Fielder to the Angels

[monty57]

I agree with RockCo that the Brewers probably won't trade Fielder unless they're "waving the flag" on the season. Who knows what either Trout or Gamel would bring to the team this year? Either one (or both) could do what most rookies do and flounder for a while.

 

So, if you're the Angels, why would you not only trade for Prince when you are just going to have to give him the highest FA offer anyway

 

I don't see the Angels doing it unless they had a deal worked out to extend Fielder. I don't think Fielder will work out a deal before FA, but if he would, the Angels could go for it. As to why the Angels would do it... to have Fielder help them shoot for a World Series this year, and to not have to get into a bidding war they may lose for Fielder in the offseason.

 

As to the point about an extended Fielder being worth more than Trout, of course it's my opinion. However, Fielder is already proven to be a very valuable player at the MLB level, and he's still young, so it's not like trading for the 32 year old Soriano the Cubs got in FA. Trout may well be the next coming of Willie Mays, but he may also be the next coming of countless top prospects who fail. If the years are equal, and the money isn't a factor (i.e. if Fielder would fit in the Angels' budget without hampering other deals), then I stand by my statement that an extended Fielder is worth more than AA ball Trout. Barring injury, you're pretty certain to get around 200 HR and around a .400 OBP from Fielder over the next six years, but no one has any clue what Trout will bring.

[TooLiveBrew]

To be fair we don't know if he is going to test the market. Has he said it? If the Brewers let him walk yes he will test FA, but if they trade him to a team that has the money to re-sign him (Angels) then they could very well work out a deal.

 

He has said it by retaining the services of Scott Boras. Boras works for Prince, yes, absolutely, but guys don't hire Boras to not play the free agent market.

[TheCrew07]

Make this deal, and you're giving up on the season. This is the type of deal that a rebuilding team would make, I don't care how good Trout projects to be.

This argument has been so overused on this site over the last 3 years... has an argument as unsupportable as this ever had more run? It's literally been used in every thread we've had for trading an established MLB Brewer player for a prospect in season. The only other statement that's close is the proven/unproven thing, we're certainly dropping plenty of cliches into a single thread here.

 

The obvious point that someone else made is that possibly in the short term Trout + Gamel > Gomez + Fielder. In the long-term there's no doubt that 6+ years of Trout and 5 years of Gamel is worth more than 2/3 of a Fielder season + whatever the team gets out Gomez. I struggle with the fact that a concept so simple is routinely dismissed or ignored, the merits of a deal of this type is are obvious. This exactly like the whole Hardy for Buccholz deal I wanted to make when Hardy was actually hitting... Escobar + Buccholz > Hardy + Looper but just couldn't seem to get their minds around the trade. I'd much rather have Buccholz than Greinke, we'd still have Jeffress, Cain, and Odorizzi. Heaven forbid we ever make a deal when we can sell high on a player that can have an immediate impact as well as solidfy the future... I know, that's crazy talk. It's much better to make Overbay and Hardy deals when pinned in a corner so we end up with impact talent like Gomez, Jackson, Bush, and Gross...

 

If the Angels are dumb enough to trade us Trout for Fielder, that's a deal Melvin should make 100% of the time, whatever the rest of the trade looks like. There's less than a .1% chance this deal would go through in any form, and certainly I wouldn't count on the Angels overpaying for a rental. The original Teixeira trade has had a lasting impact on MLB, teams just don't make those kinds of deals for rentals anymore... and by the way, the throw in player in the Teixeira trade was one of my all time favorite prospects and might be the best young closer in baseball, Neftali Feliz. I still think Feliz should be in the rotation but that's a discussion for another time.

 

 

[PrinceEatMeat]

I really don't see the Angles giving up Trout for anyone at this point. Much less Fielder. I could see the Angels showing interest in Fielder closer to the deadline though. I don't see Melvin making the deal with the Angles unless they blew him away though, and also if we are out of contention. It makes me wonder if the Angels will be interested in Fielder in the offseason though. I doubt they would be, but the Morales injury problems would make it possible. Also, Fielder could be an option at DH for them even if Morales is able to come back and play well at 1B.

[monty57]

This argument has been so overused on this site over the last 3 years... has an argument as unsupportable as this ever had more run? It's literally been used in every thread we've had for trading an established MLB Brewer player for a prospect in season. The only other statement that's close is the proven/unproven thing, we're certainly dropping plenty of cliches into a single thread here.

 

The obvious point that someone else made is that possibly in the short term Trout + Gamel > Gomez + Fielder. In the long-term there's no doubt that 6+ years of Trout and 5 years of Gamel is worth more than 2/3 of a Fielder season + whatever the team gets out Gomez. I struggle with the fact that a concept so simple is routinely dismissed or ignored, the merits of a deal of this type is are obvious.

 

C'mon Crew07, in my posts, I've said that the Angels would only think of making this trade if they already had an extension in place for Fielder (a la the Mets trading for Santana a few years ago). I then said that if the money isn't an issue for the Angels, 6 years of a young, proven MLB superstar in Fielder is worth more than six years of Trout, who may be great, but may also not make the transition to become an MLB superstar. Prince is really, really good. Most "top prospects" do not end up being anywhere near as good as Fielder. Most "non-top prospects" do not end up being anywhere near as good as Fielder. The odds that Trout (or any other prospect, I'm not picking on Trout) ends up being as good as Fielder are very slim. There is some merit to being proven vs. non-proven, but I certainly don't mean that every MLB player has more value than every prospect, that would be asinine. Someone who has been in the top three in MVP voting twice and just turned 27 four days ago, when he became one of the youngest players in history to hit his 200th HR has proven much more than someone OPSing over 1.000 in AA.

