A "realistic" proposal for Trout would be something like Springer, Martes, Musgrove, and Bregman. And even that's probably not enough; you'd probably have to sub in McCullers for Martes or Musgrove.
I wouldn't quite be so sure that they wouldn't want to trade trout. What Avenue do they have to being good with Trout on the team? They have the worst farm system in baseball. Not enough great free agents to make a dent. they already have a bloated payroll Their easiest road to becoming relevant is to trade Trout. I think Springer, Musgrove, Martes, Tucker and Reed would get you in the conversation .
No it wouldn't. No way they would consider trading him unless they got Bregman or Correa on top of that group you mentioned. Even then they would think long and hard about it. Too much value would be changing hands in a trade for Trout, I don't think any team would be comfortable making that trade for one guy. And the Angels wouldn't settle for anything less than the moon.
I wonder if he would push 500 million. He is only 24, has 50 career WAR and has finished 1st or 2nd in the MVP voting every season. The Red Sox and Yankees are not in the middle of a spending war with George Steinbrenner dead. The Dodgers seem to be more concerned with budget issues. I still think someone would pony up 450-500 million over a 10-15 deal.
I think you might need to step back and reassess. Trout is one of the greatest players the game has ever seen, but we are going a little overboard now. I think somehow people are turning any Trout trade return into the boogeyman and getting stuck in a hyperoop that has no basis in reality. Let's look at what Oakland got for josh donaldson after two straight 7 WAR seasons and back to back top ten map finishes and then work up from there. A former top prospect in Lawrie. A good but not great pitching prospect in Grave man. Fringe top 100 prospects in Barreto and Nolin. Musgrove, Martes, Tucker and Reed are light years better than the three prospects Toronto gave up. springer is more proven and better than Lawrie. Obviously Trout is a few echelons above donaldson which is what accounts the higher level prospects being sent out. Asking for Bregman or Correa would be like Oakland also getting jose bautista a few are back. it's just not grounded in any sort of real scenario.
This. It's not fair to use Donaldson as any sort of barometer re: Trout. If anything, Miggy's trade from MIA to DET is the closest we've seen. Trout's trade would be unprecedented. A player of his caliber and age has never been traded (that I can recall). To coerce LAA into trading Trout, say byebye to Correa, LMJ, Bregman, and 4 of our top 5 prospects. Keep in mind--before you swoon over our non-MLB prospects--HOU's offer would have to compete with Urias/Seager and the other elite offers. If we actually wanted to force LAA to trade him in the division, we would have to blow the other offers out of the water.[/QUOTE]
What additional equity do people think Trout brings that would make him that hard to trade for other than the player he is on the field? He is a playwr, that brings a certain combined level of skills that helps a team win. just like every other player in the league. there is no mike trout bonus for being the best player in the league. The sum of his skills and their ability to help a team win is what you are trading for, and that sum exists on the same scale as every other player in the league. People are acting like since he is a 5% better player than the next best player in the league that his return will be 50% higher. Donaldson return was not good, which is why the astros couldn't just send springer, Fisher, paulino and stubbs. Springer, Martes, Musgrove, Tucker and Reed is taking into account that Oakland got screwed for donaldson and the fact that trout is that much better than donaldson. Springer is a 4.5 WAR player to Trout's 9.5. So you are left with trading basically Martes, Musgrove, Tucker and reed for what amounts to a 5 WAR difference. So, in essence, those four are what one would expect to get in return in a Springer trade. I just think people are giving it the ol mike trout bump into the stratosphere in these proposals and not keeping it logically in line with how other trades work. The Angels have to trade him if they want to be relevant in the next decade. I imagine he will be traded within the next two years.
He isn't just 5% better. He is hands down the best. He has been incredibly consistent in being the best. Meanwhile he is only 25 years old. I think some of these are over the top, but it would be difficult, and really impractical to get Mike Trout. The Angels would probably fear PR backlash over trading a guy in the Babe Ruth/Barry Bonds level of conversation.
The Angels are one elite GM and 3/4 years from being relevant. Of course by that time Trout will be at or near FA. A promising young core and 80 million a year might do the trick.
Yup. They should probably trade him, but the fanbase would probably lose their minds. Disaster from PR music.
It's hard to significantly under-rate Mike Trout, but you've done it with ease. He's not 5% better than the next best player. He's WAY more than 5% better than the next best player. In the last 5 seasons (in which he was 1st or 2nd in the MVP every time) he was worth a total of 47.7 Fansgraphs WAR. The next highest was Miguel Cabrera at 34.8. Think about that, he was 37% more valuable than a first ballot HOFer who also won 2 MVP's during that period. He's unquestionably the player of the generation and likely my lifetime. Did I mention he's only twenty freaking five?!?!?
Something important to understand is that player value is not incremental. A 1 WAR player is not much more valuable than a 0.0 WAR player; there are hundreds of those players so they are pretty replaceable. A 2 WAR player is more valuable than a 1 WAR player, but that difference is far less valuable than the next step up (going from a 2 WAR player to a 3 WAR player), because there are far more 2 WAR guys (a few dozen) than there are 3 WAR guys (a handful). Mike Trout is a NINE WAR player. So not only is that a gargantuan difference between him and an average player, there's a huge difference between him and a star player. When you add in the context that he is literally the only player of his kind, his trade value becomes nearly impossible to overestimate.
