Fuzzy_Slippers

Mike Trout 2017 Outlook

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, Dodgers said:

Pujols did the same thing long before Trout. He only played 3 years and then took a 100 million deal in 2004.

 

Except it wasn't the same thing, he was a year and half older, it was after his third full season instead of only two, and it was significantly less money. And that's if you believe his age anyway, heh. I think he's about 40 now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, EmbargoLifted said:

You don't give away 3 years of FA eligibility while being by far the best player in the league.

 

The fair market value for a 'win' is somewhere in the ~$7.5M range.  Trout as a 9 or 10 win player at the age of 26 would have easily commanded annual salary's north of $50M a year. 

 

It would have taken organizations 10/$500M just to get into the conversation. 

 

He'll be way more risky of an investment 3 years from now after the 2020 season so any chance for a monster record breaking deal is likely gone. Just a stupid extension and failure on part of his agent/representation to accept that Angels deal/extension.

 

 

Hmm well there's something to be said for being set for life after only two years. If I offered you 150 million now or 500 million in 2022, would it be so easy to turn it down? I dont think i would, personally. I think you'd take 150 now and know you'd probably get the 500 anyway in 2024. I know i would. Trout did too. Anything could happen in those years waiting for your 2024 big payoff, you could get killed on the road on the way to work. I imagine he'll easily break the record anyway. He'll still be only 28 right? 26 vs 28, for a truly all time great? He still gets 35 mil for those last couple years of this one right, so at least somewhat close to your 50 mil fair value right? If Stanton is worth 325 anytime to anybody, 500+ will happen anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well at 7.5 mil per win i guess 35 mil a year is only half what's fair. But anyway, that was the tradeoff to get 150 million after two seasons of baseball.

Edited by Stubudd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny reading about how "non team has what it takes" to get Trout. I can think of a few: The Astros, the Braves, the Yankees, the Mets, and (to a lesser extent) the Twins. Heck, even the Red Sox or Chi Sox.

A lot of it won't even come down to "Can we get 5 top prospects?!" because sometimes those prospects don't pan out (actually, I'd say usually). I could see a team like the Braves or Yankees offering up one or two big league players to go along with some youngsters. The Chi Sox are interesting... Yeah, Giolito's stock is down but he's very young. I wonder how a package of him plus a few others might go? Or if your the Red Sox maybe you look at Devers+? Or the Cubs with Jimenez/Baez+? Or the Astros and Springer+? Lots of combinations... 

But I doubt he gets traded. He's signed through 2020, so he'll be ~28 when he hits FA. Everyone was all aboard the Harper getting 500 million... How about Trout?

 

Trout has twice the WAR Harper has since coming up... 

tumblr_mkrigbnFFL1reicebo1_500.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, EmbargoLifted said:

He'll be way more risky of an investment 3 years from now after the 2020 season so any chance for a monster record breaking deal is likely gone. Just a stupid extension and failure on part of his agent/representation to accept that Angels deal/extension.

 

I get it, but I disagree.

He'll be 28. He's played 150+ games every year but one (and he still managed to get 639PA). He's durable, he's not playing above his head, and... most importantly... there are "older" players who have monster deals going on right now.

Cano
Hamilton (hahahahahhhahaaahahahahahahhahaaahhaa   *breath* hahahahahahhahahahaahahahaha!)
Pujols
Crawford (I think he's still being paid?)
Miggy
Verlander

 

and remember when the Jays gave Vernon Wells a lot of money?

 

If I am a MLB owner, i've got 400-500 million waiting for Mike Trout. I don't care if it's for 10 years or 5 years... I'm making the deal. The guy is that good. He's the best baseball player since Arod came up, and at the rate he's going he might wind up being the best ever. You keep him in the AL, and when he starts to age you use him as your DH. If you want to get creative you can even front load that contract... Give him the most money in the first 5-7 years.

 

Some team out there will give him a mega deal. I think he's going to be the one guy where it doesn't bite that team in the a** until the end of the deal, as opposed to being a terrible move in the short term (ie: Fat Albert).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know WAR helps him a lot as he plays a very WAR-friendly position but the suggestion that he's on pace to become the best player ever or that it's a realistic possibility is insane to me. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, absknicks said:

I know WAR helps him a lot as he plays a very WAR-friendly position but the suggestion that he's on pace to become the best player ever or that it's a realistic possibility is insane to me. 

