Trout for Life and No Rings or WS Champs?

[The Ghost of Bob Starr]

This was an excellent post in the thread about how we’d feel about Mike leaving. 

So would you rather have him for life and fail to win another ring, or would you rather say adios to win one or more titles during his career?  

As someone who almost died when the Angels let Ryan go, I’d rather have Trout for his entire career over the title.  

Which would you prefer? 

[NJHalo]

I was a fan before Trout, and will be after Trout. As much as I like the guy, I want to win. 2002 seems like an aberration.

Trade him now while his value is peak.

[ScottT]

I'd prefer to be a fan and root for him to stay. Part of what is so great about sports is the unknown. He could stay and win multiple World Series. He could leave, win none, and the Angels win multiple World Series.  

[tomsred]

2002 was not an aberration, LOL.  It really happened.

[jordan]

I'd rather have a WS championship than a full career of Trout.  But that's a fluid opinion.  Tomorrow, I could want a full career of Trout.  I'm just sick of losing. 

[stormngt]

WS how can anyone would choose Trout over a WS?

[Chuck]

I made this a poll @The Ghost of Bob Starr

[Torridd]

Sorry, Bob. It's not much of a poll. I like Trout like I liked Reggie or Carew or Baylor or Witt or Salmon or GA or... Well, you get the point. No one player is greater than the sum.

[floplag]

In my view, this is a silly question.  Any fan that would prefer a player over a title, is not a fan of the team.
The irritating part is that there is really no reason to even have this discussion if the front office does what its supposed to do in the competitive sense, but i suspect that isnt really thier priority right now and that they have conceded to Hou/Ny/Bos/Cle

[goldenGlove]

In this scenario, are we perennial contenders with one WS and lots of division championships, like 2002-2009 for us? Or are we like the Marlins in 2003 and we win one random WS  but suck the rest of the years?

The amount of fun I have watching the team contend every year is >>>> the amount of fun I have seeing Trout put up GOAT numbers for a loser. But if we only win a random world series and suck the rest of the time anyways, I'd probably take Trout over the ring. Trout could make me watch a crappy team for years, but one ring previously wouldn't necessarily make me watch years of suckiness after the fact

[Dick B Back]

My scenario is not available... keep Trout and win a WS.

[UndertheHalo]

I’m staying out of this one. 

I do wonder though.  How are we more likely to win a World Series sans Mike Trout ? Is the thought stream here that we get more good players at the expense one one incredible one ? I disagree with that view point.  Anyway, I’m not trying to be annoying.  It’s just not a question that I can answer. 

[The Ghost of Bob Starr]

38 minutes ago, Chuckster70 said:

I made this a poll @The Ghost of Bob Starr

Thanks CR.  I couldn’t figure out how to do that on my phone.  

[Angel Dog and Beer]

Even though I'm firmly in the "never trade Trout" camp, in this hypothetical, I would much rather have another WS ring than him being an Angel for his entire career.

Although in reality, he, and his salary are not prohibiting the Angels of winning one. 

[VariousCrap]

[floplag]

6 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

I’m staying out of this one. 

I do wonder though.  How are we more likely to win a World Series sans Mike Trout ? Is the thought stream here that we get more good players at the expense one one incredible one ? I disagree with that view point.  Anyway, I’m not trying to be annoying.  It’s just not a question that I can answer. 

That would depend entirely on what he is replaced with i would think.  

Hypothetical, if we could get a good closer, a quality setup guy, and 2 good starting OFers to address all our current needs, would the team be better overall, or worse?  Obviously none of them would be as good, but overall the team might in fact be better.  Noone is irreplaceable in any walk of life, especially sport.

For me though the issue is what is the plan from the front office.  There is really no reason we as fans have to make this choice, unless, the #1 priority to the FO is cost/profit over winning.   We could get what we need, true we might blow the luxury tax for a couple years but that could easily be reset soon enough and if we actually won in that window wouldn't it be worth it?  As a fan i say of course, and i have to think the added revenue of it would be the them as well, but its not my money either and its no guarantee. 

The bottom line, Trout isnt preventing us from winning, heck even Pujols money isnt, the front office is.  We are so damned close, its inexcusable  that we didnt address the bullpen by any means other than dumpster diving. 

 

I truly feel at this point like they have simply decided we cant compete with Hou/Ny/Bos for a title and have made the conscious decision to not blow the tax figure because of it.   I've resigned myself to it, we are what we are, and there isnt likely  to be any major improvement coming.    We will tread water for a couple years, Trout will leave, Pujols deal will expire, then they will make an effort, till then, were also rans

[floplag]

1 minute ago, VariousCrap said:

sure, if the front office is willing to spend and possibly pay lux tax for a year or two, but they wont 

[VariousCrap]

1 minute ago, floplag said:

We are so damned close, its inexcusable  that we didnt address the bullpen by any means other than dumpster diving. 

 

100% this.

[failos]

I want to win, but you can't win without Trout. There is no team if Trout left.

[UndertheHalo]

Regarding the bullpen.  I think they liked Middleton a lot. And that’s fine.  He’s out for the season obviously.  So that’s another shit break for us.  I think they thought Bedrosian would be fine.  They were wrong.  Parker was one of the best relievers in the league.  He’s been OK.  Alvarez is pretty good.  Johnson I think they thought was a reclaimation project.  They were wrong.  And they had Anderson in the wings.  He’s pretty good.  Noe Ramirez is a decent reliever.  So there’s a the frame of a decent bullpen.  We just lack the back end guy (I know I’ve expressed this view a thousand times, but I truly believe it to the case)  Parker or Anderson work as 7th and 8th inning guys. 

Basically I can understand why they didn’t give out a contract to a reliever.  But obviously, they should have.  Hindsight and all that. 

The Pujols contract they just have to eat. That’s the bottom line.  They probably won’t.  But maybe they’ll spend more anyway.  We’ll see.  We have to understand tho, it’s not feasible to expect that they’ll just buy their way out of every weak spot on the roster.  Some of it has to be cheap and internal.  The bullpen is an obvious area to try and do that.  

Edited June 14, 2018 by UndertheHalo

[nando714]

Bye Trout 

hope we get a nice haul of players in return oh and a World Series title

[floplag]

9 minutes ago, failos said:

I want to win, but you can't win without Trout. There is no team if Trout left.

2002 says hello?  Every team that has won a WS since Trout entered the league says hello?
Pretty sure the Angels have played games in this league every year since it was founded before he arrived and will after hes gone

[failos]

Just now, floplag said:

2002 says hello?  Every team that has won a WS since Trout entered the league says hello?
Pretty sure the Angels have played games in this league every year since it was founded before he arrived and will after hes gone

You seem a little dense.

[floplag]

5 minutes ago, failos said:

You seem a little dense.

whatever... 
 

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

Trading Trout is no guarantee of a WS, there just isn't anyway to know the Angels would win a WS without Trout. Which ever team Trout joins next, if he decides to leave, or refuses to sign an extension and, is traded is going to be one monster of a team. Our chances of winning a WS maybe worse than they may become once some of our prospects reach the majors.

Hopefully Eppler can convince him to sign an extension and give him an opt out clause if things don't work out.