Tough question on Trout

[Dtwncbad]

First of all let's be clear on something.  Trout is the best player I have ever seen.  I could not be more ecstatic that he is an Angel.  I believe most fairly serious Angel fans agree.

This tough question is only really related to the casual fan (and teams do very much need a high population of casual fans to be engaged).

Is Trout's quiet and unassuming personality somewhat limiting in his marketability in terms of attracting and holding the interest of casual fans?

Maybe?

It is February so forgive the content here.  Not that much else to debate.

Could the team benefit from additionally having a different personality?

Yeah, I am talking about Harper.  There is no question he would pull in more fans and get more casual fans to be more interested.

He also has something Trout doesn't have.  Some people "hate" him.

I "hated" Manny Ramirez.  I "hated" Roger Clemons.

That attention is actually pretty good for a franchise.  Sports thrives because you either root for someone or you root against someone.  Nobody is rooting against Mike Trout, and he deserves that in how he carries himself.

So is there anything at all to an idea that Mike Trout is the greatest player on earth but technically is not the best player to market because the Angels get zero negative attention for Trout?

The franchise itself very well could benefit from having a bit of a villain to advance itself a little closer to being like the "hated" Yankees and "hated" Red Sox.

Heck, people hated Steinbrenner because he arrogantly would just write checks.  Wasn't that ultimately good for the Yankees brand?

 

 

[floplag]

An interesting thought.  Trout has never struck me as the type of person that wants to be "the guy".  My impression is that he really doesnt want much to do with that kind of spotlight.  And thats fine of course, aside from the fact that he is the face of the franchise today and best player on the planet which carries a certain amount of that.  Its one of the things i think works in our favor to retain him is that if he goes to NY or LA or Philly even, there will be added pressure to varying degrees either to produce under the spotlight or to be a franchise savior.  Im sure he could handle that talent wise, but is it something he wants to deal with?

If your question is would he prefer to have and perhaps benefit from  having someone else take on that role and be the face so to speak and be left alone to just go about his business, i think he would, but thats wholly just one mans opinion.  The issue with that is how many guys could even try to do that with a straight face and be taken seriously.   Harper is perhaps one of them for the reasons you state as far as off the field stuff.

He would generate attention, draw interest, and more casual fans no question.  He would be the yang to Trouts yin... yes i deliberately put them in that order :).  He would provide a  sort of "hate" factor as you say.  It kinda makes me think of the old Bulls teams that had tremendous talents that weren't necessarily spotlight seeker, but Rodman took all that anyway and they just played ball. 

As many have said about Trout, Harper would also largely pay for himself in many ways as an investment.   Not to mention he would also likely put us in the playoffs on the field and easily help bridge the gap between now and when the farm kicks in from a competitive standpoint.    And i know people will ding me for this one but he would also provide insurance should Trout actually leave and Adell could slide into CF when that happens. 

If you could jump in right now, go over the top short term with something like a 5 years 165 or 175 with an opt out at 3, would you?  

I know i know he doesnt make us better than Hou today, but he would give us a strong shot at beating TB and Min and a chance to do damage past that point if it works out.  Then again my preference to win both now and later is well know at this point so im probably the wrong person to ask as i think its highly unlikely it would happen but its the one thing that would meet that hope at this point. 

[T.G.]

I wouldn't change a single thing about Mike Trout and the way he approaches baseball and life....

[Dtwncbad]

Me neither.

And at the same time if I owned the Angels, I very well might have an interest in also having a player that has an entirely different persona.

Trout would look even better and even classier next to Bryce Harper.

The different personalities on the same team would be impossible for the media to ignore.  Impossible.

Shaq and Kobe.  It was good for both of them individually, good when they got along and good when they didn't. . .and good for the Lakers franchise.

[Jeff Fletcher]

The Angels had pretty much the most interesting player in the world on their team last year and I don’t think their attendance changed all that much. 

I think the Angels have a pretty big built-in base comprised of casual fans who just want to go hang out and don’t even know what’s going on, and hardcore fans who will go no matter what. For those in between, I think a winning team is more of a draw than any individual player. 

[ettin]

4 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

Me neither.

And at the same time if I owned the Angels, I very well might have an interest in also having a player that has an entirely different persona.

Trout would look even better and even classier next to Bryce Harper.  Harper would look even better and even classier next to Mike Trout.

The different personalities on the same team would be impossible for the media to ignore.  Impossible.

Shaq and Kobe.  It was good for both of them individually, good when they got along and good when they didn't. . .and good for the Lakers franchise.

Fixed.

[Docwaukee]

18 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

The Angels had pretty much the most interesting player in the world on their team last year and I don’t think their attendance changed all that much. 

