Lets talk Mike Trout: Is he realistic option?

[StephenCurry30]

I know there is similar threads, but this is a big enough player and topic I'd like to create its own thread. Angels have all kinds of issues and aren't winning anything anytime soon, so there has been rumors swirling that Mike Trout could be available for a huge haul of prospects, and one of the teams mentioned as a "Potential suitor" (along with the Dodgers and Phillies) is the Red Sox.

 

Much like the Dodgers, the Red Sox have the assets to acquire Trout, the money to field a competitive team around him and a hole in left field.

 

They have a number of high upside talents in the lower minor leagues, including second baseman Yoan Moncada (No. 7), third baseman Rafael Devers (No. 35), outfielder Andrew Benintendi (No. 46) and starting pitcher Anderson Espinoza (No. 73). Any package to land Trout would likely include three of those four players.

 

Continued from page 1

 

Los Angeles Dodgers:

 

Whenever a marquee player is available in free agency or on the trade market, the Dodgers appear at the top of the list. In addition to having seemingly unlimited financial funds, they also have one of the top farm systems in baseball. The package for Trout could be centered around 19-year-old left-hander Julio Urias, who’s the No. 6 prospect in baseball according to Baseball America. He’s dominating in Triple-A this season, posting a 1.88 ERA in four starts to go along with a stunning 9.67 strikeout-to-walk ratio.

 

Despite having a payroll well north of $200 million, the Dodgers desperately need another outfielder. Los Angeles left fielders –– Carl Crawford and Enrique Hernandez, mainly –– are only hitting .239 this season combined.

 

The one potential hangup to a deal, besides the fact that the Dodgers are the Angels’ city rivals, could be the inclusion of the No. 1 prospect in baseball, shortstop Corey Seager. He’s already starting in the big leagues this season, but the Angels would almost certainly ask for him to be a part of the deal.

 

Boston Red Sox:

 

Much like the Dodgers, the Red Sox have the assets to acquire Trout, the money to field a competitive team around him and a hole in left field.

 

They have a number of high upside talents in the lower minor leagues, including second baseman Yoan Moncada (No. 7), third baseman Rafael Devers (No. 35), outfielder Andrew Benintendi (No. 46) and starting pitcher Anderson Espinoza (No. 73). Any package to land Trout would likely include three of those four players.

Recommended by Forbes

 

In addition, there are a couple of high ceiling young players with big league experience who the Red Sox could send over to the Angels. Left-hander Eduardo Rodriguez, 23, is currently recovering from a knee injury, but finished last season with a 3.86 ERA and 111 ERA+ in 21 starts. Switch-hitting catcher Blake Swihart hit .303 with an .805 OPS in the second half last year and is now expendable due to the reemergence of Christian Vazquez behind the plate.

 

With Mookie Betts and Jackie Bradley Jr. on board, the Red Sox would probably have the best outfield in the game if they were to land Trout.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexreimer/2016/05/07/the-3-most-realistic-mike-trout-trade-scenarios/2/#29e9d953248f

 

Obviously this isn't a sure thing, and probably unlikely, but what would you give up for Trout? If we can acquire him with only giving up minor league talent and maybe a few MLB guys like say Swihart, Owens, maybe E-Rod, I'd say go for it. Trout is one of the best players in league, is young, affordable (for how good he is and in comparison to other stars), has no off the field issues and would give us the best outfield in the MLB. Sure these guys COULD be studs, but will they be a perennial mvp candidate and one of best all around players in league and possibly all time?

 

What is you guys opinion on this? What would you give up?

[Bellhorn04]

Trout is only 24 and locked up till 2020. And the Angels have lots of money. I don't buy the idea that they have any motivation to trade him. I think it's something a writer came up with for the sake of a story.

[S5Dewey]

Let me put it this way: I think you're living in a fantasy world if you think the Angels would settle for a bunch of high minor leaguers and marginal major leaguers, but if they do I'm all in.

 

To answer your question, I'm confident that I wouldn't give up enough to get him. IMHO any trade between the Sox and the Angels regarding Trout has the potential to leave the fans of both teams unhappy.

[Northern Star]

I hate these kind of debates because the cost to get these young superstars is way more than the value he adds.

[StephenCurry30]

Trout is only 24 and locked up till 2020. And the Angels have lots of money. I don't buy the idea that they have any motivation to trade him. I think it's something a writer came up with for the sake of a story

 

I agree with this, but the rumor has seemed to have popped up more and more over the past few days. The Angels do have a lot of bad contracts and Trout's salary almost doubles in 2018, which could be a facctor into why they could POSSIBLY consider this. What would it realistically take to?

