ESPN Article saying Angels should maybe deal Trout

[RalphWiggum]

Anthony Alford
Devon Travis
Kevin Pillar
Aaron Sanchez

Too much, not enough?

[Mr Swagtastic]

If Toronto gets Trout for anything other than Donaldson, Stroman or Jose Bautista (means too much to the team) then you do that deal all day long. I expect Toronto to get outbid

[The_Hater]

The Angels aren't trading Trout just because some gut at ESPN is looking for clicks on his article.

[RalphWiggum]

The Angels aren't trading Trout just because some gut at ESPN is looking for clicks on his article.

I'm not saying it's happening or that they are currently looking at offers but I do think with the way their roster is currently constructed it wouldn't be the stupidest thing in the world to consider. If somebody blew their doors off with a great offer of young, cheap and controllable blue chip prospects mixed in with some capable proven everyday players they'd be silly not to listen.

[North_of_Border]

I think they recently locked him up with a bargain contract. I know they could use the prospects, but Trout is pretty young himself and I doubt anyone they take a gamble on would be even in the same talk as him. Trout is the ultimate building block if they wanna do it over anyway. If the Angels are thinking about this trade, someone should be fired.

...... though just for fun:

Alford, Travis, Stroman, Green should be enough. Fair offer..... no?

[Skin Blues]

If Toronto gets Trout for anything other than Donaldson, Stroman or Jose Bautista (means too much to the team) then you do that deal all day long. I expect Toronto to get outbid

Bautista, really? That 35 year old that can't play defense and refused to negotiate a new contract during the offseason? He'd be gone in a heartbeat if we got a player half as good as Trout. And as good as Donaldson is, Trout is just as good, much younger and signed for more years. The Jays would do that in a heartbeat as well, but there's obviously no way the Angels would go for it.

But yeah, that'd be the ultimate all-in move. If I was on my death bed and only had a few years left to live, how fun would it be to trade a mittfull of prospects for Mike Trout??? hmmm, Mike Illitch....

[johanliebert]

This article isnt pushing nobodies hand its clickbait.

The jays don't have the pieces for Trout. We traded them for dickey/price/tulo.

[rarefind]

We do not have the pieces and Trout isn't getting traded.

/thread.. sorry.

[RalphWiggum]

We do not have the pieces and Trout isn't getting traded.

/thread.. sorry.

Just hypothetical online forum talk as opposed to regurgitating fact filled articles that don't need any further discussion. I know the blue jays are not acquiring Mike Trout and that the chances of him going anywhere are very slim (though I do think it wouldn't be stupid to entertain offers). I was just expanding on a fluff article for some fun and wanted to see what people would give up and if what I proposed giving up was too much/fair/are you kidding for a player like Trout.

Why do people treat posts in online forums like they are being written by respected beat writers? It's just a fun question like you could have with some friends over a few beers.

And I would like to add that nobody on a team that has struggled for consecutive years on an aging roster with no pitching has no chance of getting moved. Like I said earlier there is very little chance Trout goes anywhere but there is lots of packages that could be put together by some teams where they'd at least have to consider it. He's not Harper on a team that is playing outstanding where you under no circumstances consider moving him. He's on a team that needs a lot of help. No one player regardless of talent can do that much in baseball. 11 of their 12 highest paid players are over 30, the dynamic of that team could use a change.

[rarefind]

We do not have the pieces and Trout isn't getting traded.

/thread.. sorry.

Just hypothetical online forum talk as opposed to regurgitating fact filled articles that don't need any further discussion. I know the blue jays are not acquiring Mike Trout and that the chances of him going anywhere are very slim (though I do think it wouldn't be stupid to entertain offers). I was just expanding on a fluff article for some fun and wanted to see what people would give up and if what I proposed giving up was too much/fair/are you kidding for a player like Trout.

Why do people treat posts in online forums like they are being written by respected beat writers? It's just a fun question like you could have with some friends over a few beers.

