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

[Angel Oracle]

1 hour ago, Lou said:

way to aim low, buddy 

I don't know about that, they won two AL West titles and nearly a third from 1982-1986 with him as the regular catcher.   The pitching staffs gave him solid credit for their success. 

[Vegas Halo Fan]

23 hours ago, Dochalo said:

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.  

This is the central point. For a deal to even be considered, Trout would have to tell the club that he wasn't coming back regardless.

[WeatherWonk]

2 hours ago, Dochalo said:

It is.  Premier catchers that are legit on both sides of the ball go within the top 5 picks.  

Since the june draft became a thing in 1965, there have been 3 players draft in the first round as a C with more than 25 WAR for their career as a C that weren't taken with a top 5 pick.  

Ted Simmons (1967) - 10th overall
Jason Kendall (1992) - 23rd overall
Mike Scioscia (1976) - 19th overall

There's actually only 10 guys over the last 20 years or so who have put up more than 20 WAR behind the dish.  

The moral of this story is that you shouldn't waste an early pick on a catcher unless you are picking in the top 5. 

 

I appreciate your efforts in coming up with this. Great stuff, Doc!

It begs the question, at least to me. Are drafted catchers so poorly represented in the 25+ WAR list because they were drafted as other position players or are there actually so few drafted catchers that achieve 25+ WAR?

Do teams just make a silk catcher's mitt out of a sow's IF/OF mitt?

[floplag]

1 hour ago, WeatherWonk said:

I appreciate your efforts in coming up with this. Great stuff, Doc!

It begs the question, at least to me. Are drafted catchers so poorly represented in the 25+ WAR list because they were drafted as other position players or are there actually so few drafted catchers that achieve 25+ WAR?

Do teams just make a silk catcher's mitt out of a sow's IF/OF mitt?

i would also offer to this the fact that far too many youths in HS and college do not want to catch, so the pool is likely smaller.
In the years i coached youth it was always a struggle to actually find a good catcher.... everyone wants to play SS or CF.   I think we have a similar problem with third base. 

[Docwaukee]

36 minutes ago, WeatherWonk said:

I appreciate your efforts in coming up with this. Great stuff, Doc!

It begs the question, at least to me. Are drafted catchers so poorly represented in the 25+ WAR list because they were drafted as other position players or are there actually so few drafted catchers that achieve 25+ WAR?

Do teams just make a silk catcher's mitt out of a sow's IF/OF mitt?

They're never turning other position players into catchers.  Always the other way around where you are getting a ton of other position players that start out at C.  

[Troll Daddy]

 

[Docwaukee]

1 hour ago, Troll Daddy said:

 

It's a good opening bid imo.  Especially if Trout wants an opt out where you can front load some of the deal.  

 

[Pancake Bear]

21 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

It's a good opening bid imo.  Especially if Trout wants an opt out where you can front load some of the deal.  

 

Depends if it’s an extension to the final two years of his present contract or a tear-up-the-current-deal contract. If it’s the latter, it’s very low. If the former, it’s a respectable offer, but it may not be enough. Trouts hard to put a fair price on. 

[Docwaukee]

14 minutes ago, Sean-Regan said:

Depends if it’s an extension to the final two years of his present contract or a tear-up-the-current-deal contract. If it’s the latter, it’s very low. If the former, it’s a respectable offer, but it may not be enough. Trouts hard to put a fair price on. 

that would be low if it's a tear up.  I can't imagine that would be the case.  12 year total (2 left +10) would take Mike through age 38.  Same as the 13 for Harper.   That would be 10m more per year AAV.  Arenado's deal takes him through age 35 as does Machado's.  That would surpass everyone on all fronts.  It's even more fair if he can opt out after 2023 and it's front loaded.  Adding another year to eliminate the opt out would be fine by me.  Either way though, It's a negotiation.  Keep the lines open and I think they've done that.  

[Lou]

Trout isn't going anywhere 

[floplag]

7 hours ago, RBM said:

I disagree 100%.  It’s the exact opposite in youth baseball. All the best players are catchers in youth baseball - USSSA, Pony, Little League. You can’t win without your best players catching and they want to because that is where the action is. These same kids also pitch and play short stop. As they develop in HS it changes. The kids who were your C/P/SS in youth ball play elsewhere. Why? Generally because there are better C/P/SS playing those positions in HS. Also, the outfielder positions are more important in 14U and HS.   

So it’s not about kids not wanting to play catcher. It's more about what the true value of a catcher becomes at the highest levels. Catchers are so important on the defensive side that their offensive production becomes a bonus and this doesn’t always translate to a high WAR. 

