Trade Mike Trout

[hi8is]

Angles get Jordan Montgomery, Gleyber Torres, Clint Frazier, Blake Rutherford, James Kaprielian, and Justus Sheffield

 

Yankees get Trout

[maxjusttyped]

It makes sense from a rational perspective, but I think there are too many years left on Trout's contract for him to be traded. Being the GM & owner that signed off on trading Mike Trout is something that'll be remembered 50 years from now.

Edited June 22, 2017 by maxjusttyped

[hi8is]

It makes sense from a rational perspective, but I think there are too many years left on Trout's contract for him to be traded. Being the GM & owner that signed off on trading Mike Trout is something that'll be remembered 50 years from now.

I actually think the Yankees would say no to the hypothetical deal above.

[maxjusttyped]

I actually think the Yankees would say no to the hypothetical deal above.

I agree with you, but I also don't think the Angels would either.

[hi8is]

I agree with you, but I also don't think the Angels would either.

They'd be dumb not to ?

[OmarComing25]

I don't think I would do that if I were the Angels. If I'm trading Trout I want at least a proven All-Star caliber player in return, not a bunch of prospects. It's more likely than not that that group never becomes as valuable as Trout by himself, and even then 10 WAR from one position is >>>>>> than 10 WAR spread out over 4-5 positions.

 

The only elite prospect of that bunch is Torres and he's having season ending surgery. Kaprielian is also currently damaged goods.

Edited June 22, 2017 by OmarComing25

[hi8is]

What package could the Yankee's put together then that would net Trout?

[OmarComing25]

What package could the Yankee's put together then that would net Trout?

I'm not sure there is one because I doubt the Angels are even entertaining the idea of trading Trout but any package from the Yankees would have to start with Judge/Severino/Torres and add from there.

[bmags]

I think that's probably about as close as you could get but I do think it has to be dodgers/yankees/red sox, one of the teams that can spend to fill holes with elite talent, not replacement players like the Angels (yes i know angels used to be one of the teams that would spend but moving the other teams don't have a cap)

 

I think Angels for trout should demand a young established player, but it does become a question of: you are trading for trout to improve team and win a championship, how much can you diminish big league talent before you become the same situation as angels?

 

Trout, being best player since bonds, will probably mean that the acquiring team literally gets most total value, I don't think any team could really give what it takes to acquire him and it be fair to both. He's too good.

 

For a team stuck in hell like the angels though, I think best case scenario is

 

Angels trade:

Trout

Pujols

 

Dodgers trade:

Bellinger

Urias

Alvarez

Verdugo

Calhoun

Pick 1 of intl talent group

 

 

That is: salary relief, two top 20 pitching prospects, top ten hitting prospect and two top 100 hitting prospects, and some amount of young wild cards.

 

Few teams could compare with that. And it's the one situation that I think the acquiring team has enough major league pieces they are undoubtedly better off and still have depth to handle the year to year issues.