 

 

insane as in "it's so awesome that I'm witnessing such greatness in my lifetime" or 

insane as in "he's nowhere near being in the conversation for the best player ever"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, rlaalsrb said:

 

insane as in "it's so awesome that I'm witnessing such greatness in my lifetime" or 

insane as in "he's nowhere near being in the conversation for the best player ever"?

 

I don't think he's in the conversation or will be in the conversation. I think his comparison is Mantle, and no one suggests Mantle, while being an ATG, is the best player ever.

 

And besides, no one's passing Ruth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, absknicks said:

 

I don't think he's in the conversation or will be in the conversation. I think his comparison is Mantle, and no one suggests Mantle, while being an ATG, is the best player ever.

 

And besides, no one's passing Ruth. 

 

I think your threshold for 'being in the conversation' is too high. I mean Mantle is still a top 10 player all time. That deserves to be in the conversation, while the ultimate answer may be that Ruth is still the very best.

 

Trout is well on his way to becoming a top 10 player all time imo, and that's worthy of being in the conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, absknicks said:

 

I don't think he's in the conversation or will be in the conversation. I think his comparison is Mantle, and no one suggests Mantle, while being an ATG, is the best player ever.

 

And besides, no one's passing Ruth. 

 

Just imagine what the players from the past could have done with what the players of today have to work with. From the bats, gloves, cletes, travel conditions., playing fields including playing indoors all the way down the the trainer and conditioning. Many of the players in the past had to work jobs in the off season. And they didn't travel passed the Mississippi . Given what they did with what they have now many of the players of yesterday would have much better numbers offensively and defensively . Thats not Trouts fault . He will rank up there in the top 10 when its all said and done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider also the quality of pitching.  The game is different now.  Development of players on both sides of the ball has come a long, long way.  Compairing players from Ruth's era to today's is kind of silly to me.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, motown magic said:

 

Just imagine what the players from the past could have done with what the players of today have to work with. From the bats, gloves, cletes, travel conditions., playing fields including playing indoors all the way down the the trainer and conditioning. Many of the players in the past had to work jobs in the off season. And they didn't travel passed the Mississippi . Given what they did with what they have now many of the players of yesterday would have much better numbers offensively and defensively . Thats not Trouts fault . He will rank up there in the top 10 when its all said and done.

 

I think the opposite. The competition is so different now. So many more people, even more countries that players are drawn from- best athletes from around the world are painstakingly sought out and developed. They literally comb the jungles looking for big fastballs. To stand out now takes much more than in Ruth's era. Ruth never faced a lefty specialist. He probably faced a lot of 80 mph fastballs. Soooo many more young people play, the standard has to be so much higher now. 

 

But anyway by just about any standard, trout has had the best first five years of anybody ever. Did you read that link on the last page? More runs than the all time run leader at age 25, more hrs than the all time he leader at 25, etc etc etc? He may end up the greatest of all time. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 80version said:

Consider also the quality of pitching.  The game is different now.  Development of players on both sides of the ball has come a long, long way.  Compairing players from Ruth's era to today's is kind of silly to me.  

 

I hadn't read your post when I posted just now, but yea. It's a whole new ballgame. Billion dollar business, all focused on finding and making the best baseball players on earth. To stand out now is way more impressive to me. Like the guy said above, but taken the opposite way- Ruth faced guys with day jobs. 

 

But yea it's kinda pointless to compare that far back. Too many variables

Edited by Stubudd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Stubudd said:

 

I think the opposite. The competition is so different now. So many more people, even more countries that players are drawn from- best athletes from around the world are painstakingly sought out and developed. They literally comb the jungles looking for big fastballs. To stand out now takes much more than in Ruth's era. Ruth never faced a lefty specialist. He probably faced a lot of 80 mph fastballs. Soooo many more young people play, the standard has to be so much higher now. 

 

But anyway by just about any standard, trout has had the best first five years of anybody ever. Did you read that link on the last page? More runs than the all time run leader at age 25, more hrs than the all time he leader at 25, etc etc etc? He may end up the greatest of all time. 

 

 

 

Edit: Sorry misread your statement. But worth pointing out-  Mickey Mantle had two seasons of +11 WAR by the age of 25. Trout has zero.

 

That's just one example but the hyperbole around Trout is getting a bit ridiculous lately, IMO. The best ever talk is a bit much.  And yes, he's great and will be an ATG.

