GiantsFan14 wrote:I'd take the under on Trout having a better season next year even with the extra games played. It's not easy to put up 10 WAR.
Oh I would too, but having Trout for an extra month instead of Peter Bourjos is a big upgrade.
mweir145 wrote:If it is one at all, it's not much of one. Hunter had a great season in 2012.
Hunter did have a great 2012. And Hamilton fell off during the second half of the season. I still think Hamilton is the better hitter though, especially over the last 3 years. So Josh should be an upgrade. I don't know how much of one or if it is going to be significant. We just have to wait and see. The bottom is that the move doesn't make the Angels any worse in 2013. And neither Hamilton nor Hunter are on the Rangers.
mweir145 wrote:Hanson has been bad for two years in a row (and worse than even Haren was during his bad stretch in 2012). That's a downgrade. And Santana seems to have been replaced by Joe Blanton.
Hanson was pitching quite well in 2011 before he got injured. And in 2012, coming back from injury, he was more successful than Haren for half of the months. Hanson being one year removed from injury while being 6 years younger than Haren gives him the nod in my book. Joe Blanton isn't good, but Santana was awful in 2012. Expecting Blanton to pitch that bad is even a stretch for him. I'd imagine if he was doing that poorly he would end up being replaced. And truth be told, I'm a big fan of Garrett Richards.
mweir145 wrote:As good as he is, it's unlikely that Trout has a 2nd straight historic season in a row and Pujols will be another year older (and his skills/stats have been declining for a few years now).
If Trout plays 80% as good as he did this year than that is a win. Sure, Pujols is declining, but to think he will hit like his did last April would be a big assumption. He turned things around dramatically. Through his whole career he had never hit as badly as he did last April.
mweir145 wrote:I'm not saying they're not a very good team or not in the conversation in the AL West. They clearly are. But I don't think they've separated themselves at all from the Rangers and A's based on what they've done this offseason.
Then I think we are in near agreement. I don't view the Angels as the clear cut best team in the AL West, but I have more faith in them than the Rangers or the As. With the Rangers completely choking away the division and the losses of Hamilton and Dempster, I don't see them being the front runners. And I don't trust the As until they can be competitive for more than a season.
mweir145 wrote:I notice you didn't answer my question about the Jays. If you're using that betting site to claim that the Angels are the favorites in the West, does that mean the Jays are the favorites in the East? I think most people would agree that realistically isn't the case.
I didn't want to derail the topic and start talking about the Jays. I wouldn't call the Jays the favorites, but they are certainly in the conversation. For me, the Orioles fall into the same category as the As- I want to see them be competitive for more than one season before I call them the real deal. The Rays are good, but the loss of Shields bumped them down for me. The Yankees, as much as I hate them, are always in the conversation. And maybe I am biased since I'm a Sox fan, but I think the AL East is still tougher than any other division in baseball.
I wouldn't take those odds on the Jays, but I wouldn't be surprised if they won the division. If Morrow can come back successfully (and pitch consistently well) from injury and if Romero can live up to his talent, then the Jays will win. It all rests on their pitching IMO. The hitting is solid- Bautista will rebound. The rotation could have 4 good #2 guys if they can live up to their talent.