The Angels should consider trading Trout - ESPN

[jimbo]

Sure, the Angels could possibly get quite a bit in return. But who here is confident that this team wouldn't eff that up too.

[wopphil]

The only thing they should consider is when to offer him a $400,000,000 extension. 

[Angelsjunky]

If the Angels trade Trout then I'd seriously consider disavowing them as my favorite team. To me, as a fan of 35+ years, there have been two truly exciting developments in Angels history: the 2002 season and Mike Trout.

That said, if the Dodgers said "any five prospects," it would be mighty tempting. On paper. In real life, I just couldn't do it.

[Ochocinco!]

As much as I love Trout and I would follow him wherever he goes. I say the only way you trade him is if you add pujols and the entirety of his contract with Trout, which would save our franchise for years. Now with that being said Pujols has a no trade clause  so realistically we could only trade the both of them to the Cardinals.

 

So hypothetically speaking what could we get for them.. There's a decent list to choose from but we probably wouldn't be able to get much just because the money the Cards are taking back.

Holliday ( money wise ), Piscotty,  A Diaz, Wacha, Rosenthal, Hazelbaker... 

It sucks but it is fun to wonder what teams can offer

[Chimi]

21 minutes ago, Ochocinco! said:

As much as I love Trout and I would follow him wherever he goes. I say the only way you trade him is if you add pujols and the entirety of his contract with Trout, which would save our franchise for years. Now with that being said Pujols has a no trade clause  so realistically we could only trade the both of them to the Cardinals.

 

So hypothetically speaking what could we get for them.. There's a decent list to choose from but we probably wouldn't be able to get much just because the money the Cards are taking back.

Holliday ( money wise ), Piscotty,  A Diaz, Wacha, Rosenthal, Hazelbaker... 

It sucks but it is fun to wonder what teams can offer

Both contracts are incredibly backloaded. You would be asking a team to take on about $65 Million a year in salary so they could have Mike Trout. Dont expect much in return.

[Quinlanforthewin]

3 hours ago, HighDesertHaloFan said:

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!

 

LOL championship core? Who else exactly makes up that core?

[Dick B Back]

ESPN should worry about their own favs, the Skanks and Bosox, and just leave the west coast alone.

Hell, their writers are sleeping while the west coast teams are taking batting practice.

Edited May 7, 2016 by Dick B Back
Forgot a word

[GrittyVeterans]

I would never in a million years trade him to the Dodgers. Angels fans would never hear the end of that and I couldn't stomach watching him in blue. 

 

I'd consider trading him to another team though if our future continues to look worse and worse. Obviously the return would have to be better than the best trade return this league has ever seen. And some of the talent coming back would have to be proven  producers at the MLB level. 

[CaliAngel]

ESPN and East Coast teams are salivating at the opportunity to get their hands on Trout.

Reason being, once he leaves, they'll have no reason to talk about the Angels at all, who they just LOVE to ignore.

Unless it's bad news. Then they're all over it and it's the top story on baseball tonight. I bet the 2 pitchers down story will be on tonight, btw.

You'd have to be friggin retarted to trade Trout. He basically wins games single-handedly for our team about 10 times a year.

[Waybackman]

Pennington? Why was he signed? He was pathetic with the A's. 

[tdawg87]

38 minutes ago, ArturoMoreno said:

When's the last time you actually watched tv?

 

ESPN shows the Dodgers and Giants more love than any of those two teams combined. They also jumped on the Oakland bandwagon back in the '13 postseason. It's just no one likes the Angels outside of their own fanbase. 

This is not even remotely accurate.

[WallyWorld]

Validation 

 

[CaliAngel]

We are so screwed.

[RW2016]

ESPN just wants him to be traded to an East Coast team so they can watch him play since he usually plays after their bedtimes.

[mp170.6]

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Trout signed with an east coast team.  Why?  Because he grew up in New Jersey and his parents still live there.  That's why I think trading Trout before 2020 should at least be food for thought, especially if the Angels still suck. 

[Dick B Back]

1 hour ago, ArturoMoreno said:

When's the last time you actually watched tv?

 

ESPN shows the Dodgers and Giants more love than any of those two teams combined. They also jumped on the Oakland bandwagon back in the '13 postseason. It's just no one likes the Angels outside of their own fanbase. 

Sorry Arte, I think you may be confused. What are you sipping on that fine boat of yours?

[Docwaukee]

Anyone who speculates about trading Trout doesn't understand Arte Moreno at all.  

This offseason made it clear that Arte's goal is to maximize attendance relative to cost.  It should have been obvious to us sooner.  

while winning plays a role, it's only one part of the puzzle to achieve his goal.  It's clear that one of Arte's biggest perceived weapons is star power.  

With today's news, the only thing that is going to continue to draw fans is the presence of Mike Trout.  

 

So those speculating about trading him need to understand the financial implications relative to how Arte runs his franchise.  

 

You want to know if Arte would trade his golden goose for prospects so the team might have a chance to be good in 4 or 5 years.  All the while still paying Albert 30 mil per while the team loses 90-100 games and attendance drops to catastrophic levels.  

 

Also, I would bet a considerable sum that having the best player in baseball means something to Arte regardless of whether the team wins.  

