If Eppler traded Trout...

[Torridd]

..and with that shored up all our current deficiencies, would you want him gone?

[Dtwncbad]

16 minutes ago, Torridd said:

..and with that shored up all our current deficiencies, would you want him gone?

So the discussion is comparing the "cost" of fixing the deficiencies?

How about keeping Trout and "shoring up" the deficiencies with money?

Trade Trout and save a couple million in luxury tax penalty or keep Trout and spend a few million dollars?

[DMVol]

If he can't get Trout signed to an extension, I would expect he'll have to explore trade options, probably starting next offseason....why wouldn't he do that?  

[T.G.]

I hope Trout signs an extension soon, so conversations like this can just die. 

[floplag]

Let me be clear before i get jumped on this, i do not want him to be traded, ever, but its not up to us.  Its his call.  Eppler needs to either get him to sign the extension or consider his options before its too late.
I've said before there is only one thing worse than being the man that trades Trout, its losing him for nothing.
If its based on our level of competition then we must be aggressive this off season to put out a winner to convince him, if there is a reasonable expectation that hes not staying under the Eppler long term plan, then it simply has to be explored, there is no other logical answer.
But i do think waiting another year is not wise, we lose all return value for a 1 year rental versus 2.  Weve talked about this many times in relation to other players, it must also apply to Trout.
Again i do not want this, i would prefer to build around him, but if it were me i put 2 papers in front of him at some point this off season, one is the extension, the other is  a waiver to be traded.

[Torridd]

58 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

So the discussion is comparing the "cost" of fixing the deficiencies?

How about keeping Trout and "shoring up" the deficiencies with money?

Trade Trout and save a couple million in luxury tax penalty or keep Trout and spend a few million dollars?

Let's say trading Trout gets everything fixed quicker and cheaper.

[T.G.]

1 minute ago, Torridd said:

Let's say trading Trout gets everything fixed quicker and cheaper.

No, lets not.

[Blarg]

Torridd, Eppler has made it flat out clear the Angels will not trade Trout so this thread is abdolutely useless. 

[Dtwncbad]

26 minutes ago, Torridd said:

Let's say trading Trout gets everything fixed quicker and cheaper.

And what if it meant you could land Trout in a follow up trade with the other team picking up most of his salary!?

[krAbs]

IMO, there are three options that make sense. In the order of how happy I would be if they happened:
1. Extend Trout, push the "win" window a little, and try to take the league by storm as a ton of our prospects hit around 2020. With any luck, the Astros will be a bit cooler at that point, and we should be able to be the dominant team from the west.
2. We can't extend Trout, and we DUMP money into the team. We shove money into each of our holes until they are filled, and we make the absolute most of the rest of Trout's contract. With any luck, at the end of all of that either Trout will re-sign with us, or we will have at least built up a team that can sustain losing its best player.
3. We can't extend Trout, and we can't find a way to build the team up around him now. In this case, we need to trade Trout. Now. This off season. His value to a team looking to compete in 2019/2020 would be astronomical - especially if that team happens to already have a hole in the outfield. We can bring in a massive haul in return for him, and kind of return to option 1 - aim for a 2020 resurgence with a massive influx of youth talent.

The option I'm really afraid of is that we do none of these things, and just piddle around with a half baked team for the next 2 years, barely playing .500 baseball, until Trout's contract expires and he moves on.

[kevinb]

No. What I want is the Angels to be good. I don't care if Trout is on the team or not. Not one player is above the team being good. If Trout is on the team and we win a World Series great, but if we had to trade Trout and with that trade we won the World Series. Thanks for the memories Trout, but the 2nd WS trophy is much more valuable as a fan then watching Trout on an 80 win team in 4th place. 

[Mark68]

1 hour ago, Blarg said:

Torridd, Eppler has made it flat out clear the Angels will not trade Trout so this thread is abdolutely useless. 

Of course he has. Why wouldn't he? Even if there is a possibility of trading him, Eppler would not publicly state that the possibility is there. 

[ettin]

No because we can shore up our deficiencies now with him.

[floplag]

46 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

No. What I want is the Angels to be good. I don't care if Trout is on the team or not. Not one player is above the team being good. If Trout is on the team and we win a World Series great, but if we had to trade Trout and with that trade we won the World Series. Thanks for the memories Trout, but the 2nd WS trophy is much more valuable as a fan then watching Trout on an 80 win team in 4th place. 

Sooooo much this.  Dont get me wrong i want to with him, but if the team can win sooner by moving him, i do it.  
Alas i think the front office is going to milk it as long as possible, winning be damned, it would seem.

[floplag]

4 minutes ago, ettin said:

No because we can shore up our deficiencies now with him.

