Trout Trade Talk has officially begun (by fans of other teams)

[beatlesrule]

50 minutes ago, John Taylor said:

I still find the idea of trading a 24 year old generational superstar, who is under team control for a reasonable (for him) amount, for the sake of "rebuilding" the franchise kind of laughable.

 

You rebuild the team around him. Trade Street, Smith, hell even Kole before you even entertain the idea of trading Trout. I don't think this team is as bad as people here think it is, but at the very least you could build a younger "contender" team by 2018.

Arte won't go over the tax so it's difficult to build around him.  We could have signed at least one good FA this past offseason to help out Trout and Arte said no.  That is a sign that Arte is not doing everything he can to build around Trout.  You might want to rebuild the team around him but our billionaire owner says no.  Next years FA class doesn't really have anyone the team can use to build around so that's why trading Trout keeps coming up.  This franchise has the worst farm in baseball, a beat up MLB team with aging overpaid players and a mostly clueless owner.  It's not a good combination for short or long-term success.  The Angels ORG is in trouble.

[ettin]

3 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

I've said it once and I'll say it again. The only way this is at all a serious consideration is if a team like the Dodgers, with a loaded farm system and one true grade A prospect, say "take any five prospects." You really need a true gold-chipper like Urias in there, plus two or three grade B+/A- prospects, and a couple more solid grade B-/B prospects.

You'd need more than that which is why this is a non-starter unless the Angels decide not getting true value is important. You can't accept just one true "gold-chipper" it is more like 5 true "gold-chipper's".

[Docwaukee]

The other thing you have to ask yourself is why?  Why would you ever trade Trout.?  

It's because you have otherwise exhausted your ability to surround him with capable talent.  Most of that stems from not only what you have, but talent pools you have access to outside of your own farm.  

So by trading him you are conceding that there isn't enough opportunity.  But do we know that to be true for sure?

There is a number in millions of lost revenue to this franchise upon losing Trout even after you subtract out his salary.  I think it's a pretty big number.  Somewhere close to 30+mil. 

So what you are doing by trading him is paying 30mil as season in lost revenue for that talent you are getting back.  Why not just keep him and spend an additional 30mil a year to surround him with more talent.  It doesn't have to be just free agents.  You can make a strong push to attack the upper echelon of the international pool as well.  Especially because after 2017 our restrictions are lifted.  

If it doesn't work, then you Trade him 4 years from now and get as much as you can.  Granted you probably have some additional financial obligations and dead money, but so what.  If you are moving trout you have conceded that you are really gonna suck for awhile.  Anyone who thinks we are gonna trade Trout and turn this ship around in the next 3 years is kidding themselves.  

[ettin]

3 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

Ruth was sold, not traded. But yeah, I hear you. I don't want it to happen, but if the Dodgers offered Urias, De Leon, Verdugo, Holmes, and Diaz, you'd have to take it seriously.

 

Sorry AJ that wouldn't be even close for Trout's present day value.

[CaliAngel]

The only assholes supporting this notion or making articles that continually bring this up are not Angel fans. Period.

They're dicknoses that want Trout off the Angels because they don't like the halos and Trout is a polarizing player that they want for themselves.

F**k 'em! If Arte doesn't offer Trout in 2020 what he gave to Pujols he's a dumbsh*t.

[beatlesrule]

Hopefully Arte would have sold the team by then.

[Blarg]

4 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

Ruth was sold, not traded. But yeah, I hear you. I don't want it to happen, but if the Dodgers offered Urias, De Leon, Verdugo, Holmes, and Diaz, you'd have to take it seriously.

 

Not for one second. There is not a single Angel player in the Hall of Fame and no one on that list is going to be one. This is the Angels franchise legacy you are talking about pissing away for some future value that won't be even come close to the same value as getting that jersey and cap enshrined. I am at the age where Trout may play long enough and with the 5 year retirement rule may outlast me. So I really don't give a shit at this moment how many good players you can get for the best player. It has no long term payoff.

[AngelsLakersFan]

1 hour ago, Dochalo said:

The other thing you have to ask yourself is why?  Why would you ever trade Trout.?  

It's because you have otherwise exhausted your ability to surround him with capable talent.  Most of that stems from not only what you have, but talent pools you have access to outside of your own farm.  

So by trading him you are conceding that there isn't enough opportunity.  But do we know that to be true for sure?

There is a number in millions of lost revenue to this franchise upon losing Trout even after you subtract out his salary.  I think it's a pretty big number.  Somewhere close to 30+mil. 

