If Eppler traded Trout...

[floplag]

1 minute ago, eaterfan said:

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.

Other discussion in same thread suggested we could support more, and are choosing not to for "business" reasons. 

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

1 minute ago, eaterfan said:

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.

It doesn't make sense to me considering, Arte gets $150M/yr from TV deal, plus attendance of 3M+, concessions, Parking, merchandising, and advertising. Their are probably other revenue streams I'm not aware of also. Putting a winning team on the field only makes the franchise worth more as well. The Angels have gained more than a billion dollars in value since Arte bought the team so far.

[eaterfan]

10 minutes ago, Ace-Of-Diamonds said:

It doesn't make sense to me considering, Arte gets $150M/yr from TV deal, plus attendance of 3M+, concessions, Parking, merchandising, and advertising. Their are probably other revenue streams I'm not aware of also. Putting a winning team on the field only makes the franchise worth more as well. The Angels have gained more than a billion dollars in value since Arte bought the team so far.

I'm sure Arte is doing fine. I'd imagine it's pretty easy to make money without making money, too. But there are plenty of other clubs who could be spending a lot more money as well. In reality if every team spent to their "market" potential we'd probably be around 8th - 10th in payroll and we're usually around that.

[floplag]

19 minutes ago, Ace-Of-Diamonds said:

It doesn't make sense to me considering, Arte gets $150M/yr from TV deal, plus attendance of 3M+, concessions, Parking, merchandising, and advertising. Their are probably other revenue streams I'm not aware of also. Putting a winning team on the field only makes the franchise worth more as well. The Angels have gained more than a billion dollars in value since Arte bought the team so far.

Precisely where i am on this.  I was originally under the impression that 30 put us near the cap, when i realized that was in fact an artificial number and that the reality is that we actually have twice as much room as i had previously thought i was baffled.
If there is cap room, and we have the revenue, dont ask me to support putting investors over the on field product, what fan would do that unless he is one of them.
I know its easy to say, its not my money, but i recall Arte telling us he was going to do everything possible to win, was he talking to us as fans or to the board of directors in a budget meeting?   Leaving 30M on the table if its actually available is by definition not doing everything.

[IEAngelsfan]

50 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.

Some people still talk about Babe Ruth being traded from the Red Sox to the Yankees almost a century ago.

[Second Base]

A few things....

1. I would not want to go down in history as the GM that traded Mike Trout.  Billy Eppler knows better than that. 

2. No trade for Mike Trout will shore up the deficiencies and improve the team.  That's not a cost that any team could stomach paying.  The return would not only have to be more than 10 wins improvement, but it would have to come at all of our deficiencies which would be a 2B/3B, a catcher, a couple starting pitchers and a shut down reliever.  Since that's 6 players we'd need (including replacement CF), each of those players would have to be two wins better than our current replacements on hand, and because of our current prospect depth, our eventual in-house replacements are a lot better than they used to be. 

A trade like this would have to be something utterly insane like the Padres sending Fernando Tatis Jr., Franmil Reyes, Francisco Mejia, Mackenzie Gore, Chris Paddack and Kirby Yates.  And even then, the Angels would have to be losing and selling and the Padres would have to be winning and buying.  AND EVEN THEN......Eppler would still have to strongly consider turning that down because there's so much uncertainty in that package. And on the Padres end, they'd be giving up a starting infielder, starting outfielder, starting catcher, two starting pitchers and a dominant shut down reliever. 

What team could afford that and still expect to compete?

So as I said, just not feasible. 

3. I believe Eppler is a really good GM.  and as such, I think he's capable of shoring up those deficiencies while keeping mike Trout at the same time. 

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

10 minutes ago, IEAngelsfan said:

Some people still talk about Babe Ruth being traded from the Red Sox to the Yankees almost a century ago.

It took Boston the better part of a century to again win a WS, after that terrible trade. They sold the greatest player in history for $25.000 ($364,796 in today's money). Certainly Trout would return more but I would never trade him.

I wonder what the Nats are thinking, if in fact Harper signs with another team and they only getting a draft pick out of it?

[JoJo26]

Trout wants to win....club is strapped by Albert's contract. Albert too stubborn to walk into Arte's office and re-do his albatross to get the team some help.

Why should Trout resign?

Angels can't go out and get some studs because of Albert's 28-29-30 million deal these last 3 years.

