The Garrett Richards Injury and the Mike Trout Question
For the last week or so, the Angels have been pretty vague about what’s going on with Garrett Richards. He missed a start due to “fatigue” and “dehydration”, but they hadn’t given any real indicators that his arm was bothering him. Apparently it was, however, as Jeff Passan dropped this bomb this morning.
Source: Angels ace Garrett Richards has torn ulnar collateral ligament and is expected to need Tommy John surgery. https://t.co/wkbiUpTCl0
— Jeff Passan (@JeffPassan) May 6, 2016
This is a huge blow to the Angels, not only because Richards is really good, but because the Angels pitching staff without him is atrocious. Here’s what our current depth chart forecast for Anaheim’s starting rotation looks like, with Richards included.
#25 Angels
| Name | IP | K/9 | BB/9 | HR/9 | BABIP | LOB% | ERA | FIP | WAR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Garrett Richards  |
159.0 | 8.4 | 3.2 | 0.7 | .298 | 72.7 % | 3.39 | 3.41 | 2.8 |
| Hector Santiago | 140.0 | 8.1 | 3.5 | 1.1 | .292 | 74.2 % | 3.89 | 4.29 | 1.3 |
| Jered Weaver | 137.0 | 5.6 | 2.5 | 1.4 | .288 | 70.0 % | 4.54 | 4.84 | 0.5 |
| Nicholas Tropeano | 114.0 | 8.5 | 3.3 | 1.1 | .303 | 71.6 % | 4.09 | 4.03 | 1.1 |
| Matt Shoemaker | 84.0 | 7.6 | 2.3 | 1.2 | .298 | 71.5 % | 4.04 | 4.07 | 0.9 |
| Andrew Heaney |
62.0 | 7.5 | 2.6 | 1.0 | .301 | 72.0 % | 3.83 | 3.91 | 0.7 |
| C.J. Wilson |
40.0 | 7.6 | 3.7 | 0.9 | .295 | 70.8 % | 4.06 | 4.14 | 0.4 |
| Tyler Skaggs |
39.0 | 8.7 | 3.2 | 0.8 | .294 | 73.7 % | 3.42 | 3.60 | 0.6 |
| Kyle Kendrick | 16.0 | 5.3 | 2.3 | 1.2 | .292 | 71.5 % | 4.23 | 4.59 | 0.1 |
| Total | 790.0 | 7.6 | 3.0 | 1.1 | .296 | 72.1 % | 3.93 | 4.08 | 8.4 |
Hector Santiago is a FIP-beater, so he’s better than that projected WAR makes him look, but after him, it’s a dumpster fire. And in Passan’s story, he notes that Andrew Heaney may also need Tommy John surgery, so we might be crossing his ~60 innings off that list as well, if his rehab-to-avoid-surgery plan isn’t successful. And Tyler Skaggs just went for an MRI after getting scratched from a Triple-A start last week; the current diagnosis is biceps tendonitis, but it’s an arm problem for a guy with a history of arm problems.
At some point in the not too distant future, the Angels rotation could be Santiago-Weaver-Tropeano-Shoemaker-Kendrick, which wouldn’t be good enough to contend even if supported by the offense of the 1927 Yankees. And the 2016 Angels aren’t exactly an offensive behemoth.
So far, the Angels offense has rated as one of the 10 worst in baseball. Yes, their 99 wRC+ suggests that their hitters have been average-ish, but they’ve been the worst baserunning club in baseball by a mile, which is one of the reasons they’re only scoring 3.75 runs per game. The team’s offense projects to be okay, primarily thanks to the one superstar hitter they have carrying them up from the depths, but for the Angels to contend in 2016, they were always going to need the run prevention to carry the day.
Take Richards out of the picture, and that just becomes unlikely. Our current rest-of-season forecast for the Angels had them finishing at 79-83, but that’s with Richards and Heaney included in the depth charts. Even if the Angels scrounge up some above-replacement-level options to fill the void — Tim Lincecum’s showcase today seems like one obvious answer, and Tom Milone is currently on waivers and could provide some decent innings at the back-end for a team that needs depth — they’re still looking at loss of two or three wins, most likely. And that knocks them down to 76 or 77 wins, so they’d have to get really lucky to beat that number by enough to make a serious run at a playoff spot, even in a mediocre division like the AL West.
But the real problem for the Angels might not even be 2016. Contending this season was always a little bit of a long-shot, and it seemed like the team was just biding their time until C.J. Wilson and Jered Weaver’s contracts expired this winter, allowing them to reallocate nearly $40 million in dead money to put a better supporting cast around the game’s best player. With Trout, Richards, Kole Calhoun, and Andrelton Simmons as a base, with guys like Santiago, Heaney, and Skaggs around to provide some value, you could imagine a scenario where a couple more good players and could help lift this team back towards contender status next year.
This news takes Richards out of the picture — and maybe Heaney too — for 2017, and basically eliminates most of the expected gain from what you’d get by reallocating Weaver and Wilson’s money. And without Richards, it opens up the question to whether the Angels should even bother to bring in more free agents to try and win in the short-term, or whether that’d simply be throwing good money after bad. With a barren farm system and too many holes on the roster, this team doesn’t look like it’s $40 million in well-spent free agent money away from being good again.
And that reality prompts the obvious question: is it time to think about trading Mike Trout?
You never want to be in a position where you’re potentially thinking about trading one of the greatest players of all time. The Angels should want Mike Trout to retire having worn only their jersey, and go into the Hall of Fame as a lifelong Angel. When you have a +10 win player, you should want to take advantage of his greatness and put a winner around him.
But the Angels have tried that, and thanks to some bad decisions that have long-term consequences — the Albert Pujols contract still has another $140 million left after this season — it’s not entirely clear that the team can actually do that. Their farm system isn’t just the worst in baseball; it’s the worst that anyone can remember in some time. If the Angels keep Mike Trout, and just keep trying to surround him with decent free agents while trying to build back up the prospect base, there’s a pretty good chance they’ll be a 75 win team for the remainder of his contract, and then they’ll have to convince him to re-sign another contract with a franchise that spent six years failing to provide him with adequate support.
Maybe Trout just loves the Angels so much that he’d do that. But wallowing around .500 for a few years for the hope that Trout eventually chooses to pass on joining teams with better rosters and more money for the right to stay with a team that wasted his prime seems like a bad bet. And if they make that bet and then he still leaves, then all they’ll have done is put off the inevitable, while squandering the ability to rebuild the franchise entirely in the meantime.
It’s not a decision the Angels want to be faced with, but Richards injury should force them to at least consider the possibility that the best path forward for the franchise is to blow this thing up. Trading Mike Trout would not only bring back an incredible return in young talent — imagine the package the Dodgers could put together — but would also allow the team to admit that it’s time to pivot, focusing on loading up with as many young players as possible, spending big on international free agency and the draft instead of throwing $15 to $20 million at another pitcher at the end of his career who might not be good enough to help anyway.
