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! 

     

IGNORED

I've been resisting it, but...we're gonna lose Trout


Glen

Recommended Posts

Just now, Sean-Regan said:

His value for two years is worth more than we would get for him. Trading him would be the most moronically stupid decision any organization could make. The only circumstance you trade him in is if he demands a trade, and even then, it depends on the circumstances. 

So Mike Trout tells the Angel's their best deal is not good enough.   You wouldnt trade him.  You would let him walk for just a compensation pick.  Is that what you would do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, stormngt said:

So Mike Trout tells the Angel's their best deal is not good enough.   You wouldnt trade him.  You would let him walk for just a compensation pick.  Is that what you would do?

Yes. And so would you if you had the slightest piece of baseball sense. 

Of course, you’re the guy who laughably said drop him an ultimatum: Sign our best offer or we’re trading you. Excuse me if I don’t give af what you think about anything baseball related.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sean-Regan said:

Yes. And so would you if you had the slightest piece of baseball sense. 

Of course, you’re the guy who laughably said drop him an ultimatum: Sign our best offer or we’re trading you. Excuse me if I don’t give af what you think about anything baseball related.

You can’t be serious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, JarsOfClay said:

It's disrespectful to angel fans with Harper actively trying to get him to avoid signing an extension and leave the angels. Some of us would actually like to keep him, if that ever crossed Harper's mind. It's not like Trout's a free agent.

It's an ahole thing to do, and as Lou mentioned tampering.

LOL at “it’s disrespectful to angel fans”

Get thicker skin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, stormngt said:

So Mike Trout tells the Angel's their best deal is not good enough.   You wouldnt trade him.  You would let him walk for just a compensation pick.  Is that what you would do?

You realize the Angels are still going to play games for the next two years? And having Mike Trout gives them a better chance to win those games than not having him. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Harper hasn't shown himself to be all that keen on social graces, he's typically always said whatever the hell he wanted to... so, him saying what he's saying is pretty much par for the course.   Take it for what it's worth -- he's trying to ingratiate himself to his new fan-base, drive the hype up.  If you're the Phillies you love seeing a guy talk up how great it could be...   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

You realize the Angels are still going to play games for the next two years? And having Mike Trout gives them a better chance to win those games than not having him. 

 

If this team’s number one priority was winning right now then yes, you keep him and let it play out. Just like the Nationals did with Bryce.

However, this team isn’t built to win this year and it’s unlikely they’ll be in position to do so next year as well. So hanging onto Trout for the sake of winning a few more meaningless games doesnt do much for us in the big picture. Trading him for a couple pieces to help us compete down the road when this team is ready to compete would help us more.

Unless Arte is more worried about ticket sales over the next two years I just don’t see how keeping Trout makes sense if they get the sense he’s leaving. 

The Jays blew their shot at getting something for Donaldson when it was obvious they weren’t going to win last year. I’d hate to see us do the same with Trout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Second Base said:

And the worst he will get is a warning.  MLB wouldn't dare to rain on the parade of its most vocal player making headlines across the internet. 

I agree that it is tampering and something should be done, but won't because MLB is scared to do anything. Also MLB I bet would like to have them play together. Harper is just a greedy piece of crap over money. Just because I'm not mean but would love it if an Angels pitcher throws a pitch at Harper and hits him right in the mouth to shut him up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, CanadianHalo said:

If this team’s number one priority was winning right now then yes, you keep him and let it play out. Just like the Nationals did with Bryce.

However, this team isn’t built to win this year and it’s unlikely they’ll be in position to do so next year as well. So hanging onto Trout for the sake of winning a few more meaningless games doesnt do much for us in the big picture. Trading him for a couple pieces to help us compete down the road when this team is ready to compete would help us more.

Unless Arte is more worried about ticket sales over the next two years I just don’t see how keeping Trout makes sense if they get the sense he’s leaving. 

The Jays blew their shot at getting something for Donaldson when it was obvious they weren’t going to win last year. I’d hate to see us do the same with Trout.

I disagree with that. With Trout, I think the Angels have a chance to make the playoffs this year and I think they’ll be better next year. 

They aren’t going to punt on that 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

Harper hasn't shown himself to be all that keen on social graces, he's typically always said whatever the hell he wanted to... so, him saying what he's saying is pretty much par for the course.   Take it for what it's worth -- he's trying to ingratiate himself to his new fan-base, drive the hype up.  If you're the Phillies you love seeing a guy talk up how great it could be...   

 

the biggest pile of BS in all of this is him implying that he went for the lower AAV so the phills can sign another big time player.  Or that he took a 13 year deal with no opt out because he wanted to stay in one spot the rest of his career.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

the biggest pile of BS in all of this is him implying that he went for the lower AAV so the phills can sign another big time player.  Or that he took a 13 year deal with no opt out because he wanted to stay in one spot the rest of his career.  

You me and everyone who isn't a fanboy knows he chased the record and nothing else.  He wanted his wikipedia page to say he signed the biggest contract ever -- I really look forward to seeing how that lack of social graces will come back to haunt him the first time he goes into one of his epic slumps and Phillyphan turns on him like they are known to do.

He really couldnt have gone to a more fitting place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, CanadianHalo said:

If this team’s number one priority was winning right now then yes, you keep him and let it play out. Just like the Nationals did with Bryce.

However, this team isn’t built to win this year and it’s unlikely they’ll be in position to do so next year as well. So hanging onto Trout for the sake of winning a few more meaningless games doesnt do much for us in the big picture. Trading him for a couple pieces to help us compete down the road when this team is ready to compete would help us more.

Unless Arte is more worried about ticket sales over the next two years I just don’t see how keeping Trout makes sense if they get the sense he’s leaving. 

