The unthinkable, an ESPN writer suggests the Angels should trade Trout with Cubs as a possible landing spot

[sneakypower]

I'd take Harper over the next 10 years. Defense peaks early

why would this only affect one of them?

[CP_414]

I'd take Harper over the next 10 years. Defense peaks early

why would this only affect one of them?

 

Because one of them has more value tied to being a good defensive player at a premium position.

[sneakypower]

I'd take Harper over the next 10 years. Defense peaks early

why would this only affect one of them?

 

Because one of them has more value tied to being a good defensive player at a premium position.

but while Trout may turn into an ordinary CF, then a great corner OF - Harper will descend further down the rank of passability in RF, possibly even toward 1B...so i question that this favors either player

[CP_414]

why would this only affect one of them?

 

Because one of them has more value tied to being a good defensive player at a premium position.

but while Trout may turn into an ordinary CF, then a great corner OF - Harper will descend further down the rank of passability in RF, possibly even toward 1B...so i question that this favors either player

 

I get what you are saying, but I don't see Bryce becoming a 1b anytime soon. I just think Bryce is the better hitter and that ages better. Bryce was slightly better last year. They are pretty close this year so far. As a side note, Trout is already a pretty average defensive CF. Most of his positive dWAR comes from his play on the corners.

 

They are the two best players of this generation.

Like I said, I'm not sure there is really a wrong answer but I'd take Harper moving forward.

 

Edit- maybe I'm an idiot with dWAR but the biggest difference between the two players is the positional adjustment between Trout who mostly plays cf and Harper who mostly plays RF. Their numbers prior to the adjustment are not that far apart. Bryce in a very limited sample has also held up fine in CF. I'm not sure the defensive gap between the two of them is as large as their dWAR suggests.

[BigSlick]

I'm almost, *almost* at the point where I'm not sure it makes sense to trade for Trout if the asking price includes our best 4-5 minor leaguers and one of Russell or Bryant, etc. The reason for it isn't value, you probably still make out on the positive side comparing collective WARs, but the diminishing returns on adding to a team that is already so absurdly good. Like we've gone over in the General Baseball forum, adding additional wins to a 100 win team team doesn't really influence its ability to win in the playoffs *that* much. Maybe I'm thinking about this poorly though, I dunno. If it does guarantee the Cubs winning the division for the next 5 or so years then, well maybe it does make sense.

 

It was useful for B&B to go over some of the rare superstar in their prime trades (many of them were in or leaving their primes) and how lopsided those trades were though. Like the Miguel Cabrera trade, jeez. It is virtually a guarantee the team getting the young superstar wins, and the team getting the prospects loses. So if it was just gutting our farm system, I would do it, no question, that would be easy. To get a slight net return on wins while passing some of our regulars? I'd probably still do it, but I'm not sure its all that valuable in terms of *winning* the World Series. (at least for the 2016 Cubs, hard to project forward beyond that because we don't know what our pitching will look like)

[KingCubsFan]

I'm almost, *almost* at the point where I'm not sure it makes sense to trade for Trout if the asking price includes our best 4-5 minor leaguers and one of Russell or Bryant, etc. The reason for it isn't value, you probably still make out on the positive side comparing collective WARs, but the diminishing returns on adding to a team that is already so absurdly good. Like we've gone over in the General Baseball forum, adding additional wins to a 100 win team team doesn't really influence its ability to win in the playoffs *that* much. Maybe I'm thinking about this poorly though, I dunno. If it does guarantee the Cubs winning the division for the next 5 or so years then, well maybe it does make sense.

 

It was useful for B&B to go over some of the rare superstar in their prime trades (many of them were in or leaving their primes) and how lopsided those trades were though. Like the Miguel Cabrera trade, jeez. It is virtually a guarantee the team getting the young superstar wins, and the team getting the prospects loses. So if it was just gutting our farm system, I would do it, no question, that would be easy. To get a slight net return on wins while passing some of our regulars? I'd probably still do it, but I'm not sure its all that valuable in terms of *winning* the World Series. (at least for the 2016 Cubs, hard to project forward beyond that because we don't know what our pitching will look like)

You bring up good points. The thing about Trout is that he plays the one position where we don't have a definite long-term answer. So in addition to being the best player in baseball, he actually fits a need. And if we trade Bryant or Russell, we still have long-term answers at their positions.