I dont misunderstand, i agree on their value, but my experience coaching from youth thru 16U for boys and girls was the opposite of yours.
I never had to worry about it with the girls as my daughter was an eventually all country catcher, but aside from that it was a challenge.
And dont get me started on the parent all thinking thier kids would play long term and didnt want the wear on thier knees. 

[stormngt]

On 3/3/2019 at 4:32 PM, 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.

How about being known as Bavasi as the player that let Nolan Ryan walk?  It is imperative that if you are losing the player that you get something in return.

[stormngt]

On 3/3/2019 at 5:00 PM, 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.  

I highly hope Trout respects the franchise enough to be honest and tell them that he wants to play somewhere else.  If he turns down our best offer than he is telling us that he wants to play somewhere else.  Being "polite" as you said, is nothing more than a slap in the face.  I don't blame Trout if he left because he prefers to play with a team with a better chance of winning or playing closer to home.  I will definitely blame him if he isn't honest with the team so they can trade him for potential assets.

[stormngt]

On 3/3/2019 at 6:25 PM, 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.

we are not going to get equal value for him.  However, we will more value than a compensation pick.

[Sully151]

What team would you trade him to? You certainly wouldn’t want him in the AL West, and I am not sure you would want him in the American League.

Do you trade him to the Phillies and just get it over with? If so, you would be gutting their farm and some Major League talent to get something in return. That would make them weaker in the next few years and would limit their chances of post season glory even with Trout and Harper.

[floplag]

5 minutes ago, stormngt said:

we are not going to get equal value for him.  However, we will more value than a compensation pick.

Dumb question perhaps but if he leaves as FA we dont get comp pick do we?  there would be no qualifying offer i dont think in that scenario?   am i overlooking something?
There will never be value or anything close to it, but at the end of the day something is better than nothing.   BUT, tThe whole reason you consider trading him now is if you dont plan to re-sign him or dont think you can resign him.  I expect that by now they should have some idea where they fall in that spectrum.

I will say this though, i owe @Dochalo a small apology in that how we do this season clearly will not affect that in any way based on how the team approached the hot stove, so they either already feel they will retain him and its just details or have accepted that they wont retain him, but 19 isnt going to matter either way clearly.    

I believed we needed to show progress, clearly the front office really didnt.  WE made a a bunch of one year deals that will have no bearing on 20 clearly intending to just stay the course on waiting for the kids and trying not to suck too badly for this season, so the reality is we wont know squat about this teams future till likely well into 20 and were just treading water. 

[Stradling]

They can offer him a qualifying offer after next season and if he signs somewhere else the Angels get a comp pick.  

[Troll Daddy]

10 hours ago, Dochalo said:

It's a good opening bid imo.  Especially if Trout wants an opt out where you can front load some of the deal.  

 

If he signs a extension he may not be interested in a opt out ... aka Harper 

[floplag]

18 minutes ago, Stradling said:

They can offer him a qualifying offer after next season and if he signs somewhere else the Angels get a comp pick.  

Even after the extension?

[Stradling]

3 minutes ago, floplag said:

Even after the extension?

I might be misunderstanding, but if you are talking about the extension that he is currently playing with then yes, then can offer him a qualifying offer, which he will decline and the Angels get a comp pick.  

[floplag]

38 minutes ago, Stradling said:

I might be misunderstanding, but if you are talking about the extension that he is currently playing with then yes, then can offer him a qualifying offer, which he will decline and the Angels get a comp pick.  

Fair enough, i was thinking it was off the table in his case for some reason.  

[Docwaukee]

@floplag

thanks for the small apology

[jeskola]

Harper is already engaging in tampering in his bid to lure Trout to Philly. He doesnt give a F*ck about the accompanying fines.

[Docwaukee]

7 hours ago, stormngt said:

I highly hope Trout respects the franchise enough to be honest and tell them that he wants to play somewhere else.  If he turns down our best offer than he is telling us that he wants to play somewhere else.  Being "polite" as you said, is nothing more than a slap in the face.  I don't blame Trout if he left because he prefers to play with a team with a better chance of winning or playing closer to home.  I will definitely blame him if he isn't honest with the team so they can trade him for potential assets.

why does he owe that to the team?  It's been a mutually beneficial relationship.  Probably more one sided toward the team and Arte making a ton of money off their golden goose.  

Arte has to do what's right for the franchise and Mike Trout has to do what's best for his business/brand long term.  If that means to keep the halos on the hook as a potential suitor, then so be it.  

I wouldn't blame him for that at all.  

[SlappyUtilityMIF]

1 hour ago, Dochalo said:

@floplag

thanks for the small apology

at least you received one Doc.....