I mean... as shown above... that was certainly what was being discussed and you interjected. Are you challenging my point (the second quote above) or what? I can't tell
Huh? I'm saying that I never said it would take Betts, Moncada, and then 10 more WAR. I said Benintendi, who I don't think is close to 10 WAR. So you'd have to add another big piece to get there. I'm not the one who said Betts, Moncada, Benintendi AND Boegarts.
When I said 'you're not trading Trout for equal value,' I just meant that it will take more than equal value to get him. That doesn't mean I think it would take 10 WAR more than equal value.
cajunrevenge (08-20-2016)
I did the longhand explanation of the surplus value the Angels have gotten from Trout's deal thus far, but the site's acting up and it disappeared. To explain the short version, the Angels will break even on that 6 year/$144.5 million contract IF Trout amasses roughly the same amount of WAR Freeman delivered in 2014 between now and the end of this season and he RETIRES IN OCTOBER.
Don't know what anyone can add to that other than WOW!
Has there EVER been a statement and question a certain someone should absolutely never have made and asked publicly more than...
Kinda pathetic to see yourself as a message board knight in shining armor. How impotent does someone have to be in real life to resort to playing hero on a message board?
Betts, Benedinti and Moncada and maybe one other prospect would get Trout.
Betts isnt better than Trout but its not an insane step down.
Plus Bene and Moncada is great value.
Not sure it would happen though.
Yeah, Trout's salary is a non-factor. Sure, it would be better if he were only making $5 million/year, but he could be making $40 million and every team in the league would still take him in a heartbeat.
Nope.
Those 3, taking Pujols's salary, Jackie Bradley, Devers, Espinosa, Travis, and Kopech, maybe.
Realize the closest to Trout being traded we've seen is Miggy, MIggy netted 2 top 10 prospects. ALso came with taking off the absolutely worthless Willis contract. Several other quality players. ANd Miggy only had 2 years IIRC of team control. Trout has at least 4 years of control.
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
How is the A-Rod trade not similar? Sure, at 28 years old when he was traded he wasn't quite as young as Trout is now, but he was clearly the best player in the game with a lot of control left.
Betts and JBJ is a massive overpay for Trout even if Trout were making league minimum still. Betts is the 2nd best CFer in the game behind Trout and isn't that far off him. Not the Sox would ever offer this, but the Angels would do extremely well to get Betts, Bentendi, and Moncada for Trout considering the control, money savings, and total value of that package. That's one current 6+ WAR player and two more potential 5+ WAR players for one 9 WAR player with 4 years of control left at a premium contract.
Last edited by Carp; 08-20-2016 at 06:07 AM.
people saying prospects are better than the best player in the game even if he was making league minimum :lol
"For there is always light, if only we are brave enough to see it. If only we are brave enough to be it." Amanda Gorman
"When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross"
Trout may or may not be available. That question isn't interesting to me. The interesting question is what qualifies as a win/win trade from a baseball ops perspective.
Betts and Bradley wouldn't be enough for me. If I ran the Angels, I would offer Trout, Pujols, and Simmons for Betts, X and Devers. It would clear a ton of money off their books, replace Trout with arguably the second best young player in baseball, upgrade at short stop, and they get a top 15 prospect.
Boston probably loses this trade from a value stand point, but I think they make the trade still since its Trout. The tough pill to swallow would be the money.
Last edited by chop2chip; 08-20-2016 at 02:42 PM.