This isn’t a foolproof plan, of course. Teams have traded away superstars to enter rebuilding cycles, only to see the young players they load up on all fail, and have ended up without a present or a future. Trading Trout isn’t so obviously the right move that the team should just take any offer on the table. Maybe Billy Eppler and his staff can figure out how to spend that $40 million effectively this winter, putting a winner around Trout instead of trying to build one without him.
But at this point, with 2016 likely another lost year and 2017’s ability to bounce back being put into question as well, it’s time for the Angels to at least start thinking about what a Mike Trout trade would look like. And if the Dodgers or Red Sox want to overwhelm them with a crazy package of young talent, then they should at least have that discussion.
The Angels were already on the tipping point, needing some things to go their way in order to justify their continued attempts at contention. Losing Richards is a significant blow not just because of how good he is, but because of how fragile the Angels hopes were. At this point, without their ace, the Angels should also start thinking about what life might look like without Mike Trout.
Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.
As an Angels fan, I just don’t care if trading Mike Trout leaves the Angels better positioned long-term. Winning isn’t everything. Watching Mike Trout play baseball for my favorite team is.
Remember this comment when you are complaining about your franchise becoming the Las Vegas Devils.
Las Vegas Devil Rays*
Las Vegas Bay Devil Rays, unless they actually build the stadium in Las Vegas proper.
Don’t want to offend anyone, y’know?
Las Vegas Mandalay Bay Devil Rays, for optimum corporate sponsorship.
*Las Vegas Mandalay Bay Devil Rays of Anaheim
fixed
Let’s, if I may, imagine Mike Trout playing half his home games in Las Vegas.
Look, in 99% of instances I am all for my favorite team making hardheaded decisions that maximize their odds of winning. But for me personally, I’d rather take my chances with keeping Trout and watch him play for years to come than trade away someone who could possibly be the greatest baseball player ever. In fact, it would be very hard for me to keep watching baseball if the Angels traded Trout. I’m not sure I could.
Hypothetically, which would you choose:
A 100 win Angels without Trout, or a 75 win Angels with Trout?
As Angels fan, one hypothetical 100-win season without Trout is clearly not worth any crappy season with Mike Trout.
I would think that most fans would eventually come back to follow a good (or better than good, at 100 wins!) team. Indeed, I think most GM’s would make such a deal if they were guaranteed 100 wins in a season. The problem is the extreme risk of the return being somewhat less than that, in conjunction with the reasonable likelihood of Trout continuing to have a generational career.
There are teams that might make sense to relocate to Las Vegas. The Angels is not one of them.
I’m thinking this was a convenient pun on the Angels mane should they locate to another city due to a crappy team and crappy attendance.
Fans Florida Cup Bai says:
6 May 2016-11: 44
I think it’s in Florence, full of angels Mane needs to be detected in other cities as a group and present shitty bowel movements.
Guess I’m not the only one trotting out puns about manes.
Just neighing.
Never thought I’d enjoy watching the Mariners as much after they traded away Griffey, either, but then watching Mike Cameron (who they received in the trade) along with Ichiro lead the offense over the next few years was a delight, too.
Yeah, not to discount loyalty or the idea of keeping star players being something special at all, but this framing of the question is always going to lose simply because it’s a concrete, already known investment against a completely unspecified, abstract future one. Fans can’t really evaluate our feelings about Known Beloved Star vs. Future Unknown Maybe-Good Team in a sensible way except in retrospect.
I can totally understand this. In 2011 the Dodgers were an average team, but had the MVP (I don’t care if Braun actually took home the trophy) in Matt Kemp and the Cy Young winner in Clayton Kershaw, and were still worth watching even if they won 82 or however many games. The problem after that is how long do you think you would be happy just watching an excellent player with the team losing so much?
Tough situation.
I don’t know. Watching Pedro in his prime with the Sox was incredible. Watching the Sox win the world series in 2004 without any true superstars was the greatest thing that I’ve ever seen in baseball.
Manny Ramirez- .417 wOBA, 153 wRC+
David Ortiz- .408 wOBA, 147 wRC+
If those guys weren’t superstars then I don’t know what a superstar is in baseball.
Yeah, plus Schilling and Pedro. 4 guys who either are, will be or would be HOFers (if Manny wasn’t such a pariah) at or near their peaks. But no superstars. Right.
It’s comments like these that make people hate Yankees and Red Sox fans. I had one Yankee fan recently talking about being a true fan and sticking by their team even though they’re off to a rough start and chastising others for not being a loyal fan. I had to point out that his team has had like 6 or 8 losing seasons since Harry Truman was President so kudos to you for being so loyal to such a miserable franchise. . . .
Yes, they had great seasons, but Ortiz had come out of nowhere at that point, and Manny’s defense was what it was. My point was more about Pedro anyways, and that I would rather watch the championship winning 2004 version of Pedro over the 1999-2000 Pedro putting up arguably the best back to back seasons ever.
Ortiz had put up a .401/145 the previous year. He didn’t come out of no where.
If your point was only that you would rather watch a lesser Pedro win over the best 2 pitching seasons in baseball history you probably should have just said that instead of implying that the Red Sox that year were some type of plucky underdog without superstars.
According to every Red Sox fan I’ve come across everyone in their MLB and MiLB roster is a future Hall of Famer.
And it is true!
There’s another big question – if the Angels trade Trout, how many people will stop showing up at the games? It takes more cojones than I think Arte Moreno has to trade your most popular player, by far.
I’m not an Angels fan so I’ll tread carefully but it doesn’t seem to me like a huge number of loyal die-hard fans are showing up *with* Trout, much less without. The Angels crowd always seems to me much more like the LA casual-fan stereotype that in past years people associated with the Dodgers. With that kind of fan base (and pace whatever loyalists there are, who’ll probably show up here) the way to sell tickets is winning, pure and simple.
Ticket sales correspond to winning far more than they do to having one superstar. Look it up for yourself. If the angels want to contend, if the angels want to sell tickets, if the angels want to be more than a bad joke for the foreseeable future, then they need to trade Trout now. Anything else is pure petulance and selfishness. As the article noted, the Dodgers are the obvious trade partner and could put together one hell of a package in exchange.
Do you REALLY see the Angels trading Trout to their cross-town rivals? It would be hard enough to trade him at all, but if they do, they most likely would NOT trade him within the division or to the other LA team.
Sox fan here.
I had a long conversation with fellow Red Sox fans about a potential package that the Sox would have to put together to entice the Angels to make the deal.
