Trout Extension vs Trade Trout

[fanfromday1]

I believe that it will involve more than just one team if we hope to get adequate replacement for Mike Trout.

Just a hypothetical example: The Angeles trade Trout to the Phillies for Hernandez and a good minor league pitcher.

The Phillies then trade a player(s) to the Reds for Eugenio Suarez who is then sent to the Angels to complete the Trout trade. (Since this is only a hypothetical example the Phillies and Reds can work out their own agreement on who the player(s) would be that they exchange to complete their end of the trade).

[Lou]

Trout isn't going anywhere 

[Lou]

13 minutes ago, Vladdylonglegs said:

He's not signing an extension either.

wager?

[Troll Daddy]

20 minutes ago, Lou said:

Trout isn't going anywhere 

That’s a given ... 

[stormngt]

4 hours ago, AngelsFaninGA said:

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. 

So your saying that the O's would have been better off not trading Machado and keep the supplemental pick?

Or you would take the best offer you can get for Trout if he refuses to sign an extension?

[floplag]

1 hour ago, fanfromday1 said:

I believe that it will involve more than just one team if we hope to get adequate replacement for Mike Trout.

Just a hypothetical example: The Angeles trade Trout to the Phillies for Hernandez and a good minor league pitcher.

The Phillies then trade a player(s) to the Reds for Eugenio Suarez who is then sent to the Angels to complete the Trout trade. (Since this is only a hypothetical example the Phillies and Reds can work out their own agreement on who the player(s) would be that they exchange to complete their end of the trade).

There is no such thing as an adequate return.  IF it goes that way the best we can hope for is a fair enough hall that it sets us up for life after.

[UndertheHalo]

2 hours ago, azmancini said:

How is this discussion trolling,  Underthehalo....you’re a child.

Because it’s the same old bullshit “the Angels are nothing” schtick with you.  It’s the definition of trolling.  He won’t sign with the Angels but he’ll accept a sign and trade to NY.  OK. 

Edited October 7, 2018 by UndertheHalo

[Lou]

2 hours ago, azmancini said:

Valid point, but you can’t rule out an extension that Trout might accept to play for the Yanks. 

ridiculous 

[Blarg]

9 minutes ago, azmancini said:

You guys are going to scream at the sky like the anti Kavanaugh freaks once reality strikes! 

I feel an I agree is in your future. 

[Lou]

3 hours ago, azmancini said:

You betcha. Would love him to stay, but the reality is he won’t. You can count on it.  Geez...”the Angels are nothing” .... Never said that. Please grow a pubic hair before you mouth off!

PUBES !

[AngelStew43]

A Trout trade leads to an empty park.  Anyone remember the pre 2002 experience at Angel Stadium?  I do.

[floplag]

3 hours ago, AngelStew43 said:

A Trout trade leads to an empty park.  Anyone remember the pre 2002 experience at Angel Stadium?  I do.

Well I dont think thats true.  The club drew over 2 mil pre-Trout and even began the current streak of 3M plus for about 5 years before he made it so.   One doesnt necessarily equate to the other. 
We will lose the casual Trout fans and there will be some affect, but it isnt like the club did do fairly well in that regard before he got here.

[Stradling]

Just now, floplag said:

Well I dont think thats true.  The club drew over 2 mil pre-Trout and even began the current streak of 3M plus for about 5 years before he made it so.   One doesnt necessarily equate to the other. 
We will lose the casual Trout fans and there will be some affect, but it isnt like the club did do fairly well in that regard before he got here.

The difference is the pre Trout Angels we’re still winning 90 plus games.   Immediately after trading Trout they’ll be like the team we currently have minus Trout.  These prospects won’t likely have an immediate impact.

[Jay]

This topic has been beaten to death but...

Championship teams are built around pitching, not around center fielders.

As great as Trout is he's not good enough to make a difference on a bad team. Put him on a good team like almost any of the playoff teams we're watching now, and he will make a huge difference.

So obviously the goal is to put a good team around Trout but good lord how many years is that going to take? I don't see it happening by "building the farm" or whatever.

Unfortunately for the Angels, it's not their decision whether to trade or extend.

I have no doubt the Angels will do whatever they can to keep him but bottom line, it's Trout's call.

[mancini79]

If the Angels can't extend him going into the final year and are out of contention, then trade him. Then get into the mix for FA. Something similar to how the Yanks handled Chapman.

[Jeff Fletcher]

12 hours ago, Scotty@AW said:

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.

^^^^

Find historic examples of MVP caliber players who have been traded. It only happens when the trading team desperately need to cut payroll (Stanton) or when you get to the last 2 months of the deal and player has made it clear he is not going to re-sign (Machado). 

In neither case does the team make the deal thinking its future, on the field, is better with the prospects than if they could keep the player. They do it because they don’t have a choice. 

 

Edited October 7, 2018 by Jeff Fletcher

[floplag]

1 hour ago, Stradling said:

The difference is the pre Trout Angels we’re still winning 90 plus games.   Immediately after trading Trout they’ll be like the team we currently have minus Trout.  These prospects won’t likely have an immediate impact.

