A false premise, but here's a question: Trout or WS

[Angelsjunky]

For @beatlesrule.

Personally i think this is a false premise: that trading Trout inherently increases the odds of winning a World Series. But let's play make-believe.

And to clarify: Trout is signed through 2030, so this poll assumes at least through then, maybe a year or three after, depending upon when he actually retires. But the key is no WS while he's here vs winning one WS after he's traded but still playing.

Edited July 24, 2022 by Angelsjunky

[m0nkey]

I think I made a thread like this years ago too, might've even been on the old forum.  But a lot of posters said they wanted to see Trout in an Angels uniform, something along the lines of because they've seen a WS win but never a player like Trout before.  Now that we're in year 12 of his career now, maybe the "novelty" of watching a generational talent has run its course and we miss watching winning baseball as fans of the team.

[Angelsjunky]

1 minute ago, m0nkey said:

I think I made a thread like this years ago too, might've even been on the old forum.  But a lot of posters said they wanted to see Trout in an Angels uniform, something along the lines of because they've seen a WS win but never a player like Trout before.  Now that we're in year 12 of his career now, maybe the "novelty" of watching a generational talent has run its course and we miss watching winning baseball as fans of the team.

That would be my guess. Meaning, I think a lot of people that felt that way 4 years ago (the time that beatlesrule cited) feel differently today, probably both because losing is getting old and also because Trout c. 2018 and Trout c. 2022 are two different birds.

[mmc]

I have serious questions for anyone who picks the first option.

[beatlesrule]

 

[Angelsjunky]

My contribution to that thread:

On 6/14/2018 at 7:00 PM, Angelsjunky said:

I refuse to answer this question.

 

[CaliAngel]

40 minutes ago, mmc said:

I have serious questions for anyone who picks the first option.

Probably Strad.

But he doesn't answer serious questions anyway so I wouldn't waste your time.

[Stradling]

4 minutes ago, CaliAngel said:

Probably Strad.

But he doesn't answer serious questions anyway so I wouldn't waste your time.

I am all over that thread from four years ago, but your hypocritical ass is, once again, absent.  But amazing contribution as always. 

[Angelsjunky]

Why can't we go with the premise that it isn't inherently wrong to feel one way or the other?

On the Trout side of things, he is a generational player, and not only by far the greatest Angel ever, but likely to be the greatest Angel most of us will ever see. Choosing Trout over a WS isn't entirely unlike choosing a job you love for less money than a job you hate for more. It isn't quite the same thing, but it is a similar general idea.

And of course, as I've said, the context of four years ago was quite different than today. 

Oh, and the marriage analogy is just silly. 

All that said, the whole premise is faulty, so thankfully we don't necessarily have to choose. Knowing our luck, the Angels will trade Trout, he'll win a World Series elsewhere, and the Angels won't win a World Series, and then the asteroid and/or climate change and/or the rapture will hit, and that's that.

[beatlesrule]

34 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

My contribution to that thread:

 

That most likely means you didn't know or didn't want to state your opinion for whatever reason. Like I stated in that thread, I couldn't fathom anyone choosing a player over a team but 21 people did just that. For me, a world championship is what I want my team to accomplish. It's the most important thing to me. Obviously, that's not the case for every fan.

I still don't understand how things could change in 4 years as my smoker analogy showed. Those 21 people that voted 4 years ago are getting exactly what they wanted. I have no idea if they all still actively post here but I can't see their opinion changing because again, things are going just as they wanted it to.

[mmc]

1 minute ago, Angelsjunky said:

Why can't we go with the premise that it isn't inherently wrong to feel one way or the other?

Because you can't call yourself a fan of the team if you don't value their success above all else.  You're a Trout fan if you pick that option

[Angelsjunky]

Just now, beatlesrule said:

That most likely means you didn't know or didn't want to state your opinion for whatever reason. Like I stated in that thread, I couldn't fathom anyone choosing a player over a team but 21 people did just that. For me, a world championship is what I want my team to accomplish. It's the most important thing to me. Obviously, that's not the case for every fan.

I still don't understand how things could change in 4 years as my smoker analogy showed. Those 21 people that voted 4 years ago are getting exactly what they wanted. I have no idea if they all still actively post here but I can't see their opinion changing because again, things are going just as they wanted it to.

No, what they wanted was to keep Trout AND win a World Series. No one wanted the team to suck, so literally no one reading this "got what they wanted."

