Mike Trout to the Orioles?

[Pickles]

Just now, Hallas said:

Hey man I'm on your side here, lol.

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.

[yark14]

I don't know how this topic got to 11 pages.  Trout will never be on the Orioles for a number of reasons.  End of discussion.

[Frobby]

Here’s a hypothetical.  Trout produces 35 WAR over the next 8 years at a cost of $297 mm.  Hays and Mullins combine to produce 24 WAR over the next three at a cost of $50 mm. Would you trade Hays and Mullins to get Trout?

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Frobby said:

Here’s a hypothetical.  Trout produces 35 WAR over the next 8 years at a cost of $297 mm.  Hays and Mullins combine to produce 24 WAR over the next three at a cost of $50 mm. Would you trade Hays and Mullins to get Trout?

Trout produces 4.374 wins a year and I pay him 297 over 8 years or Hays and Mullins produce 4 wins a year each for less money and fewer years?

That's a tough one!

[Pickles]

5 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Here’s a hypothetical.  Trout produces 35 WAR over the next 8 years at a cost of $297 mm.  Hays and Mullins combine to produce 24 WAR over the next three at a cost of $50 mm. Would you trade Hays and Mullins to get Trout?

Absolutely not.

[NCRaven]

3 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Here’s a hypothetical.  Trout produces 35 WAR over the next 8 years at a cost of $297 mm.  Hays and Mullins combine to produce 24 WAR over the next three at a cost of $50 mm. Would you trade Hays and Mullins to get Trout?

Sure, if you believe in Cowser. 

[Pickles]

5 minutes ago, NCRaven said:

Sure, if you believe in Cowser. 

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

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, NCRaven said:

Sure, if you believe in Cowser. 

You still don't.  This scenario has Trout barely outperforming either Hays or Mullins.

Sure Hays has never had a 4 win season to date and isn't on pace for one this year and Mullins has had one (on pace to hit it this year).  But if you can lock in that type of performance you do it. 

[Pickles]

3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

You still don't.  This scenario has Trout barely outperforming either Hays or Mullins.

Sure Hays has never had a 4 win season to date and isn't on pace for one this year and Mullins has had one (on pace to hit it this year).  But if you can lock in that type of performance you do it. 

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.

[Can_of_corn]

5 minutes ago, Pickles said:

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.

The hypothetical only gets interesting if the numbers reach some of equilibrium.  Maybe Mullins and Hays give you 6 wins a year over the next 3 years and Trout gives you 6.5 a year for the next 5 then falls off to 2.5 or so the last 3.

At that point you start looking at the value of consolidating the wins into one position.

[Jammer7]

11 minutes ago, Pickles said:

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 agree. The only question I have is how much more revenue does Trout bring each year? Beyond butts in seats, merchandising and such?

[Sports Guy]

1 hour ago, Tony-OH said:

I don't think anyone is saying that. I think what people think is the Orioles depth within their system is position players. Without the unlimited funds of the big boys, the Orioles have to figure out whether it's worth paying those player as they mature or whether to trade for or sign expensive players. 

Personally, as much I like Trout and think he's still an impact player and probably will be several more years, I do not think he's worth the risk at his salary and with the players the Orioles would have to give up.

Would you be upset if this was the starting Orioles lineup in 2024?

C- Rutschman
1B: Mayo
2B: Norby
SS: Ortiz (until Holliday is ready)
3B:  Henderson
LF: Cowser
CF: Mullins
RF: Stowers
DH/UTL: Westburg/Vavra

What if you keep Hays and Mullins is moved, then you have Cowser in CF and Hays in LF.

Either way, there's enough talent in the system that I'm sure the resources should go to a 30+ year old star unless we think we are just that one impact guy away from a WS championship.

Even then, that's probably a deadline deal where the guy will be a free agent, not someone signed into their 40s.

First of all, at no point in this thread have I said we should trade top end prospects for Trout.  That’s not the discussion.  

Pickles has said he wouldn’t deal Hays and Mullins for him.  That’s what this is about.  It’s a laughable position to take and one that would be laughed at in the real world.

Edited August 27, 2022 by Sports Guy

[Sports Guy]

34 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Here’s a hypothetical.  Trout produces 35 WAR over the next 8 years at a cost of $297 mm.  Hays and Mullins combine to produce 24 WAR over the next three at a cost of $50 mm. Would you trade Hays and Mullins to get Trout?

Hays and Mullins worth 8 wins a year for the next 3 years?  Is this a hypothetical based on reality or fantasy?

[Pickles]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

First of all, at no point in this thread have I said we should trade top end prospects for Trout.  That’s not the discussion.  

Pickles has said he wouldn’t deal Hays and Mullins for him.  That’s what this is about.  It’s a laughable position to take and one that would be laughed at in the real world.

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

[Sports Guy]

Just now, Pickles said:

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

His hypothetical is bs, as is any hypothetical.  

What if Hays and Mullins are worth 12 wins the next 3 years and Trout is worth 50 wins over the next 8.

Would you make that trade?

Edited August 27, 2022 by Sports Guy