Trout for Life and No Rings or WS Champs?

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

3 hours ago, stormngt said:

Read the poll question.  Which would you rather have

  Trout for life or anoth WS

The choices were incomplete. Although I would want to see Trout finish his career as an Angel, which how I voted.

Edited June 15, 2018 by Ace-Of-Diamonds

[goldenGlove]

6 hours 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.

True, but my point is more that they have also in 26 seasons missed the playoffs 24 times. Those 2 championships, for me, aren’t worth 24 other seasons of misery where you only won 90+ games twice and lost 90+ games 8 times. 

 

[beatlesrule]

3 minutes ago, kj_maestro said:

True, but my point is more that they have also in 26 seasons missed the playoffs 24 times. Those 2 championships, for me, aren’t worth 24 other seasons of misery where you only won 90+ games twice and lost 90+ games 8 times. 

 

 

[ten ocho recon scout]

I guess im the weirdo in this thread.

Its kind of too open ended a question. Is it trout, no rings EVER? Because with or without him we may win one in the next few years, we may not win one for the next 50. 

If say we dont win one for the next 30, id rather look back someday and say one of the greatest of all time played his career here. 

If we dont win one with trout, if be happy to be the giants, and win a bunch after bonds left.

Heres a real question. Would you rsrher keep trout for life, and never win a ring?....or lose trout, and he cheer for him winning one somewhere else?...

[Angelsfirst]

The whole point is to win championships. Period. I don’t care if we have 1 or 27. As far as the poll question, frankly I’m surprised that even 10 people would rather keep Trout the rest of his career than win another WS ring during that timespan.

That whole “name on the front of the jersey and not the back” is a cliche but it actually answers this question perfectly. Now I love Mike Trout. Truly one of a kind and a 1st ballot hall of Famer if he stays healthy but hypothetically, if him gone means the Angels winning another championship...see ya Mike. To tell the truth, this seems like more of a poll question for JustaTroutfan. 

[T.G.]

I've given this some additional thought...

For me, what made 2002 extra special was the fact that most of that team was home grown.  Salmon, Anderson, Glaus, Erstad, Molina, Kennedy, Washburn, Lackey, K-Rod, Shields, etc.  That made it more meaningful, IMO.  Seeing that particular group win it all felt amazing.  They were "our" guys and that made 2002 extra gratifying.  As great as it was as a fan - I really wanted it for that group of guys. 

I don't have the same affinity for this team.  I love Mike Trout - but most of the team came from somewhere else (except for the starting pitchers). The Angels haven't put together a home grown team of top talent in years.  Even though I still want to see this team win it all, it just won't mean as much.  I came to that realization in the last couple days. 

If the Angels never win another title, I will be grateful for 2002.  If they win another title, I will enjoy every moment of it - but it won't be as special as 2002. 

So... what does that mean?  It means that I could live with having Mike Trout as an Angel for the rest of his career and not see the team win a WS with him because I will always have 2002.  Obviously, my preference is to see the Angels win it with Trout - but I can live with the idea that they might not with him.  As I typed that - I will admit that I cringed.  Again, I want championships.  I really do.  But... I do get a certain satisfaction in knowing that the player who may go down in history as the greatest of all time is "ours."  It's hard to give that up.  The thought of Trout wearing another uniform would make me sick. 

Maybe one of the reasons many of us are so excited about what the Angels have in the minor leagues is because we are hoping for a similar story to 2002 - where "our" home grown talent rises up to do the amazing thing of winning it all.  When that happens - it may or may not happen with Trout on this team.  Who knows?

I'll also add that I will always be disappointed that Jered Weaver didn't make it to the biggest stage in baseball.  I would have loved to see him have that experience because he has meant so much to this franchise and its fan base. 

One last thing... I may change my mind again tomorrow about all of this.  It's not an easy question to answer and despite what some of you are posting - there really is no right or wrong answer.  We all have different perspectives. 

[Tank]

Posted 11 hours ago

From Tank: Not nearly as angry as all of the opinions about this topic (based on nothing at this point but insane projections and wild speculation) that we'll continue to see on this board over the next two plus years.

[Torridd]

TG, I appreciate your answer. I just found it was an easy no and I am surprised that people think differently about keeping Trout while having no championships. However,  I understand what you're saying that 2002 will always be special for you. I never thought about the homegrown players and I guess having a team like that would be extra special. I always thought about a championship as a special conglomeration, like stars colliding, so where the players derived never mattered so much to me, that is, unless the team was purely "mercenary,"  basically high-paid free agents who SHOULD win. 

[T.G.]

1 minute ago, Torridd said:

TG, I appreciate your answer. I just found it was an easy no and I am surprised that people think differently about keeping Trout while having no championships. However,  I understand what you're saying that 2002 will always be special for you. I never thought about the homegrown players and I guess having a team like that would be extra special. I always thought about a championship as a special conglomeration, like stars colliding, so where the players derived never mattered so much to me, that is, unless the team were purely "mercenary,"  basically high-paid free agents who SHOULD win. 

Like I said above - I've given this a lot of thought and I continue to do so.  It's an interesting discussion and I go back and forth on it all.  My gut reaction was like yours - championship first!  But... having a player who is likely to be THE greatest of all time is pretty special too. I think sometimes we take that for granted. 

