When Will the Angels Be Competitive Again?

Unless the Los Angeles Angels win their final six games and somehow figure out how to get Major League Baseball to overturn the results of 15 others, the club will finish below the .500 mark for the 11th consecutive season. This postseason will mark the 12th in a row to not feature any Halos, and it has been 17 years since the last time they won a game in the playoffs. The Arte Moreno era is ending, with Los Angeles Rams owner Stan Kroenke taking over the helm. And while Kroenke has a mixed record as an owner, a mixed record would qualify as progress after Moreno. New ownership tends to represent a new beginning for a team, setting up an important question: Can the Angels return to playing October baseball in the near future? After all, while the team doesn’t have the same revenue as the Dodgers, it’s still located in the second-most-populous metropolitan area in the United States; theoretically, they have the resources to speed up the process.
I like to joke about baseball’s Anna Karenina issue, because I think the novel’s first line — “Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way” — is an even more appropriate observation for baseball teams than it is for families. All great baseball teams look kind of the same, but every lousy team looks different. As bad teams go, the Angels have never been spectacularly lousy; if they fail to at least split their last six games, 2026 will be the first time ever that the franchise has lost 100 games. Still, this is a franchise that hasn’t figured out how to play .500 ball while employing the best player of the 2010s and the likely best player of the 2020s. They even had both of those guys on the team for a while! That the Angels have tended to hover just below mediocre rather than being hilariously awful is probably one of the reasons they’ve never truly blown things up and tried something radically different. The Angels never reached a point where they just threw stuff against the wall to see what sticks, something the White Sox finally accepted a few years ago, and that the Rockies appear to be starting to accept now.
If the Angels were to compete again soon, where would the talent come from? At first blush, there’s no amount of squinting that can make the Angels look like they have the foundation of a solid team. Mike Trout is still pretty good, but he’s a galaxy away from the player he once was, and as hard as it is to believe, he turned 35 last month. Zach Neto is solid, but if you listed the rest of the starting lineup and told me that I was looking at the starting lineup for the Durham Bulls or the Round Rock Express, I might believe you.
To get a more comprehensive look at the team’s offensive future, I ran updated WAR and OPS+ projections for the Angels over the next five seasons. I’ve included pretty much everyone on the roster or in the high minors, as well as those top prospects who are at a minor league level where projections are practical. That leaves out intriguing players like Johnny Slawinski, Joswa Lugo, and Yilver De Paula, but we’re also talking about non-elite prospects at the very low levels, so the median outlook for their projections is going to be fairly low. Still, it’s worth keeping in mind that there are at least a few additional lottery tickets out there for the Angels.
To make a quick read of the table easier, I’ve highlighted all of the 3-WAR projected seasons in red and all of the 2-WAR projected seasons in yellow. I’ve also blacked out the seasons where a player isn’t under team control, or where ZiPS is highly confident that they won’t be in baseball based on their performance. Oh, and I threw in Anthony Rendon for the sake of curiosity:
| Player | 2027 OPS+ | WAR | 2028 OPS+ | WAR | 2029 OPS+ | WAR | 2030 OPS+ | WAR | 2031 OPS+ | WAR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zach Neto | 114 | 3.6 | 115 | 3.7 | 116 | 3.8 | ||||
| Mike Trout | 121 | 2.3 | 114 | 1.6 | 102 | 0.9 | 92 | 0.2 | ||
| Denzer Guzman | 89 | 1.5 | 93 | 1.8 | 96 | 2.1 | 99 | 2.4 | 105 | 2.8 |
| Christian Moore | 90 | 1.4 | 95 | 1.8 | 100 | 2.0 | 98 | 2.0 | 99 | 2.0 |
| Wade Meckler | 98 | 1.2 | 96 | 1.1 | 96 | 1.0 | 97 | 0.9 | 91 | 0.5 |
| Jake Munroe | 103 | 1.1 | 98 | 1.0 | 103 | 1.3 | 102 | 1.3 | 100 | 1.3 |
