lost angels of anaheim

every once in awhile ill blog about sports for the reading pleasure of no one. i think about sports constantly and follow them religiously. nellie is beginning to realize this. there is always something going on. college football goes from the end of august to january. by then, college basketball is underway with march madness approaching. during that time, the euro soccer leagues are going on and they are usually finishing in april and may and help fill in the gap until baseball season is underway for the rest of the summer.

anyways, im no sports writer or critic. but i am a fan and the angels are on my thoughts, so ill throw in my two cents in case anyone cares. which im sure no one does. but yes, i am an angels fan. and i think a true one at that. ron took us to angels games when we were young because he didnt want to deal with la traffic and crowds at dodger stadium. now that im older, i realize how ridiculous both of those are and i would do the same thing too with my children. in the meantime though, i started following the angels ever since 1986. i wasnt always the best fan. when the nation fell out of baseball, i did too. but i do feel secure claiming my fanhood all the way back to 86, maybe 87.

now that i have established myself, ill vent. we lost again to the red sox. its completely ridiculous. i hate the red sox. as do many angels fans by now. and like many fans, i hate the so called 'red sox nation.' perhaps its just jealousy because the red sox are so well represented in every part of the country. go to an angels game and youll hear just about as many cheers for the red sox as you will the angels. which is frustrating. look, you didnt win a world series for 80-some-odd-years. we all rooted for you to win it back in 2004. you pulled it off and broke 'the curse.' before you were lovable losers (see: chicago cubs), now you are the trendy bandwagon team with obnoxious fans and a payroll similar to that of your new york counterparts. so own it. my team wanted to be the dodgers and take over la so we admitted it and added it to our name. you probably wont admit it, but since you are becoming like your east coast counterparts, we'll just call you the boston red sox of new york, because that is what you have become.

that was ridiculous rambling that didnt really make sense. the frustrating part about the series was that the angels lost the series. boston didnt win it. we were the better team and played poorly. my friend chris gave a rundown of his thoughts on some players on the team. i actually disagree with him on a few of the players. but here's my thoughts:

garret anderson: you were great. an angel legend. thanks for the memories. youre washed up. here's the door.

vlad: i didnt think he had a terrible series. better than past series. he was patient at the plate. didnt have an incredible power series, but did do great at getting on base. of course, i love the guy. he's the equivalent of raul on real madrid. he can do no wrong.

howie kendrick: i used to be high on this guy because i was buying into the hype that he was an amazing young talent and the future of the franchise etc. but i thing im off the bandwagon now. i dont think its possible to have a worse series than howie kendrick. its not just that he did poorly, he looked utterly lost and had zero confidence the entire time. amazing young talent rises to the occassion and lives for their first playoff experience. he's always hurt during the season and no one with a 'bright future' like they say he has, would commit so many errors in the playoffs and swing like theyve never seen a baseball before. he's nothing special. we have been waiting for his 'emmergence' for a couple of years now and if he was truly a star he would have stepped up by now and for sure at least once during the series instead of being a liability the whole time. he's a decent player and thats all. he's not filling any big shoes any time soon, if ever.

starting pitching: chris didnt seem to think we have a number 2 guy, but i think santana was solid this year. he did have a shaky start in the playoffs when he gave up 5 runs in the first inning, but then he shut the red sox out for the next 7 innings. i think he's legit. our rotation isnt bad. one of the best in baseball. our three starters for the playoffs: lackey, santana and saunders i think match up as well or better than any other team out there. it was the poor hitting and defense that did us in. not the starting pitching.

scot shields: yes. there is just one 't' on his name. chris is anti-scot. i like the guy. perhaps he was the losing pitcher in the deciding game 4, and it may seem like he has lost games for us a lot, but he's as good of a set up guy as there is out there. he can throw forever. legend has it that in a college game he threw 260 pitches. for anyone not familiar with baseball, thats ridiculous. 100 pitches is about average for pitchers these days. 130 is a ton. 260 is nearly criminal unless you have a rubber arm. if you watched game 3, were you sweating more when shields was pitching or when k-rod was pitching?

which is my next guy: k-rod. let him go. he wants a ton of money and he's not worth it. if scoscia had ANY confidence in k-rod at all, he would have brought him in to pitch to the red sox in the 9th of game 4. if k-rod was really that lights out and shields wasnt and scoscia knew it, he would have brought k-rod in to ensure the angels get another at bat in the 10th inning. he didnt. he knew that his chances were as good with shields than with k-rod. plus, k-rod is a wuss. he will only pitch one inning a game. just 3 outs. its not like he would come in and pitch the 9th and then the 10th if there was one. so scoscia had to stick with shields. whats more valuable, a guy that will pitch forever if you ask him or someone that will only do 1 inning max? plus, it usually takes him an hour and 3 walks to get those 3 outs. i dont need that. he wants 10 million a year, let the mariners or some desperate team give it to him. i hope we dont.

last guy: mark texeira. again, chris says we have to get him. so does my nephew and bro-in-law. im not so sold. he's good. great defensive skills. he played really well in the post season. im not saying hes bad, i just dont know what we want from him. we always wanted a BIG bat to help out vlad, and he's not that. he's got a good bat, but be honest. vlad is on par with david ortiz and manny ramirez. at least in his prime. is a vlad/texeira combo nearly as intimidating as the ortiz/manny combo was a few years ago? not remotely. texeira is good, but he wont punish you. which is what manny and ortiz did. if you refused to pitch to manny or were afraid and you walked him, ortiz would punish you because you had to pitch to one of them. if you tried to pitch to manny, then he would punish you. again, texeira is good, but i dont think he's worth breaking the bank. maybe im wrong. i just think that for the money he will want, plus the money k-rod will want, the angels could get a super star that is more intimidating than vlad. thats not their style though. they'll pursue what they have and try and keep texeira.

anyways, those are my ramblings. if you made it this far, you must really love the angels or be my wife because im even getting tired of typing this.