SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
|
Post by oldfaithful2019 on Aug 23, 2023 11:38:01 GMT -5
If the Angels can not re sign Ohtani they will be left with Mike Trout, Zeto and a bunch of meh. Catcher Logan O'Hoppe (mlb #31) is their only top 100 prospect. Have to believe it will be re build time for the Angels and that They would move Trout and his 275 ish mil remaining contract dollars.
Nothing in Trouts performance points to a drop off, so feels like he can continue to be a force through his 30's.
I would start by offering,
1. The Angels choice of Yoshida, Duran or Verdugo. 2. The Angels choice of a Sox top 10 prospect other than Mayer. ( They have Zeto anyway) 3. The Angels choice of one pitcher off mlb roster, other than Bello, or a prospect outside of Sox top 10. 4. Sox take on Trouts full salary remaining.
Big cost to pay, but we get one of the best RH bats in the game who could easily play CF or RF for the Sox. Bat him 3rd behind Devers and in front of Casas.
Maybe the Angels want to keep him as their build around anchor, but if they are willing to move him, I think the Sox can and should be players in trying to obtain him.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Aug 23, 2023 22:00:20 GMT -5
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I love the idea of pursuing Trout. With that said, I don't think it'll take nearly that much to get him. He's under contract for his age 32-38 seasons for 7/248.5 and he's already had some injury concerns. If I'm the Angels, especially given their farm situation, I would be thrilled to move Trout. Not thrilled enough to give him away, mind you, but thrilled enough to pay down a bit of his salary and/or not require as much as you're proposing to take that contract off their hands. I could definitely be wrong, but I was thinking something more like this:
Angels get: Top 10 prospect (e.g. Yorke) Top 20 prospect (e.g. Jordan) 2 Top 60 prospects (e.g. I. Coffey, Gambrell)
Sox get: Trout $66.5 million
The end result would be Trout to the Sox on a $26 million AAV. I'd expect him to provide good value for the first few years of the deal, but there's serious albatross risk given his injury history. His bat is also showing signs of slipping, as he's been more human this year when healthy. Still totally worth the risk and a few prospects to add a bat that good to the lineup, though. I'm drooling at the thought of a Duran/Rafaela/Trout outfield; what a step up that would be after this year. Average CFs at both corners and an elite CF up the middle? That's probably the best outfield defense in the majors.
Whether this deal makes sense totally depends how risky you think Trout is and how fast he'll decline, but I don't think Trout has much value right now on a 7/248.5 deal, except perhaps to teams who intend to boom for a couple years and then rebuild for the last few years of that deal. So, I think LAA would have to pay down some of his salary in order to move him. But I'm sure they're also looking to add to their farm, so they may pay down a bit more of the deal in exchange for some prospects rather than opting for a pure salary dump. They could pay down some more of the salary in exchange for better prospects, of course, and my valuation is probably quite a bit off. I could just see something like this as a template.
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Aug 24, 2023 0:20:28 GMT -5
Thought this trade was terrible earlier, looks even worse now that he's back on the IL
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Aug 24, 2023 7:58:41 GMT -5
Thought this trade was terrible earlier, looks even worse now that he's back on the IL I think that's part of what's so intriguing about it. I don't think LAA could give him away on his current contract with his injury history, but they may pay down the deal into a realm where the upside makes it less terrifying. And then you get to dream on him staying reasonably healthy over the deal. I just don't have a great sense for how much LAA would have to chip in for the deal to start looking reasonable for the receiving team.
