Mike Trout to the Orioles?

[Pickles]

29 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Well, the possible outcomes are all over the lot, but let’s be as realistic as we can.  

Trout has 8 years, $297 mm remaining on his contract.   To earn that, he’ll have to be worth about 37 WAR over the next 8 years, at ages 31-38.  He is still producing at a 7 WAR/162 pace over the last three years, when he’s been healthy.   But, he’s been oft-injured.  If I had to bet the over/under on 37 WAR over the rest of his career, I’d have no choice but to bet the under.  And for the record, I hope I’m wrong.  I enjoy watching greatness.   

Saying that, if I’m the Angels, any trade package has to include a guy who seems likely to be a multiple time all star, two other guys likely to be good major leaguers, and a couple of high upside lottery tickets.

 

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.

[Frobby]

2 minutes ago, Pickles said:

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.

I wouldn’t do that either, but I agree that’s what it probably would take to get Trout.  

[Pickles]

Just now, Frobby said:

I wouldn’t do that either, but I agree that’s what it probably would take to get Trout.  

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.

[Sports Guy]

As I said on page 1, the Angels aren’t going to trade him.  They aren’t going to get enough.  A healthy Trout, even with that contract, is worth a huge package of players.  However, he does have the health issue and that can’t be ignored.

If they move him, I’m guessing they get him for a package of players that will be good but not befitting of a player of his level of talent. 
 

If they are desperate to move his salary, they may be ok with that.  Other than that, it’s hard to imagine they trade him.

[Hallas]

37 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

As I said on page 1, the Angels aren’t going to trade him.  They aren’t going to get enough.  A healthy Trout, even with that contract, is worth a huge package of players.  However, he does have the health issue and that can’t be ignored.

If they move him, I’m guessing they get him for a package of players that will be good but not befitting of a player of his level of talent. 
 

If they are desperate to move his salary, they may be ok with that.  Other than that, it’s hard to imagine they trade him.

 

I also would consider the possibility that if they are desperate to move him, then they know more about his health issues than the rest of us do, and that is driving their desperation.

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, Hallas said:

 

I also would consider the possibility that if they are desperate to move him, then they know more about his health issues than the rest of us do, and that is driving their desperation.

Sure it’s possible but anyone trading for him is going to put him through a rigorous physical and have expert opinions on his condition, so I wouldn’t be too concerned with that.

If LA trades him, which they aren’t going to, it would be too get more talent into a terrible system and free up long term money.

[Finisher]

He's making 37 million a year for the next decade and he has a permanent spine issue.

[Hallas]

12 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Sure it’s possible but anyone trading for him is going to put him through a rigorous physical and have expert opinions on his condition, so I wouldn’t be too concerned with that.

If LA trades him, which they aren’t going to, it would be too get more talent into a terrible system and free up long term money.

Hypothetically in a world where Trout is healthy and hasn't missed time, would you expect the same package, better, or worse than what the Nats got for Soto?   Because even if Trout was 100% healthy I don't think he should be getting more in trade than Soto.  And he hasn't been healthy.

 

I haven't personally looked at the players involved but it looks like Washington got 1 borderline top-10 guy, 2 top-100 guys, and a few lotto tickets for Soto and Josh Bell.  I have to think that even if you assume Trout's not missing any games due to injury, their performance over the next 5 or so years is going to be pretty similar, with Soto continuing to build on his production into his mid-late 20s, and  Trout falling down to earth as he ages.  A package with Hall, Westburg, and Mayo is a tick below what Soto garnered in trade, and I think that is about right, given that Trout's going to have aging risk that Soto doesn't have, and Trout is signed to a very long market-rate contract versus 2 arb years for Soto, and the Padres received another productive veteran in addition to Soto.

Edited August 25, 2022 by Hallas

[Jim'sKid26]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

I wouldn’t do that either, but I agree that’s what it probably would take to get Trout.  

So if we play the devil's advocate and say that trade package brings him to Baltimore and over the next 3 years you get a player with an OPS+ of about 170 or so.  Is it worth it?

Does it put the team over the top to be able to when a World series?

Does it hamstring the team over the 8 years remaining of his contract in such a manner that they cannot compete?

Edited August 25, 2022 by Jim'sKid26
spelling

[Sports Guy]

1 hour ago, Hallas said:

Hypothetically in a world where Trout is healthy and hasn't missed time, would you expect the same package, better, or worse than what the Nats got for Soto?   Because even if Trout was 100% healthy I don't think he should be getting more in trade than Soto.  And he hasn't been healthy.

 

I haven't personally looked at the players involved but it looks like Washington got 1 borderline top-10 guy, 2 top-100 guys, and a few lotto tickets for Soto and Josh Bell.  I have to think that even if you assume Trout's not missing any games due to injury, their performance over the next 5 or so years is going to be pretty similar, with Soto continuing to build on his production into his mid-late 20s, and  Trout falling down to earth as he ages.  A package with Hall, Westburg, and Mayo is a tick below what Soto garnered in trade, and I think that is about right, given that Trout's going to have aging risk that Soto doesn't have, and Trout is signed to a very long market-rate contract versus 2 arb years for Soto, and the Padres received another productive veteran in addition to Soto.

The same or better package would be my expectation.  LA would have more leverage in a deal.

[Just Regular]

Angels meekly finished Tampa series this afternoon to extend losing streak to six, and next nine games are at Toronto, then home but with Yankees and Astros coming in.

Phil Nevin's end of season probably isn't going to be much fun.

[Sports Guy]

1 hour ago, Jim'sKid26 said:

So if we play the devil's advocate and say that trade package brings him to Baltimore and over the next 3 years you get a player with an OPS+ of about 170 or so.  Is it worth it?

Does it put the team over the top to be able to when a World series?

Does it hamstring the team over the 8 years remaining of his contract in such a manner that they cannot compete?

His contract doesn’t hurt the team long term to the point where they are hamstrung and can’t do things.

[Hallas]

2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

The same or better package would be my expectation.  LA would have more leverage in a deal.

Really?  I disagree here, but this is pretty subjective so we'll agree to disagree.

 

I am curious why you think the Angels have more leverage.  They are facing an ownership change and have major issues up and down the organization.

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, Hallas said:

Really?  I disagree here, but this is pretty subjective so we'll agree to disagree.

 

I am curious why you think the Angels have more leverage.  They are facing an ownership change and have major issues up and down the organization.

The Nats had to trade Soto.  They sucked, org going nowhere and he was pretty clear about not signing long term.

The Angels don’t have to trade Trout as they have him long term.  

[DrungoHazewood]

2 hours ago, Pickles said:

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.

But there are teams that could offer half that package and $200M.