Two Choices

[floplag]

After the article on Trout never being traded and based on where we are now, which is to say the following assumptions:

-third place roster

-zero incoming prospects near term

-zero farm long term

-zero budget for FA

-unwilling to go over lux tax.

 

If you take all of the above into account we have no chance of improving our current state for at least 3-5 years, and even that is likely a bit optimistic.

 

We arent going to rebuild the farm picking middle of the pack so unless we royally tank thats not going to improve drastically in the next few years and even if we finish last for the three years straight those guys would still be another 2-3 years away from the majors

 

Its been made abundantly clear that they aren't going over the tax so, we clearly aren't spending on anything of substance for a minimum of 2-3 years till the bad money is gone.  And i highly doubt based on the level of fear they have shown the last year that they will fall back into any kind of significant spending after that.  If they were unwilling to spend for exactly what we needed, what makes anyone think they will anytime soon?

It isnt what i wanted to see happen, but in the face of where we are as an org you have 2 choices;
a). Keep Trout and doom the org for that period of time

. Look into trade options for Trout options and possible solve the bulk of our troubles in a day.
Which do you choose?

 

I get the fandom, i love watching the guy play, but it isnt worth sacrificing the next 5 or more years of the overall club success to see in my opinion.

Flame away as im sure some will call me everything but a white boy but unless you can suggest an alternative for how this club gets back to the top in the next 5-6 years without it, you are letting your fandom cloud your judgement 

[Docwaukee]

there isn't a collection of players that another team could provide that would be worth what Trout brings to this franchise in terms of both on and off field contributions.  

 

Arte knows this.  If he uses finances as an excuse to trade Trout then I will never spend another dime on Angels baseball while he's the owner.  

[mtangelsfan]

If they don't keep Trout it would be the stupidest thing the Angels have ever done (and they have done a lot of stupid things)

 

They have never had a player like Trout come up through their own system.  Not in 50 years.  It would be unforgivable.  

[Adam]

I'd trade him for the Braves 10 best prospects

[mtangelsfan]

Homer

[mulwin444]

Yeah, like Doc said, you can't get enough value for him...from anywhere...to make up from what you would lose by trading Trout.  He's not only the face of the Angels but, arguably, the face of the MLB.  On top of his All-Star playing, he works hard, he's non-controversial, he's marketable with the ability to transcend sports and bring your franchise exposure you wouldn't normally get from another All Star.  He's a once-in-a-generation player that is home grown...it would be the ultimate F You to the fans and marketing suicide.

 

There is no possible way you consider trading Mike Trout...you continue to do your best to field a team around him and tear up his contract 2 or so years before he's a free agent in hopes of retaining him as long as possible 

Edited February 11, 2016 by mulwin444

[floplag]

there isn't a collection of players that another team could provide that would be worth what Trout brings to this franchise in terms of both on and off field contributions.  

 

Arte knows this.  If he uses finances as an excuse to trade Trout then I will never spend another dime on Angels baseball while he's the owner.  

 

So, keep trout and be average at best for the next 5 years, you are ok with that, got it. 

[stormngt]

After the article on Trout never being traded and based on where we are now, which is to say the following assumptions:

-third place roster

-zero incoming prospects near term

-zero farm long term

-zero budget for FA

-unwilling to go over lux tax.

If you take all of the above into account we have no chance of improving our current state for at least 3-5 years, and even that is likely a bit optimistic.

We arent going to rebuild the farm picking middle of the pack so unless we royally tank thats not going to improve drastically in the next few years and even if we finish last for the three years straight those guys would still be another 2-3 years away from the majors

Its been made abundantly clear that they aren't going over the tax so, we clearly aren't spending on anything of substance for a minimum of 2-3 years till the bad money is gone. And i highly doubt based on the level of fear they have shown the last year that they will fall back into any kind of significant spending after that. If they were unwilling to spend for exactly what we needed, what makes anyone think they will anytime soon?

It isnt what i wanted to see happen, but in the face of where we are as an org you have 2 choices;

a). Keep Trout and doom the org for that period of time

. Look into trade options for Trout options and possible solve the bulk of our troubles in a day.

Which do you choose?

I get the fandom, i love watching the guy play, but it isnt worth sacrificing the next 5 or more years of the overall club success to see in my opinion.

Flame away as im sure some will call me everything but a white boy but unless you can suggest an alternative for how this club gets back to the top in the next 5-6 years without it, you are letting your fandom cloud your judgement

I remember in 2014 everyone said we would be ten years before we can compete again. Then the next year we had the best record in baseball.

Yeah Yeah I know we tanked against the royals. But we were competitive.

[ukyah]

if they trade him, i'll bale. all they have to do is spend money, especially on the intl market that doesn't count against or cost draft picks. they don't want to solve their problem, they want to be cheap about it.

[floplag]

Yeah, like Doc said, you can't get enough value for him...from anywhere...to make up from what you would lose by trading Trout.  He's not only the face of the Angels but, arguably, the face of the MLB.  On top of his All-Star playing, he works hard, he's non-controversial, he's marketable with the ability to transcend sports and bring your franchise exposure you wouldn't normally get from another All Star.  He's a once-in-a-generation player that is home grown...it would be the ultimate F You to the fans and marketing suicide.

 

There is no possible way you consider trading Mike Trout...you continue to do your best to field a team around him and tear up his contract 2 or so years before he's a free agent in hopes of retaining him as long as possible 

 

All true, but i also dont see you offering another solution on how to help the club so again, bottom line, you would rather watch Trout than have a winning club.

[floplag]

I remember in 2014 everyone said we would be ten years before we can compete again. Then the next year we had the best record in baseball.

Yeah Yeah I know we tanked against the royals. But we were competitive.

