The Angels should consider trading Trout - ESPN

[beatlesrule]

Like I stated in a previous post, it would have to be a monster haul.  Basically us cleaning out a good/great farm and getting major league ready guys.

[Blarg]

No team has that farm system.

@stradling you are not pulling 15 WAR worth of players off a team in trade. That would be gutting the best group of players from an organization replacing them with one. It's not going to happen.

 

 

 

Edited May 8, 2016 by Blarg

[Vegas Halo Fan]

ESPN would like for us to deal Trout to the Yankees or the Red Sox, so that they can further hype Sunday Night Baseball involving the only meaningful rivalry in the game - at least according to the Wizards of Bristol.

[Docwaukee]

In order to replace Trout (which can't really be done), you have to take salary control into consideration as well.  Soon enough he's gonna cost you about 3.5 to 4 mil per WAR.  As I mentioned earlier, it's just not possible to get 5 years of value in return for him regardless of cost so let's assume it the offseason prior to the 2019 season and he's made it clear he's not coming back.  By that time, moving him with one year left could result in getting some semblance of equal value.  

So if you assume you could plug a 2 WAR player in to CF for league min then you'd need an additional 7 WAR delta and you'd have about 35mil to get there. Since you'd have to spend about half that to get a 3 WAR player and assume that you could plug about anyone in to get 1 WAR at league min elsewhere, it would require a haul that would make it almost impossible for any team to participate in without totally decimating themselves.  

Let's say that the freed up salary allows you to acquire two 3 WAR players to replace about 1.5-2 WAR at each of two positions.   Or a delta of +3.  

So you'd still need a delta of +4 worth of club controlled guys.  Since prospects are a crapshoot and even young players aren't a sure thing, you'd have to hedge your bets and get at least 50% more than that.  Plus, you are losing star power on the front end, so that would factor into the cost as well.  To me, that's two starters with #1 potential who have had some major league success and two position players who have had early success with potential to be all-stars.   For every level off, you add an extra player with potential. So for instance, if the pitcher is still a AA/AAA guy instead of a club controlled major leaguer with at least a year of playing well at the mlb level, you add a prospect with potential to the mix.  An A or A+ guy.  

Plus, it's Mike Trout.  So the other team is taking on some salary I don't want.  

In the end, it's a 5 for 1 or 6 for 2 swap and it's considerably in my favor.   Otherwise, you have to wait for the opportunity to pay him 35-40mil per.  The teams that might seem like reasonable partners right now likely won't be in 2 and a 1/2 years.  So there is no way to predict who could be the right fit.  

 

The key is going to be convincing Trout of what the marlins were able to sell to Stanton.  That he's good enough where a few good you players around him are enough to make him want to stay.  

[AngelsLakersFan]

10 hours ago, Stradling said:

Ok here's a question for Trout traders and Trout keepers.  How much annual WAR would you have to get in return to trade him.  He's going to give you 8-10 a season by himself at one position.  So if you trade him for three guys do you want 15-18 WAR in return?  Because if he gives you 9, the Angels could find two more 3 WAR players in free agency that shouldn't break the bank.  

This is why a trade won't happen. There aren't any teams that can offer that. Maybe the Cubs with Bryant, Arrieta, Rizzo and Soler. Obviously they would never make that move.

Getting equal value back is hard and doesn't necessarily make the team better. A trade would have to be about reallocating talent to a different window of seasons. With Trout signed for 4 more years there really isn't much point. With 1 or 2 years left, I could see it being worth it, for a more reasonable haul. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

7 hours ago, Dochalo said:

The key is going to be convincing Trout of what the marlins were able to sell to Stanton.  That he's good enough where a few good you players around him are enough to make him want to stay.  

Even at $40m per year Trout is a good buy with tons of surplus value. Instead of trading him we should try and find a way to keep him and not suck. He is part of the solution.

[gotbeer]

10 hours ago, Stradling said:

Ok here's a question for Trout traders and Trout keepers.  How much annual WAR would you have to get in return to trade him.  He's going to give you 8-10 a season by himself at one position.  So if you trade him for three guys do you want 15-18 WAR in return?  Because if he gives you 9, the Angels could find two more 3 WAR players in free agency that shouldn't break the bank.  

 

While I am not a big believer in WAR.  You have 5 years left of Trout.  Say you value him at a 10 WAR. 

Now trade wise.  Say you get prospects at about the 3 WAR level.  You would want at least 3-4 top 100 prospects + more (and you have to assume that maybe 3 of them will be MLB starter caliber of around 3 war, hopefully more but lets say 3 WAR), going by the Teixeira trade.  That will only add up to 9-12 WAR.  Looks even, but not really.  And really you do not want even.

But if you go on the life of the deal.  5 years @ 10 for Trout is 50 WAR.  6 years @ 3 WAR for 3 players is 54.  Still about even, and you don't want even.

