Can we stop with the Trade Mike Trout Nonsense?

[Jobu]

I wouldn't describe the Angels 2014 playoff performance as "relevant". 

[SlappyUtilityMIF]

1 hour ago, mtangelsfan said:

Meh, there was Trout trade talk after 2014.

And in 2013, and again in 2015, then in 2016 and already again in 2017 5 times.

[Justabitoutside]

18 hours ago, JustATroutFan said:

Somewhere, Trout's probably saying to himself," Why did I signed that contract extension with the Angels before the 2014 season?"

In fairness, the Angels did win 98 games in 2014 but were a disappointment in the postseason after getting swept by the Royals. The last 2 years haven't been pretty for the Angels, missing the postseason both times.

 

Are you trying to win a stupid post of the year contest? The Angels made Trout rich beyond his wildest dreams.

[mtangelsfan]

1 hour ago, Jobu said:

I wouldn't describe the Angels 2014 playoff performance as "relevant". 

They made the post season.  The idea that somehow it isn't relevant is silly.  Also, I think you know what my point was.  Relevant or not, other teams and their fans are going to dream about getting Mike Trout.

[Jobu]

I got your point. But the central thesis of the actual articles (not just fan speculation) is that the Angels suck, and will for some time, so might as well not "waste" Mike Trout.

And relevance is different than winning one year in 7. It's what we had between 02 and 09.

[mtangelsfan]

That's your opinion.  I don't agree but that's fine.  Regardless, there will be talk, always, because he is the best player in baseball.

[AngelsFanSince86]

18 hours ago, WeatherWonk said:

The organization would be foolish not to consider it, if we continue to struggle with the stopgap, fringe players we continue to sign. 

How many times can a top-three market team finish out of the playoffs, before the fans begin to boycott? Chicago doesnt count because Chicago sucks as a town. What else you gonna do?

One playoff appearance in the last seven years. And this year is not looking promising.

The Red Sox have plenty of young talent to deal. 

Ok, first thing: Angels are not a top three market team.  Just because they put Los Angeles in their name doesn't automatically make them an LA team.  Nobody in LA considers the Angels an LA team.  They are an OC team and the fan base reflects that.  Maybe if the Angels start making their presence know in the postseason with Mike Trout leading the way they will expand their fanbase and essentially become an LA team.  That has not occurred yet.

Second:  What do you expect them to do?  They have been quietly building a team that has the potential to contend while building the farm system and waiting out the years until the FA market matches their needs.  If you think this year doesn't look promising you haven't been paying attention. This year there was no big name worth signing.  

You can't just snap your fingers and get rid of bad contracts, have a top 10 farm system, and have all the perfect FAs available.  The Angels have improved a lot since last year.  They will continue to do so if Eppler keeps making smart, conservative moves.  Be patient.  

Even considering trading Trout is ridiculous.  If only because the type of haul it would take to even consider it would never come their way.

[bloodbrother]

We already know there's no chance this team is trading Trout but the Trout trade nonsense stories wont' stop until this team starts winning

[Angel Oracle]

21 hours ago, Dick B Back said:

If I'm not mistaken, Frank Robinson won the MVP before AND after being traded.

Ahh, the legendary Robinson for Pappas/Simpson trade, right up there with Pedro/DeShields Sr., Bagwell/Andersen, Brock/Broglio, and Smoltz/Alexander

[WeatherWonk]

1 hour ago, AngelsFanSince86 said:

Ok, first thing: Angels are not a top three market team.  Just because they put Los Angeles in their name doesn't automatically make them an LA team.  Nobody in LA considers the Angels an LA team.  They are an OC team and the fan base reflects that.  Maybe if the Angels start making their presence know in the postseason with Mike Trout leading the way they will expand their fanbase and essentially become an LA team.  That has not occurred yet.

Second:  What do you expect them to do?  They have been quietly building a team that has the potential to contend while building the farm system and waiting out the years until the FA market matches their needs.  If you think this year doesn't look promising you haven't been paying attention. This year there was no big name worth signing.  

You can't just snap your fingers and get rid of bad contracts, have a top 10 farm system, and have all the perfect FAs available.  The Angels have improved a lot since last year.  They will continue to do so if Eppler keeps making smart, conservative moves.  Be patient.  

