The Trade Trout ?

[Rawhide GM (Jimmy-LM)]

one article started a snowball effect on why or why not the Angels should not have traded. We can use this as a springboard for more discussion, however to have a little fun, I will put out the Crystal Ball question for this poll.


These are guaranteed outcomes by the Baseball Genie and there is no debating what the outcome variance there may be. As a GM you have one of two choices, which lead to different outcomes:

1) You trade Mike Trout to a NL team. With your return your rebuild starts heavily and over the next 10 years you make the playoffs 4 times, winning the division AL West twice. You never win the World Series though.

2) You keep Mike Trout, who continues to perform at OPS+ levels of 150 and higher for the next 10 years. you only make the wild card game once, and even that ended in a loss, relegating you to never playing in a playoff series over his time with your team. But the Fan Base loves him and he will have a guaranteed HOF Bust wearing an Angels uniform.



so which outcome would you prefer and why?

[Deleted]

hard to deal mike trout if you KNOW the trade won't lead to a world series. if you know in advance you won't win a WS anyway, just keep trout and enjoy!  question might be different if it lead to at least a shot at a WS.  

in real life, if you could get a massive haul for him that you thought MIGHT lead to a world series then that might be a different story.  actual trades are made without knowing the future, so in real life you'd be evaluating your odds, not outcomes.  there's a veryyyy good chance the angels in their current state could up their future odds by making a rebuild type trade with trout and then using his future salaries to sign FAs to boot.  but there are very few teams that could make a trout deal happen that would be a solid rebuild trade too plus be to a contender, dodgers, red sox, maybe a couple others, that's it i think. so, i'm not sure how likely it is anyway. angels i think they have to consider it as a option at least, however much it is unlikely or that they want to keep him.  they are in a bad spot right now.

[Deleted]

First off you will never get equal trade value for Mike Trout who may go down as 1 of the 5 best players of all time if not the best. Also your fan base would probably never forgive you for making this trade.

[Sand Gnats (Matthew)]

The Angels were a bad team with a healthy Richards and Heaney, now they will be battling the Yankees for worst record in the AL. I still don't think there is any chance they trade Trout over the next couple of seasons even if they remain a bottom dweller and with almost no future impact coming from the minors and not much financial room either I don't see the light at the end of the tunnel. Once Pujols becomes even more useless in another couple of years they will have to really consider trading Trout once he starts making $34M+ starting in 2018. There is a chance they could make some wise moves and or get lucky with some guys and maybe get back to a competitive level in 2018 or before to justify keeping Trout, but I don't foresee Trout sticking around after his contract is up if he hasn't already been traded by then.

[Deleted]

These trades are harder in baseball I think because of the lack of tradable draft picks. In basketball and football superstars get moved way more often. Any deal for Trout will never provide equal value, because it's hard to believe any team will gut their roster for one guy in a sport with an undeniable reliance on the team. You'd need something like 3 young majors leaguers, a veteran, and 2 top prospects to get a deal started. And giving 3-4 starting players for one is something very few teams will ever be able to do. So I don't think it's really plausible, but if someone wants to overpay, the Angels would be dumb not to do it (considering they are a bad team as it is with the worst farm system in baseball)

[Javelinas GM (Scott)]

If any team was in a position to acquire trout now, it's the Astros. But Angels wouldn't do that. The Cubs could start with Soler, Baez, and Almora and add from there. But, most teams couldn't acquire Trout if LAA was willing.

[Deleted]

Start with Soler, Baez and Almora? Wonder why proposals always include players the club doesn't want to keep as a way of to acquire a huge asset. If the Cubs were actually gonna try to acquire Mike Trout, wouldn't they have to make an offer that contained premium specs rather than their expendables?

Trout's not likely getting traded, but if he were... How about the Cubs open discussion by sending Schwarber, Willson Contreras and Dylan Cease and maybe toss in a few Baez/Sloer types at the back end?

Moreno has been burned by big contract guys several times already, so shipping Trout may not be so far-fetched. Likely landing spot would be a team with a monster TV revenue and a marketing platform to match -- aka NY Yankees. On the surfce it seems unlikely the Yankees give up their top specs after spending so much time nurturing them, but the lure of a star player to fill dramatically empty seats in the stadium's pricey boxes may be too powerful to refuse.

Boston, Pittsburgh and Houston all have the kind of specs lures needed to net a Trout. But Yankees might be a sleeper player.

Jorge Mateo replaces Simmons' anemic bat at SS (then trade Simmons to KC). Aaron Judge finds a home in LF. Gary Sanchez behind the plate. Add Luis Severino to cap the deal. Toss in Domingo Acevedo, who tosses Ks at a stunning rate. The Halos close the deal by adding an array of as yet unheralded power arms from NYY stash -- Jordan Montgomery, Bryan Mitchell Drew Finley, etc. Yankees win very little on the field, but they get their TV star for the future. Angels lose the PR war and win the AL West three years down the road.