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

Is there anyone who actually wants Trout gone when its time?


Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

I don't want Trout gone. But I don't want Trout after the age 35 or 36. No interest in paying him 40 million from 36 to 40.

If he puts up big numbers through age 35, I don't have a problem with seeing him get that money for the next 3 years.   Unlike Pujols, he will have been worth the contract by then.

10 years/$375 million from 2021-2030 takes him through his age 38-39 season.

If only the Padres hadn't been stupid enough to give Machado 10 years/$300 million. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm an angels fan, not a trout fan.  And I don't care about milestones.  I do like the Angels winning and playing playoff games.

Trout is fantastic.  He doesn't connect with me on a personal level.  He hasn't elevated the team past 8 years of mind numbing mediocrity.  I am not blaming him.  I am just saying that having the best player in the game isn't getting us anywhere but mediocrity.

Whatever it takes for the Angels to play in the playoffs.  With him/without him, I am good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

I don't want Trout gone. But I don't want Trout after the age 35 or 36. No interest in paying him 40 million from 36 to 40.

To add to what AO said, it doesn't really work that way. Now it isn't as bad as even a few years ago, when teams would, ah, give 10 year contracts to 32 year olds in the hopes that they'd be good enough in the first half of that contract to justify overpaying in the second half. But teams still generally have to tack on years that they wouldn't really choose to pay for.

Now Trout will still only be 29 when he hits free agency. Assuming he's as good or better than he is now, any team signing him would also assume that he'd have a few years of peak or near-peak form, a few years of still being very good but not great, and a few years of being just ok. You just kind of have to accept those "just ok" years as part of the contract to get the great and good years. I mean, in an ideal world for the Angels, they'd have a team opt out after 2025 or so (Trout's age 33 season), but it doesn't work that way.

To put it another way, if you want Trout for his age 29-34 years, then you have to pay for his age 35-38 years. At least. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, yk9001 said:

If I had a dollar every time I read something like that after Pujols signed.

I assume you realize that Pujols is an outlier. He decline quicker and harder than any almost any truly great player. Only Ken Griffey comes close. Most players who are truly great in their 20s are at least very good for most of their 30s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The books is still out on Cabrera.  Not saying it's a good contract, but he's been very good or better 4 of his 6 seasons as a 30+ year old, and one of the two down years (last year) he only played 38 games.  

Of course you could say the injury is a sign of what's to come, but I think it's too early to say he can't be a very good player anymore

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd rather the team be hamstrung with Trout's contract than with someone else's.

This team is in great position to be really good going forward. Trout and Pujols come off the books in two and three years, which means the team has over $60m annually to spend at that point. The team will spend that money. So the question isn't really, 'Is Trout going to be worth it' it's 'is Trout a better bet going forward than whichever FA's we might sign three years from now instead.' Without knowing the future it's hard for me to see any other player being a better bet. 

Some other things worth thinking about. The free agent market has been pretty shitty the last ten years or so, but with all the controversy the last couple of seasons its very possible that we see some changes in the CBA that may change the equation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Throwman91 said:

Finally someone not drinking the Trout Kool-Aid.  What has he done for us rather than play well for himself?  He never gets clutch hits and never shows up when we need him most, does he really want to win with this team?  I feel like he's dreaming of playing for a team he grew up watching, that's all.

 

I'm starting to agree with my buddy who said WAR is overrated, Trout's WAR is spread out so thin he is barely reliable in a must win game.

you're so edgy 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Throwman91 said:

Finally someone not drinking the Trout Kool-Aid.  What has he done for us rather than play well for himself?  He never gets clutch hits and never shows up when we need him most, does he really want to win with this team?  I feel like he's dreaming of playing for a team he grew up watching, that's all.

 

I'm starting to agree with my buddy who said WAR is overrated, Trout's WAR is spread out so thin he is arguably unreliable in a must win game.

I will agree about the clutch hits thing. He hits ALOT of solo shots. And it’s not because no one is ever on base for him. He just never hits them when people are on base.

 

Everyone has a few clutch hits in their career. Trout just doesn’t seem like a “clutch” type guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, yk9001 said:

I'm an angels fan, not a trout fan.  And I don't care about milestones.  I do like the Angels winning and playing playoff games.

Trout is fantastic.  He doesn't connect with me on a personal level.  He hasn't elevated the team past 8 years of mind numbing mediocrity.  I am not blaming him.  I am just saying that having the best player in the game isn't getting us anywhere but mediocrity.

Whatever it takes for the Angels to play in the playoffs.  With him/without him, I am good.

You don't care about Trout setting the All-time Angels HR record?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question about something I could’ve swore happened.

 

We all know Trout doesn’t yell or get angry at umpires but I swear there was one time during his rookie year he got thrown out at second or something and he jumped up and got right in the face of the umpire yelling. Scioscia had to come out and pull him away.

 

I might just be crazy but I swear I remember this happening but can’t find anything about it anywhere. Anyone else remember something like this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Lou said:

I'd rather he break the franchise record for World Series MVP Awards 

I've had this argument on this message board for a decade, when people denigrate the Adam Kennedy trade.

ADAM KENNEDY WON THE ALCS MVP - he was the main person responsible for getting the Angels to their only World Series appearance!  He is (IMO) one of the handful of most important players in the history of this franchise!

Troy Glaus won the World Series MVP!  Tim Salmon and GA and Frankie and Percival were instrumental in the Angels winning their only World Series!  They are the most important/best players in the history of this franchise.

You can have your Reggie Jacksons and Nolan Ryans and Albert Pujols and Colons and Vlads.  None of them got close to winning a World Series.

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...