| Nacho Alvarez Jr. | 78 | 1.1 | 80 | 1.2 | 81 | 1.4 | 81 | 1.3 | 80 | 1.3 |
| Vaughn Grissom | 94 | 1.1 | 92 | 1.1 | 94 | 1.1 | 95 | 1.0 | 90 | 0.6 |
| Nolan Schanuel | 104 | 1.1 | 104 | 1.1 | 104 | 1.0 | 103 | 0.9 | 100 | 0.6 |
| Nelson Rada | 76 | 1.0 | 80 | 1.3 | 81 | 1.4 | 82 | 1.3 | 85 | 1.4 |
| Jose Siri | 75 | 0.9 | 74 | 0.8 | ||||||
| Josh Lowe | 97 | 0.9 | 98 | 0.9 | ||||||
| Bryce Teodosio | 65 | 0.8 | 68 | 0.9 | 69 | 0.9 | 66 | 0.5 | 62 | 0.3 |
| Pablo Reyes | 95 | 0.8 | 89 | 0.4 | 83 | 0.0 | 76 | -0.2 | 63 | -0.3 |
| Kyren Paris | 78 | 0.7 | 86 | 1.1 | 89 | 1.3 | 89 | 1.2 | 92 | 1.3 |
| Niko Kavadas | 95 | 0.7 | 97 | 0.8 | 96 | 0.6 | 93 | 0.4 | 81 | -0.1 |
| Jacob Cozart | 71 | 0.6 | 77 | 1.0 | 79 | 1.1 | 84 | 1.3 | 81 | 1.1 |
| Oswald Peraza | 72 | 0.6 | 73 | 0.7 | 72 | 0.5 | 75 | 0.4 | 74 | 0.2 |
| Tyler Heineman | 58 | 0.6 | 63 | 0.6 | ||||||
| Cade Marlowe | 93 | 0.5 | 89 | 0.3 | 88 | 0.2 | 83 | -0.1 | 79 | -0.1 |
| Arjun Nimmala | 74 | 0.5 | 82 | 1.0 | 89 | 1.6 | 92 | 1.9 | 95 | 2.2 |
| Gustavo Campero | 99 | 0.4 | 99 | 0.4 | 95 | 0.2 | 95 | 0.1 | 91 | 0.0 |
| Raudi Rodriguez | 83 | 0.3 | 86 | 0.5 | 91 | 0.8 | 94 | 0.9 | 97 | 1.0 |
| Ben Gobbel | 79 | 0.2 | 79 | 0.2 | 82 | 0.3 | 79 | 0.1 | 74 | -0.1 |
| Yolmer Sánchez | 62 | 0.2 | 60 | 0.0 | 56 | -0.3 | 56 | -0.1 | ||
| Moisés Ballesteros | 91 | 0.1 | 94 | 0.4 | 97 | 0.6 | 99 | 0.6 | 99 | 0.6 |
| Jeimer Candelario | 82 | 0.1 | ||||||||
| Zach Humphreys | 64 | 0.1 | 67 | 0.2 | 63 | 0.0 | 56 | -0.1 | ||
| Logan Porter | 64 | 0.1 | 60 | -0.1 | 54 | -0.3 | 47 | -0.2 | ||
| Hayden Alvarez | 78 | 0.1 | 77 | 0.1 | 83 | 0.2 | 81 | 0.1 | 89 | 0.3 |
| Juan Flores | 62 | 0.1 | 70 | 0.6 | 75 | 0.9 | 81 | 1.3 | 88 | 1.7 |
| Anthony Rendon | 79 | 0.0 | 84 | 0.1 | 75 | -0.1 | ||||
| Marlon Quintero | 51 | 0.0 | 57 | 0.3 | 61 | 0.6 | 67 | 0.8 | 69 | 0.9 |
| Tucker Flint | 77 | -0.3 | 80 | -0.1 | 84 | 0.1 | 83 | 0.0 | 82 | 0.0 |
| Omar Martinez | 70 | -0.3 | 73 | -0.1 | 79 | 0.2 | 78 | 0.1 | 73 | -0.1 |
| Nick Rodriguez | 65 | -0.5 | 69 | -0.1 | 70 | 0.0 | 74 | 0.1 | 72 | 0.0 |
| Eddie Micheletti Jr. | 72 | -0.5 | 74 | -0.4 | 78 | -0.2 | 80 | -0.1 | 79 | -0.1 |
| Sebastián Rivero | 47 | -0.6 | 47 | -0.7 | 49 | -0.6 | 46 | -0.2 | ||
| Cole Fontenelle | 47 | -1.0 | 55 | -0.6 | 60 | -0.4 | 62 | -0.1 | 68 | 0.0 |
| Arol Vera | 39 | -1.2 | 41 | -1.2 | 43 | -1.1 | 43 | -0.3 | ||
| Capri Ortiz | 49 | -1.4 | 55 | -1.1 | 63 | -0.5 | 67 | -0.2 | 72 | 0.0 |
| Ryan Nicholson | 63 | -1.5 | 65 | -1.4 | 68 | -1.2 | 70 | -0.5 | 68 | -0.2 |
| Mac McCroskey | 39 | -1.5 | 42 | -1.4 | 43 | -1.4 | 24 | -0.5 |
There… isn’t a lot of color in that chart. ZiPS doesn’t see anyone beyond Neto as a key part of a contending team. Trout is almost certainly going to become less and less of a contributor in coming seasons, and Denzer Guzman and Christian Moore look more like complementary options than guys threatening to attend a string of All-Star games (though Guzman does have some decent projected upside). Even given the very real possibility that ZiPS is underrating Arjun Nimmala, that’s still a stunning lack of offensive talent in the organization.
Let’s move on to the pitching, where things do look a bit better. There are no borderline star seasons projected, so I’ve highlighted all the 100 ERA+ seasons in yellow:
| Player | 2027 ERA+ | WAR | 2028 ERA+ | WAR | 2029 ERA+ | WAR | 2030 ERA+ | WAR | 2031 ERA+ | WAR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reid Detmers | 106 | 2.6 | 105 | 2.4 | ||||||
| Walbert Ureña | 102 | 2.2 | 105 | 2.4 | 106 | 2.5 | 106 | 2.4 | 106 | 2.4 |
| Tyler Bremner | 103 | 1.4 | 107 | 1.9 | 109 | 2.2 | 110 | 2.2 | 107 | 2.2 |
| Yusei Kikuchi | 94 | 1.3 | 85 | 0.6 | ||||||
| Grayson Rodriguez | 93 | 1.1 | 94 | 1.2 | 95 | 1.3 | ||||
| George Klassen | 92 | 1.1 | 95 | 1.3 | 98 | 1.5 | 99 | 1.5 | 99 | 1.5 |
| Ryan Johnson | 91 | 1.0 | 96 | 1.3 | 99 | 1.5 | 100 | 1.6 | 101 | 1.6 |
| Austin Gordon | 87 | 0.9 | 92 | 1.2 | 96 | 1.4 | 98 | 1.5 | 98 | 1.5 |
| Caden Dana | 87 | 0.7 | 93 | 1.1 | 97 | 1.4 | 100 | 1.5 | 101 | 1.6 |
| Nate Snead | 86 | 0.5 | 89 | 0.9 | 93 | 1.2 | 95 | 1.3 | 97 | 1.4 |
| Kyle Robinson | 82 | 0.5 | 87 | 0.8 | 92 | 1.1 | 96 | 1.3 | 98 | 1.5 |
| Samy Natera Jr. | 100 | 0.5 | 106 | 0.6 | 106 | 0.6 | 107 | 0.6 | 106 | 0.6 |
| José Fermin | 104 | 0.4 | 110 | 0.6 | 115 | 0.7 | 116 | 0.7 | 117 | 0.7 |
