Official Trout Appreciation Thread

[Stradling]

1 minute ago, Blarg said:

He was the greatest player until 4 years ago when he ceased to contribute even as much as part time. I still have his rookie catch in Baltimore as my computer screen background. That was a long time ago. 

I'd rather see the Angels in the World Series. 

Cool

[T.G.]

29 minutes ago, Blarg said:

I'd rather see the Angels in the World Series. 

I'd rather see Kate Beckinsale... never mind.

[The Ghost of Bob Starr]

2 hours ago, Ron Mexico said:

Tells me all I need to know about the value of bWar.   And don’t come at me stat nerds.  I’m sure the logic is there.  Unfortunately, the games played tells a different story.  
 

White hot meteorite that didn’t burn very long. 

[The Ghost of Bob Starr]

1 hour ago, Stradling said:

He’s the greatest baseball player I’ve ever seen. In that thread a few years back I voted I’d rather see him remain an Angel for life than win another World Series. Nothing has changed that opinion. I absolutely miss dominant Trout. 

You think Trout better than Pujols?  Prime for prime, Albert may be better but I’m not looking at stats and there’s noting wrong with your opinion.  

“Greatest player I’ve ever seen” is a very strong statement and you’ve seen guys for a very long time.  

I don’t know how I’d answer that   Some amazing stats on certain players that are mind blowing.  
 

tony Gwynn comes to mind  

 

 

[Dtwncbad]

Man I hate to be negative, but it’s just kinda sad that Angel fans have not much of anything better to talk about than how they still have an overall appreciation for a guy that won’t play until next year.

[Jay]

We saw the best of Trout before he signed the mega deal. That's turning out to be a bad contract.

[tdawg87]

10 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Man I hate to be negative, but it’s just kinda sad that Angel fans have not much of anything better to talk about than how they still have an overall appreciation for a guy that won’t play until next year.

What else is there to talk about

[T.G.]

22 minutes ago, The Ghost of Bob Starr said:

You think Trout better than Pujols?  Prime for prime, Albert may be better but I’m not looking at stats and there’s noting wrong with your opinion.  

“Greatest player I’ve ever seen” is a very strong statement and you’ve seen guys for a very long time.  

I don’t know how I’d answer that   Some amazing stats on certain players that are mind blowing.  
 

tony Gwynn comes to mind 

That's a good discussion. 

Trout is the best consistently great player (pre-injury), I've ever seen from an all-around perspective.  The thing about Pujols is that he absolutely dominated baseball for periods of time.  I've seen some great ones... Alex Rodriguez (pre-roids), Barry Bonds (you know...), Junior, Rickey Henderson (under-rated), etc.  I also caught the tail end of Robert Clemente's career, Frank Robinson, Jeff Mathis and others.

 

AW is talking about Trout not because they don't have "anything better to talk about."  There are plenty of topics being discussed, this just happens to be one of them.

[Dtwncbad]

18 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

What else is there to talk about

That’s exactly what I am citing as pretty sad.  This is all we got.  Ugly, ugly days for an Angel fan.

[T.G.]

Just now, Dtwncbad said:

That’s exactly what I am citing as pretty sad.  This is all we got.  Ugly, ugly days for an Angel fan.

There are multiple topics being discussed here.

[Dtwncbad]

27 minutes ago, Jay said:

We saw the best of Trout before he signed the mega deal. That's turning out to be a bad contract.

It wouldn’t be a bad contract at all if he was coasting along at 75% of what he was.  He would be accumulating stats, still be productive, drawing fans, and easily highly marketable.

It’s only a bad contract because he doesn’t play, not because his “best” was prior to the extension.

[tdawg87]

Just now, T.G. said:

There are multiple topics being discussed here.

I mean true but most of the discussion revolves around Trout and Rendon. 

I'm just waiting for another scandal to break out, or worse...

Angels Stadium was built on a Native American burial ground, which was itself built on Aztec burial grounds, which was itself built in the exact center of a demonic mandala which has disturbed Moloch who requires numerous child sacrifices to satiate his hunger. 

Fuckin Arte.

[The Ghost of Bob Starr]

48 minutes ago, T.G. said:

That's a good discussion. 

Trout is the best consistently great player (pre-injury), I've ever seen from an all-around perspective.  The thing about Pujols is that he absolutely dominated baseball for periods of time.  I've seen some great ones... Alex Rodriguez (pre-roids), Barry Bonds (you know...), Junior, Rickey Henderson (under-rated), etc.  I also caught the tail end of Robert Clemente's career, Frank Robinson, Jeff Mathis and others.

 

AW is talking about Trout not because they don't have "anything better to talk about."  There are plenty of topics being discussed, this just happens to be one of them.

Agree with you 100-%. 

[T.G.]

11 minutes ago, The Ghost of Bob Starr said:

Agree with you 100-%. 

Jeff Mathis....

[The Ghost of Bob Starr]

2 hours ago, T.G. said:

Jeff Mathis....

I laughed. And applauded him being in the list.  Nobody handed out gum or have locker room handies better than him. 

[Jay]

18 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

It wouldn’t be a bad contract at all if he was coasting along at 75% of what he was.  He would be accumulating stats, still be productive, drawing fans, and easily highly marketable.

It’s only a bad contract because he doesn’t play, not because his “best” was prior to the extension.

Yeah it's a bad contract if the player doesn't play.

