Trade packages for Trout that would actually tempt you

[Angelsjunky]

Let's play a game. You're the Angels GM and you decide to field offers for Mike Trout. Not in three years, but now.

 

Some guidelines:

- Five players max, but try to keep it to three if possible

- Try to be realistic! We know Trout is Troutastic and the consensus best player in baseball and with the greatest trade value, but no "Cabrera, Verlander, Scherzer, and Sanchez" trades.

- Like me, you might not want to trade Trout for any package of players, but try on the GM's cap and think in terms of what would tempt you based upon talent.

 

I'll start:

 

Minnesota Twins: Byron Buxton, Miguel Sano, and Kohl Stewart

According to John Sickels, these are the Twins' three best prospects and Buxton is possibly the #1 prospect in all of baseball, a player that has actually be compared to Trout. Sano is a masher - a third basemen who might have to transition to first, but a potentially elite hitter. Both will be ready within the year. Stewart is very young but a tremendously talented pitcher.

 

Pittsburgh Pirates: Andrew McCutchen and Gerrit Cole

McCutchen may be the best player in the National League. In fact, he may be the closest thing to Mike Trout in the majors, at least until Byron Buxton fulfills his potential and Bryce Harper is able to stay healthy. Cutch's 15 fWAR over the last two years is second to Trout's 20.4 and ahead of Cabrera's 14.4. Plus he's only 27 and signed through 28 (his age 31 season) for about $60 million total, which is probably less than what Trout will make over the next five years.

 

Cole is already a #2 caliber pitcher, having only started 19 games, and is almost a lock to be a #1. This is one trade that the Pirates probably wouldn't make.

 

Miami Marlins: Giancarlo Stanton and Jose Fernandez

Like the trade with the Pirates, the Marlins might not make this trade - but it also is somewhat risky for the Angels. Stanton has huge power but struggled in 2013 after his break-out 2012 (37 HR, .608 SLG in 123 games) and has missed a total 85 games in the last two years. Fernandez is an absolute stud by is very young and has only one year under his belt. A tough one.

 

Washington Nationals: Bryce Harper and Stephen Strasburg

Harper tends to get over-looked these days because he's been paired with Trout and hasn't been nearly as good. But he's still been very, very good - and only just turned 21 in October, so the sky remains the limit for him. There's still a distinct possibility that, five years from now, he'll be Trout's equal or even better. I think he'll be a legit 50 HR threat and have multiple seasons with a 1.000+ OPS. Strasburg isn't what he was before his surgery, but he's still a true #2 type with some upside still.

 

St. Louis Cardinals: Oscar Tavares, one of Shelby Miller or Michael Wacha and one of Trevor Rosenthal or Carlos Martinez

St. Louis has the most impressive stable of young arms than I've ever seen. Not just the five above, but Lance Lynn and Joe Kelly are relatively young and Kevin Siegrist is a very good reliever. Anyhow, Miller is probably the safest pick but Wacha, Rosenthal and Martinez have enormous upside. Tavares was disappointing in 2013 but remains one of the top hitting prospects in the game.

 

OK, I've chosen most of the best options. Others?

[mtangelsfan]

We have had this thread before AJ. 

 

I don't care what package you put together.  You don't trade a once in a generation player unless it's the last year of his contract and he has told you point blank he isn't signing with you again.

[HaloCory22]

Fernandez and Stanton. Damn, that would be a nice return.

[yk9001]

The nationals are not trading Bryce Harper and Stephen Strasburg for Trout.

 

Our fans are drunk.

[tdawg87]

Stanton, Fernandez, Buxton, Sano, Cole, and Stewart.

 

Do it Jerry!

[HaloCory22]

The nationals are not trading Bryce Harper and Stephen Strasburg for Trout.

 

Our fans are drunk.

If our fans are drunk then that means you're drunk. So we indeed could get Harper and Strasburg for Trout.

[yk9001]

If our fans are drunk then that means you're drunk. So we indeed could get Harper and Strasburg for Trout.

 

 

Clarification:  Our fans who post stuff like Trout for Harper and Strasburg are drunk.

[gotbeer]

The nationals are not trading Bryce Harper and Stephen Strasburg for Trout.

 

Our fans are drunk.

