Angels release Riggs 

Posted 10:04 AM by Sean
The Angels have released Adam Riggs. Hopefully he can hook on with the Rangees, Brewees, or Tigees.

More on shortstops 

Posted 10:42 AM by Sean
I realized yesterday that I had forgotten that Omar Vizquel is also a free agent this winter. Vizquel is 37 and made $6.25 million last year, but will probably come significantly cheaper in a one- or two-year deal this time around. His three-year splits:

vLHP: .262/.311/.371
vRHP: .282/.356/.400

Word is that the White Sox are most interested in Vizquel, and he seems like a guy who's not guaranteed to be any better than Eckstein in 2005, so the Angels probably aren't all that interested.

Meanwhile, via Halofan, we learn that the Chicago Sun-Times is apparently reporting that the Angels are interested in Nomar Garciaparra, with the intention of moving Eckstein to second base. I couldn't find the original Sun-Times article, but this one indicates that the Cubs "might be willing to cut a deal" with Garciaparra if he's willing to sign for three years at $7-8 million per. If the Angels have to offer more than that to obtain Garciaparra, I would hope like hell they'd try to get Renteria first. In any event, I suspect that this is typical column-filler at this point; of course the Angels are "interested" in Garciaparra, because they're exploring all their options.

For the record, Eckstein's played fourteen games at second base, all of them in 2001.

More on shortstops 

Posted 10:42 AM by Sean
I realized yesterday that I had forgotten that Omar Vizquel is also a free agent this winter. Vizquel is 37 and made $6.25 million last year, but will probably come significantly cheaper in a one- or two-year deal this time around. His three-year splits:

vLHP: .262/.311/.371
vRHP: .282/.356/.400

Word is that the White Sox are most interested in Vizquel, and he seems like a guy who's not guaranteed to be any better than Eckstein in 2005, so the Angels probably aren't all that interested.

Meanwhile, via Halofan, we learn that the Chicago Sun-Times is apparently reporting that the Angels are interested in Nomar Garciaparra, with the intention of moving Eckstein to second base. I couldn't find the original Sun-Times article, but this one indicates that the Cubs "might be willing to cut a deal" with Garciaparra if he's willing to sign for three years at $7-8 million per. If the Angels have to offer more than that to obtain Garciaparra, I would hope like hell they'd try to get Renteria first. In any event, I suspect that this is typical column-filler at this point; of course the Angels are "interested" in Garciaparra, because they're exploring all their options.

For the record, Eckstein's played fourteen games at second base, all of them in 2001.

Doing the Math: Shortstop Update 

Posted 4:21 PM by Sean
The Twins have declined their option on Cristian Guzman, making him eligible for free agency. Although Guzman's numbers against lefties are fairly good, he hits righties worse than Eckstein and will likely command between one and three million dollars more than Eckstein. He's only 26, which is a plus, but again there's just no reason to think he'd have a better 2005 than Eck.

Doing the Math: Shortstop 

Posted 1:33 PM by Sean
On Friday, I said that the guys who are currently under contract, or will very likely be under contract, for 2005 will cost the Angels in the neighborhood of $75.27 million.

Unfortunately, it appears that my belief that Adam Kennedy's rehab will cost him only a few weeks is the optimistic view of things; I'm now seeing language to the effect that he will return "between April and August." Which means the Angels will need to find a full-time second baseman, either from within or without.

Today, however, let's talk about shortstops.

David Eckstein has spent four seasons with the Angels. In the last off-season, Eckstein won an arbitration case against the club, resulting in a $2.15 million salary for 2004, and, presumably, for 2005 as well.

At 29 years old, Eckstein has established himself as a fair contact hitter with no power. He sees a lot of pitches, and puts a lot of balls in play, but generally is one of the easier outs in the lineup. Although his crow-hopping approach to getting the ball from short to first makes him a target of some derision in the field, his mastery of fundamentals make him a competent shortstop. His numbers for the past three years look like this:

vLHP: .281/.355/.384
vRHP: .273/.340/.337

Although those are not horrible numbers for a flashy shortstop, they're not all that terrific either. In 2002, Eckstein looked as if he might fit in at the top of the order, hitting .293/.363/.388, but he's failed to match that kind of production since, slipping down to the bottom third of the order fairly frequently by the end of 2004.

