Mike Trout to the Orioles?

[Sports Guy]

2 minutes ago, Pickles said:

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

That’s fine and it’s very fair.

And that’s why this is funny to me.  Your process.

[Hallas]

7 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I’m aware..I’m just making a general comment.

And are you really saying Hays isn’t an injury risk?

Changing the trade scenario to 3 2-win players, from 2 3-win players, is not just some trivial difference.  You and I both know that 2 above average starters is far more valuable in trade than 3 league average ones.

 

I would consider Hays to be a significantly lower injury risk than Trout, considering Hays will have qualified for the batting title each of the last 2 seasons and Trout won't. 

Edited August 28, 2022 by Hallas

[Sports Guy]

42 minutes ago, Il BuonO said:

Agree with this, but I don’t think Mullins and Hays gets it done.

Of course it doesn’t.  The Angels, or any other team that has Trout, would laugh at this and hang up.  It’s not an offer based on any kind of reality.

[Sports Guy]

Just now, Hallas said:

Changing the trade scrnario to 3 2-win players, from 2 3-win players, is not just some trivial difference.  You and I both know that 2 above average starters is far more valuable in trade than 3 league average ones.

 

I would consider Hays to be a significantly lower injury risk than Trout, considering Hays will have qualified for the batting title each of the last 2 seasons and Trout won't. 

Sigh

Im merely talking about the idea that multiple guys are more valuable than 1 guy.  It’s a stupid way to evaluate a trade.  

[Pickles]

5 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

That’s fine and it’s very fair.

And that’s why this is funny to me.  Your process.

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.

[Hallas]

11 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Sigh

Im merely talking about the idea that multiple guys are more valuable than 1 guy.  It’s a stupid way to evaluate a trade.  

Okay, but every trade involving a superstar inevitably becomes a 1 for many trade.  Why is Juan Soto and Josh Bell for a lot of prospects any different?  Why would Machado for 4 prospects be different?  Is there some magic involving prospects that makes them more likely to break out versus major league players?

 

It's not like the players offered here aren't good players.  Mullins was an all star last year and he's still having a well above average season even if it's a step down from last year.  And both players are cost controlled.

Edited August 28, 2022 by Hallas

[Sports Guy]

9 minutes ago, Pickles said:

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.

 

The whole basis of your argument is that you think Trout is going to decline and be hurt and these 2 are going to continue to be as good or better than they have the last 2 years.

And that the money spent on Trout is money we don’t have for other things.

I get your argument.  It’s not like it’s something that has a lot of depth to it.  
 

As I said, we disagree on the future of the 3 players involved.  It’s that simple.  

Edited August 28, 2022 by Sports Guy

[Il BuonO]

13 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Of course it doesn’t.  The Angels, or any other team that has Trout, would laugh at this and hang up.  It’s not an offer based on any kind of reality.

Lol, ok, but it’s not like you qualified your statement as being ridiculous or unrealistic. I don’t think it’s that far fetched to have at least two ML and maybe a B prospect thrown in for a guy with a high risk factor going forward. 

[Sports Guy]

2 minutes ago, Il BuonO said:

Lol, ok, but it’s not like you qualified your statement as being ridiculous or unrealistic. I don’t think it’s that far fetched to have at least two ML and maybe a B prospect thrown in for a guy with a high risk factor going forward. 

Well first of all, Hays and Mullins isn’t a trade I mentioned.  That’s all Pickles.  I never would have thrown that out because it’s absurd.

And I agree with your last point…and I agree with the idea that the Angels aren’t getting the Juan Soto deal they would want.  That’s the tax on his back and contract combo…which is why I said on the first page that he isn’t going anywhere.

But I will say if they want to trade Trout for 60 cents on the dollar, I would make the move.

[Can_of_corn]

6 minutes ago, Il BuonO said:

Lol, ok, but it’s not like you qualified your statement as being ridiculous or unrealistic. I don’t think it’s that far fetched to have at least two ML and maybe a B prospect thrown in for a guy with a high risk factor going forward. 

I don't think that is the type of package they would be looking for.  With the team more or less for sale I think a rebuild is more likely than a reload.

[Pickles]

2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Well first of all, Hays and Mullins isn’t a trade I mentioned.  That’s all Pickles.  I never would have thrown that out because it’s absurd.

And I agree with your last point…and I agree with the idea that the Angels aren’t getting the Juan Soto deal they would want.  That’s the tax on his back and contract combo…which is why I said on the first page that he isn’t going anywhere.

But I will say if they want to trade Trout for 60 cents on the dollar, I would make the move.

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.

[Pickles]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

I don't think that is the type of package they would be looking for.  With the team more or less for sale I think a rebuild is more likely than a reload.

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

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, Pickles said:

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

Let me ask you this.  Let’s say Trout plays 135 games next year and is worth 7 WAR or more.

Do you think his trade value is high next offseason?

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Pickles said:

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

I said from the start it isn't happening.

[Pickles]

7 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

 

The whole basis of your argument is that you think Trout is going to decline and be hurt and these 2 are going to continue to be as good or better than they have the last 2 years.

And that the money spent on Trout is money we don’t have for other things.

I get your argument.  It’s not like it’s something that has a lot of depth to it.  
 

As I said, we disagree on the future of the 3 players involved.  It’s that simple.  

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.