|
|
|
Post by oldfaithful2019 on Aug 24, 2023 9:56:14 GMT -5
Thought this trade was terrible earlier, looks even worse now that he's back on the IL I think that's part of what's so intriguing about it. I don't think LAA could give him away on his current contract with his injury history, but they may pay down the deal into a realm where the upside makes it less terrifying. And then you get to dream on him staying reasonably healthy over the deal. I just don't have a great sense for how much LAA would have to chip in for the deal to start looking reasonable for the receiving team. Not a good day for the Angel's inury wise for sure. That does not minimize my interest in Trout as an impact RH bat that the Sox need. As far as the price, the market will set that and I don't think Bloom would bid 1st, but I see no reason not to bid highest on this player.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,664
Member is Online
|
Mike Trout
Aug 24, 2023 11:32:31 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 24, 2023 11:32:31 GMT -5
So the idea is to trade prospects for a RH hitting HOF caliber OF with power, that makes Trout-like money, but perhaps one that isnt injured every other day? Hmmm. Maybe the Sox should have hung onto Mookie (ducks thrown debris)
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,815
Member is Online
|
Mike Trout
Aug 31, 2023 14:20:13 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by nomar on Aug 31, 2023 14:20:13 GMT -5
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I love the idea of pursuing Trout. With that said, I don't think it'll take nearly that much to get him. He's under contract for his age 32-38 seasons for 7/248.5 and he's already had some injury concerns. If I'm the Angels, especially given their farm situation, I would be thrilled to move Trout. Not thrilled enough to give him away, mind you, but thrilled enough to pay down a bit of his salary and/or not require as much as you're proposing to take that contract off their hands. I could definitely be wrong, but I was thinking something more like this: Angels get: Top 10 prospect (e.g. Yorke) Top 20 prospect (e.g. Jordan) 2 Top 60 prospects (e.g. I. Coffey, Gambrell) Sox get: Trout $66.5 million The end result would be Trout to the Sox on a $26 million AAV. I'd expect him to provide good value for the first few years of the deal, but there's serious albatross risk given his injury history. His bat is also showing signs of slipping, as he's been more human this year when healthy. Still totally worth the risk and a few prospects to add a bat that good to the lineup, though. I'm drooling at the thought of a Duran/Rafaela/Trout outfield; what a step up that would be after this year. Average CFs at both corners and an elite CF up the middle? That's probably the best outfield defense in the majors. Whether this deal makes sense totally depends how risky you think Trout is and how fast he'll decline, but I don't think Trout has much value right now on a 7/248.5 deal, except perhaps to teams who intend to boom for a couple years and then rebuild for the last few years of that deal. So, I think LAA would have to pay down some of his salary in order to move him. But I'm sure they're also looking to add to their farm, so they may pay down a bit more of the deal in exchange for some prospects rather than opting for a pure salary dump. They could pay down some more of the salary in exchange for better prospects, of course, and my valuation is probably quite a bit off. I could just see something like this as a template. This feels light, but regardless I’d be all for a Trout trade. The Sox need high end talent, and Trout deserves a bigger stage. He, Devers, Casas is a three headed dragon I’d love to watch. The Angels should have traded him eons ago. I wonder if they would finally do it once they lose Ohtani.
