play better in the National League where he hits for a pitcher and remains on the field for defense or is part of a double switch. As far as the Orioles loss of a developed player, I feel that if he is the best that the minors can produce that this club going forward is in big trouble.


Productive comes in may different levels. Angle could have provided plus defense and base running with speed. Sometimes those qualities have a more positive effect on a team than just the skills of a player. I just think we'll regret letting him go.
User avatar
ofahn
Aberdeen IronBirds
 
Posts: 4411
Joined: May 2011
Reputation Score: 85

Re: The Dodgers Claimed Matt Angle

PostPost #26 by A_K » February 24th, 2012, 6:43 pm

Define regret. If he becomes what you say-- good defender and baserunner who isn't a terrible hitter-- that'd be a nice enough player to have, but wouldn't be the type anyone "regrets" losing. That's basically the definition of a replacement level outfielder. They're available in droves every year and cost very little.
A_K
GCL Orioles
 
Posts: 608
Joined: April 2011
Reputation Score: 43

Re: The Dodgers Claimed Matt Angle

PostPost #27 by Zach » February 24th, 2012, 6:47 pm

That is more of what I was trying to say. He will never be a cornerstone of this organization and fills a role in which he is very replaceable. The only part of the Jai Miller/ Angle switch that doesn't make sense is spending the extra money on Miller.
Zach
DSL Orioles
 
Posts: 227
Joined: June 2011
Reputation Score: 3

Re: The Dodgers Claimed Matt Angle

PostPost #28 by thezeroes » February 24th, 2012, 7:44 pm

I do believe that I would have had Josh Bell on a list of "Waived Players" before Matt Angle. This may still come to pass before the end of Spring Training. The procedure of adding players to the forty man and the subsequent removal is why I am giddy about the new CBA and the adding of draft picks. For a little different wording or cash expenditure, Andy MacPhail could have signed Bundy without putting him on the Forty. His addition makes the Orioles Forty a Thirty-Nine and causes this type of transaction to occur.
thezeroes
GCL Orioles
 
Posts: 255
Joined: April 2011
Reputation Score: 38

Re: The Dodgers Claimed Matt Angle

PostPost #29 by Ampontan » February 25th, 2012, 1:36 am

thezeroes wrote: For a little different wording or cash expenditure, Andy MacPhail could have signed Bundy without putting him on the Forty.


Teams really don't like to do this, so I seriously doubt a minor league contract was possible. Besides, Jordan conducted the negotiations with Klentak's assistance, I think.
Ampontan
DSL Orioles
 
Posts: 180
Joined: February 2012
Reputation Score: 10

Re: The Dodgers Claimed Matt Angle

PostPost #30 by thezeroes » February 25th, 2012, 8:45 am

Ampontan wrote:
thezeroes wrote: For a little different wording or cash expenditure, Andy MacPhail could have signed Bundy without putting him on the Forty.


Teams really don't like to do this, so I seriously doubt a minor league contract was possible. Besides, Jordan conducted the negotiations with Klentak's assistance, I think.


Andy had to sign off on the deal as GM along with permission from Peter Angelos. With the new CBA, this will not happen in the near future and is for the better IMO.
The wording of the contract on a Minor League deal could have stated that he was to be placed on the Forty Man Roster by a certain time frame. The MLB deal could have been bought out by this clause in the contract and a few dollars more in the form of a bonus IMO.
thezeroes
GCL Orioles
 
Posts: 255
Joined: April 2011
Reputation Score: 38


PreviousNext

Return to Baltimore Orioles

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

cron