Will Trout Demand a Trade

[ten ocho recon scout]

20 hours ago, stormngt said:

So you wouldn't trade Stanton for Castro straight up because of three years?

I'm not sure what you're asking here.

But if you're asking me if I would trade Stanton or Mike Trout for Starlin Castro, no I would not.

Unless I was trying to salary dump a massive contract... like the Marlins were.

So going back to your original take, yes, I'm sure the Dodgers or Yankees would be more than willing to trade for Mike Trout.

The return will be a Starlin Castro.

Would you want to do that?

[stormngt]

42 minutes ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

I'm not sure what you're asking here.

But if you're asking me if I would trade Stanton or Mike Trout for Starlin Castro, no I would not.

Unless I was trying to salary dump a massive contract... like the Marlins were.

So going back to your original take, yes, I'm sure the Dodgers or Yankees would be more than willing to trade for Mike Trout.

The return will be a Starlin Castro.

Would you want to do that?

I ask you if you would trade Trout for Stanton straight up!

You gave an argument that Stanton was three years younger than Trout.  Thus you must think Stanton is a better player.  

I am not arguing the trade fir Stanton a good one or not!  However, despite his contract I am confident teams would have am interest to trade for Trout.

 

Has his value decreased since he was 27?  Yea no shit!

[Lou]

9 minutes ago, stormngt said:

You gave an argument that Stanton was three years younger than Trout.  Thus you must think Stanton is a better player.  

Better because he's younger? 

[stormngt]

29 minutes ago, Lou said:

Better because he's younger? 

I referred to Yankees trading for Stanton despite contract.

Response was Stanton 3 years younger (and only three players Dee Gordon I believe)

So I asked if he would trade for a three years younger Stanton over Trout straight up.  I wouldn't but based on his comments he implies he would.

[Lou]

13 minutes ago, stormngt said:

I referred to Yankees trading for Stanton despite contract.

Response was Stanton 3 years younger (and only three players Dee Gordon I believe)

So I asked if he would trade for a three years younger Stanton over Trout straight up.  I wouldn't but based on his comments he implies he would.

Ok, but I don't think he implied that at all.

[ten ocho recon scout]

1 hour ago, stormngt said:

I ask you if you would trade Trout for Stanton straight up!

You gave an argument that Stanton was three years younger than Trout.  Thus you must think Stanton is a better player.  

I am not arguing the trade fir Stanton a good one or not!  However, despite his contract I am confident teams would have am interest to trade for Trout.

 

Has his value decreased since he was 27?  Yea no shit!

Yeah no shit, as you say.

 

You're still missing the actual point.

Stanton was not only 3 years younger than Trout is now, he was also coming off an MVP season, at 27.

Trout hasn't played a full season in what, 7 years or so now? And is owed close to 300 million.

Arguing Stanton for Trout is ... I don't even know what. You asked what the Yankees traded for Stanton, and I told you. Starlin Castro, and they ate the contract.

They didn't trade Stanton for Stanton.

The Yankees would absolutely trade Starlin Castro for Mike Trout now.

Here's his game log the past few years, and here's what's owed the next 6.

Now ask what you think the return would actually be.

 

[ten ocho recon scout]

If your argument is that "somebody would take Trout and his contract", I'm not arguing with you. And I never said anything close to that.

If your argument is that somebody would trade us for Mike Trout and give us something good in return, you're smoking Crack.

Until Trout shows otherwise, he's going to be viewed by everyone (most importantly those paying him) that he's an injury risk. One who's owed 1/3 of a billion dollars more or less.

Nobody is trading talent and taking on that contract. Any more than Rendon would.

What do you think the trade market for Christian Yellich is these days?

 

 

[stormngt]

19 hours ago, Lou said:

Ok, but I don't think he implied that at all.

"Perceptions are more important than reality "

My catch phrase for the past 40 years

[stormngt]

18 hours ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

If your argument is that "somebody would take Trout and his contract", I'm not arguing with you. And I never said anything close to that.

If your argument is that somebody would trade us for Mike Trout and give us something good in return, you're smoking Crack.

Until Trout shows otherwise, he's going to be viewed by everyone (most importantly those paying him) that he's an injury risk. One who's owed 1/3 of a billion dollars more or less.

Nobody is trading talent and taking on that contract. Any more than Rendon would.

What do you think the trade market for Christian Yellich is these days?

 

 

We got Sandoval for Maldanado.

Sorry but I think you are smoking crack!

[ten ocho recon scout]

17 minutes ago, stormngt said:

We got Sandoval for Maldanado.

Sorry but I think you are smoking crack!

Because those are exactly the same thing.

