Trade packages for Trout that would actually tempt you

[Inside Pitch]

You look at Snuffy Stirnweiss's first two full seasons and he looks a lot like a sure fire lock for a great career. Makes you wonder what happened to him until you realize the war in Europe ended, all the regular players returned and he became Reggie Willits against real pitching.

 

I looked at his numbers and then looked him up on Wiki having never heard of him.  That dude had one hell of a neat life.  All American Halfback at NC Chapel Hill, decides to play baseball, wins a batting title, plays in three WS and two ASGs, retires and then dies when his train goes off a bridge.

A lot of living in his 39 years. 

[Angelsjunky]

Great name, although maybe more for a hat salesman than a baseball player.

[ukyah]

Fernandez and Stanton. Damn, that would be a nice return.

 

 

that's the worst return of all of the trades he envisioned.

[mancini79]

I wouldn't trade Trout even if it would end world hunger.

[yk9001]

Some further research: Players with 9+ fWAR since 1871.

 

133 total player seasons

55 players

25 players with multiple 9+ fWAR seasons

 

Here are those 25 players, listed by number of 9+ fWAR seasons:

 

10 Babe Ruth

9 Rogers Hornsby

7 Willie Mays

6 Lou Gehrig, Barry Bonds, Honus Wagner, Ted Williams, Ty Cobb, Alex Rodriguez

4 Stan Musial, Mickey Mantle, Eddie Collins

3 Joe Morgan, Mike Schmidt

2 Jimmie Foxx, Carl Yasztremski, Tris Speaker, Cal Ripken, Rickey Henderson, Joe DiMaggio, Ken Griffey Jr, Jackie Robinson, Nap Lajoie, Joe Jackson, Mike Trout

 

The nice thing about this list is that it gives a broader range of players - all still great, but some in the not-so-inner circle elite. Looking at players with 2 or more is important because it cuts out the fluke seasons like Jacoby Ellsbury, Norm Cash, Rico Petrocelli, and Snuffy Stirnweiss (!).

 

But the point is, even expanding the comparables to multiple 9+ fWAR seasons and you get a list of all Hall of Famers or HoF caliber players.

 

As an aside, it is interesting to note who has never had a 9+ fWAR season, including Hank Aaron (8.9 is his highest), Wade Boggs (also 8.9), Eddie Mathews (8.7), Mel Ott (8.7), Frank Robinson (8.2) and a few other all-time greats. There's no shame in that as anything over about 7 is a truly great year with 5 being allstar caliber.

 

Who was tracking the UZR in 1871?

[AngelsLakersFan]

 

 

Also to use fWAR as a measuring stick for Trout and the greats is a little disingenuous considering fWAR takes into account peripherals that were never accounted for except for the Bonds era. How much better of a player was Mays, Mantle and even Williams if they were allotted the same complete stat lines as what is used to measure Mike Trout?

 

We are just going to have to put one group in one category and that is the legacy players that you will never have a true bearing on their greatness and the modern day player that we can speculate by the metrics available. Trout is a better player than any of his peers, he may not be better than his predecessors against their peers.

 

Williams would probably drop back a bit due to his reputation as a poor defender. Mantle probably puts up similar defensive numbers to Trout earlier in his career and I'm sure Mays would've seen a huge boost.

 

Of course I also don't believe the old timers played against the same level of competition we see in MLB today.

[AngelsLakersFan]

There is no way we could get equal value to Trout in a trade.

 

First of all teams would trade for Trout based on the assumption that he is more like an 8 WAR true talent player, with everything else being upside. Contract wise that means we should expect to receive about 8 WAR back over the next 4 years, all at team controlled and arbitration prices.

 

The problem then is that 8 WAR from a single position is more valuable than 4 war from two positions, not to mention the fact that the 8 WAR we expect to get back should be on the low end of their recent performance, not a high end upside value. We shouldn't be looking at top prospects in this case, unless they are the third best player in a deal.

 

If I'm trading Trout I'd expect to get three 4-6 WAR players back in return, with similar contract statuses. I don't think any team has that to offer. We don't really have much trouble filling spots in the lineup with guys who can put up 2 WAR over a full season, so that value needs to be considered in a trade. Our total team WAR would probably stay the same in this scenario.

 

I believe in another thread I said Strasberg, Heyward and Sale would be a pretty reasonable offer.