Eckstein's principal value to the Angels in 2005 would be that, at $2.15 million, he would come relatively cheaply. With a payroll between $90 and $100 million, the difference between Eckstein and someone making the league minimum is fairly small beer. Any move the Angels might make from within to replace him would be predicated solely on the belief that they could improve the production at that spot, rather than reduce the payroll. At this point, however, the Angels' shortstop prospects are far enough away from the majors that this is not a serious consideration. It is theorectially possible that utilityman Chone Figgins could play short, but, with Kennedy now out for an extended period of time, it is likely that Figgins will be needed to play a fair number of innings at second base, as well as getting time at center field.

This leaves only free agency if the Angels are going to improve at shortstop. This would almost certainly mean increasing the payroll at that position, and possibly offering a multiyear deal that could block prospects Alberto Callaspo, Erick Aybar, and/or Brandon Wood a couple of years down the road.

There are essentially two classes of free agent shortstops this year: guys who are comparable to Eckstein and will make comparable money, and guys who are much better than Eckstein, but will make really silly amounts of money.

The former group looks like this, with age, 2004 salary, and three-year stats:

Orlando Cabrera (currently with Boston) - 29 years old, made 6.0 million this year.
vLHP: .292/.356/.414
vRHP: .269/.314/.407

Desi Relaford (Kansas City) - 31 years old, 0.9 million.
vLHP: .246/.358/.340
vRHP: .248/.299/.358

Dave Berg (Toronto) - 34 years old, 0.8 million.
vLHP: .269/.313/.386
vRHP: .259/.304/.362

Royce Clayton (Colorado) - 34 years old, 0.65 million
vLHP: .259/.331/.350
vRHP: .253/.309/.373

Jose Vizcaino (Houston) - 36 years old, 1.2 million
vLHP: .288/.326/.346
vRHP: .279/.316/.392

Deivi Cruz (San Francisco) - 31 years old, salary unknown but probably not much
vLHP: .262/.296/.401
vRHP: .268/.291/.383

Rich Aurilia (San Diego) - 33 years old, 3.15 million
vLHP: .258/.316/.434
vRHP: .262/.314/.382

Frankly, there just doesn't seem to be much point in exchanging Eckstein for any of those guys. Aside from Cabrera, they're all older than Eckstein, and statistically more likely to decline from their numbers, which, in any case, are substantially similar or worse. Cabrera is an interesting case, in that he would offer something of an upgrade in terms of power, but is currently thrice the price. While I strongly suspect he will end up taking a pay cut, he will probably still be at least a couple million more than Eckstein while offering only slightly more production.

Which brings us to the real upgrade options:

Edgar Renteria (St. Louis) - 29 years old, 7.25 million
vLHP: .348/.436/.547
vRHP: .296/.340/.411

Nomar Garciaparra (Chicago Cubs) - 31 years old, 11.5 million
vLHP: .316/.356/.511
vRHP: .303/.351/.518

Nomar is last on this list because his statistics require a little bit of explanation. As a right-handed hitter in Fenway Park, Garciaparra has hit more than his share of wall-ball doubles off the Green Monster, some of which would presumably be turned into outs in roomier ballparks. So let's also look at his road numbers from 2002 and 2003, and his 2004 numbers (home and away) after being traded to the Cubs (which accounted for just over half his at-bats in that season):

2002 road: .293/.343/.533
2003 road: .243/.286/.401
2004 NL: .297/.364/.455

There's no question that Garciaparra is good...but $11.5 million good? Wow, I dunno. I do know that Renteria certainly looks like the better deal, but even he is expected to be looking for a long-term contract at about $10 million per year. Now, Garciaparra's numbers may come down, but in any event the likelihood is that significantly improving the Angels at shortstop is going to quadruple their payroll there at a minimum. So the options are these, keeping in mind the target they're looking to hit for total dollars:

The guys I talked about Friday plus Eckstein - about $77.42 million
The guys I talked about Friday plus Renteria or Garciaparra - about $84.5 million

The latter option would leave about $15.5 million for a starting pitcher, a third baseman, two relievers, and a catcher. And that's not considering going outside the organization for a second baseman or a DH type, or for another outfielder if Jose Guillen doesn't return. It doesn't seem likely.