I think the Angels have a pretty big built-in base comprised of casual fans who just want to go hang out and don’t even know what’s going on, and hardcore fans who will go no matter what. For those in between, I think a winning team is more of a draw than any individual player. 

Since Trout arrived I've felt Arte has had his golden goose.  Now with Ohtani I think they are essentially maxed out in terms of single player draws.  Law of diminishing returns.  The only thing that's really going to boost attendance at this point is winning.  

I think Harper helps another team without Trout or Ohtani way more in terms of single player marketing.  

The Angels need talent.  Players that can perform on the field.  They need some of that talent not to cost fair market value of a free agent.  

[arch stanton]

I always thought Trout's personality made him more appealing to the Angels fan base. Since his face isn't plastered everywhere and he''s not on every other commercial the best way to get a Mike Trout fix is to attend or watch an Angels game

[Blarg]

This is not a topic about Trout but rather Dtown trying to shift the focus to rationalizing getting Harper now that his boy Manny is a Padre. 

[Docwaukee]

17 minutes ago, Blarg said:

This is not a topic about Trout but rather Dtown trying to shift the focus to rationalizing getting Harper now that his boy Manny is a Padre. 

even if it's not a rationalization for Bryce, it's still not a question about Trout.  I think he's asking whether the Angels need drama in order to get more national recognition.  The answer is no thanks.  

[Angelsjunky]

Why do they need national attention, anyways? So Peter Gammons will talk about them more? So they can overspend on mediocre free agents?

I like the fact that the Angels are somewhat under the radar. In fact, I think Trout does as well, which is why he's probably going to be an Angel for life. Anaheim may not be the sexiest city in the country, but the fans seem a lot more chill than how New Jersey and Pennsylvania slobs will be as they scream at Trout when he's slowing down in his mid-30s. Let Harper go and deal with the Cheesesteaks.

[Docwaukee]

15 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

Why do they need national attention, anyways? So Peter Gammons will talk about them more? So they can overspend on mediocre free agents?

I like the fact that the Angels are somewhat under the radar. In fact, I think Trout does as well, which is why he's probably going to be an Angel for life. Anaheim may not be the sexiest city in the country, but the fans seem a lot more chill than how New Jersey and Pennsylvania slobs will be as they scream at Trout when he's slowing down in his mid-30s. Let Harper go and deal with the Cheesesteaks.

and what does that bring the halos in revenue?  more featured games on TV?  that gets them very little.  I get a team like the Padres trying to establish themselves with a marquee player or the phills trying to get their fans re-engaged.  

The Angels actually have star power.  They need wins and don't need to pay a premium for them.   

[Lou]

people are casual fans because they don't care that much about baseball 

[Angelsjunky]

17 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

and what does that bring the halos in revenue?  more featured games on TV?  that gets them very little.  I get a team like the Padres trying to establish themselves with a marquee player or the phills trying to get their fans re-engaged.  

The Angels actually have star power.  They need wins and don't need to pay a premium for them.   

I think we're saying the same thing. The Angels don't need anymore star power or big personalities; they need wins and postseason appearances. I think the Eppler Plan--which doesn't include Manryce Macharper--is their best chance of getting there.

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

I hate reading in the comment section on articles about Trout, that go like this: a great player can carry an NBA franchise on his own but the Angels suck with possibly the best player that ever lived.

It seems like there is always some poster to remind me that the Angels are wasting Trout's talent. I sincerely hope they can change these comments this year. Even though our farm system has improved greatly in the last couple of years there are still comments being made about how bad our farm is and another reason we should trade Trout. I hate it.

[Dtwncbad]

11 hours ago, Blarg said:

This is not a topic about Trout but rather Dtown trying to shift the focus to rationalizing getting Harper now that his boy Manny is a Padre. 

Manny was never my boy.  He was a good fit for the Angel roster and only 26 years old with many pime years ahead.

I am an Angel fan that wants as.much talent on the roster as possible, period.

So yes 26 year old highly talented free agents are asolutely on my wish list. . . Along with extending Trout and developing a beast farm system.

I plead guilty.

 

[Docwaukee]

9 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

I think we're saying the same thing. The Angels don't need anymore star power or big personalities; they need wins and postseason appearances. I think the Eppler Plan--which doesn't include Manryce Macharper--is their best chance of getting there.

yes.  

[Dtwncbad]

9 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

I think we're saying the same thing. The Angels don't need anymore star power or big personalities; they need wins and postseason appearances. I think the Eppler Plan--which doesn't include Manryce Macharper--is their best chance of getting there.

It is frustrating to hear comments like this.  Why is it that it always comes down to one or the other?

It is both.

Do you really really believe that the Angels "best chance" of winning and postseason appearances is the current Eppler plan WITHOUT a Machado or Harper?