And I would like to add that nobody on a team that has struggled for consecutive years on an aging roster with no pitching has no chance of getting moved. Like I said earlier there is very little chance Trout goes anywhere but there is lots of packages that could be put together by some teams where they'd at least have to consider it. He's not Harper on a team that is playing outstanding where you under no circumstances consider moving him. He's on a team that needs a lot of help. No one player regardless of talent can do that much in baseball. 11 of their 12 highest paid players are over 30, the dynamic of that team could use a change.

What I am saying is, Mike Trout is 24 years old. Whether you're a perennial contender or starting a rebuild he is exactly what you want going forward. If you to have a fantasy styled MLB re-draft, this guy goes #1 once you consider his ability, age and the fact that he is signed for almost the next decade.

Harper is a free agent in 2017, so that comparison is a bit unfair. The only change the Angels need is trying to shed their roster, minus Mike Trout.

It's not just the Jays that don't have the assets to get Trout, if Jerry Dipoto was to even consider moving Trout he'd demand the highest return for a player ever. And rightfully so to be honest, Trout legitimately will be a MVP candidate for every season on that contract barring an injury. I'd be asking for numerous kids on the top 25 prospect list AND proven at the MLB level young talent.

Outside of the Dodgers and Red Sox, I don't suspect anyone could really offer that type of package.

[Skin Blues]

We do not have the pieces and Trout isn't getting traded.

/thread.. sorry.

Just hypothetical online forum talk as opposed to regurgitating fact filled articles that don't need any further discussion. I know the blue jays are not acquiring Mike Trout and that the chances of him going anywhere are very slim (though I do think it wouldn't be stupid to entertain offers). I was just expanding on a fluff article for some fun and wanted to see what people would give up and if what I proposed giving up was too much/fair/are you kidding for a player like Trout.

Why do people treat posts in online forums like they are being written by respected beat writers? It's just a fun question like you could have with some friends over a few beers.

And I would like to add that nobody on a team that has struggled for consecutive years on an aging roster with no pitching has no chance of getting moved. Like I said earlier there is very little chance Trout goes anywhere but there is lots of packages that could be put together by some teams where they'd at least have to consider it. He's not Harper on a team that is playing outstanding where you under no circumstances consider moving him. He's on a team that needs a lot of help. No one player regardless of talent can do that much in baseball. 11 of their 12 highest paid players are over 30, the dynamic of that team could use a change.

What I am saying is, Mike Trout is 24 years old. Whether you're a perennial contender or starting a rebuild he is exactly what you want going forward. If you to have a fantasy styled MLB re-draft, this guy goes #1 once you consider his ability, age and the fact that he is signed for almost the next decade.

Harper is a free agent in 2017, so that comparison is a bit unfair. The only change the Angels need is trying to shed their roster, minus Mike Trout.

It's not just the Jays that don't have the assets to get Trout, if Jerry Dipoto was to even consider moving Trout he'd demand the highest return for a player ever. And rightfully so to be honest, Trout legitimately will be a MVP candidate for every season on that contract barring an injury. I'd be asking for numerous kids on the top 25 prospect list AND proven at the MLB level young talent.

Outside of the Dodgers and Red Sox, I don't suspect anyone could really offer that type of package.

First of all, Harper isn't a FA until 2019, and Trout isn't signed for the next decade, he's signed for 4 more years after this season.

Also, yes, Trout is the best player in MLB and they have him for 4 more years. But a couple of those years, at least, will be wasted on a team with close to zero chance of making the playoffs. And they wouldn't be trading him for 1 other player. You might get 3 or 4 big time prospects, with potentially 7 years apiece of control, and very few if any of those years will be wasted while they ride out the terrible contracts and lack of farm system. It's still unlikely, but it wouldn't be a bad move for the team if they can get a nice haul.

