Jump to content

ESPN: Angels Open to Trout Trade


Pat Kelly

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Gurgi said:

I think this is perfect for a dumb team like the Yankees or the Rangers.   The Orioles are not going to get close to this guy for nothing. 

Fans need to realize the Mike Trout from his 20's probably isn't coming back. Trout's career is having some eerie similarities to Ken Griffey Jr's career. Both considered the best player in the game during their twenties and battling constant injuries in their thirties. 

Trout has played 130 games or better two times since the start of the 2017 season. He's a great player, but I don't want him. Angelos is never going to go for it anyways.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

Fans need to realize the Mike Trout from his 20's probably isn't coming back. Trout's career is having some eerie similarities to Ken Griffey Jr's career. Both considered the best player in the game during their twenties and battling constant injuries in their thirties. 

Trout has played 130 games or better two times since the start of the 2017 season. He's a great player, but I don't want him. Angelos is never going to go for it anyways.

Bonds' career started before Griffey's.

I don't think you could make a convincing argument that Griffey was the superior player.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

Bonds' career started before Griffey's.

I don't think you could make a convincing argument that Griffey was the superior player.

 

I'm talking more about at the time during the 90's Griffey Jr. was widely considered the best player in baseball. I'm not claiming he had the better career than Bonds. Overall career Bonds is better. You just have nitpick at everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

I'm talking more about at the time during the 90's Griffey Jr. was widely considered the best player in baseball. I'm not claiming he had the better career than Bonds. Overall career Bonds is better. You just have nitpick at everything.

He wasn't better than Bonds in the 90's.

Bonds had four years with an rWAR of 9 in the 90's, three between 8 and 9.

Griffey had one MVP in the 90's, Bonds had three.

I guess if you only watched American League games you might think Griffey was better but he wasn't.

He was more hyped, I'll give you that.

If you don't believe me go look at the numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

He wasn't better than Bonds in the 90's.

Bonds had four years with an rWAR of 9 in the 90's, three between 8 and 9.

Griffey had one MVP in the 90's, Bonds had three.

I guess if you only watched American League games you might think Griffey was better but he wasn't.

He was more hyped, I'll give you that.

If you don't believe me go look at the numbers.

I never said I personally claimed it, but many writers and fans thought Griffey Jr. was the best player in the game for a period of time during the 90’s. 

You’re starting an argument over nothing. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Frobby said:

I wonder if Mookie Betts could eventually pass Trout in career WAR.   He’s a year younger, seemingly a lot healthier.  He has some serious catching up to do but he’s piling up some good numbers.  

rWAR: Trout 85.1 (2.7 this year), Betts 64.2 (8.0)
fWAR: Trout 85.1 (3.0 this year), Betts 58.2 (7.9 this year).

I guess closing the fWAR gap is almost impossible.  rWAR a lot more feasible though very difficult.  

Trout is starting to feel a lot like the Ken Griffey of his day (though he already has more rWAR than Griffey in about 55% of the PA).   The injuries won’t quite let him do what he used to do.
 

Maybe a bit of a funny fluke but interesting nonetheless that Trouts rWAR and fWAR are identical for his career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, oriole said:

The only team out there dumb enough to take on Trouts contract AND send prospects are the Angels. 
 

I wouldn’t want him even if it was purely taking on the rest of his contract. $37 million a year for the next 7 years is stupid money for a guy who is on the wrong side of 30 and is creating a habit of going on the IL every year. That’s not to say the guy isn’t going to be a great player, but it’s not worth the risk. 
 

I would do something along the lines of trading a couple of our top pieces if it meant they pay like $20 million a year on his contract. But that ain’t happening 

Texas and Mets are dumb enough 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Posts

    • Vlad Jr and Burnes....my priorities. Then you can trade Mayo for MMiller.
    • I'm certainly not "fixated" on this. The real issue is the budget. How high will Rubenstein be willing to grow the payroll?
    • It will be retired with the first big $$ free agent or extension signed under Rubenstein.
    • I have no idea what you are arguing. 
    • Cool, nice work there.   So? Are we owed a large market? Does DC not deserve their own team? Should the fans of Baltimore just become Redskins fans and not tried to get their own team when the Colts left?  (sorry to bring up football again but come on, that fits). I laid it all out a couple months ago, MLB has more teams bringing home the hunk of metal than other sports since 2000.  The competitive balance is fine.  It's harder?  Yea?  OK it's harder.
    • The Cowboys have an owner with deep pockets. I agree 100% … There is some cap manipulation that happens. At the end of the day they have a $255 million limit they are required to operate under. The Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox, etc can decide each year how much they want to add to the luxury tax fund as opposed to not being able to fit a potential move under the cap. Here are the 2024 payrolls for the NFL and MLB   https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2024/04/03/mlb-team-payrolls-2024-highest-lowest-mets/73139425007/ Highest $305 million vs $60 million  https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cap/_/year/2024/sort/cap_maximum_space Highest $259.5 million vs $217 million these numbers will likely get tighter once they make additions before the trade deadline.  If you can’t see the difference I’m just wasting my time. The biggest driving force in MLB beyond the ability of some to spend lavishly is the tv markets. The club controls so much of their tv revenue that it’s an unfair game. The moved that created the Orioles didn’t have much of an effect on the Senators tv market which was likely nonexistent then. Plus MLB is allowing contract manipulation like Othani’s contract. Instead of $700 divided by length 10 years, Somehow he only counts as like $46 million which is laughable. Plus they are paying $85 million in luxury tax fees in 2024.    The Orioles were a large market team when the Expos moved to DC. They could afford to spend with the Yankees, Red Sox , and Blue Jays. Could the Orioles afford to pay $85 million in luxury tax fees? Could the Yankees? I know the answer to both.  What grounds ? Who cares ? The impact was astronomical …It made it very difficult to compete in the AL East without tank a thon! It split their tv market in half. Obviously MLB papered over that long enough to get an agreement done.    They turned a large market team into 2 small/mid market teams. The Orioles and Nationals payrolls combined place them only 11th in baseball. Obviously they could afford to spend more. But it’s doubtful either will ever be top 10 for more than a season  or two as they try to hang onto a window.     
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...