| Mitch Farris | 85 | 0.4 | 89 | 0.6 | 93 | 0.8 | 94 | 0.8 | 94 | 0.8 |
| Jack Kochanowicz | 81 | 0.4 | 84 | 0.6 | 86 | 0.7 | 88 | 0.6 | ||
| Eybersson Polanco | 85 | 0.4 | 91 | 0.7 | 98 | 1.0 | 99 | 1.1 | 103 | 1.2 |
| Jose Atencio | 83 | 0.4 | 87 | 0.6 | 91 | 0.8 | 92 | 0.9 | 94 | 1.0 |
| Sammy Peralta | 93 | 0.3 | 93 | 0.3 | 93 | 0.3 | 93 | 0.3 | 90 | 0.2 |
| Joel Hurtado | 80 | 0.3 | 83 | 0.6 | 87 | 0.7 | 87 | 0.7 | 87 | 0.6 |
| Sam Aldegheri | 80 | 0.3 | 84 | 0.7 | 88 | 0.9 | 90 | 1.0 | 92 | 0.9 |
| Ryan Watson | 97 | 0.3 | 99 | 0.3 | 99 | 0.3 | 97 | 0.2 | 91 | 0.1 |
| Ben Joyce | 103 | 0.3 | 106 | 0.4 | 109 | 0.4 | ||||
| Ryan Costeiu | 80 | 0.3 | 83 | 0.5 | 87 | 0.7 | 88 | 0.7 | 90 | 0.6 |
| Jose Gonzalez | 82 | 0.3 | 87 | 0.5 | 89 | 0.7 | 92 | 0.8 | 94 | 0.8 |
| Sam Bachman | 96 | 0.2 | 97 | 0.3 | 99 | 0.3 | 99 | 0.3 | ||
| Alex Faedo | 85 | 0.2 | 84 | 0.2 | 82 | 0.1 | 80 | 0.0 | 74 | -0.1 |
| Trey Gregory-Alford | 79 | 0.2 | 84 | 0.5 | 88 | 0.8 | 92 | 1.1 | 94 | 1.3 |
| Trevor Martin | 83 | 0.1 | 87 | 0.3 | 90 | 0.5 | 94 | 0.5 | 93 | 0.4 |
| Camden Minacci | 96 | 0.1 | 98 | 0.2 | 102 | 0.3 | 107 | 0.4 | 107 | 0.4 |
| Blake Weiman | 93 | 0.1 | 91 | 0.0 | 91 | 0.0 | 88 | -0.1 | 81 | -0.2 |
| Carlos Espinosa | 89 | 0.1 | 93 | 0.2 | 97 | 0.4 | 99 | 0.4 | 100 | 0.4 |
| Luke Murphy | 94 | 0.1 | 95 | 0.1 | 97 | 0.2 | 95 | 0.1 | 95 | 0.1 |
| Rob Kaminsky | 90 | 0.0 | 86 | 0.0 | 83 | -0.1 | 82 | -0.1 | 76 | -0.2 |
| Tayler Saucedo | 90 | 0.0 | 85 | -0.1 | 77 | -0.3 | 72 | -0.3 | 64 | -0.4 |
| Robert Stephenson | 94 | 0.0 | ||||||||
| Najer Victor | 91 | 0.0 | 97 | 0.1 | 100 | 0.2 | 105 | 0.3 | 106 | 0.3 |
| Shaun Anderson 앤더슨 | 78 | 0.0 | 77 | -0.1 | 74 | -0.2 | 69 | -0.3 | 64 | -0.4 |
| Lucas Knowles | 79 | 0.0 | 79 | 0.0 | 79 | 0.0 | 76 | -0.1 | 77 | -0.1 |
| Brett Kerry | 77 | -0.1 | 77 | 0.1 | 78 | 0.2 | 79 | 0.1 | 78 | 0.1 |
| Mason Erla | 77 | -0.1 | 79 | -0.1 | 77 | -0.1 | 77 | -0.1 | 75 | -0.1 |
| Leonard Garcia | 88 | -0.1 | 92 | 0.0 | 99 | 0.2 | 103 | 0.3 | 105 | 0.4 |
| Dillon Tate | 82 | -0.1 | 80 | -0.2 | 78 | -0.4 | 70 | -0.4 | 67 | -0.4 |
| Jared Southard | 85 | -0.2 | 88 | 0.0 | 92 | 0.1 | 92 | 0.1 | 92 | 0.1 |
| Kenyon Yovan | 85 | -0.2 | 85 | -0.2 | 86 | -0.2 | 84 | -0.2 | 80 | -0.2 |
| Hagen Danner | 85 | -0.2 | 86 | -0.1 | 85 | -0.1 | 85 | -0.1 | 82 | -0.1 |
| Dylan Phillips | 86 | -0.2 | 87 | -0.1 | 89 | -0.1 | 88 | -0.1 | 88 | -0.1 |
| Bryce Osmond | 73 | -0.3 | 78 | -0.1 | 79 | 0.1 | 82 | 0.1 | 82 | 0.1 |
| Nicolo Pinazzi | 65 | -0.3 | 71 | -0.3 | 72 | -0.3 | 71 | -0.2 | 70 | -0.2 |
| Brady Choban | 79 | -0.4 | 79 | -0.3 | 83 | -0.2 | 83 | -0.2 | 83 | -0.1 |
| Kaleb Ort | 79 | -0.4 | 73 | -0.5 | 66 | -0.7 | 59 | -0.4 | ||
| Chris Cortez | 66 | -0.6 | 70 | -0.4 | 74 | -0.1 | 77 | 0.1 | 79 | 0.2 |
Reid Detmers and Walbert Ureña both project as very good mid-rotation starters, and the latter is a long way from free agency. There may be No Such Thing as a Pitching Prospect©, but ZiPS does think Tyler Bremner is likely to be at least solid. None of the rest of the arms look amazing, but the Angels do have an interesting bunch of plausible bullpen candidates, though nobody who would blow your mind. If the Angels get lucky with either Grayson Rodriguez or George Klassen, and Najer Victor figures out the significance of that white house-shaped pentagon next to the batter, it’s a pitching staff they could make quite decent with a few splashy upgrades.
Sum it all up, and ZiPS sees the Angels as a 70-win team in 2027, with only minor growth from there based on their in-organization options. To that end, the team’s player development absolutely has to improve; the Angels only barely moved out of the bottom third of our farm rankings on the last update, the first time they’ve done so since 2020. That’s particularly concerning for a team that hasn’t contended in more than a decade. Hopefully the team will move on from a draft philosophy that emphasizes high-floor/low-ceiling prospects who can be promoted to the majors very quickly.
As for their options beyond the organization, could the Angels contend with a spending spree next year? I get asked that question fairly regularly in my weekly chats, so at least someone is interested in the answer, or at least wants to trick me into writing about the Angels. Let’s give it a spin.
