MLB The Show 16 News Post

The Angels aren't off to a great start -- now thanks to news that Garrett Richards needs Tommy John surgery -- the news has just gotten worse.

The Angels rotation really isn't anything near what it could have been, should have been, or might have been. And to top that off, the lineup which looked so formidable for years to come just a couple of short years ago looks downright average now.

"In other words: A team projected as mediocre is now 13-15 and looking worse, and that's with Mike Trout tearing things up with a .317/.400/.596 line. Did we mention the Angels have what is universally regarded as the worst farm system in the game? Which is why Dave Cameron of FanGraphs wrote this:

And that reality prompts the obvious question: is it time to think about trading Mike Trout?

It may be unthinkable, but David Schoenfield at ESPN.com is suggesting the Angels should indeed think about trading Mike Trout.

Thanks to a horribly lackluster farm system, a bunch of heavy contracts for players not producing, and simply because the team just isn't that good: it may just be time for the whole experiment in Anaheim to be thrown to the wind.

But what do you think? Should the Angels look to trade Mike Trout and begin rebuilding the whole project? Sound off in the comments!

Game: MLB The Show 16Reader Score: 8/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PS3 / PS4Votes for game: 22 - View All
MLB The Show 16 Videos
Member Comments
# 1 tonybologna @ 05/06/16 01:41 PM
Absolutely not!
# 2 Kelvarr @ 05/06/16 01:44 PM
Personally, yes I think they should. Not many teams will be able to afford his 2018 salary though.
# 3 myghty @ 05/06/16 02:11 PM
If they do trade him the game is broken & needs a patch immediately....

# 4 jkra0512 @ 05/06/16 02:14 PM
At first, I thought, "Yes" because of the return you would get. However, the more I think about it, I don't think it's a good idea.

1 - The return you get for him won't nearly be what you'll get in return. You lose both short-term and long-term value.

2 - Prospects are lottery tickets, that's it, nothing more. I believe only the Dodgers would come close to giving the Angels any sort of value. (Think, Puig, Seager/Pedersen, Urias and maybe more)

3 - The Angels have TOOOOO many holes to fill that a trade of Trout couldn't fill in one trade. Not to mention one of the worst farm system in baseball.

4 - Bad contracts of Pujols (signed through 2021, has $189M left) which they backloaded, but do have CJ Wilson and Jered Weaver's contracts coming off the books this year. However, they are still paying Hamilton more than $50M to be on the DL for another team...

The Angels are just not in a good spot, and don't have much going for them in the near future. Trading Trout, in my opinion, isn't the answer.
# 5 Tweeg @ 05/06/16 02:48 PM

If they didn't have Albert on that tremendously bad deal, it would definitely be time to trade Trout for a huge haul. With Albert the Albatross, even a boat load of budding players might not help.
# 6 misterkrabz @ 05/06/16 02:57 PM
No. Makes no sense to trade the best player in baseball, specially if you have him locked up until 2020..you would never get the same value in return. ..if it was 2019 and you thought you couldn't resign him, then yes...consider it.
# 7 Scrapps @ 05/06/16 03:02 PM
Well, they aren't winning with him. And they have nothing in their farm system. Seems kinda obvious to me.
# 8 PPerfect_CJ @ 05/06/16 03:07 PM
# 9 Dogslax41 @ 05/06/16 03:13 PM
He's a ticket seller. The players they would get back would not result in equal revenue generation even if they never are competitive with Trout on the roster.
# 10 CubFan23 @ 05/06/16 03:55 PM
Shouldn't this thread be posted here? http://www.operationsports.com/forums/pro-baseball/

Just sayin, if one of us posted it, it would be moved to that thread.
# 11 orion523 @ 05/06/16 04:13 PM
If Trout were say 27, the yes, it's a no brainier. But at 24, he's still young enough to focus a rebuild around, so to answer your question, no the Angels should not trade Mike Trout.
# 12 Ghost Of The Year @ 05/06/16 04:32 PM
Yes. The Angels should trade Trout to Atlanta for a bag of balls & an usher to be named later.
Then Anaheim/LA/California/whatever-they-go-by-these-days can begin to rebuild around Weaver & Pujols, the two obvious pieces to any Angel future. Keeping Trout this year is exactly why the Angels lost prize centerfield top prospect Gary Brown. If they don't dump Trout ASAP, they're in danger of also losing another centerfielder, Bo Way.
Oh, wait, NVM, I thought we were talking about Steve Trout.
# 13 bigdipper88 @ 05/06/16 04:33 PM
Weaver and Wilson come off the books, so that's some $ they'll have. Pujols has them tied up and he obviously isn't /hasn't been even near the player he was in STL.
# 14 tonybologna @ 05/06/16 04:52 PM
Originally Posted by misterkrabz
No. Makes no sense to trade the best player in baseball, specially if you have him locked up until 2020..you would never get the same value in return. ..if it was 2019 and you thought you couldn't resign him, then yes...consider it.
You hit the nail on the head as to why I've said the same thing. He probably still is the best player in baseball but Bryce Harper is coming fast but no way he should be traded.
# 15 bestbrother @ 05/06/16 05:01 PM
I assume we are talking in game (in the main here) and for me, as the Angels are the team I am thinking about playing as, then its a no.

1 - Trout will be fun to play with and thats a big part of why id be the Angels
2 - Im not sure what he would command in terms of in game trade value
3 - As its a game, there is always a way to work things. Sure some players may not stack up irl, but who is to say they wont play well in the Show
4 - Related to the above, the Angels without Trout lose some of their identity (if that makes sense)
# 16 RLB @ 05/06/16 05:59 PM
They probably just need to hang on to him, they suck at making deals.........CJ Wilson, Albert Pujols and Josh Hamilton. Of course if your another team and with the Angels track record, you might be able to offer them a peanut butter sandwich and a player to be named later.
# 17 Will I Am @ 05/06/16 06:34 PM
Shouldn't this be in the pro baseball section?
# 18 Turbojugend @ 05/06/16 06:35 PM
Depends on what they can get for him. People thought the Cowboys were nuts for dealing away Herschel Walker to Minnesota, but that trade helped build a team that eventually won three Super Bowls.
# 19 redsfan4life @ 05/06/16 06:37 PM
They aren't a small market team by any means so I don't see the reasoning. It really comes down to drafting/trading better..based on their history do you really think they'll get good players for Mike Trout? Their scouting department is the problem. They aren't drafting well. They consistently have the worst system in baseball year in and year out, it's no wonder they can't turn the corner.
# 20 IgotSyphillis @ 05/06/16 06:41 PM
Yup. They ain't winning with him and only him. They have no one coming up. It's just like when A-Rod signed with Texas. He was putting up 50 hrs and 150 rbis.....for a last place team. This ain't basketball. One player ain't enough to win. And the longer they wait, the less they get for him. They can get like 5-6 positions filled right now for him. Every year they wait is one less player that would get included in the trade. And then in 4 years, he'll be gone anyways and off to a team with a future.

« Previous1234Next »

Post A Comment
Only OS members can post comments
Please login or register to post a comment.