[Angelsjunky]

22 hours ago, mmc said:

The complete opposite reactions to Trout and Rendon by the fanbase is pretty hilarious.  I pretty much feel the same about both guys, I feel bad that they’ve struggled with injuries to the extent they have but I have completely given up on them being contributors and hope the Angels can somehow find a way out of their contracts.  I don’t really have an attachment to either guy as I mostly associate them with the shittiest period in my time as an Angels fan.  I barely consider them a part of the current team and I think it would be a huge mistake for management to evaluate and build the roster as though they are.

 

22 hours ago, BTH said:

The difference, as @Angelsjunky pointed out the other day is that Trout is still a very productive player when he plays. Rendon is not.

I agree with this though. They especially cannot count on Rendon for anything. None. Zero. Zilch.

I wish they’d just release him because it gets rid of any possible delusion in offseason planning where they think he can be any sort of factor.

In addition to what @BTH said about performance, another factor, and maybe the biggest one, is that Trout is "our guy," while Rendon was a rent-a-player who came to the Angels at 30 years old on a mega-contract, was really good for 52 games, then has sucked for four years. Trout, on the other hand, was a guy "we" drafted, we developed, and was fantastic for 8+ years--the best player the Angels have ever had.

 

[tdawg87]

There's no comparison between the two. 

I don't "hate" Rendon but he's given this team nothing. 

[Angelsjunky]

20 hours ago, The Ghost of Bob Starr said:

Tells me all I need to know about the value of bWar.   And don’t come at me stat nerds.  I’m sure the logic is there.  Unfortunately, the games played tells a different story.  
 

White hot meteorite that didn’t burn very long. 

Well, that's true. What WAR tells us is what we saw from 2012-19, with hints from 2020-22: Trout was consistently either the best or one of the two or three very best players for eight straight years. Not many players can say that. 

The sad fact is that five years ago, his path went the route of Griffey rather than of Mays. A healthy Trout could have been another Mays - one of the five or so greatest players in baseball history, or at least ten. Now it is looking like Trout will end his career somewhere in the 20-30 range (by WAR, which I think accurately represents his overall greatness). That's disappointing compared to top 10, but still pretty damn great.

[Angelsjunky]

3 hours ago, tdawg87 said:

There's no comparison between the two. 

I don't "hate" Rendon but he's given this team nothing. 

I hear what you are saying and obviously agree with you, but I think there is one similarity: Both are being paid huge sums of money and not delivering anything close to what they're being paid for. But obviously -- as I said above -- there is a significant difference in performance level That is, Trout still producing enough WAR over the last four years to equate with a full-time "quality regular," aka 3 WAR per year; vs. Rendon being a replacement player.

Meaning, 3 WAR / year for $37.1 million > 0.5 WAR /year for $38.6 million.

Trout is costing 12.3M per WAR, Rendon $77M per WAR. Trout is MUCH better value, even if still poor value.

[Blarg]

11 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

Trout is costing 12.3M per WAR, Rendon $77M per WAR. Trout is MUCH better value, even if still poor value.

Neither have been worth their money, let's be serious. if they are not on the field they are not producing any wins. And they are not on the field so they are equal levels of worthlessness. Polishing turds does not make them look or smell better.

[Angels 1961]

4 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Neither have been worth their money, let's be serious. if they are not on the field they are not producing any wins. And they are not on the field so they are equal levels of worthlessness. Polishing turds does not make them look or smell better.

No chit

[Angels 1961]

People writing him off already. I still have a dream of Mike getting game winning hit in a playoff game. Just like Jeff Mathis did. I've said this many times Mr. Trout is a great ambassador for the game of baseball. He will be back and be big bat again in halo lineup. 2025 welcome back Mike thread and bobblehead night. Should be in early April to be on safe side.

[Angels 1961]

24 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

I hear what you are saying and obviously agree with you, but I think there is one similarity: Both are being paid huge sums of money and not delivering anything close to what they're being paid for. But obviously -- as I said above -- there is a significant difference in performance level That is, Trout still producing enough WAR over the last four years to equate with a full-time "quality regular," aka 3 WAR per year; vs. Rendon being a replacement player.

Meaning, 3 WAR / year for $37.1 million > 0.5 WAR /year for $38.6 million.

Trout is costing 12.3M per WAR, Rendon $77M per WAR. Trout is MUCH better value, even if still poor value.

You also have to figure in Mike Trout shirts sold bringing in money. So we can sign Lorenzen in 2025.

[Angelsjunky]

1 hour ago, Blarg said:

Neither have been worth their money, let's be serious. if they are not on the field they are not producing any wins. And they are not on the field so they are equal levels of worthlessness. Polishing turds does not make them look or smell better.

And I said exactly that - the similarity being that "neither have been worth their money." But that's very black and white. Trout is still a good player and has averaged 3 WAR per year over the last four, despite playing only 41% of games. That still provides some value. 12 WAR in 266 games = 7.3 WAR per 162 games. 

That said, half of that value came just in 2022. The last two years he's produced 3.8 WAR in 111 games, which is 5.5 per 162 games. 2023 was an obviously dip, but the caveat is that he was just coming out of a long slump and raked for the last few weeks before getting hurt, and this year he didn't play enough to really assess his level.

None of this is polishing a turd, but it is pointing out the simple fact that Trout is still a good player, Rendon is not.