|
|
ematz1423
Veteran
Posts: 5,335
Member is Online
|
Post by ematz1423 on Aug 31, 2023 14:31:57 GMT -5
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I love the idea of pursuing Trout. With that said, I don't think it'll take nearly that much to get him. He's under contract for his age 32-38 seasons for 7/248.5 and he's already had some injury concerns. If I'm the Angels, especially given their farm situation, I would be thrilled to move Trout. Not thrilled enough to give him away, mind you, but thrilled enough to pay down a bit of his salary and/or not require as much as you're proposing to take that contract off their hands. I could definitely be wrong, but I was thinking something more like this: Angels get: Top 10 prospect (e.g. Yorke) Top 20 prospect (e.g. Jordan) 2 Top 60 prospects (e.g. I. Coffey, Gambrell) Sox get: Trout $66.5 million The end result would be Trout to the Sox on a $26 million AAV. I'd expect him to provide good value for the first few years of the deal, but there's serious albatross risk given his injury history. His bat is also showing signs of slipping, as he's been more human this year when healthy. Still totally worth the risk and a few prospects to add a bat that good to the lineup, though. I'm drooling at the thought of a Duran/Rafaela/Trout outfield; what a step up that would be after this year. Average CFs at both corners and an elite CF up the middle? That's probably the best outfield defense in the majors. Whether this deal makes sense totally depends how risky you think Trout is and how fast he'll decline, but I don't think Trout has much value right now on a 7/248.5 deal, except perhaps to teams who intend to boom for a couple years and then rebuild for the last few years of that deal. So, I think LAA would have to pay down some of his salary in order to move him. But I'm sure they're also looking to add to their farm, so they may pay down a bit more of the deal in exchange for some prospects rather than opting for a pure salary dump. They could pay down some more of the salary in exchange for better prospects, of course, and my valuation is probably quite a bit off. I could just see something like this as a template. This feels light, but regardless I’d be all for a Trout trade. The Sox need high end talent, and Trout deserves a bigger stage. He, Devers, Casas is a three headed dragon I’d love to watch. The Angels should have traded him eons ago. I wonder if they would finally do it once they lose Ohtani. I'm not so sure that's light, if anything I'd say that's too much. In the last three years Trout has played 237 out of the possible 486 games (assuming he doesn't come back this year). In the games he played this year his slash line was a good but not great .263/.367/.490 good for a 133 wRC+. He's still owed $248.15M for the next 7 seasons through his age 38 season. I don't think anyone should expect him to become more durable after injuries washed out three straight seasons and he's shown some serious decline. Even in the scenario trout for $26M for the next 7 seasons, I wouldn't want to give the Angels anything of actual value. Angels at this point should start their rebuild as quickly as they can. I don't think the Angels would be looking at much more than what the Marlins got for Stanton back in the day which really wasn't much.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Aug 31, 2023 16:07:58 GMT -5
I'm encouraged that one person thinks my proposal is light and another thinks it's too much. Maybe it's not such a bad suggestion! I could see him being traded for less, but I kept running into the thought that 1) LAA wouldn't want to be on the hook for more than ~$10 million per year while losing Trout, and 2) that boom & bust teams could bid us up since they're in theory less concerned with the albatross risk and more concerned with the production on the front end.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,664
Member is Online
|
Mike Trout
Aug 31, 2023 21:27:01 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 31, 2023 21:27:01 GMT -5
I'm encouraged that one person thinks my proposal is light and another thinks it's too much. Maybe it's not such a bad suggestion! I could see him being traded for less, but I kept running into the thought that 1) LAA wouldn't want to be on the hook for more than ~$10 million per year while losing Trout, and 2) that boom & bust teams could bid us up since they're in theory less concerned with the albatross risk and more concerned with the production on the front end. I think it's way light. Yeah Trout probably has a lot of IL time ahead of him, but the Angels are going to trade the face of the franchise, one of only two reasons to actually see an Angels game, and the only reason once Ohtani leaves, for 2 second tier prospects and lesser prospects plus they get to kick in a big chunk of money- I'd be pissed if I was an Angels fan. I'd want at least one top tier prospect and alot more, like a young major league regular with huge upside, Casas would certainly fit the bill,not that ud be anxious to deal Casas, but a deal fir Trout would hurt. You're not going to rebuild your franchise with Yorke and Blaze. It would likely cost alot more.
|
|
|
Mike Trout
Aug 31, 2023 21:50:10 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by blizzards39 on Aug 31, 2023 21:50:10 GMT -5
Take this one step farther. Would adding Yoshida to a package improve the Angels chances of retaining Ohtani??? The Sox have to many poor defenders and to many LH. This solve a lot of problems. Get Trout out of CF. Maybe even LF would be easy on him. Im not going to get into the specifics of lineup or what else it would take, but a 2/3/4 of Devers trout casas looks pretty appealing to me.