 

I was not one of those people. i was one that said the 2013 year was a fluke.

[Chuck]

there isn't a collection of players that another team could provide that would be worth what Trout brings to this franchise in terms of both on and off field contributions.  

 

Arte knows this.  If he uses finances as an excuse to trade Trout then I will never spend another dime on Angels baseball while he's the owner.  

 

Word!

[mulwin444]

All true, but i also dont see you offering another solution on how to help the club so again, bottom line, you would rather watch Trout than have a winning club.

The solution is you draft better, invest in the foreign market, expand your scouting, get better at developing players, sign guys next year in 2017 or 2018 as the current contracts expire, continue to find overlooked assets on the market like Eppler has been trying to do all off season...if they don't do these things, trading Trout for a bevvy of prospects won't matter because the same issues will surface with or without him.

 

Its also not as simple as an A "we keep Trout and we bad" or B "we trade Trout and we solve all our troubles because some magical team exists out there willing to trade all its super good assets to us, thus crippling their own franchise, just to get Mike Trout"

 

We were supposed to be average in 2014 and we led the league in wins...you keep making adjustments and moves THAT MAKE SENSE and actually play the game on the field as opposed to judging based on names written on paper

[Adam]

Homer

 

Or the Cubs for Bryant, Schwarber and prospects

[mtangelsfan]

Double homer

[mtangelsfan]

Seriously, I have mocked many a poster on here who play the "if the Angels do ___ then I am going to stop being a fan".  But trading Mike Trout would be it for me.  For my whole Angels fandom I've been hoping they would have their own mega-star, their own Hall of Fame player, a player who makes the team nationally known.  

 

Bah, its horrible.

[floplag]

The solution is you draft better, invest in the foreign market, expand your scouting, get better at developing players, sign guys next year in 2017 or 2018 as the current contracts expire, continue to find overlooked assets on the market like Eppler has been trying to do all off season...if they don't do these things, trading Trout for a bevvy of prospects won't matter because the same issues will surface with or without him.

 

Its also not as simple as an A "we keep Trout and we bad" or B "we trade Trout and we solve all our troubles because some magical team exists out there willing to trade all its super good assets to us, thus crippling their own franchise, just to get Mike Trout"

 

We were supposed to be average in 2014 and we led the league in wins...you keep making adjustments and moves THAT MAKE SENSE and actually play the game on the field as opposed to judging based on names written on paper

 

Actually it is that simple if you want to win in the next 5 years.   Drafting better doesn't help us in that timeframe.

We have nothing else to trade and the worst farm in the league.  

And i bet there are some that would.. look at those who are there right now, already competitive with a strong farm, Trout could give them a very strong title shot.

 

Im not saying its easy or even truly possible, what i am saying is that you cant just dismiss the idea without being willing  to accept being likely very bad for that time frame. 

[Ohtaniland]

I would trade Trout and Pujols for Bryce Harper right now.

[mulwin444]

Actually it is that simple if you want to win in the next 5 years.   Drafting better doesn't help us in that timeframe.

We have nothing else to trade and the worst farm in the league.  

And i bet there are some that would.. look at those who are there right now, already competitive with a strong farm, Trout could give them a very strong title shot.

 

Im not saying its easy or even truly possible, what i am saying is that you cant just dismiss the idea without being willing  to accept being likely very bad for that time frame. 

You need to trade Mike Trout to a team that has enough players to not only fill your perceived holes in the field but will exceed the 10 WAR he can posts per season...I don't think a team right now can make that trade unless they hurt themselves in process,  The reason the Angels will be competitive over the next 5 season is because of what Mike Trout can bring on a daily basis. 

[laagamer]

No offense to anyone on this forum, you all seem like decent fellows, but to anyone even considering trading Mike Trout before the deadline of his free agent year, get the **** out of here please.

And I agree with Doc. If Arte trades Mike Trout, then I'm not going to be an Angels fan anymore until a change in ownership.

[floplag]

You need to trade Mike Trout to a team that has enough players to not only fill your perceived holes in the field but will exceed the 10 WAR he can posts per season...I don't think a team right now can make that trade unless they hurt themselves in process,  The reason the Angels will be competitive over the next 5 season is because of what Mike Trout can bring on a daily basis. 

 

Not necessarily true really if you look at our WAR projections... 

Moneyball math, you replace a 10 WAR with 5 2s, lol  

Theoretical options though... IF you could get a package that had a top ML ready or very near ready prospect that fills our needs, do you still ignore it cause Trout?  

[Adam]

Seriously, I have mocked many a poster on here who play the "if the Angels do ___ then I am going to stop being a fan".  But trading Mike Trout would be it for me.  For my whole Angels fandom I've been hoping they would have their own mega-star, their own Hall of Fame player, a player who makes the team nationally known.  

 

Bah, its horrible.

 

I only root for the name on the front of the jersey.

 

 

 

 

 

unless we're talking about black guys

[Adam]

Serious question. Take emotion out of it.

 

Trout for Schwarber, Bryant and the top 2 prospects. You wouldn't do that?

[floplag]

ok so the consensus then is no trade under any circumstances.  To each their own i guess 

[mulwin444]

Not necessarily true really if you look at our WAR projections... 

Moneyball math, you replace a 10 WAR with 5 2s, lol  

Theoretical options though... IF you could get a package that had a top ML ready or very near ready prospect that fills our needs, do you still ignore it cause Trout?  

No, you need to go beyond a 10 WAR to make it worth the trade, otherwise, you've gone nowhere.  

 

If you find can a 3B, LF, 2B 10+ WAR  combination that will also have another 3-4 years of team control/arbitration, sure, you look at it, I just don't think it exits. And you probably still don't make the trade.