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/70439/think-the-unthinkable-angels-will-have-to-think-about-trading-mike-trout

Boston Red Sox -- Keith rated them only the No. 10 organization but they have four huge upside talents in third baseman Rafael Devers (No. 7), second baseman Yoan Moncada (No. 17), center fielder Andrew Benintendi (No. 18) and pitcher Anderson Espinoza (No. 38). Moncada is hitting .348/.478/.506 with 19 steals for Class A Salem and Benintendi is hitting .376/.435/.653, although both have hit just one home run. Still, Benintendi could be on the Michael Conforto path: drafted in one year and reaching the majors the next. He should be moving up to Double-A soon and could reach Boston before September. Jackie Bradley Jr. also could be part of the deal, along with Pablo Sandoval (just kidding!).

 

If you offer those 4 plus JBJ, you think Angels accept?

[StephenCurry30]

Let me put it this way: I think you're living in a fantasy world if you think the Angels would settle for a bunch of high minor leaguers and marginal major leaguers, but if they do I'm all in.

 

To answer your question, I'm confident that I wouldn't give up enough to get him. IMHO any trade between the Sox and the Angels regarding Trout has the potential to leave the fans of both teams unhappy.

Moncada and Benintendi may be minor leagues, but they are both considered elite prospects and a deal centered around them has to make the Angels at least listen in my opinion.

[mvp 78]

Trout is only 24 and locked up till 2020. And the Angels have lots of money. I don't buy the idea that they have any motivation to trade him. I think it's something a writer came up with for the sake of a story.

 

The haul that would have to be unloaded wouldn't be worth it.

 

The better question would be, should the Sox bid on Harper when his contract ends?

[S5Dewey]

Moncada and Benintendi may be minor leagues, but they are both considered elite prospects and a deal centered around them has to make the Angels at least listen in my opinion.

 

I hear you, and as a Red Sox fan I have to agree. However, I think we tend to overrate our prospects much like everyone else does.

 

Now let me ask you this. If you were the Angels and were offered two prospects, one in A ball & one in AAA, as the best players in a trade for Mike Trout, would you take it?

[mvp 78]

I hear you, and as a Red Sox fan I have to agree. However, I think we tend to overrate our prospects much like everyone else does.

 

Now let me ask you this. If you were the Angels and were offered two prospects, one in A ball & one in AAA, as the best players in a trade for Mike Trout, would you take it?

Angels would hang up the phone.

[Jasonbay44]

I feel like if we were to get a player like Trout, it would have to include young MLB talent along with prospects. Like Mookie or Xander as a starting point.. Is that worth it? I'm not sure.

 

If we could get him for just prospects, Id be all for it, and I'm sure almost all of us would be, but I don't think its realistic.

[jacksonianmarch]

He is either #1 or #2 in all of baseball and he is only 24. Yes, he is worth it. Everyone is on the table for a guy like him.

[Northern Star]

I feel like if we were to get a player like Trout, it would have to include young MLB talent along with prospects. Like Mookie or Xander as a starting point.. Is that worth it? I'm not sure.

 

If we could get him for just prospects, Id be all for it, and I'm sure almost all of us would be, but I don't think its realistic.

 

By filling one hole you open 2 or 3 elsewhere. Nope. If you want Mike Trout, draft one.

[jacksonianmarch]

How ever many holes you create, you fill one for a decade with insane production.

[Jack Flap]

Angels would hang up the phone.

 

And block Dombrowski's number.

[Slasher9]

He is either #1 or #2 in all of baseball and he is only 24. Yes, he is worth it. Everyone is on the table for a guy like him.

 

I am 100% in agreement with a MFY fan. FML

[moonslav59]

The problem with trading for Trout is that you deplete the whole farm AND future budget flexibility.

 

It's like the Kimbrel trade on steroids.

[redsoxdirtdog]

Although this is an unauthorized thread, I would agree with Moon. I WOULD LOVE to have this kid! Still, the cost would be far too great. If it were a FA deal, i'd say 0AY WHATEVER YOU HAVE TO!

