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

[Cubswin11]

Rizzo and Bryant would be the only untouchables to me with Russell being close but if we got back Simmons in the deal I'd be okay with giving up Russell. Russell/Schwarber/Torres/Almora/Contreras/Their pick of 1-3 minor league pitchers/And a guy or two in the Jeimer/McKinney/Dewess/etc. pile for Trout and Simmons Edited May 17, 2016 by Cubswin11

[minnesotacubsfan]

This is where the NL having a DH would be helpful. If you could get Trout and keep Rizzo/Bryant/Russell and Schwarbs .... Well screw base runners

[Aaron_Kennelly]

Yeah, trading Bryant and Rizzo and Russell just doesn't make sense. They are so cheap and so good. It's the reason we are as good as we are right now. Fill out a lineup full of young studs that cost no money and you can splurge on free agent pitchers to build a good rotation. I love Trout, but there is just so much surplus value there with those guys. And with Bryant and Russell, I don't know how good they could really be. Like, what if Bryant starts cranking out 40 homers? Or if Russell starts hitting 25 or so? I'm just not trading those two, especially when I have to throw in other guys. And if we do make that trade then we are riding Trout hard. If he goes down with an injury, that's a killer. The depth up and down the lineup allows us to keep rolling when a guy like Schwarber goes down. Next man up!

 

It might be stupid and I might be overvaluing our own guys because I've become attached. But I just don't see why we would change course when we are so freaking good as is. I just think a Trout trade involving Bryant or Russell is unnecessary. That being said, I'm a big proponent of getting the best player in any deal. Give me one 10-win guy over two five-win guys everyday. We are already coming to a crossroads with some of these guys. What if Soler and Baez and Schwarber all beast out in the next two years and become good? Where are they all going to play? (Like this a bad thing... woe is me.) And, if not, how do you even get them all enough at bats to see who does stick? Schwarber going down alleviated that issue this year, and it also showed why depth is important. But, still, rather than waiting and hoping and being deliberate with a Soler or a Baez, just give me freaking Trout. Let them figure out the Soler and Baez and Schwarber issues themselves. I'm just gonna roll out Mike Trout everyday instead. And as for the prospects, yeah, just let them literally pick any that they want, and however many they want. We can just disband a minor league team or two for a year if need be.

 

So count me in on the group of "trade literally anyone besides Russell and Bryant." That also probably puts me in the camp of "this is never going to happen."

[BigSlick]

Oh my god, I'm listening to yesterday's Spiegel & Goff show and the callers and Spiegel are basically killing Goff. There is a caller asking about "super star egos" and Spiegel is prospect hugging so hard that its ridiculous. Spiegel wouldn't do it for just Baez, Soler, Schwarber and Contreras, which is BANANAS.

 

Jesus, it makes me very grateful for this place.

[CyHawk_Cub]

Oh my god, I'm listening to yesterday's Spiegel & Goff show and the callers and Spiegel are basically killing Goff. There is a caller asking about "super star egos" and Spiegel is prospect hugging so hard that its ridiculous. Spiegel wouldn't do it for just Baez, Soler, Schwarber and Contreras, which is BANANAS.

 

Jesus, it makes me very grateful for this place.

 

Go to the bleacher nation Trout trade post. There are posters there balking over Albert Almora being included in packages including only Soler from the 25-man. Talk about prospect hugging.

[Vinestal]

I'm pretty much with TT on this. Bryant, Russell and probably for me Rizzo are off limits but anyone else is up for grabs. I don't think they will trade Trout though. It's made for some pretty entertaining trade chat.

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

Oh my god, I'm listening to yesterday's Spiegel & Goff show and the callers and Spiegel are basically killing Goff. There is a caller asking about "super star egos" and Spiegel is prospect hugging so hard that its ridiculous. Spiegel wouldn't do it for just Baez, Soler, Schwarber and Contreras, which is BANANAS.

 

Jesus, it makes me very grateful for this place.

 

Go to the bleacher nation Trout trade post. There are posters there balking over Albert Almora being included in packages including only Soler from the 25-man. Talk about prospect hugging.

http://i.imgur.com/VG6xyxR.gif

[Hairyducked Idiot]

If trout is so great, why didn't Theo draft him? I trust his original judgment.

[David]

If trout is so great, why didn't Theo draft him? I trust his original judgment.

 

i know it's a joke (and maybe it *is* the joke), but theo didn't get to draft until 3 picks later

[Hairyducked Idiot]

If trout is so great, why didn't Theo draft him? I trust his original judgment.

 

i know it's a joke (and maybe it *is* the joke), but theo didn't get to draft until 3 picks later

 

 

He chose not to trade up.

[KingCubsFan]

I'm pretty much with TT on this. Bryant, Russell and probably for me Rizzo are off limits but anyone else is up for grabs. I don't think they will trade Trout though. It's made for some pretty entertaining trade chat.

Unless the Red Sox are willing to trade Bogaerts or the Dodgers are willing to trade Seager, I don't think there's anybody comparable to Russell or Bryant that the Angels could get from a realistic trade target. So in that case, Schwarber + Soler + Baez + any and all prospects that they want might get it done if they were intent on trading him.

[muntjack]

Going back and looking at superstar trades in the past, I really don't think it would take quite so much.

 

Soler/Contreras/Almora/Happ/Torres would be basically unprecedented. 4 top 100 guys + a cost controlled, high ceiling MLB bat?