[sneakypower]

i don't think people fully appreciate that Trout's already making a lot of money and that rightly should/will affect trade bounties

 

i mean, his obligations (5x28, basically) are still a bargain for a player of his level, but i'm not sure that featuring a player like Russell who might be a 5-win player already and makes baseball minimum wage *while* also adding a TON on top of the offer is a thing that real baseball front offices can seriously entertain

[Bryants Disco Ball]

i don't think people fully appreciate that Trout's already making a lot of money and that rightly should/will affect trade bounties

 

i mean, his obligations (5x28, basically) are still a bargain for a player of his level, but i'm not sure that featuring a player like Russell who might be a 5-win player already and makes baseball minimum wage *while* also adding a TON on top of the offer is a thing that real baseball front offices can seriously entertain

 

Totally this.

 

If the front office views Addison Russell and Kris Bryant as franchise players, it's difficult to see them giving up either and other stuff to then pay Trout $122 million over the next four seasons when they have those guys under contract for five seasons and a lot less money.

 

Now, if they don't view those guys as franchise pieces, then by all means. But I tend to think they do.

[BigSlick]

i don't think people fully appreciate that Trout's already making a lot of money and that rightly should/will affect trade bounties

 

i mean, his obligations (5x28, basically) are still a bargain for a player of his level, but i'm not sure that featuring a player like Russell who might be a 5-win player already and makes baseball minimum wage *while* also adding a TON on top of the offer is a thing that real baseball front offices can seriously entertain

Yeah sending 6 cost controlled players for one player with a huge salary is definitely something to figure in, especially since my dreams of the Cubs having unlimited payroll by now or in the near future are not to be

[Bull]

but while Trout may turn into an ordinary CF, then a great corner OF - Harper will descend further down the rank of passability in RF, possibly even toward 1B...so i question that this favors either player

 

I get what you are saying, but I don't see Bryce becoming a 1b anytime soon. I just think Bryce is the better hitter and that ages better. Bryce was slightly better last year. They are pretty close this year so far. As a side note, Trout is already a pretty average defensive CF. Most of his positive dWAR comes from his play on the corners.

 

They are the two best players of this generation.

Like I said, I'm not sure there is really a wrong answer but I'd take Harper moving forward.

 

Edit- maybe I'm an idiot with dWAR but the biggest difference between the two players is the positional adjustment between Trout who mostly plays cf and Harper who mostly plays RF. Their numbers prior to the adjustment are not that far apart. Bryce in a very limited sample has also held up fine in CF. I'm not sure the defensive gap between the two of them is as large as their dWAR suggests.

 

JMO, Harper could handle CF if a franchise threw him out there everyday.

 

----

 

I wonder if there's a "where there is smoke there is fire" situatuon brewing with Trout?

 

I do not think that idiom means what you think it means.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

He's a 9-win player in one spot. Calling him worth Russell or Bryant plus several top prospects *is* including a discount for his salary.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Quick back of the envelope math:

 

5 win x 5 years = 25 wins

 

9 wins x 5 years = 45 wins

 

7 million/win with 10% inflation puts you at 385 million for Trout and about 215 for hypothetical 5 win Russell. That's about 250 million in surplus value for Trout v. a little under 200 for Russell. So if you want to be strictly mathematical about it(not a good idea), Russell plus a single good prospect probably hits the mark in terms of surplus value, although Russell has a 6th year of team control to bridge that gap further.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

He's a 9-win player in one spot. Calling him worth Russell or Bryant plus several top prospects *is* including a discount for his salary.

 

Curious, would you be willing to do Russell, Schwarber, Happ, Torres and Contreras for him and his salary or too much?

