Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

Trout Extension vs Trade Trout


Stradling

Recommended Posts

Just thought I’d start a discussion which will undoubtedly devlove into a “He’s going to walk” thread.   What would build a winner faster, trading Trout for the best package you can get and using his $40 million on other free agent?  Or simply signing him to an extension and keep building the farm?  

I’m firmly in the extend Trout camp.   But I’d like to hear well thought out opinions from both sides.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t believe we have any guarantee that in a trade we’ll get even an average major league player to replace him.  And even if we did, how many average players do we need to replace Trout ? How many years will it take to get these players developed to a point that they are legitimate major leaguers ? The history when players like Trout are traded is that the team trading the great player gets screwed.  And in FA.  I mean we all know how that goes.  Maybe it works out maybe it doesn’t.  With an extension we’re probably getting at least 5 more years of elite production.  That 5 year window to surround Trout with decent players is a much more sure way to success then rolling the dice with a trade. 

The Angels don’t need stars.  We have stars.  What we need are players that don’t suck.  Reliably average major leaguers.  This is the big challenge.  Mostly what we have are guys that great or guys that are garbage.  Half a line up of shit players doesn’t work.  Even with the best player in the game. 

So, what I’m saying is that it’s much faster to build a winner if you keep him. 

Edited by UndertheHalo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Just thought I’d start a discussion which will undoubtedly divlove into a “He’s going to walk” thread.   What would build a winner faster, trading Trout for the best package you can get and using his $40 million on other free agent?  Or simply signing him to an extension and keep building the farm?  

I’m firmly in the extend Trout camp.   But I’d like to hear well thought out opinions from both sides.  

Did you mean "devolve"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It makes me sick to think about Trout playing for another team, so I don't like that option.  But ignoring personal feelings, if you could get back a guy like Acuna (obviously wouldn't happen) or a package of Gleyber Torres and Miguel Andujar (or something along those lines), and free up $40 mil to use in free agency, you probably are better off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, wopphil said:

It makes me sick to think about Trout playing for another team, so I don't like that option.  But ignoring personal feelings, if you could get back a guy like Acuna (obviously wouldn't happen) or a package of Gleyber Torres and Miguel Andujar (or something along those lines), and free up $40 mil to use in free agency, you probably are better off.

That’s the thing why would a team trade cheap players like that ?  It just won’t work that way.  We’ll get prospects.  Probably young ones with nice tool sets that would have to be developed.  We all know how that goes.  We’d be lucky to get an all star level player.  Like 50/50 at best. 

I agree that in a worst case scenario where we know he won’t sign.  They should get what they can and trade him.  But that situation is extremely undesirable.  Trading Trout isn’t a jump start to success it’s a huge step back.  Especially in the near to mid term. 

Edited by UndertheHalo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, wopphil said:

It makes me sick to think about Trout playing for another team, so I don't like that option.  But ignoring personal feelings, if you could get back a guy like Acuna (obviously wouldn't happen) or a package of Gleyber Torres and Miguel Andujar (or something along those lines), and free up $40 mil to use in free agency, you probably are better off.

Yea, I think we could all come up with scenarios where we would trade him, but those scenarios would be scoffed at by the team trading him to us.  Aaron Judge, Andujar, Sheffield and a couple of other prospects, sure.  They won’t offer that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Yea, I think we could all come up with scenarios where we would trade him, but those scenarios would be scoffed at by the team trading him to us.  Aaron Judge, Andujar, Sheffield and a couple of other prospects, sure.  They won’t offer that.  

Then you dont trade him, it wont bring back enough to make it worthwhile. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stradling said:

Just thought I’d start a discussion which will undoubtedly devlove into a “He’s going to walk” thread.   What would build a winner faster, trading Trout for the best package you can get and using his $40 million on other free agent?  Or simply signing him to an extension and keep building the farm?  

I’m firmly in the extend Trout camp.   But I’d like to hear well thought out opinions from both sides.  

Extend him

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you'd ever get a haul of prospects big enough to justify the trade. Unless Trout specifically tells the team he won't re-sign (which he'd never do), you don't trade him. Look who the O's go for Machado for example: a fringy top 50 prospect in Diaz plus a few long shots that might produce one average starter between them. You're never gonna get a young player like Torres/Andujar/Albies/etc who's already showing success in the majors. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the thing... what else are we gona spend the money on? 

It's hard to get good value on the FA market they days, but someone like Trout is more likely to be worth the money. The issue we've had is having enough healthy organizational depth to put around him to be really competitive. I think we are going to be good beyond 2020, and it's going to be because we will have a lot of good cheap players. This isn't going to be like the 2010-2017 Angels where we had to spend money to fill every hole on the roster. No reason to save yacht fuel for Arte, or blow it on another Josh Hamilton. Trout is the real deal, lock him up.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This team is an entire rotation/bullpen, 1B, C, RF, 3B, 2B away from competing for the second wild card so trading him is the only thing that makes sense of your goal is to compete in the next 5 years or so. Open up much needed payroll space and take your chances at several high level prospects for the future.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I'm old enough and lucky enough to have seen Willie Mays play a few times in Candlestick during the last few years of his career.     Even as a youngster, I knew seeing him play was something I would always remember.   Now we have the greatest player of THIS generation on our team and I have had the privilege of watching him play (live or on TV) nearly every game for six years.   I would be heartbroken if the Angels screw this up and he leaves via trade or FA.   So, my vote is to extend him.  You can't replace a 10 WAR superstar.  Imagine how fun it would be to see his contributions matter in the playoffs.

Edited by Rally Gorilla
duplicate words
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Vladdylonglegs said:

This team is an entire rotation/bullpen, 1B, C, RF, 3B, 2B away from competing for the second wild card so trading him is the only thing that makes sense of your goal is to compete in the next 5 years or so. Open up much needed payroll space and take your chances at several high level prospects for the future.

 

stoned ice cube GIFgiphy.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually think WAR is a useful tool here. Say Trout costs 40 million a year and is also worth 10 wins a year. Let's say it's a package of four prospects, which seems like the norm for a superstar. Whatever prospects or players you get back in return not only have to play positions which you're weak in, they each also have to be with at least 3 wins above replacement a year, and even then, by the time they reach the end of arbitration, they'd be making collectively as much as Mike Trout. 

Its just hard to find a package of prospects or players that would be worth it for the Angels and the other team. 

Take the Yankees for instance. If they wanted Mike Trout, in order for it to be worth it in terms of WAR, they'd have to package Aaron Judge, Gleyber Torres and Luis Severino together. Most teams would think that's insane, but that's how good Trout is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends 100% on the plan from the front office. 
IF they are willing to spend and make some bold signings to put us in contention in the next 3 years, extend him 
If they are not, hes likely to walk anyway, might aw well get max value 

The only caveat to this is IF hes willing to sign and be patient and let the plan work itself.  None of us know if he is, his comments suggest  a little of both.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...