No, we werent, not ever year.  Most were between 85-90 and the year after the series we were sub 500.   
However, i would think all you you develop the farm guys would love this idea, you could literally pick what you want from some other teams farm   

[Stradling]

5 minutes ago, floplag said:

No, we werent, not ever year.  Most were between 85-90 and the year after the series we were sub 500.   
However, i would think all you you develop the farm guys would love this idea, you could literally pick what you want from some other teams farm   

I am a build the farm guy in the sense of not having to fill every hole on the team through free agency.  I’m more of a balance guy.  Oh and no, you couldn’t literally pick what you want from other teams farm.  He has a full no trade clause, and no team has enough to make the trade worth it in my opinion.  

[floplag]

11 minutes ago, Stradling said:

I am a build the farm guy in the sense of not having to fill every hole on the team through free agency.  I’m more of a balance guy.  Oh and no, you couldn’t literally pick what you want from other teams farm.  He has a full no trade clause, and no team has enough to make the trade worth it in my opinion.  

AS ive said previously there is no even trade, it doesnt exist.  The only one that does exist is getting the best you can.
 
There are really only three options in this case:
#1 he re-signs, which is what we all want. 
#2 he leaves via FA.  In this case we become the team that got nothing for him, which is the only thing worse than being the team that traded him.
#3 we trade him.   If hes not going to re-sign the sooner that happens the better return we get. 

Yes the full trade is a monkey wrench, but if the reality is that he wants to be closer to home i think there are multiple places he accepts. 

[Stradling]

Just now, floplag said:

AS ive said previously there is no even trade, it doesnt exist.  The only one that does exist is getting the best you can.
 
There are really only three options in this case:
#1 he re-signs, which is what we all want. 
#2 he leaves via FA.  In this case we become the team that got nothing for him, which is the only thing worse than being the team that traded him.
#3 we trade him.   If hes not going to re-sign the sooner that happens the better return we get. 

Yes the full trade is a monkey wrench, but if the reality is that he wants to be closer to home i think there are multiple places he accepts. 

I will continue to believe he is going to sign an extension this off season.  

This thread was more for, what would be faster, doing what we are doing with Trout and continue to build the farm or would it be faster to trade him, re-spend his money and build the team.  I still believe building around him is the most effective and quickest way to build a playoff team.

[floplag]

8 minutes ago, Stradling said:

I will continue to believe he is going to sign an extension this off season.  

This thread was more for, what would be faster, doing what we are doing with Trout and continue to build the farm or would it be faster to trade him, re-spend his money and build the team.  I still believe building around him is the most effective and quickest way to build a playoff team.

Well the obvious answer is that yes, that correct.  If the goal is the farm then trading him would likely put us at or near #1 from our current status, certainly top 5 without question.

Its equally obvious that building around the best player in the game is certainly a solid plan assuming the goal is winning on the short term, the real question is whether or not its a proper fiscal one.  It wont be cheap.  His extension plus a couple other high value deals is what it will take.  Are they willing to do that, i dont know but i dont get that impression. 

BUT, there is always multiple paths.  Consider for example if he were traded to TOR and we got Vlad jr and Bichette.   Long term, is that smarter?  (No im not suggesting TOR would do that)

[Angelsjunky]

Scotty pretty much said what I was going to say. Trout’s baseline talent level is 9 WAR, with a peak level of 10-11+ WAR. That is very difficult to make up for, probably impossible in the short term.

The other aspect of this is ticket sales. Arte is a business man and knows losing Trout involves a major loss of revenue. Ohtani somewhat mitigates this, but Trout is Trout. The only way he makes up for it is to provide the fans with a better team than they had with Trout, which brings us full circle to the massive wins deficit.

 

[Stradling]

6 minutes ago, floplag said:

Well the obvious answer is that yes, that correct.  If the goal is the farm then trading him would likely put us at or near #1 from our current status, certainly top 5 without question.

Its equally obvious that building around the best player in the game is certainly a solid plan assuming the goal is winning on the short term, the real question is whether or not its a proper fiscal one.  It wont be cheap.  His extension plus a couple other high value deals is what it will take.  Are they willing to do that, i dont know but i dont get that impression. 

BUT, there is always multiple paths.  Consider for example if he were traded to TOR and we got Vlad jr and Bichette.   Long term, is that smarter?  (No im not suggesting TOR would do that)

Nor would Trout.  

Also if you sign Trout to an extension there is no rush to win short term.  You can continue to build a sustainable winner without looking at some short window to be competitive.  

[floplag]

1 minute ago, Stradling said:

Nor would Trout.  

Also if you sign Trout to an extension there is no rush to win short term.  You can continue to build a sustainable winner without looking at some short window to be competitive.  

With respect, neither one of us knows what Trout will or wont do.  
You are correct that if he signs there is no rush, but if winning is what it takes for him to sign, there is.  
You have convinced yourself he wont leave, you refuse to consider any other options.  I hope your right, but dont you think its wise to prepare in case your not?

[Angel Oracle]

M-Cab trade after 2007, and Andrew Miller was the only worthy at all return ultimately, and that was after several mediocre seasons.

M-Cab trade plus Trout being a generational player who is only 29 to start the 2021 season = locking thread.