 

Here is another thing to consider.  You have Trout for almost 5 more years.  Even with his escalating salary, he's still worth more than can be matched by any given team at this point.  Anything a team would be willing to give up at this point is pretty much everything they'd have to give and could never equal five years of Trout.  It could, however, equal 2 years of Trout.  So if you are gonna trade him, why not wait until he's only got two years left.  Spend the next three years trying to catching lighting in a bottle.  Maybe you have an amazing draft or two.  Maybe you make a great couple of trade or get a couple of free agents at below market value.  

My point is, you probably get the same bounty for trout in 3 years as you'd get now.  So why not hang on to him and see what happens.  You can't really miss your window to trade him.  So wait till the last possible second and hope you can get lucky to where you don't have to.  

 

One more thing and I've said this before.  You don't trade Trout for unproven talent.  You'll never get close to enough value.  You start with a teams three best young players under control for at least 4-5 years and go from there.  You can always move those players for additional talent later, but you get the most proven talent that you possibly can.  It's all about value.  Not future need or projection.  

[Ohtaniland]

2 hours ago, Vladdylonglegs said:

I'd rather the team be good and make the playoffs than have 1 player who is worth watching.

This ^^^^^

The reality is that we've had Trout since 2011 and we've gone nowhere. 

[Docwaukee]

7 minutes ago, CALZONE said:

This ^^^^^

The reality is that we've had Trout since 2011 and we've gone nowhere. 

I think a lot of people feel the same way but to consider that some sort of binary function is crazy.  

Why do people assume that whatever we could get for Trout would automatically turn us into a playoff team a couple years down the road?  Frankly, chances are that we'd probably get a couple of nice players and a couple others that would totally flame out.  And we have 1 player that is worth 2 all star position players or 3 very good regulars.  

It's not like Trout is Cole Hamels or Troy Tulowitski.  Those other players are very good and a good start to build around.  Mike Trout turns a .500 club into a playoff team.  There isn't 1 or 2 other players in baseball who can do that.  He's not just some guy that's worth watching.  

I made it clear that before the offseason started my opinion was we needed to spend in order to make Trout's presence worth while.  Wouldn't you rather see what happens if Eppler is given some money?  My point is that we haven't exhausted all avenues to improve this team.  If they trade Trout before doing so, I am done being an Angel fan for awhile.

You move Trout as a last resort on the last day.  Only after you have absolutely tried everything else.  If Arte claims poverty and sits on his billion dollars in equity while this team stands on the carpet near the edge of the dance floor, I just don't know what to say.  Ask yourself if you really want to be Atlanta.   

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

3 hours ago, Ochocinco! said:

As much as I love Trout and I would follow him wherever he goes. I say the only way you trade him is if you add pujols and the entirety of his contract with Trout, which would save our franchise for years.

Not even if we through in our part of Hamilton's contract.

[mp170.6]

1 hour ago, Dochalo said:

Anyone who speculates about trading Trout doesn't understand Arte Moreno at all.  

This offseason made it clear that Arte's goal is to maximize attendance relative to cost.  It should have been obvious to us sooner.  

while winning plays a role, it's only one part of the puzzle to achieve his goal.  It's clear that one of Arte's biggest perceived weapons is star power.  

With today's news, the only thing that is going to continue to draw fans is the presence of Mike Trout. 

Sorry, I don't agree with that at all.

I'll bet you 50% of the "fans" in attendance don't give a crap who wins or who plays.  These people are casual fans at best and show up purely for social interaction, drinking beer, hitting on chicks, etc.  But this is part of Moreno's genius, he's made the Big A an attraction for people who wouldn't otherwise attend a baseball game.  Good for him.

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

With all these injuries we're beginning to look like the Rangers of 2014. They were able to go from last to first the next season, but they actually had a farm system.

[Docwaukee]

7 minutes ago, mp170.6 said:

Sorry, I don't agree with that at all.

I'll bet you 50% of the "fans" in attendance don't give a crap who wins or who plays.  These people are casual fans at best and show up purely for social interaction, drinking beer, hitting on chicks, etc.  But this is part of Moreno's genius, he's made the Big A an attraction for people who wouldn't otherwise attend a baseball game.  Good for him.

Really?  

Frankly, in socal I think it's the complete opposite.  We don't have as large of volume of die hards that will go to a game regardless of the team.  This isn't Chicago.  First of all, about a 1/4th to a 1/3rd of attendance is other teams fans that paid good money to see their team win.  Everyone else wants to see the team win and they want to see Mike Trout hit a home run.  

If what you are saying is true, then Arte wouldn't put any money into the team at all.  Most fans care.  Arte thinks they want to be entertained by super stars, and some do.  But mostly they want to see their team win and the super stars do well.  Not just show up.  It's why most people don't really care about what Albert did when he was in St. Louis.  

Maybe I'm wrong, but this is where I think Arte misses the boat as well.  People love home grown stars helping their team win first and foremost.  Then they like to see purchased players help their team win.  But in the end, they like wins.  They don't like watching high priced players suck.  Especially if they were high cost free agents.  

My dad isn't nearly as die hard as me and he's been a fan forever.  First thing he said to me when I told him Richards was gonna have TJ surgery was that he's probably going to be selling or giving away a bunch of tickets now.  

[Troutta here]

ESPN desperately wants to see Trout play for one of the handful of teams they actually pay attention to. They'll create a media whirlwind to get a discussion going if they think it will help. 

[arch stanton]

Maybe they should just go back to reporting the news instead of trying to make it.