The package would have to include Mookie Betts as the headliner and four of the following prospects/ML players:
Eduardo Rodriguez
Yoan Moncada
Rafael Devers
Anderson Espinoza
Andrew Benintendi
Blake Swihart
If I am the Angels, I ask for Betts, Benintendi, Moncada, Rodriguez and Espinoza. They would all be under team control for six years (except for Betts who has five years of team control like Trout).
I can’t imagine that the Sox go for that, even for Mike Trout. But, Betts, Moncada, Espinoza, Swihart and Devers might be the middle ground that the Sox could stomach. Moncada (Pedroia), Swihart (Vazquez) and Devers (Shaw) are blocked by players under team control for several years.
The Sox would be getting Trout, so they could part with Betts.
Espinoza, while talented with top of the rotation stuff, is still several years away and who knows about pitching prospects.
The Angels would be getting a young, brilliant, charismatic player (Betts), two additional plus offensive players who ready (or very close) to contribute (Swihart and Moncada – #5 Overall Prospect in baseball) and two top prospects (#2 MLB 3B prospect in Devers and the #9 MLB RHP prospect in Espinoza) who have All Star potential. The Angels can then concentrate on supplementing their talent through the draft and international FAs.
Thoughts?
tl;dr
I don’t think it’s a mistake to consider trading him, but I suspect that even with his contract, he is the kind of player for whom you just can’t get back enough value to make it worth doing.
Outside of the Dodgers, who has the expendable talent to pull it off? You mention the Red Sox, but I don’t think they do unless they’re including both Betts and Bogaerts (++), which defeats the purpose for them.
Even the Dodgers, what’s their best workable offer? Urias, De Leon, Seager, Pederson +?
At some point, a player is *too* valuable to trade – meaning the cost to the acquiring team is so high that it makes the acquisition moot.
It’s not the NBA – one single player can’t dominate a game or series like that. I do agree with your sentiment though that the cost to any acquiring team might be so high that they can’t stomach it.
You’re right, but a perennial 9 WAR talent is unprecedented in trade.
He’s baseball’s best player, he’s in his prime, and will remain in his prime for the next five years he’s under contract – a contract that isn’t cheap, but is team-friendly.
He’s got so much value *and* so much risk (one freak injury changes everything), I just think the costs required to make a trade mutually beneficial are prohibitively high.
“a perennial 9 WAR talent is unprecedented in trade”
Except for A-Rod in 2003. But that situation was a little different due to financials.
So you reduce his value by including negative value that the acquiring team is forced to take as well, ie Pujols. (No, I don’t think this is a realistic scenario either — that’s just too big a trade and I doubt any front office has the guts for it, considering what would have to be going the other way — but it’s fun to think about)
Agreed. Trout + Pujols out the door makes this much more viable.
Best player in baseball + worst contract in baseball= young big league guy+ top 2 prospects?
Trout plus Pujols and Simmons for Seager and Joc plus a pitcher plus a pair of rising international player. The Dodgers could handle the money problem, and the Angels would have a better team.
Except that both Trout and Pujols have full no-trade clauses. So not only would the Angels need to work a deal that’s a blockbuster due to Trout’s talent and the combined money for Trout and Pujols, but also get each of them to waive their no-trade clauses.
Is there an argument for opportunity cost (though the term doesn’t fit here perfectly)?
As in: Yes the Angels probably aren’t going to get a package equal or greater than Trout’s value, but I’m not sure that means they shouldn’t trade him. It isn’t that no one is offering a good package, but instead Trout is SO valuable (he is the #1 trade value per Cameron) that it’s impossible (or unlikely) to match his value.
Is it better to hold onto a valuable long term asset and not get the overall return you want, or is it just better to sell that asset? If a business has a profitable arm of the company but the other parts are bad, would it perhaps make sense to sell that profitable arm (not a perfect analogy)?
Yeah, you aren’t going to get a Troutian return, but languishing for 4-5 years while he’s under contract only to likely lose him when he hits free agency doesn’t seem ideal. Even if you can’t get an equal value, Trout will command theoretically the best trade package possible (though Harper could make a similar case too I’d imagine). You can’t really top a package for Trout so it seems perhaps moot to worry over getting equal return.
If you;re not going to get his full value in return, then why does a trade make sense? If Trout gives you 9 WAR, and you trade him for 2 or more players whose projected WAR values total less than nine, then you’re worse off than you were before.
The one aspect of the situation that should make the trade easier is his current contract. Saying it’s team friendly is a bit of an understatement. Trout is on pace to provide the full value of the six year contract in less about two years.
in about two years
Just thinking logically about what could work for both sides, you’ve got to know that there’s no way the Redsox would trade both of Betts and Bogaerts, and there is no way the Dodgers will trade Urias and Seager plus other top prospects. It just takes away too much from both team’s future plans.
For the Redsox I think they would have to trade one of Betts/Boegarts plus another 2 or 3 prospects, at least 1 or 2 of them highly valued. Betintendi maybe?
For the Dodgers I think maybe a package of Urias, Bellinger, Verdugo, Holmes, Stripling/Lee, plus another mid level prospect or two. Maybe add Willie Calhoun in there?
Both deals still seem low in value trying to trade for the best young player in baseball (well, just best, I guess), but if a trade really can happen, it’s got to be more grounded in reality than “all of a franchises’ best young players”.
It would be interesting to actually see some offers by some of the fangraphs writers.
I can’t see the Angels accepting anything that doesn’t begin with Betts/Bogaerts, Moncada, and Benintendi.
At that point, it’s just a bad trade for the Red Sox and there’s no point for them to even do it.
I completely disagree. I see no reason Betts or boegaerts should be included. If trading trout years of control should be a huge factor. The center pieces should have a minimum of 5 yrs of control left starting next year. If you want to talk about jbj as a secondary piece that’s fine as you can play him and look for more value from him via trade at a later date. I’m asking for basically all prospects and a jbj sweetner if I’m the angels. Benitendi, moncada, Espinoza, swihart, Johnson, and jbj is a Damn good package, take on rusney Castillo if it means you can upgrade Johnson to devers. I don’t think it’s out of this world to think Calhoun, Castillo, jbj could be a 9 win of next year and you can still be competetive.
I couldn’t see the Angels ever making that deal. That’s not nearly enough for Trout.
I think you are over rating trout. 4yrs/122.3 mil left on his deal after this year. So 160 mil in surplus value. 3 prospects who will be in the midseason top 20. Plus swihart, jbj, johnson who are all big league ready. I forgot the article but I believe it was said a top 20 prospect is worth 40 mil in surplus value. So 120 mil in surplus value plus the 3 big league ready guys who provide surplus of their own(swihart a former top 20) for 160 mil surplus trout. Plus the cost savings for the angels. Maybe it’s a prospect short, but it’s very fair.