[Bryants Disco Ball]

Quick back of the envelope math:

 

5 win x 5 years = 25 wins

 

9 wins x 5 years = 45 wins

 

7 million/win with 10% inflation puts you at 385 million for Trout and about 215 for hypothetical 5 win Russell. That's about 250 million in surplus value for Trout v. a little under 200 for Russell. So if you want to be strictly mathematical about it(not a good idea), Russell plus a single good prospect probably hits the mark in terms of surplus value, although Russell has a 6th year of team control to bridge that gap further.

 

I totally suck at these things, so forgive me. In this scenario on the Russell and a single good prospect side, do you also have to add in a hypothetical free agent that we could sign for five years at about $100 million with the money saved, or not?

 

I don't even know if what I asked makes sense.

[David]

He's a 9-win player in one spot. Calling him worth Russell or Bryant plus several top prospects *is* including a discount for his salary.

 

Curious, would you be willing to do Russell, Schwarber, Happ, Torres and Contreras for him and his salary or too much?

 

The only reason I say no to that particular package (and it's mainly Russell, Schwarber, and Contreras that I'm talking about here) is because of the whole diminishing returns thing. We're beyond good enough, so I think spreading out that many guys who can give that much value as individuals and the depth that provides (primarily in insurance against injury) is a better fit for a team that is already set up to be this good.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Quick back of the envelope math:

 

5 win x 5 years = 25 wins

 

9 wins x 5 years = 45 wins

 

7 million/win with 10% inflation puts you at 385 million for Trout and about 215 for hypothetical 5 win Russell. That's about 250 million in surplus value for Trout v. a little under 200 for Russell. So if you want to be strictly mathematical about it(not a good idea), Russell plus a single good prospect probably hits the mark in terms of surplus value, although Russell has a 6th year of team control to bridge that gap further.

 

I totally suck at these things, so forgive me. In this scenario on the Russell and a single good prospect side, do you also have to add in a hypothetical free agent that we could sign for five years at about $100 million with the money saved, or not?

 

I don't even know if what I asked makes sense.

 

You're on the right track, but using surplus value does this for us. Or to illustrate another way, using round numbers for simplicity:

 

You get 385 million dollars of value for 135 million with Trout

 

You get 275 million dollars of value for 25 million with Russell plus a prospect

 

So yes, you can add in the value you can get from spending that additional 110 million, but the easier thing to do is just to subtract the cost from the value to get to the surplus value. It tells the same story in a simpler way, so you can see that in this example Russell + prospect provide the same surplus as Trout despite not being as good.

 

This type of analysis has limitations and shouldn't be thrown around like gospel truth, but it's good to ground discussions, especially in this case where the very idea is a bit abstract(trading for a pretty surefire HOFer that's not even 25 years old).

[Bryants Disco Ball]

Quick back of the envelope math:

 

5 win x 5 years = 25 wins

 

9 wins x 5 years = 45 wins

 

7 million/win with 10% inflation puts you at 385 million for Trout and about 215 for hypothetical 5 win Russell. That's about 250 million in surplus value for Trout v. a little under 200 for Russell. So if you want to be strictly mathematical about it(not a good idea), Russell plus a single good prospect probably hits the mark in terms of surplus value, although Russell has a 6th year of team control to bridge that gap further.

 

I totally suck at these things, so forgive me. In this scenario on the Russell and a single good prospect side, do you also have to add in a hypothetical free agent that we could sign for five years at about $100 million with the money saved, or not?

 

I don't even know if what I asked makes sense.

 

You're on the right track, but using surplus value does this for us. Or to illustrate another way, using round numbers for simplicity:

 

You get 385 million dollars of value for 135 million with Trout

 

You get 275 million dollars of value for 25 million with Russell plus a prospect

 

So yes, you can add in the value you can get from spending that additional 110 million, but the easier thing to do is just to subtract the cost from the value to get to the surplus value. It tells the same story in a simpler way, so you can see that in this example Russell + prospect provide the same surplus as Trout despite not being as good.

 

This type of analysis has limitations and shouldn't be thrown around like gospel truth, but it's good to ground discussions, especially in this case where the very idea is a bit abstract(trading for a pretty surefire HOFer that's not even 25 years old).