We should compare car trade in values vs real estate purchases next. Because investors committing 300 million obviously view the risks associated with a few hundred thousand 

If you recall we also got Maldonado for Jett Bandy. So what's your point exactly?

 

Remember when the Dodgers got Adrian Gonzalez from Boston? When Gonzalez was at his peak, right after Boston had inked him to a huge deal, to be the heart of the order for the next several years? Do you remember how the Dodgers did that?

Do you remember they also had to take Carl Crawford and Josh Becketts contracts?

Do you understand that the player value is measured by age and contract as much as skill?

Do you understand that Trout (and anyone like him) is a used luxury car? With lots of miles on it? And in Trouts case, the carfax report says he's had issues? And that in acquiring him, you're not buying him off a dealership with a new warranty, you're simply taking over someone else's massive payments? 

Would you do that, AND trade the owner your newer car, that's not as high end as the luxury car, but is in the same league?

If you still don't get it, I have a few buddies at work who have boats for sale.

 

[Angels 1961]

Problem for Angels and Mike Trout without Ohtani he has little protection in lineup. With DH in NL now Trout could get you decent prospects and money saved. Depends on new owners what they want.

[AngelsFaninGA]

3 minutes ago, Angels 1961 said:

Problem for Angels and Mike Trout without Ohtani he has little protection in lineup. With DH in NL now Trout could get you decent prospects and money saved. Depends on new owners what they want.

I seriously doubt anyone's giving up decent prospects for him. Compared to an Ohtani trade actually helping you rebuild the farm, this would be a straight salary dump, which would be pretty disappointing.

[stormngt]

26 minutes ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

Because those are exactly the same thing.

We should compare car trade in values vs real estate purchases next. Because investors committing 300 million obviously view the risks associated with a few hundred thousand 

If you recall we also got Maldonado for Jett Bandy. So what's your point exactly?

 

Remember when the Dodgers got Adrian Gonzalez from Boston? When Gonzalez was at his peak, right after Boston had inked him to a huge deal, to be the heart of the order for the next several years? Do you remember how the Dodgers did that?

Do you remember they also had to take Carl Crawford and Josh Becketts contracts?

Do you understand that the player value is measured by age and contract as much as skill?

Do you understand that Trout (and anyone like him) is a used luxury car? With lots of miles on it? And in Trouts case, the carfax report says he's had issues? And that in acquiring him, you're not buying him off a dealership with a new warranty, you're simply taking over someone else's massive payments? 

Would you do that, AND trade the owner your newer car, that's not as high end as the luxury car, but is in the same league?

If you still don't get it, I have a few buddies at work who have boats for sale.

 

This your mistake.  You assume Dodgers and Yankees care about the budget loke the Angels.  They care about winning and soend whatever it takes.

Trout when healthy is still the best player in baseball and would give a big advantage to anyone that is a favorite to win WS.

Teams like the Dodgers and Yankees would give a good player or two for five years of vintage Trout.  They won't care about the last 5 years.

You just assume Trout is broken because he has had bad luck with injuries the last couple of years.

[ten ocho recon scout]

8 minutes ago, AngelsFaninGA said:

I seriously doubt anyone's giving up decent prospects for him. Compared to an Ohtani trade actually helping you rebuild the farm, this would be a straight salary dump, which would be pretty disappointing.

Nail on head.

Only way I can see them getting some new crop.of talent that "fixes" the franchise would be if we ate most of the contract.

You offer up Trout for the next 8 years, 120 million (we eat 170 million), you can absolutely get some good talent back. But I doubt that would happen in a million years.

[ten ocho recon scout]

1 minute ago, stormngt said:

This your mistake.  You assume Dodgers and Yankees care about the budget loke the Angels.  They care about winning and soend whatever it takes.

Trout when healthy is still the best player in baseball and would give a big advantage to anyone that is a favorite to win WS.

Teams like the Dodgers and Yankees would give a good player or two for five years of vintage Trout.  They won't care about the last 5 years.

You just assume Trout is broken because he has had bad luck with injuries the last couple of years.

Why didn't the Dodgers keep Scherzer?

Maybe his age, money and dead arm issues with them last October?

 

[stormngt]

11 minutes ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

Why didn't the Dodgers keep Scherzer?

Maybe his age, money and dead arm issues with them last October?

 

Maybe they have better.  Or are you saying Scherzer is better than Trout?

Schererville is a good player when healthy.  Trout is the best in baseball when healthy is the best in baseball.

I hope you see the difference. 

[ten ocho recon scout]

1 minute ago, stormngt said:

Maybe they have better.  Or are you saying Scherzer is better than Trout?