|
|
ematz1423
Veteran
Posts: 5,335
Member is Online
|
Mike Trout
Aug 31, 2023 22:07:31 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by ematz1423 on Aug 31, 2023 22:07:31 GMT -5
I guess i dont get it with trout. Once great player but hasnt be able to play even 50 % of the games over a 3 year span now. I want no part of trading for that contract even subsidized even for just a salary dump. None the less talking about trading premium prospects and/or Casas for him? Like I said I'm not seeing the appeal here.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,664
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 1, 2023 0:20:44 GMT -5
I guess i dont get it with trout. Once great player but hasnt be able to play even 50 % of the games over a 3 year span now. I want no part of trading for that contract even subsidized even for just a salary dump. None the less talking about trading premium prospects and/or Casas for him? Like I said I'm not seeing the appeal here. I mentioned Casas but I certainly wasn't recommending it, merely stating what I think theys be looking for. They're not dumping their star player for lesser prospects. Trout is one of those guys who will cost a lot in a trade and should because you dont give away a signed superstar franchise player for anything g less than a young up and coming regular or top tier prospect. Of course whoever trades for Teout would get a guy with immense talent but cant stay on the field. The irony is that the Sox had a comparable player and they traded him away and now we're talking about replacing him with a less healthier version. Kind of like replacing Lester with Price or even Xander with Story.
|
|
ematz1423
Veteran
Posts: 5,335
Member is Online
|
Post by ematz1423 on Sept 1, 2023 5:06:33 GMT -5
I guess i dont get it with trout. Once great player but hasnt be able to play even 50 % of the games over a 3 year span now. I want no part of trading for that contract even subsidized even for just a salary dump. None the less talking about trading premium prospects and/or Casas for him? Like I said I'm not seeing the appeal here. I mentioned Casas but I certainly wasn't recommending it, merely stating what I think theys be looking for. They're not dumping their star player for lesser prospects. Trout is one of those guys who will cost a lot in a trade and should because you dont give away a signed superstar franchise player for anything g less than a young up and coming regular or top tier prospect. Of course whoever trades for Teout would get a guy with immense talent but cant stay on the field. The irony is that the Sox had a comparable player and they traded him away and now we're talking about replacing him with a less healthier version. Kind of like replacing Lester with Price or even Xander with Story. Main difference being those guys only cost money not these theoretical trade hauls being thrown around. I like trout always have he had one of the greatest stretches of baseball I'll ever witness putting up video game numbers. I hope I'm wrong and he can get some level of durability and end his career strong but I sure as heck don't want the sox to be betting on it happening. To me he makes no sense as a target even if just a salary dump. Perhaps I'm in the minority on this one.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Sept 1, 2023 7:46:45 GMT -5
I guess i dont get it with trout. Once great player but hasnt be able to play even 50 % of the games over a 3 year span now. I want no part of trading for that contract even subsidized even for just a salary dump. None the less talking about trading premium prospects and/or Casas for him? Like I said I'm not seeing the appeal here. I mentioned Casas but I certainly wasn't recommending it, merely stating what I think theys be looking for. They're not dumping their star player for lesser prospects. Trout is one of those guys who will cost a lot in a trade and should because you dont give away a signed superstar franchise player for anything g less than a young up and coming regular or top tier prospect. Of course whoever trades for Teout would get a guy with immense talent but cant stay on the field. The irony is that the Sox had a comparable player and they traded him away and now we're talking about replacing him with a less healthier version. Kind of like replacing Lester with Price or even Xander with Story. Trout is on a 7/248.5 from ages 32-38, has been injured frequently, and is already showing signs of decline. Betts was healthy, on a 1/27 for his age 27 season, and better than Trout has been this year. It's a completely different situation. Trout's deal looks like an albatross in the making, while Betts' arb deal looked like incredible value. The only downside was it was only one year of