Lets talk Mike Trout: Is he realistic option?

[Jack Flap]

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.

 

I'm not saying Trout isn't better than what we have right now...I'm saying if you're going to give up a bunch of your most valuable chips in one deal, it should be to address an area of need (preferably a #1b/2 type starter), not an area of strength.

[southpaw777]

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.

 

I understand what your saying and im not saying hes not exactly what you describe, but....

OF is not a need and we shouldnt unload the farm and maybe a young name or two from the starting roster for an area of strength...if it was for a front line starter whos young and controlled? Then you start naming names.

[illinoisredsox]

In a word, no, Trout is not a realistic option at this time.

[Maxbialystock]

This is an incredible thread if only because the answer to the question is so obvious--no--one has to wonder why it was asked at all.

[mvp 78]

@redsoxthoughts Early season WAR is dumb but.........Xander Bogaerts is tied for 7th in fWAR with Mike Trout.

[mvp 78]

[mvp 78]

Who needs Trout?

[Kimmi]

Trout would make any team a better team, but for the cost that it would take to acquire him in prospects and dollars, I don't think he's worth it for the Red Sox. It's not like we have a dire need for outfield or offensive help, either short term or long term.

 

If we had the need, then Trout is definitely one of those rare players that you break the bank for. However, our weakness right now and going forward, if there is one, is starting pitching. That's where we should focus our resources.

[mvp 78]

Angels would want two quality starting pitchers. We'd have to offer ERod and Espinoza, plus another top prospect (Benintendi) plus Mookie or Xander. Definitely not worth it.

[cp176]

This is an incredible thread if only because the answer to the question is so obvious--no--one has to wonder why it was asked at all.

 

The answer may be very obvious to you , me, as well as others here but you can pretty much figure that if the Angels decide to try to deal Trout ( which they very well might) the Red Sox will get involved. The cost might very well prove to be to great but to just cast out the possibility of having him because we don't need another outfielder would be silly. He is that good. You have to at least explore the possibility. Based on past history, you have to think that DD would.

[seannybboi]

One article mentioned 3 teams with enough talents to land Trout and those 3 teams were the Red Sox, Rangers, and Dodgers. Of course their farm systems are top ranked. Article also listed potential packages for Trout.

Article says Moncada, Benintendi, Swihart, Owens for Trout.

Would you do this trade?

Article also has the Dodgers give up Urias, Pederson, De Leon, and Alex Wood for Trout and I personally think Dodgers package is far more appealing than the Red Sox.

[Slasher9]

One article mentioned 3 teams with enough talents to land Trout and those 3 teams were the Red Sox, Rangers, and Dodgers. Of course their farm systems are top ranked. Article also listed potential packages for Trout.

Article says Moncada, Benintendi, Swihart, Owens for Trout.

Would you do this trade?

Article also has the Dodgers give up Urias, Pederson, De Leon, and Alex Wood for Trout and I personally think Dodgers package is far more appealing than the Red Sox.

 

i would do that trade.

[seannybboi]

i would do that trade.

 

I would too. Can you imagine having Trout, Betts, and JBJ in our OF?

[mvp 78]

Angels wouldn't make that trade. The article also mentioned using Xander or Mookie in the trade...

[Slasher9]

Angels wouldn't make that trade. The article also mentioned using Xander or Mookie in the trade...

 

but would you make that trade?

[iortiz]

I really doubt that LAA take that package for Trout. I wouldn't. Owens is not a top prospect by any means. Swihart doesn't have the value that he had two years ago. Benintendi isn't close to be reality..... but if Moncada, Benintendi, Swihart and Owens is the package to land Trout, I'd make in a heartbeat.

[mvp 78]

but would you make that trade?

 

f*** yeah I'd trade Swihart, Moncada, Benintendi and Owens for Trout!

 

I just don't see that as giving up enough to get it done. You'd have to replace Owens with Espinoza and add Devers to the mix for them to even consider it. They still probably say no. I think the Sox would have to trade Mookie, Benintendi, Espinoza, ERod and Moncada to get it done. The Angels are in LA (barely) and are in direct competition with the beloved Dodgers. It's a superstar market and it would be very hard for them to give up the greatest player of this generation.