 

Personally, I don't think that's enough.  Harper is a mid 800 ops player.  He also hasn't played a full season due to small injuries.  Plus he plays in the NL, and NL players have a tendency of getting worse in the AL.  strasburg is solid though.  

 

Trout on the other hand is a .900 ops player that was runner up to the mvp for his first two seasons.  I just can't see a 3 person deal that could be made right now.  A year from FA'cy after we see how the next 2 years pans out, maybe.  But heck, if he wins the MVP next year, even with 1 year left in his contract, you could still be looking at a Teixerra type deal.

[yk9001]

Okay, here is my first trade proposal in ten years of Angels nerd board:

 

Lets assume Trout is Trout for next three years, (runner up MVP status) but the Angels don't make the playoffs any of the three years.

 

So pop quiz, hot shot -WOULD YOU Trade Trout (I don't care to whom, or for whom) and you are guaranteed three consecutive division titles (no wildcard), but just guaranteed that - after that the playoffs are a crapshoot.

 

Would you trade trout for three straight division titles, knowing that if he stays here, the angels will not make the playoffs those three years?

[Jim]

Let's play a game. You're the Angels GM and you decide to field offers for Mike Trout. Not in three years, but now.

 

 

- Try to be realistic! 

Hahaha. Even if we tried really really hard, I don't think it's possible. 

[Jim]

Okay, here is my first trade proposal in ten years of Angels nerd board:

 

Lets assume Trout is Trout for next three years, (runner up MVP status) but the Angels don't make the playoffs any of the three years.

 

So pop quiz, hot shot -WOULD YOU Trade Trout (I don't care to whom, or for whom) and you are guaranteed three consecutive division titles (no wildcard), but just guaranteed that - after that the playoffs are a crapshoot.

 

Would you trade trout for three straight division titles, knowing that if he stays here, the angels will not make the playoffs those three years?

In before someone calls it a clown question

[Angelsjunky]

The nationals are not trading Bryce Harper and Stephen Strasburg for Trout.

 

Our fans are drunk.

 

I don't think its as far-fetched an idea as you think, or at least it may be that you underestimate just how great Trout has been and just how high his trade value is right now.

 

Chances are the Nationals probably wouldn't do it, but if Jerry gave them the call it would give them pause.

 

But consider the following:

 

- Bryce Harper is enormously talented, but as of this point he's "only" been very good and a good chunk of that talent remains potential. Plus there's the nagging concern that, due to his style of play, he'll spend a fair amount of time on the DL. Plus, knee concerns at 21 isn't a good sign.

- Stephen Strasburg looked like the second coming of Roger Clemens a couple years ago, but since TJ surgery he's been more like the second coming of John Lackey. OK, he's got more potential than that, but whereas a few years ago he looked like a surefire #1 and Cy Young candidate, over the last two years he's looked more like a #2 starter - still very good, but not Clemens-esque.

- Mike Trout's potential is actualized. He's the best player in the game and has just had two better seasons, by fWAR, than any active player in the game.

 

So while Harper and Strasburg are excellent young players, they both come with question marks and Trout is doing things that only the greatest players in the game have ever done. Don't believe me? Well continue reading...

 

Here's where it gets really hokey: Trout's first two full seasons are two of only 51 10+ fWAR seasons since 1871. Let me put that slightly differently: in 163 years of major league baseball history, there have only be 51 player seasons that are as good or better than Trout's first two full seasons. Furthermore, he is one of only 21 position players to ever accomplish the feat, and one of only 10 to ever accomplish it twice. Who are the other nine? Get a load of this list (with their number of 10 fWAR seasons in parentheses): Babe Ruth (9), Rogers Hornsby (6), Barry Bonds (5), Ted Williams (4), Willie Mays (4), Ty Cobb (3), Mickey Mantle (3), Honus Wagner (2), and Lou Gehrig (2). Oh, and just we can see it: Mike Trout (2).

 

Here's something totally insane: all nine of those players are within the top 13 all-time for position player fWAR (the other four in the top 13 are Hank Aaron, Tris Speaker, Stan Musial, and Eddie Collins).

 

So, in other words, Trout is doing things that only the very best of the best have done - and I'm not just talking merely your garden variety great players, but the Baker's Dozen best of all time! Ruth is the consensus best player of all time, and certainly the best right fielder; Bonds, Williams and Musial are considered the three best left fielders; Cobb, Mays, and Mantle are considered the three best center fielders; Wagner is considered the best shortstop, and Gehrig the best first baseman.

