Best way to improve team

[Buttercup]

Unfortunately,  to be a winner in life and baseball it hurts to make the big decisions. The quickest way to become a contender and the way to sustain a winner longest term would be to sign Machado or Harper and then trade Trout.  We would have a star and Ohtani a potential long-term second star. We would also suddenly have the best farm system in baseball and immediate pitching help or whatever Eppler deems best return for Trout. And either Machado or Harper are going to be cheaper than trout and actually save us money in the long term. Plus Harper is younger. It would hurt but think of how good our Angels would be. 

[Pancake Bear]

1 minute ago, Buttercup said:

Unfortunately,  to be a winner in life and baseball it hurts to make the big decisions. The quickest way to become a contender and the way to sustain a winner longest term would be to sign Machado or Harper and then trade Trout.  We would have a star and Ohtani a potential long-term second star. We would also suddenly have the best farm system in baseball and immediate pitching help or whatever Eppler deems best return for Trout. And either Machado or Harper are going to be cheaper than trout and actually save us money in the long term. Plus Harper is younger. It would hurt but think of how good our Angels would be. 

Pretty effing bad trading Trout. That’s how good they’d be.

[Dtwncbad]

If trading Trout was part of a plan, you wouldn't sign Machado or Harper.  You would wait two more years and then sign a different superstar to add to your matured crop of top prospects.

[Lou]

[floplag]

2 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

If trading Trout was part of a plan, you wouldn't sign Machado or Harper.  You would wait two more years and then sign a different superstar to add to your matured crop of top prospects.

Yeah i have to agree, spend to build around him while building the far, or tear it down.  It makes no sense to replace one star with another and still have the holes. 

What they should do is spend now while staying the course on the long term plan, win now and win later.  Might suffer a couple years of higher than wanted payroll but might also win on the interim ... who knows.

What they cant do it in my opinion is play it safe, not spend, not trade, not do anything but wait.  Thats a potentially lose lose in every possible manner.

[hangin n wangin]

This is mentally retarded. If we're in the business of trading our best players, I would rather extend Trout and trade Ohtani for a bunch of stuff. But that would be stupid too.

Anyway, I think our best chance to improve the team is to keep making smart decisions and building the farm. No horrendous Pujols type contracts. Keep building the farm so that they are ready to make an impact in a couple years or so, when Trout is due for his extension. If Trout sees a young, talented team, sprinkled in with some solid veterans, I think we have a shot to resign Trout and compete in a couple years.

And if not. Well F*ck it...We haven't won shit since 2002 anyway. Life goes on.

[Buttercup]

4 minutes ago, floplag said:

Yeah i have to agree, spend to build around him while building the far, or tear it down.  It makes no sense to replace one star with another and still have the holes. 

What they should do is spend now while staying the course on the long term plan, win now and win later.  Might suffer a couple years of higher than wanted payroll but might also win on the interim ... who knows.

What they cant do it in my opinion is play it safe, not spend, not trade, not do anything but wait.  Thats a potentially lose lose in every possible manner.

That is my point however. You spend money on Machado per se and by trading Trout you fill every other hole without spending any money.  I would give it 0% chance of ever happening. Just an interesting way of improving our team for the future. Or If Arte wants to go balls deep and sign one of the big stars this season, approach Trout about an extension and if Trout said no you can trade him next off-season. Number one priority should be extending Trout but if they get the sense he doesn’t want to do it this could be the way to make the team of the future. 

[floplag]

2 minutes ago, Buttercup said:

That is my point however. You spend money on Machado per se and by trading Trout you fill every other hole without spending any money.  I would give it 0% chance of ever happening. Just an interesting way of improving our team for the future. Or If Arte wants to go balls deep and sign one of the big stars this season, approach Trout about an extension and if Trout said no you can trade him next off-season. Number one priority should be extending Trout but if they get the sense he doesn’t want to do it this could be the way to make the team of the future. 

you also defeat the purpose of signing the other player.  If you cant build around Trout you cant build at all

[Docwaukee]

2 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

If trading Trout was part of a plan, you wouldn't sign Machado or Harper.  You would wait two more years and then sign a different superstar to add to your matured crop of top prospects.

agree that's what we should do if we moved Trout.  

If we're talking unlikely scenarios, then I'd rather extend Trout long term and then trade Simmons, Skaggs, Upton, and maybe Heaney for as much near ready or young controlled major league talent as possible.  

[hangin n wangin]

1 minute ago, Buttercup said:

That is my point however. You spend money on Machado per se and by trading Trout you fill every other hole without spending any money.  I would give it 0% chance of ever happening. Just an interesting way of improving our team for the future. Or If Arte wants to go balls deep and sign one of the big stars this season, approach Trout about an extension and if Trout said no you can trade him next off-season. Number one priority should be extending Trout but if they get the sense he doesn’t want to do it this could be the way to make the team of the future. 

It would be kind of interesting to see who we could net in return for Trout. But interesting doesn't make it smart.

More than likely, it would end up in complete catastrophe and it would be a decision ridiculed for years to come. Trout is a generational talent and is on pace to be a top 5 player of all time...assuming his pace continues.

