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 Concern


Torridd

Recommended Posts

I was just reading the thread regarding if Trout received an extension, what would you want next. I don't know if I'm in the small camp as not caring so much about the extension than concerned about the Angels' direction. I don't necessarily see the Angels' success and Trout's extension as synchronous. If it meant that the Angels would get significantly better, I would endorse a Trout trade as I was an Angels fan long before Trout came into the picture. I wanted to know if others felt differently, that is, how important is Trout's extension to you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would get better. The Angels don’t look strong at all right now and I think that’s where we’re getting confused. Eppler is setting the Angels up to be a strong and potentially dominant team in the 2020’s which will be the beginning of Trout’s extension. Trout more than likely sees that and that should be enough to easily create extension talks from both sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Angel Oracle said:

Just remember what happened when the Marlins traded Cabrera.

None of the acquisitions ever did jack for them.   Only Andrew Miller truly ever panned our, and that was years later for the Indians.

And remember what happened to the Pirates after they let Bonds walked away in free agency and they got no compensation.

I'm not sure they're are any correct answers. We've seen first hand with Pujols what overpaying a superstar can do to a franchise. The Marlins showed what trading a superstar can do to a franchise. The Pirates showed what happens when a franchise player leaves in free agency. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Angel Oracle said:

Just remember what happened when the Marlins traded Cabrera.

None of the acquisitions ever did jack for them.   Only Andrew Miller truly ever panned our, and that was years later for the Indians.

This.  I think it helps to remember that Miller and Maybin were top 10, or top 20 prospects, sure.

It also helps to remember that that same year, Brandon Wood was a top 5 prospect.

Trout is a singular player; his value is so high, even teams that can put together enough talent in a package would choke on letting them go.  

edt:  I meant to say, it all-but makes him untradeable, in the sense that his value is so high, it's hard to imagine a team having enough expendable talent they'd be willing to part with that we'd take for him.   

Any trade involving Trout has the potential to be  labelled "The worst trade in MLB history"  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last few years have proven that Trout alone isnt enough.   Hes had some of his best years and the end result was a 500 ball club.  
He is absolutely a player you build around although how and when seem to be the points of contention.  
I have to believe he knows that the plan is at this point and has discussed the direction with the front office, there are few players that deserve that courtesy mind you but i believe him to be one of them.
Of course there is also the fact that the final decision is ultimately his.   
There is never going to be a trade that gets you equal value if you explore that path, put that right out of your head yesterday.  But, losing him for nothing you are guaranteed not to get value.
It is my view that once Harper/Machado sign, they put the extension in front of him and put him on the spot.  If he will not sign, then you deal while the value is as high as it will be.  I do not want that to happen, but im also not sure i want to pay any one player upwards of 40M either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, eaterfan said:

And remember what happened to the Pirates after they let Bonds walked away in free agency and they got no compensation.

I'm not sure they're are any correct answers. We've seen first hand with Pujols what overpaying a superstar can do to a franchise. The Marlins showed what trading a superstar can do to a franchise. The Pirates showed what happens when a franchise player leaves in free agency. 

Sorry but while Albert is an anchor he isn’t the reason the franchise is where it is.  Ignoring the farm is the reason we are where we are and in my mind it isn’t close. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Sorry but while Albert is an anchor he isn’t the reason the franchise is where it is.  Ignoring the farm is the reason we are where we are and in my mind it isn’t close. 

Absolutely, ignoring the farm and lack of player development is the main reason for where we are. But I think the franchise would be in much better shape if we didn't sign him.

In addition to the money, think about how different the franchise would be from a timing perspective. We spent the first 5 years of the Pujols contact chasing winning now for Albert in his window instead of building around Trout and his. We forfeited draft picks and slot money to sign free agents. We traded prospects for veterans. We didn't trade our veterans for prospects when we should have.