But again, looking at the Teixeira trade.  At 2 years remaining.  2 years @ 10 WAR for Trout.  Vs 6 years @ 3 WAR for 3 players.  Now we are talking about getting value.  

And also remember the reason why Teixeira was traded was because Texas realized that they weren't going to be able to keep him.  Atlanta, since Teix was a Georgia or something alumn, thought they could get him a long term deal.  That's why they gave up so much.  Same will apply with Trout.  At some point, fans are going to have to realize that Trout will do what Trout will want to do.  He already has enough money.  And teams will be throwing money at him.  The only way we will get any kind of value on a trade, is if we trade him to a team that thinks they have a realistic chance of signing him long term.  My bet is still Philly.  But it also would not surprise me if Philly stands pat and waits till he's a FA.

[Mark68]

Brian Kenny has an alternate opinion:

http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/176886472/mike-trout-trade-speculation

[wopphil]

I'd require both quality and quantity in return. At least four or five high upside guys, at least two of whom have shown they can play at the MLB level. The starting point would have to be an excellent young, cost-controlled player like Kris Bryant. On top of that, I'd require a great young arm. Then 3 or so other top prospects.

 

I doubt any team would meet my asking price. 

[wopphil]

Something along the lines of Syndergaard, Matz, Conforto and D'Arnoud.

[Stradling]

Correa, Keuhchel, Springer and minor league arms.  

[AngelsLakersFan]

Is it just me, or are all of these lopsided (meaning the other team is not going to agree to it) trade deals rather underwhelming? I mean Correa is a good start but he's not on Trout's level. I understand throwing in Keuhchel and Springer but I'm skeptical of their long term value. Does a trade like that change our situation?

There is something to be said about having a player that is just better than everyone else. You can't really replace that.

[Lou]

13 hours ago, colt4405 said:

Zero chance Trout leaves this team before 2018. 

All-star break 2017 if we're 12 GB in the division and still little help on the horizon… Trout could be gone. Even though from a $ for production he's a steal at 33M, one less check to write while the team loses.

I blame Arte for all of this. If he put 1/10 the money into scouting/development that he sinks into big splash free agents…

 

 

 

How much does Arte put into scouting/development ? 

[RallyPanda]

This new format, ugh. Really giving me fits on my damn phone! :-/

 

Anyhoo...glad others noticed Trout's Dad looking miserable constantly when he watches hos Son play! Dude looked bored in Milwaukee the other day when Mike hit that HR. Everyone in the family was going nuts and Daddy looked asleep, wonder what the story is with Mr. Grumpy Pants . Oh well, in a couple years they can watch their son play closer to home once Mike demands a trade to PHI OR NYY!

 

 

[Stradling]

Elixir, enough with the Dipoto love.  

[KevinJ14]

Altuve, McCullers, Colby Rasmus, Reed/Bregman, and Moran

[UndertheHalo]

theres no way the Angels are gonna swing some trade where they get 3 or 4 young all star players for Mike Trout.  Its just not going to happen.  That is why trading Mike Trout is a disaster.  There is no good outcome for the Angels, its a decision that will haunt us forever.  The priority needs to be making sure Mike Trout stays an Angel and building around him.  If it takes a couple of extra years thats what needs to happen.  Trade Calhoun, Simmons whatever assets we have.  Draft well, and be careful to sign guys that wont cost us comp picks (they are always out there).  There is a way out of this if Eppler is good at his job. Mike Trout is the core of a championship ball club, if we trade him we're the fucking Marlins or Pirates of past.

[Angel Oracle]

Yep, you know that you will generally get 8-10 WAR/seasons with Trout.    Can't guarantee getting that each season from a group of prospects.

Edited May 9, 2016 by Angel Oracle

[Stradling]

I came to the realization with a post earlier in this thread that I made that we can't even really improve trading Trout. 

[Blarg]

Babe Ruth. 

[Angel Oracle]

Yep, Ruth had mainly done it as a pitcher by the time the Red Sux sold him to the Skanks after the 1919 season.   He was one of the best AL pitchers from 1916-1918.

[Lou]

22 hours ago, colt4405 said:

 

Judging by our worst farm system ever, not enough.

so you have no idea

[Chuck]

On 5/8/2016 at 9:14 PM, Blarg said:

I think Dad and Mom are pretty happy. maybe Dad decided after his playing days were over he wouldn't dress like a fan. 

Who needs to wear a jersey or gear at a ballgame to show that they're a huge fan. Right, @Blarg 

 

 

 

[Blarg]

Especially when you sit next to Abe Vigoda.

[mauijim3]

How long until the opponents given Trout the Harper treatment done by the Cubs.  With the weak hitters behind him, why would any team pitch to Trout, ever.  I wouldn't.  IBB each plate appearance. Take chances with the "Double Play Machine" and the rest of the guys that can't hit their weight.