The Jays blew their shot at getting something for Donaldson when it was obvious they weren’t going to win last year. I’d hate to see us do the same with Trout.

I wouldn't want to be known as the one that traded Mike Trout, anymore than the owner that sold Babe Ruth.

Edited by Ace-Of-Diamonds
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Ace-Of-Diamonds said:

I wouldn't want to be known as the one that traded Mike Trout, anymore than the owner that sold Babe Ruth.

The Angels are gonna be in a really tough spot if it comes to that.  

Trout and his agent aren't likely to alienate the halos and take them out of the pool of teams that would bid on Trout.   So even if Trout declares that he's gonna test free agency, my guess is that he'll still indicate that the halos aren't out of the running for his services.  Therefore putting the impetus to trade him entirely on the backs of the FO.   I don't think they would ever take the risk of moving him even if there was a shred of a chance to retain him.  

Yet if Mike clearly indicates he has zero intention of staying out west then I think it makes sense to move him and I don't think the fans would fault the team for doing so.  But I just don't see this scenario actually happening.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sean-Regan said:

Yes. And so would you if you had the slightest piece of baseball sense. 

Of course, you’re the guy who laughably said drop him an ultimatum: Sign our best offer or we’re trading you. Excuse me if I don’t give af what you think about anything baseball related.

I said give him your best offer.  I never said give him an ultimatum!  Now your making shit up! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

You realize the Angels are still going to play games for the next two years? And having Mike Trout gives them a better chance to win those games than not having him. 

 

Yes I know that.  However long term it's best to get the most value for him if you are going to lose him.  Now if we are world series contenders then I would be hesitant to trade him.  However if we are WS contenders I dont think there will be a problem getting Trout to sign the extension.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/2/2019 at 6:16 PM, NJHalo said:

Eveeyone likes to make the natural comparison of Mike Trout to Mickey Mantle. Mike should think about the major knee injury Mantle sustained getting his cleat caught on a sprinkler in the outfield. Something like that could happen to him over the next two seasons and throw a wrench into his schedule of baseball and financial immortality. 

Don’t risk it Mike. Your value is peaked. Everyone knows you are the best in baseball and deserve to be the highest paid. Be smart and get a deal done that will set the next century of Trouts up for life with financial security.

Honestly if I were him I’d follow this round of thinking - don’t chance it - right now you can be sure to be the highest paid player in baseball why risk it - I imagine that he will not decline in skill over the next two years but you never know about injury 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

The Angels are gonna be in a really tough spot if it comes to that.  

Trout and his agent aren't likely to alienate the halos and take them out of the pool of teams that would bid on Trout.   So even if Trout declares that he's gonna test free agency, my guess is that he'll still indicate that the halos aren't out of the running for his services.  Therefore putting the impetus to trade him entirely on the backs of the FO.   I don't think they would ever take the risk of moving him even if there was a shred of a chance to retain him.  

Yet if Mike clearly indicates he has zero intention of staying out west then I think it makes sense to move him and I don't think the fans would fault the team for doing so.  But I just don't see this scenario actually happening.  

If we assume that Trout isn’t going to re-sign, that the team is unlikely to make a dent in the post season and that Trout’s no trade clause isn’t an issue, then we absolutely 100% need to trade him... as soon as that becomes clear.

Of course those three assumptions are unlikely to ever be absolute. I do think if Trout doesn’t accept ‘our best offer’ and makes it seem likely that he’ll test free agency then The front office should assume he’s gona walk. I’m kinda bullish on our 2020 chances but a lot depends on how things go this year. If talent hasn’t emerged from the minors and the budget hasn’t stretched then I think we probably can assume we aren’t looking for much past a wild card. And finally if Trout is not planning on staying then he will probably be open to a trade, at least to a contender.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sean-Regan said:

His value for two years is worth more than we would get for him. Trading him would be the most moronically stupid decision any organization could make. The only circumstance you trade him in is if he demands a trade, and even then, it depends on the circumstances. 

Are you kidding??? We would net a kings ransom in a trade. There would be offers that would make it palatable if he was not going to resign here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with getting value back via trade.... even now... is that A)  if you are getting reliable players  you are going to being paying more salary wise than you are paying for Trout...  or B ) you are rolling the dice with prospects.  A combo and you are probably paying a little less and rolling the dice.

At this point, it's better to wait it out and try to win and hope that convinces him (if he isn't open to staying already).  There's enough talent on this club to do it this year... probably moreso next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ScottT said:

The problem with getting value back via trade.... even now... is that A)  if you are getting reliable players  you are going to being paying more salary wise than you are paying for Trout...  or B ) you are rolling the dice with prospects.  A combo and you are probably paying a little less and rolling the dice.

At this point, it's better to wait it out and try to win and hope that convinces him (if he isn't open to staying already).  There's enough talent on this club to do it this year... probably moreso next year.

Yeah that’s what people are failing to realize. We won 80 games last year and we were banged up bad. If we can stay relatively healthy there’s no reason we can’t win 90+ games. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. The Angels must make a strong playoff push this year. I would argue it is imperative we at least make it the WC game.

2. The relationship between Ausmus and Trout will be critical.

3. Other players and the union will put pressure on Trout to file for free agency. If healthy his deal would reestablish the top of the market. I expect the relationship between the union and MLB to deteriorate rapidly between now and December 2021, when the current CBA expires.

4. If I’m Trout I wait until after 2020 to sign. He will reestablish the top of the market. Pick who he wants based on who is best set-up to make multiple WS runs.

5. The new CBA may radically change how team’s can structure themselves for future WS runs. Will the current free agency service time rules continue? Will players automatically reach FA at age 28 or so? Ton of other unknown variables.

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...