Edited by absknicks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, absknicks said:

 

Edit: Sorry misread your statement. But worth pointing out-  Mickey Mantle had two seasons of +11 WAR by the age of 25. Trout has zero.

 

That's just one example... the hyperbole around Trout is getting is a bit ridiculous lately, IMO. The best ever talk is a bit much.  And yes, he's great and will be an ATG.

 

http://calltothepen.com/2016/11/19/mlb-mike-trout-mickey-mantle-comparisons/

 

This says they had 47 War for trout vs 41 for mantle for their first six seasons. I mean, whatever. It was trout's first two years that were pretty far out there vs everybody else not five like i said, don't know how many have had first five years like this. Other than mickey mantle anyway. 

 

How good would he have to be for talk about being the greatest ever to not be hyperbole to you? I mean he's about as good as anybody ever so far. How much better does he have to be for it not be hyperbole? Win mvp every year, lol? Not just first or second every year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

definitely on his way to being top-10 all-time. Even if he retired today, I think he'd be revered the same way Koufax is

 

checking in on May 28th: 5X5 stats are: .342-36-16-36-9(10 attempts)  and OPS sits at a godly 1.215.   

 

I think Trout is breaking out haha. He might have been this years biggest sleeper. ;)

 

Just imagine what those counting stats would be if he wasn't surrounded by Yunel Escobar, Cron's Disease, and the rotting corpse of Albert.

 

The second highest OPS on the team is Cameron Maybin's .749 figure, which would be good for 9th on the Yankees, 8th on the Reds, and 8th on the Nationals (not including Adam Eaton). Even Ricky Nolasco is looking at Trout like "it's just me and you here, brotha."

 

and through some miracle, the Angels are 26-26, .500.   How is that even possible? Is J.C. Ramirez that good!? Oh wait, I know why....

_______________________

 

Trout also gets wasted in my long-term keeper league. Our least active manager (by far) lucked into him with the first overall pick. This manager is unreceptive to trade offers, and Trout (and Scherzer) waste away on the last place team year after year after year. Too much like real life. And as commish, I'm in a tough spot (as far as kicking out the manager) because of close family ties and friendship outside of fantasy). 

 

And every year around this time I get frustrated. The Angels farm is barren. Their Major League Roster is "striving for mediocrity" at best. 

Fans love Trout, and he's surely the main reason anyone attends games or buys jerseys... but in a strictly baseball sense it would be sensible to move him for a collection of prospects. 

 

Wouldn't the Cubs love to add Trout to their outfield, and pair him with Bryant/Rizzo over the next half decade+.  Wouldn't the Red Sox be smitten with a Trout/Mookie outfield??  It could help the Angels, too. And obviously, it would have to be the greatest prospect haul in history. Maybe a freaky 3-way that nets the Angels Eloy Jimenez, Rafael Devers + others... I dunno. There's gotta be a team, or team(s) out there who can overwhelm the Angels with young talent. I'd love to see it happen. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by ChicksDigTheOPS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^ yea really. The mick played on some of the best teams of all time, not just his day. But then he played without knees too, who knows what could have been if he hadn't torn apart both knees before he was 20 or whatever it was. It's all subjective when you get so far apart in time. But it ain't hyperbole. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, ChicksDigTheOPS said:

There's gotta be a team, or team(s) out there who can overwhelm the Angels with young talent. I'd love to see it happen. 

 

who says "No"?

everyone? no one? 

 

Chicago

sends: Anthony Rizzo, Eloy Jimenez, Kyle Schwarber 

receives: Mike Trout, Sam Travis

Boston

sends: Xander Bogaerts, Rafael Devers, Drew Pomeranz

receives: Anthony Rizzo, Joe Ross, Andrelton Simmons

Angels

sends: Mike Trout, Andrelton Simmons

receives: Xander Bogaerts, Victor Robles, Eloy Jimenez

Nationals

sends: Victor Robles, Joe Ross

receives: Alex Wood, Julio Urias, Alex Verdugo

Dodgers

sends: Alex Wood, Julio Urias, Alex Verdugo

receives: Kyle Schwarber, Rafael Devers, Drew Pomeranz

Edited by ChicksDigTheOPS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Stubudd said:

^^^^ yea really. The mick played on some of the best teams of all time, not just his day. But then he played without knees too, who knows what could have been if he hadn't torn apart both knees before he was 20 or whatever it was. It's all subjective when you get so far apart in time. But it ain't hyperbole. 

