chop2chip
Well-known member
Bradley and Betts aren't prospects. I think they both made the all star team this year.
mike trout trade proposal
- Thread starter lenny79
- Start date
Bradley and Betts aren't prospects. I think they both made the all star team this year.
Those 19 guys in the OP may be more valuable than Trout combined, too. That's not the way it works. Anyone who thinks the Red Sox wouldn't gladly give up Betts and Bradley for Trout is bonkers.
19 guys for 1 is extreme. 2 for 1 is not and something that legitimately can happen. I'm sure the Red Sox would do that deal because they have the payroll to absorb a 30 million dollar player and then spend to fill in the other position that is voided. However if Betts and JBJ are 10 WAR players a year combined going forward I would easily make that deal if I was the Angels. They would be making peanuts and you could use the payroll saved on not paying Trout to buy another FA at market value.
Certainly for the Braves limited payroll I would rather have Betts and Bradley instead of Trout at what they are currently making.
The reality is these types of deals are team dependent based on payroll availability. Low payroll teams contend when they get superstar production at replacement level prices. When they pay for those 8 WAR players at market value you get the Texas Rangers with Arod.
Because for 30 million I'm sure I could find a way to upgrade another position of need.
Maybe, maybe not. You're downgrading but saving money. Not a move many teams are going to make.
In the Angels case it's actually an upgrade since their LF position has been a negative WAR spot this season. And they would still have all that savings to upgrade say 1B or 2B which have been non productive for them. All-stars making pennies on the dollar are the most valuable players in the game. Getting two of them for even the best player in the game at market value is a good move.
Betts or Boagarts are far more valuable than a top 10 prospect with minimal MAjor League experience. At the time of trade, there was also still hope with Willis bc he had only had one bad year.
The Red Sox would be morons to give up two of Betts, Bradley, Boegarts. One of those 3 and 2-3 good prospects would be good for both sides. Value wise- those three for the Sox have a ton of value and their system is loaded.
You're insane if you think the Angels would accept that.
Sox would be insane to offer more.
chop2chip
Well-known member
How do you value Betts? I think that's the key difference in what the rest of consider is fair value for Trout and what you consider to be fair value.
Hes a 5-7 WAR outfielder that could be more valuable as a CF (league average defense at CF). That plus 2-3 of their prospects, which 1-2 are certainly top 10 would be a steal for the Angels. Then they can spend the 20 mil they save on another piece that helps.
Which has been my entire point. Neither side would be able to stomach a Trout trade.
You realize Betts is on pace for a 8+ WAR season himself don't you? And JBJ will likely finish with 6+ WAR. Betts finished last year with a 6+ WAR as well, so it isn't like he just came out of nowhere.
Betts, Moncada, Devers, and Kopech is a pretty damn impressive haul.
UNCBlue012
Well-known member
I LOVE Trout. Like, I'm unbelievably high on the guy and think he may go down as one of the absolute best of all time, but there's no doubt that I'd pull that trade. With a little added pitching, the Angels are relevant so quickly
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
That one would be a hard call to hang up on. I am not a big believer in Kopech but even if he flames out you're still looking at a young stud OF, a probable stud IF/OF with max control, and a damned good upside bet in Devers. That beats the **** out of watching Trout get old surrounded by mediocrity.