A contending Angels team needs a high-end starting pitcher, a veteran bulk arm, and probably three additional good relievers. Here’s one set of potential additions:
| Year | W | L | ERA | G | GS | IP | H | ER | HR | BB | SO | ERA+ | WAR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2027 | 13 | 6 | 2.66 | 28 | 28 | 169.3 | 133 | 50 | 15 | 28 | 206 | 159 | 5.2 |
| 2028 | 12 | 6 | 2.78 | 27 | 27 | 165.0 | 135 | 51 | 16 | 28 | 194 | 151 | 4.9 |
| 2029 | 12 | 6 | 2.91 | 26 | 26 | 160.7 | 136 | 52 | 16 | 27 | 183 | 145 | 4.5 |
| 2030 | 11 | 6 | 3.11 | 26 | 26 | 150.7 | 132 | 52 | 16 | 25 | 167 | 136 | 4.0 |
| 2031 | 10 | 7 | 3.27 | 24 | 24 | 145.7 | 133 | 53 | 17 | 25 | 155 | 129 | 3.5 |
| Year | W | L | ERA | G | GS | IP | H | ER | HR | BB | SO | ERA+ | WAR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2027 | 9 | 10 | 4.21 | 28 | 27 | 156.0 | 151 | 73 | 22 | 44 | 153 | 100 | 2.2 |
| 2028 | 7 | 9 | 4.51 | 24 | 23 | 133.7 | 136 | 67 | 20 | 41 | 125 | 93 | 1.4 |
| 2029 | 6 | 8 | 4.94 | 21 | 20 | 114.7 | 124 | 63 | 19 | 39 | 103 | 85 | 0.7 |
| Year | W | L | ERA | G | GS | IP | H | ER | HR | BB | SO | ERA+ | WAR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2027 | 8 | 4 | 3.01 | 71 | 0 | 77.7 | 64 | 26 | 5 | 23 | 88 | 140 | 1.4 |
| 2028 | 7 | 4 | 2.97 | 69 | 0 | 75.7 | 62 | 25 | 5 | 23 | 85 | 142 | 1.4 |
| 2029 | 7 | 4 | 3.03 | 67 | 0 | 74.3 | 61 | 25 | 5 | 22 | 83 | 139 | 1.3 |
| 2030 | 7 | 4 | 3.17 | 65 | 0 | 71.0 | 59 | 25 | 5 | 21 | 77 | 133 | 1.2 |
| 2031 | 7 | 4 | 3.23 | 64 | 0 | 69.7 | 59 | 25 | 5 | 21 | 74 | 130 | 1.1 |
| Year | W | L | ERA | G | GS | IP | H | ER | HR | BB | SO | ERA+ | WAR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2027 | 3 | 3 | 3.98 | 56 | 2 | 52.0 | 49 | 23 | 7 | 12 | 47 | 106 | 0.5 |
| 2028 | 3 | 2 | 4.01 | 54 | 2 | 49.3 | 48 | 22 | 7 | 12 | 43 | 105 | 0.4 |
| Year | W | L | ERA | G | GS | IP | H | ER | HR | BB | SO | ERA+ | WAR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2027 | 6 | 2 | 2.93 | 46 | 3 | 61.3 | 52 | 20 | 6 | 13 | 72 | 144 | 1.4 |
| 2028 | 5 | 3 | 3.17 | 45 | 3 | 59.7 | 52 | 21 | 6 | 14 | 67 | 133 | 1.2 |
| 2029 | 5 | 3 | 3.39 | 44 | 3 | 58.3 | 52 | 22 | 6 | 14 | 64 | 124 | 1.1 |
| 2030 | 5 | 3 | 3.51 | 44 | 3 | 56.3 | 52 | 22 | 6 | 15 | 60 | 120 | 0.9 |
| 2031 | 4 | 4 | 3.83 | 43 | 3 | 54.0 | 52 | 23 | 6 | 15 | 55 | 110 | 0.7 |
Most of the names here are interchangeable with other options, but you can’t really fake signing Tarik Skubal and have to go with the real thing. ZiPS estimates that doing so would make the Angels a 77-85 team, but also one that just added more than $80 million in salary to get there.
As for the offense, it needs a lot of work and there is only so much they can practically do, even in an ultra-aggressive buying frenzy. Assuming that Trout stays at DH, they certainly need a couple of outfielders, and there’s no Aaron Judge to sign. The corner infield spots aren’t the weakest on the roster, but Teruaki Sato is one of the best players (possibly) available, and I’d like a bit more certainty at second base if we’re doing full-on win-now mode:
| Year | BA | OBP | SLG | AB | R | H | 2B | 3B | HR | RBI | BB | SO | SB | OPS+ | WAR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2027 | .248 | .317 | .522 | 540 | 83 | 134 | 30 | 5 | 36 | 101 | 54 | 201 | 10 | 128 | 3.2 |
| 2028 | .246 | .317 | .512 | 537 | 82 | 132 | 30 | 4 | 35 | 99 | 55 | 196 | 9 | 126 | 3.0 |
| 2029 | .245 | .317 | .504 | 526 | 79 | 129 | 29 | 4 | 33 | 94 | 55 | 191 | 8 | 124 | 2.7 |
| 2030 | .238 | .312 | .480 | 508 | 75 | 121 | 27 | 3 | 30 | 86 | 54 | 184 | 7 | 116 | 2.0 |
| 2031 | .235 | .310 | .466 | 485 | 70 | 114 | 25 | 3 | 27 | 78 | 52 | 177 | 6 | 112 | 1.6 |
| Year | BA | OBP | SLG | AB | R | H | 2B | 3B | HR | RBI | BB | SO | SB | OPS+ | WAR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2027 | .256 | .354 | .441 | 546 | 92 | 140 | 27 | 1 | 24 | 75 | 63 | 149 | 22 | 120 | 2.4 |
| 2028 | .252 | .350 | .429 | 511 | 83 | 129 | 25 | 1 | 21 | 67 | 58 | 141 | 18 | 116 | 1.9 |
| 2029 | .246 | .344 | .412 | 471 | 74 | 116 | 22 | 1 | 18 | 59 | 53 | 134 | 14 | 110 | 1.3 |
| 2030 | .237 | .334 | .387 | 393 | 58 | 93 | 18 | 1 | 13 | 46 | 43 | 115 | 11 | 101 | 0.5 |
| 2031 | .230 | .327 | .371 | 278 | 40 | 64 | 12 | 0 | 9 | 30 | 30 | 84 | 7 | 94 | 0.1 |
| Year | BA | OBP | SLG | AB | R | H | 2B | 3B | HR | RBI | BB | SO | SB | OPS+ | WAR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2027 | .267 | .352 | .480 | 529 | 82 | 141 | 29 | 3 | 26 | 83 | 70 | 150 | 5 | 129 | 3.4 |
| 2028 | .259 | .345 | .459 | 501 | 75 | 130 | 27 | 2 | 23 | 75 | 65 | 143 | 4 | 122 | 2.7 |
| 2029 | .253 | .338 | .443 | 463 | 66 | 117 | 24 | 2 | 20 | 66 | 59 | 135 | 3 | 115 | 2.0 |
| 2030 | .246 | .331 | .420 | 419 | 57 | 103 | 21 | 2 | 16 | 56 | 53 | 126 | 3 | 108 | 1.4 |
| Year | BA | OBP | SLG | AB | R | H | 2B | 3B | HR | RBI | BB | SO | SB | OPS+ | WAR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2027 | .240 | .319 | .428 | 491 | 71 | 118 | 17 | 3 | 23 | 68 | 55 | 156 | 35 | 106 | 2.4 |
| 2028 | .238 | .317 | .417 | 480 | 69 | 114 | 16 | 2 | 22 | 65 | 54 | 150 | 32 | 102 | 2.1 |
| 2029 | .236 | .316 | .410 | 461 | 64 | 109 | 16 | 2 | 20 | 61 | 52 | 143 | 27 | 100 | 1.7 |
| 2030 | .233 | .313 | .396 | 429 | 58 | 100 | 15 | 2 | 17 | 54 | 48 | 134 | 23 | 96 | 1.3 |
