Two Choices

[totdprods]

Can we play half a freaking season before we assume the org is doomed for the next half decade? Even with all of our woes and scrappy farm system for 4+ years, we've still been in the mix late into September 3 of the last 6 seasons.

[mulwin444]

Serious question. Take emotion out of it.

 

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

Ask me that question in 2017 after we see more than one season from Bryant and 1/2 a season from Schwarber...

[eaterfan]

I don't think the premise of the original post is true. The Angels have plenty of major league assets they can trade. If they are out of it by the deadline Street, Smith, Santiago, Wilson, Skaggs, Heaney, Calhoun, Simmons, Tropeano, Richards will all have some value. Teams in contention may be willing to trade several MLB or AAA ready players. I'm not advocating trading all of them but the right combination of them could bring in enough guys to be very competitive, younger, and cheaper next year or the year after.

The draft and international signings aren't the only ways to build a farm.

Edited February 12, 2016 by eaterfan

[floplag]

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.

 

No, you dont at all.

Having one star and 3 holes in the lineup is not better than having 4 legit players. There is more to it than you suggest in my opinion.

IF there was such a package, i suspect youd still say no

[Adam]

Ask me that question in 2017 after we see more than one season from Bryant and 1/2 a season from Schwarber...

 

Fair enough

[aznhockeyguy]

How about Trout to the Dodgers for Urias, Seager, and Peterson, any takers?

[tomsred]

Can we play half a freaking season before we assume the org is doomed for the next half decade? Even with all of our woes and scrappy farm system for 4+ years, we've still been in the mix late into September 3 of the last 6 seasons.

 

I stopped reading the opening post after the first third of the post.  I don't consider this a third place team, until some proof gets made.  There are prospects both short and long term.  Let's start with some solid contributions from Cowart and Kubitza.  Longer term how about Smith, Bandy, Jones and Ward.  There are numerous relief pithing prospects in the lower levels.  Just because there was no spending on 

FA's or an unwillingness to go over the luxury tax this year, doesn't mean that applies to the whole season or even next year.  Drawing negative conclusions on anything that we have in place right now is meaningless.  Yeah, there are plenty of things to do to improve our chances, but I'm not anywhere close to being ready to jump off a bridge.

[floplag]

I don't think the premise of the original post is true. The Angels have plenty of major league assets they can trade. If they are out of it by the deadline Street, Smith, Santiago, Wilson, Skaggs, Heaney, Calhoun, Simmons, Tropeano, Richards will all have some value. Teams in contention may be willing to trade several MLB or AAA ready players. I'm not advocating trading all of them but the right combination of them could bring in enough guys to be very competitive, younger, and cheaper next year or the year after.

The draft and international signings aren't the only ways to build a farm.

 

True but how many of those can be traded that would get real help, or doesnt weaken us elsewhere in the next 2-3 years?

I dont think we can trade Trop, Heaney, or any of the young arms right now knowing Weaver/Wilson drop off in the next 2 years, we dont have the pitching depth on the farm to replace those guys and we already know we dont have a deep pen so. 

Is there some value, yes, but i feel those trades are lateral moves, strengthen one spot by weakening another, zero net gain.   Weakening 1, to strengthen 4, a different story 

[mulwin444]

No, you dont at all.

Having one star and 3 holes in the lineup is not better than having 4 legit players. There is more to it than you suggest in my opinion.

IF there was such a package, i suspect youd still say no

You set a window of the next 5 years so I am operating within that window.  I don't know of a team that can supply a legit 3B, 2B, and LF that can produce a 10+ WAR and have 3-4 years left of control.  That would be the terms I would consider.

[floplag]

I stopped reading the opening post after the first third of the post.  I don't consider this a third place team, until some proof gets made.  There are prospects both short and long term.  Let's start with some solid contributions from Cowart and Kubitza.  Longer term how about Smith, Bandy, Jones and Ward.  There are numerous relief pithing prospects in the lower levels.  Just because there was no spending on 

FA's or an unwillingness to go over the luxury tax this year, doesn't mean that applies to the whole season or even next year.  Drawing negative conclusions on anything that we have in place right now is meaningless.  Yeah, there are plenty of things to do to improve our chances, but I'm not anywhere close to being ready to jump off a bridge.

 

what proof do you need?>  We did in fact finish third last year and our projections for 2016 look potentially even worse so.. 

Meh, its clear people are content with playing this out, cant wait to read the bashing threads as this season goes on, should be entertaining of nothing else. 

[eaterfan]

True but how many of those can be traded that would get real help, or doesnt weaken us elsewhere in the next 2-3 years?

I dont think we can trade Trop, Heaney, or any of the young arms right now knowing Weaver/Wilson drop off in the next 2 years, we dont have the pitching depth on the farm to replace those guys and we already know we dont have a deep pen so.