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Going back and looking at superstar trades in the past, I really don't think it would take quite so much.

 

Soler/Contreras/Almora/Happ/Torres would be basically unprecedented. 4 top 100 guys + a cost controlled, high ceiling MLB bat?

I wouldn't put much stock in historical "superstar" trades because not many guys like Trout have ever been in one, and player valuation has changed so drastically

[Aaron_Kennelly]

Yeah, there's never been a trade that would be comparable to a Trout trade. For one, there haven't been many players in the history of baseball that have been as good as Trout. Secondly, there haven't been many players that good who have been traded. And of the players that good who have been traded, they weren't traded when they were 24. And players that good definitely don't get traded when they have that many years of control left.

 

Also, front offices are smarter now, and are better able to assign proper value to a player of Trout's caliber.

 

It would be unprecedented. The only thing that would come close is the Babe Ruth trade, and he wasn't really Babe Ruth yet when he was traded. And it was 100 years ago. So there is really no trade ever that we could use as a measuring stick.

[MarkR]

Miguel Cabrera was arguably the best hitter in the National League and was traded for a bunch of junk at the age of 24.

[Aaron_Kennelly]

Miguel Cabrera was arguably the best hitter in the National League and was traded for a bunch of junk at the age of 24.

 

Albert Pujols was the best hitter in the NL. And Cabrera was also a horrible defender and base runner. A better present-day comp in value for Cabrera would be, like, Nolan Arenado -- one of the top, oh, 10-15 position players in the league, not one of the all-time greats. Trading for two years of Cabrera then would be like trading for two years of Arenado now, not four-and-a-half years of Mike Trout. Way different.

[minnesotacubsfan]

+, the Marlins

[Sammy Sofa]

I guess A-Rod was the last time it happened.

[Sammy Sofa]

And Fangraphs has Cabrera's WAR as 5.1, 6.3 and 5.0 in his last 3 seasons as a Marlin, at ages 22-24. Obviously he wasn't Trout (or Pujols), but Duke seems to be selling him a little short. Edited May 18, 2016 by Sammy Sofa

[sneakypower]

(and he wasn't set to earn $34m a year)

 

2 top-10 prospects is and was a fairly significant bounty

[muntjack]

Arenado is not really comparable to 24 yr. old Miguel Cabrera. Cabrera had just put up 3 seasons of > 150 OPS+ in Miami. Arenado's best has been 123. Yes, Arenado is a GG defender at 3rd but they are not in the same ballpark offensively.

 

I accept that a Trout trade would be unprecedented. Soler/Contreras/Almora/Happ/Torres is an unprecedented package. One that blows away what the Marlins got for Cabrera. It would completely revitalize the Angel's depleted system. I'd be willing to add Volgelbach and substitute any pitcher they wanted for any of those included if it came to that, but the law of diminishing returns and a desire to see as much "homegrown" talent as possible win it all would keep me from going any further. Just my opinion.

Edited May 18, 2016 by muntjack

[Clem Fandango]

I know Trout is worth far more than his contract, but no player of this caliber, at this age, has ever been moved with this much money owed to them either. Obviously he's worth every penny, but teams still need to find a way to shoehorn in a $33 million a year contract for three years. In taking on Trout, some teams would maybe have to facilitate a secondary trade or a salary dump, which I'm sure they'd be happy to do, but Trout's contract can still be a boon for some teams and I imagine would be a bargaining point in negotiations to not give up as much talent in return.

 

And I think if we look at any trade to compare this to, I'd suspect the Johan Santana deal is the closest. It was trade that had the contingency of him getting a contract extension, and he was arguably the best pitcher in the majors at the time. Trout's contract is 6 years $144 million. Presently he is owed $134 million over 5 years. The contract extension Santana signed was 6 years $137 million. He was entering his age 29 season at the time so the ages don't match up, but he was arguably the #1 pitcher in baseball who had just come off a 5 year run of ownership over the American League.

 

The return for Johan Santana was a then slap hitting Juan Pierre clone in Carlos Gomez, Deolis Guerra, Philip Humber and Kevin Mulvey.

 

That's... not great.

[Tim]

Trout is, I believe, still on pace to be the GOAT. Having that much value concentrated at one position on the field is incredibly valuable. His contract cost matters, obviously, but I wouldn't let it impact my pursuit of him very much if the Angels did make him available.

[sneakypower]

Trout is, I believe, still on pace to be the GOAT. Having that much value concentrated at one position on the field is incredibly valuable. His contract cost matters, obviously, but I wouldn't let it impact my pursuit of him very much if the Angels did make him available.

the contract cost mostly makes it unlikely that the full package they'll require won't end up resembling David's sig as much as some are expecting

[Aaron_Kennelly]

And Fangraphs has Cabrera's WAR as 5.1, 6.3 and 5.0 in his last 3 seasons as a Marlin, at ages 22-24. Obviously he wasn't Trout (or Pujols), but Duke seems to be selling him a little short.

 

I'm not trying to sell Cabrera short. I know he was/is awesome. But Trout has been averaging, what, 9-10 wins a season. I'm merely trying to show, yes, great players have been traded before. But Mike Trout has never been traded before.

 

And, also, it was completely different context. Cabrera had two years left on his rookie deal. Trout has four years left at over $30 million. It's just not a good place to start. Like, we have a guy set to make over $30 million per season and it is still an incredibly team-friendly deal. It's just hard to use anything else as a barometer.