WFAN: Could the Yankees go Trout Fishing One Day?

[NJHalo]

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/11/15/mike-trout-new-york-yankees-los-angeles-angels-sweeny-murti/

 

Yawn

[arch stanton]

WFUK off

[Angel Dog and Beer]

WFANtasy land.

[Angelsjunky]

Clicking on that thread is the equivalent of thinking you might be seeing naked maidens frolicking with unicorns and instead get goatse or tubgirl.

Thus I won't click on that link.

[stormngt]

Seriously, the East Coast media has to let up on t he potential Trout trade.  First the Cubs, now the Yankees.....who is next  to fantasize. Aren't there any real news story out there.  Do we have to spend so much time on fantasy?

[Angelsjunky]

Storm, it is like having a model for a girlfriend or wife - you kind of have to accept that other dudes want to boink her.

[Second Base]

Every team in baseball thinks they have a shot. Guess what? There are NO amount of prospects you could offer that make Mike Trout expendable. 

Just as an example, let's take the Top 10 prospects in baseball. On a year to year basis, all ten will be major leaguers. But the average amount that turn into star players? Three. A star player is identified as a player worth 4-wins or more. Another 4 will be average major leaguers, which is 1-2 wins. Now if we calculate Mike Trout's prime years to equal an expected increase most major leaguers experience, you're looking at an 11-win player annually. 

Basically what all this means is that it would take you the top three prospects in all of baseball just to get you into the conversation, and likely numbers 4 and 5 to get a GM to seriously consider pulling the triggger. 

So if I'm taking 5 of the top 10 prospects in baseball, this would be like one team trading Yoan Moncada, Alex Bergman, Andrew Benintendi, Trey Turner and Victor Robles for Mike Trout. 

Guess what Yankees? Clint Frazier, Gleyber Torres and Gary Sanchez? They don't even come close to getting you into the conversation for trading a once in a lifetime player away.

[IEAngelsfan]

I can't wait until the Angels become legitimate playoff contenders again so we won't see so many of these articles written.  I still anticipate seeing some popping up because it's Trout of course, but the volume should slow down until the last couple of years of Trout's contract.

So Arte, please extend Trout NOW!

[greginpsca]

Scotty? How bad do you think the Angels farm is A+ and below, compared to other orgs? I know AAA and AA are pretty bad. But if we draft similarly in the next 2 years, will we have a chance at being a middle of the pack farm system?

[nando714]

Angels need to win if we want him to stay. 

"The only thing that team has going right now is Mike Trout. Without him they’d be a Triple-A team.”

sad but true 

[Homebrewer]

Trout would be getting his 5th MVP award this week if he was in NYC.

[marcosantinia12]

31 minutes ago, Scotty@AW said:

Every team in baseball thinks they have a shot. Guess what? There are NO amount of prospects you could offer that make Mike Trout expendable. 

Just as an example, let's take the Top 10 prospects in baseball. On a year to year basis, all ten will be major leaguers. But the average amount that turn into star players? Three. A star player is identified as a player worth 4-wins or more. Another 4 will be average major leaguers, which is 1-2 wins. Now if we calculate Mike Trout's prime years to equal an expected increase most major leaguers experience, you're looking at an 11-win player annually. 

Basically what all this means is that it would take you the top three prospects in all of baseball just to get you into the conversation, and likely numbers 4 and 5 to get a GM to seriously consider pulling the triggger. 

So if I'm taking 5 of the top 10 prospects in baseball, this would be like one team trading Yoan Moncada, Alex Bergman, Andrew Benintendi, Trey Turner and Victor Robles for Mike Trout. 

Guess what Yankees? Clint Frazier, Gleyber Torres and Gary Sanchez? They don't even come close to getting you into the conversation for trading a once in a lifetime player away.

Trout would never be traded straight up for prospects. It would require more than any team has available like you said. It would be an organization's top 2-3 prospects and 1-2 young MLB rising stars. I'm baffled at some of these "offers" when Seager, Urias, and Pederson were reportedly not enough for Jose Fernandez. And that's a Fernandez coming off of injury with 1.5 seasons worth of IP and with 2 years less control than Trout. A releastic offer would be Bogaerts, Moncada, Benintendi, and Groome + a low level high upside arm. At that point Boston would be hurting itself more than improving with the acquisition of Trout. The scary part is that's enough value, but what front office has the balls to pull the trigger?