Is there some value, yes, but i feel those trades are lateral moves, strengthen one spot by weakening another, zero net gain. Weakening 1, to strengthen 4, a different story

We traded Conger for a starting catcher and a bottom of the rotation pitcher maybe. We traded Trumbo and got 2 starting pitchers. We traded one year of Kendrick for 6 years of Heaney. We basically traded 3 players and filled 4 or 5 holes while getting younger and cheaper. Just keep doing that. I know it's easier said than done. But we don't need to be replacing all stars. We don't need guys to be super stars. We just need slightly above average players and Trout will take care of the rest.

[marcosantinia12]

Carlos Correa

George Springer

AJ Reed

For

Trout

Pujols (and 30-40 million of his remaining 140)

Emotion and marketing reasons aside, I would do that. Not only do we get young and athletic and another potential "face" in Correa, we get about 40-45 mil under the cap.

How about

Mookie Betts

Yoan Moncada

Devers

Owens

For

Trout

Pujols (same)

______________

Doc is right. There is no amount of value in players that a team would give back to acquire Trout. Not that there isn't a big enough haul, just that it would be so big that it would defeat the purpose of the other team to get better. They'd be practically exchanging 3 $3 bills and a $1 bill for a $10 bill.

However, maybe we could take less talent back if we can rid ourselves of Albert. For instance, the Seager, Urias, Peterson trade for Trout wouldnt happen. Shoot, the Marlins asked for more in return of Fernandez. But throw Pujols and the majority of his co tract in there and I would do it.

Just food for thought, I know the idea of trading the franchise player doesn't play well here... But there is some truth behind this thread, franchise vs Trout, what's more important? People forget and forgive very quickly if things turn out positively. If not, its a franchise-kille.r

[Troll Daddy]

Carlos Correa

George Springer

AJ Reed

For

Trout

Pujols (and 30-40 million of his remaining 140)

Emotion and marketing reasons aside, I would do that. Not only do we get young and athletic and another potential "face" in Correa, we get about 40-45 mil under the cap.

How about

Mookie Betts

Yoan Moncada

Devers

Owens

For

Trout

Pujols (same)

______________

Doc is right. There is no amount of value in players that a team would give back to acquire Trout. Not that there isn't a big enough haul, just that it would be so big that it would defeat the purpose of the other team to get better. They'd be practically exchanging 3 $3 bills and a $1 bill for a $10 bill.

However, maybe we could take less talent back if we can rid ourselves of Albert. For instance, the Seager, Urias, Peterson trade for Trout wouldnt happen. Shoot, the Marlins asked for more in return of Fernandez. But throw Pujols and the majority of his co tract in there and I would do it.

Just food for thought, I know the idea of trading the franchise player doesn't play well here... But there is some truth behind this thread, franchise vs Trout, what's more important? People forget and forgive very quickly if things turn out positively. If not, its a franchise-kille.r

I'm not sure that Houton would trade Correa for Trout straight up.

Edited February 12, 2016 by Troll Daddy

[marcosantinia12]

I'm not sure that Houton would trade Correa for Trout straight up.

Houston wouldn't do the trade I proposed but to say they would pass u on Trout for Correa? 

I'm taking this as a joke.

[Troll Daddy]

Houston wouldn't do the trade I proposed but to say they would pass u on Trout for Correa?

I'm taking this as a joke.

Correa has superstar potential with a lot less money attached to him and is younger ... plus you want Spinger too?

Reminds me when Strad purposed a trade of Correa, Springer, Keuchel, and two prospects.

[totdprods]

Trades like that would likely hurt Houston. Ties up too much money and creates too many holes for them to just a patch up with internal solutions and still be competitive.

Red Sox, Dodgers, or Cubs are the only possible teams that could come even close to making that deal.

But it's not happening. It Trout gets traded, it'll be in 2019, and only then if the next four years are more disastrous than any of us could imagine.

[tdawg87]

Correa has superstar potential with a lot less money attached to him and is younger ... plus you want Spinger too?

Reminds me when Strad purposed a trade of Correa, Springer, Keuchel, and two prospects.

Trout is the best player in baseball. Just an FYI.

[Troll Daddy]

Trout is the best player in baseball. Just an FYI.

What's your point?

[Docwaukee]

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

You are ok with Arte claiming poverty?  From his yacht?  

 

I like the assumption that what we would get for Trout makes us winners automatically but with him we are average.  

 

Our best chance to win is with the best player in baseball and for our owner to suck it up and recognize that the best chance he will ever have to win a series is with that player.  

 

I have been giving Arte the benefit of the doubt that he hasn't spent this off season because he's reached his budget and that's that.  A fair thing for any business owner.  Like Arte said, it's just economics right?

 

Wrong!!!  That's a load shit.    

 

You own a sports franchise.  You know damn well walking into this that emotion is going to play a role.  Certain opportunities will present themselves where money takes a back seat to winning.  If you don't want to accept that, then sell the team.  You want to stick to your budget, go buy some pinkberrys or a car dealership.  

 

You have Mike Trout.  Put the players around him that he needs.  If you don't wan't to, then put a billion dollars in your back pocket and go find another hobby.  

[Stradling]

It's not just about Trout being the best player in baseball, at one point Dale Murphy and Don Mattingly were the best players in baseball. Trout is a generational talent and you don't trade that unless you get offered a package you can't refuse, like Correa, Springer and Keutchel.