I think Trout is a much better bet than Pujols to be a superstar for longer, but it's not as though Trout will be an MVP player forever. Maybe he falls off sooner than we think. He's missed 70 games the last 2 years. It's certainly possible we should be building this team around Adell, Marsh, Jones, and Ohtani. We should be doing everything we can to make sure they have as much help around them when they are 26-30 years old, not even they are 21-23 and Mike Trout is still an 8 WAR player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Angel Oracle said:

Just remember what happened when the Marlins traded Cabrera.

None of the acquisitions ever did jack for them.   Only Andrew Miller truly ever panned our, and that was years later for the Indians.

And just think, they could have had Mathis, Kendrick,  Saunders,  and Santana instead had they not screwed the angels

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eaterfan said:

And remember what happened to the Pirates after they let Bonds walked away in free agency and they got no compensation.

I'm not sure they're are any correct answers. We've seen first hand with Pujols what overpaying a superstar can do to a franchise. The Marlins showed what trading a superstar can do to a franchise. The Pirates showed what happens when a franchise player leaves in free agency. 

Remember though that Pujols came here at age 32, and after ELEVEN years of that exaggerated crouch stance while carrying 240-250 lbs, which put untold pressure on the knees and feet.

Trout has a normal stance, is in better shape than Pujols was ever in, and will be THREE years younger (than Pujols was in 2012) when the new contract starts in 2021.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Angel Oracle said:

Remember though that Pujols came here at age 32, and after ELEVEN years of that exaggerated crouch stance while carrying 240-250 lbs, which put untold pressure on the knees and feet.

Trout has a normal stance, is in better shape than Pujols was ever in, and will be THREE years younger (than Pujols was in 2012) when the new contract starts in 2021.

CF is a much more physically demanding position and much harder on the body than 1B. Trout has already missed 70 games the last two years. It's not like he's never gone on the DL. Trout is probably the least risky player to ever come up for FA. He's the best, most consistent player on the planet. But no one is risk free. He will get the biggest contract in baseball history and he deserves it. But nothing in baseball is a sure thing. A talent and contract like that have such gravity that there needs to be a real level of caution. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Randy Gradishar said:

Nobody knows or cares about who won the World Series in 1924. Everyone knows who Babe Ruth is and for whom he played.

Everyone on this board knows who won the World Series in 2002.

You think people out there are talking about Willy Mays playing for the Mets? What's your favorite Ken Griffey Jr. anecdote from his fabled run with the Reds?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Trout tells the Angels that he is going to move on, I'd target the Yankees or Phillies. From the Yanks, I'd offer Gelyber Torres, Louis Severino, Clint Fraizer, Albert Abreu, and Aaron Hicks for Trout and Cozart.  From the Phils, I'd demand Nola, Hoskins, and Hernandez.

I would then offer Manny Machado 10 Years, 365 Million with an opt-out after four years. This would probably be a pretty decent team, and we'd get four years of Machado and then let someone else have him for his decline.

I assume the Angels like their chances at getting Trout extended, since we haven't heard anything about his being moved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, it’s impossible to get value for Trout in a trade. His value is more than double the average all-star. It’s impossible to replace that. You can’t replace Trout any more than you can replace Nolan Ryan with two above average starters. Additionally, because he brings so much value to his position, it lowers the value needed from other positions to have a successful team. If you want to know why the Angels have sucked with Trout, it’s because the rest of the team has been largely awful. It would be virtually impossible for a team with a healthy Mike Trout to lose 100 games. Anything less than 70 wins would take a lot of work in accumulating guys who can’t play baseball. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ScruffytheJanitor said:

If Trout tells the Angels that he is going to move on, I'd target the Yankees or Phillies. From the Yanks, I'd offer Gelyber Torres, Louis Severino, Clint Fraizer, Albert Abreu, and Aaron Hicks for Trout and Cozart.  From the Phils, I'd demand Nola, Hoskins, and Hernandez.

I would then offer Manny Machado 10 Years, 365 Million with an opt-out after four years. This would probably be a pretty decent team, and we'd get four years of Machado and then let someone else have him for his decline.

I assume the Angels like their chances at getting Trout extended, since we haven't heard anything about his being moved.