 

For the Brewers, of course the trade would be a no-brainer, as obviously for the Brewers 6 years of Trout is worth more than the 1/2 season of Fielder the Brewers have left. I just don't see the Brewers "shopping" Fielder until they feel they're out of it. Melvin often seems very loathe to trade MLB players mid-season. I've been very frustrated over the past few seasons that Melvin seems to always want to "buy," and never to "sell." That is why I say that the Brewers won't trade Fielder unless they're out of it... not that I don't think the trade would benefit the Brewers long-term.

[RockCoCougars]

Make this deal, and you're giving up on the season. This is the type of deal that a rebuilding team would make, I don't care how good Trout projects to be.

This argument has been so overused on this site over the last 3 years... has an argument as unsupportable as this ever had more run? It's literally been used in every thread we've had for trading an established MLB Brewer player for a prospect in season. The only other statement that's close is the proven/unproven thing, we're certainly dropping plenty of cliches into a single thread here.

 

The obvious point that someone else made is that possibly in the short term Trout + Gamel > Gomez + Fielder. In the long-term there's no doubt that 6+ years of Trout and 5 years of Gamel is worth more than 2/3 of a Fielder season + whatever the team gets out Gomez. I struggle with the fact that a concept so simple is routinely dismissed or ignored, the merits of a deal of this type is are obvious. This exactly like the whole Hardy for Buccholz deal I wanted to make when Hardy was actually hitting... Escobar + Buccholz > Hardy + Looper but just couldn't seem to get their minds around the trade. I'd much rather have Buccholz than Greinke, we'd still have Jeffress, Cain, and Odorizzi. Heaven forbid we ever make a deal when we can sell high on a player that can have an immediate impact as well as solidfy the future... I know, that's crazy talk. It's much better to make Overbay and Hardy deals when pinned in a corner so we end up with impact talent like Gomez, Jackson, Bush, and Gross...

 

If the Angels are dumb enough to trade us Trout for Fielder, that's a deal Melvin should make 100% of the time, whatever the rest of the trade looks like. There's less than a .1% chance this deal would go through in any form, and certainly I wouldn't count on the Angels overpaying for a rental. The original Teixeira trade has had a lasting impact on MLB, teams just don't make those kinds of deals for rentals anymore... and by the way, the throw in player in the Teixeira trade was one of my all time favorite prospects and might be the best young closer in baseball, Neftali Feliz. I still think Feliz should be in the rotation but that's a discussion for another time.

 

I disagree. How is this team going to contend this season by trading arguably their best offensive weapon? I think that it's a tremendous leap of faith to assume that Gamel could come in and pull the load or even that the team could take the 'Prince money' and adequately fill the void (even if they were to raid the farm again). As for the Angels, they wouldn't trade Trout under any circumstances. I saw an article comparing him to Mickey Mantle for heaven's sake (though due to my cynicism of any prospect, especially a 19 year old at AA, I'd say the odds are long that he will ever even hit the 200 MLB homers that Prince has). In closing, would the Angels make the deal? Absolutely not. This makes the whole thing a moot point.

[nate82]

There is no way that the Angels trade Trout for 1/2 a year of Prince. None what so ever especially with the way Trumbo has been playing. He hasn't been playing great but he is a cheaper option that they can play at DH or 1B depending on how well Morales heals. Next year the Angels will be fine having both Morales and Trumbo at 1B/DH there is no need for them to get Prince even this year. Is Prince better than Trumbo? Yes, but do the Angels need Prince? The answer is no and a resounding no at that. I don't see why the Angels in their right mind would even trade for Prince and especially to give up someone like Trout. Prince just does not fit into the philosophy of that of the Angels and I just do not see how the Angels would be a fit for Prince. The Dodgers are more of a fit depending on the ownership situation and if the Dodgers get new owners they will definitely have the funds available to land Prince in the off season. I just do not see a situation where the Brewers really benefit from trading Prince this year unless the Brewers are completely out of the race.

[TooLiveBrew]

I disagree. How is this team going to contend this season by trading arguably their best offensive weapon?

 

TheCrew07 is never about saying any given year is 'The Season', he's about making smart long-term acquisitions. Don't build for one year, or two years, etc. -- build for sustainable long-term success by targeting MiLB players for trades, not guys like Grienke or Marcum. So, while trading Fielder for Trout* would not help the big-league club in 2011, it would be a good move overall, so he would want to see it done.

 

 

* Disclaimer: This is not a realistic trade idea, just clarifying the strategy TheCrew07 employs in general (not just this thread)

[RockCoCougars]

I disagree. How is this team going to contend this season by trading arguably their best offensive weapon?

 

TheCrew07 is never about saying any given year is 'The Season', he's about making smart long-term acquisitions. Don't build for one year, or two years, etc. -- build for sustainable long-term success by targeting MiLB players for trades, not guys like Grienke or Marcum. So, while trading Fielder for Trout* would not help the big-league club in 2011, it would be a good move overall, so he would want to see it done.

 

 

* Disclaimer: This is not a realistic trade idea, just clarifying the strategy TheCrew07 employs in general (not just this thread)

Point taken, but I think you still have to play to win now. If the Angels were to call and offer Trout, even I would have a tough time turning it down, but as I said, no way would the Angels trade him. If the Brewers do tank and try to move Fielder, I think everyone will be very disappointed with what he will bring (think the Carlos Lee deal). I think you'd be looking at a bunch of low minors guys. Maybe due to the Lee/Cruz deal, I'm a cynic, but I remember when Greg Vaughn was tearing up the league with impending free agency and Bando turned him into Newfield, Florie and Villone.

[logan82]

If we are playing to win now, we don't really need a CF anywhere near as much as a SS. At least once Morgan is healthy.