You may have noted the problem I’m running into for the quick-fix route: There’s a hard limit on just how many difference-makers there are available in free agency. These four signings probably add another $80 million to the payroll, and once you throw in the player benefits, the Angels would have a luxury tax payroll creeping into the $300 million range. Their projection would only improve to 83-79, and while that would be the team’s best year in a decade, it’s a pretty brutal projection to intentionally pay $300 million for.
In the end, the Angels don’t appear to have enough in-house options to make buying their way into contention a real possibility. That means that the road ahead will be a lot harder, with them eating some awful seasons without any pretense of contending, trying some new things, and taking some chances, all of which the franchise has struggled with for the last decade. As it turns out, needing to replace about 20 players on your roster isn’t something you can do quickly. By the time the Angels are good again, we might be talking about the next lockout!
Dan Szymborski is a senior writer for FanGraphs and the developer of the ZiPS projection system. He was a writer for ESPN.com from 2010-2018, a regular guest on a number of radio shows and podcasts, and a voting BBWAA member. He also maintains a terrible Twitter account at @DSzymborski.
they were competitive?
Trout is already 35 so probably by the time where he’s done or nearly done is when they’ll be ready to be good. While the west is an absolute joke the Angels just have too holes to just go out and spend their way into contention in the next few years especially with how weak this coming free agency class is. Also any gm Kroenke interviews will tell him to rebuild the next few years and rebuild the farm system by possibly moving Neto and Detmers. It is gonna remain painful the next few years but with Moreno out there is hope for the future.
Sadly, I agree. It could be similar to how the White Sox finally won it all when Frank Thomas was at the end – just shell of his former self.
Big Hurt had a .905 OPS in 2005 followed by 2 more productive seasons. He still had some juice left.
That wasn’t juice, it was Nugenics.
He wasn’t washed up. He was just… Actually Hurt, and didn’t play in the 2005 playoffs.
I think they’re playing to catch a couple breaks in a Marlins or White Sox kind of way while leveraging a higher payroll than most scrublord rosters. This *shouldn’t* be hard to turn around. The Moreno era suffered from overcommitting to mediocre players rather than churning those spots until they found leverageable talent. And, of course, a refusal to use the farm system to any effect whatsoever.
While there are not many if any plusses to being an Angels fan….the one is that the Stan Kroenke ownership cares and those teams have become consistent contenders.
As hard as it is being an Angels fan, they have to trade away Neto and/or Detmers right? They are arguably, and that argument isn’t that hard, the only players contenders could be interested in. They really need to light the next 3 years on fire from a “winning” standpoint and focus on developing Bremner, Nimmala, Slawinski, TGA, Jordan, Alvarez, Shores, etc and hope to hit some lottery tickets on 1 year on prove it deals
Urena and Natera were nice developmental wins so hopefully they can keep the trend going.
To think this organization had Trout and Ohtani in their prime….
They can probably get a small something for Jo Adell if only because RHH OF are so hard to find right now. I’d like to see them remove the temptation to play Adell. He’s not going to be an answer for them while another org might unlock something (or convince themselves that it’s possible). His poor defense also fits better on a team that has more frequent DH starts available. (remember when he stole 3 HR in one game? Now he has -7.3 defensive runs.)
They traded him already he’s with Cleveland.
Adell got moved at the deadline for a catcher prospect
Withdrawn. Completely slipped my mind.
Brad, I’m sorry to inform you that it gets worse as you get older! Take it from someone who knows…
Keep in mind, this is going to be a weird offseason. If they don’t get acceptable offers for Neto or Detmers before the lockout–and they do have to make those trades count–then they might be better off investing in the Bauers/Grisham/Laureano tier of free agents post-lockout. Maybe trade for a Brett Baty. Guys who could gel together to provide a cheeky rebound year while also serving as solid trade deadline fodder if it’s more of the same in Anaheim.
The foundation of Neto, Trout, Schanuel, and Meckler is pretty solid. Nice OBP traits from that latter pair. If you can bump them to the back of a lineup, you’re looking at a pretty tedious matchup for opposing pitchers. Yea, they realistically need to add 4 guys to achieve that, but they don’t necessarily have to be expensive guys.
My bias is I can’t ever really justify a deep rebuild, especially in this current meta where teams can’t pile up multiple 1st overall picks, and double-especially for an Angels org that simply lacks minor league instruction. Even if they aim to fix that last issue, it’s a multi-year catch-up effort. What’s worse is you don’t know if it’s working until it’s working.
