Pickles

No, not particularly. Probably higher than right now, but I think his trade value right now is pretty much nil.

Oh, no, never in a million years. But that's what makes this place so interesting.

I think our two guys will be as good or better the next three years than they have the last three years, yes, and I see no reason why they wouldn't be. The last three years they've been worth by season's end roughly 16 WAR. So if they repeat that, and there's absolutely no reason to think they won't, particularly because they won't be dealing with a global pandemic, the only way this trade makes sense for the O's in the short term is if Trout continues to be an MVP caliber player and begins to play 150 games again. And long-term it has virtually no chance of working out, unless Trout is more Willie Mays than Ken Griffey. Objection to this deal does not require one to believe Trout is going to decline and be hurt immediately. It simply requires one to correctly evaluate risk and reward.

This is probably true. It still doesn't make it make sense from the O's perspective.

Well, I only mentioned it because I think the original proposition was Hays, Mullins, Hall, Westburg, and somebody else I believe. I simply said, correctly, that even just Hays/Mullins for Trout doesn't make sense for the Orioles. While acknowledging that Hays/Mullins would not be the type of player targeted by the Angels.

I just laid out my thought process in pretty good detail on the previous page. You couldn't be bothered to respond- because it completely destroys your position of course- because you disagreed with my projections, despite the fact they mirror the very source you've been citing and advocating for all discussion. You're not intellectually honest. You hide behind your stupid emojis, and you don't actually engage in the real discussion because you've taken a knee-jerk, stupid position, but you'll never admit it.

No, no, no we don't judge outcomes. We judge processes.

I'll take that for the concession it is. Maybe we could take this show on the road sports guy.

Oh I think you who said Hays is a fourth outfielder at best, and Mullins might be a platoon player in this conversation don't have a clue about their value. Hallas just laid out your precious FWAR projections. They mirror much of what I said above. And it wasn't just the laughing emojis. It was also the open ended comments without actually engaging on the topic. Because once you get over the fangirl mIkE tRoUt reaction, it's pretty clear to see that I'm correct. Trading Mullins and Hays for Trout doesn't make any sense for the Orioles.

Let's use a different hypothetical then. One far more forgiving of your take. Let's say Mullins and Hays combine for 15 WAR the next 3 years. For me that is the "reasonable" worst case scenario. They have an 80% chance of doing that imo. And let's say Trout doesn't drop off. He keeps pumping out 7 WAR years and is worth 21 WAR the next three years. He has about a 20% of doing that imo. Ok, you can say, see we pick up 6 wins. But we spent, guessing 40 mil for Hullins/Mays based on what I assume were some numbers Frobby put some thought into and lowered because we're lowering their performances significantly and the 112 we'd owe Trout, we spent 70+ million more to do it. Couldn't you get 6 wins on the free market for 70 million dollars? You'd be paying over the market rates to get those six wins. You could argue that it's actually more value than 6 wins due to consolidating the roster spot, and you wouldn't be wrong. But where's that leave us: In a very, very rosy short-term projection, it could kinda maybe work out for the Orioles. You know what I didn't mention? Age. Degenerative spinal condition. 5 years and almost 200 million dollars remaining on the contract in what should be Adley Rutschman's prime. So the upside for this move is fairly small. And the downside ranges from Glenn Davis to Chris Davis catastrophe. So maybe you could argue to do it, but only an arrogant fool would laugh at opposition to the idea.

Well, they are inherently conservative, particularly with younger guys like Mullins and Hays. I'm about to lay out a hypothetical. Feel free to respond.

You're using a different WAR to paint your own case as best you can. BWAR has Mullins at 3.3 and Hays at 2. But even using FWAR, you're still saying they're not going to be as good the next three years as they have the past two, significantly so btw, and that isn't based on anything but your feels.

Mullins is already well past half that WAR. Where's the struggle there? He's almost certain end up 4+ war this year. So the guys who are putting up 7 WAR this year- in a year that is in no way an outlier- are suddenly going to lose about 40% of their value, because sports guys said so. Got it. That's a hell of a strong argument.

Oh, the lEsSeR wAr. LOL. Ok, tell me why they're not going to be as good the next three years at 27, 28, 29 as they have been at 25 and 26.

Well, since we'll win more games with Mullins and Hays, probably not all that much.

I think it's quite generous to Mike Trout. Hays and Mullins have combined for 16 WAR the last two years. You think it is "bs" to suggest they could combine for 24 over the next three? What's that based on- other than you desperately flailing in a discussion you're getting embarrassed in?

By the end of this year they will have been worth about 16 over the last two. Is that reality or fantasy?

Except if you look at Frobby's hypothetical, you should immediately see how wrong you are, how laughably, laughably wrong you are.

I think Frobby's projection might be a little rosy for Hays/Mullins but it is not far off. Those two guys should be close to 7 WAR this year. I think that is a pretty fair projection. 8 might be stretching it a bit but it isn't unrealisitic. So call it 21 WAR over three years. Doesn't change the math me for much. It's still a no brainer.

I'm not sure what Cowser has to do with paying 2 million dollars for a win vs. paying 8 million for one.

Absolutely not.

Haha. I get it. I mean, I agree with you. I'm not saying Trout's done. I'm just saying it doesn't make any sense for the Orioles to pay the price to find out.

Look, there's a universe where Trout ages very gracefully, and is worth the ~ 40 WAR over the next eight years to justify his contract. There's a universe where he basically doesn't slow down and is worth +50 WAR over the next eight years. Perhaps it is the universe we currently inhabit. All I'm saying is I'd rather have six prime and cost controlled years of Austin Hays and Cedric Mullins than 8 years of 32-39 year old Trout at 37 million a year. The former, most of the time, is going to be the better bet. And I bristle at the idea that that is some kind of laughable proposition.

It's all he has.

That's a hell of a strawman you got there. I've said I'm not guaranteeing him 300 million dollars, and trading 2/3 of my starting outfield, to find out. For some reason, of which you can provide no evidence- nay, have even attempted to provide evidence- you think that is a laughable proposition. I've said it once and I'll say it again: Your commitment to making the team worse and more expensive is unrivaled. Of course, the point of the game is to do the opposite of that, but you do you. You wouldn't be sports guy otherwise.