Fantasy Trout Trade Proposal to the Cubs

[IEAngelsfan]

Didn't see anyone post this, so.........

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/11/mike-trout-trade-not-happening-chicago-cubs-los-angeles-angels-do-it-though-mlb

[wopphil]

My fantasy Trout proposal: Trout to the Angels, for a lifetime contract.

I don't want to see Trout ever play for another team. 

[arch stanton]

If the Cubs had Trout they might win 103 games and the WS.....

[Ohtaniland]

8 minutes ago, arch stanton said:

If the Cubs had Trout they might win 103 games and the WS.....

They could do that without Trout.

[beatlesrule]

Lol at not getting Bryant or Rizzo in any package. Also, lol at some of those comments. Fans really do overevaluate their own players.

[Brent Maguire]

Utterly ridiculous proposal. These "Trade Trout" articles seem to be getting shittier and shittier. 

[Docwaukee]

so its...

Schwarber 

Baez

Albert Almora

Jeimer Candelario

Mark Zagunis

Ian Happ

Miguel Montero 

 

Replace Montero with Contreras and it's probably a fair deal in terms of value.  But there's the nit.  You would have to completely blow me out of the water if I'm Eppler.  That doesn't blow me out of the water.  Also, that package contains no pitching.  Granted you could move a few players for some, but then their lack of pitching becomes my problem.  

Blow me out of the water includes Bryant.  

 

 

[Brandon]

1 hour ago, CALZONE said:

They could do that without Trout.

[IEAngelsfan]

11 hours ago, beatlesrule said:

Lol at not getting Bryant or Rizzo in any package. Also, lol at some of those comments. Fans really do overevaluate their own players.

I thought the same thing when I read it. You have to include one of those two and as Doc mentioned, some pitching. But then, the cost would be too high for the Cubs. So why bother.

[totdprods]

No team would be willing to give up the package required to net Trout. The only scenario in which he gets traded doesn't happen until 2019 or 2020, when the control is so short that an acquiring team could reasonably deplete themselves 3-5 players in an attempt to legitimatize their championship hopes and get early shot at locking him up long-term. But the Angels would have to also feel very pessimistic about their chances of re-signing him - or conversely, very optimistic about signing him back should he hit the open market.

His price at that point likely still would be 1-2 established, young, talented MLBers and 3-4 additional Top Ten prospects. Still a great return. 

Only troubling aspect is both the Phillies and Yankees both could fit that theoretical  around that time. They'd know they'd have an outside shot at extending him if they brought him in right before FA, both clubs could have a deep farm and payroll by that point still, and both could be legitimate WS contenders by that time.

[eligrba]

Some sports writers should just read a book in the off season.

[Blarg]

Trade Trout articles is like being addicted to cutting.

[Second Base]

If the Cubs offered Bryant, Rizzo, Schwarber, Baez and Arroeta, and paid for the rest of Albert's contract, I'd listen.

[Angelsjunky]

I am reminded of a quote from Any Given Sunday when Al Pacino told Jamie Foxx "This game has got to be about more than winning." He went on to talk about the tradition of football, cherishing what he has and not losing sight of that, etc.

I feel that way about Trout. While it MAY be that trading him would yield a package that would help the team win more games, I just don't think it is worth it. When I was a kid in the 80s, and a young man in the 90s, I dreamed of the Angels having a great, franchise player. I remember feeling jealous when the Mariners got not only Ken Griffey Jr, but a couple years later, Alex Rodriguez. I remember thinking, "I love Wally Joyner and Tim Salmon but wish we could have a truly great player, someone who defined the franchise." For a moment it seemed like that would be Troy Glaus or Darin Erstad, but both turned out to be very good but not great players.

But then Mike Trout came along, and we got not only our own Griffey or Rodriguez, but someone even better. Winning and losing comes and goes, but Trout is always there, always to be enjoyed. In a way its like a good marriage or a happy family. If you have those, it doesn't matter as much what your paycheck looks like, and you can weather the ups and downs of life. But if you trade away that which is best in your life, or on your team, in hopes of getting to the "up" then you lose what really matters.

 

[Oz27]

3 hours ago, totdprods said:

No team would be willing to give up the package required to net Trout.