 

So it seems at least possible that Trout will end up as one of the twenty greatest players in the history of the game. Let me put it this way: he's been so good the last two seasons that if he doesn't then his career will be considered disappointing, at least considering the precedents. But even if he falls a bit from his pace, he's almost certainly going to be among the fifty or so greatest players of all time, and probably one of the twenty or so greatest outfielders. In other words, if he falls from that inner circle elite, then he'll probably be in the next group with the Rickey Hendersons and Frank Robinsons of the world.

 

So consider one more thing. He's already done something - had multiple 10+ fWAR seasons - that only the three greatest center fielders of all time have done. If he has another 10+ fWAR season, he'll be tied with Cobb and Mantle for 3; two more and he'll be tied with Mays; three more and he'll have more 10+ fWAR seasons than any center fielder in the history of the game! In other words, he only needs to have three more seasons as good as his first two to do something that no center fielder has ever done, and only three other players - Ruth, Hornsby, and Bonds - have ever done. I'm not saying he'll do it, but he has a good chance to.

 

So now you tell me, who is drunk? Trout's value should not be underestimated.

[yk9001]

I still think you are drunk.

[Angels]

Cutch's 15 fWAR over the last two years is second to Trout's 20.4 and ahead of Cabrera's 14.4. 

 

Let this sink in.

 

The Angels are never going to get equal value for Trout. 

 

You don't trade a player like that. You keep him. 

[Second Base]

I feel like trading Trout would lead to a hundred year curse on the team.  How often is the best player in baseball traded? Then consider, how often is the best player in baseball only 22 years old and traded?  

 

Then just for a topping, how often is the best player in baseball at age 22 the best player of an entire era and the greatest player since Mantle, Dimaggio, Williams and Mays traded?

 

There isn't ANY package that would tempt me because such a trade would bring such a horrible energy to this team and fan base, and you don't want that, no matter how enticing the package. 

[yk9001]

With overpaid dullards Pujols and Hammy on the team, the energy on the team the last couple years hasn't been this bad since 2001 - and that is WITH Trout.

 

If we keep him, great. 

[Blarg]

When we talk about Trout and his value and mention his MVP runner up as part of that value I have to laugh how butt hurt Angels fans get about it considering the best player in baseball, Babe Ruth, received only one MVP award his entire career.

 

Also to use fWAR as a measuring stick for Trout and the greats is a little disingenuous considering fWAR takes into account peripherals that were never accounted for except for the Bonds era. How much better of a player was Mays, Mantle and even Williams if they were allotted the same complete stat lines as what is used to measure Mike Trout?

 

We are just going to have to put one group in one category and that is the legacy players that you will never have a true bearing on their greatness and the modern day player that we can speculate by the metrics available. Trout is a better player than any of his peers, he may not be better than his predecessors against their peers.

[Angelsjunky]

I think people are missing the point of the thread, perhaps due to my lack of clarity. The point is not to discuss whether Trout should be traded - I think we can all agree that he shouldn't and that even if someone completely blew the Angels away, Trout is still our Trout and I agree that you simply don't trade a player of his caliber.

 

The point of the thread, at least as I originally intended it, was to discuss what packages actually represent viable, realistic, tempting (on paper) returns for Trout. In other words, not trades that you'd want to make in real life, but that look about right on paper in terms of value. I offered five that I think are applicable - not as trades that I want to do, but ones that I think represent my criteria.

[Angelsjunky]

Also to use fWAR as a measuring stick for Trout and the greats is a little disingenuous considering fWAR takes into account peripherals that were never accounted for except for the Bonds era. How much better of a player was Mays, Mantle and even Williams if they were allotted the same complete stat lines as what is used to measure Mike Trout?

Eric, first of all you do realize, I hope, that "disingenuous" means lacking in sincerity - that is, deliberately obfuscating or lying. Are you saying that I am deliberately lying or obfuscating?

 

Secondly, your statement is only a partial truth. While fWAR has changed for the era and the more recent you get, the more accurate the results - especially with regards to defense - its still also contextual, meaning relative to the time and place.

