Click bait and the next two years...

[Inside Pitch]

If one twitter photo best illustrates how much total bullshit is put out there to try to generate stories and opinions...  it's this

Stop getting bent at what these dolts are saying -- there are some great ones out that do a tremendous job of reporting news and keeping people informed but some of these guys are just trying to create stories.   

As these two posts show, situations change -- sometimes dramatically...   What's true today will not be true two years from now, what's "click-worthy" now may be laughable tomorrow.  The Angels and whether or not Trout will stay figures to be the biggest story in MLB for some time, at least until some shiny new toy shows up that's deemed "click-worthy"...  There are going to be a lot of bad takes put out there and people will run with it because "sheeple".

Just keep hoping the Angels do it right, and rebuild the team for the long haul.

Edited March 3, 2019 by Inside Pitch

[Second Base]

There are a few reasons why you really shouldn't be concerned one way or the other, but most of them aren't what people want to hear.

1. Stop letting others dictate your happiness. You don't know Trout personally, so it really shouldn't matter.

2. Most of you were Angels fans before you were Trout fans. With our without Trout,  this is your team, he can't change that.

3. As good as Mike Trout is, because of contracts owed to him and Pujols,  if Trout walks,  the Angels will have over 60 million freed up in the annual budget, not to mention cap space. Granted,  the Angels will likely be 10 games worse without him than they were with him,  but investing 65 million a year in improving the team likely results in the Angels recuperating some of those wins back.  A conservative estimate in this case would be 5. So the difference between Trout and no Trout may only be 5 wins a great,  and that doesn't even get into who his replacement is and how well they perform. But imagine for a second that the Angels were willing to go to our past 40 million to keep Trout and they decided to spend that money anyway.  Then you're looking at more like up million a year to spend.  If the Angels are spending that money,  there really may not be that much of a difference between Trout and no Trout.  I believe he's the greatest player who ever lived, but baseball is designed so that it takes a large collection of good players to win. The Angels probably have the most talented roster I've ever seen this team field with Trout, Upton, Ohtani and Simmons. All are stars in their own right. But even they aren't enough to win. You need depth and health. 

4. Regardless,  the Angels come out as good guys in this. They have treared Trout right and have tried to win. They'll have surrounded him by the best mentors early in his career, and a lot of young exciting kids that modeled their overall game after him that he could influence later in his 20's. They'll have offered him as much money as any team as well.  So if Trout decides to leave,  the Angels will have some nothing that they need to be ashamed of. Just like the Cardinals after Pujols left.  They will end up just fine.

Having said all that,  it would be nice if he stayed. But if he doesn't,  it's not the end of the world. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

Is this one true? The last time someone posted one of these it was fake news.

[Inside Pitch]

21 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

Is this one true? The last time someone posted one of these it was fake news.

Yep...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fancy-stats/wp/2017/11/16/bryce-harper-would-be-a-bargain-for-nats-at-500-million/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4886df39d070

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2019/02/28/ignore-scott-borass-binder-bryce-harper-isnt-worth-million-this-market/?utm_term=.15e3c14ff043

100% legit...

[Vegas Halo Fan]

Interesting that the same writer would say that Harper was worth $500M to the Nationals, but that the Phillies overpaid at $330M. 

[Angelsjunky]

LOL, nice find @Inside Pitch. While I think most of that is WaPo Butthurt, there is also a valid point that while Harper looked like he was having a second great year in 2017 but got injured, 2018 was a relative disappointment. If Harper had repeated his 2017 performance over a full season in 2018, say hitting .320/.415/.600 with 40 HR, 120 RBI and 7 WAR, then he would have gotten an even larger contract, with a higher AAV. But 2018 was disappointing.

I tend to think both headlines are extreme. If Harper had continued to hit like he did in 2015, he would have joined Trout as one of the greatest ever and then the headling could have been justified. But that didn't happen, even after 2017 it was a ridiculous view. And considering Harper's relatively modest AAV, I don't think the contract is a bad one, even in today's market. By the time we get to second half of it, that $25M a year is going to be the equivalent $15M a year or less in today's market. Fangraphs covered this.

[Angelsjunky]

1 hour ago, Second Base said:

There are a few reasons why you really shouldn't be concerned one way or the other, but most of them aren't what people want to hear.

1. Stop letting others dictate your happiness. You don't know Trout personally, so it really shouldn't matter.

2. Most of you were Angels fans before you were Trout fans. With our without Trout,  this is your team, he can't change that.

3. As good as Mike Trout is, because of contracts owed to him and Pujols,  if Trout walks,  the Angels will have over 60 million freed up in the annual budget, not to mention cap space. Granted,  the Angels will likely be 10 games worse without him than they were with him,  but investing 65 million a year in improving the team likely results in the Angels recuperating some of those wins back.  A conservative estimate in this case would be 5. So the difference between Trout and no Trout may only be 5 wins a great,  and that doesn't even get into who his replacement is and how well they perform. But imagine for a second that the Angels were willing to go to our past 40 million to keep Trout and they decided to spend that money anyway.  Then you're looking at more like up million a year to spend.  If the Angels are spending that money,  there really may not be that much of a difference between Trout and no Trout.  I believe he's the greatest player who ever lived, but baseball is designed so that it takes a large collection of good players to win. The Angels probably have the most talented roster I've ever seen this team field with Trout, Upton, Ohtani and Simmons. All are stars in their own right. But even they aren't enough to win. You need depth and health. 

4. Regardless,  the Angels come out as good guys in this. They have treared Trout right and have tried to win. They'll have surrounded him by the best mentors early in his career, and a lot of young exciting kids that modeled their overall game after him that he could influence later in his 20's. They'll have offered him as much money as any team as well.  So if Trout decides to leave,  the Angels will have some nothing that they need to be ashamed of. Just like the Cardinals after Pujols left.  They will end up just fine.

Having said all that,  it would be nice if he stayed. But if he doesn't,  it's not the end of the world. 

My head agrees with this, but not my heart. For the last eight years he has given us something we've never had as Angels fans: a true, homegrown superstar - and not just a garden variety one, but a generational talent. That is hard to let go of.

That said, I am reminded of how the Mariners actually improved once Griffey and A-Rod departed. It wasn't necessarily causal, but the Angels are getting better regardless of whether Trout stays or not.  They'll just be that much better if he does.