Will Trout Demand a Trade

[Revad]

If Mike has been wishing he could just change teams, Arte selling opens up his options.  It would have been tacky to demand a trade before this but if Arte is giving up then what holds him?  At what point would Trout demand a trade?

[T.G.]

And so it begins

[mmc]

No, unless new ownership comes in and says we’re slashing payroll and starting over.  But in that instance, he wouldn’t need to demand it, it would just happen lol

[CanadianHalo]

Lol no

[Jason]

Maybe but nobody is going to trade for him 

[BTH]

He hasn’t demanded a trade despite being stuck with Arte’s incompetent ownership the past decade, and it’d be extremely hard for the next owner to be worse than Arte.

[UndertheHalo]

I don’t think this is any more likely today then it was yesterday before the news. 

Edited August 24, 2022 by UndertheHalo

[Duren, Duren]

A new owner means a new experience for Trout. Everything was stale and predictable in recent years. Maybe he will embrace change and come in with renewed enthusiasm. 

And you would think new ownership means new management, coaching  and structure too. I would guess that the first thing these people do is consult with Trout and explain their approach. He still is the franchise player. Half a dozen years before Ohtani and possibly many more without him. 

A caveat may be that he isn't on board and/or sees this time as an opportunity to make a clean break and go to a perennial contender. He had that chance, but may have regrets and would use this situation as cover for a redo. 

I think he will stay, but don't take it for granted. 

[ten ocho recon scout]

8 hours ago, Jason said:

Maybe but nobody is going to trade for him 

This.

We all love him. He's a 1st ballot HOF guy.

But at this point, as good as he is, he's an extremely expensive guy who's only getting older, that is a huge injury risk. Huge one. And still owed like 300 mill.

It's not that somebody might not want him. But what would they trade for him at this point? Anything we'd want to give him up?...

[WicketMaiden]

Trading Trout would wipe approximately $400 million off the value of the franchise ($300m contract plus the extra revenue a player like Trout brings in) and would prevent the new owners from depreciating that $400m against future profits. It won't happen before the sale goes through. 

[gurn67]

Why? Is Donald Sterling buying the team?

 

[Dtwncbad]

2 hours ago, WicketMaiden said:

Trading Trout would wipe approximately $400 million off the value of the franchise ($300m contract plus the extra revenue a player like Trout brings in) and would prevent the new owners from depreciating that $400m against future profits. It won't happen before the sale goes through. 

Telling us you don’t understand finance and accounting without telling us you don’t understand finance and accounting . . .

[Erstad Grit]

1. He can't. He could request a trade, he can't demand anything.

2. I doubt it. A new owner buys the team for 2 billion. I doubt they would be spending that much without being willing to extend Ohtani and dip into the FA pool if it could happen that fast. When we bought our house for 460k spending 10k on HVAC didn't seem like a big deal. Extending Ohtani for 400 mil and singing some FA for another 300 mil is more likely to me than trading Trout. 

[oldguy]

He signed with the Angels for a reason.  He is VERY comfortable in Anaheim.  No pressure, no conflicts, no expectations.  

[Jason]

3 hours ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

This.

We all love him. He's a 1st ballot HOF guy.

But at this point, as good as he is, he's an extremely expensive guy who's only getting older, that is a huge injury risk. Huge one. And still owed like 300 mill.

It's not that somebody might not want him. But what would they trade for him at this point? Anything we'd want to give him up?...

This post makes me sad because it creates the feeling that we are "stuck" with him. We all love Trout but it sure feels like a lot has changed. 

[Chuck]

No way! 

[WicketMaiden]

3 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

Telling us you don’t understand finance and accounting without telling us you don’t understand finance and accounting . . .

Well, I used to be a Bank manager so I have a fair grip on finance, but please do feel free to enlighten us about how Trout isn't a multi-million dollar asset that can be depreciated against future profits over time.

[Blarg]

Yeah, but...

[Dtwncbad]

2 hours ago, WicketMaiden said:

Well, I used to be a Bank manager so I have a fair grip on finance, but please do feel free to enlighten us about how Trout isn't a multi-million dollar asset that can be depreciated against future profits over time.

Salaries are an actual cash expense, not a non-cash expense that is “depreciated.”  But thanks for playing. 

I was also entertained with your idea that offloading a $300m contract obligation would reduce the value of the franchise by $300m.  That was a fun read too.

Edited August 24, 2022 by Dtwncbad

[AngelsFaninGA]

Why? This organization had nowhere to go but up with the news. Trout's probably overjoyed

[WicketMaiden]

42 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Salaries are an actual cash expense, not a non-cash expense that is “depreciated.”  But thanks for playing. 

I was also entertained with your idea that offloading a $300m contract obligation would reduce the value of the franchise by $300m.  That was a fun read too.

Do you know what player contract rights are? Do you know what the RDA is? Read the Tax Implications thread on this very website as a starter.

Then come back and tell me which assets the Angels own that are worth $2.3bn, if the rights to the players contracts are only expenditure?

But before you do, imagine we are sitting face to face and not hiding behind a keyboard, as I am sure if you talked to people in the flesh in the same snarky manner you seem to employ on here, you would have a very large health insurance premium indeed. There really is no need to be such an interminable arse about things.

[Tank]

16 hours ago, T.G. said:

And so it begins

hE wAnTs tO pLaY fOr tHe pHilLiEs!

[Dtwncbad]

32 minutes ago, WicketMaiden said:

Do you know what player contract rights are? Do you know what the RDA is? Read the Tax Implications thread on this very website as a starter.

Then come back and tell me which assets the Angels own that are worth $2.3bn, if the rights to the players contracts are only expenditure?

But before you do, imagine we are sitting face to face and not hiding behind a keyboard, as I am sure if you talked to people in the flesh in the same snarky manner you seem to employ on here, you would have a very large health insurance premium indeed. There really is no need to be such an interminable arse about things.

You are confused, you don’t know you are confused and anybody willing to say you are confused is being an “arse” that needs good health insurance because I guess that’s a threat of some sort.

Yes a new owner can depreciate a big portion of the purchase price of the franchise over 15 years. They are not depreciating actual player contracts.

I would refer you back to that same article to read for yourself again to discover your confusion on it.

Other than that, nowhere to go from here.  Enjoy your angry confusion I guess?

Edited August 24, 2022 by Dtwncbad

[Revad]

I don’t think he’ll ask for a trade now, I’m thinking he’s happy here and new ownership does bring an opportunity to improve.  I think his communication with the new owners will be important.  Seems like he has additional leverage is all.

[ten ocho recon scout]

6 hours ago, Jason said:

This post makes me sad because it creates the feeling that we are "stuck" with him. We all love Trout but it sure feels like a lot has changed. 

It's sad, but true.

I'm not complaining. Never will. Trout is second only to the World Series in the history of this team. Regardless of how it ends, we got to see a decade of him being the no doubt best player in the game. 

But reality is reality. I'm sure, if healthy, he has a lot left.

But we've seen his best. And now he's very expensive. 

Pujols in the 2000s was Trout in the 2010s. Trout still (when playing) looks better than Pujols did with us. But teams wouldn't look at him (in trade) different than Pujols. "Expensive and on the second half of his career".

Others have mentioned it on here, and it's true. At this point Trout is in Griffey territory. Absolute legend but the injuries are adding up.

Again, not complaining and never will. But the boat on trading Trout and getting better has sailed.

*yacht