Even considering trading Trout is ridiculous.  If only because the type of haul it would take to even consider it would never come their way.

You're welcome to your Orange County-centric view of the Angels. But I suspect there would be disagreement with you from:

-Arte Moreno and the front office.

-MLB, should another team try and relocate into anywhere between Santa Barbara and the SD County line.

-the TV execs who gave Arte the big TV bucks.

-the thousands of fans from the Inland Empire

You're one big metropolis now, boopsie.............

[Angel Oracle]

17 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

Hubs, I can't remember who it was that said this first, but I think it goes like this: If you date the hottest woman imaginable, you can't expect every dude not want to "get with" her. It is the downside, I suppose.

Sounds like me and Kate Beckensale

[AngelsFanSince86]

1 hour ago, WeatherWonk said:

You're welcome to your Orange County-centric view of the Angels. But I suspect there would be disagreement with you from:

-Arte Moreno and the front office.

-MLB, should another team try and relocate into anywhere between Santa Barbara and the SD County line.

-the TV execs who gave Arte the big TV bucks.

-the thousands of fans from the Inland Empire

You're one big metropolis now, boopsie.............

http://deadspin.com/heres-facebooks-2015-mlb-fandom-map-1695021778

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/04/23/upshot/24-upshot-baseball.html

These are from a couple years ago, but its basically the same idea.  Angels do not play in LA.  They just made the name change a few years ago.  They have not solidified themselves as a large market team even though they are technically, tv deal and all, a large market team.  It just doesn't work like that.  Arte and the TV execs decided they would make Angels a large market team and I know 100% they would disagree with me because they don't want to be a small market team.  That doesn't change the fact that they are actually located in a small market and have a small market fan base. The Angels are one Mike Trout lead deep postseason run from becoming a true large market team.  For now its just a technicality that Arte has created.  How many people living in LA do you know that suddenly became Angels fans just because the TV deal and the added "Los Angeles" to the name?

I lived in San Francisco for nearly 10 years of my life, so to call my view "OC-centric" is off base.  People who are avid Giants fans know the Angels only as the team that beat them in 2002.  Casual fans know "Angels in the Outfield" and nothing more.  They know plenty about the Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox, Cards, etc.  But to everyone else besides Arte, the Angels are a small market team from a place nobody would know about if it weren't for "The OC" or "Real Housewives of OC".

Also, trading Trout is crazy.

[Blarg]

You make a really weird argument. Duh,  SF Fans know the Dodgers.  They've had a running fued for half a century and that only counts the West Coast rivalry. Click on ESPN all that is broadcasted is Yankees/Red Sox, every fan base has been abundantly aware of those teams. 

[WeatherWonk]

So, you're basing your contention that the Angels are not part of the LA market on where the fans live that attend games? That is such a small part of the whole picture. 

Then, there's the blackout of Angel games well into the LA Market.

A county of three million is a small market? Who knew?

OC now has a population within 700,000 of the population of the city of LA.

Maybe trading Trout is crazy..........now. Maybe not, later.

Besides, the OPs plea is that we stop talking about it. WHY?? Isnt this a discussion board? Everything should be talked about, instead of attempts to stifle.

Chill out, dude. I'm not saying you LIVE in LA. I lived in OC for about 40 of my 55 years, till I retired. First moved there (Santa Ana) in '61. I know the difference and the disdain for being lumped into LA, by outsiders.

But, for the purposes of this discussion about market size, THE ANGELS ARE IN THE LA MARKET.

[JustATroutFan]

On ‎2‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 10:10 AM, Justabitoutside said:

Are you trying to win a stupid post of the year contest? The Angels made Trout rich beyond his wildest dreams.

No, I just felt that Trout should have gotten a bigger deal. That contract that he got still makes him underpaid, especially when you have overrated Giancarlo Stanton getting an even bigger deal in the 2014 offseason.

[Hubs]

This got off on a tangent. My original point is that so often I see that the Angels should trade Trout because they'll restock their farm. But time and time again it doesn't happen. A player like him is once or twice in a generation and you simply can't get enough value. They're might be enough in the Yankees system but it would neuter them as we would want all their stars. The Dodgers would have to start with Seager and Urias and probably 4 more prospects. It's not feasible to get that much and it simply doesn't ever work out for the team that trades the superstar.