What would you rather have: Trout Success or Team Success

[yk9001]

For the next eight years, you get to choose:

Mike Trout absolutely dominating baseball - Four more MVPs, four other Top five finishes.  And the team may sniff at the playoffs.  Maybe one Wild card win.  But a lot of 83 win seasons

 

OR

 

Trout becomes just an All Star; no MVPs; an All Star six of the 8 years; Trout passing significant names on significant lists; But the team has success - call it the 2004-2009 type of success; multiple playoffs, a coin flip to go to the World Series

 

Which would you take?

 

[Angel Oracle]

The latter, no doubt at all

 

[hangin n wangin]

The one where we actually get to win baseball games.

[Bronson]

If you don’t take the latter you aren’t an Angels fan. Period. 

[Catwhoshatinthehat]

7 minutes ago, Angel Oracle said:

The latter, no doubt at all

 

This.  The last 10 years made me realize how spoiled we were as Angels fans from 2004-2009.  Obviously I would have preferred they won it all during that span but I'll take competitive baseball with a chance over bad baseball any day. Player accolades and banners for wins in a season really don't mean shit a few years down the line. World Series trophies, competitive baseball and even painful losses (screw you 2005 ALCS) are things you'll never forget as a fan.  

[TroutCron]

9 minutes ago, yk9001 said:

For the next eight years, you get to choose:

Mike Trout absolutely dominating baseball - Four more MVPs, four other Top five finishes.  And the team may sniff at the playoffs.  Maybe one Wild card win.  But a lot of 83 win seasons

 

OR

 

Trout becomes just an All Star; no MVPs; an All Star six of the 8 years; Trout passing significant names on significant lists; But the team has success - call it the 2004-2009 type of success; multiple playoffs, a coin flip to go to the World Series

 

Which would you take?

 

No brainer, winning is the ultimate goal for most franchises. Trout has already done enough to make the HOF so just a good Trout and winning is the choice.

[Claude]

Championships are my choice. I really don’t care who’s wearing the uniform if we have a sustainable plan. 

[Chuck]

Always the latter. 

If Trout is an All-Star but never wins another MVP, but is surrounded with talent in both the lineup and pitching staff, we're going to win a lot of ball games. 

[stormngt]

34 minutes ago, yk9001 said:

For the next eight years, you get to choose:

Mike Trout absolutely dominating baseball - Four more MVPs, four other Top five finishes.  And the team may sniff at the playoffs.  Maybe one Wild card win.  But a lot of 83 win seasons

 

OR

 

Trout becomes just an All Star; no MVPs; an All Star six of the 8 years; Trout passing significant names on significant lists; But the team has success - call it the 2004-2009 type of success; multiple playoffs, a coin flip to go to the World Series

 

Which would you take?

 

Really stupid question to ask.  I would be ecstatic if Trout becomes a utility player if it meant the type of 2004-09 success.

[NJHalo]

I would be willing to trade Trout if it means winning again. 

[floplag]

I was a halo fan literally before Trout was born so, team success trumps and players success. 

[T.G.]

[kevinb]

Team 10000% I honestly don’t care if Trout ever has another hit. Team success is literally the only thing that matters. 

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

38 minutes ago, Bronson said:

If you don’t take the latter you aren’t an Angels fan. Period. 

Trout would trade his MVP for a WS Ring, in a heart beat. Hopefully he won't need to choose one or the other.

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

15 minutes ago, stormngt said:

Really stupid question to ask.  I would be ecstatic if Trout becomes a utility player if it meant the type of 2004-09 success.

what about 2002?

[NJHalo]

I didn't think so at the time, but man do I miss the "good ole days"

[Claude]

18 minutes ago, NJHalo said:

I would be willing to trade Trout if it means winning again. 

The one thing the Angels did is make Trout un-tradable. His contract is enormous so any team that would be interested wouldn’t want to give much in return if they have to inherit the entire contract. It’s a done deal. 

[yk9001]

19 minutes ago, NJHalo said:

I didn't think so at the time, but man do I miss the "good ole days"

Yeah, I didn't think Reggie Willits batting clean up, and GA with pinkeye would be the "good ole days", but here we are....

[Dtwncbad]

Which option includes a new stadium and free luxury box season tickets and bunch of the players marrying super hot women who come to the ballpark everyday in bikini tops and make out with each other?

[stormngt]

6 hours ago, Ace-Of-Diamonds said:

what about 2002?

I wasn't the one the excluded 2002.  Ask the person who I was quoting.

[Taylor]

7 hours ago, yk9001 said:

For the next eight years, you get to choose:

Mike Trout absolutely dominating baseball - Four more MVPs, four other Top five finishes.  And the team may sniff at the playoffs.  Maybe one Wild card win.  But a lot of 83 win seasons

 

OR

 

Trout becomes just an All Star; no MVPs; an All Star six of the 8 years; Trout passing significant names on significant lists; But the team has success - call it the 2004-2009 type of success; multiple playoffs, a coin flip to go to the World Series

 

Which would you take?

 

[eligrba4ever]

Trout success or team success? 

In the long run, you cannot have either without both.

Trout being the one-man band would get tiresome very quickly. Or should I say it has already become tiresome?

[Lou]

4 minutes ago, eligrba4ever said:

Trout success or team success? 

In the long run, you cannot have either without both.

a lot of teams do it

[mtangelsfan]

Why is this even a question?

[yamsi12]

8 hours ago, yk9001 said:

For the next eight years, you get to choose:

Mike Trout absolutely dominating baseball - Four more MVPs, four other Top five finishes.  And the team may sniff at the playoffs.  Maybe one Wild card win.  But a lot of 83 win seasons

 

OR

 

Trout becomes just an All Star; no MVPs; an All Star six of the 8 years; Trout passing significant names on significant lists; But the team has success - call it the 2004-2009 type of success; multiple playoffs, a coin flip to go to the World Series

 

Which would you take?