Trading both Betts and Bogaerts for Trout would be an overpay let alone adding in the top 2 prospects. Or do you mean one of Bogaerts or Betts and then the top 2 prospects? That would be more reasonable. I’d personally prefer the Ryan Braun idea that Dave brought up earlier this week. Lets Benintendi spend a full year in the minors then he can take left and Braun can take DH or 1B after Ortiz retires. Hanley has been capable at first so I would leave him there and DH Braun.
Trout for Puig, Urias, Pederson + lower level prospect/s? The Dodgers could have Trout in CF and Van Slyke/Ethier platooning in LF, and maybe fill-ins in RF? Thompson, Guerrero, etc.?
For the Dodgers, I don’t think the Dodgers will miss Puig’s attitude, and he no longer looks like a superstar (or even a star), but he should be a solid 2-3 win player for awhile. They also get rid of his salary which helps a little. You might miss Pederson a little, but the upgrade to Trout is huge. And you definitely miss Urias, but that’s the price.
I’m sure the Angels would also love DeLeon, but I don’t think it’s happening.
Even so, the Angels get an OF of Calhoun, Pederson, Puig. That’s probably an 8-9 win OF. They also get their future ace and some lower level high-risk, high-reward prospects.
In a couple years, the Angels look much better. Puig is only due $19.5m over the next 3 years, and they might be able to sign him after that if they wanted. Or they let him go or trade him and fully rebuild. Pederson is their long-term CF or corner outfielder. Urias and Richards anchor their rotation. Wilson and Weaver come off the books.
Maybe they re-sign Santiago to be their 3rd starter. Then they build around Simmons, Puig, and Pederson.
It doesn’t make them a contender, but it does get the rebuild started at least.
Trout plus Pujols and Simmons for Seager and Joc and one of the many Dodger starters and two strong international prospects/young players would work for everyone concerned. The Angels get rid of Pujols, still have talent at SS and CF, fill the starter hole, and come out roughly even.
Where do Agon/Pujols play for the Dodgers?
I just don’t see him getting that kind of value in a trade. It’s not apples-to-apples, but Josh Donaldson was traded after averaging more than 7 WAR/season for two years, and the package included one low-level shortstop, some mid-tier prospect arms, and a young MLB 3B. It’s true that Trout is a more valuable piece than Donaldson, for sure, and it’s true that Oakland is thought to have lost that trade, but considering that none of what A’s got back for the soon-to-be MVP were even close in value to those players you identified, AND considering that Trout is owed a lot more money than Donaldson was at the time of his contract, I don’t think that the packages you’re talking about are realistic.
In addition to the differences you already mentioned, Donaldson at the time of that trade and Mike Trout now is just not a credible comparison.
Yeah with how small an individual player’s impact on the game is, I just don’t see a Trout trade ever being worth it for the receiving team.
If they were to trade entire farm systems with the Dodgers, maybe.
How would it be a good trade for the Dodgers to give up their whole farm just to get Trout?
Let’s make this happen!
I’ll take the Red Sox:
Mike Trout and Albert Pujols
for
Anderson Espinoza, Yuan Moncada, Henry Owens, Jackie Bradley Jr, and Hanley Ramirez
I actually like that. Money might be an issue for the sox, but sending Ramirez back would help
Any deal to trade Mike Trout is not going to include Albert Pujols just to help the Angels payroll situation. Trading Mike Trout would be done with the purpose of rebuilding the Angels farm system in one swoop, while also including big league talent.
It starts with Mookie Betts and Eduardo Rodriguez and includes at least three of these top prospects: Moncada, Devers, Benintendi.
In Trout, the Red Sox would be acquiring the best player in the game, a 9-10 WAR player who is 24. Betts and Rodriguez give them two ready major leaguers, but that’s not enough. The prospects are all in A level leagues. They may amount to nothing or be substantially less than they hype around them currently. Trout isn’t hype. He’s the greatest player of this generation. His talent and image are bankable. Acquiring him will be very, very costly, as it should be.
obviously touchstones trade is dumb but can we please try to come up with a legit red sox trade? i mean even if theres only like a 1% chance? just for my excitment. im not as good as you guys with this stuff but ill give it a shot…
ok so id think a deal has to include exactly one of betts or xbox. since they have simmons already it makes sense to start with mookie. (though i suppose i could envision a deal where simmons comes to boston for both.)
the next piece would figure to be swihart since hes a major league ready-ish prosepect that seems to be on his way out of boston.
if you start there and add rusney, jbj and benitendi is that enough? how about with another decent prospect? maybe owens? are we close? LET ME DREAM DAMMIT!
thoughts?
He’s a better player than Donaldson, but Donaldson was and remains great and he’s significantly cheaper. The “Greatest GM in Baseball” traded him for a song, so if I’m an Angels fan, I would actively root against any trade. Although, as I am not an Angels fan, how do Joey Rickard, Jomar Reyes, and Mike Wright sound in trade? I’d even throw in Jimmy Paredes if you want.
I replied the same way to a post above: Do you REALLY see the Angels trading Trout to their cross-town rivals? It would be hard enough to trade him at all, but if they do, they most likely would NOT trade him within the division or to the other LA team.
This is a bit pessimistic imo. 2016 was always going to be a weird year for them since they had so much tied up to Wilson and Weaver. A mini-rebuild last winter and this year made some sense, and getting Simmons, while it gutted the little they have in the farm system, was a good move according to pretty much everyone.
Sure, now it looks like their 2017 is shot, but it looks to be a weak year for FA anyway. However, you’d still expect them to be in on Strasburg (considering his Southern California roots). A smart move here or there, and all of a sudden, 2018 isn’t looking so bad.
Ah yes, the “if things break our way and we squint reaaaallly hard, we can compete” philosophy. You know pretty much every team in the AL can say these exact same things?
But the parity in the AL is an argument in its favor, not against it. This philosophy works better, not worse, in a league without too many dominant teams.
Very good point about Wilson and Weaver going off the books. If Moreno isn’t silly about the luxury tax issue, the Angels may have room to snag some veteran help and not give up the ship just yet.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/LAA/2016-payroll-salaries.shtml
Lucas Giolito, Trea Turner, Joe Ross, Reynaldo Lopez, and Victor Robles for Trout.
Shhh. Don’t tell me it’s unreasonable. Let me live out my fantasy of Trout and Harper hitting 3-4 for at least 2.5 years.
You mean 2-3 right?
You think Dusty Baker is gonna put Trout in the 2 hole?
{I won’t even dare to put this one into the translator. – Serb}
In the old days I would sign in as Richard Gere and write something about plugging my 2-hole.
(Sometimes it’s probably for the best that we have to register a user name…)
Do Dusty Baker gave Trout the hole 2 ?
Dwarves sa id:
May 6, 2016 at 14:09
If you give Baker salmon holes for the second
I couldn’t help myself Serb:
Dusty Baker will take the salmon into 2 holes?
