MLB The Show 16 News Post

Is It Time For The Angels to Trade Mike Trout?

02:38 PM - May 6, 2016 by RaychelSnr

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.

Quote:


	"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: 23 - View All

MLB The Show 16 Videos

Member Comments

# 21 Aensland @ 05/06/16 08:29 PM

Trade him to the Braves.

Nah jk lol. It seems any position player who comes to Atl suddenly forgets how to hit. I'll pass.

On-topic: IMO trading him won't solve all their problems. They're basically between a rock and a hard place now.

# 22 RLB @ 05/06/16 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will I Am


	Shouldn't this be in the pro baseball section?

Probably so but we are all living life on the edge.

# 23 Spokker @ 05/06/16 10:31 PM

He's a money maker whether they win or not. Ask the Mariners about this sort of thing.

# 24 AceAmy @ 05/06/16 10:34 PM

Should they? no but its not a bad idea.

This is just fun speculation though, who doesnt want to see him somewhere else on a contending team?

If they could get two other teams involved and got literally 6 cant miss prospects along with 2 young 2 to mid rotation starters than i'd MAYBE consider it, MAYBE...

# 25 bkrich83 @ 05/06/16 10:58 PM

What they get in return wouldn't match his output. Asinine question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDiaz1


	hope they can convince him to re-sign

He's signed through 2020.

Angels also have a ton of salary coming off the books after this season.

# 26 Lovesports @ 05/07/16 07:37 AM

You absolutely do not trade your best player. You build around him. Trade the other crap on the team like Pujols or Weaver.

# 27 Skyflame21 @ 05/07/16 08:43 AM

Under no circumstance at this point should they trade Trout. He's too young and no team could give you enough to make worth it. To me at 24 to get Trout would cost a team almost everything they have. If trout were older than maybe. If they are in this position 5 years from now than yes it's a discussion to have but not at 24 and he's locked up until 2020. Only real issue would be if he becomes upset at the constant losing and demands a trade but I don't see that happening just yet.

# 28 Jr. @ 05/07/16 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bkrich83


	What they get in return wouldn't match his output. Asinine question. He's signed through 2020. Angels also have a ton of salary coming off the books after this season.

Trout's salary also increases from $16M to $34M next year, so that will lessen some of that salary relief.

I think it's an interesting question. Can they mold themselves into a successful team by the time his contract is up and convince him to stay? Of they can't, I think they should consider trading him in one of the last two years of that deal to try to get something back

# 29 RLB @ 05/07/16 10:06 AM

I think at the end of the 2017 season the Rangers will come off of the Angel payroll as well.

# 30 Will I Am @ 05/07/16 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lovesports


	You absolutely do not trade your best player. You build around him. Trade the other crap on the team like Pujols or Weaver.

You couldn't give those guys away let alone trade them.

# 31 JDiaz1 @ 05/07/16 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lovesports


	You absolutely do not trade your best player. You build around him. Trade the other crap on the team like Pujols or Weaver.

No team in baseball would take those contracts without the Angels either A) eating most of their contracts or B) including top prospects (which the Angels don't have). So there is essentially no way to get rid of those contracts.

# 32 bkrich83 @ 05/07/16 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jr.


	Trout's salary also increases from $16M to $34M next year, so that will lessen some of that salary relief. I think it's an interesting question. Can they mold themselves into a successful team by the time his contract is up and convince him to stay? Of they can't, I think they should consider trading him in one of the last two years of that deal to try to get something back

We'll see. Last time I heard how they were in such dire straights was 2 years ago, and they ended up winning 98 games. Their budget is limited only by the luxury tax it appears, as Moreno looks to be hesitant to cross it.

I am not sure what the answer is, I am just going to go to that stadium 20 something times a year and watch the best player in baseball do his thing. I was telling my wife how lucky we've been to see him as much as much as we do as he's truly a generational player.

# 33 bkrich83 @ 05/07/16 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lovesports


	You absolutely do not trade your best player. You build around him. Trade the other crap on the team like Pujols or Weaver.

