Writings on baseball by Matt Barnard and Dan Stein.

 
Chuck Finley & the Angels
Yeah, we don't get it. Dan's humorous piece on Chuck Finley's free agency was brought on by a conversation we had about him last night. We don't understand the apparent lack of interest. This is a guy who is a damn good bet, even at 40, to provide a team with close to 200 innings of above-average (even if only slightly) major league pitching. Because he's old and doesn't have a ring, we're going to assume he's interested in winning one next season and would like to pitch for a team that's likely to contend. Boston is a real good fit, you'd think, for the reasons Dan outlined. I really don't see how location is a huge issue for a guy who's just spent the past few seasons in Cleveland and the last two months of 2002 in St. Louis, where he was apparently willing to resign (the Cardinals had other plans). But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that he does want to be back in Southern California near his family, and that's a primary concern for him. Isn't there a contending team down there? A team that Chuck played most of his career for and that won the World Series last year? And that could use another starter to go along with Jarrod Washburn, Kevin Appier, Ramon Ortiz and John Lackey? (sure, you can throw in Aaron Sele too)

Maybe I'm off-base here and there was some kind of major falling out in Anaheim when Finley left which precludes him from returning. But I think that a guy like Finley, who could probably be signed pretty cheaply at this point, could really help the Angels in their quest to repeat as World Champions. The Angels have shown a commitment to spend some money to retain the squad they had a year ago for the most part (they've lost Lou Pote, Al Levine, Dennis Cook, Orlando Palmeiro and Alex Ochoa)...so why not throw another $2-3 million bucks at a guy who a) has won in the postseason b) has a long history with your franchise and c) can still be a legitimate #3 or 4 starter?

Are we wrong? You can yell at us if you'd like, but I really don't see the Angels getting close to winning another World Series (or even being particularly competitive as far as the postseason is concerned) with essentially the same squad they had in place last year. Of course, I would've said that about this roster a year ago too and been dead wrong...but I don't think lightning will strike this bunch twice. Maybe Disney's gotten their fill (they are trying to sell the team) and is now ready to be content with merely keeping up the appearance of trying to repeat and contend going forward. Bill Stoneman's (and whoever else is calling the shots) decision to stand pat this offseason is going to come back and bite the Angels. It'd behoove him to be proactive and quietly improve his team by picking up guys who can help him if and when his regulars from last year don't live up to expectations or break down.
posted by VZW Watcher at 10:31 PM -