• Introducing Image Options for ResetEra 2.0! Check the left side navigation bar to show or hide images, avatars, covers, and embedded media. More details at the link.

MLB 2018-2019 Off Season |OT| Now welcoming postseason losers

Oct 25, 2017
11,234
The problem there is that Bryce Harper has sucked a few times here and there and it’s a bad bet on himself. Because if he averages out to just good and not “Hall of Famer” he wouldn’t get anywhere near the 180 he would need to match the Phillies deal at the age of 30.
 
Oct 26, 2017
3,892
hell
I dont get the point of the Angles paying Trout $400m. They are going to be bad with or without him. Move him for a ton of prospects and hope you hit on a bunch.
 
Oct 25, 2017
15,420
I dont get the point of the Angles paying Trout $400m. They are going to be bad with or without him. Move him for a ton of prospects and hope you hit on a bunch.
Because the odds that even one of those prospects will be even half as good as Trout is minuscule. Because Trout might be the greatest player of all time in his prime? Because there is a sentimental/marketing reason for teams and fans to keep the best player of all time in their uniform for his entire career that probably outweigh a bunch of lottery ticket prospects? Because the Angels have deep pockets and despite that horrible Pujols contract, can still find a way to field a good team around Trout over the next 5-7 years of his prime? They have every reason in the world to hang on to Trout. Why let him walk is the real question.
 
Oct 25, 2017
15,420
They have made the playoffs once with Trout, if they have the money to compete every year why arnt they?
Because they’ve made shit roster decisions. And they may continue to make shit roster decisions. That’s not a reason to say to yourself “he we aren’t gonna compete let’s just trade away/let walk the greatest player in the history of the sport”. Like no team in their right mind is going to say that. The point of bringing up their deep pockets is that they don’t have to trade a Trout. The can comfortably pay him and Pujols. It’s not like the owner is going bankrupt. Trading Trout for 5 prospects, of which maybe 1-2 hit, also doesn’t guarantee you won’t miss the playoffs every year.
 
Oct 26, 2017
3,892
hell
Are the Angles better off with the Phillies top 5 or 6 prospects plus all that money to spend on Fa's or with Trout? They have clearly tried for several years now to build a team around this great player and so far it has not worked for whatever reason. Who knows maybe you are right and they just hold on to him no matter what and hope they can get the rest of the team figured out. I just cant seem them doing a better job surround Trout with talent once he is the highest paid player in baseball.
 
Oct 25, 2017
15,420
Are the Angles better off with the Phillies top 5 or 6 prospects plus all that money to spend on Fa's or with Trout? They have clearly tried for several years now to build a team around this great player and so far it has not worked for whatever reason. Who knows maybe you are right and they just hold on to him no matter what and hope they can get the rest of the team figured out. I just cant seem them doing a better job surround Trout with talent once he is the highest paid player in baseball.
Yes. You are always better with the consistent 8-10 WAR player in his prime than you would be with 5 lottery tickets. The money part is a cop out because they Angels aren’t hurting for money. Even with the shit Pujols contract. Trout at $35-40 million a year, for what he produces, is still a better bet than any set of prospects. The reasons the Angels haven’t been able to make the playoffs or field a competitive team in recent history aren’t going to go away if they trade Trout. So yes, I’d rather be mediocre with Mike Trout than bad-mediocre without him.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,795
Mike Trout is worth like 9 wins alone. You trade him for prospects and sign some FAs there's not a chance in hell you make up that difference.
 
Oct 25, 2017
7,477
Mike Trout is worth like 9 wins alone. You trade him for prospects and sign some FAs there's not a chance in hell you make up that difference.
It's literally trading peak Barry Bonds. Like, no. Are you high? No. The man is arguably having the greatest career YoY so far through his time in the majors EVER. He has a compelling, legitimate argument that he is equal to peak Bonds.

The reason he will never be traded despite the Angels likely never winning anything with him there is because there is no possible way they will ever get equitable value, they'd need to literally get two baseline career value HoF players back just to break even. And even just from a fan perspective, if my team traded Mike effing Trout in the prime of his career for a bunch of prospects I would renounce that shit immediately and never go to another game.

Plus I challenge the premise that they've made any real effort to put a quality team around Trout. They really haven't.
 
Last edited:
Oct 25, 2017
11,234
It's literally trading peak Barry Bonds. Like, no. Are you high? No. The man is arguably having the greatest career YoY so far through his time in the majors EVER. He has a compelling, legitimate argument that he is equal to peak Bonds.

The reason he will never be traded despite the Angels likely never winning anything with him there is because there is no possible way they will ever get equitable value, they'd need to literally get two baseline career value HoF players back just to break even. And even just from a fan perspective, if my team traded Mike effing Trout in the prime of his career for a bunch of prospects I would renounce that shit immediately and never go to another game.

Plus I challenge the premise that they've made any real effort to put a quality team around Trout. They really haven't.
I'm not even sure what prospect package you would ask for for any number of years of Mike Trout in his 20s

Hey we've got Ohtani and Simba and idk
The Angels being bad is one of those things I don't understand
 
Nov 20, 2017
1,760
I remember reading somewhere that Ohtani was a Pujols fan growing up. Maybe Pujols' contract wasn't all bad?
Yeah, I guess paying 17 million per WAR so far has really paid off dividends with those 3 years of 100k per WAR or so off a totally different guy. Especially since that number is probably going to go up 5 million over the next 3 years.
 
Nov 28, 2017
563
^We should absolutely be doing this, or more.
Yeah, I guess paying 17 million per WAR so far has really paid off dividends with those 3 years of 100k per WAR or so off a totally different guy. Especially since that number is probably going to go up 5 million over the next 3 years.
I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not. Either is understandable.
 
Nov 2, 2017
3,971

Reading an article about the Yankees that was greenlighted by Bill Simmons and finding yourself agreeing with every word of it is a pretty fucking depressing state of affairs
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,608
NYC

Reading an article about the Yankees that was greenlighted by Bill Simmons and finding yourself agreeing with every word of it is a pretty fucking depressing state of affairs

as long as the team isn't handing out dumb contracts to the Jacoby Ellsbury's of the world I'm fine with how they conduct business. and they did take on Stanton's contract so they aren't afraid of big contracts.
 

Malo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,506
Bronx, NY
as long as the team isn't handing out dumb contracts to the Jacoby Ellsbury's of the world I'm fine with how they conduct business. and they did take on Stanton's contract so they aren't afraid of big contracts.
Handing out a ten year deal to an elite player, who is only 26 and would be massively improve the team, isn't dumb. But hey, Hal needs a new yacht.
 
Nov 2, 2017
3,971
as long as the team isn't handing out dumb contracts to the Jacoby Ellsbury's of the world I'm fine with how they conduct business. and they did take on Stanton's contract so they aren't afraid of big contracts.
They only took on Stanton's contract because they assumed (correctly, but not by as much as they probably originally thought) it would be cheaper than Harper or Machado, especially with Jeter subsidizing some of it. The Stanton trade, in hindsight, was Hal's "Let them eat cake" moment.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,608
NYC
Handing out a ten year deal to an elite player, who is only 26 and would be massively improve the team, isn't dumb. But hey, Hal needs a new yacht.
They only took on Stanton's contract because they assumed (correctly, but not by as much as they probably originally thought) it would be cheaper than Harper or Machado, especially with Jeter subsidizing some of it. The Stanton trade, in hindsight, was Hal's "Let them eat cake" moment.
I will only worry if they cheap out when it's time to sign Judge.