There is one scenario in which I can envision the Angels acquiring one of these folks, preferably Renteria, but it would require a number of other pieces falling into place. First, they would have to acquire another Kelvim Escobar - that is, a solid starter they can get for around $6 million. They'd then have to commit to keeping Guillen for 2005, since he's relatively cheap for his production, exercise their option on Bengie Molina at $3 million, replace Glaus with McPherson, put Figgins at second, and pick up a couple of relievers for a couple million apiece. This isn't completely outlandish, and could be a possibility if the Angels decide that one of these two shortsops is the best guy available. The problem would be finding that starting pitcher first, while several other teams pursued Renteria/Garciaparra, or risk not having the dollars to sign a decent starter at all.

For logistical and financial reasons, therefore, Eckstein is likely back for 2005.

Doing the Math 

Posted 10:21 AM by Sean
Okay, it's time to start talking about 2005.

Let's start with the 2004 payroll. Added up, the Angels spent $122.53 million on player salaries this past year. That includes non-roster players like Kevin Appier, who received an appalling $12 million for pitching badly for the Royals, and Raul Mondesi, who picked up a cool $1.75 million for a stint that was over faster than the extended version of The Fellowship of the Ring.

The Angels have consistently maintained that they are planning to reduce payroll in 2005. This would almost seem to be inevitable, given the chunk Appier made and the $8 million paid out to departing free agent Aaron Sele. Exactly how much the payroll will be reduced, however, has been the subject of speculation. From what I've read, the expectation seems to be that the Angels' 2005 payroll will be in the neighborhood of $90 - $100 million, though Arte Moreno has shown that he's not afraid to spend more if he feels he can get a good free agent.

The logical place to start, then, would be to make a list of the guys who are guaranteed money going into 2005. The Angels currently have the following players under contract:

Garret Anderson - $9.0 million
Bartolo Colon - 11.0 million
Darin Erstad - 8.0 million
Kelvim Escobar - 6.0 million
Vladimir Guerrero - 11.50 million
Jose Guillen - 3.50 million
Adam Kennedy - 3.0 million
Tim Salmon - 9.75 million

Those eight players will cost $61.75 million in 2005, and cover two starters, zero relievers, the outfield, first base, and second base. Salmon, of course, is in the process of undergoing two surgeries that are expected to sideline him for up to ten months. While I wouldn't be totally surprised to see him return in time to make a contribution as the designated hitter, this will probably not be until midsummer or later. The Angels will therefore have to decide whether to look for another DH in free agency, or fill that hole with someone already in their system, like Jeff DaVanon.

In addition, the Angels will almost certainly renew the contracts of certain individuals. The following dollar figures are approximate, and I'm not entirely certain about everyone's arbitration eligibility, but these should be close enough for government work:

Jarrod Washburn - $5.45 million. Washburn made that amount in 2004 after signing a one-year deal to avoid arbitration; I belive the Angels can simply renew it for 2005, after which Washburn will become a free agent. Any increase or decrease will likely be modest.

John Lackey - $2.00 million. I think that Lackey is eligible for arbitration this year. He made $0.38 million in 2004. I'm not sure what he'll get, $2 million should be close enough for our purposes.

Brendan Donnelly - $1.20 million. Another arbitration-eligible guy, Donnelly made $0.38 million in 2004.

Frankie Rodriguez - $0.50 million. The Angels can just renew his contract, which was $0.40 in 2004, but I'm guessing he'll get a modest raise.

Scot Shields - $0.90 million. Shields is eligible for arbitration, and made $0.38 million in 2004.

Kevin Gregg - $0.34 million, $40,000 more than the amount he made in 2004.

Jeff DaVanon - $1.0 million. DaVanon should also be eligible for arbitration this year. He made $0.38 million in 2004.

Chone Figgins - $0.40 million. Figgins is not eligible for arbitration, and made $0.32 million in 2004. With Adam Kennedy questionable for the start of the season, and Figgins being so useful this past year, his job should be pretty safe.