[Second Base]

As with everyone else, I am fully convinced that my way is clearly the best way.

[Vlad27Trout27]

43 minutes ago, Buttercup said:

Unfortunately,  to be a winner in life and baseball it hurts to make the big decisions. The quickest way to become a contender and the way to sustain a winner longest term would be to sign Machado or Harper and then trade Trout.  We would have a star and Ohtani a potential long-term second star. We would also suddenly have the best farm system in baseball and immediate pitching help or whatever Eppler deems best return for Trout. And either Machado or Harper are going to be cheaper than trout and actually save us money in the long term. Plus Harper is younger. It would hurt but think of how good our Angels would be. 

Haven't we tried this with Pujols and Hamilton? where are we now with these two?.....The games go towards younger and cheap controllable players...until we get The youth movement on the active roster, even if we do sign Harper/ Macaho or a big trade...we will still be stuck at the same spot, same overpayed players 

[Hubs]

34 minutes ago, Buttercup said:

Unfortunately,  to be a winner in life and baseball it hurts to make the big decisions. The quickest way to become a contender and the way to sustain a winner longest term would be to sign Machado or Harper and then trade Trout.  We would have a star and Ohtani a potential long-term second star. We would also suddenly have the best farm system in baseball and immediate pitching help or whatever Eppler deems best return for Trout. And either Machado or Harper are going to be cheaper than trout and actually save us money in the long term. Plus Harper is younger. It would hurt but think of how good our Angels would be. 

You have only 13 posts, so let me explain something that I've explained on the board numerous times before. In fact, everytime a trade Trout thread comes up, I explain this.

Teams trading Superstars never get the better end of the deal. NEVER. There is no way to recoup value from a Mike Trout. That is why he will never be traded. It is difficult to discuss this with homer fans of other teams who say every few weeks that the Angels are wasting Trout, and that the Angels should trade him to the Yankees, or wherever.

This is due to the incredible prospect currency a Trout provides. Say we traded him to the Yankees. It would start for me, with Luis Severino plus Gary Sanchez and Aaron Judge. And probably Hicks too. And a few prospects on the low minors.

Does this make any sense for the Angels to do? Maybe. Does it make sense for the Yankees? No. 

Name one trade for a superstar position player in their 20's that has ever panned out for the team that trades the Superstar. Miguel Cabrera to the Tigers? Nope. Return was Cam Maybin and Andrew Miller.

Giancarlo Stanton to the Yankees? Nope. Return was basically nil.

The only one that comes close to working out for the team that traded him was when the Rangers traded Texieria to the Braves for Elvis Andrus, Salty, Matt Harrison and Neftali Feliz. And then they traded him to the Angels a year later for Kotchman. 

Donaldson to the Jays? Nope. Barreto is the best they got back.

Holliday to the A's? The Rockies won this trade.

Manny to the Dodgers? The Pirates got most of the prospects in this deal and they all amounted to nil.

Griffey to the Reds? Cameron was the saving grace, the prospects amounted to nothing.

How about with pitchers?

Bartolo Colon from the Indians to the Expos was a good deal for the team trading the Star, in that they got Phillips, Sizemore and Cliff Lee, but that is the only pitcher trade that worked out.

Pedro Martinez from the Dodgers to the Jays? Delino DeShields.

Cliff Lee from the Phillies to the Mariners? JC Ramirez was the best of the lot.

 

It just never works out when a team trading a superstar gets Prospects. We'd have to get major league talent in return, and the cost to the team acquiring him would be too great.

IN SHORT> NO TRADING MIKE TROUT.

[beatlesrule]

So @Hubs why don't teams always trade a bunch of prospects for superstars? Why do so many here not want to trade Adell? Why doesn't Eppler trade the farm for guys like Arenado, Rendon, Bauer, Kluber, Jose Ramirez, Noah, DeGrom, Betts, Bryant or some other star? I mean, if the team getting the superstar always gets the better deal and the prospects never work out, what's stopping Eppler and other GM's from making trades for these guys?

[Stradling]

1 minute ago, beatlesrule said:

So @Hubs why don't teams always trade a bunch of prospects for superstars? Why do so many here not want to trade Adell? Why doesn't Eppler trade the farm for guys like Arenado, Rendon, Bauer, Kluber, Jose Ramirez, Noah, DeGrom, Betts, Bryant or some other star? I mean, if the team getting the superstar always gets the better deal and the prospects never work out, what's stopping Eppler and other GM's from making trades for these guys?

For starters none of those players you chose are generational talents like Trout is.  The reason no one wants to trade Adell is the most successful teams build from within, Adell is part of that plan.  

[beatlesrule]

Most prospects don't work out, especially Angels ones. We all know the names. Not all the players he listed are generational talents either. I would argue that some of the ones I listed definitely have the potential to be and would help the Angels immensely right now. Also, Adell has not proved anything in the majors yet. He absolutely should be traded for the right player if a deal presents itself. Trout is not getting any younger and we all know his contract and that he wants to win. That's just me though. I am more concerned about winning a World Series and less concerned about getting 3 million fans every year.

