Two Choices

[arch stanton]

As an Angels fan for 44 years, I'd rather watch Trout play for the next decade than chase a ring with some mythical package of players and prospects that only exists in the minds of fantasy GMs.

[Troll Daddy]

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.

In fairness, I didn't remotely claim Correa was on the same level as Trout. I stated that Houston may not be interested in trading Correa for Trout.

Trout is only one player ... being the best player in baseball is great but there are many impact players in the game. It takes 25 players to win a championship.

[Troll Daddy]

As an Angels fan for 44 years, I'd rather watch Trout play for the next decade than chase a ring with some mythical package of players and prospects that only exists in the minds of fantasy GMs.

Exactly

Watching players like Trout, Simmons, Calhoun, and even Pujols is worth going to the ballpark everyday, win or lose.

[Angel Oracle]

We know what we have with a 10 WAR Trout.

We don't know with the same confidence what we would get from the 4-5 supposed stud prospects who would come here.

 

And, there is no way the Astros would trade Correa, Springer, Keuchel, AND two key prospects for Trout.

Like us with Trout, they pretty much know what they have in those players, and love it for good reason.

 

One could bring up the Herschel Walker trade to the Vikings as an analogy.

Except that Walker was never in the status in the NFL, that Trout is in MLB.   

Walker was never the BEST RB in the NFL, just one of the best.   And he already was age 27 when the trade went down, maybe the equivalent of say age 32 in MLB.

 

Continuity is a nice thing.

Edited February 12, 2016 by Angel Oracle

[Mark68]

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 

Honky

[AngelsFanSince86]

This is ridiculous. I honestly think anyone who would trade Mike Trout cares more about bragging about a winning team than actually watching baseball. You said, "you'd rather have Trout than a winning team" to another poster. I say hell yeah I would. You know 50 years from now nobody will talk about the early 2000's "winning" team other than the 2002 team (which wasn't expected to be a winning team btw). You know what they will talk about? Mike Trout.

Trout has the ability and is on pace to be a top 5 player all time. His floor is the hall of fame and in the discussion of one of the best ever. You know how many wins I've seen in my life? Hundreds, probably thousands. But almost every time I go to an Angel's game now I see Trout do something I've never seen before.

I want to win, but not at the expense of Trout. The angels may never have a player as good as him ever again and you want to trade him??? With Trout there is always a chance. They were supposed to win 78 games last year and barely missed the playoffs. You also state that we aren't willing to spend on FA as if that's now the policy from now to eternity. I have a strong feeling that changes once a lot of this money comes off the books and the 2018 FA class rolls in. But like others have said, why don't we wait just a few freaking months before we declare the end of the world. Your gonna look really stupid for suggesting trading Trout if this team ends up being a winner.

Edit: sorry if this post was a bit brash, but I really think anyone who would consider trading Trout watches the game for the wrong reasons.

Edited February 12, 2016 by AngelsFanSince86

[floplag]

This is ridiculous. I honestly think anyone who would trade Mike Trout cares more about bragging about a winning team than actually watching baseball. You said, "you'd rather have Trout than a winning team" to another poster. I say hell yeah I would. You know 50 years from now nobody will talk about the early 2000's "winning" team other than the 2002 team (which wasn't expected to be a winning team btw). You know what they will talk about? Mike Trout.

Trout has the ability and is on pace to be a top 5 player all time. His floor is the hall of fame and in the discussion of one of the best ever. You know how many wins I've seen in my life? Hundreds, probably thousands. But almost every time I go to an Angel's game now I see Trout do something I've never seen before.

I want to win, but not at the expense of Trout. The angels may never have a player as good as him ever again and you want to trade him??? With Trout there is always a chance. They were supposed to win 78 games last year and barely missed the playoffs. You also state that we aren't willing to spend on FA as if that's now the policy from now to eternity. I have a strong feeling that changes once a lot of this money comes off the books and the 2018 FA class rolls in. But like others have said, why don't we wait just a few freaking months before we declare the end of the world. Your gonna look really stupid for suggesting trading Trout if this team ends up being a winner.

Edit: sorry if this post was a bit brash, but I really think anyone who would consider trading Trout watches the game for the wrong reasons.

