Mike Trout to the Orioles?

[Sports Guy]

17 minutes ago, Pushmonkey said:

I also don’t see Mullins as being long term for this team. 

He should be dealt for Pablo Lopez.  Here’s hoping they can pull that off.

[Pickles]

2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Where have I said I’m not concerned about Trout going forward?  
 

 

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.

[Sports Guy]

16 minutes ago, Pickles said:

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.

First of all, you are the one who keeps mentioning the 1/30 salary thing.  I’m merely pointing out that you are wrong about that going forward.  We wouldn’t be trading the pre arb eligible Hays and Mullins for him, so there is no need to mention it.

Trading these 2 for Trout is a no brainer. I bet most people on this site would do that even if it was just to turn around and flip Trout in a trade for pitching.  It’s worth the risk.  Hays has limited value and Mullins is TBD.  Trout has said the back issue is manageable.  He is playing well already.  He is the greatest player of his generation and outside of the injuries, isn’t showing any signs of decline.  It’s not like he is showing that he will be declining soon even without the back issue.  

If he plays even 100 games, there’s an excellent chance he will out WAR both of these guys.

And yea, they are cheap…but Cowser and Stowers are even cheaper and younger and have more long term upside, so we can play them and Trout.

Should the Marlins trade Alcantara for Lyles, T Wells, Bautista and Dean Kremer?  Is that a deal you think would be smart?  Because those 4 are worth more WAR this year than Alcantara is and they are cheaper going forward. 
 

Or what about Tyler Wells and Kremer for Glasnow? 

Edited August 27, 2022 by Sports Guy

[Frobby]

52 minutes ago, Natty said:

Our team has a history of big contracts busts. No way we go for Trout. 

We’ve only had one contract I’d call big.  That was one of the biggest busts of all time.  Otherwise, the three next biggest (Jones, Tejada and Markakis$ all were fine.   The next group (Belle, Cobb, Jimenez, Hardy, Roberts), not so good.  

I’d be fine with signing some young, healthy player to a big contract.  Trout’s a great player, but there’s just too much risk in his deal.  
 

[Pickles]

3 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

First of all, you are the one who keeps mentioning the 1/30 salary thing.  I’m merely pointing out that you are wrong about that going forward.  We wouldn’t be trading the pre arb eligible Hays and Mullins for him, so there is no need to mention it.

Trading these 2 for Trout is a no brainer. I bet most people on this site would do that even if it was just to turn around and flip Trout in a trade for pitching.  It’s worth the risk.  Hays has limited value and Mullins is TBD.  Trout has said the back issue is manageable.  He is playing well already.  He is the greatest player of his generation and outside of the injuries, isn’t showing any signs of decline.  It’s not like he is showing that he will be declining soon even without the back issue.  

If he plays even 100 games, there’s an excellent chance he will out WAR both of these guys.

And yea, they are cheap…but Cowser and Stowers are even cheaper and younger and have more long term upside, so we can play them and Trout.

Should the Marlins trade Alcantara for Lyles, T Wells, Bautista and Dean Kremer?  Is that a deal you think would be smart?  Because those 4 are worth more WAR this year than Alcantara is and they are cheaper going forward.

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.

[Sports Guy]

5 minutes ago, Pickles said:

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.

My point is, you see high level guys like him starter to show signs of decline on the field, at his age, all the time.

Trout isn’t showing that. He’s 21st in fWAR this year, in all of MLB, and he has played 25-40 games less than most of the people in front of him.  

And btw, using fWAR (which is the better of the 2 WARs), Trout is worth .5 win less than those 2 combined.  They have about 1000 at bats.  Trout has 355.  

[Pickles]

Just now, Sports Guy said:

My point is, you see high level guys like him starter to show signs of decline on the field, at his age, all the time.

Trout isn’t showing that. He’s 21st in fWAR this year, in all of MLB, and he has played 25-40 games less than most of the people in front of him.  

And btw, using fWAR (which is the better of the 2 WARs), Trout is worth .5 win less than those 2 combined.  They have about 1000 at bats.  Trout has 355.  

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.

[Sports Guy]

29 minutes ago, Pickles said:

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.

 

Well, you seem to think Trout is done despite no evidence backing that up.

 

[Aristotelian]

6 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

 

Well, you seem to think Trout is done despite no evidence backing that up.

 

That post didn't come close to saying that.

[Pickles]

56 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

 

Well, you seem to think Trout is done despite no evidence backing that up.

 

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.

 

[Pickles]

52 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

That post didn't come close to saying that.

It's all he has.

[Tony-OH]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

 

Well, you seem to think Trout is done despite no evidence backing that up.

 

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.

[Hallas]

1 hour ago, Pickles said:

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.

So, while I generally agree with you, one minor point I'd like to make is that there is trade value in raw performance, especially when youre talking about the levels of performance that Trout provides.   It's not just about surplus value.  With a 3 win player like Adam Jones or Jonathan Schoop I think surplus value should dominate any discussion about trade value, but with Trout he provides so much raw performance that you can't just dismiss it out of hand due to his contract.

Edited August 27, 2022 by Hallas

[Pickles]

2 minutes ago, Hallas said:

So, while I generally agree with you, one minor point I'd like to make is that there is trade value in raw performance, especially when youre talking about the levels of performance that Trout provides.   It's not just about surplus value.  With a 3 win player like Adam Jones or Jonathan Schoop I think surplus value is a bit more relevant, but with Trout he provides so much raw performance that you can't just dismiss it out of hand due to his contract.

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.  

[Hallas]

10 minutes ago, Pickles said:

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.  

Hey man I'm on your side here, lol.  I don't think Trout's raw performance is worth DL Hall, 2 50ish prospects and 2/3 of our above average, cost controlled outfield.

Edited August 27, 2022 by Hallas