[Stradling]

Just now, beatlesrule said:

Most prospects don't work out, especially Angels ones. We all know the names. Not all the players he listed are generational talents either. I would argue that some of the ones I listed definitely have the potential to be and would help the Angels immensely right now. Also, Adell has not proved anything in the majors yet. He absolutely should be traded for the right player if a deal presents itself. Trout is not getting any younger and we all know his contract and that he wants to win. That's just me though. I am more concerned about winning a World Series and less concerned about getting 3 million fans every year.

And none of those names that didn’t work out mean anything now, it would be the equivalent of Dodger fans not wanting the Dodgers to make trades because they traded Pedro Martinez.  We have a different GM, a different scouting department, a different minor league development team.  Everything is different.  As for trading Adell, who is that right player?  If you can trade him for the next Simmons, then sure.  To trade him for Kluber (age) or Realmuto (only 2 years of control) would be a bad idea in my opinion.  

[Dtwncbad]

Best way to improve the team is hire Canseco as conditioning coach.

[T.G.]

The team should just move to Vegas

[Hubs]

The answer is that only some of the prospects we like are going to be solid players. If I had to guess who will have Multiple all-star seasons in the Angels top 10 prospects I would say Adell, Jones, Rodriguez. I hope that Ward will be part of that core. I don’t see Marsh, Hermosillo, Thaiss, Rengifo, Canning, etc being great players. They might be good players like Calhoun or say Howie Kendrick, but not multiple all star type players.

[Second Base]

32 minutes ago, Hubs said:

The answer is that only some of the prospects we like are going to be solid players. If I had to guess who will have Multiple all-star seasons in the Angels top 10 prospects I would say Adell, Jones, Rodriguez. I hope that Ward will be part of that core. I don’t see Marsh, Hermosillo, Thaiss, Rengifo, Canning, etc being great players. They might be good players like Calhoun or say Howie Kendrick, but not multiple all star type players.

That's ultimately what I'm seeing.  But the good thing is, I don't think many of those guys need to be "great" players in order to be an improvement for this team.  When you look at the team (or at least when I look at the team), I see little or no production from catcher, first base, second base, third base, RF, and #4 and #5 starters.  

Now granted, I think Adell will be an all-star in RF/CF and that will go a long way.  But at first base, if Matt Thiass  (or Walsh, or Marsh with Upton moving to 1B....whoever) can even be an average starter (the average performance of a starting 1B over the past couple seasons was approximately .260/.320 with 23 HR's) that would go a long way toward improving the team.  If Rengifo or Jones only turn into average starting 2B than it would be a HUGE improvement.  If Rengifo, Ward, Maitan or Jackson even manage to be an average player at 3B, this team is set and is looking good. 

The Angels don't need Griffin Canning, Jose Suarez, Chris Rodriguez, Jose Soriano, Pat Sandoval, and Aaron Hernandez to be all-star front of the rotation starters.  If even three of those guys can profile as a #3/4 starter, then this team is looking good. 

That's a big difference between the Angels under Dipoto and the Angels under Eppler (among many other things).  Under Dipoto, the Angels needed prospects to become stars, and the farm system lacked the upside for that.  Under Eppler, the Angels need prospects to simply become decent regulars, and the farm system has so much more than that within its ranks. 

[ettin]

2 hours ago, Buttercup said:

The quickest way to become a contender and the way to sustain a winner longest term would be to sign Machado or Harper and then trade Trout.

Quite possibly the worst idea I have ever read here (sorry it had to be you Buttercup).

Instead of spending $500M for perhaps the best player to ever play the game let's spend $400M for a guy that is about 40% less productive and valuable.

[BackUpTheTruck]

1. Bullpen

2. Rotation

3. Catcher

No use getting a lead if you can't close out the game.

[Adam]

I’d just put everyone steroids immediately

[Buttercup]

1 hour ago, ettin said:

Quite possibly the worst idea I have ever read here (sorry it had to be you Buttercup).

Instead of spending $500M for perhaps the best player to ever play the game let's spend $400M for a guy that is about 40% less productive and valuable.

I am somewhat honored at the thought of having the worst idea this forum has ever produced.

I am getting increasingly worried that Arte will not spend $500 million and Trout will find that somewhere else. That’s the worst outcome and idea. If the 350 (maybe its 400) million Dollar player we got now produced 6 WAR (Machado’s average) and we could get  virtually any young MLB rookie (Acuna, vlad jr etc.)who could very likely produce 4 WAR with possibly higher upside. Plus several top prospects ready to be called up soon. That likely exceeds Trouts production and does so at very nearly the same annual salary as Trout makes now leaving us with another 20 million to spend. Multiple good to all star players protects from injury to one player as well  

I feel emotion is clouding your responses. I understand, it would be hard to fap to Trout porn in a Phillies uni. 

How many playoff games has Trout helped us win again? Babe Ruth had murderers row  Walter Johnson had nobody. I’m just saying something needs to be done and if Arte doesn’t increase payroll to help win this year, Trout is likely gone and we end up needing to replace Trouts production in much thinner free agent markets