 

You are entitled to your view, as i am mine.  I watch baseball for many reasons, i watch Angels baseball to root for them to win as a fan.  There is a big difference.  

If all i wanted to do was watch individual great players i would have been a Yankees fan or a Braves fan or some other team that always had a lot better players than we did in the 40 years ive watched this club.  I am an Angel fan first, a baseball fan second.  

And just to clarify I dont WANT to trade Trout, but if the Front office game plan is playing for 2019 thats not OK with me, im sorry it just isnt.   Watching him play on a 500 team for the next few years will not make me feel any better about the overall performance. 

In truth most of this is based in anger at the front office.  I realize that.  I dont think im unreasonable in that.  

You can judge me and tell me i watch for the wrong reasons if you wish, but if thats the case then i expect to see not one post on this board throwing players under the bus as we founder at just over 500 and miss the post season again cause you got to watch Trout, so what else matters, right?  

[AngelsFanSince86]

You are entitled to your view, as i am mine. I watch baseball for many reasons, i watch Angels baseball to root for them to win as a fan. There is a big difference.

If all i wanted to do was watch individual great players i would have been a Yankees fan or a Braves fan or some other team that always had a lot better players than we did in the 40 years ive watched this club. I am an Angel fan first, a baseball fan second.

And just to clarify I dont WANT to trade Trout, but if the Front office game plan is playing for 2019 thats not OK with me, im sorry it just isnt. Watching him play on a 500 team for the next few years will not make me feel any better about the overall performance.

In truth most of this is based in anger at the front office. I realize that. I dont think im unreasonable in that.

You can judge me and tell me i watch for the wrong reasons if you wish, but if thats the case then i expect to see not one post on this board throwing players under the bus as we founder at just over 500 and miss the post season again cause you got to watch Trout, so what else matters, right?

Of course you are still going to watch your team and root for them. It is the very combination of having a player like Trout on your team that I am taking about. Seeing someone do those incredible things and doing them for your team is awesome. Yes, I want the angels to win. Yes, im frustrated with how things have gone this offseason. Yes, i feel like they are wasting some of trout's best years But that doesn't mean I would under any circumstances have them trade Trout. I don't think they will just stand pat. I think a couple players will come through the farm and be legitimate producers like it's always been. I think with Trout in the lineup and on the field anything can happen. He could have the best year of his career and carry the team to the playoffs. Once there, anything can happen (just look at how good Daniel Murphy was last postseason. He hit half as many HRs in 9 games as he's ever hit in a full season).

Being ok with a .500 team with Trout on it and being ok with them doing absolutely nothing despite a .500 team is two entirely different things. First, this isn't a .500 team and until they go .500 on the season that remains true. You also seem to forget that other winning teams have produced good farm systems. It can still happen. Angels produce great players despite being ranked so low year after year. I'd say give Eppler more than a year before talking about trading Trout.

I guess it's harsh to lay the judgment down that I did. I guess to me seeing Trout on the team I've grown up watching is better than anything I can remember in baseball except the world series which I put on about the same level. What would beat all of that is a WS championship with Trout. If the angels were guaranteed to win 2 or 3 WS by trading Trout I might consider it. But they wouldn't. They might not win a single one from the resulting trade. Maybe they make the playoffs a few times and are still one and done. Think about how good the nationals have been on paper for years. The one guarantee we have right now is that we get to watch the best player on the planet play for our team every day.

[AngelsFanSince86]

Also, just to address your point about playing for 2019, I guess I don't get the impatience. It is playing for the now that got the angels where they are today with no farm anger a bunch of bloated contracts. It's 3 years from now and in that time period, with Trout, Simmons, Calhoun, Richards, Heaney, possibly cron and others on the team, they will still be competitive. I really wanted them to go for a big FA this year. They didn't. There won't really be another good FA market until 2018. At this point I don't mind waiting it out and seeing what we have. Let's reassess next offseason or at the trade deadline before talking about something crazy like trading Trout. Plus, as others have said, we have other tradeable assets.

Plus, nobody is going to give up half their starting roster to get Trout. It's crazy from both sides of the trade. You'd have to get mostly prospects which are not sure things and we would still have to wait until about 2019 for them to all come to fruition. If we don't trade Trout we are playing for 2019. If we do, we are still playing for 2019.