Or is it the current Eppler plan AND a Machado or Harper?

So the team is worse with Bryce Harper than without?

This isn't about plan.  I have not seen anybody say that developing the most talent possible in your system is not the right path.

It is about if adding a 26 year old stud to that plan makes the team better now and well into the next era where the younger talent arrives.

I can't accept a statement that says the best chance to win is to not acquire a 26 year old stud player when nobody said do that instead of developing an impressive farm.

[Jeff Fletcher]

8 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

It is frustrating to hear comments like this.  Why is it that it always comes down to one or the other?

 It is both.

This is where I put the “I want an Oompa Loompa now!” meme.

The Angels have a budget that doesn’t allow for Harper/Machado in addition to Trout, Pujols, Upton.

Of course I know you don’t believe it, and I honestly don’t know anything beyond what both Moreno and Eppler have told me to my face. 

[Dtwncbad]

39 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

This is where I put the “I want an Oompa Loompa now!” meme.

The Angels have a budget that doesn’t allow for Harper/Machado in addition to Trout, Pujols, Upton.

Of course I know you don’t believe it, and I honestly don’t know anything beyond what both Moreno and Eppler have told me to my face. 

Jeff my opinion is just not that complicated.

I believe they have a budget.  I believe they will stick to it.  I believe this is what they tell you to your face.

I also believe they can actually "afford" to have a different budget.

Not complicated.

[Docwaukee]

2 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Jeff my opinion is just not that complicated.

I believe they have a budget.  I believe they will stick to it.  I believe this is what they tell you to your face.

I also believe they can actually "afford" to have a different budget.

Not complicated.

hence his oompa loompa comment.  you want it because you want it regardless of whether it actually makes sense.  

yes, a 26 year old star player would help.  But go ahead and ignore why paying 30+mil a year for such for a 10 year commitment wouldn't 

[Jeff Fletcher]

4 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Jeff my opinion is just not that complicated.

I believe they have a budget.  I believe they will stick to it.  I believe this is what they tell you to your face.

I also believe they can actually "afford" to have a different budget.

Not complicated.

What does “afford” mean?

That’s a very slippery, subjective, slope. 

Any business that makes a profit can “afford” to make less, right? By definition, a profit means it’s revenue that exceeds expenses. So they can “afford” to spend more. 

So who decides what amount of profit is fair?

[Dtwncbad]

17 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

What does “afford” mean?

That’s a very slippery, subjective, slope. 

Any business that makes a profit can “afford” to make less, right? By definition, a profit means it’s revenue that exceeds expenses. So they can “afford” to spend more. 

So who decides what amount of profit is fair?

Jeff, respectfully it is ridiculous for me to have any interest in convincing you to agree with my opinion.

You and I know exactly the same amount about the real exact financials of the team.

You do realize, I hope, that the owners would never want the fans to have my opinion and that they would use their face-to-face interactions with people like you to paint the picture they want to hopefully shape the fan opinions.

I am happy you believe everything they tell you.

 

[angelsnationtalk]

18 hours ago, Ace-Of-Diamonds said:

I hate reading in the comment section on articles about Trout, that go like this: a great player can carry an NBA franchise on his own but the Angels suck with possibly the best player that ever lived.

It seems like there is always some poster to remind me that the Angels are wasting Trout's talent. I sincerely hope they can change these comments this year. Even though our farm system has improved greatly in the last couple of years there are still comments being made about how bad our farm is and another reason we should trade Trout. I hate it.

Let’s be honest... they’re going to waste another year of him pending a decent signing of one more player.

2020 and beyond has better hopes but 2019 will be another mediocre year with a 5% chance of a wildcard. Basically the front office’s way of saying “we have given them a chance to be competitive” normal blah blah blah for us

[angelsnationtalk]

3 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Jeff, respectfully it is ridiculous for me to have any interest in convincing you to agree with my opinion.

You and I know exactly the same amount about the real exact financials of the team.

You do realize, I hope, that the owners would never want the fans to have my opinion and that they would use their face-to-face interactions with people like you to paint the picture they want to hopefully shape the fan opinions.

I am happy you believe everything they tell you.

 

@Jeff Fletcher Arte has said teams spend about 45%-50% of their revenue back into their rosters... I think what some of us fans are saying is that Arte has said he’d go over the threshold for the right players. This leads us to think there’s always room to improve it and expand it if need be. Some of us think it’s for Trout, others think it could be done with Pujols for a few more years until he, Calhoun, and Cozart are all off the books and the rookies offset the payroll by over $56M. That alone gets us back in the green. 

I think we get that our owner is financially happy with where we are. I also think we can all agree that at any moment Arte can push the green button and be just fine doing it.