He returned to France, Vietnam and Serbia, said:
May 6, 2016 at 02:22
Dwarves ID 6, 2016 at 22:09
if you give feedback to the other hole Baker
Sometimes the only opening available is the 2 hole.
That’s what she said.
Albert Pujols should be in the 2-hole.
(for his name, not his ability)
You mean 2-4 right, with Zimmerman or Werth in between because who really cares about 3?
Dusty does since Harper is batting 3 now.
Throw in Fedde and Dipo and make the Angels say no.
Baker will probably be moving Harper to 8th or 9th in the order soon since all of his walks are clogging the bases.
That trade wouldn’t be enough, but I can’t imagine the Angels hanging up the phone. A highly regarded middle infield prospect, perhaps the best pitching prospect in the league and some additional decent talent. Even if they threw in say Tanner Roark it still wouldn’t cripple the Nationals in the short term. It’s better than any trade the Dodgers could make without including Seagar or the BoSox without including Betts.
And they’d rarely get to see Trout on the opposite side of the field from them, and in a completely different media market.
The Angels destroy arms like no one else – Richards, Skaggs, Weaver, Heaney and etc. That organization is doing something wrong.
A few years ago they were the only organization that had zero major arm issues. I wonder if something changed on there coaching staff. Maybe a Conditioning Coach or Pitching Coach. Or they could have just been getting really lucky in the past.
What we don’t know about arm injuries far outweighs what we do know.
Yeah, sorry, that’s just unsubstantiated nonsense.
First, pitch counts, innings, curveballs, PAP, etc have all been used as potential predictors of injury and none has shown a significant causal relationship. Like the other comment said, what we don’t know about the “why” of arm injuries far outweighs what we do know.
Second, neither Skaggs or Heaney has been with Angels for 200IP before getting injured. It would take effort to mess up a pitcher that quickly.
This trade almost certainly has to happen during the winter. Pujols has a full no-trade clause, so they can’t use Trout to dump the Pujols dead money. And I can’t imagine teams like the Dodgers, Cubs or Red Sox shipping off multiple current starters in the middle of the season.
Sure they can dump the Pujols money, he just has to agree to it.
Not only does Pujols have a full no-trade but jsut going off memory, doesn’t he have some sort of personal services agreement with the team that extends beyond the contract? His deal was a bit more than a standard player contract. Not sure they are going to move him.
Here’s some details of the contract at the time: http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/story/_/id/7428226/albert-pujols-deal-completed-los-angeles-angels-worth-240m-10-years
When I read the RIchards news, this was exactly my 1st thought. I still don’t think they trade Trout. . . . but it’s a heck of a lot more plausible today than it was yesterday.
You almost have to wonder if the “Trout Tax” in any trade is having to agree to pick up Pujols’ contract as well. Alternatively, would they try trading Pujols for someone else’s “worse but shorter” contract like Sandoval?
Pujols has a full no-trade clause. You likely cannot move Pujols.
No trade clause is just to give the player some say in where he gets traded. No one wants to get traded to the middle of nowhere or a team with no shot at the playoffs. But if the Red Sox or Dodgers trade for Trout and Pujols is the throw-in, something tells me Pujols is amenable to waiving his NTC.
Albert Pujols will not like the idea of being a “throw in.”
Forget about structuring any deal with Pujols under the belief it will reduce the talent that needs to be returned to the Angels. The Angels are not a poor team. If they are trading Trout, it is in no way for salary relief. It to get 100% full value in talent, both major league and top prospects, for Trout. That’s where the deal starts.
I think this would be more viable if he didn’t have SIX more years on his contract. There’s so much that could happen in that time span, and realistically there’s no reason to think that his value in a trade would drop all that much in a year or two. If after 2017 they still look like they’re going nowhere, then maybe it makes more sense.
This. He is only 24 and signed so long term that I cant see how they would not consider him a part of their next winning team.
He has 4 yrs left after this year… Where do you get 6 from and how did this get upvoted?
Yeah I don’t see it. In addition to $40M in Weaver and Wilson coming off the books after this year, Hamilton and Street come off the books after 2017 which will free up another $35M or so. They could be in a position to go on a free agent spree after 2017 in a loaded market.
But is Trout plus the FA spree going to make them a contender? We don’t know who will actually get to free agency (it seems like less players do now) nor what the 2018 Angels will look like. Remember that there is basically zero help coming from the minors. Who is left on that 2018 roster of value?
Richards
Shoemaker
Cron
Calhoun
Giavotella
Rasmus
Not exactly a bedrock of talent.
Also yes, money is coming off the books but guys will be getting arb raises too. Baseball Reference has the Angels payroll going from $137.8M in 2017 to $126M in 2018 if you decline all options.Then in 2019 their payroll goes up to $147M according to their estimates. Yes this is all just estimates.
Yeah but as the Angels have proven, you don’t need a great core of talent when you’re getting 10 WAR from one guy. And assuming that $126M figure is accurate and the luxury tax threshold remains at $189M and that Arte us willing to toe that line, that gives them $60M to play with. And that’s with Trout, Simmons, Calhoun and Richards in place.
Angels have made the playoffs all of one time with Trout in his 4/5 seasons and it’s likely going to be 1 of 5/6 after this year. That’s not a perfect proxy but it’s not like they are highly successful with Trout.
Who knows if that $60M is going to buy them anything that makes them considerably better. I mean, the last time they had that much money to burn they signed Pujols, Hamilton, and CJ Wilson.
Come on man, in Trout’s four full years they’ve won 89, 98, 79 and 85 games. That’s clearly a team that’s been pretty competitive. So again, you don’t need a great core. You basically just need to surround him with a .500 team. So they should just trade one of the greatest players ever, for ostensibly less than what he’s worth, because the last time they spent money, they spent it stupidly?
“We don’t know who will actually get to free agency ”
We also don’t know if any of the prospects they would acquire in a trade would work out either.
Trading Trout should be the one thing that is out of the question. The Angels simply need to be smarter about who they sign and develop. At least the days of signing the likes of Josh Hamilton and Albert Pujols are over.
They don’t have the time, though. Even if they get really good/smart about signing and developing talent right now, it won’t arrive in the big leagues while Trout is under contract with them.
The Angels have shown a willingness to spend big money under Moreno. They are one of the wealthiest teams in baseball. Let’s stop the assumption that their window is only the five seasons (2016-2020) of Trout’s current deal. Trout is likely viewed as a career-long asset to the Angels, as Ripken was with the Orioles or Jeter to the Yankees. His most likely next contract is with the Angels, it will just be more costly. The current team is always the most likely to re-sign a top player as long as they are committed to the player. (I am not an Angels fan, FWIW.)