[marcosantinia12]

This is ridiculous. I honestly think anyone who would trade Mike Trout cares more about bragging about a winning team than actually watching baseball. You said, "you'd rather have Trout than a winning team" to another poster. I say hell yeah I would. You know 50 years from now nobody will talk about the early 2000's "winning" team other than the 2002 team (which wasn't expected to be a winning team btw). You know what they will talk about? Mike Trout.

Trout has the ability and is on pace to be a top 5 player all time. His floor is the hall of fame and in the discussion of one of the best ever. You know how many wins I've seen in my life? Hundreds, probably thousands. But almost every time I go to an Angel's game now I see Trout do something I've never seen before.

I want to win, but not at the expense of Trout. The angels may never have a player as good as him ever again and you want to trade him??? With Trout there is always a chance. They were supposed to win 78 games last year and barely missed the playoffs. You also state that we aren't willing to spend on FA as if that's now the policy from now to eternity. I have a strong feeling that changes once a lot of this money comes off the books and the 2018 FA class rolls in. But like others have said, why don't we wait just a few freaking months before we declare the end of the world. Your gonna look really stupid for suggesting trading Trout if this team ends up being a winner.

Edit: sorry if this post was a bit brash, but I really think anyone who would consider trading Trout watches the game for the wrong reasons.

I don't want to sound like I want Trout gone, but I'm open to the idea about it depending on the return. If it helps the team short and long term -then why the heck not? What ever happen to being a team player, or in this case a devoted fan? Im a huge trout fan, look no further than my profile picture, and this would be a tough one to swallow. But at the end of the day, the biggest accomplishment in baseball is a WS ring, not an MVP award, and this applies to us fans aswell.

One thing I'll say is this: The Royals, Giants, Cardinals, Red Sox, and other recently successful teams aren't jealous of us having Mike Trout. Sure, they wish they had him, but I'm sure they'll take their recent success over the bragging rights (or honor if you prefer) of having the best player on their team.

You mention watching baseball because it is exciting as opposed to simply wanting to brag about a winning record. The Royals of recent are EXTREMELY fun to watch. The Astros and Mets in 2015 as well, the Dbacks will be in 2016. And no I'm not jumping on those teams' bandwagon due to recent success, but I am simply captivated by the youth, energy, and talent the clubs as a whole bring. What good is it to watch Trout get on base while we get to watch Pujols follow up by rolling over to third and running to first at the pace of my great grandmother?

50 years later, I could care less about saying Trout played for my team. I care about saying I got to see a generational talent represent my team for sometime and enjoyed it while it lasted and eventually got the experience to sit in Angel Stadium and experience a world champion.

I respect your opinion, just wanted to get mine out there.

[floplag]

Of course you are still going to watch your team and root for them. It is the very combination of having a player like Trout on your team that I am taking about. Seeing someone do those incredible things and doing them for your team is awesome. Yes, I want the angels to win. Yes, im frustrated with how things have gone this offseason. Yes, i feel like they are wasting some of trout's best years But that doesn't mean I would under any circumstances have them trade Trout. I don't think they will just stand pat. I think a couple players will come through the farm and be legitimate producers like it's always been. I think with Trout in the lineup and on the field anything can happen. He could have the best year of his career and carry the team to the playoffs. Once there, anything can happen (just look at how good Daniel Murphy was last postseason. He hit half as many HRs in 9 games as he's ever hit in a full season).

Being ok with a .500 team with Trout on it and being ok with them doing absolutely nothing despite a .500 team is two entirely different things. First, this isn't a .500 team and until they go .500 on the season that remains true. You also seem to forget that other winning teams have produced good farm systems. It can still happen. Angels produce great players despite being ranked so low year after year. I'd say give Eppler more than a year before talking about trading Trout.

I guess it's harsh to lay the judgment down that I did. I guess to me seeing Trout on the team I've grown up watching is better than anything I can remember in baseball except the world series which I put on about the same level. What would beat all of that is a WS championship with Trout. If the angels were guaranteed to win 2 or 3 WS by trading Trout I might consider it. But they wouldn't. They might not win a single one from the resulting trade. Maybe they make the playoffs a few times and are still one and done. Think about how good the nationals have been on paper for years. The one guarantee we have right now is that we get to watch the best player on the planet play for our team every day.

