Rosenthal: What the Halo? Leave Trout in CF!

[Lifetime]

LOL who's trying to convert someone's thinking? 

 

Ya, there are people who want Trout in CF for other reasons, thus the points of contention.

 

It's not as gray as you're making it out to be.

[Tyler]

Well you respond to practically every post in the thread.

[Lifetime]

as part of a continuing dialog, yes I do. Is that a problem for you?

[Tyler]

Only when it diminishes the good posts you do make.

[Lifetime]

So there's no issue here then.

 

Stick with the discussion Shane. 

[Jimmag]

I only do this when necessary.

 

[AngelsLakersFan]

BOTTOM LINE:

 

When Bourjos and Trout are on the same team their value is maximized with Trout in LF and Bourjos in CF.

 

Trout in LF does not maximize his value, therefore THEORETICALLY trading one of Bourjos / Trout for an equivalent valued LFer would maximize the teams value. This is only true if you assume trade markets are completely efficient, THEY ARE NOT. A trade of Bourjos is unlikely to bring us back a equivalently valued player in return.

 

The question then becomes 'which loss is least significant, the loss of defensive value from Trout playing LF, or the loss of total value of a lesser player replacing Bourjos?'

[Tyler]

BOTTOM LINE:

 

When Bourjos and Trout are on the same team their value is maximized with Trout in LF and Bourjos in CF.

 

Trout in LF does not maximize his value, therefore THEORETICALLY trading one of Bourjos / Trout for an equivalent valued LFer would maximize the teams value. This is only true if you assume trade markets are completely efficient, THEY ARE NOT. A trade of Bourjos is unlikely to bring us back a equivalently valued player in return.

 

The question then becomes 'which loss is least significant, the loss of defensive value from Trout playing LF, or the loss of total value of a lesser player replacing Bourjos?'

 

Good post. I'll take the pitching we get in a Bourjos trade and a Schuck/Trumbo LF.

[Lifetime]

I think you underestimate the value of a Trout/Bourjos OF versus a Trout/Trumbo/Shuck OF over the long haul and over estimate the value of whatever pitcher would be recovered in trade.

[Tyler]

Long-haul Calhoun would be in the mix too.

[Lifetime]

After this year? Perhaps - still doesn't equate in value.

[Tyler]

Diasgree. All three of those guys are more productive offensively, and with Trout and Hamilton we'd still have an excellent defense. That doesn't even factor in the pitcher or pitching prospects we can get for Bourjos.

[Lifetime]

There is no way you can predict Calhoun being a better hitter than Bourjos and there is certainly a good chance that Shuck will not be able to sustain his current track. Trumbo is a better hitter, he's not a very good outfielder however. Bourjos when getting regular playing time has been a a pretty good hitter and an exceptional defender. Getting a one very five days pitcher or a relief pitcher (or prospect) is not a break even value for trading Bourjos in light of the diminished defense.

[full circle]

So Bourjos  is an amazing player, yet somehow we can't trade him for anything worthwhile.  Maybe it's because he isn't as good as you guys think he is.  He's still unproven at this point.  

[Tyler]

There is no way you can predict Calhoun being a better hitter than Bourjos and there is certainly a good chance that Shuck will not be able to sustain his current track. Trumbo is a better hitter, he's not a very good outfielder however. Bourjos when getting regular playing time has been a a pretty good hitter and an exceptional defender. Getting a one very five days pitcher or a relief pitcher (or prospect) is not a break even value for trading Bourjos in light of the diminished defense.

 

I guess it will be my credibility on the line then, feel free to bump this in a few years.

 

Calhoun and Schuck have that plate discipline which leads me to believe they will be more productive hitters moving forward. Making less outs. Neither are big HR hitters (Schuck, Bourjos, or Calhoun) so what else are you going to bring to the table when your hits aren't falling? Walks. Bourjos simply doesn't have a great eye at the moment.

 

That last line is absurd, so I won't respond any further to that.

[nate]

no I'm not. Explain why we should play him in CF over LF because he mildly expressed he prefers CF while also being fine with a move to LF, even saying it would be a fun adjustment.

 

Mildly?  Because he prefers CF.  He is the best player on our team.  It is never a good idea to make the best player on your team play a position that he doesn't prefer.

[Lifetime]

So Bourjos  is an amazing player, yet somehow we can't trade him for anything worthwhile.  Maybe it's because he isn't as good as you guys think he is.  He's still unproven at this point.  

He's a very good player and under club control, so relatively cheap. But that doesn't mean there is a value for value trade opportunity out there. Someone would have a need for a CF and be willing to part with good pitching (or multiple pitching) in return. If the team felt that they could adequately replace his value in a trade, I'm sure they would entertain it. But they like having him on the roster and like what he brings to the table (and for good reason) so they are in no big hurry to move him. There is certainly no reason to move him for the sake of moving Trout to CF.

[Lifetime]

Mildly?  Because he prefers CF.  He is the best player on our team.  It is never a good idea to make the best player on your team play a position that he doesn't prefer.

yes, mildly. He prefers it but as he said he's fine with moving and it will be fun to adjust to the new OF position. 

 

Since when is it never a good idea to make the best player on your team play a position that he doesn't prefer? Do you have some sort of corroborating evidence of this? 

[Stradling]

While they are both on the team I would play Peter in CF and Trout in LF. If the Angels can move Bourjos and get a quality arm in the deal then I would do that and move Trout to CF. I would also consider signing a DH in the off season and move Trumbo over to left or right and then trade Peter to get the arm they can get for him. I thought this argument was about who should play CF while they both play and to me that is simple, you give it to the guy that is better defensively which is obviously Peter. If you want to have a discussion about whether or not they should trade Peter then fine.

[Tyler]

I wouldn't sign a DH, Cron will be up by this time next season. Spend the dollars on pitching.

[jshep]

 

Alden Gonzalez ‏@Alden_Gonzalez

Sosh reiterates: When Bourjos returns, Trout moves to LF.

[Stradling]

When I say sign a DH I am thinking someone on the lines of Willingham type of player, not someone that would break the bank.

[Spirit]

@MikeDiGiovanna2m

#Angels MGR Mike Scioscia said when Peter Bourjos returns he will play CF with Mike Trout moving back to LF.

[HaloFan85]

What's odd is that according to defensive metrics, both Trout and Bourjos have been below average in CF this year, especially in defensive runs saved.

[Lifetime]

Not too reliable to look at that stuff over small samples though