Michael Trout - What would you give up?

[GAME05]

I read the Yelich+Hader+top two prospects and I still don't think it would be enough. Maybe if you add Aguilar and Peralta that would be about right.

 

Best player ever, though? Even when you look at Ruth, Cobb, Walter Johnson, etc.? Although quite possibly the best since they played, yes.

 

So if Harper is probably going to be the first $40M player, maybe in two years Trout will be the first $50M.

[Boomer5]

No 4 players we have would get Trout.

[tmwiese55]

I read the Yelich+Hader+top two prospects and I still don't think it would be enough. Maybe if you add Aguilar and Peralta that would be about right.

 

Best player ever, though? Even when you look at Ruth, Cobb, Walter Johnson, etc.? Although quite possibly the best since they played, yes.

So if Harper is probably going to be the first $40M player, maybe in two years Trout will be the first $50M.

 

You'd probably be very surprised if you look at the numbers that if this continues for several more years that he has a very legit case. Especially when you factor in playing against modern advanced players and a worldwide talent pool. He's only half way there right now though, who knows how long he can maintain this for the counting number type of stats.

[MrTPlush]

I read the Yelich+Hader+top two prospects and I still don't think it would be enough. Maybe if you add Aguilar and Peralta that would be about right.

 

That is a bit over the top. Mike Trout, while great, is still insanely expensive. Not only that, but he is only controllable another two years. I'm guessing Hader/Yelich is a lot closer to an even swap than you would think. Yelich is controllable another 4 years and is cheap...Hader another 5 years and really cheap.

 

Now, yes, Trout puts all his value at one position where as Hader/Yelich/Hiura are at three positions. Even then that is a crazy amount of surplus value and wouldn't shock me if it is higher than Trout.

 

The Angels would be brilliant to pull off such a trade...pure brilliance. Personally they would have to be pretty dumb not to take those two and our top two prospects. Your floor in that deal is 4+ years of two players worth about 6+ WAR together. Problem is I don't see a team trading two elite players at their respective positions...which is about the only way you could entice a trade. They wouldn't dare do it for a bunch of prospects.

[jerichoholicninja]

The Angels are going to do nothing in their division the last two years they have Trout. Maybe they trade him at the deadline of his last year and wind up getting a fraction of what they could have now. Basically they'll have had the best player in baseball for 9 years and wound up getting swept the one time they made the playoffs. And completely failed to take advantage of bolstering the future of their franchise by not trading him when they should have. A lot of that is just the luck of baseball but they really failed to take advantage of having Trout by either putting together a competitive team or using him to acquire prospects.

[bill hAll Star]

The Angels are going to do nothing in their division the last two years they have Trout. Maybe they trade him at the deadline of his last year and wind up getting a fraction of what they could have now. Basically they'll have had the best player in baseball for 9 years and wound up getting swept the one time they made the playoffs. And completely failed to take advantage of bolstering the future of their franchise by not trading him when they should have. A lot of that is just the luck of baseball but they really failed to take advantage of having Trout by either putting together a competitive team or using him to acquire prospects.

 

I can't find the specific article anymore, but it argued that the team trading the superstar away almost always loses. For recent examples just think Sale (yes, the book is not done on Moncada/Kopech), Miggy from the Marlins, etc. The team acquiring the superstar generally wins massively in value.

 

Now, that said, I'm not sure how much it factored in the ability for said team to tank. Even if Moncada and Kopech end up being just decent MLB starters, the White Sox tanked, drafted, saved money, rebuilt, etc. and Moncada/Kopech bolstered what they had so one could argue that.

 

The issue is that it's nearly impossible to find a trade for Trout. You have to find a team that's in the mix to "go for it" that has several top prospects in baseball and feels like trading them. That's generally 1 or 2 teams every year.

 

I'd say it's much more likely to overpay to try to build around the best player in baseball and luck into the playoffs/win it all than it is to find a team willing to offer you close to what the value should be on someone like Trout.

 

4 controllable years of Trout for instance a few years ago as you suggested they may regret would cost, what...something like Hiura, Burnes, Hader, Yelich, Arcia in theory? Maybe a little less? I don't know, really.

[rickh150]

No 4 players we have would get Trout.

 

You talkin the whole organization? Yelich almost straight up would get him, considering contract over the next 4 plus years.

 

Minors? Sure

[adambr2]

No 4 players we have would get Trout.

 

You talkin the whole organization? Yelich almost straight up would get him, considering contract over the next 4 plus years.

 

Minors? Sure

 

Yelich for Trout would not be remotely close, and I love Yelich. Trout is the best baseball player on the planet and there isn't a close second. He is worth about 10 wins to his team every year, he is actually worth far more than his salary.