So, I always want to give a team a path to contending, even if it relies on a seemingly ludicrous pile of luck. Miracle teams do win the WS now and then–the Red Sox (the Victorino year), arguably the Braves and Nats, the Rangers most of all.
I would argue that doing the fingers-crossed-maybe-they-can-compete-if-you-squint-hard-enough approach is exactly why the Angels are in this mess (coupled with their other issues, such as their minor league development seemingly being the worst in the majors, by some distance).
Those teams who you describe as miracle WS teams all started from a far higher base:
The 2023 Rangers had six win seasons from Semien and Seager, and 4 win seasons from Adolis Garcis (coming off a 3.7 fWAR year), and Jonah Heim. Sure, Heim’s 2023 was a career year, but there are exactly two Angels who have had better 2026s than Heim’s 2022 – Neto and Trout. The pitching was less spectacular, and the 2026 Angels beat this for the headline WAR figures – but the Angels have far less quality depth.
The 2021 Braves were led by breakout Austin Riley (who was excellent in the following 2 years), with 3+ win seasons by Freeman, Acuna (before he got injured), Albies and Swanson. Pitching was led by Max Fried and Charlie Morton, neither of whom were surprisingly good pitchers.
The 2019 Nationals had a terrific core of stars: Corbin, Strasburg and Scherzer all had at least 4.7fWAR (and all had had higher WAR the previous season or the season before that – that their 2019 versions were very good wasn’t a surprise) while on the hitting side, they had 4+ win seasons from Rendon, Turner and Soto.
Even the Victorino Red Sox had Ellsbury with a bounce back year, Dustin Pedroia, and David Ortiz as established good players, with Jon Lester on the pitching sides.
While you can catch lightning in a bottle with players having career years, post season heroics, and so on, what you need in order to make that happen is a core of very good players – the Angels have nowhere near that core.
I mean the team is already really close to bottoming out. At some point the roster makes the choice for you because you’re in a spot on the win curve where the main thing getting you wins is that almost every team wins a third of their games. Trading Detmers and Neto isn’t going to hurt them much in the W-L department, and they would need to add something ludicrous like 10 WAR to be a playoff contender. Sometimes discretion really is the better part of valor.
Honestly, they need to add more than 10 WAR. That’s actually a very easy target. The 4 specific names I mentioned probably net out to that for under $50MM in 2027 salary and minimal long-term commitment.
They have a TON of payroll discretion. Trout and Kikuchi (final year) are the only 8-figure commitments. Neto might get close to that in Arb2 (of 4). Detmers might run around $8MM in Arb3 (of 4). Even with those expenses, they only have about $96MM committed in luxury tax payroll for a club that typically sits around $200MM and can be expected to push beyond the lower tax thresholds under new ownership. Call it $110MM if they fill out the roster with retreads and waiver claims.
To emphasize, I do think they should make every effort to trade Detmers and Neto. I just also think they won’t get the traction they need pre-lockout nor will they have the time to develop offers post-lockout. It might simply be easier to come out of the lockout with an aggressive approach toward mid-cost, short-tenure FA with an eye toward getting lucky or trading those players at the deadline. At the same time, hope Detmers and Neto are healthy and showing well in July.
Is it? Neto is what he is, Trout’s best days are receding farther into the rear view with each passing year, Meckler was a SFO castoff who bounced around their minor league system for four years and was never among their top five prospects, and Schanuel may be a 2-win guy with a 115 wRC+ if things break right for him.
To put it another way, I would be unspeakably depressed if this was my team’s hitting core over the next three years.
To clarify, pretty solid means slightly less than solid which is itself an indication of adequacy for 4/9ths of the lineup. I stand by the word choice as accurate.
Absent pitching and defense, I’d expect a complete, pretty solid lineup to win 79 games.
Those teams all won at least 88 games in the regular season, and even the worst ever World Series winner by regular season winning percentage (the 2006 Cardinals) won 83 games, which was 5 games over .500.
Can you see the Angels doing even that well over the next few years no matter what they do? I can’t.
“The foundation of Neto, Trout, Schanuel, and Meckler is
pretty solidthe foundation of a 58 win team”Fixed that for you
Hey, they just won 62 with this core.
It’s definitely not the core of a playoff team, but Schanuel and Meckler are cheap (currently pre-arb) role players. There’s salary room for stars to make up their core. Unfortunately, that Rendon contract is killing their payroll.
Trade Detmers and Neto for $100MM in prospects, accept that you will lose 110 games in 2027, mine waivers and Rule 5
Probably no Rule 5.
Yeah, they look roughly the same as the 2011 Astros or 2021 Nationals- very bad but expensive big league team, weak farm system, and a myriad of other deeply rooted organizational problems that have festered too long. As with those teams the only way forward is to sell everything and accept the pain of the multi-year rebuild that’s been put off far too long already.
They don’t need to sell *everything* and fully tank like the Astros did. But yeah, selling those two guys and then only signing who they really need to avoid rushing their prospects and completely embarrassing themselves (and providing options to sell at the trade deadline) with a true rebuilding plan is the way to go.
I’d be super-interested in an exercise like this for every team!
And I’d be curious about the error bars around the team’s collective 5-year projection. One thought I have is that a team’s prospects even a couple of years into the future often aren’t so clear; I bet they have giant error bars. Cherry-picking an extreme example: if you’d done this exercise for the White Sox two years ago, I feel like there’s no way you’d have projected them as having even a halfway-decent shot of being an above-.500 team this year.
If that’s correct, it must make front office strategic planning pretty hard. When we’re all screaming at team X to pick a lane, because they clearly need to either go all-in or blow it all up, I wonder if it’s not so clear as we all seem to think it is.
To be clear: I’m making a broader point, not trying to defend the Angels specifically. The approach of drafting high floor/low ceiling players and rushing them to the majors was defensible for a while, but at some point in the last decade-plus I do think it became clear that it wasn’t working and it was time to pivot. At least if the goal is to put a good team on the field as soon as possible. (If the goal was just to look like you’re trying while you still have Mike Trout, so that you keep the fanbase onside while you still have Mike Trout, well, mission accomplished I guess?)
The Angels are just a bad organization. I wonder if it’s like the Cubs were for decades, where revenue stayed up even when the team stunk so they just don’t try hard enough?
An upsetting number of teams define success differently than fans and players do.