Not with the budget they are being given, its not enough under any feasible scenario.
We absolutely could, but it would take closer to 50M, not 30M, so if thats the hard target number, Epplers hands are tied. 

[eaterfan]

Gleybor Torres and Miguel Andujar for Trout? It gives us $60 million to spend this off season instead of $30. I'd at least consider it. Make a hard push for Machado, $30 million a year. Move Torres to 2nd and Andujar at 1st. That probably leaves another $30 million to work on our other holes. Maybe we can move on from Cozart by throwing in a mid range prospect and free up another $13 million a year and our infield is taken care of with Fletcher as the back up.

[stormngt]

19 minutes ago, eaterfan said:

Gleybor Torres and Miguel Andujar for Trout? It gives us $60 million to spend this off season instead of $30. I'd at least consider it. Make a hard push for Machado, $30 million a year. Move Torres to 2nd and Andujar at 1st. That probably leaves another $30 million to work on our other holes. Maybe we can move on from Cozart by throwing in a mid range prospect and free up another $13 million a year and our infield is taken care of with Fletcher as the back up.

I would want more for Trout.  Not to disrespect Andujar and Torres but they have done it for one year.  Trout has consistently been the best.

[eaterfan]

1 minute ago, stormngt said:

I would want more for Trout.  Not to disrespect Andujar and Torres but they have done it for one year.  Trout has consistently been the best.

Guys who are arb eligible cost more $.

Neither of those guys are going to be the best. But they may be all-stars and they are going to be dirt cheap. At the very least they will be well above average players.

[mtangelsfan]

If Eppler traded Trout it would be so typical of our franchise.  

We would forever be known as the team that traded away the best baseball player ever.

[floplag]

7 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

If Eppler traded Trout it would be so typical of our franchise.  

We would forever be known as the team that traded away the best baseball player ever.

Sooo much better than being known a the club that lost him for nothing but a draft pick.   

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

2 hours ago, floplag said:

Not with the budget they are being given, its not enough under any feasible scenario.
We absolutely could, but it would take closer to 50M, not 30M, so if thats the hard target number, Epplers hands are tied. 

In another thread it was reported that our payroll going into next season at the moment is ~$146M, Leaving us $60M not $30M as some have speculated. $30M gets us to where were last season.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/ANA/los-angeles-angels-salaries-and-contracts.shtml

[floplag]

1 minute ago, Ace-Of-Diamonds said:

In another thread it was reported that our payroll going into next season at the moment is ~$146M, Leaving us $60M not $30M as some have speculated. $30M gets us to where were last season.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/ANA/los-angeles-angels-salaries-and-contracts.shtml

Im aware of that, i read it and commented on it.  I take some exception as to why were only considering adding 30 over 50 or 60 when were clearly not cash strapped, but i dont suppose that really matters much.

[Chuck]

The only way you trade Mike Trout is if 1.) The Angels have a sit down with him and ask him if he wants to stay, that we can best Machado's and Harper's deals and Trout says no thanks, I'd like to play out my contract here and elect for FA to sign with a team of my choice and 2.) we can get a HUGE package of top prospects in return. 

I don't believe either of those will happen and he'll want to sign here for the rest of his career. 

[eaterfan]

5 minutes ago, Ace-Of-Diamonds said:

In another thread it was reported that our payroll going into next season at the moment is ~$146M, Leaving us $60M not $30M as some have speculated. $30M gets us to where were last season.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/ANA/los-angeles-angels-salaries-and-contracts.shtml

Maybe I was misinterpreting what he said, but Jeff Fletcher said we wouldn't be spending to the luxury tax threshold.We're just like countless other teams who can't afford to add more payroll. $30 million seems to be what Arte thinks the team can support.

[floplag]

Just now, Chuckster70 said:

The only way you trade Mike Trout is if 1.) The Angels have a sit down with him and ask him if he wants to stay, that we can best Machado's and Harper's deals and Trout says no thanks, I'd like to play out my contract here and elect for FA to sign with a team of my choice and 2.) we can get a HUGE package of top prospects in return. 

I don't believe either of those will happen and he'll want to sign here for the rest of his career. 

The thing about that though Chuck is people seem intent on waiting till the last minute to make the call, meaning we get near nothing.  I think the call needs to be made this off season not only on Trout but on who were going to be for the next few years. 

If the intent is to wait it out till Albert is gone and the kids are ready then start trading assets so were better when the time comes.  Right now were still only a top 12-15 farm, that doesnt mean were suddenly WS contenders in 21.  if the plan is 21-22 then move some more guys, make it even stronger when the time comes.   Yes, that potentially includes Trout how can it not when hes the most valuable of them all. 

This isnt what i want, i want them to get aggressive and get back in the mix now, but if they are not going to do what it takes to do that them get busy making us that much better in 21-22.