 

The combination of him on the team has nothing to do with why i watch the team, i do not agree with you on this.  I was a fan before Trout, i will be after.  I would watch the Angels and be a fan of the team with, or without, Trout.   I would still be a fan of his in another uniform.

 

[floplag]

Also, just to address your point about playing for 2019, I guess I don't get the impatience. It is playing for the now that got the angels where they are today with no farm anger a bunch of bloated contracts. It's 3 years from now and in that time period, with Trout, Simmons, Calhoun, Richards, Heaney, possibly cron and others on the team, they will still be competitive. I really wanted them to go for a big FA this year. They didn't. There won't really be another good FA market until 2018. At this point I don't mind waiting it out and seeing what we have. Let's reassess next offseason or at the trade deadline before talking about something crazy like trading Trout. Plus, as others have said, we have other tradeable assets.

Plus, nobody is going to give up half their starting roster to get Trout. It's crazy from both sides of the trade. You'd have to get mostly prospects which are not sure things and we would still have to wait until about 2019 for them to all come to fruition. If we don't trade Trout we are playing for 2019. If we do, we are still playing for 2019.

 

the impatience is simple because it isnt necessary, and we are wasting quality years of the best player on the planet...it simply makes no logical sense when it isnt necessary. 

[wopphil]

I hope Trout plays 20 more years, all for the Angels. But if he isn't open to an extension in 2-3 years, I'd be ok trading him. Of course by then, his trade value will be much lower.

[Docwaukee]

you've got two choices of what you can do. 

 

it's not a tough decision as you can see

 

I can blow you away or you can ride with me.  

[Dick B Back]

From an old-timer let me say this: Trading Trout would rate right up there with the decision that Nolan Ryan wasn't worth 1 million a year and easy to replace. Let's not be stupid again.

[Mark68]

Is Trout worth two Bryce Harpers?

[marcosantinia12]

Is Trout worth two Bryce Harpers?

💯%

[Troll Daddy]

Is Trout worth two Bryce Harpers?

Only at AW.com

Good stuff

[ten ocho recon scout]

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.

maybe...but it helps that seattle doesnt count, houston used to suck, and texas had problems....

I like the message, but the reality was (and i hate to admit it) we were good when the competition was weak. Even in 14, if oakland kept up what they had done pre cespedes trade, were even worse off.

The glory decade of the 2000s saw us on par with the best (ny, boston, cards, etc). But to be fair the west was weak...once oakland and texas came around, we fell off.

[SlappyUtilityMIF]

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.  

 

Well Doc, 

 

And at that point they probably aren't even in Southern Cal anyways.... Los Halos of Albuquerque....

[QuinlansMinion]

Can we stop harping on the fact that Trout is a once in a generation talent. Its making me sad that we are wasting his prime years with a garbage lineup around him.

[QuinlansMinion]

Is Trout worth two Bryce Harpers?

No because in the AL Harper would hit .290 with 25 home runs.

[eaterfan]

No because in the AL Harper would hit .290 with 25 home runs.

If he could even do that. I'm not convinced he's better than Aybar or even Giavatella.

[Stradling]

The NL in QM's mind is no different than those pitchers that could only throw 70 mph back in Ruth's day. Despite none of that actually being true. I am sure that Harper would be 90%+ percent of what he currently is in the AL. Maybe not in Anaheim, but the guy is good.

[QuinlansMinion]

The NL in QM's mind is no different than those pitchers that could only throw 70 mph back in Ruth's day. Despite none of that actually being true. I am sure that Harper would be 90%+ percent of what he currently is in the AL. Maybe not in Anaheim, but the guy is good.

Haha.  Ive just seen it way too often.  Guys dominate in the NL, whether it be a pitcher or a hitter, then they come to the AL and are a shell of themselves.  We already saw it happen first hand with one guy who is very infamous on these boards, and his name is Albert  

 

By the way did they even know what an off speed pitch was back in Ruths day?