[tdawg87]

What's your point?

 

Your point was that Houston wouldn't trade Correa for Trout straight up and you based it on the fact that he has "superstar potential" when Trout is already an established superstar and the best player in the game. Yeah he's more expensive now, and he's older (though being 24 this point is kind of moot) but there is no guarantee Correa will reach his potential. And even if he does, will he be at Trout's level? That is unlikely.

[AngelsLakersFan]

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 

 

This is a sound argument. The problem is the assumptions it is based on.

 

Moreno will never trade Trout for the same reasons he won't spend money - it doesn't make financial sense to him. All that has to be done to improve the franchise is for Moreno to decide to reinvest in it. That means spending money wisely on free agents, and refocusing on the draft and internationally. He will do all of those things before he trades Mike Trout and he could change his mind at any moment. And before you say that those changes will not help for the next five years, as we have seen with the Simmons deal and others like it, you simply need to draft well enough to entice other teams to trade with you. We don't have to wait for the Newcomb's of the world to develop to realize some of that value.

[marcosantinia12]

Correa has superstar potential with a lot less money attached to him and is younger ... plus you want Spinger too?

Reminds me when Strad purposed a trade of Correa, Springer, Keuchel, and two prospects.

With no disrespect, I don't think you understand the magnitude of Trout. Perhaps that's why a deal would never occur, his value is simply too high and out of team's comfort zones. But if the possible best player of his generation was made available I have a hard time believing that one GM would not jump on a once in a life time opportunity.

As for Correa, I can't argue about his potential. He looks like a clean young Arod to me, though a notch less talented (Arod being perhaps the biggest prospect the game has ever seen). I can see Correa possibly turning into a 30 HR / .290 BA / 100+ RBI shortstop. Key word is possibly, when Trout has already broken through those numbers and more and though he is no shortstop, CF has its own defensive rep where he is an elite talent as well. Not to mention the possibilities for Trout going forward... Possibly Trout can one day hit the 50+ HR mark later in his mature body years (28-32) and if (god forbid) he left the team for a hitter friendly stadium with lineup protection (Houston fits the bill). As far as 50 HR may seem, he was 9 away as a damn 23 year old playing in Anaheim with such little offensive talent surrounding him. Dare I say, 55-60 HR in an environment like Toronto during his prime? Those are steroid numbers in a time of pitcher dominance.

As good as Correa is, and as big of a fan I am, one can only HOPE Correa will one day in his prime (or before) be as valuable as one of Trout's first 4 years. The guy has averaged out at as a 9.45 win player to date, which by the way Alex Rodriguez only once reached in his entire career (and arguably during his juicing days). WAR isn't the only evaluation of a player, but before you mention the position that Correa plays, which I think is very important, WAR takes note of that which is exactly why I am using that as a basis of evaluation.

The fact of the matter is that Trout has shattered through the numbers that we can only hope of Correa one day achieving.

You mention the fact that he is cheaper. You do realize that Trout's current financial standing is a good thing, not a burden right? And I'm not saying it in the sence relative to his skill, I'm talking about it being so valuable in general. Not only did we manage to buy out his Arb years where he could have possibly made $15, $22, $28 million (where as we are paying him $16, $20, $34), but we bought his early prime years for $34 million. Sounds about right as it would break a record for a position player. Think about this, Cabrera got $30 per year on an 8 year contract which would easily translate to $40-$45 mil for a 2 year contract. Add the fact that Trout is an overall more valuable player and younger, you're looking at a value of $50 mil EASY per year for 2 years of his service. And this isn't an exageration, if you believe in the WAR - Salary relationship, he is technically worth roughly 66 mil per year. His contract isn't only "good because it's Trout", is a bargain.

Factor all of this and I don't even think the addition of Springer breaks it even. Perhaps with Reed-Pujols I might have gotten carried away, I'll give you that...

Here is something I think would be VERY releastically accepted (if proposed of course):

Correa

Springer

Reed

for

Trout

CJ Cron

CJ Wilson (and full 2016 commitment)

EDIT: Im feeling like I'm even underselling Trout... F it, give me Correa, Keuchel, and Reed straight up for the best player in the game.

Edited February 12, 2016 by marcosantinia12

[AngelsLakersFan]

Serious question. Take emotion out of it.

 

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

 

I would not make that trade, although I'm not familiar with whoever their top two prospects might be. Schwarber is CJ Cron with a can't miss bat. Bryant has BABIP issues, and I'm wary of his ability to sustain a >.250 average.

[AngelsLakersFan]

I don't think the premise of the original post is true. The Angels have plenty of major league assets they can trade. If they are out of it by the deadline Street, Smith, Santiago, Wilson, Skaggs, Heaney, Calhoun, Simmons, Tropeano, Richards will all have some value. Teams in contention may be willing to trade several MLB or AAA ready players. I'm not advocating trading all of them but the right combination of them could bring in enough guys to be very competitive, younger, and cheaper next year or the year after.

The draft and international signings aren't the only ways to build a farm.

 

We have to seriously question whether or not the Angels would even consider a sell off.