[Youk Of The Nation]

Inventing a time machine and bringing Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Carl Yastrzemki, and Cy Young from the peak of their Red Sox careers into 2016 to play for the Sox is more realistic at this point than getting Mike Trout for anything except a package that would guarantee incredible production from one spot but completely wipe out the depth at all of the others. Mike Trout is probably the best player in baseball, but the Angels haven't won jack since he came up. Why? Because other than Trout and about 30 percent of what Albert Pujols used to be, they have forgettable talent at every other position. That should prove pretty conclusively that one guy isn't going to bring in back-to-back-to-back championships. Bankrupting the team's future to try and secure wins in the present never works out well in the end. The Yankees did it to get the 2009 World Series Championship, and look what happened to them. Since 2010 they've played 10 LCS games and won only two of them, and they only made it that far because of a dearth of true competition in those year's AL lineups.

[Palodios]

Trout is the best player since Bonds. He's averaged 9.5 wins a season. He's 24. He has lots of team control left. If you can get him for prospects only, but no chance in hell that happens.

 

Eduardo Rodriguez, Steven Wright, Moncada, Espinoza, Devers, Benintendi plus a few others might get it done, but its a no-win situation for either team involved.

 

Then you have to pay to extend him.

[redsoxdirtdog]

2020 i'm there! This kid is going to be great for a long time to come! He is the real deal!

[S5Dewey]

Inventing a time machine and bringing Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Carl Yastrzemki, and Cy Young from the peak of their Red Sox careers into 2016 to play for the Sox is more realistic at this point than getting Mike Trout for anything except a package that would guarantee incredible production from one spot but completely wipe out the depth at all of the others. Mike Trout is probably the best player in baseball, but the Angels haven't won jack since he came up. Why? Because other than Trout and about 30 percent of what Albert Pujols used to be, they have forgettable talent at every other position. That should prove pretty conclusively that one guy isn't going to bring in back-to-back-to-back championships. Bankrupting the team's future to try and secure wins in the present never works out well in the end. The Yankees did it to get the 2009 World Series Championship, and look what happened to them. Since 2010 they've played 10 LCS games and won only two of them, and they only made it that far because of a dearth of true competition in those year's AL lineups.

My name (here) is S5Dewey and I completely agree with this post.

[iortiz]

It's a shame, Trout is playing for LAA who are not going anywhere soon while his best years are going literally to the toilet.

 

A haul for Trout makes sense for everybody, interested team -Boston- LAA and Trout. I won't be surprised if LAA trade him before the trade deadline.

Edited May 9, 2016 by iortiz

[Gringo]

Every player is tradable at all times.

[Gringo]

Maybe we can showcase Castillo and package him too...

[Bellhorn04]

Every player is tradable at all times.

 

Not if they have a no-trade clause.

 

Otherwise, in theory, yes. But in reality, the chances of some players being traded right now is .00001%. The Dodgers, for example, are not going to trade Kershaw.

[southpaw777]

I like what we have and where were going. We need pitching, not trout. We have a solid OF and with Benintendi rising quickly. Swihart is also taking reps in the OF. If i give up a ton of kids and maybe young roster guys, i only do that kind of deal for a young pitcher like Syndergaard, Sale or someone like that.

[Jack Flap]

The problem with trading for Trout is that you deplete the whole farm AND future budget flexibility.

 

It's like the Kimbrel trade on steroids.

 

Agree. It's easy to see the price for Trout being franchise-crippling -- a pillaging of our burgeoning young core -- and if I was an Angels fan I wouldn't want to settle for anything less than that.

 

In the long term, our outfield is the least of our concerns with Mookie, JBJ, and soon Benintendi and possibly Moncada in the fold. No need to expend precious resources trying to fill holes we don't have, at the expense of other needs...I am content to admire Trout and his feats from afar.

[sk7326]

Trout could get them a huge haul. At the same time, the Angels are a big market team who has the league's best player. I think the preference has to be to build around him. A suitor would have to pay a ton - but barring injury and a possibility he has to move to a corner, he's better than what you'd expect to be available for any reason.

[StephenCurry30]

Saying we shouldn't move him due to OF depth in minors and JBJ is silly. I like JBJ, but Trout is a future hall of famer and those minor league guys, including Moncada, who we obviously all love are unproven at this point.

[mvp 78]

Saying we shouldn't move him due to OF depth in minors and JBJ is silly. I like JBJ, but Trout is a future hall of famer and those minor league guys, including Moncada, who we obviously all love are unproven at this point.

 

Angels wouldn't trade him for a truck full of prospects and JBJ. They would want Betts included and I'd pass on that.