Albert thinks he can lead the team to playoff wins. Still waiting for that to happen....

Trout will go to Yanks or Phils....and get paid....and Angels will get nada in return.

Thanks Arte for signing that 40 year old injured reserve  old man.

[Chuck]

30 minutes ago, JoJo26 said:

Why should Trout resign?

I don't think Trout is going to resign anytime soon. 

[T.G.]

Just now, Chuckster70 said:

I don't think Trout is going to resign anytime soon. 

I wouldn't accept his resignation anyway.

[ettin]

4 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. 

You should try researching our options in free agency and trade before making that statement.

Hint: I have done this for you in the Primer Series.

[Docwaukee]

Trout is worth so much on the trade market that waiting doesn't decrease the value of what you get in return.  Teams can only give up so much.  Right now, there isn't a team that could give up what he's worth without decimating their roster and/or farm system.  So you might as well wait until the last possible minute and by that point, your return might actually come close to matching Trout's value.  

It's moot anyway.  He's gonna sign an extension to be a halo for his entire career.  

[floplag]

1 hour ago, ettin said:

You should try researching our options in free agency and trade before making that statement.

Hint: I have done this for you in the Primer Series.

You should try reading the other threads. 
Hint, i have, multiple times 

[Torridd]

2 hours ago, Second Base said:

A few things....

1. I would not want to go down in history as the GM that traded Mike Trout.  Billy Eppler knows better than that. 

2. No trade for Mike Trout will shore up the deficiencies and improve the team.  That's not a cost that any team could stomach paying.  The return would not only have to be more than 10 wins improvement, but it would have to come at all of our deficiencies which would be a 2B/3B, a catcher, a couple starting pitchers and a shut down reliever.  Since that's 6 players we'd need (including replacement CF), each of those players would have to be two wins better than our current replacements on hand, and because of our current prospect depth, our eventual in-house replacements are a lot better than they used to be. 

A trade like this would have to be something utterly insane like the Padres sending Fernando Tatis Jr., Franmil Reyes, Francisco Mejia, Mackenzie Gore, Chris Paddack and Kirby Yates.  And even then, the Angels would have to be losing and selling and the Padres would have to be winning and buying.  AND EVEN THEN......Eppler would still have to strongly consider turning that down because there's so much uncertainty in that package. And on the Padres end, they'd be giving up a starting infielder, starting outfielder, starting catcher, two starting pitchers and a dominant shut down reliever. 

What team could afford that and still expect to compete?

So as I said, just not feasible. 

3. I believe Eppler is a really good GM.  and as such, I think he's capable of shoring up those deficiencies while keeping mike Trout at the same time. 

There's yet another question, SB. How long does it take a said GOOD GM to shore up deficiencies with a payroll like the Angels have? The fans are growing restless and I'm one of those fans. I like Eppler and I know we've been unlucky with injuries the past couple of years, but Eppler hasn't thrown all sevens either. I think the fans need some "good-faith" acquisitions so it doesn't seem that Arte is just sitting on his money. I'm not used to the Angels being out of the playoff mix for this long and I don't think I'm alone. I'm not saying we have to go all in for a Machado or Harper, but I think it's time to up the ante. I would be HIGHLY disappointed in Eppler if we went with the combo of Calhoun/Ward/Cozart/Pujols/Fletcher again. Yes, we need pitching, but I think we're also shy on offense.

[stormngt]

6 hours ago, eaterfan said:

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.

IMO Trout for two above average players would not be enough....regardless the cost.

[stormngt]

31 minutes ago, Torridd said:

There's yet another question, SB. How long does it take a said GOOD GM to shore up deficiencies with a payroll like the Angels have? The fans are growing restless and I'm one of those fans. I like Eppler and I know we've been unlucky with injuries the past couple of years, but Eppler hasn't thrown all sevens either. I think the fans need some "good-faith" acquisitions so it doesn't seem that Arte is just sitting on his money. I'm not used to the Angels being out of the playoff mix for this long and I don't think I'm alone. I'm not saying we have to go all in for a Machado or Harper, but I think it's time to up the ante. I would be HIGHLY disappointed in Eppler if we went with the combo of Calhoun/Ward/Cozart/Pujols/Fletcher again. Yes, we need pitching, but I think we're also shy on offense.

Where were you during the 90's?

