He's tradable. I could see the Astros or Cubs making a move for him. Only way for the Angels to be Competitive is to flip him.Originally Posted by smootness
He's tradable. I could see the Astros or Cubs making a move for him. Only way for the Angels to be Competitive is to flip him.
Unless it involved the actual fish.
thank you weso1!
It would have been so much easier to draft him instead of Mike Minor.
This has to be nominated as worst post ever on a baseball board. It's beyond funny though bc this guy is serious.
Love it. i agree. Isn't hindsight awesome?
for what the Yanks got for Chapman and Miller, flip Trout in a 3-team deal and the Angels are on their way to a quick rebuild
It won't happen. No one will be willing to give up what it would take.
They would need a lot more than that IMO.
Betts, Moncada, and Kopech for Trout.
Correa and Bregman for Trout
Kris Bryant, Soler, and Baez for Trout
Those are the type of deals that would have to happen that seems plausible. It could never be an all prospect package for Trout. Elite young player with high end prospects. That's the only way the Angels could ever justify trading Trout to their fanbase.
Correa and Bregman would not get you Trout. Not even all that close.
For the Red Sox, it would take at least Betts, Moncada, and Benintendi. At least.
I disagree with this premise. Trout is worth 10 wins a season. What trade package is going to bring that amount of annual value in return?
The Angels need a overhaul like we undertook. Some of the best moves we made to accelerate our rebuilding were revamping the scouting department, buying draft picks, buying Touki Toussaint, etc. I like Billy Epler as GM, but their scouting department is a mess.
I'd probably add Bogaerts to that trio at the absolute minimum.
Don't read the tea leaves too closely. I'm just broadly painting the concept of what I think it would take to construct a trade - young 6-8 WAR star + top 10 prospect + third piece. I'm not all that interested in arguing the specifics of my fake trades.
Tapate50 (08-21-2016)
IMO, I don't think the price is that high. I do think they want close to the majors young position players, but I don't think it would take an 8 WAR CF + 5 WAR SS + 5 WAR LF + the best prospect in baseball. Unless LAA was willing to send Simmons which they probably would, then that makes much more sense.
And I'm telling you it would take a good bit more than that.
You're not trading Trout for equal value.
Agree to disagree.
I don't know... Betts is already a budding superstar at the MLB level. You add Moncada and Benintendi... two top 10 prospects with one being number 1 overall... I bet LA would think hard about it. Sure Betts is a bit of a step down from Trout, but not much in the grand scheme of things. Then you add two possible high impact players very close.
Mookie has a .932 OPS and is a year younger
Trout has .976 OPS but has the longer track record
Mookie has 6.1 WAR
Trout has 6.9 WAR
The difference isn't really that great, at least for the year.
If they could get Betts to replace Trout, you don't think adding two more top 10 prospects including the number 1 prospect in baseball would do it? I think it'd almost be a slam dunk.
Last edited by zbhargrove; 08-18-2016 at 07:31 PM.
Equal value is Betts + Moncada. The rest that Boston gives to LAA is the Mike Trout premium. I don't think that premium is worth 10 WAR (Beni + X), but to each his own.
Look at the stats... for the year Betts isn't that far off from Trout... you add the number one prospect in baseball... it is certainly equal value if not even a bit more.
Im taking the cost savings into account. If you can trade Trout for 5-6 wins in cheap cost controlled players, you're also saving 15 million (trouts contract) that you can use to lock up another young star.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote