Angels trading Mike Trout is a dumb deal that would make no sense for any team

[Chuck]

How many calls has Billy Eppler, the Angels' first-year general manager, taken about Trout?

"None," Eppler said.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/angels/la-sp-angels-trade-trout-20160519-story.html

[Dave Saltzer]

As I have said to many people on here, I cannot take seriously, and will no longer continue to read or follow any sports writer who suggests or proposes that the Angels trade Trout. It isn't going to happen. I have removed those who continue to persist in this nonsense from my Twitter feeds.

[Angelsjunky]

Haha, you guys. I'd hate to see him traded, and don't think it I will happen, but there's no harm in playing make-believe.

But it was a well-written article and I agree with the author. Prospects don't always work out, and Trout is such a monumental talent that the Angels would likely insist on not only a team's best prospects, but a good young major leaguer or two. In other words, it would get to the point where it isn't worth it to the other team. I'm not sure the Dodgers, for instance, would even want to trade one of Pederson or Seager, plus four of Urias, DeLeon, Diaz, Verdugo, and Holmes.

[Jay]

It would have to be some sort of blockbuster straight up one-for-one trade like Noah Syndergaard for Trout or something like that.

Even then if I were the Angels I wouldn't do it unless Trout really wanted to move for some reason.
 

[Blarg]

I would like to aquire a low mileage Ferrari for my SLK and dismantled Triumph Spitfire in the paint shop. So far no dealer is willing to take my calls. 

No team will produce a deal good enough to make a call with. 

[Jobu]

32 minutes ago, Jay said:

It would have to be some sort of blockbuster straight up one-for-one trade like Noah Syndergaard for Trout or something like that.

Even then if I were the Angels I wouldn't do it unless Trout really wanted to move for some reason.
 

I'd only take a pitcher if he came with a dozen extra UCLs. 

[Angelsjunky]

1 hour ago, Blarg said:

I would like to aquire a low mileage Ferrari for my SLK and dismantled Triumph Spitfire in the paint shop. So far no dealer is willing to take my calls. 

No team will produce a deal good enough to make a call with. 

Yes, but only because at that point it wouldn't be worth it for that team. Like that Dodgers pack I mentioned above. At a certain point they'd probably just rather keep their own players.

p.s. to Jay, Trout has way more trade value than any pitcher. The Mets would need to throw in a couple very good prospects.

[Angelsjunky]

9 minutes ago, Randy Gradishar said:

If someone told me the Angels would never win a WS in Trout's career and would win 2 in the same time span if they traded him, I'd still take Trout. 20 years of watching history vs 38 games of lucky bounces with boring players.

 

Then again I just showed that that's a bit of an irrelevant comparison because WS titles are meaningless. The better comparison would be under .500 seasons with Trout vs. making the playoffs every year without him, but I find it hard to believe the trade would make that kind of difference. The Angels have already been the best team in baseball in 50% of Trout's seasons.

Um, no they haven't. They had the best record in 2014, which is one of four full seasons he's played in. But we really should count 2016, and clearly they won't have the best record this year. So it is really 20%.

[Guest]

David Schoenfield should find something else to obsess over. He's actually the only person I can think of who keeps bringing this up. 

I wouldn't even call him a journalist. 

[LAA Road Tripper]

1 hour ago, Randy Gradishar said:

If someone told me the Angels would never win a WS in Trout's career and would win 2 in the same time span if they traded him, I'd still take Trout. 20 years of watching history vs 38 games of lucky bounces with boring players.

 

Then again I just showed that that's a bit of an irrelevant comparison because WS titles are meaningless. The better comparison would be under .500 seasons with Trout vs. making the playoffs every year without him, but I find it hard to believe the trade would make that kind of difference. The Angels have already been the best team in baseball in 50% of Trout's seasons.

Huh? I've re-read this a few times and maybe there's some context that I'm missing. Gotta be. WS titles are meaningless? Then why are we fans of a team? With that mentality there's nothing to worry about either way. Trout stays, Trout leaves. I can follow him to the Yankees, Phillies or wherever since I'm a Trout fan.

Yeah, I'm not getting it.

 

[ELEVEN]

3 hours ago, Jobu said:

I'd only take a pitcher if he came with a dozen extra UCLs. 

Or his own Igor to supply them.

[Angel Oracle]

1 hour ago, ELEVEN said:

Or his own Igor to supply them.

It's actually pronounced Eye-gor.