Maybe 6 teams Want to win. Many would like to win. A few are dead certain they are winning but if a salary floor is instituted they no longer would be.
A broader thought/question: how does baseball compare to other sports in terms of consistently certain teams are bad, or good, over a timeframe of a decade or more? In baseball, it feels like teams are mostly good, or mostly bad (or for a few teams, mostly somewhere in the middle) for a looong time–10 or 20 years or even more. Those stretches sometimes are interrupted by brief windows of different outcomes, but only briefly. 10+ years is a looong time for a team to mostly suck–that’s a significant chunk of a fan’s lifetime!
Are other sports like this? If they’re not, is that because of something about baseball that could be changed by the CBA? Or is baseball like this because of something that can’t easily be changed? Maybe the nature of the sport makes for long rebuilds? No one player makes that much difference to a baseball team’s success, so to be good you have to accumulate a *lot* of good players and that takes time. Or maybe it’s ownership? If your owners want to win, hire good people, and (hopefully) spend money intelligently, you’ll be consistently good; otherwise you’ll be consistently mediocre/bad?
I can’t speak for other sports, but my impression is that they’re fairly similar in terms of some teams outperforming the pack while others just can’t seem to get traction. Have the Jets ever had a good season?
Part of this is simple random variance. Open up OOTP, create a 30-team league with identical rosters, leave injuries and TCR on(random skill growth/decay), and watch some orgs flourish while others flail over a 20-year simulation. Same initial conditions, same institutional traits, different results.
irl, Some teams just want it more. Some teams really have the smartest people in the room. Some owners, or media markets, or player personalities cripple their teams. etc etc.
Variance + Talent (broadly defined i.e. players, execs, owners, etc.) + Resources = Result
The CBA can address the Resources piece of the puzzle. And that *would* help. That’s the argument owners make when they call for a salary cap and floor. I say the solution is centralizing all revenue so the resource allocation game is uniform across all teams.
So how do the smaller clubs compensate the larger for their lost value in revenue and franchise value? Do you just expect the richer clubs to just say “ok, no problem, here you go”? I just never hear this raised or addressed.
And the revenue “even-ing” is often compared to the NFL where the great bulk of revenue is inherently centralized due to the massive disparity in games played making attendance and local TV far more important to MLB revenue vs national TV in football.
Rich club owners are free loading off the NIMBYism that is a sports league.
If it were a true free market, we’d have like 4 teams in New York.
IMO subsidizing smaller market teams is the tax they pay for having exclusive rights over a bigger market
My offer would be to implement the change over a lengthy period of time, increasing the rate of centralized revenue by 5% per year from the current figure (which I forget offhand).
Ultimately, it’s for the good of the league and the product. The large market owners have benefitted disproportionately from the existing system. It’s time for those benefits to, uh, proportionalize.
This also wouldn’t capture everything. For example, I don’t see an easy way to include semi-related real estate ventures like Atlanta’s Battery.
I’m a Georgists so Id just tax the total likely value of the entire organization.
It’s not a free market, it’s a gated community. An enormous part of the value comes from the scarcity that there are only 30 teams. Valuations are artificially bloated because of this.
To pay for that privilege, you gotta pay a tax.
That said, to raise the floor I’m also going full LVT and taxing the unrealized value. Pirates want to freeload? Fine, but you’re taxed as if you’re a team that’s trying.
The details of implementing this would take some work and aren’t remotely feasible because of the inherent rent seeking nature of most people (and these 30 owners are world class rent seeker), but that’s my magic want solution.
Detroit Lions and Cleveland Browns defy your theory. Team management matters a lot
Jets, Dolphins, Commanders, Clippers, Pelicans, Hornets, Wizards.
Giants since Wellington Mara died.
Conversely, the Eagles have been in it for 25 years across two GMs and four different coaches and QBs.
Packers have been in it over 30 years across five different coaches and three QBs.
Celtics have been in it for 20 years across four different coaches.
Spurs did have a mini rebuild, but they’ve been banging for nearly thirty years.
What all those sports have in common is the enormous impact of 1-2 players. Spurs have had insane success (and luck) with draft pick. Robinson -> Duncan -> Wemby for example.
Yeah, the prevalence of such long runs of being mostly-good or mostly-bad–much longer than the length of a typical player’s career–suggests that being mostly-good or mostly-bad is down to factors that change very slowly or very rarely. So, probably some combination of fanbase size (=revenue) and ownership.
Maybe there’s also some source of “momentum”? Some reason(s) why team success begets team success, or team failure begets team failure? One obvious one is that being good grows the fanbase and thus revenue, so that you can spend more on continuing to be good.
The Angels, like many franchises across sports, need to learn how to not lose before they can learn to win
A+ meaningless sports aphorism!
I think they will be decent enough by 2028 to compete for the division.
Sign Arozarena, trade him at the deadline for prospects while eating a bunch of salary. Rinse and repeat with other 2+ WAR players. Reload for 2030’s.
What are the rules on signing bonuses? Can the Angels offer some relivers a $12 million deal, with $10million of it bring the signing bonus, so at the trade deadline, other teams are taking on minimal salary? While some teams may not care about a couple of million bucks, getting more potential bidders should increase the prospect return.
Obviously, the big problem is getting players to sign for you when it is clear that you’re not going to be even making a token effort at competing…
Another strategy might be taking on bad contracts – what could you get from the Dodgers for taking on Teoscar Hernández? (Or part of a bigger trade to increase the prospect return?)
They can, but they can also just retain whatever portion of the salary is relevant for the same effect. Retaining salary is slightly more efficient than your proposal because the number can adjusted based on the quality of the offer.
Delicious.
Garrett Whitlock has two club options he’s not going to be available as FA.
Otherwise what I keep thinking is we know what these players have looked like in the Angles’ system but we haven’t seen what they will look like in a modern system. When the new ownership is in control I can guarantee they will make major changes. Their current system is widely described as a dinosaur.
They need to cut medical as well
Angels have been last in WAR at Catcher for two straight seasons. 2025 -.2 and an almost impossibly worse -2.9 in 2026. Getting the Jacob Cozart back for Adell will certainly help and taking new Longenhagen fave Grindlinger in the draft signaled a welcome change.
