Angels signed Gary Mattews jr. good move??

Answer 1

I don't think so. In the case with the Angels they have a pile of money burning a hole in their pockets. They have been unsuccessful the last couple of years trying to sign some big money players (Konerko, Soriano, etc). The beneficiary of this love was Matthews, but check his lifetime stats. He's had one good season, last year in a hitters park. While he is a decent player, no way in hell he is a $10 million per year guy. The Angels probably needed a bigger bat for their punchless lineup.

Answer 2

The Matthews deal was a bad move by the Angels. Matthews was overated after having a break out season during his contract year.

He had a good season last year batting .313 with 19HR and 79 RBI alongside with a .371 OBP and a .495 SLG and also providing good defence in CF.

However before this season he was a career .249 hitter. He has bounced around teams and has not had a season even close to the one he put up in 2006. Still, he is a career .263 hitter which shows you that he hasnt been that good of a hitter in his career. Plus he is 32, past his prime. He won't put up the same numbers with the Angels like he did with Texas in 06. A waste of 10 million a season for a career .263 hitter.

Answer 3

Bad move because he had only one good season in Texas. For Mattews Jr. it is a great move because he is rich! But for the Angels they will regret it in two years and end up trading him for minor league players.

Answer 4

Matthews has always been a utility player at best in his career and I do believe in the ballpark effect, in which baseball players strives in their best largely on the ballpark reputation and the structure of the park. Arlington has always been a launching pad for most batters, even bad ones, and Matthews has always been a good player for the last two years in Texas. Last year was his personal best with 19 HR, 100 Runs scored batting leadoff. Although he doesn't posses speed in the lineup, it gives the Angels an extra slugger on top of the lineup and it gives Chone Figgins a permanent position at 3B for the first time in his career instead of moving him around every game. Figgins is the likely 9th batter in the lineup, despite posting back-to-back 50+ SB seasons, because of his awful OBP (on-base percentage) the past two seasons. Matthews has been a good player but I think the Angels were in desperate need to get anything out of the market, since they miss out on sluggers the past two seasons (Konerko resign with the White Sox, Tejada stay put, Soriano sign with the Cubs, Ramirez resign with the Cubs) to give a lifetime utility player 10 million a year at an age where skills starts to decline (32 years of age). Although posting great defense on CF, I wouldn't be surprise if he reverts back to his .260 career average with dissapointing numbers, although 100 runs is not far away with the lineup of Vladimir Guerrero and aging sluggers that can still drive in RBI's.

Answer 5

Not really. Great CF and by all accounts, good in the clubhouse but his stats were inflated by playing at NL Coors Field and he's yet to show he can hit with that kind of consistancy throughout his career. Very late bloomer at 32 as well. For those reasons 5 years, $50m with a partial no-trade clause, is too much.

Answer 6

They paid way too much money. He's definitely a great defender that will save quit a few runs for the Angels. His bat is average at best.

Answer 7

Major flop, I also think the Astros signing Lee was a bad move they should have spread that money around.

Answer 8

I think the Angels made a great move

Answer 9

he's not young anymore, so there's not too much room for improvement. they also overpaid hi way too much, considering juan pierre got 5 years and $44 million is kinda sad. i think juan pierre is better than matthews, and also, matthews played in a big hitters park last year, which really juiced his stats. we have to wait and see.

Answer 10

They're paying a guy 10 million for one good year. Not a good move.