60's and 70's say hello as well.  

[Inside Pitch]

7 minutes ago, Torridd said:

There's yet another question, SB. How long does it take a said GOOD GM to shore up deficiencies with a payroll like the Angels have? The fans are growing restless and I'm one of those fans. I like Eppler and I know we've been unlucky with injuries the past couple of years, but Eppler hasn't thrown all sevens either. I think the fans need some "good-faith" acquisitions so it doesn't seem that Arte is just sitting on his money. I'm not used to the Angels being out of the playoff mix for this long and I don't think I'm alone. I'm not saying we have to go all in for a Machado or Harper, but I think it's time to up the ante. I would be HIGHLY disappointed in Eppler if we went with the combo of Calhoun/Ward/Cozart/Pujols/Fletcher again. Yes, we need pitching, but I think we're also shy on offense.

Good faith acquisitions?  Do Jo Adell, Brandon Marsh, Griffin Canning, Luis Rengifo, Patrick Sandoval, Jeremiah Jackson etc. count?  Or do you mean guys like Albert Pujols, Josh Hamilton, and CJ Wilson?  Does it get any more good faith that a sure fire HOFer?  I'm not saying this to be combative, you may not like how they have been doing it but they are doing it.  I also understand wanting more.... but if you feel shortchanged, don't throw money at the team..  Doesn't make you any less of a fan, it may even spur them into action like it has in the past...  

Personally.... I believe that like Stoneman before him, Eppler needs to stay true to his vision and build a sustainable winner.  It was Stoneman's unwillingness to cave into the demands of the fan base and criticism from the media that created the foundation for all that winning you became accustomed to.  I miss it too.

Like you, I want the Angels to once again be a legit contender year in, year out.... But trying to appease the fan base like Arte did has done enough damage.

 

 

[Troll Daddy]

2 hours ago, Dochalo said:

Trout is worth so much on the trade market that waiting doesn't decrease the value of what you get in return.  Teams can only give up so much.  Right now, there isn't a team that could give up what he's worth without decimating their roster and/or farm system.  So you might as well wait until the last possible minute and by that point, your return might actually come close to matching Trout's value.  

It's moot anyway.  He's gonna sign an extension to be a halo for his entire career.  

How about for Vladdy Jr, top pitching &  catching prospect , and throw in Randal Grichuk for good luck.

Jays get Mike Trout for 2 years and $68M

 

[kevinb]

No one wants to trade Trout. No one is suggesting we trade Trout. The question was presented in this thread if Eppler Traded Trout but got back incredible assets and the Angels won would you be mad the Angels traded Trout or would you be happy you have a winning Angels team. It looks like there is a lot more people who only want to keep Trout and don't actually want to win. 

[Troll Daddy]

1 minute ago, Kevinb said:

No one wants to trade Trout. No one is suggesting we trade Trout. The question was presented in this thread if Eppler Traded Trout but got back incredible assets and the Angels won would you be mad the Angels traded Trout or would you be happy you have a winning Angels team. It looks like there is a lot more people who only want to keep Trout and don't actually want to win. 

Winning is watching Trout play in a Angels uniform 

[eligrba]

12 hours ago, Torridd said:

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

[floplag]

45 minutes ago, Troll Daddy said:

Winning is watching Trout play in a Angels uniform 

God i could not disagree with this more. 
Winning is not what the angels are doing right now, the name on the front is still what matters. 

[kevinb]

1 minute ago, floplag said:

God i could not disagree with this more. 
Winning is not what the angels are doing right now, the name on the front is still what matters. 

Couldn't agree with you more. Angels winning is all that matters. I don't care if we win 1-0 or 100 to 99 and every pitcher blows out their arm every game. All I want is for the Angels to win, doesn't matter what player is in the line up or which is pitching. As long as the Angels win that's it.

[Troll Daddy]

11 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

Couldn't agree with you more. Angels winning is all that matters. I don't care if we win 1-0 or 100 to 99 and every pitcher blows out their arm every game. All I want is for the Angels to win, doesn't matter what player is in the line up or which is pitching. As long as the Angels win that's it.

Now you’re getting carried away ... 

[eaterfan]

5 hours ago, stormngt said:

IMO Trout for two above average players would not be enough....regardless the cost.

2 above average players and $30 million a year? And there's certainly room for both players to be more than that.