Jose Molina - $0.50 million. Molina may be eligible for arbitration, but I don't think so. He made $0.34 million in 2004.

Like I said, I'm not positive about the arbitration status of any of those guys (except Washburn), but we're also not dealing with a ton of money for any of them (again, except Washburn, and possibly Lackey). By my estimation, they come to $12.29 million, to which I'm going to add a 10% fudge factor and call it $13.52. That buys two more starters, four relievers, and three guys who can either come off the bench or start, depending on circumstances. Theoretically, most of these guys could just be released, or traded, but they probably won't be because they're relatively cheap. Once again, the exception is Washburn, but Washburn will stick around because it's going to be hard enough to find one starter, let alone two.

The Angels also have the option of bringing back David Eckstein at about $2.15 million (2005 is his walk year) and Bengie Molina at $3.00 million (undera club option in his current contract). Since the club has options at those positions, however, I'm going to look at them separately.

At this point, the payroll is at $75.27 million, and the Angels still need, by my estimation, a starter, two relievers, a shortstop, a third baseman, a catcher, and a DH to start the season. In addition, for reasons that should be obvious, the club may decide to release or trade Jose Guillen, which would open up another bench position, since that would probably make Chone Figgins or JeffDaVanon the everyday center fielder (with Anderson moving to left).

In the coming days, I'll take a look at the options the Angels will have to fill those positions, starting Monday with shortstop. Is Eckstein a lock to return?

Kennedy questionable for spring training 

Posted 9:17 AM by Sean
Adam Kennedy will undergo surgery tomorrow to repair his right knee, and may miss at least some of spring training.

In which he digs up a moldering corpse and shoots it again 

Posted 9:01 AM by Sean
Ah...nuts.

Nearly a week later, that's about all I can summon. For about 48 hours after Game 3, I occasionally burst into spontaneous muttering: "stupid, stupid, stupid..." Fortunately, I was wandering around Chicago, where such things are not uncommon.

After thinking about it, however, I have the following brief comments:

1. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Scioscia hasn't had a lefty in the bullpen to go to for something like two years, and suddenly he's making that his criteria? C'mon. Even if Rodriguez was gassed - and he probably was - you go to your most effective guy, which is Percival. Dance with the one what brung ya! Washburn had looked terrible in Game 1, and just shouldn't have been relied upon to get a hitter of Ortiz's caliber out.

2. Even so, Scioscia takes only a scintilla of blame for this. The Red Sox had a great series, and hit on all cylinders. Scioscia's mistake may have ended it, but there were plenty of other reasons the Angels were in that position to begin with.

3. Goat of the series: Chone Figgins. Figs just flat fell apart defensively. I've alluded to this before, I believe, but Figgins needs a full-time position or he needs to be traded. Shuttling him from center to third to second in the interest of keeping his bat in the lineup is fine for a short period of time, but it's a huge disservice to him and to the team in the long term.

And that's it. I suspect that, in time, I'll come to remember 2004 as the year the Angels never quite lived up to their potential until the very end of the season, and then got smacked in the playoffs by a team that had been playing better baseball for longer.

Okay, NOW it's a series 

Posted 11:21 AM by Sean
I'm trying to get a bunch of stuff done before leaving town this afternoon, so this will necessarily be brief. A lot's being made about home plate umpire Jerry Mears's strike zone last night; in my opinion, it was pretty tiny, but mostly consistent. There were three or four instances in which he seemed to call differently than he had before, which is bad, but it happened to both the Angels and the Red Sox. And Jerry Mears didn't throw a wild pitch at a critical time, or strike out with a runner in scoring position.

The major problem I'm having with the Angels in this series is not that they're losing. The Red Sox are a good team - the best in the American League, I think - and they're playing good baseball. My problem is that the Angels are losing because of their mental mistakes, and looking like chumps while doing so. This just isn't the team they've been this year. They've lost games, sure, but they've never looked like the Kansas City Royals before. Regardless of what's happening - and I suspect emotional letdown after chasing down the A's may be a factor - I'd really like it to stop, at least for one game.