control. I don't buy into having to pay a lot more in a trade for a player that's the "face of a franchise". Are there really more people in LA willing to watch Mike Trout on a bad team than a good team without Mike Trout? If they hold their current players instead of rebuilding, or chase the marketing by retaining Ohtani, they are doomed to another extended period of poor or middling play. Their farm is terrible, so there's little help coming, and there would be no hope of building a competitive team around their stars before their contracts are deadweights. They should know first hand that they can't make this work and should rebuild, which means trading anyone with any semblance of value, Trout included. And if they know they need to trade him, they can't make unrealistic demands. Fans might be mad because they only got a borderline top-100 guy as the headliner, but if so they aren't aware of how bad his contract looks. They just know that Mike Trout is incredible at baseball, so naturally trading him should bring back someone who is incredible at baseball, right? Of course it's not that simple, though, and their GM shouldn't and won't make decisions based on fans' misunderstanding.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,664
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 1, 2023 13:19:33 GMT -5
I mentioned Casas but I certainly wasn't recommending it, merely stating what I think theys be looking for. They're not dumping their star player for lesser prospects. Trout is one of those guys who will cost a lot in a trade and should because you dont give away a signed superstar franchise player for anything g less than a young up and coming regular or top tier prospect. Of course whoever trades for Teout would get a guy with immense talent but cant stay on the field. The irony is that the Sox had a comparable player and they traded him away and now we're talking about replacing him with a less healthier version. Kind of like replacing Lester with Price or even Xander with Story. Trout is on a 7/248.5 from ages 32-38, has been injured frequently, and is already showing signs of decline. Betts was healthy, on a 1/27 for his age 27 season, and better than Trout has been this year. It's a completely different situation. Trout's deal looks like an albatross in the making, while Betts' arb deal looked like incredible value. The only downside was it was only one year of control. I don't buy into having to pay a lot more in a trade for a player that's the "face of a franchise". Are there really more people in LA willing to watch Mike Trout on a bad team than a good team without Mike Trout? If they hold their current players instead of rebuilding, or chase the marketing by retaining Ohtani, they are doomed to another extended period of poor or middling play. Their farm is terrible, so there's little help coming, and there would be no hope of building a competitive team around their stars before their contracts are deadweights. They should know first hand that they can't make this work and should rebuild, which means trading anyone with any semblance of value, Trout included. And if they know they need to trade him, they can't make unrealistic demands. Fans might be mad because they only got a borderline top-100 guy as the headliner, but if so they aren't aware of how bad his contract looks. They just know that Mike Trout is incredible at baseball, so naturally trading him should bring back someone who is incredible at baseball, right? Of course it's not that simple, though, and their GM shouldn't and won't make decisions based on fans' misunderstanding. Keep in mind not just the Sox would be interested. I dont think the Angels are forced to take what they can get for him. There would be enough teams trying to trade for him where somebody would trade more than you'd think they would
|
|
ematz1423
Veteran
Posts: 5,335
Member is Online
|
Mike Trout
Sept 1, 2023 13:56:30 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by ematz1423 on Sept 1, 2023 13:56:30 GMT -5
Trout is on a 7/248.5 from ages 32-38, has been injured frequently, and is already showing signs of decline. Betts was healthy, on a 1/27 for his age 27 season, and better than Trout has been this year. It's a completely different situation. Trout's deal looks like an albatross in the making, while Betts' arb deal looked like incredible value. The only downside was it was only one year of control. I don't buy into having to pay a lot more in a trade for a player that's the "face of a franchise". Are there really more people in LA willing to watch Mike Trout on a bad team than a good team without Mike Trout? If they hold their current players instead of rebuilding, or chase the marketing by retaining Ohtani, they are doomed to another extended