Not if they are not close to wining
He has 6 years left on his deal. Weren’t the Phillies essentially just as screwed as the Angels? They turned it around in less time than that. That’s including a few years where they obviously should have sold but didn’t
Not implying they have totally “turned it around” yet but they are young and exciting with a bright future. You know what I meant damnit
I’m not sure people are really grasping just how devoid of talent the halo’s farm system is. So even though the Phillies didn’t have a great farm, it was still significantly more capable of providing talent in the near future than LA’s.
Even though the Phillies didn’t sell at the optimal time(in some instances), they still had Hamels and Giles to offload as a means of infusing the farm system. The Angels do not have anyone that can bring back talent in a trade…except for Mike Trout and maybe Simmons, but that’s counter productive.
And finally, the Phils have a lot less in payroll commitments for the next 2-5 years than the Angels. So the two situations are rather different.
Calhoun has some value, and there are enough role players on the roster to get some lottery-ticket prospects.
Phillies didn’t have as much money tied up long term. And they didn’t have a historically bad farm system even before the trades.
The Phillis did that by trading their talent. And getting very lucky with the Giles trade. In fact, the Phillies could right now offer the Angels: mark Appel, Vince Velazquez, Jake Thompson, Jorge Alfaro and nick Williams for trout and the deal would essentially be Hamels and Giles for trout which is crazy.
The Phillies are probably the team That is the most likely to be able to make the kind of trade the Angels would want, with the cash available to actually make something work.
Wow, you’re right the Phillies could possibly do it. Though, I don’t think they would get it done without Crawford. Though, they could pull one of the pitchers out if they included Crawford. But, if they did pull off such a trade, they would need to spend a lot of money to be competitive, though they have a lot of money, so it’s possible. Also, don’t forget that Trout’s from Philly and Klentak, their GM, is from Anaheim.
I’ll leave this right here :
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/maybe-its-time-to-blow-up-the-white-sox/
And now imagine that Chris Sale needs tjs and Q may need it (granted they’re better than richards and heaney, but similar idea). It’s not just that this team is already questionably bad, they just lost their best pitcher for this year and most of next year and may lose their second best pitcher for the same time frame.
What question? It is unequivocally time to trade Trout. http://twtwsports.blogspot.com/2016/03/trade-trout-why-angels-must-let-go.html
No, you don’t trade Trout. Any team that has Trout has a 9-10 win head start towards being competitive. The worst team in the league is usually a 60-65 win team. Add Trout and you are already at 70-75 wins. You don’t need that much more to be competitive. Roll with Trout and try to get better. If you trade him, you will surely be bad for the next 2-3 years. Why trade him to hope that you might be good in a few years when you could just keep the best player on the planet and try to add some decent pieces around him?
Because that’s apparently much easier said than done
It’s really not though. As I wrote above, the team has won 85+ games three of the last four years with Trout. You basically just have to surround him with a .500 team to contend.
They had pitchers who were above replacement level in those years and also had a less decline-y pujols. The players were better those years than anything they can likely put out there now from current roster + farm + whatever you can buy in fa for ~60m.
Their division is also likely better now than it has been previously as well as a better AL in general (or more even at least)
I see what you’re saying but disagree with the last part. Their division and the AL as a whole aren’t particularly strong right. Whether that’ll change or not in two years remains to be seen. But I have a hard time believing that an organization that figures to have $60M to spend is going to trade an all-time great in his prime with six years left on his extremely team freindly deal.
You realize laa isn’t the only team with money to spend though? The yankees have 97 mil off the books.
There are only a small handful of teams that were not competitive each of 2013, 2014, and 2015. Most teams cycle into competitiveness on a fairly regular basis. A team with Trout would have to be pretty damn woeful to have a prolonged period of mediocrity.
By that I mean most teams were competitive in at least one of the past 3 years, so it is unlikely the Angels will just continue to be bad for years (especially with Trout on their team).
Of course the Yankees and Phillies will likely be buyers by then and you can never discount Boston, LAD, and Detroit. There are extremes but trading Trout when he still has six years left on his deal is the ultimate extreme. I can’t see the justification of the Angels trading him when they’ll have a large portion of their budget opening up. And their core isn’t great but you can do a lot worse than a supporting cast of Simmons, Calhoun, Richards Santiago and an aging Pujols.
He doesn’t have 6 yrs left. He has 4 at the end of this year.
My bad you’re right. He’s signed through 2020. I was following the lead of others in the thread that said he had six years left.
Pederson, Urias, DeLeon, Montas, Barnes and Thompson for Trout. Then Dodgers sign Harper and Strasburg over the next couple o years.
I really think everything is aligning for Trout to come back to his hometown city and play for the Phillies. By next year when the Angels are scuffling and the Phillies are continuing to progress, the deal will be appealing for both parties (Trout and the Angels) because the Phillies will have the prospects to get him.
Off the top of my head, I’d say this only makes sense if you can trade Pujols in the same deal. That leaves me with three possibilities. (This almost certainly can’t happen during the season, also.)
Red Sox: Something based around Mookie Betts and boatload of prospects. Unlikely.
Cubs: Schwarber, Soler, possibly Rizzo, any 5 prospects you want.
Dodgers: Joc, Puig, Gonzalez, 3 close-to-majors top prospects, 3 lower level prospects.
It’s gotta be a team that can “overpay” and then sign players to fill the voids resulting.
The Red Sox will never trade for Trout, it wouldn’t be worth it. Trout is only about a 4 win upgrade over Betts/Bogaerts, and then you’re also giving up Moncada and Benintendi, and whoever else the Angels want. That wouldn’t be worth it at all.
There’s no way the Angles could package Pujols with Trout AND expect a boatload of top prospects in return. It’s one or the other.
Exactly. All of Pujols’s contract being included would significantly lessen what they would get back. Like, They probably couldn’t get either of Betts or Bogaerts from the Red Sox in that situation.
This is overvalueing trout. In the off-season trout will have 4yrs/122 mil left on his deal. Sure that’s 160 mil in surplus value, but Betts offers roughly the same. I’m a trade for trout the mlb pieces will certainly have less upside than the prospects involved. It doesn’t make sense to give up so much mlb talent to upgrade to trout, if you trade the whole farm it makes more sense because at least the mlb team gets the full gain of actually having trout.
This is overvalueing for salmon. In the low season the salmon will 4irs / 122 million left on his face. Sure, 160 million of surplus value, or Bets basically provide the same. I spoke with MLB time, it will certainly have less to view links. It makes no sense to remove the upgrade talent Major League Baseball to the salmon, if you have an agricultural business in general is more logical, because the bar in a popular baseball team all the real benefits a comment.
