Angels considering moving Trout?

They're not moving Trout under any circumstances IMO - not sure how many of the XM/MLB Network/etc. guys I've heard talk about how the thought is so laughable that it's a waste of time to dream about. The few rebuilding teams that actually do have the kinds of pieces needed to even start a discussion about what would be "fair", wouldn't do it because they'd have nothing left to build around him after they unloaded their system to get him, so they'd then be in the same boat the Angels are in - Trout, 8 other guys, and NO pitching.
 
Preacher said:
Our package going back would have to be A LOT BEEFIER.

Freeman is a really good, but not elite 1B, Teheran is a #3 maybe #2, Viz is a closer and Inciate may not even be a full-time starter. Even picking up Pujols salary - that's not close.

It would take a package that feels like a kick to the nuts as a fan;

Something like;

Inciarte, Blair, Folty, Albies, Swanson, Viz, Soroka and Acuna - and that's probably not enough.
Click to expand...

OK, now we are getting somewhere. Freeman (the defacto face of the franchise), Teheran (the team ace), Inciarte (the current defensive golden boy and LO type hitter) and a young cost controlled closer (5 years), aren't near enough to get Trout and a guy in Pujols who is vastly overpaid and likely nearing his end of life as a baseball player.

Dont' get me wrong. It's not that I disagree. But, I think it's instructive as to the value of the Braves players listed above as opposed to they we they are typically viewed. So your list of: Inciarte, Blair, Folty, Albies, Swanson, Viz, Soroka and Acuna is significantly more attractive than Inciarte, Viz, Freeman and Teheran. So Blair, Folty, Albies, Swanson, Soroka and Acuna is better than Freeman and Teheran. I'm not saying I disagree, especially when you consider the price tag in dollars that comes along with Freeman and Teheran. But, Freeman and Teheran are both certified ML players while the others you have listed aren't, at least not yet, historically speaking.
 
clvclv said:
They're not moving Trout under any circumstances IMO - not sure how many of the XM/MLB Network/etc. guys I've heard talk about how the thought is so laughable that it's a waste of time to dream about. The few rebuilding teams that actually do have the kinds of pieces needed to even start a discussion about what would be "fair", wouldn't do it because they'd have nothing left to build around him after they unloaded their system to get him, so they'd then be in the same boat the Angels are in - Trout, 8 other guys, and NO pitching.
Click to expand...

I agree with this, but think it's worth discussing if for nothing more than to explore the value of various players from perception and reality and also to ask the question -do outside forces, such as Yankees media and fans, influence or try to influence players under contract with other teams?
 
I think the Red Sox have the chips to pull it off, but neither team would likely pursue it.

Betts, Benintendi, Moncada, Devers, Swihart would be an impressive package.
 
bravesfanforlife88 said:
I'd imagine that IF there were talks to trade him, there is not one team in the league that has the talent required to get him. It would take a MASSIVE 3 or even 4 team trade to get the chips headed to LAA
Click to expand...

I agree it will take a multi team trade to move Trout. The Braves minor league pitching depth makes them a player in a multi team trade. Unfortunately, the Braves will not be getting Trout.
 
I guess I will have to confess to an ulterior motive here.

Trout is a real "face of the franchise" guy. He is essentially not tradable under any circumstances barring him becoming a problem because he is so integral to the franchise. The return that they would have to ask for is so enormous that it makes it virtually impossible.

Freeman on the other hand is a defacto "face of the franchise." He's the guy the FO would hope that fans point to as a beacon of hope for the future. But, he's not really that. he's a good player but not THE franchise guy and never will be. His value is nowhere near the value of a guy like Trout and to this board's credit no one that I have seen has suggested that he is. At least consciously. However, I think their is a strong sub-current of thought that says we can't trade Freeman because he is the franchise guy. The current GM appears to have that affliction at least.

Now, I've never been one who wants to see trades simply for the sake of trading. But, I think if you can trade one non-franchise guy, a guy who is and will be making a lot of money and tying up a significant part of your budget, for 2-3 guys who will be helpful at a number of positions and at least have the potential to be as good or better than the guy you are trading one day all while freeing up the dollars allocated so that they can be used elsewhere to fill more holes, then it should be strongly considered.
 
I think it would take your top three prospects, plus a major-leaguer. I mean, just to start the conversation.
 
Alot of teams have the pieces for it, you're just gutting your team for one player, albeit probably the best player in baseball in his prime signed for 4 more years but still.

Incierte (Trout replacement), Julio, Swanson, Blair might get talks started a little bit.

Then Albies, Viz, and a few others, basically have to gut your farm system and some of your major league team just to land him.
 
MLB is not the NBA. You can't blow up your roster and future by clearing it out for one guy no matter how good he is. You need a team not a couple of superstars. How good are the Angels right now running Trout out there every night? The Angels should consider moving him for a few ML starting players and some future pieces. Would the Angels be better with multiple pieces to run out there every night rather Trout alone?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top