 

I'm also fairly certain that the ubernerds at Fangraphs take what you say into account and have a less granular means of computation that is still fairly accurate. In other words, a 10 WAR season in 1928 wouldn't all of a sudden become a 13 WAR season in 2013, although it might become an 11 (or 9) WAR season. I think they're all close enough to make comparisons meaningful - certainly more meaningful than looking at raw stats alone.

 

Not to mention that some players might suffer from more detailed stats, but we can't possibly know this.

 

I think a more accurate critique would be using 10 WAR as the cutoff when the folks at Fangraphs themselves say that there's a +/- 1 WAR variance - both in terms of computation but also relative value. In other words, a 9 and 10 WAR player aren't substantially different, although an 8 and 10 WAR are. So this study would probably be more accurate when looking at 9+ fWAR seasons, which gives us 133 player seasons and, I think, would give us a better range of possible comparisons to look at. Maybe another post...

[Blarg]

I'm saying fWAR lies. But we all kinda know that.,

[ELEVEN]

I can't think of any 3 players on any team that I would take in exchange for Trout. Filling it out to five players is just garnishing.

The only trade that could save this franchise and make it competitive for the foreseeable future is Trout AND Pujols AND Hamilton for Ca$h. Throw in a couple of mid level prospects for the Commish to sign off on it, if necessary.

Trout is a player you keep unless you are content being the Washington Senators or Philadelphia Athletics of old.

Arte is not content with that.

That said, if someone else freed up all that salary, I have no doubt Arte would dig another financial hole just as deep in the post Trout era. Not for the lack of trying.

We're screwed either way, so might as well enjoy the best player of the next generation while he is still here.

[Blarg]

Back to the main subject, if I am the owner of the Angels I do not trade Trout under any circumstances and it is entirely motivated by legacy. The Angels as an organization does not have a single player in the Hall of Fame wearing one of their caps.

 

Should Trout's career stay in a steady progression of reaching his peak performance in his mid to late twenties then slowly regress like most ball players do and still have some standout seasons where his numbers hit his best seasons late in his career, he will assuredly be inducted into the Hall of Fame.

 

I want that hat logo to be the Angels and will pay the costs to make it happen. Even if it means turning down franchise changing trade offers or blowing up the salary cap, I would make damn sure Trout is signed for as many productive years as possible leaving the Hall no other option that put an Angel amongst the greats.

[Angelsjunky]

Some further research: Players with 9+ fWAR since 1871.

 

133 total player seasons

55 players

25 players with multiple 9+ fWAR seasons

 

Here are those 25 players, listed by number of 9+ fWAR seasons:

 

10 Babe Ruth

9 Rogers Hornsby

7 Willie Mays

6 Lou Gehrig, Barry Bonds, Honus Wagner, Ted Williams, Ty Cobb, Alex Rodriguez

4 Stan Musial, Mickey Mantle, Eddie Collins

3 Joe Morgan, Mike Schmidt

2 Jimmie Foxx, Carl Yasztremski, Tris Speaker, Cal Ripken, Rickey Henderson, Joe DiMaggio, Ken Griffey Jr, Jackie Robinson, Nap Lajoie, Joe Jackson, Mike Trout

 

The nice thing about this list is that it gives a broader range of players - all still great, but some in the not-so-inner circle elite. Looking at players with 2 or more is important because it cuts out the fluke seasons like Jacoby Ellsbury, Norm Cash, Rico Petrocelli, and Snuffy Stirnweiss (!).

 

But the point is, even expanding the comparables to multiple 9+ fWAR seasons and you get a list of all Hall of Famers or HoF caliber players.

 

As an aside, it is interesting to note who has never had a 9+ fWAR season, including Hank Aaron (8.9 is his highest), Wade Boggs (also 8.9), Eddie Mathews (8.7), Mel Ott (8.7), Frank Robinson (8.2) and a few other all-time greats. There's no shame in that as anything over about 7 is a truly great year with 5 being allstar caliber.

[Angelsjunky]

Anyhow, even if Trout never eclipses 10 fWAR again, chances are he has at least two or three more 9+ fWAR seasons in him, which would place him in that inner circle again.

[Blarg]

You look at Snuffy Stirnweiss's first two full seasons and he looks a lot like a sure fire lock for a great career. Makes you wonder what happened to him until you realize the war in Europe ended, all the regular players returned and he became Reggie Willits against real pitching.