Weaver is off the books after this year and Pujols has actually been a lot more productive than people think. Not to mention no one is taking those contracts.

# 34 JDiaz1 @ 05/07/16 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bkrich83


	Weaver is off the books after this year and Pujols has actually been a lot more productive than people think. Not to mention no one is taking those contracts.

I see Albert having a season similar to his last one. Now, that still is not a very good season compared to what they are paying him. But like I was saying, in the end I see Albert having 30-40 homers, a poor OBP, poor defense, and a respectable wRC+ (and this is coming from a big Pujols fan)

# 35 bkrich83 @ 05/07/16 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDiaz1


	I see Albert having a season similar to his last one. Now, that still is not a very good season compared to what they are paying him. But like I was saying, in the end I see Albert having 30-40 homers, a poor OBP, poor defense, and a respectable wRC+ (and this is coming from a big Pujols fan)

If they get 30-40 bombs and a OPS+ of 116-125, like they have, there's really not much to complain about. They knew this was coming, but I hear people like yourself talk about Pujols as if he's been completely unproductive since he got here, and that's quite simply not true.

# 36 JDiaz1 @ 05/07/16 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bkrich83


	If they get 30-40 bombs and a OPS+ of 116-125, like they have, there's really not much to complain about. They knew this was coming, but I hear people like yourself talk about Pujols as if he's been completely unproductive since he got here, and that's quite simply not true.

I never said that he has been unproductive. My argument has been that people have been expecting him to produce something along the lines of what the Angels are paying him for (which is not going to happen). He is what he is, he has good power, poor defense, and a poor OBP. He is producing, yes. But there is clear signs of him declining in a big way.

# 37 bkrich83 @ 05/07/16 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDiaz1


	I never said that he has been unproductive. My argument has been that people have been expecting him to produce something along the lines of what the Angels are paying him for (which is not going to happen). He is what he is, he has good power, poor defense, and a poor OBP. He is producing, yes. But there is clear signs of him declining in a big way.

He's 36 clearly there's going to be a decline. Who are these people expecting him to do what he did when he was in his prime.

As far as poor defense, that's not really true either. When they let him play defense that is.

# 38 Jr. @ 05/07/16 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bkrich83


	I am not sure what the answer is, I am just going to go to that stadium 20 something times a year and watch the best player in baseball do his thing. I was telling my wife how lucky we've been to see him as much as much as we do as he's truly a generational player.

My biggest regret while I was in SoCal was that I didn't go to an Angels game and watch him play. Hopefully they come to Coors Field sometime in the near future.

# 39 TBennz @ 05/07/16 06:37 PM

Trading Trout won't solve anything for the Angels.

First off, his return wouldn't bring the Angels back into contention.

Secondly, the Angels season tickets would plummet, and the revenue they make from Trout is irreplacable.

Third, this is on management throwing money around on players that they shouldn't have invested in and now they're paying the price. Not to mention their farm is gutted at this point.

Realistically, their best option right now is to ride on with Trout leading the way and just see if a miracle happens.

# 40 RLB @ 05/07/16 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven78


	Pujols has had one of the most dramatic declines in MLB history the last few years. I'd almost bet he was on something back in St Louis.

I don't think so, what everyone is missing is the fact he has been nursing injuries and age but, with that being said during his tenor with the Angels thru 2015 he hit 115 home runs. Not bad at all, that averages out to 28.75 HR per season. Those are still pretty strong numbers for a guy his age. Was the contract they gave him a good one? Probably not, but if I remember correctly the Angels signed a huge $300 million TV deal right about the time they picked up Albert, might have had a lot to do with that. CJ Wilson signing wasn't terrible, he just didn't perform. Josh Hamilton's last year with the Rangers he hit around 43 HR, he never got close to that with his combined time with the Angels.

It's just baseball, they are not the first team to go all in and come up with nothing and they won't be the last. Teams are constantly under performing, the Dodgers in the past few years, the Astros this year and the Red Sox a few years ago went all in and crashed too. It happens. The season is still young, you never know who will step up when it counts.

« Previous 123 Next »

More Links

Is It Time For The Angels to Trade Mike Trout?