Therein lies (part of) your problem: No team is going to gut their major league roster just to have Trout. Those trades wouldn’t happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, ScruffytheJanitor said:

If Trout tells the Angels that he is going to move on, I'd target the Yankees or Phillies. From the Yanks, I'd offer Gelyber Torres, Louis Severino, Clint Fraizer, Albert Abreu, and Aaron Hicks for Trout and Cozart.  From the Phils, I'd demand Nola, Hoskins, and Hernandez.

I would then offer Manny Machado 10 Years, 365 Million with an opt-out after four years. This would probably be a pretty decent team, and we'd get four years of Machado and then let someone else have him for his decline.

I assume the Angels like their chances at getting Trout extended, since we haven't heard anything about his being moved.

Trout being extended is more than likely to happen. There's no rush, both parties are happy with each other, and the future of the Angels looks good as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Sean-Regan said:

Therein lies (part of) your problem: No team is going to gut their major league roster just to have Trout. Those trades wouldn’t happen. 

Exactly. Trout to the Yankees would plug a hole for them that doesn't exist, and create 2-3 holes that the Yankees currently do not have. 

Edited by NJHalo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, stormngt said:

And just think, they could have had Mathis, Kendrick,  Saunders,  and Santana instead had they not screwed the angels

I'd have done Mathis + Adenhart + Wood + Sean Rodriquez for Miggy. Marlins get their hometown Cuban guy in S-Rod.

Starting his career with an empty stadium Wood might have been able to build confidence & gotten over the anxiety of playing in MLB since it was revealed later that Wood had major anxiety issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Randy Gradishar said:

Angels are the Giants and Mariners in this analogy, and neither of those players are as good as Trout.

We've now reached the point where Mays isn't as good as Mike Trout? Either way, they are very much in the same class.

But that's my point. Whether or not Mike Trout moves on he will be remembered as an Angel. An extension or no extension won't change that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sean-Regan said:

First, it’s impossible to get value for Trout in a trade. His value is more than double the average all-star. It’s impossible to replace that. You can’t replace Trout any more than you can replace Nolan Ryan with two above average starters. Additionally, because he brings so much value to his position, it lowers the value needed from other positions to have a successful team. If you want to know why the Angels have sucked with Trout, it’s because the rest of the team has been largely awful. It would be virtually impossible for a team with a healthy Mike Trout to lose 100 games. Anything less than 70 wins would take a lot of work in accumulating guys who can’t play baseball. 

A Blow-pen can do a lot of damage, and it doesn't take much to get one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sean-Regan said:

Therein lies (part of) your problem: No team is going to gut their major league roster just to have Trout. Those trades wouldn’t happen. 

I actually don't think that price is beyond the pale for the Yankees. They already don't have a need for half those players-- honestly, Torres and Severino would be the only players they would really miss from next year's team--  and none of them even come close to coming close to Trout's level.

The other major thing is that it's always. a single 9 WAR  and three replacement-level players is worth 10 x what four 3 WAR players are because of the opportunity cost (considering a "roster spot" to be the cost). Among the many obvious reasons it is true is that it's much easier to improve on below-average players than it is to improve on 4 solid players. The Yankees would easily replace those losses from FA and their farm system if needed.

So yeah, you bet the Yankees would be willing to do that deal. Trout/Judge/Stanton with a really good bullpen, 6 average teammates and an OK rotation would be a juggernaut, and the Yanks would still have time to upgrade their rotation AND their infield if needed. I mean, if you are going to get Trout, you might as well get Keuchel too, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cannot get fair value for Trout.  You can't.

Any team that has a large enough group of young players to tempt the Angels would just move forward with their own impressive group of young players.

There would be no reason for them to trade a massive group of talent and put all their eggs in one basket in Trout.  Then they would have Trout and nothing else?  That doesn't work.

So how about if there was a team that was one big performer away from being stacked, and they had the prospects to make a deal?  Well they also wouldn't blow their whole farm for Trout when they could fill that one need by trading for a different player and hold on to some of their prospects.  So that doesn't work either.

Trout is literally too good to expect to get fair value for him.

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...