So what you are doing by trading him is paying 30mil as season in lost revenue for that talent you are getting back.  Why not just keep him and spend an additional 30mil a year to surround him with more talent.  It doesn't have to be just free agents.  You can make a strong push to attack the upper echelon of the international pool as well.  Especially because after 2017 our restrictions are lifted.  

If it doesn't work, then you Trade him 4 years from now and get as much as you can.  Granted you probably have some additional financial obligations and dead money, but so what.  If you are moving trout you have conceded that you are really gonna suck for awhile.  Anyone who thinks we are gonna trade Trout and turn this ship around in the next 3 years is kidding themselves.  

I think there is a good chance that our opportunity to use our cash to exploit the international market might already be closed. We are closing in on the point where having money has limited impact on a teams ability to compete.

[Docwaukee]

3 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

I think there is a good chance that our opportunity to use our cash to exploit the international market might already be closed. We are closing in on the point where having money has limited impact on a teams ability to compete.

depends on how you look at it.  

Yes, in the conventional sense we aren't going to have the opportunity to restock the farm system, but how about half a dozen guys or so where two would immediately contribute at the major league level and 3 or 4 others in the upper minors who would be a year or 2 away.  Obviously contingent on our scouting department doing better than they did with Baldoquin, but an influx of just a few key guys could make a huge difference for the next 5 years while we use the draft to hopefully supplement further.  On top of that, a couple of key FA signings would be nice as well.  Not saying it could save the long term outlook, but it could really help bridge a gap.  

[tdawg87]

Calhoun would net a decent haul. If Street comes back and pitches well, so would he. Smith, Soto, and Escobar all have trade value.

They can gut the team and restock the farm without ripping out the heart.

[AngelsLakersFan]

6 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

depends on how you look at it.  

Yes, in the conventional sense we aren't going to have the opportunity to restock the farm system, but how about half a dozen guys or so where two would immediately contribute at the major league level and 3 or 4 others in the upper minors who would be a year or 2 away.  Obviously contingent on our scouting department doing better than they did with Baldoquin, but an influx of just a few key guys could make a huge difference for the next 5 years while we use the draft to hopefully supplement further.  On top of that, a couple of key FA signings would be nice as well.  Not saying it could save the long term outlook, but it could really help bridge a gap.  

I'm referring to the likelihood that the current Int. system is replaced by a draft. Once that happens we will only be able to put money into scouting. With the slotting system in the amateur draft, and the trend being to lock up and extend your young talent into their 30's there are fewer and fewer ways to flex financial strengths.

[greginpsca]

Aint going to happen! A trade would be basically giving him away for nothing. Added onto the loss of ticket revenue. Trading him would be worse than the Red Sox trade of Babe Ruth. The next 2 offseasons will free up more money to build around Trout. 

 

Edited May 16, 2016 by greginpsca

[MacNasty]

You can have all kinds of picks and chances are you will not find a player of Trout's caliber.  That's the thing.  It doesn't require 5 years to rebuild a roster.  Angels have money coming free, they simply have to make a shrewd signing or two and keep up the key trades to get the right guys in here.

If the Angels trade Trout, well, no need to get into it but it's gonna be bad!  I'm talkin firepit and gasoline type of bad.

[Troll Daddy]

Stop the trade! We just swept the 1st place Mariners. Well they're not in first place now. lol

[halobob]

The only reason to trade Trout before 2018 is if the team trading for him also takes on the full Pujols contract.  The haul will be just as big in 2018 as it will be now.  

[ukyah]

i don't usually root for players individually. to be honest, most i can take or leave. there are a few that are multigenerational and aren't likely to really be seen again. ricky henderson, tony gwynn, albert pujols (sigh), trout. 

my point is, if the angels trade trout, then i become a fan of that team. my angels interest still remains, but it just goes on the back burner until whenever.

[Angelsjunky]

6 hours ago, ettin said:

You'd need more than that which is why this is a non-starter unless the Angels decide not getting true value is important. You can't accept just one true "gold-chipper" it is more like 5 true "gold-chipper's".

I didn't say just one true gold chipper, but one truly great prospect like Urias, and a bunch of other very good ones.

6 hours ago, Dochalo said:

The other thing you have to ask yourself is why?  Why would you ever trade Trout.?  

It's because you have otherwise exhausted your ability to surround him with capable talent.  Most of that stems from not only what you have, but talent pools you have access to outside of your own farm.  