Like I said, I'm going out of town for a few days, so the next entry (probably Monday) will discuss either the last game of the season or the incredible comeback.

Chicken Little, Table of A Thousand? 

Posted 9:32 AM by Sean
I'm quite sure I don't know what the hell everyone is talking about after the Red Sox's 9-3 win over the Angels yesterday.

The L.A. Times's Mike Penner is all but telling us that neither the Dodgers nor the Angels have a chance. Ditto Rob. Steve Bisheff at the Register is calling it a "mismatch." Meanwhile, guys who haven't seen an Angels game all year, let alone recently, are smugly claiming that the game they saw yesterday typifies the team. And T.J. Simers...is Simers off his meds? Or is this column a joke? Either way, I want my two minutes back.

Well, nuts to all y'all.

Lookit: I didn't even see the game yesterday. I listened to the radio broadcast. So maybe I'm missing something, but that sure didn't sound like a typical Angels game. It sounded like there were some defensive screwups that cost them big, and this is not a team that regularly screws up on defense.

Outside of Boston's seven-run fourth, the Angels actually outscored the Red Sox. That's not a whole lot of comfort, since MLB rarely lets you take a mulligan on stuff like that, but it points out that those who would seek to bury the Angels now are doing so because of one inning. An inning that went like this:

-D Ortiz walked.
-K Millar homered to left, D Ortiz scored.
-J Varitek singled to left.
-O Cabrera walked, J Varitek to second.
-B Mueller struck out looking.
-G Kapler singled to right, J Varitek to third, O Cabrera to second.
-J Damon grounded into fielder's choice to third, J Varitek and O Cabrera scored on throwing error by third baseman C Figgins, G Kapler safe at third on throwing error by third baseman C Figgins.
-S Shields relieved J Washburn.
-M Bellhorn struck out swinging.
-M Ramirez homered to center, G Kapler and J Damon scored.
-D Ortiz grounded out to second.

Both Varitek's single to left and Kapler's single to right were apparently close to being outs. So if the Angels get a little luckier, or maybe if Figgins and Amezaga get ten minutes' more sleep, it's a two-run inning instead of a seven-run inning. Again, this doesn't matter now, because the game is lost, and fair play to the Boston Red Sox. But it should tell you that this series is far from over.

As Richard points out, the Angels did get to Schilling a little bit; the Angels had nine hits to Boston's 11, all of them against Schilling. Tonight's game is pretty close to a must-win for the Angels, but there's no reason to believe that, if Colon can outduel Martinez, the Angels will be flying east to annihilation. Escobar versus Arroyo? Lackey versus Wakefield? Which of those games is unwinnable?

I am also stymied by the general feeling that Scioscia screwed up big-time by starting Amezaga. This was hardly a concession; Amezaga, you'll recall, also started against Mulder and Zito in games the Angels needed to win the division in the first place. I grant you that those starts were against lefties, and Dallas McPherson does not hit lefties well, but let us also note that Dallas McPherson did, in fact, get into yesterday's game early enough to go 0-for-3, including a groundout with the bases loaded.

In any event, what it all boils down to is that the Angels have their backs against the wall tonight. If they lose, they'll be in big trouble. But if they win, they're right back to even. And you'd better believe they've got a shot at winning.

Which, if you do the math, means they're still in this thing.

Call me when you've got an insight 

Posted 11:11 AM by Sean
Since this is just the first round of the playoffs, we're not quite to the point where I can make fun of the ludicriously overwrought human-interest stories the baseball press vomits up every fall. Here, instead, are the predictions I've been able to find on the Angels-Red Sox series:

King Kaufman takes the Red Sox in four:

But the real difference in this series, other than the two top starters, is the lineups. The Red Sox lead the league in just about everything offensively. The Angels do a nice job of putting the ball in play and manufacturing runs, but they're a middle-of-the-pack hitting team even at full strength, and their missing the suspended Jose Guillen and the injured Adam Kennedy. They small-balled their way to the championship two years ago, but I don't think they have the horses this time.