[rarefind]

Just hypothetical online forum talk as opposed to regurgitating fact filled articles that don't need any further discussion. I know the blue jays are not acquiring Mike Trout and that the chances of him going anywhere are very slim (though I do think it wouldn't be stupid to entertain offers). I was just expanding on a fluff article for some fun and wanted to see what people would give up and if what I proposed giving up was too much/fair/are you kidding for a player like Trout.

Why do people treat posts in online forums like they are being written by respected beat writers? It's just a fun question like you could have with some friends over a few beers.

And I would like to add that nobody on a team that has struggled for consecutive years on an aging roster with no pitching has no chance of getting moved. Like I said earlier there is very little chance Trout goes anywhere but there is lots of packages that could be put together by some teams where they'd at least have to consider it. He's not Harper on a team that is playing outstanding where you under no circumstances consider moving him. He's on a team that needs a lot of help. No one player regardless of talent can do that much in baseball. 11 of their 12 highest paid players are over 30, the dynamic of that team could use a change.

What I am saying is, Mike Trout is 24 years old. Whether you're a perennial contender or starting a rebuild he is exactly what you want going forward. If you to have a fantasy styled MLB re-draft, this guy goes #1 once you consider his ability, age and the fact that he is signed for almost the next decade.

Harper is a free agent in 2017, so that comparison is a bit unfair. The only change the Angels need is trying to shed their roster, minus Mike Trout.

It's not just the Jays that don't have the assets to get Trout, if Jerry Dipoto was to even consider moving Trout he'd demand the highest return for a player ever. And rightfully so to be honest, Trout legitimately will be a MVP candidate for every season on that contract barring an injury. I'd be asking for numerous kids on the top 25 prospect list AND proven at the MLB level young talent.

Outside of the Dodgers and Red Sox, I don't suspect anyone could really offer that type of package.

First of all, Harper isn't a FA until 2019, and Trout isn't signed for the next decade, he's signed for 4 more years after this season.

Also, yes, Trout is the best player in MLB and they have him for 4 more years. But a couple of those years, at least, will be wasted on a team with close to zero chance of making the playoffs. And they wouldn't be trading him for 1 other player. You might get 3 or 4 big time prospects, with potentially 7 years apiece of control, and very few if any of those years will be wasted while they ride out the terrible contracts and lack of farm system. It's still unlikely, but it wouldn't be a bad move for the team if they can get a nice haul.

Yes, I am incorrect on the Trout deal but Harper is a free agent in 2017.

The point is unchanged and does intersect with yours, there are very few teams that would be able to put together a package together until closer to his UFA season. Not sure how or why I thought that contract he signed in 2014 was a 10 year deal as oopsed to 6... sigh.

4 years after this season is still a lot of team control though, that value needs to be spoken to in any such trade.

[Skin Blues]

First of all, Harper isn't a FA until 2019, and Trout isn't signed for the next decade, he's signed for 4 more years after this season.

Also, yes, Trout is the best player in MLB and they have him for 4 more years. But a couple of those years, at least, will be wasted on a team with close to zero chance of making the playoffs. And they wouldn't be trading him for 1 other player. You might get 3 or 4 big time prospects, with potentially 7 years apiece of control, and very few if any of those years will be wasted while they ride out the terrible contracts and lack of farm system. It's still unlikely, but it wouldn't be a bad move for the team if they can get a nice haul.

Yes, I am incorrect on the Trout deal but Harper is a free agent in 2017.

I don't know why you're so adamant about this, but he's a free agent in 2019. You need 6 full years of service time before becoming a free agent and Harper won't reach that total until after the 2018 season. Just because his contract expires doesn't mean he's a free agent, he has to go through arbitration.

[RINSE]

Anthony Alford
Devon Travis
Kevin Pillar
Aaron Sanchez

lol, no way in hell.

[North_of_Border]

Syndergaard, D'Anaud, Hoffman, Castro.

Drop the mic and walk away......

No?