It was an abstract question - one that ultimately has no reality to it, so is difficult to answer. Sort of like a "gun to head" question. We don't really know how we'd respond in that situation, just like we don't know how we'd really feel if this question had any reality to it.

[PattyD22]

I wasn’t on this site 4 years ago, but my answer would not have changed if I did vote.  I want championships.

I was lucky enough to be at games 2 and 6 of the 2002 World Series, and the feeling was insane.  I’d love nothing more to have that again.

I love Mike Trout as much as anyone, and I’ve been lucky enough to see him play 100’s of times.  I’ve seen ONE World Championship.

I’d like to see more pennants, so if I had to choose this would be it.  But I feel it’s a silly question, regardless.

Edited July 24, 2022 by PattyD22

[beatlesrule]

1 minute ago, Angelsjunky said:

No, what they wanted was to keep Trout AND win a World Series. No one wanted the team to suck, so literally no one reading this "got what they wanted."

It was an abstract question - one that ultimately has no reality to it, so is difficult to answer. Sort of like a "gun to head" question. We don't really know how we'd respond in that situation, just like we don't know how we'd really feel if this question had any reality to it.

Huh? I am referring to the 21 people that wanted to keep Trout and not win a World Series. The Angels have kept Trout and have not won a World series. That means that those 21 people are getting what they wanted. They get to see Mike Trout as an Angel. The poll didn't mention anything about the Angels sucking while Mike Trout was on the team. It simply was that the Angels would not win a World Series as long as Mike Trout was on the team.

[Stradling]

5 minutes ago, mmc said:

Because you can't call yourself a fan of the team if you don't value their success above all else.  You're a Trout fan if you pick that option

Of course you can. 

[Angelsjunky]

14 minutes ago, mmc said:

Because you can't call yourself a fan of the team if you don't value their success above all else.  You're a Trout fan if you pick that option

Isn't your generation against gatekeeping? 

I think I get to decide whether I'm a fan or not, or how I choose to engage with the team.

One thing to remember, mmc, is that a lot of folks here vividly remember the 2002 World Series. It was great, and I hope it happens again, but while it is the "best thing" that can happen to a player, team or fan, it isn't the entirety of the sport. Being a fan means more than just hoping and praying on a World Series. It is being part of a larger tradition, with ups and down. Just as the season isn't only about making the playoffs. That's like "living for the weekend." If you can't find joy in your week, or the season--regardless of what happens--that's just tragic.

I actually think winning the World Series is sort of like dessert. Going out to eat is when baseball season starts - its exciting, no matter what. Spring training is the appetizer, and the regular season is the entree. I don't know about you, but when I go out, sometimes I get dessert, sometimes I don't, but when I don't it doesn't ruin the entree.

Edited July 24, 2022 by Angelsjunky

[Torridd]

1 hour ago, m0nkey said:

I think I made a thread like this years ago too, might've even been on the old forum.  But a lot of posters said they wanted to see Trout in an Angels uniform, something along the lines of because they've seen a WS win but never a player like Trout before.  Now that we're in year 12 of his career now, maybe the "novelty" of watching a generational talent has run its course and we miss watching winning baseball as fans of the team.

I remember someone doing something like this before and the poll went the same way. Most are Angels fans who want another ring, knowing Trout like all the other HOFers will go the way of the dodo.

[Angelsjunky]

2 minutes ago, beatlesrule said:

Huh? I am referring to the 21 people that wanted to keep Trout and not win a World Series. The Angels have kept Trout and have not won a World series. That means that those 21 people are getting what they wanted. They get to see Mike Trout as an Angel. The poll didn't mention anything about the Angels sucking while Mike Trout was on the team. It simply was that the Angels would not win a World Series as long as Mike Trout was on the team.

I can't tell if you're being willfully obtuse or not. I think you're missing my point that it is a false premise, even a ridiculous question to even consider. Asking someone this question is like, "gun to head, would you rather chop off your hand or kill your dog?" We can consider that abstractly, but no one knows how they'd really answer it unless they had a gun to their head. In this case, no one really knows how they'd answer this question, if they knew it was really an either/or choice, and there's no reasonably scenario where that would be the case.

More realistically, we can ask: Would you rather the Angels trade Trout now for a package of four good prospects (say, FV 60, 50, 45, 45) or keep him? That's a bit more reasonable to consider.

But again, literally no one is getting what they wanted - except for maybe the stray passing-by troll, or the one or two masochists that might be amongst us.