Bill "The Sports Guy" Simmons says it's Red Sox in five:

So here's my big prediction: Schilling cruises over Washburn in Game 1. Game 2 (Colon vs. Pedro) has all the makings of one of those epic Red Sox defeats where the wheels come off in some excruciating way, sending everyone back home into an absolute panic (I'm getting a weird vibe about Jeff DaVanon in this game -- can't explain it). In Game 3, Arroyo pitches the game of his life. Up 2-1 in Game 4, Francona nearly panics and pitches Schilling on three days rest, then thinks better of it and hands the ball to Wakefield, who gets shelled in an ugly 11-9 slugfest. Poor Francona just can't win either way. So everyone flies back to Anaheim for Game Five ... and Schilling lays the smack down on Colon. Series over. Bring on Santana and the Twins.

Jayson Stark is taking the Red Sox to win the World Series, which presumably means they'd get past the Angels:

Still, we're picking the Red Sox -- because we expect Schilling to win Game 1. Which will give the Sox a chance to win the series at Fenway. And we like the way the Boston hitters match up against a staff that "doesn't pitch in very much," said one scout, "which is the only way to beat the Red Sox."

Aside from Simmons and Stark, the other ESPN analyst predictions are in this chart. To summarize:

Red Sox - Peter Gammons, Rob Neyer, Jerry Crasnick, Tim Kurkjian, Jim Caple, Pedro Gomez, Sean McAdam, John Sickels, Scott Ridge.

Angels - Buster Olney, Eric Neel, Bob Klapisch, Phil Rogers, Matt Szefc.

Additionally, Mark Simon is listed as taking the Angels in the ALDS, but predicts the Yankees over the Red Sox in the ALCS. Good luck, Mark!

Elsewhere on ESPN, Page 2 summarizes the picks of the aforementioned Eric Neel and Jim Caple, and adds ESPN editors Michael Knisley and David Schoenfield. Neel and Shoenfield have the Angels in five, Caple and Knisley the Red Sox in four.

John Donovan at Sports Illustrated picks the Red Sox in five:

If the postseason comes down to pitching -- and it usually does -- this series belongs to Boston. Schilling and Martinez rule over any Angels' starting duo. Still, the Angels won the World Series in '02 with a shaky rotation when their bullpen bailed them out. Can the Angels do it again? They've come a long way through a lot of pain, but the best lineup in the AL, coupled with that rotation and a good Boston pen, puts an end to Anaheim's season here.

So does Aaron Gleeman at The Hardball Times:

This really is a tough series to pick a winner for, and certainly tougher than it would have been with Oakland playing Boston. While the Angels have the better bullpen, that doesn't help them much unless the game is close in the late innings. The Red Sox have the better, deeper offense and far better starting pitching, and should be able to score enough runs on Anaheim's starters early to minimize the impact of the Angels' relievers. This is Boston's series to lose, and they won't if Foulke can hold leads late. I think he will.

As for today's game...Bodog.com puts it at Boston -168, Anaheim +153, meaning you'd have to wager $168 on Boston to win $100, and betting $100 on Anaheim would win you $153.

All of this seems to add up to one thing: the Angels are underdogs. Again.

It's funny - everyone seems to sagely agree that the 2004 team just doesn't measure up to the 2002 squad. But these are the same folks who universally picked those poor 2002 Angels to fold to the unstoppable juggernaut that was the New York Yankees. After all, just look at all that playoff experience the Yankees had! And the only Angel who'd ever even been to the playoffs was Kevin Appier!

Whatever, man. None of these picks are anything but the cheep-cheep-cheeping of guys with columns due. In the meantime, fifty guys in uniforms will figure it out and let us know the real answer in a few days, after which those same prognosticators, most of whom will have been wrong, will write to let us know why such an outcome was inevitable.

Me? I don't have a prediction, just as suggestion:

GO GET 'EM, ANGELS!

[Update: Rob also has a prediction roundup at 6-4-2]

Playoff roster 

Posted 9:50 AM by Sean
The Angels' playoff roster has been finalized.

Halter, Galarraga, and Sele are off; Kotchman and Pride are on. Lackey, we're told, will be available to pitch out of the bullpen in Games 1 and 2, or could start Game 4.