Schererville is a good player when healthy.  Trout is the best in baseball when healthy is the best in baseball.

I hope you see the difference. 

.... if you're suggesting here that Scherzer isn't in the same.league as Trout, I'm not sure what to say....

The one area Trout is at a distinct advantage over Scherzer is, surprise surprise, that he's almost a decade younger.

[stormngt]

13 minutes ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

.... if you're suggesting here that Scherzer isn't in the same.league as Trout, I'm not sure what to say....

The one area Trout is at a distinct advantage over Scherzer is, surprise surprise, that he's almost a decade younger.

Ok so you would trade Scherzer straight up for Trout?  OK we disagree.

I see Trout as the best olayer in the game. 

I see Scherzer as a young all star who is on a different level below Trout.

Do you think Scherzer is better  than Harper?

Edited August 28, 2022 by stormngt

[eligrba]

[ten ocho recon scout]

9 minutes ago, stormngt said:

Ok so you would trade Scherzer straight up for Trout?  OK we disagree.

I see Trout as the best olayer in the game. 

I see Scherzer as a young all star who is on a different level below Trout.

Do you think Scherzer is better  than Harper?

I'm not sure why you keep changing your argument here. 

You said the Dodgers and Yankees will both pay whatever for good players to win. I asked a simple question, why didn't the Dodgers pay Scherzer then. (And I assume this is where you'll downplay Scherzer again).

You seem to think in real world baseball, owners and teams view these guys in the same way you do when you play fantasy baseball. You act as though those who sign a guaranteed contract to pay multiple hundreds of millions of dollars don't weight rhe risks and depreciation value beforehand. 

 

Again. I can get you a steal on a badass boat if you'd like.

[stormngt]

7 minutes ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

I'm not sure why you keep changing your argument here. 

You said the Dodgers and Yankees will both pay whatever for good players to win. I asked a simple question, why didn't the Dodgers pay Scherzer then. (And I assume this is where you'll downplay Scherzer again).

You seem to think in real world baseball, owners and teams view these guys in the same way you do when you play fantasy baseball. You act as though those who sign a guaranteed contract to pay multiple hundreds of millions of dollars don't weight rhe risks and depreciation value beforehand. 

 

Again. I can get you a steal on a badass boat if you'd like.

First of all I don't play fantasy baseball so forget that dumbest statement.

I said teams like the Dodgers and Yankees do not care about about budgets.  They care about winning.

Now that is not signing marginal players who could have an all star year like Scherzer.  They will care about the salary commitment if the player in question has enough impact on their chances of winning the WS.  They would not look at the price tag if the player in question plays like the best player in baseball.  LIKE TROUT

BTW YOUR QUOTE "

... if you're suggesting here that Scherzer isn't in the same.league as Trout, I'm not sure what to say..."

Clearly implies you think Scherzer and Trout are on the same level.  

And Yes, Scherzer is not in the same league as Trout!

[ten ocho recon scout]

2 minutes ago, stormngt said:

First of all I don't play fantasy baseball so forget that dumbest statement.

I said teams like the Dodgers and Yankees do not care about about budgets.  They care about winning.

Now that is not signing marginal players who could have an all star year like Scherzer.  They will care about the salary commitment if the player in question has enough impact on their chances of winning the WS.  They would not look at the price tag if the player in question plays like the best player in baseball.  LIKE TROUT

BTW YOUR QUOTE "

... if you're suggesting here that Scherzer isn't in the same.league as Trout, I'm not sure what to say..."

Clearly implies you think Scherzer and Trout are on the same level.  

And Yes, Scherzer is not in the same league as Trout!

I mean, I'm off today and am just doing shit around the house. So I don't mind keeping this going, but..

 

Did... did you just say Scherzer is a marginal player who "could" have an all star year? That is what you said, wasn't it.

And you were serious when you said it.

 

[Lou]

3 hours ago, stormngt said:

"Perceptions are more important than reality "

My catch phrase for the past 40 years

They're not.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

4 hours ago, AngelsFaninGA said:

I seriously doubt anyone's giving up decent prospects for him. Compared to an Ohtani trade actually helping you rebuild the farm, this would be a straight salary dump, which would be pretty disappointing.

I also doubt that anyone is interested in taking on a $30M DH.

[stormngt]

7 hours ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

I mean, I'm off today and am just doing shit around the house. So I don't mind keeping this going, but..

 

Did... did you just say Scherzer is a marginal player who "could" have an all star year? That is what you said, wasn't it.

And you were serious when you said it.

 

My bad.  I was thinking Schwarber.  You are right about the elite level on both.  Yet one being a pitcher.  Maybe that's what co fused me.