21 people felt that way four years ago. Maybe some still feel the same way, but don't assume that. And maybe those 21 folks imagined another run like 2004-09, which was still pretty damn fun, even though they didn't even make the WS. 

[tdawg87]

I saw the team win a ring. 

I've never seen anyone like Trout before. 

The thing is, the team can keep Trout and win the WS later. So we can have our cake and eat it too, so to speak.

I'm fat.

[mmc]

3 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

Is your generation against gatekeeping? 

I think I get to decide whether I'm a fan or not, or how I choose to engage with the team.

One thing to remember, mmc, is that a lot of folks here vividly remember the 2002 World Series. It was great, and I hope it happens again, but while it is the "best thing" that can happen to a player, team or fan, it isn't the entirety of the sport. Being a fan means more than just hoping and praying on a World Series. It is being part of a larger tradition, with ups and down. Just as the season isn't only about making the playoffs. That's like "living for the weekend." If you can't find joy in your week, or the season--regardless of what happens--that's just tragic.

I actually think winning the World Series is sort of like dessert. Going out to eat is when baseball season starts - its exciting, no matter what. Spring training is the appetizer, and the regular season is the entree. I don't know about you, but when I go out, sometimes I get dessert, sometimes I don't, but when I don't it doesn't ruin the entree.

I just really can't be bothered to give a damn once the team makes it apparent they can't compete, not that other people enjoy losing, but other people still seem to get excited over things like individual player performances, when to me it just feels like empty stats.  Maybe I just follow too many other sports so I easily shift my investment into the one that's most captivating, but I really don't give a crap about stuff like Trout and Ohtani being on the team once we reach that point.  I mean I'm glad we have them in that they give us a great chance to win every year by being on the team, but once we're out of it, they're just two more guys on a team that didn't get it done

[Stradling]

6 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

I saw the team win a ring. 

I've never seen anyone like Trout before. 

The thing is, the team can keep Trout and win the WS later. So we can have our cake and eat it too, so to speak.

I'm fat.

Almost exactly what I said at the time of the poll. 

[Angelsjunky]

1 minute ago, mmc said:

I just really can't be bothered to give a damn once the team makes it apparent they can't compete, not that other people enjoy losing, but other people still seem to get excited over things like individual player performances, when to me it just feels like empty stats.  Maybe I just follow too many other sports so I easily shift my investment into the one that's most captivating, but I really don't give a crap about stuff like Trout and Ohtani being on the team once we reach that point.  I mean I'm glad we have them in that they give us a great chance to win every year by being on the team, but once we're out of it, they're just two more guys on a team that didn't get it done

 

A lot of this depends upon when you started fandom. For those of us who have been around for awhile, we're used to mediocrity, and the recent disappointment is more frustration with the fact that 2002-09 turned out to be an aberration rather than ushering in a new era of the Angels being a premier franchise (which is what Arte hoped for).

For myself, I started following the team in the early 80s, but was very young and out of country for a couple years, so didn't really pay attention until 1987, so I missed 1986. For the next fifteen years--1987-2001--the Angels didn't make the postseason once. 

Consider postseasons by decades:

1960s: None

1970s: 1979

1980s: 1982, 1986

1990s: None

2000s: 2002, 2004-05, 2007-09

2010s: 2014

2020s: None (so far)

That's 10 times in 62 seasons. 6 of those 10 times was in the span of eight seasons.

The Angels have always been a mediocre franchise. The 2000s were an aberration. There's a lot of frustration with the fact that it seemed that they were becoming a first tier (one of the best in baseball)--or at least second tier (regular contender)--franchise. But they're not even really third tier (occasional contender), at least not right now.

[Angelsjunky]

4 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Almost exactly what I said at the time of the poll. 

You and @tdawg87 aren't real fans.

BTW, who is @tdawg325?

[Slegnaac]

The oprions should have been.

1. Trade Trout and Win 1 world series before he is elected to the HOF. 

2. Keep Trout and represent the AL multiple times in the world series before he retires, but never win.

[Angelsjunky]

My point from two posts ago is that for those of us who started following the Angels before 2002, being a fan was largely about the game to game play, following individual players, etc, with hopes of even just a postseason berth a kind of fantastical abstraction -- because it had to be. 

I've never been to prison, but I imagine that at first you can't stop thinking about getting out, but eventually you settle in a bit and start finding the small joys, and making a life with what you have...if you're smart about it, at least.

Focusing on what you don't have over what you do is a quick path to misery.