period of poor or middling play. Their farm is terrible, so there's little help coming, and there would be no hope of building a competitive team around their stars before their contracts are deadweights. They should know first hand that they can't make this work and should rebuild, which means trading anyone with any semblance of value, Trout included. And if they know they need to trade him, they can't make unrealistic demands. Fans might be mad because they only got a borderline top-100 guy as the headliner, but if so they aren't aware of how bad his contract looks. They just know that Mike Trout is incredible at baseball, so naturally trading him should bring back someone who is incredible at baseball, right? Of course it's not that simple, though, and their GM shouldn't and won't make decisions based on fans' misunderstanding. Keep in mind not just the Sox would be interested. I dont think the Angels are forced to take what they can get for him. There would be enough teams trying to trade for him where somebody would trade more than you'd think they would In my mind any other team can have him, maybe I'm crazy i think he has negative value at this point. I just don't see his injury issues getting any better than the last few years. It's constantly something after another. I just think back to the Stanton trade. Yes Stanton wasn't as well regarded as Trout but he was a beast with injury issues. Now he's broken down and cooked and the yanks are stuck with his deal. There's a good chance that same thing happens with Trout.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Sept 1, 2023 15:29:40 GMT -5
Keep in mind not just the Sox would be interested. I dont think the Angels are forced to take what they can get for him. There would be enough teams trying to trade for him where somebody would trade more than you'd think they would In my mind any other team can have him, maybe I'm crazy i think he has negative value at this point. I just don't see his injury issues getting any better than the last few years. It's constantly something after another. I just think back to the Stanton trade. Yes Stanton wasn't as well regarded as Trout but he was a beast with injury issues. Now he's broken down and cooked and the yanks are stuck with his deal. There's a good chance that same thing happens with Trout. You're not wrong, but on the other hand Trout is one of the best players ever to play the game of baseball. For his career he has averaged 1 fWAR every 17.5 games. Compare that to this short list of best players of all time:
Ruth: 14.0 G/fWAR (includes pitching, and doesn't count games pitched in the denominator since he would have been hitting as well)
Trout: 17.5 G/fWAR (through age 31) Williams: 17.7 G/fWAR Bonds: 18.2 G/fWAR (*)
Gehrig: 18.7 G/fWAR
Mays: 20.1 G/fWAR Cobb: 20.4 G/fWAR Mantle: 21.4 G/fWAR Musial: 23.9 G/fWAR
Aaron: 24.2 G/fWAR
Yes, Trout's G/fWAR should decline if he plays well into his 30s, but if these injuries prove to be temporary, unlucky nuisances that can be addressed or managed as opposed to harbingers of a career cut short, he could easily finish near the top of this list.
Would you let a moderately high AAV and some injuries scare you away from the ends of Mays', or Williams', or Ruth's careers? That's the sort of upside we're talking about.
|
|
ematz1423
Veteran
Posts: 5,335
Member is Online
|
Mike Trout
Sept 1, 2023 18:57:29 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by ematz1423 on Sept 1, 2023 18:57:29 GMT -5
In my mind any other team can have him, maybe I'm crazy i think he has negative value at this point. I just don't see his injury issues getting any better than the last few years. It's constantly something after another. I just think back to the Stanton trade. Yes Stanton wasn't as well regarded as Trout but he was a beast with injury issues. Now he's broken down and cooked and the yanks are stuck with his deal. There's a good chance that same thing happens with Trout. You're not wrong, but on the other hand Trout is one of the best players ever to play the game of baseball. For his career he has averaged 1 fWAR every 17.5 games. Compare that to this short list of best players of all time:
Ruth: 14.0 G/fWAR (includes pitching, and doesn't count games pitched in the denominator since he would have been hitting as well)
Trout: 17.5 G/fWAR (through age 31) Williams: 17.7 G/fWAR Bonds: 18.2 G/fWAR (*)
Gehrig: 18.7 G/fWAR
Mays: 20.1 G/fWAR Cobb: 20.4 G/fWAR Mantle: 21.4 G/fWAR Musial: 23.9 G/fWAR
Aaron: 24.2 G/fWAR
Yes, Trout's G/fWAR should decline if he plays well into his 30s, but if these injuries prove to be temporary, unlucky nuisances that can be addressed or managed as opposed to harbingers of a career cut short, he could easily finish near the top of this list.
