Source Indicates Cubs Working On Blockbuster Trade For Former MVP

[Tyler]

If you move Trout, then you send Pujols with him. That simple.

[nando714]

2 hours ago, CALZONE said:

The Cubs don't need Trout. 

I thought it was for Pujols

[Doug Van Oort Sr]

2 hours ago, JarsOfClay said:

isnt Schwarber on the DL?  I thought you cant trade an injured player.

I still wouldnt do trade though.  Trout is a once in a lifetime player and should be an angel for life.

Poor Mike. Play on a crappy team for the next 5 years while they try to rebuild.  I would hate to see Mike traded, but I would like to see him get a chance to play for a winning organization.

[TroutField]

They really need to decide by the all star break whether it's time to scrap it and build around Trout, take the next 2 season to load up on young talent and try to compete in 2019 or just blow past the luxury tax, take on expensive contracts like the dodgers have done in return for prospects and hope that some of these guys can come back strong after their injuries and have us playing good baseball by September. If Mike Trout is traded i'm done with this franchise, straight up. I live and breathe Angels baseball and if they trade him I will not longer have anything to do with this franchise. 

[RallyPanda]

Arrietta / Bryant / Schwarber / few lesser prospects for Trout, I'd at least have to consider that deal.

[Angelsjunky]

8 minutes ago, RallyPanda said:

Arrietta / Bryant / Schwarber / few lesser prospects for Trout, I'd at least have to consider that deal.

Dream on. There is no way the Cubs trade Arrieta and Bryant for Trout.

[Angel Oracle]

3 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

Dream on. There is no way the Cubs trade Arrieta and Bryant for Trout.

Exactly, their combined WARs in 2016 are liable to approach 15.

[NJHalo]

Yea I can see the 25-8  Cubs getting desperate and gutting their team for one player. Their lead is only 7 games on May 13th....

[Angel Dog and Beer]

That was by far the crappiest sports website I've ever seen.  In the "article" they say:

And, as you can see, the Angels are looking for a trade partner.

But then put up this headline from ESPN:

which is just an opinion piece from a sports writer and has absolutely nothing to do with the Angels FO and their thought process regarding Trout.

They have no clue what the Angels want to do but recklessly state that the "Angels are looking for a trade partner".

Idiotic nonsense.

 

 

[OregonLAA]

Trout is fine. Retool and be competitive and SMARTLY spend money with all this money coming off the books in the coming years. I believe Eppler can do that

[Stradling]

@floplag approves of this thread.  

[Tank]

i wouldn't trade trout now, but if things continue (like this year is likely go) for the next year or two, you have to consider it.

[Adam]

Best case scenario is they are over .500 in 2018. 

Next year's FA crop is shit

[AngelsLakersFan]

1 hour ago, Stradling said:

We have no idea what Trout wants or what.   drives him.  Here's what we know.  He was committed enough to sign the five year deal he signed.  We also know that he wanted a 13 year deal but the Angels balked at it.  Trout may want to build something here rather than go somewhere where he is the finishing piece.  We don't know any of this.  

You gotta wonder, sitting down next to Pujols every day, just how many times Albert has told him that he never should've left St. Louis.

[Stradling]

Just now, AngelsLakersFan said:

You gotta wonder, sitting down next to Pujols every day, just how many times Albert has told him that he never should've left St. Louis.

That is a lot more plausible than assuming Trout wants out now because the team is bad right now.  

[Adam]

I don't understand the unwillingness to trade Trout. I assume most of us are adults. Name of the front of the jersey, not the back and all that...

The Angels should consider it if there is a deal that offers the value. Whether that exists or not is a different story. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

1 minute ago, Adam said:

I don't understand the unwillingness to trade Trout. I assume most of us are adults. Name of the front of the jersey, not the back and all that...

The Angels should consider it if there is a deal that offers the value. Whether that exists or not is a different story. 

If the deal is there, they should do it. The deal will never be there. At least not for a few more years.

[Stradling]

Yea Adam, I have mentioned in a few different posts that it would be nearly impossible to get the value you would need to trade him.  Long story short, would you rather have Trout and a few league average guys or four Howie Kendricks?  

[mtangelsfan]

1 hour ago, Adam said:

I don't understand the unwillingness to trade Trout. I assume most of us are adults. Name of the front of the jersey, not the back and all that...

The Angels should consider it if there is a deal that offers the value. Whether that exists or not is a different story. 

 

Not sure what adulthood has to do with anything.  By definition, fandom is most likely immature.

Regardless, they would never get even close to the return they would actually need to get for him.  Certainly nothing even close to a guarantee that what they get in return will make the club good enough to compete.  Lastly, considering how many folks here think Eppler is a bad GM I don't see why he should be trusted to make the biggest trade in Angels history.  Its like Sanders supporters asking us to trust the government with more of our money.

[Troll Daddy]

1 hour ago, Stradling said:

Yea Adam, I have mentioned in a few different posts that it would be nearly impossible to get the value you would need to trade him.  Long story short, would you rather have Trout and a few league average guys or four Howie Kendricks?  

Four Howie's?

[Catwhoshatinthehat]

If I'm the Angels and serious about moving Trout any deal with the Cubs needs to include Bryant or Rizzo.  If I'm the Cubs, I don't make that trade because I don't need to.  I'm not saying Trout wouldn't be an upgrade for them rather why screw with anything when they're 25-8, loaded with young talent and poised to be competitive for years.  If anything you use your young talent to address needs as they arise like pitching help if someone gets injured.  You don't make a move for the sake of making a move especially not in baseball where one player doesn't make or break a team like it can in say the NBA or NFL (QB).     

[Adam]

21 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

 

Not sure what adulthood has to do with anything.  By definition, fandom is most likely immature.

Regardless, they would never get even close to the return they would actually need to get for him.  Certainly nothing even close to a guarantee that what they get in return will make the club good enough to compete.  Lastly, considering how many folks here think Eppler is a bad GM I don't see why he should be trusted to make the biggest trade in Angels history.  Its like Sanders supporters asking us to trust the government with more of our money.

Didn't mean it that way... My point is winning is more important than having the best player in the league. If there's a scenario in which trading trout gives the team a better chance to win, I'm all for it. 

[beatlesrule]

 Friday the 13th Fools Day?

[mp170.6]

1 hour ago, Stradling said:

That is a lot more plausible than assuming Trout wants out now because the team is bad right now.  

The fact Trout was spending the winters on the frigid east coast in his parents' house tells me he REALLY likes New Jersey. 

I would sooner say Trout bails for an east coast team because of family and the desire to be close to home.  To automatically assume he is interested in returning to the Angels after 2020 is foolish in my book. 

[Pujols4MVP]

5 hours ago, Chuckster70 said:

Obviously it's not going to happen, but for that package would you at least consider it?

Of all the teams, the Rangers, Dodgers and Cubs could actually make a deal for Trout. 

I stand by my opinion that I would not trade Trout, but for those of you who bitch about our farm system and want to win in the foreseeable future, this does get us better for the long run. 

Not unless they include Bryant or Rizzo in the package.

Would rather they keep Trout & tank for the #1 pick then give up Trout who could potentially be the 1st player to wear an Angels cap in the HOF.

Edited May 13, 2016 by Scioscia4MVP