Tim Salmon, of course, will not be on the roster, but will be with the team. Apparently, he had to watch Saturday's clincher against the A's via GameDay, since it was blacked out in Phoenix, where he lives.

ALDS matchups set 

Posted 4:18 PM by Sean
The Twins lost to the Indians this afternoon, meaning that, regardless of the outcome of the Angels-A's contest, the ALDS matchups will feature the Red Sox versus the Angels and the Twins versus the Yankees. The Angels-Sox game will start at 4:00 Eastern Time on Tuesday.

A few days ago, Twins blogger Aaron Gleeman studied the situation and concluded that he'd rather the Twins lose home field advantage and face the Yankees in the first round of the playoffs, instead of having to play Boston. I sympathize; certainly that sweep in Boston was a low point for the Halos. But, thinking about it, I realized that this is no worse than going into Yankee Stadium in 2002, underdogs to such a degree that it seemed that no one was giving them a second thought. Boston's got a terrific team this year, but they've got to come into Anaheim and win.

The last week has been a warmup. The real excitement starts in 48 hours.

Monster accolades 

Posted 1:01 PM by Sean
Vlad Guerrero has been named A.L. Player of the Month for September, the first Angel to be PotM since Tim Salmon won it in '97.

I think maybe Arte's getting his money's worth out of this one.

2004 Western Division Champions 

Posted 6:24 PM by Sean
Oh, God, that's sweet.

Congratulations to the Oakland A's, who've won 90 games for five years straight, on a well-fought season.

No matter what the voters say, The Monster is the American League's Most Valuable Player. He may have had his ups and downs this year, but when it counted, he came through.

And so did Darin Erstad and Garret Anderson. Were you watching, Rob Neyer? THAT's why they make what they make. And that's why your spreadsheets will never tell the whole story.

More eventually. Right now, I'm gonna drink some beer and smile at everybody I see.

Update: The following seem probable:

1. Galarraga starts at 1B tomorrow.
2. Ortiz or Sele pitches.
3. ALDS rotation: Washburn, Colon, Escobar.

At Play on the Plains of Armageddon 

Posted 1:24 AM by Sean
That's one.

1-0, 10-0, or 24-0, one win counts for one win. Tonight the Angels were dominant in all aspects of the game - starting pitching, relief, offense, defense, you name it. Hell, they're better-looking and have better uniforms, too. They had the help of one moderately bad call (Anderson being called safe at the plate), two calls the umps got right but A's fanboys will complain about anyway (Chavez being tagged out after oversliding and Scutaro coming off the bag before taking the relay on a potentially inning-ending double play), and the Baseball Gods, who decided they wanted to see Alfredo Amezaga hit another grand slam, and Andres Galarraga get career dinger #399. Mostly, though, this one is to Bartolo Colon's credit. You'd have never known he was on short rest; in fact, his normal four innings of topping out in the low-90's were cut to just one or two. From the third on, he was humming it up there at 94-96.

All of that becomes ancient history starting right now. The Angels have a shot at winning their first division title in eighteen years, and right now I'm guessing they're starting to think about Barry Zito.

As a fan, all I can say is that it's been a hell of a ride - especially the last few weeks. There's one more win to get. I don't for a second believe that it'll be as easy as this one was; I don't for a second believe that it won't involve Octavio Dotel versus Vlad Guerrero, or Troy Percival versus Eric Chavez (or both). There will be drama, heartbreak, and triumph. It's gonna be great.

Go get 'em, guys.

WE BELIEVE.

Guillen arbitration results 

Posted 4:12 PM by Sean
Here is the press release regarding Guillen's arbitration hearing this morning:

The Angels and Jose Guillen have resolved the grievance filed over the Club's discipline of Mr. Guillen for his actions during and after the game against Oakland on Sept. 25, 2004. The parties reached a financial settlement, the terms of which will not be disclosed. By agreement, Guillen will not rejoin the Club for the balance of the championship season.

All told, probably the best result for the team - they won't have the distraction of a disgruntled and smug Guillen on the bench, or the temptation to give in and play him when things get tight.

Through the looking glass 

Posted 9:51 AM by Sean
Halofan, normally the unrestrained id of Angels blogdom, gets all inspirational on us today. Go read it. It's good.