I don't actually think this is true anymore, in part because of how loaded the Cubs and Dodgers are. At some point in the near future, Trout will stop being the most valuable trade chip in baseball purely because his period of club control is getting shorter. That point might not be far away. Corey Seager and Kris Bryant are both under club control for a year more than Trout now and, while Mike is still significantly better, the gap in quality between them isn't that big. It wouldn't be that hard for the Dodgers to put together a package of, say, Seager, Urias and Pederson or for the Cubs to package Bryant, Soler and Contreras and suddenly you have the building blocks of a pretty epic deal.

None of this will happen, obviously. And I'm not saying it should, either. I'm just pointing out that I think we're past the point of it being impossible for a team to put together a pretty damn compelling offer, if one so desired.

[Ohtaniland]

2 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

I am reminded of a quote from Any Given Sunday when Al Pacino told Jamie Foxx "This game has got to be about more than winning." He went on to talk about the tradition of football, cherishing what he has and not losing sight of that, etc.

I feel that way about Trout. While it MAY be that trading him would yield a package that would help the team win more games, I just don't think it is worth it. When I was a kid in the 80s, and a young man in the 90s, I dreamed of the Angels having a great, franchise player. I remember feeling jealous when the Mariners got not only Ken Griffey Jr, but a couple years later, Alex Rodriguez. I remember thinking, "I love Wally Joyner and Tim Salmon but wish we could have a truly great player, someone who defined the franchise." For a moment it seemed like that would be Troy Glaus or Darin Erstad, but both turned out to be very good but not great players.

But then Mike Trout came along, and we got not only our own Griffey or Rodriguez, but someone even better. Winning and losing comes and goes, but Trout is always there, always to be enjoyed. In a way its like a good marriage or a happy family. If you have those, it doesn't matter as much what your paycheck looks like, and you can weather the ups and downs of life. But if you trade away that which is best in your life, or on your team, in hopes of getting to the "up" then you lose what really matters.

 

 

 

 

[Vegas Halo Fan]

6 hours ago, beatlesrule said:

Fans really do overevaluate their own players.

The guy sucks if you have him, and he is worth a ton if you're trying to trade him.

[Homebrewer]

This article has been online for a couple days, I sure wasn't going to be the one to re-post it here, because well ^^^^^^^^...

We are only a week into the off season..Can anyone even imagine what the Trade Trout shit is going to be like after NEXT season?

 

[Vegas Halo Fan]

This had to haver been written by a Cubs fan. They obtain Trout without parting with any of their major pieces.

[Homebrewer]

5 minutes ago, Vegas Halo Fan said:

This had to haver been written by a Cubs fan. They obtain Trout without parting with any of their major pieces.

Schwarber and Baez arent "major pieces"? Granted I'm a Cub fan, but even if you only watched a couple playoff games you know that they are "major" pieces...Schwarb with all of 70 RS games under his belt is a pure hitter, and Baez has every tool in the book, is a f'n ninja all over the infield, and his hitting will only improve from an already impressive slash line from his first full season.

Those guys are "MAJOR" pieces..The Cubs are not trading either one of them which makes it mute..

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

Trading Trout would be like losing one's child.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

1 hour ago, Homebrewer said:

Schwarber and Baez arent "major pieces"? Granted I'm a Cub fan, but even if you only watched a couple playoff games you know that they are "major" pieces...Schwarb with all of 70 RS games under his belt is a pure hitter, and Baez has every tool in the book, is a f'n ninja all over the infield, and his hitting will only improve from an already impressive slash line from his first full season.

Those guys are "MAJOR" pieces..The Cubs are not trading either one of them which makes it mute..

When I think major pieces, I think Rizzo, Bryant, Arrieta and Lester. 

...and I believe that the word you are looking for is "moot".

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

8 minutes ago, Vegas Halo Fan said:

Those guys are "MAJOR" pieces..The Cubs are not trading either one of them which makes it mute..

 

8 minutes ago, Vegas Halo Fan said:

When I think major pieces, I think Rizzo, Bryant, Arrieta and Lester. 

...and I believe that the word you are looking for is "moot".

Not if it's not done, quietly.

[AngelStew43]

Not happening.  Ever.

[zenmaster]

If everyone we trade seems to fair better elsewhere can you imagine his stats? .350 with 60 homers 150rbi and 60 steals at a minimum.