 

It's hyperbole to me because he has no shot of ever surpassing Ruth, who's clearly the best player ever, IMO. After that I think Cobb/Mays/Bonds/Williams/Gehrig will all be exceedingly difficult (if not impossible) for him pass for him too. So yeah, he'll be in the top-10/15 ever if he can stay healthy and keep up this level of production but the "best ever" talk is a bit overboard. Just my opinion. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by absknicks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ChicksDigTheOPS said:

 

who says "No"?

everyone? no one? 

 

Chicago

sends: Anthony Rizzo, Eloy Jimenez, Kyle Schwarber 

receives: Mike Trout, Sam Travis

Boston

sends: Xander Bogaerts, Rafael Devers

receives: Anthony Rizzo, Joe Ross, Andrelton Simmons

Angels

sends: Mike Trout, Andrelton Simmons

receives: Xander Bogaerts, Victor Robles, Eloy Jimenez

Nationals

sends: Victor Robles, Joe Ross

receives: Alex Wood, Julio Urias

Dodgers

sends: Alex Wood, Julio Urias

receives: Kyle Schwarber, Rafael Devers

 

Everyone says no except the Cubs, IMO. But in reality they love Schwarber so much that they'd probably say no too. 

 

Edited by absknicks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, absknicks said:

Everyone says no except the Cubs, IMO. 

 

You just threw my soul against the wall. 

Edited by ChicksDigTheOPS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are way off on valuation.

 

Let's talk Cubs: 

 

Cubs would need to send: Baez, Happ, Schwarber (hope he can play 1st) Elroy, and at least two pitching prospects and the Angels GM would have to be drunk and depressed to accept that. 

 

The Astros could probably do it without the fan base revolting, here's the deal: 

 

Astros send: Lance McCullers, Springer, Bregman, AJ Reed and Musgrove and maybe Francis Martes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, lipitorkid said:

You guys are way off on valuation.

 

Let's talk Cubs: 

 

Cubs would need to send: Baez, Happ, Schwarber (hope he can play 1st) Elroy, and at least two pitching prospects and the Angels GM would have to be drunk and depressed to accept that. 

 

The Astros could probably do it without the fan base revolting, here's the deal: 

 

Astros send: Lance McCullers, Springer, Bregman, AJ Reed and Musgrove and maybe Francis Martes. 

thats hou trade is still very bad... as springer bregman reed have shown very little for one to atleast pan out to be an allstar

and this is for the best player ever? no chance

would need correa plus another solid piece or two or three

 

this is why you dont make these type of deals

 

http://www.fishstripes.com/2013/12/5/5177328/miami-marlins-history-miguel-cabrera-dontrelle-willis-detroit-tigers-trade-reflection

 
The Trade

Miami was receiving offers left and right. The deals included hefty numbers of top prospect talent. The Los Angeles Dodgers were said to be offering some combination of Matt Kemp, Clayton Kershaw, and Andy LaRoche. Before 2007, Kershaw was the 24th-ranked prospect in baseball by Baseball America. Before 2008, he was at eighth. Kemp was batting .342/.373/.521 in a short Major League stint in 2007.

The Los Angeles Angels were said to be on the verge of a deal including Howie Kendrick(12th-best prospect in 2006, .322/.347/.450 in the majors in 2007), Jeff Mathis (60th-ranked prospect in 2006), and a set of pitchers including Nick Adenhart (34th-ranked prospect in 2007). Three of these players would have been a great haul for Miami given their situation with Cabrera.

 

The Boston Red Sox apparently got involved with potentially trading Jacoby Ellsbury (33rd-ranked prospect in 2007) and (51st in 2007).

Miami "settled" for a prospect platter filled with top-10 prospect talent. The deal included Cameron Maybin, who was the sixth-ranked prospect in baseball in 2007 and was then ranked in the top 10 in each of the next two seasons, and Andrew Miller, who was the 10th-ranked prospect before 2007. For that plus a slew of players among the Tigers'  top 10 (Eulogio De La Cruz and Dallas Trahern were in the organizational top 10 before the 2007 season), Miami gave up Cabrera and Willis in a surprisingly fast-evolving move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, colepenhagen said:

this is why you dont make these type of deals

 

I agree completely. The only way Mike Trout leaves the Angels is if Mike Trout WANTS to leave the Angels via free agency or becoming a pain in the a** to management. One of those is more likely than the other. 

Edited by lipitorkid
typo

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.