It is this type of thinking that got Ben Cherington fired. Trout’s value is baseball and business. Trading Trout for a bunch of minor league prospects, many still in the A leagues, is not happening without major league talent being included. High fail rate for top prospects. I was on these boards when Swihart was untouchable just last year. I saw Toronto fans swearing Lawrie was a superstar and untouchable prior. Yankee fans melting down when Montero was traded. The Red Sox themselves have had many a hyped prospect fall way short. Trout is a guaranteed game changer, 24-years-old, 8-10 bankable WAR. Prospects are just prospects. Begin any trade discussions with Mookie Betts and then figure out how many prospects need to be included to get the Angels attention; otherwise, it’s all just Fangraphs financial valuation talks.
The bust rate is included when valuing a top 20 prospect at 40 million surplus. A top 10 hitter is actually worth like 45 mil in surplus. You selected examples of guys who didn’t hit, I give you lindor,correa, Bryant, sano, seager, Russell, Schwarber, Conforto etc etc. These are people who all look likely to put up well over 100 mil in surplus. Is trout better, sure, but he is also compensated for it and comes with less control than prospect in the deal.
Interest rate base is included in the price exceeds 40 million top 20 talent. Top 10 batter 45 million are actually redundant. Cases that do not hit, Lindor, Korea, Bryant, Sano, try, Russell, SCHVARBER, Conforto, … etc …. these are all people who consider the option of 100 million surplus. Salmon will be better, of course, but also a burden for her and comes with less control from the perspective of the agreement.
Kyle SCHVARBER
I really don’t understand what this: “should force them to at least consider the possibility that the best path forward for the franchise is to blow this thing up.” could possibly have to do with Mike Trout?
I mean if someone is going to give you eight quarters for $1.00 by all means do that, but unless they get some amazing offer where someone is clearly overpaying, it seems odd to think that from almost any perspective getting rid of Mike Trout is a good idea.
From a business standpoint it makes no sense, nor from a marketing standpoint. I mean I guess if you are one of those stupid people who think teams should be run to maximize their chance of winning a World Series, but that is silly. Clearly you want to be maximizing something like aggregate wins or playoffs appearances, if you are solely focused on the enjoyment of the fans, and likely if you are an owner you are mostly focused on making money.
Now the staff are probably mostly focused on keeping their jobs, which also is going to be about aggregate wins.
I just never understood this whole “Championships are what you should manage for philosophy that seems to drive so much analysis”. It is way too continent for that to be a sane strategy and it is clearly not what any of the teams and particularly the best teams are doing.
Anyway if someone is going to give you $800k for your $400k house you love by all means take the deal. But don’t make transactions just to make them.
I agree with the many comments that trading Trout wouldn’t necessarily improve the Angels’ odds of becoming a better team in the future, but the reason this is a non-starter is because of the crippling effect that trading Trout would have on the Angels as a business. They might never recover from that. Look at how Marlins’ attendance was permanently poisoned by those tear-downs, and neither of them involved one of the best players in baseball history. From a business perspective, it simply cannot be done.
I’m unfamiliar with their tv deal but attendance is certainly secondary for most teams at this point.
No way the Dodgers trade a mega-package for Trout. Seager (in his prime) as a probable 4/5-Win 3B, Pederson as nearly a 3-Win CF even in a largely trainwreck of a rookie season (with his own realistic 4/5-Win upside), and Urias and De Leon both exhibiting fantastic ability to miss bats and limit walks; that’s far too much production and potential to sacrifice for one player. Plus it strikes me that the organization has worked to overhaul its reputation as one overtly willing to throw money at players, and a trade like this would seem like reverting to old (bad) habits.
The Angels trading Trout to the Dodgers is about as likely as the Dodgers trading Kershaw to the Angels. Not happening from either side.
“You never want to be in a position where you’re potentially thinking about trading one of the greatest players of all time.”
You mean, a potential greatest? Jeez, let’s not count our chickens until they hatch.
Consecutive 10+ WAR seasons is pretty much the definition of “hatched”.
Uh, Mike Trout has a full no-trade clause too.
The risk in not trading Mike Trout is he walks for nothing after his contract is up. And with how bad the Angels are and with California’s high state income tax, why wouldn’t he?
He is not going to walk “for nothing” by that point they will have had 9 years of production or whatever.
The idea that you need to always be wheeling and dealing to try and spin $1.05 into $1.08 is just silly.
And there is no reason to think that if they do need to trade him that they won’t be much better off waiting until they have used up a few more prime years.
Yes, that kind of think leads you to trading away Josh Donaldson in the prime of his career for next to nothing. And the kind of thinking that leads one to think Sam Fuld would be smart replacement for Cespedes.
If they got this year’s version of brett lawrie they might have won that trade. Above average player, average pitcher in graveman, potential great ss in barreto. Donaldson might cost 4yrs/55mil. If you want to question the a’s moves question signing butler and trading for Alonso instead of just signing Alvarez or trading an arm for Vogelbach. 1b is an easy position to fill, trades have much higher variance.
That Donaldson trade was the height of stupidity. I first thought Beane might have lost his mojo when he traded Addison Russell away for rentals, but trading a team-controlled superstar away convinced me that he has completely lost it.
Mike Trout to the Phillies for a bundle of prospects including whoever is drafted first overall this year. The Phils are seemingly ahead of schedule and need some major offensive help. Trout is a lifelong Phillies fan from NJ, so there’s certainly additional incentive for them to pay up to bring him into the fold. They have a deep enough farm system to ship off some solid pieces and still be in good shape. Maybe take Pujols too since they have tons of cap space following this season. Win win for both teams.
Pythag W/L has the Phillies as about the 24th best team. Trade the Phillies youth for trout and the Phillies then become the Angels with trout, no surrounded talent, and a thin farm.
But, they would also have a lot of cap space. Provided they held on to some of their young pitching and some of it hits and some of their outfielders develop a bit, they should be able to buy a .500 team. They would probably be better off when all is said and done than the Angels. If they could find a way to hold onto Crawford too, they would be much better off.
I feel like the second Wild Card totally changes these conversations. This was a team projected at 79 wins, a total that seems super reasonable give their .500ish start. If you’re looking at this team saying, ‘how do we get to 95 wins?’ it looks tough. If, though, you’re remembering that an 86 win AL champion was just crowned in 2014, you’re looking at an extra win a month and you may be in a playoff position.
That isn’t to say that the Angels are a playoff team. But if you’re playing .500ish baseball, you’re a hot week away from being in a playoff spot, and then it’s a giant crapshoot. I think that Trout’s 8-10 WAR a year keeping them .500ish gives them all the incentive ever to keep holding on, hoping to strike gold with a random prospect/cheap FA signing/midseason trade, and rolling the dice each year. In 1992? Maybe I think about trading Trout. But in 2016 and beyond, Trout’s good enough to keep them in the conversation of the playoffs (for better or worse) pretty much indefinitely.
