Pickles

Mike Trout is the best player of his generation. There's little doubt of that. He's a first ballot hall of famer already, and if he ages gracefully he could be a real inner sanctum guy. But this isn't about that. This is about money, age, and injury. As was pointed out by others in this thread, if Trout were a free agent this offseason I don't think he'd get an 8/300 deal. At least, I certainly wouldn't give him one. He is currently owed 8/300. If he can't fetch that on the FA market, and I don't think he can, that means he has negative trade value. That's just the truth of the matter. Babe Ruth was the greatest player who ever lived. He isn't worth jack squat now. This is how these things work.

Saying he isn't showing any signs of decline, besides the missing a lot of playing time and the whole degerative back condition, is a real "How was the play Mrs. Lincoln?" moment. We all know who Mike Trout is. But this isn't 2016 anymore. Things like money, contract length, age, injury matter in these type of considerations. Of course, in a vacuum, Mike Trout is better than Hays and Mullins. But we don't live in a vacuum.

Well, when you laugh at the idea of not trading younger, healthier, cheaper, and cumulatively more valuable players for Trout, and one of your justifications is they are getting older and more expensive, though they are far younger and cheaper than Trout, you give that distinct impression. If you were truly concerned about Trout going forward, you would understand the objections to trading younger, healthier, cheaper, and cumulatively more valuable players for him.

Their salaries will increase. They'll still be owed radically less money than Trout is, and of course, their salaries are still dependent upon performance, whereas Trout's is all guaranteed- degenerative back condition and all. Hays has averaged like 3 WAR a year the last two years. Can you point out some other 4th outfielders who perform like that? Well, really a bench player I guess, because your moronic claim is that he's a 4th outfielder AT BEST. LOL. Mullins is 27 years old. He finished in the top ten MVP last year, and he's going be worth another 4 WAR this year. Your concern about him going forward, but not the 32 year old with the degenerative back condition guaranteed 300 million dollars is ..... there's a word for it....... stupid. That's it. That's the word. Stupid.

Stop talking sense. You're sending the Low IQs into convulsions of giggles.

Maybe. I mean there are worse things than having the prime career of a 3-5 WAR center fielder who doesn't make a lot of money.

That's a different discussion. But if he is traded, it won't be for a 32 year old with a degenerative back condition and 300 million dollars owed to him.

Your ramblings without even attempting to address any of the facts I laid out are duly noted. So the guy who makes 30x the money, and is half as valuable, is actually more valuable than the guys who make 1/30th the money but are twice as valuable. Yeah, that makes sense. Calling Hays a 4th outfielder at best, and Mullins a platoon player, shows you are not in touch with reality, and will literally say anything to prop up a stupid position you've taken because you are incapable of self-reflection and honesty.

I don't how many people would pay for tickets to watch me embarrass you. Of course, you are an insufferable bore, so there might be a market for it. Here are some facts: Over the last three years Mike Trout has been worth not quite 8 WAR. He made about $112 million over that time frame. He's about to turn 32, he has a degenerative back condition, and he is owed 300 million dollars going forward. Over the last three years, Hays and Mullins have combined to be worth over 15 WAR. They've made about 3 million dollars combined. They have a combined 6 years of team control remaining before they hit FA, and they are 26 and 27 years old respectively. Only a very, very stupid and low IQ person, who doesn't understand baseball, and can't see beyond mIkE tRoUt, would not be able to appreciate their differences in value. Is that the kind of show you were thinking about putting on?

You can keep laughing sports guy, but you're wrong.

Because Mullins and Hays are more valuable than Mike Trout. That's why not.

Jesus, that's worse than the deal I objected to earlier in the thread. People probably need to wrap their minds around the fact that Mike Trout probably has negative trade value right now.

I think in a Pre-Free Agency world, Adley would have been up here in 2021. If not earlier, honestly.

I mean, it's negotiated. It's literally the basis of labor rights. I can get being annoyed by it, particularly if you are one of the rare few it affects, such as Adley, but getting righteous about it, as some posters here have, is the height of absurdity.

The only thing I would say to that is that might be what they would want for Trout, but they're not guaranteed to get it. Literally, how many teams besides the Orioles could even offer a package like that? Not more than a handful. So if they're insistent upon trading him, I think he goes for less.

So it sounds like you're saying- from the Angels perspective- you'd want a global top 10 guy, two global top 100 guys, and then two more probably top 20 org guys with high upside? That about right? From the Orioles that looks something like one of Henderson/Rodriguez, any two of Hall/Cowser/Kjerstaad/Westburg, and then probably a couple of our highest rated Latin players. As the Orioles, I would not do that.

Well, this sounds as if you accept my premise.

I'm not saying the Angels would want Mullins/Hays for Trout. I'm saying the Orioles shouldn't do it even if they did. Can anyone deny that those two have outperformed Trout significantly over the last three years and done it for about 1/30th the cost? Can anyone deny that going forward it's very possible that to continue to be the case? You can "understand the risk" but I don't think you're quantifying it very accurately.

The best player of his generation is entering his 30s, with a degenerative back condition, and 400 million owed to him. Think that might be part of the equation?

Remember guys, money doesn't matter. It isn't real.

I would have been thrilled to add the 2022 versions of Mullins and Hays to the 2018 team. We would have been way ahead on our rebuild and here we are, in full contention, and they'd just be hitting their 30s. Sure, it might not be ideal, but I'd rather have two young established major leaguers with solid track records than some lottery tickets. Again, it's very, very possible those two are more valuable than Trout going forward, and they'll cost about 1/10th as much. Trout isn't worth the two of them together. Right now. It would be a bad trade for the Orioles.

Uh, you realize we just executed a rebuild in which Hays and Mullins played huge roles. 26 and 27 year old outfielders, with several years of team control, and only now even entering arbitration, who combined for 5.5 WAR this year so far, and almost 9 WAR last year, are pretty valuable commodities.

I could do it without trading 2/3 of my starting outfield, which combined make about 1/10th of Trout and have outwared him almost 2:1 combined over the last three season. I wouldn't trade Mullins and Hays straight up for Trout.

Usually the OH trade proposals are dramatically in the Orioles' favor. I think that trade is the exact opposite: That is ridiculously tilted in favor of the Angels. I wouldn't give up half of that for Trout. We would almost certainly be a worse team immediately and going forward after such a trade.

So he's clearly in line for the nickname "Colonel" if he amounts to anything.