[iortiz]

f*** yeah I'd trade Swihart, Moncada, Benintendi and Owens for Trout!

 

I just don't see that as giving up enough to get it done. You'd have to replace Owens with Espinoza and add Devers to the mix for them to even consider it. They still probably say no. I think the Sox would have to trade Mookie, Benintendi, Espinoza, ERod and Moncada to get it done. The Angels are in LA (barely) and are in direct competition with the beloved Dodgers. It's a superstar market and it would be very hard for them to give up the greatest player of this generation.

Agree.

 

That's the very least I would ask for Trout if I were LAA.

[Jack Flap]

.

 

Article says Moncada, Benintendi, Swihart, Owens for Trout.

i would do that trade.

 

I would too, but I can't imagine the Angels would.

[mvp 78]

Agree.

 

That's the very least I would ask for Trout if I were LAA.

 

And at that price point, I wouldn't want the Sox to make that trade.

[greenwell]

In my opinion any team trading for Trout would be doing it to win now at the expense of the future, since you would have to mortgage the farm to do it. I don't want the redsox doing that.

 

If the Cubs had the chips to do it, they should. Although they could then turn around and trade him next year to get that future back.

[Slasher9]

In my opinion any team trading for Trout would be doing it to win now at the expense of the future, since you would have to mortgage the farm to do it. I don't want the redsox doing that.

 

If the Cubs had the chips to do it, they should. Although they could then turn around and trade him next year to get that future back.

 

so couldnt we also do that?

[greenwell]

so couldnt we also do that?

 

We could, but there are several players I wouldn't want to give up to do that (Bradley,Boegarts,Betts)

[southpaw777]

but would you make that trade?

 

Without Xander and Mookie?

Probably, but we will still need a starter. Especially if Espinoza is traded, leaving only Kopech. Those would be all our trading chips for an OFer, which we dont need, and we would still NEED a starter...makes no sense what so ever for the Sox to make that deal. None at all.

Pitching pitching pitching....thats the only spot those kids should be moved for.

 

Besides, The Halos will want Xander or Mookie...or maybe even both in that deal..

PASS

[southpaw777]

With guys like Mookie, JBJ, Benni, and even Swihart in LF, we have a very productive OF for less than 2m...and remember, were going to have to extend some of these guys..Xander and Mookie will probably be first in line the next year or two, then JBJ if hes still here...And please keep in mind that we NEED another TOTR arm, which is going to cost us some prospects.

[bosoxmal]

No. But let's talk Rich Hill, who still may be!

[Slasher9]

Without Xander and Mookie?

Probably, but we will still need a starter. Especially if Espinoza is traded, leaving only Kopech. Those would be all our trading chips for an OFer, which we dont need, and we would still NEED a starter...makes no sense what so ever for the Sox to make that deal. None at all.

Pitching pitching pitching....thats the only spot those kids should be moved for.

 

Besides, The Halos will want Xander or Mookie...or maybe even both in that deal..

PASS

 

Excellent points Lefty. trout is so damn tempting though!

[southpaw777]

Excellent points Lefty. trout is so damn tempting though!

 

Having a stud like trout would be incrdible for sure...Unfortunately he will also hurt the present and the future of this team with the players we would give up...but i do understand trying to figure out a way to do it.

[Maxbialystock]

I have to say, contrarian that I am, that it is astounding to see this thread still on the first page. Why? Because what this team badly needs is pitching, not hitting. The current Sox hitters, without Trout, lead MLB in runs scored and OPS. Why fix something that ain't broke? The rotation, on the other hand, clearly does need help.

 

My guess is that this thread lives because people love fantasy baseball and discussing trades just to discuss them. Thus the term "fantasy."

[S5Dewey]

No. But let's talk Rich Hill, who still may be!

 

I was wondering when you'd chime in with this!

 

I remember you as being the guy who wanted to sign him at the end of last season. Now it's looking like you may have been right!