Trout for Moncada, Benintendi, JBJ, Erod, and Swihart
Arguably the best pospect in baseball who is probably the closest things in terms of raw skills/tools to Trout in the minors (Moncada), a top 25 prospect who could be MLB ready by the end of the season who represents a 5 tool upside Benintendi). An elite defensive OFer who has a wRC+ over 120 dating back to last season (JBJ). A former top 50 pitching prospect who already has a solid season under his belt and represents TOR upside. A former top 50 prospect and the best catching prospect who has held his own at the plate and represents star upside (Swihart)
Not sure if either team does it, but that’s a damn good package for the Angels that could rebuild ther entire organization and the Redsox would have about 5 years of 20 wins from Trout, Betts, and Bogaerts
Just speculating, but the Angels with this package would have their OF (Benintendi, JBJ, Calhoun), middle infield (Simmons/Moncada), and catching (Swihart) set, and would have Richards, Erod, Heaney, and Skaggs as long term rotation options.
Salmon Moncada, Benintendi, JBJ, EROD and Svihart
To be the best baseball pospect which is probably the closest thing when it comes to skills / tools for salmon juveniles (Moncada), promises to be the best 25 that can borrow at the end of the MLB season is the wrong tool Benintendi 5). Magic defense more elite Ralli + 120 days of the end of the season (JBJ). The former 50 serves the maximum opportunity for those who already have a solid season under his belt and back. Shoot and former top 50 best ideas hopes his plate and star of evil (Svihart)
I do not know if any particular team, but it’s a damn good package for the angels to renew the Ter together and organize redsox seem to have had five years to 20 in salmon and wager BOGAERTS
Hypothetically true, but the angels with this package will have their work (Benintendi, JBJ, Calhoun), through the courts (Simmons / Moncada) and adjusting Capture (Svihart) and Richards, EROD, trust and long Corba dial-date option.
“Magic defense more elite Ralli + 120 days of the end of the season (JBJ). The former 50 serves the maximum opportunity for those who already have a solid season under his belt and back. Shoot and former top 50 best ideas hopes his plate and star of evil (Svihart)”
OMG…
Serb is Damaso….Damaso is Serb!
You sound like the guy in my fantasy league who makes terrible trade offers then makes a fool of himself selling them as reasonable. Even Billy Beane or Ruben Amaro would laugh at this trade. They should just trade Hanely and Sandoval for him. Their combined career WARs are 18 wins better than Trout, so maybe they could get the Angels to throw in a little more.
Actually no they wouldn’t? All six of those players have star upside. The upside for then Angels in this deal is enormous if only 3 or 4 of them reach their upside.
I could see the Angels saying no because of then lack of proven players (I’m sure they would want one of Betts or Bogaerts instead of maybe two of the players here) but when considering value and upside, I don’t think they could get a better package, unless the Dodgers were offering Seager, Urias, Pederson or the Cubs Bryant and others
“I don’t think they could get a better package, unless [many other teams offered a better package]”
The Angels won’t trade trout because they won’t admit defeat, and nor should they. The Angels management believes in their talent and won’t let comments from the peanut gallery convinced them they’ve put the franchise in such a bad position that they can’t rebuild it in 5 years! I’m not saying the Angels have a great farm system, and maybe the Angels would admit it’s not great either. But they can’t and won’t admit it’s not salvageable. This article is basically click bait because hypothetical trout trades always get a lot of attention on fangraphs.
#FreeShermanJohnson
Plan:
Step 1) Get Kenny Williams
Step 2) ???
Step 3) Seriously, that’s the plan. Look at the fine work he did getting rid of Adam LaRoche. Maybe he can help with the whole Pujols situation.
Given pitcher injuries, is there a world where the Angels would accept:
Marte
Taillon
Brault
Keller
Love,
The Pirates
It would be a crazy world indeed. Though, in said crazy world, they would probably still consider a world where Trump is a presidential candidate as crazier. I wish I lived in that crazy world.
If the Angels are going to trot out a Mike Trout trade proposal, the other team had better pony up something like this deal:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herschel_Walker_trade
Just neighing.
how about matz, granderson, lagares, flores, plawicki, ferret, nimmo, reynolds and a couple of throw ins for trout? yeonis moves over to left and comforto to right and mets improve now. angles get younger and a lot of depth and granderson means the mets can afford the trout contract.
well done but you forgot “i’ll hang up and listen to your thoughts off the air”.
With Mike trout.
John hope, almost all immigration to the players and knows Mike salmon massage Los Angeles + 10 injured.
PLIs which that day in Albert and the psychic, publication of protection test the soul of 140 salmon nogsin, today a Fundamental technique in the economy of the mentaj agreement with Mike about six minutes 00000000 Denmark 75-year wait in the euro, ECHO is black and white.
But oblletan portrait of C. Secretary with good reviews and decided to play with a technique 500 salmon, when there is no money. To send the same day, I don’t know.
Richard (wojeelte ‘exe’) and responding ball in the desert on Earth. I think can accept egg entered in the referee. I remember thinking Mike trout and others that are like this, tajawan, ??????? and family told to 2000 15 million dollars.
… The institution of their careers with the sale of weapons or aid: wheat in 10 minutes 4 million cash.
This is fine, laugh 2016 2017 new microphone, little Red Riding Hood, and almost all immigration in participants mentaj komnicator.
Water protection, everything for years want to book of States and the national frustration Mike and Richard, salmon, as well as about six screens to read your random fairs, he said.
How many languages did the Bard know? … 4 it seems.
So I tried to work out a trade involving Trout and Pujols for Betts and prospects. Like posters above have indicated, including Pujols helps wipe out a lot of Trout’s surplus value (which starts at around $270m). I ran different calculations for Good vs. OK vs. Bad Pujols (combined WARs of 10.5, 9, and 5.1 over the next 6 years). That got a range of between $150m and $200m surplus value for the pair. Then I ran an estimate for Betts in low, medium, and high production scenarios (combined WAR of 16, 20 or 24 WAR for next 5 years). Guesstimating at arbitration salaries, that’s between $123m and $185m in surplus value. The trouble is therefore which Pujols and Betts you believe in, and the optics of the trade. If you’re the Angels, you pitch Pujols as more than just total deadweight, and see Betts as not having proven superstar potential and you look for something worth $60m in surplus value–that’s Swihart and a prospect, or two top prospects. If you’re the Sox, you see Betts as a budding superstar and think that the package is fine as is, maybe the Sox throw in some filler like Owens. I would love to see that deal as a Sox fan, which tells me it’s way off and it would never happen without also throwing in Moncada and/or Rodriguez, which I would then hate. My anti-homerism caution tells me I may be underrating Pujols or overrating Betts, so take everything with a grain of salt.
Brain about to explode. I’m about to down another one of myself.