The Angels should consider trading Trout - ESPN

[RallyPanda]

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/70439/think-the-unthinkable-angels-will-have-to-think-about-trading-mike-trout

 

 The flood gates have opened.....

[RallyPanda]

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/15477525/los-angeles-angels-consider-trading-mike-trout-general-manager-billy-eppler-says

 

Luckily, Eppler scoffed at the idea!

[Angel Oracle]

This could be an ugly 3 months.

[RuledByNone]

ESPN should consider screwing itself.

[Amazing Larry]

So out of the top four organizations to trade with one is the other team in town, another is a team we hate worse than ISIS and yet another is in our own division? They're smoking some good shit over in Bristol, Connecticut. 

[Troll Daddy]

Now you guys are just being silly.

[gotbeer]

Only way you would even consider it, is if you can get a haul like the Rangers got for Teixeira.  And even that might not do it. 

Four years after the Mark Teixeira trade

 

[HaloCory22]

Dodgers probably have the best to offer. Urias, De Leon, Stripling, Holmes, Bellinger, Barnes, Pederson etc. etc. Obviously you don't trade Trout but damn wouldn't that be quite haul?

[zenmaster]

No thanks. We lost our #1 and possibly another guy who has already been hurt. We just need to sign someone and catch lightning in a bottle. Lincecum might work for the right price. This is discouraging but if they trade trout I go where he goes and abandon Artes Angels. 

[gotbeer]

And looking back at 2007 baseball america.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/rankings/top-100-prospects/2007/263445.html

Top 100 rankings

Saltamacchia 36

Andrus 65

Harrison 90

But I think the bigger thing about those 3 close to MLB ready prospects. 

[gotbeer]

4 minutes ago, HaloCory22 said:

Dodgers probably have the best to offer. Urias, De Leon, Stripling, Holmes, Bellinger, Barnes, Pederson etc. etc. Obviously you don't trade Trout but damn wouldn't that be quite haul?

Phillies also have 5 in the top 100 of MLB Prospects.  Of any team that would give up a lot, it might be them.  Of course, I have no idea how good those prospects are, and where they project and what their stats are like.  Red Sox also have quite a few.  But with the sox, I'd be worried about the Yankee/Red Sox prospect hype.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/2016-top-100-prospects/

[nando714]

If we were to re build what is the point in keep trout?

just rip the band aid off 

[bloodbrother]

All the morons are out in full force with their hypothetical Trout trade scenarios to their favorite team that'll never happen. No surprise ESPN posted up a story as well. Any notion of the Angels trading Trout is lunacy at this stage. They have him for freakin 5 more years. You don't seriously entertain this thought for at least the next 3 seasons.

 

[Chuck]

Damn, I've never heard this before.

BSPN is trolling.

[Ohtaniland]

So I guess the question is....

What good will Mike Trout do in an Angels uniform the next 3-5 years. We blew it with Pujols, Hamilton and Wilson. Our pitching future is very much in a flux. We have very little stability in the farm and the major league team. Yes Trout would be better served as a trade piece at this point. Even Trout might agree. 

[beatlesrule]

I'm not opposed to the idea as long as the Angels get a monster return.  It would be even better if the team took bad contracts along with Trout and Pujols retired.

[Spirit]

Yes.  We should consider it.

 

(pause)

 

Ok, it's been considered.  It's a phucking stupid idea.  

 

Next

 

 

 

 

[gotbeer]

1 minute ago, CALZONE said:

So I guess the question is....

What good will Mike Trout do in an Angels uniform the next 3-5 years. We blew it with Pujols, Hamilton and Wilson. Our pitching future is very much in a flux. We have very little stability in the farm and the major league team. Yes Trout would be better served as a trade piece at this point. Even Trout might agree. 

I really think the problem with the Angels is no matter what.  They try and contend each year. 

IMO, the Angels would be better off if they worked on a plan to contend say in 3 years.  That pretty much means looking at the team we have right now.  Looking at everyone that doesn't have 5-6 years of control left.  And really honestly saying will this person be a + for this team in 3 years?  And by + I mean people like Trout.  Really, only Trout and unfortunately Pujols I'd keep.  Everyone else that doesn't have less than around 2 years of MLB service is up for a trade.

Then I'd go heavy into International FA's that would not count against the International cap.  Because even though they are a FA with experience in their respective leagues, when they come to the US, they are 0.00 MLB service time.  Most will be cheap, so if they don't work out, you just cut bait.  In 3 years, you will have an idea of who can hack it, and hopefully have a minors system that is ready to help the MLB side out.  We need to get creative with contracts like the Doggies did. 

Then in 3 years, you spend money on the FA market to fill holes.

But if we half ass it like we have been, then we will still suck and find out that Trout has a year left, and ready to move on.

[Jason]

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-baseball/25579434/the-angels-wont-trade-mike-trout-but-twitters-talking-about-it-anyway

They have an article too

[Jason]

http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/angels-gm-says-mike-trout-isn-t-going-anywhere-050616

 

and another. That's a lot of talk

[ScottT]

Of course, they should consider it.  They should have considered it yesterday, too.  There are many reasons I think it is unlikely.

Getting fair value will be tough.  You'd have to get multiple productive major leaguers... that don't make a ton... and aren't 30+.  You aren't trading him for prospects only.  Even then... not sure what such a trade would look like.  

He's signed for several more years.  You can turn things around well before his contract becomes an issue again.

You should probably have something to sell to your fans.  A trade of Mike Trout would cause harm to your fan base.  The stadium won't be empty, but the backlash would be pretty crazy.  Personally, I want the team to win, but there is something to be said for winning with some homegrown talent, and there is certainly something to be said for having one of the best players in the history of the sport.  

[Jason]

I think the farm is so bad that the haul they'd get for Trout still wouldn't be enough to help this team for the next few seasons. Might as well keep him.

[notherhalo]

I would hate to see Trout on the Dodgers, just because I would have to hear it from bandwagon Dodger fans.

However would you trade him if they took Pujols, gave back Gonzalez and MLB ready + top prospects?

Can the Dodgers afford to stomach the Pujols contract?

[Jason]

2 minutes ago, notherhalo said:

I would hate to see Trout on the Dodgers, just because I would have to hear it from bandwagon Dodger fans.

However would you trade him if they took Pujols, gave back Gonzalez and MLB ready + top prospects?

Can the Dodgers afford to stomach the Pujols contract?

No way Arte allows him to go to his area rival. Talk about a bad PR move

[mp170.6]

I'll play contrarian and say if the Angels and the farm system looks this miserable (unchanged) by the end of 2017, then it's time to seriously consider a trade.

He has nothing to play for at the moment, and seems like a guy who thrives on having fun.  No matter how much money Uncle Arte offers in 2020 it won't be enough if the Angels continue to play like trash.  He's going to be miserable in Anaheim if he isn't already, so there's virtually no chance he comes back as a free agent.  Might as well trade him for something before it's too late.  Again, this hinges on the next two seasons.  No way I'd trade him now.