[Second Base]

7 minutes ago, marcosantinia12 said:

Trout would never be traded straight up for prospects. It would require more than any team has available like you said. It would be an organization's top 2-3 prospects and 1-2 young MLB rising stars. I'm baffled at some of these "offers" when Seager, Urias, and Pederson were reportedly not enough for Jose Fernandez. And that's a Fernandez coming off of injury with 1.5 seasons worth of IP and with 2 years less control than Trout. A releastic offer would be Bogaerts, Moncada, Benintendi, and Groome + a low level high upside arm. At that point Boston would be hurting itself more than improving with the acquisition of Trout. The scary part is that's enough value, but what front office has the balls to pull the trigger?

That offer from Boston still wouldn't be enough. But Betts, Moncada, Benintendi and Bogaerts gets them into the game.

[ScruffytheJanitor]

There is one way: If Trout tells Moreno that, with 100 percent certainty, he will not be back with the Angels when his contract is up. Trout doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who would do that. 

[marcosantinia12]

A year ago maybe. Bogaerts/Betts have a combined WAR of 12.5 at premium positions. 7 years of control vs 4 of Trout, I'll have to disagree. There's no sense in Boston trading Bogaerts and more for an upgrade of 2.5 wins from Betts to Trout. 

[Angel Oracle]

Eppler is starting on the right path since his hiring just over a year ago.

A year from now, significant payroll becomes available.   We will see then if Arte isn't totally shy about spending on the right player and investing in foreign scouting, to entice Trout (along with at least $350 million after 2020) to stay and be part of a solid franchise under Eppler's watch.

[Stradling]

If you want these stories to end then it is as simple as making him a contract offer that is impossible to refuse.  If you want to offer him something impossible to refuse it comes down to either a $400-500 million contract or part ownership of the team at retirement. The latter is nearly impossible because Arte probably won't own the team when Trout retires. 

[Ohtaniland]

1 hour ago, nando714 said:

Angels need to win if we want him to stay. 

"The only thing that team has going right now is Mike Trout. Without him they’d be a Triple-A team.”

sad but true 

Trout probably feels like he's playing on a AAA team. Oh and the Yankees will never trade for Trout, they'll just buy him. 

[Ohtaniland]

14 minutes ago, Stradling said:

If you want these stories to end then it is as simple as making him a contract offer that is impossible to refuse.  If you want to offer him something impossible to refuse it comes down to either a $400-500 million contract or part ownership of the team at retirement. The latter is nearly impossible because Arte probably won't own the team when Trout retires. 

Arte is just going to rake in the Trout infused revenue until the clock strikes midnight. 

[Stradling]

So then if Trout makes him money why wouldn't he resign him so he can keep making money?  Besides it doesn't fit your narrative. 

[Angel Oracle]

I can see the minimum being something like 9 years/$360 million, taking him through his age 38 season in 2029.

The high may get to as high as 11 years/$440 million, taking him through his age 40 season in 2031.

$16 million/year AAV increase from current contract ($40 million vs $24 million) would = 67% yearly increase. 

Remember that Pujols is only under contract for one season when Trout's new deal would start, unless Pujols retires before 2021.

[Stradling]

So you tear up the existing contract and you give him 12 years and whatever it takes. 

[Slegnaac]

I can't imagine any contract extention without some sort of opt-out clause, on both sides.

[Oz27]

To anyone saying "just offer Trout an extension", what is the incentive for Trout to sign an extension? To even get close to what he would be paid if he hit the market once his current contract expires, we would be looking at around a $500 million commitment (the 4 years/$122 million he is owed plus say 10 years/$378 million). That might be at the top level of what is reasonable for us now, but if he becomes a free agent he will earn more money than that. Why would he sign an extension?

[Richard]

"The scout went on to state that the Angels have maybe the worst farm system in baseball and this was a way to inject talent into their system immediately. "

 

Big, if true..