Would you let a moderately high AAV and some injuries scare you away from the ends of Mays', or Williams', or Ruth's careers? That's the sort of upside we're talking about.
No doubt the upside is there if trout is actually available for a reasonable price but the downside is like what the yankees got with Stanton. At this point I'm saying no thank you to literally any deal for trout.
|
|
|
Post by brendan98 on Sept 11, 2023 14:21:43 GMT -5
Is anyone buying the Trout trade rumors from earlier today? Would the Angels entertain a Sox trade offer built around Story? How much more would they need and could the Sox get him without including Bello, Casas, Mayer, Anthony, Rafaela?
|
|
|
Post by Smittyw on Sept 12, 2023 8:25:14 GMT -5
He's already 32, still owed a ton of money, pretty much a guarantee to miss time every year at this point, and seems to be trending (when he's on the field) towards being merely really good rather than the ubermensch he was. I'd think about it if the Angels took on one or two of our less desirable contracts and/or sent some cheap, controllable talent back (do they have any worth coveting?), but when you're taking about trading the best player of his generation, that's probably a nonstarter.
|
|
|
Mike Trout
Sept 12, 2023 10:13:23 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by oldfaithful2019 on Sept 12, 2023 10:13:23 GMT -5
Admittedly, my proposal to start this thread was way too pro Angel's, but ya have to start somewhere. The injuries in 2021 and 2023 are a bit concerning but not the age. There is plenty of precedent for great players remaining great in to their late 30's. Winfield, Papi jump to mind as does Miggy Cabrera on the other end of the spectrum. I don't think there would be much noise around here if Justin Turner were brought back for his age 39 season. So, I am still in for a Trout deal if the Sox take on 25 mil of the salary, trade a ML outfielder, a top 10 prospect and one pitcher. Picture Trout in the 3 hole between Raffy and Cassas. With all the prospects we have coming, none project to be what Trout could.
|
|
|
Mike Trout
Sept 13, 2023 7:27:19 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by jdb on Sept 13, 2023 7:27:19 GMT -5
I think any Trout trade would be subsidized by LA. I’d like the thought of him hitting in the middle of the order for us but like others have said not if the contract hamstrings the team.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Oct 11, 2023 8:41:24 GMT -5
This was from the LAA offseason chat on MLBTR. He guessed paying down to $180-200m would get a “solid” return. live.jotcast.com/chat/angels-outlook-23-16648.html I don't think it's that high. Trout has seven years and $248MM left on his deal running from age 32 to 38. We saw teams pay guys like Bogaerts, Judge and Machado deep into their late 30s last offseason. Brandon Nimmo got 8/162 running through age 37 and isn't as good a player even as late-career Trout 3:03 If they paid it down to the $180-200MM range (and he was willing to move), I think they could get a solid return
|
|
ematz1423
Veteran
Posts: 5,335
Member is Online
|
Post by ematz1423 on Oct 11, 2023 10:13:38 GMT -5
This was from the LAA offseason chat on MLBTR. He guessed paying down to $180-200m would get a “solid” return. live.jotcast.com/chat/angels-outlook-23-16648.html I don't think it's that high. Trout has seven years and $248MM left on his deal running from age 32 to 38. We saw teams pay guys like Bogaerts, Judge and Machado deep into their late 30s last offseason. Brandon Nimmo got 8/162 running through age 37 and isn't as good a player even as late-career Trout 3:03 If they paid it down to the $180-200MM range (and he was willing to move), I think they could get a solid return That's still 25-28M on a guy who hasn't been able to stay on the field for even 50% of his teams games for the last several seasons now. He's obviously a great talent and I guess I wouldn't necessarily bet against him but I don't want the Sox to be betting on him for that type of money either. On the other hand it just takes one team to take it on and give up a solid package so it's possible they are able to get a decent haul back but I wouldn't want to give up even a meager package for that contract.
|
|
|