 

Good stuff. Thanks.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

He's a 9-win player in one spot. Calling him worth Russell or Bryant plus several top prospects *is* including a discount for his salary.

 

Curious, would you be willing to do Russell, Schwarber, Happ, Torres and Contreras for him and his salary or too much?

 

The value is fair. But I wouldn't do it for purely emotional reasons.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

He's a 9-win player in one spot. Calling him worth Russell or Bryant plus several top prospects *is* including a discount for his salary.

 

Curious, would you be willing to do Russell, Schwarber, Happ, Torres and Contreras for him and his salary or too much?

 

The only reason I say no to that particular package (and it's mainly Russell, Schwarber, and Contreras that I'm talking about here) is because of the whole diminishing returns thing. We're beyond good enough, so I think spreading out that many guys who can give that much value as individuals and the depth that provides (primarily in insurance against injury) is a better fit for a team that is already set up to be this good.

 

I'd say no, too.

 

I wouldn't do it because Russell is a great player at a premium spot himself, and then even if you don't like Happ and Torres, they'd be able to bring back another good player in a trade, and that still gives you Schwarber and Contreras and a hell of a lot of money to play with. I like the flexibility a lot more than one Trout, as awesome as he would be.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

He's a 9-win player in one spot. Calling him worth Russell or Bryant plus several top prospects *is* including a discount for his salary.

 

Curious, would you be willing to do Russell, Schwarber, Happ, Torres and Contreras for him and his salary or too much?

 

The only reason I say no to that particular package (and it's mainly Russell, Schwarber, and Contreras that I'm talking about here) is because of the whole diminishing returns thing. We're beyond good enough, so I think spreading out that many guys who can give that much value as individuals and the depth that provides (primarily in insurance against injury) is a better fit for a team that is already set up to be this good.

 

I think that's a fair analysis. It might be hard for the Cubs to find a fit here because they don't have a lot of incentive to give up fair value for a guy like Trout.

 

But the A-Rod chase was always my favorite thing Theo did in Boston.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I'd make Russell and Bryant untouchable, but after that pretty much any permutation of players would probably be okay with me. You'd have to do something like clean out all the MLB/AAA trade assets(Schwarber, Baez, Soler, Hendricks, Almora, Edwards, AND Contreras) before I start to flinch. There isn't a single prospect in the system I'm terribly attached to, the only real hesitation I might have would be to make sure we aren't eliminating any farm system impact for 2 years, like illustrated in the previous sentence. Anyone else goes without a thought. Happ? Gone. Eloy? See ya. Torres? Tootles. Underwood? You were never good anyway. Cease? Lottery ticket, this is Trout.

[Clem Fandango]

I'd make Russell and Bryant untouchable, but after that pretty much any permutation of players would probably be okay with me. You'd have to do something like clean out all the MLB/AAA trade assets(Schwarber, Baez, Soler, Hendricks, Almora, Edwards, AND Contreras) before I start to flinch. There isn't a single prospect in the system I'm terribly attached to, the only real hesitation I might have would be to make sure we aren't eliminating any farm system impact for 2 years, like illustrated in the previous sentence. Anyone else goes without a thought. Happ? Gone. Eloy? See ya. Torres? Tootles. Underwood? You were never good anyway. Cease? Lottery ticket, this is Trout.

 

I'll reiterate here what I basically said on the first page, which agrees with you.

 

Off limits: Rizzo, Bryant, Russell

 

Available: Whoever the hell they want.

[minnesotacubsfan]

Yeah, Rizzo is someone I'd absolutely kerp

[jersey cubs fan]

Yeah, Rizzo is someone I'd absolutely kerp

herp derp kerp rizzerp

[David]

I don't really call any individual untouchable. It's the big packages of guys who I think you can already count on to be productive (or more) big leaguers that I'd be against because I think this team has so much elite talent that good depth is actually more valuable to us than top end talent at this point (so to speak), since winning 110 games doesn't get us any further than winning 105. we have so much elite talent spread out around the field that i think we're better off having a few above average players we can plug in to fill in for any one or two big injuries.

 

but there's not a single player i'd call untouchable in a trade for trout.