What does Ohtani deal mean for Trout?

[Angelsjunky]

57 minutes ago, Stradling said:

And again, where is the value in trading Trout? 

This brings up the question: As of now, what would Trout fetch on the free agent market? I assume no one would want to give him more than 3-4 years, but let's assume the deal would be locked at 7 years, like the remainder of his contract. How much would teams be willing to risk for the name "Mike Trout" for seven years, age 32-38?

I'd guess something like $20-25M a year, or 7/$140M to 7/$175M. No way to defend that really, just a hunch.

So let's say a Trout trade requires the Angels to cover the difference. Right now he's owed $260M. So in my calculations, the Angels would have to swallow roughly $100M of his remaining contract, give or take a couple 10s of millions. But let's go with $100M. More if the Angels get something of value in return, less if they get nothing.

Is "saving" that $160M worth it? That's a lot of yacht fuel, but you're trading away the franchise's best player ever, which will lose quite a bit of ticket sales. It ignores the non-quantifiable value that "Mike Trout" brings to the franchise, not to mention the possibility that he has a career renaissance of some kind.

I would argue there really aren't realistic scenarios where trading Trout has value to the team - not unless they don't have to pay much and/or they get a basket of prospects in return. I mean, in the end they'd still be paying him $15M a year or so to play for someone else.

Anthony Rendon is another matter. There's still a chance he is a useful player for a few years, but he's really provided no value for three years now and has very little value, even as a free agent. If he was a free agent now, I don't think he'd get more than a 1/$15M "prove it" contract. Spread over his remaining three years, maybe 3/$30M, or a few bills more. So the Angels would have to swallow probably something like $85M or so of his remaining $115M. So that doesn't really fly, either.

The only way Rendon gets traded is if he has a comeback year and the Angels are out. Then someone might take a flyer on him, with the Angels dumping most of his salary. Again, only in the case of the combination of comeback year and Angels sucking.

[Taylor]

6 hours ago, Stradling said:

What is the value in trading Trout and Rendon?

Rendon is a totally non factor at this point (dead weight), so you might as well just ask for the value in trading Trout.

[oldguy]

1 hour ago, Angelsjunky said:

This brings up the question: As of now, what would Trout fetch on the free agent market? I assume no one would want to give him more than 3-4 years, but let's assume the deal would be locked at 7 years, like the remainder of his contract. How much would teams be willing to risk for the name "Mike Trout" for seven years, age 32-38?

I'd guess something like $20-25M a year, or 7/$140M to 7/$175M. No way to defend that really, just a hunch.

So let's say a Trout trade requires the Angels to cover the difference. Right now he's owed $260M. So in my calculations, the Angels would have to swallow roughly $100M of his remaining contract, give or take a couple 10s of millions. But let's go with $100M. More if the Angels get something of value in return, less if they get nothing.

Is "saving" that $160M worth it? That's a lot of yacht fuel, but you're trading away the franchise's best player ever, which will lose quite a bit of ticket sales. It ignores the non-quantifiable value that "Mike Trout" brings to the franchise, not to mention the possibility that he has a career renaissance of some kind.

I would argue there really aren't realistic scenarios where trading Trout has value to the team - not unless they don't have to pay much and/or they get a basket of prospects in return. I mean, in the end they'd still be paying him $15M a year or so to play for someone else.

Anthony Rendon is another matter. There's still a chance he is a useful player for a few years, but he's really provided no value for three years now and has very little value, even as a free agent. If he was a free agent now, I don't think he'd get more than a 1/$15M "prove it" contract. Spread over his remaining three years, maybe 3/$30M, or a few bills more. So the Angels would have to swallow probably something like $85M or so of his remaining $115M. So that doesn't really fly, either.

The only way Rendon gets traded is if he has a comeback year and the Angels are out. Then someone might take a flyer on him, with the Angels dumping most of his salary. Again, only in the case of the combination of comeback year and Angels sucking.

Agree.  The unfortunate truth is that both Rendon AND Trout would clear waivers.

[Dgar24]

Just thinking, 

Could we be so Quiet because Trout is evaluating his situation.

I know what’s been said publicly but loyalty to an organization that maybe hasn’t always  made 

wise decisions ?