The Angels radio announcers joke that Neto thinks he’s the best player in the game. He’s not. He tries too hard which leads to him making mistakes and getting sloppy. We like the effort, but he needs help…and a lot of it. Detmers and Urena have been a bright spot after they booted Mike Maddux as pitching coach. There was something about how pitchers were not allowed to prepare as they would like and I don’t think he embraced Trackman. While starting pitching has made strides after the all star break the bullpen is a dumpster fire. Ben Joyce is back, but has not been dominant.
Interesting article. One thought I have is that I wonder what the projections charts look like at different zips percentiles. I assume this is based on 50th percentile projections. Something like 4 of those hitters should hit their 90th percentile and another 4 at 80th, etc. Presumably those that hit the higher percentile will stick around and those at the 10-40th percentile will find themselves out of the organization.
The same is true for the pitchers.
Let’s say that one of the Guzman/Moore complimentary pieces hits their 90th percentile projection while the other hits their 10th percentile. That’s probably a much more favorable outcome for the Angels. They would have one good player and one who didn’t make it. While it’s dangerous to assume 90th percentile projections on any one player, it’s reasonable to assume that 8-10 players on these lists will hit their 90th percentile projection. It’s likely that someone will get their 99ty percentile projection.
I don’t know how those projections compare to other teams since so much regresses to the mean.
The list isn’t quite long enough to support your assertion, though you’re right in a general sense. When you say it’s “likely” somebody hits their 99th percentile outcome, that’s not true. But they will get a range of good and bad outcomes which renders this exercise a mere snapshot in time.
The point is for the Angels to assess where they are today and make adjustments that meaningfully change their expected outcome of continued futility. One of those changes can be lucky development—it’s just sort of foolish for a POBO to rely on luck when you’re paid to be proactive.
There are 94 players between the two lists (if I counted correctly). This is a place where variance matters because the players who only reach their 10-30% outcomes won’t make the majors most of the time. It means there should be about 9 players in each decile so 9 players over their 90th percentile outcome, another between 80 and 90 percent, etc. A POBO would be foolish to count on any one specific player, but it would be equally foolish to assume that none of these 94 players will hit. The randomized odds of at least one of these players hitting their 99th percentile outcome is 61% (if I did my math right, I think it 1-.99^94).
the hard part is that teams don’t know who will exceed expectations and who won’t. My point is that the Angels will likely get some players in those lists that turns into someone good. A year ago, nobody would have projected Walbert Urena to be the best Angels pitcher, but here we are.
But how many of those guys would be good players on a contending team even if they did hit their 90th or 80th percentile performance?
Some of them certainly would be, but others would not, and it’s very unlikely that the hits are all or almost all going to come from the former category.
Very true. It also matters a lot who hits their 90th percentile. If I’m the Angels, I’d probably either extend or trade Neto and would consider the same for Detmers and then basically wait a year before trying to buy some success. By that time they’ll have a better idea of what they have with some of their players and holes to fill. The projections for 2028 will look a lot different in a year too as we see which players are better than current projections and which are worse. Trout aside, it’s a very young 40 man roster and the error bars around the projections are generally very wide.
Seeing Garrett Whitlock’s name as a possible addition shocked me. I guess it is possible if the Angels were willing to send Mike Trout to Boston and pick up all of his remaining contract and, even then, I would like them to toss in Reid Detmers at no extra cost. Those two team options are pure gold for one of the best, and classiest, relief pitchers in the game.
Noticed that right away as well.
Why not just eat most of Trout’s contract and trade him along with anyone who might be remotely productive for prospects. Be horrible for 2 years, then see where you are?
Feels like they never had a proper rebuild and over estimated Trout. It’s the same reason I think the Pirates should shop Skenes.
I’d rather have a bunch of 2-3 WAR regulars all over with the occasional guy popping off (like the Rays seem to do) than star and scrubs.
Or maybe just poach as many people from the Brewers, Dodgers, and Rays front office.
They need to rebuild, not tank, and trading Trout in particular (even if he would approve a trade) would upset the fan base too much.
Looking forward to that positive WAR season from Rendon in 2028.
You should do this for other teams. A fun way to visualize timelines associated with prospects and how they do or do not align.
The answer to the question is not in my lifetime. You see, back in 2002, when the Angels were having their miracle season, when, in game six of the World Series, after they went down 5-0 to the Giants in what was an elimination game, it looked as if the miracle was about to end, I was sitting in the view-level seats above the bullpens, and I lifted a prayer the the powers-that-be: “I only want one.” One championship to call my own after having lived through the meltdowns in 1982, 1986, and 1995, after having suffered through sixteen years without a playoff appearance, after all the other weirdnesses too legion to list here. Well, the baseball gods rewarded me with Scott Spezio’s seventh-inning home run, a ball that from my view initially looked like a popup to right field. And since then, they’ve held me to the bargain through another twenty-four years of weirdness and disappointment. So I apologize to all other Angels fans out there and hope you will excuse my selfishness.
It sounds like (an actual baseball) sequel to the ’90s version of “Angels in the Outfield.”
My gut thinks Urena and Meckler are both better than the above projections.
Yeah, some of the projections seem odd.
Nammala NEVER crosses over the positive OPS+ line? Baseball America has him as a 5 tool player, pointing out how some batting stance changes since the trade (more upright, hands tighter, head tucked) have resulted in a .260/.389/.577 line.
Same with Hayden Alvarez. Strange projection if Kyren Paris appears to have more upside than Alvarez.
It looks like this was written while Perry was still the GM. The organization has a completely different vibe since Mozeliak took over.
The SP since Aug 1st – 47 games, not a small sample size – has a 2.91 ERA, second only to the Yankees.
The Angels Pythag W-L is right around the Astros, Rangers, and Mariners. Get them a closer and a few bats and they can challenge quickly in a weak division.
While investing more in pitching would’ve helped, if they could speed up the process through money alone, I think even Moreno would’ve pulled if off by now.
They really need to go through a 3+ year rebuilding period, especially since they actually (finally) traded away a good young player with three years of control remaining (and he’s a starting pitcher, to boot), suggesting that he wasn’t going to fit in their eventual competitive window, which I fully agree with.
I read the headline as “Will the Angels be competitive again” at first glance and found the premise reasonable
The foundation of Neto, Trout, Schanuel and Meckler is the foundation of a 58 win team.