May 9, 201610 yr Writer brings up a valid argument. Sounds like an emphatic NO when you first hear the idea but he really makes a lot of sense in this piece. After the injury to Richards he basically goes on to talk about how the Angels have nothing except Trout and big money tied up into guys like Pujols and Jered Weaver. Their entire farm system is one of the worst in the history of the game and with so much money locked up for the foreseeable future where else do the Angels turn to? As the author says, you can either keep Trout and max out at about 75 wins for the rest of the time he is there, or you can try to trade him to actually make a move for the post season. Tough decision either way, I'm still torn as to what I think I would do. Obviously this is all for not as the Angels have little chance of actually doing this. But after reading this and thinking about it I think it is at least something they have to throw out on the table. Here's the link.... Unthinkable?: Los Angeles Angels have to consider trading Mike Trout - SweetSpot- ESPN
May 9, 201610 yr Author For those of you who do not read the article, author lists the Red Sox, Cubs, Dodgers, Rockies, and Rangers as most likely landing spot (or at least teams capable of getting this done). As a Cubs fan this really caught my attention. As the author alluded to the Cubs could put together a package such as Gleyber Torres SS (top 15 prospect), Wilson Contreas C (top 30 prospect), 2015 #9 draft pick Ian Happ 2B/OF, and maybe either Jorge Soler OF or Kyle Schwarber OF/C and others to get this deal done. First of all it's up surd the amount of talent Theo and Jed have amassed in the Cubs farm system. Secondly, even if you give up Schwarber and big time prospects such as Happ and Contreas I think you have to do this if you're the Cubs. Could you imagine putting Trout into that Outfield and onto that roster? Like I said, up surd. On the flip side the Angels would be getting 4-5 foundational players who they could then build their team around for the next decade. Trout is a once in a lifetime player but if you can build half your team off of him you must consider the move IMO. The cases for the other teams make sense as well.
May 9, 201610 yr It'd probably be the best decision for the long-term, but I doubt they'd even consider it.
May 9, 201610 yr Just for reference... 15:$5.25M, 16:$15.25M, 17:$19.25M, 18:$33.25M, 19:$33.25M, 20:$33.25M
May 9, 201610 yr Author Just for reference... 15:$5.25M, 16:$15.25M, 17:$19.25M, 18:$33.25M, 19:$33.25M, 20:$33.25M That's another thing the article touches on. Trouts extension kicks in next season and will eat away at the roughly 40 mil in newly freed up space they will have. Going to be strapped for funds, prospects, and talent on the MLB roster. Not a good recipe for success.
May 9, 201610 yr Author It'd probably be the best decision for the long-term, but I doubt they'd even consider it. It would definitely be best long term but I agree that they probably won't even think about the possibility.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.