So by trading him you are conceding that there isn't enough opportunity.  But do we know that to be true for sure?

There is a number in millions of lost revenue to this franchise upon losing Trout even after you subtract out his salary.  I think it's a pretty big number.  Somewhere close to 30+mil. 

So what you are doing by trading him is paying 30mil as season in lost revenue for that talent you are getting back.  Why not just keep him and spend an additional 30mil a year to surround him with more talent.  It doesn't have to be just free agents.  You can make a strong push to attack the upper echelon of the international pool as well.  Especially because after 2017 our restrictions are lifted.  

If it doesn't work, then you Trade him 4 years from now and get as much as you can.  Granted you probably have some additional financial obligations and dead money, but so what.  If you are moving trout you have conceded that you are really gonna suck for awhile.  Anyone who thinks we are gonna trade Trout and turn this ship around in the next 3 years is kidding themselves.  

Excellent post. For me the big question is why are the Angels so crappy in terms of their scouting, both international and domestic? How about putting some of that money into scouting?

6 hours ago, ettin said:

Sorry AJ that wouldn't be even close for Trout's present day value.

I disagree. Urias is a truly great prospect - a 19 year old with a 1.25 ERA in AAA! The others are better than any Angels prospect. So you'd be trading Trout for five players who would instantly become the five best prospects in the system, including three future starters and two future starting outfielders.

Now would I make that trade? No, probably not. But I'd consider it. Its about as good as possibly can be offered in terms of prospects-only.

5 hours ago, Blarg said:

Not for one second. There is not a single Angel player in the Hall of Fame and no one on that list is going to be one. This is the Angels franchise legacy you are talking about pissing away for some future value that won't be even come close to the same value as getting that jersey and cap enshrined. I am at the age where Trout may play long enough and with the 5 year retirement rule may outlast me. So I really don't give a shit at this moment how many good players you can get for the best player. It has no long term payoff.

Again, Urias has Hall of Fame potential. Don't know about the others, but several potential stars.

But Blarg, I agree - Trout is more important in other ways, in terms of legacy. But Eppler still has to consider a package like that.

[Stradling]

I don't know the Dodgers prospects at all, but if I were to consider it I would want Seager, Urias, their other top pitching prospect, I think he is the one they got from the White Sox this year, and probably one more top level guy.  That would be the start of the conversation.

As far as any trade with the Cubs, it would have to include Bryant and at least three more.  

[Angelsjunky]

Stradling, the hypothetical package I mentioned above is pretty much what you said - just no Seager. But it includes their three best pitching prospects and two outfielders.

As for Bryant, one thing that we all need to realize is that as great as Trout is, players like Bryant (and Seager) area also really damn good. Bryant isn't Trout, but he's in the next tier down - and probably already one of the ten or so best position players in the game. In fact, since the beginning of 2015, Bryant is fifth in the majors in fWAR.

Anyhow, I agree with whoever said the Cubs would be foolish to rock the boat on what is already massive success. Trout is Trout, but if you're 27-9, you keep doing what you're doing.

 

[WeatherWonk]

8 hours ago, Dochalo said:

The other thing you have to ask yourself is why?  Why would you ever trade Trout.?  

It's because you have otherwise exhausted your ability to surround him with capable talent.  Most of that stems from not only what you have, but talent pools you have access to outside of your own farm.  

So by trading him you are conceding that there isn't enough opportunity.  But do we know that to be true for sure?

We dont know ANYTHING to be "sure". But the probabilities of us contending for the AL pennant in the next three years looks very improbable. You can only go by probabilities.

There is a number in millions of lost revenue to this franchise upon losing Trout even after you subtract out his salary.  I think it's a pretty big number.  Somewhere close to 30+mil. 

Where in the world are you coming up with that figure? It certainly cant be from TV revenue as that deal is already set in stone. There is no way the club makes 30 million more in ticket sales and concessions with Trout here. It certainly wont be from playoff receipts.

 

8 hours ago, Dochalo said:

So what you are doing by trading him is paying 30mil as season in lost revenue for that talent you are getting back.  Why not just keep him and spend an additional 30mil a year to surround him with more talent.  It doesn't have to be just free agents.  You can make a strong push to attack the upper echelon of the international pool as well.  Especially because after 2017 our restrictions are lifted.  

If it doesn't work, then you Trade him 4 years from now and get as much as you can.  Granted you probably have some additional financial obligations and dead money, but so what.  If you are moving trout you have conceded that you are really gonna suck for awhile.  Anyone who thinks we are gonna trade Trout and turn this ship around in the next 3 years is kidding themselves.  