[Torridd]

17 minutes ago, ThomasSutpen said:

Intriguing question. I'd rather have the inner circle HOF'er having spent his whole career on my team, thus I watched him with regularity. If you're a Cardinals fan and the question was, what if the Cards won the title in 1952 instead of the Yankees, but Stan Musial left the team when he was 31 and spent the rest of his career with the Dodgers? The rest of his career ended up being 11 more years, so Stan the Man would be a Nolan Ryan figure as far as what team he goes down in history associated with. But you'd have that '52 title.

Ultimately there is a World Series winner every year guaranteed and more and more teams have been added to the postseason to qualify for it over the years, with that trend only ever continuing. It's a tournament with about 1/3 of the teams in baseball participating. But how many Stan Musials are there? Mickey Mantle. Jackie Robinson. These figures are synonymous with their teams and lend them a gravitas that getting how and scooping a tourney win wouldn't compare to.

I disagree. Having HOFers are nice, but teams play for the championship.

[Lou]

some of you are so full of it.  you say you'd rather have Trout for his entire career over winning a World Series? Well, you've had him for 6+ years and all we read on this board is how this team sucks, we aren't contenders, we should trade Trout so we can win, Trout is being wasted here, etc . . . 

what I've never read is:" I don't care if we win as long as I get to watch Trout play every day". face it, you guys aren't happy just having Trout. 

i would rather win a World Series. I wouldn't care who is on the team. 

[Lou]

22 hours 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. 

teams have won without him 

[Lou]

16 hours ago, The Boogie Man said:

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

I honestly don't understand the confusion 

[Stradling]

10 minutes ago, Lou said:

some of you are so full of it.  you say you'd rather have Trout for his entire career over winning a World Series? Well, you've had him for 6+ years and all we read on this board is how this team sucks, we aren't contenders, we should trade Trout so we can win, Trout is being wasted here, etc . . . 

what I've never read is:" I don't care if we win as long as I get to watch Trout play every day". face it, you guys aren't happy just having Trout. 

i would rather win a World Series. I wouldn't care who is on the team. 

Do I fall under this category considering I don’t come on here everyday and bitch about the team when they are better than the last couple of years?  

[Lou]

5 minutes ago, The Boogie Man said:

Do I fall under this category considering I don’t come on here everyday and bitch about the team when they are better than the last couple of years?  

no

[Lou]

why do people respond to a poll question by not answering the poll question?

get off the fence, you pansies!

[Lou]

sorry for yelling 

[ten ocho recon scout]

2 hours ago, ThomasSutpen said:

Intriguing question. I'd rather have the inner circle HOF'er having spent his whole career on my team, thus I watched him with regularity. If you're a Cardinals fan and the question was, what if the Cards won the title in 1952 instead of the Yankees, but Stan Musial left the team when he was 31 and spent the rest of his career with the Dodgers? The rest of his career ended up being 11 more years, so Stan the Man would be a Nolan Ryan figure as far as what team he goes down in history associated with. But you'd have that '52 title.

Ultimately there is a World Series winner every year guaranteed and more and more teams have been added to the postseason to qualify for it over the years, with that trend only ever continuing. It's a tournament with about 1/3 of the teams in baseball participating. But how many Stan Musials are there? Mickey Mantle. Jackie Robinson. These figures are synonymous with their teams and lend them a gravitas that getting hot and scooping a tourney win wouldn't compare to.

Thats pretty much what I was getting at. 2002 was great (and like TG said, more the better that it was "our guys"). But if say we also won in 82...honestly, im too young to remember...some on this board are too young to remember 02... but legend players will be known to everyone.

Forgot to mention in my previous post. Would marlin fans rather have trout for his career, or the two rings? They may very well prefer the rings (and its not wrong). But what im getting at is as bad as their organization is today, do they not care because they won the seriesa long time ago?

Or i guess look at seattle. Theyve never won, but i would think theyd be happy if they kept griffey the whole time.

The best way I can put it, is that in the present, you want a ring over any player. But when you look back, legend players or more memorable than teams.

[Lou]

3 hours ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

 

The best way I can put it, is that in the present, you want a ring over any player. But when you look back, legend players or more memorable than teams.

Winning a World Series creates legendary players for an organization. Look no further than Frankie, Spiezio, Glaus, Epstein,etc. 

[ten ocho recon scout]

1 minute ago, Lou said:

Winning a World Series creates legendary players for an organization. Look no further than Frankie, Spiezio, Glaus, Epstein,etc. 

True...how could any of us forget about ePstein.....

 

 

 

 

 

[Lou]

4 minutes ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

True...how could any of us forget about ePstein.....

 

 

Sorry, i'm watching Welcome Back, Kotter

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

shut up.

[ten ocho recon scout]

15 minutes ago, Lou said:

Sorry, i'm watching Welcome Back, Kotter

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

shut up.

Lol. I just watched Biloxi Blues last week.

 

Only AO will get the reference to that.

[Lou]

"It's Africa hot"

[Lou]

2 minutes ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

Lol. I just watched Biloxi Blues last week.

 

Only AO will get the reference to that.

"ho.ho."

[failos]

There also exists the possibility of losing Trout and never winning a WS.