Trout for Life and No Rings or WS Champs?

[Torridd]

52 minutes ago, failos said:

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

Trout won't be on the team forever.

[Torridd]

Trout is better than any player we had on the 2002 team. Having a superstar is not a necessity for a championship.

[WeatherWonk]

1 hour ago, floplag said:

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

I'm not seeing this. We have more than a few holes. And we have to get past Houston, NY and Boston to win a WS. Seattle will come back to earth. Cleveland will still end up 20 games over .500. All of those teams have far fewer holes than us and, generally, are younger.

I dont feel we are "....so damned close".

[mtangelsfan]

Trout may be the best player that has ever played this game.

Nuff said.

[Adam]

Is this a real question?

[Dick Enberg]

2 hours ago, The Ghost of Bob Starr said:

 

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

 

When we traded Fregosi for Ryan, I cried! I was a big Fregosi fan, every sport I played, my jersey had "11" planted on it. I still have his 1962 rookie card autographed by him. I was a Fregosi fan for life!

[WeatherWonk]

30 minutes ago, Torridd said:

Trout is better than any player we had on the 2002 team. Having a superstar is not a necessity for a championship.

No kidding, The Royals won it all in 2015 and didnt have a player with even a 4.0 WAR. Some of those Giants teams were the same way. 

Generally speaking, if one player is going to dominate to the degree that it wins you a World Series, it's rarely a position player. The best position player still FAILS 60-70% of the time. 

It's usually a starter (Mad Bum, Verlander, Jack Morris, Catfish Hunter, Koufax, Gibson, Lolich) or a reliever (Wade Davis, M. Rivera, A. Chapman). Or BOTH in the same player (Mad Bum).

How are we doing on those fronts?

Someone posted recently that a common thread among winning WS teams was generally good defense and high OBP. Even more so than low ERA. Or leading the league in HRs.

Make fewer outs between batters. Dont allow extra bases or at bats. Fundamental baseball.

Yet still guys are swinging for the fences and striking out at record rates and not taking walks.

A closer really IS a must, though. The Astros were very fortunate to have made a closer-by-committee work, when Giles was obviously shit (and still pretty much is). THAT was the masterful managing aspect of AJ Hinch. Even moreso than the jobs Bochey did with the Giants. His pen was pretty set up, most of those years, except 2014.

[Chris]

Beware the curse of the Troutino!

[Taylor]

Trout for life, assuming the Angels can at least contend every year and make the postseason several times while he's on the team, even if they never win the WS.

[Dick Enberg]

I would be selfish if I voted for Trout to stay an Angel his entire career without winning a WS,  because I think he deserves a WS more than anyone. Sure, love it if he won one with us, but if he was traded to a contenter at the trading dateline if a half dozen years, I would be happy for him.

 

[T.G.]

I wonder of Cubs fans back in the day would have traded a WS for Ernie Banks or old Red Sox fans would have traded a WS for Ted Williams.

For me... it's rings over Trout.  There are plenty of "fish" in the sea.  Of course, he's the greatest of great white sharks in the ocean.. but still...

 

Then again, I may change my mind tomorrow.

[beatlesrule]

2 hours ago, stormngt said:

WS how can anyone would choose Trout over a WS?

I'm right with you. People are actually voting that they would rather the Angels not win a World Series. That's just.... I can't even.

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

1 hour ago, Torridd said:

Trout won't be on the team forever.

If he signs an extension of 8+ years that may last me possible forever.

Edited June 14, 2018 by Ace-Of-Diamonds

[T.G.]

1 hour ago, Torridd said:

Trout won't be on the team forever.

Of course not... just till he's about 60 years old.

[Angelsjunky]

I refuse to answer this question.

[beatlesrule]

3 hours ago, kj_maestro said:

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 Marlins also won the WS in 1997.  They came into the league in 1993.  They've been in the league less than the Angels and have 1 more World Series title than the Angels.

[The Ghost of Bob Starr]

4 hours 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.  

[The Ghost of Bob Starr]

I’m somewhat shocked at the answers.  Trout could be the best player ever.  Would  be tough to see him elsewhere.  

 

[Taylor]

23 minutes ago, beatlesrule said:

The Marlins also won the WS in 1997.  They came into the league in 1993.  They've been in the league less than the Angels and have 1 more World Series title than the Angels.

I guarantee you that any Marlins fan would tell you they'd rather their team have the Angels' track record than the Marlins'. They basically sold the farm to get their two World Series championships, and they have been perennial bottom-dwellers every other season.

[kevinb]

The entire point of sports is to win championships. I don’t care if we have a bunch of the worst players in history if they produce World Series titles that does it for me. 

[Stradling]

6 hours ago, floplag said:

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

Bullshit I’m not a fan of the team.  I would rather have Trout for his entire career than win a World Series without him during his career.  

[Stradling]

5 hours ago, 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

The 2002 team had six hitters with a WAR of 4 or more.  

[Stradling]

2 hours ago, The Ghost of Bob Starr said:

I’m somewhat shocked at the answers.  Trout could be the best player ever.  Would  be tough to see him elsewhere.  

 

I agree with this.  I have seen the Angels win the World Series.  I have never seen The Angels have an inner circle HOFer play his entire career here.  To me that holds more value.

[stormngt]

4 hours ago, Ace-Of-Diamonds said:

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.

Read the poll question.  Which would you rather have

  Trout for life or anoth WS

[Stradling]

Just now, stormngt said:

Read the poll question.  Which would you rather have

  Trout for life or anoth WS

Trout for life.  I am pretty sure the question is no WS while Trout is playing.