So, you're saying hold onto to him for three years, suck all that time..........and then suck some more when he is gone? Proponents of trading Trout are saying its the ONLY way of improving, given our farm, our financial constraints and our poor owner who got us into this.

 

[Stradling]

1 hour ago, Angelsjunky said:

Stradling, the hypothetical package I mentioned above is pretty much what you said - just no Seager. But it includes their three best pitching prospects and two outfielders.

As for Bryant, one thing that we all need to realize is that as great as Trout is, players like Bryant (and Seager) area also really damn good. Bryant isn't Trout, but he's in the next tier down - and probably already one of the ten or so best position players in the game. In fact, since the beginning of 2015, Bryant is fifth in the majors in fWAR.

Anyhow, I agree with whoever said the Cubs would be foolish to rock the boat on what is already massive success. Trout is Trout, but if you're 27-9, you keep doing what you're doing.

 

Yes but we know Seager can do it at the major league level.  

[kevinb]

If Trout is so hard to find and he's once in a life time why is Bryce Harper younger and playing baseball. Wait so your saying it can happen twice. Woah Trouts great and you don't trade him now but I'd do what the Cubs did trade everyone they don't see being on this team in 4-5 years see what u can get back with Trout at the center and make a run in 2-3 years. Every team needs to bottom out sometime. Rebuild refuel and have another go at it when u restock 

[Docwaukee]

11 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

If Trout is so hard to find and he's once in a life time why is Bryce Harper younger and playing baseball. Wait so your saying it can happen twice. Woah Trouts great and you don't trade him now but I'd do what the Cubs did trade everyone they don't see being on this team in 4-5 years see what u can get back with Trout at the center and make a run in 2-3 years. Every team needs to bottom out sometime. Rebuild refuel and have another go at it when u restock 

i am not sure why you can't have two generational talents playing at the same time.  It's happened several times in baseball history.  The cubs still have one of the best farm systems in baseball.  They didn't trade anyone who they thought would be a part of their core.  They moved guys who were close to free agency.  Trout isn't.  

We have a better chance of making a run with Trout over the next few years than the odds that the players we would get in return for him would amount to enough to make us competitive in the next 2-3 years.  You trade Trout now and you run a major risk of decimating a franchise for well over a decade.  Trout is a 10 WAR player.  You are hoping your haul for him works out.  

[budice0]

Trout with the Angels is much like Kobe was the last few years.  Greatness surrounded by a good amount of meh, sure Kobe was on a downslope but still.  Trout's best years are being spent without a lot of support.  Sure injuries played a part, but age needs to factor into when having players.

In baseball, when you bet the ranch on having a great starting lineup,without depth and injuries.  More times than not you are left disappointed.

To a man I like the CJ Wilsons, Huston Street, Garett Richard, Jared Weavers, CJ Cron, Kole Calhoun.  We need people who showup on a regular basis and produce. .220 BA and 4.5 ERAs will not get it done.

[mulwin444]

Again, there is no F'n way you trade Trout.  I don't break out the "phrase" often...if ever...but thinking the Angels can't turn around their fortunes within the next couple of seasons is the definition of "Failo".  Not the "Superfan" definition of "Failo" but "Failo" in the sense that no matter what course the Angels take will be the wrong one and they will continue to struggle despite over a decade of evidence to say otherwise.  There has been only 2 seasons since 2009 (2011 and 2013) that the Angels weren't competitive and actually had a 98 win season in the mix.  Let's say 2016 ends up being a stinker, you lose two crappy contracts to start the '17 and, even if its a down FA class, you can still improve and supplement the team through trades and signings.  Eppler's too new to rate at this point but, if he can pull off more trades like Chacin, we're probably in pretty good hands to keep the ship steady until a '18 when Richards comes back from TJ, Heaney is hopefully recovered, Hamilton is off the books, and we are staring at a stellar free agent class with money to spend.  Its a easy thing to slip into the "present" thinking that somehow equates that since they are struggling now they will continue to struggle in the foreseeable future.  However, the difference between this team and the perennial losers that people appear to be lumping us in with is an owner historically willing to spend (just not above the tax threshold), a big cable deal in a the #2 market in the country and the best player in baseball is on the team and under contract.  

Things can turn around just as quickly as sweeping a 1st place team in their house after losing 6 straight...this is baseball.