[Mark68]

I don't think its as far-fetched an idea as you think, or at least it may be that you underestimate just how great Trout has been and just how high his trade value is right now.

 

Chances are the Nationals probably wouldn't do it, but if Jerry gave them the call it would give them pause.

 

But consider the following:

 

- Bryce Harper is enormously talented, but as of this point he's "only" been very good and a good chunk of that talent remains potential. Plus there's the nagging concern that, due to his style of play, he'll spend a fair amount of time on the DL. Plus, knee concerns at 21 isn't a good sign.

- Stephen Strasburg looked like the second coming of Roger Clemens a couple years ago, but since TJ surgery he's been more like the second coming of John Lackey. OK, he's got more potential than that, but whereas a few years ago he looked like a surefire #1 and Cy Young candidate, over the last two years he's looked more like a #2 starter - still very good, but not Clemens-esque.

- Mike Trout's potential is actualized. He's the best player in the game and has just had two better seasons, by fWAR, than any active player in the game.

 

So while Harper and Strasburg are excellent young players, they both come with question marks and Trout is doing things that only the greatest players in the game have ever done. Don't believe me? Well continue reading...

 

Here's where it gets really hokey: Trout's first two full seasons are two of only 51 10+ fWAR seasons since 1871. Let me put that slightly differently: in 163 years of major league baseball history, there have only be 51 player seasons that are as good or better than Trout's first two full seasons. Furthermore, he is one of only 21 position players to ever accomplish the feat, and one of only 10 to ever accomplish it twice. Who are the other nine? Get a load of this list (with their number of 10 fWAR seasons in parentheses): Babe Ruth (9), Rogers Hornsby (6), Barry Bonds (5), Ted Williams (4), Willie Mays (4), Ty Cobb (3), Mickey Mantle (3), Honus Wagner (2), and Lou Gehrig (2). Oh, and just we can see it: Mike Trout (2).

 

Here's something totally insane: all nine of those players are within the top 13 all-time for position player fWAR (the other four in the top 13 are Hank Aaron, Tris Speaker, Stan Musial, and Eddie Collins).

 

So, in other words, Trout is doing things that only the very best of the best have done - and I'm not just talking merely your garden variety great players, but the Baker's Dozen best of all time! Ruth is the consensus best player of all time, and certainly the best right fielder; Bonds, Williams and Musial are considered the three best left fielders; Cobb, Mays, and Mantle are considered the three best center fielders; Wagner is considered the best shortstop, and Gehrig the best first baseman.

 

So it seems at least possible that Trout will end up as one of the twenty greatest players in the history of the game. Let me put it this way: he's been so good the last two seasons that if he doesn't then his career will be considered disappointing, at least considering the precedents. But even if he falls a bit from his pace, he's almost certainly going to be among the fifty or so greatest players of all time, and probably one of the twenty or so greatest outfielders. In other words, if he falls from that inner circle elite, then he'll probably be in the next group with the Rickey Hendersons and Frank Robinsons of the world.

 

So consider one more thing. He's already done something - had multiple 10+ fWAR seasons - that only the three greatest center fielders of all time have done. If he has another 10+ fWAR season, he'll be tied with Cobb and Mantle for 3; two more and he'll be tied with Mays; three more and he'll have more 10+ fWAR seasons than any center fielder in the history of the game! In other words, he only needs to have three more seasons as good as his first two to do something that no center fielder has ever done, and only three other players - Ruth, Hornsby, and Bonds - have ever done. I'm not saying he'll do it, but he has a good chance to.

 

So now you tell me, who is drunk? Trout's value should not be underestimated.

That would be Barry Bonds (5)*.

 

As for the above-mentioned potential trades, I wouldn't mind (too much) the Twins, Pirates, or Cards ideas, but probably would prefer the NL teams, just so we only have to have him play us every 3-4 years.

[Mark68]

I wouldn't trade Trout even if it would end world hunger.

Selfish.

[Brent Maguire]

It's crazy to think that an elite player like Cano is basically worth half the value Trout is worth.

That's how far ahead Trout is of any other player in baseball.

[gurn67]

Any deal for Trout better include the other team taking the rest of the Pujols, Hamilton & Blanton contracts with him.

[xboom28x]

I would trade Trout to the Cardinals.... for the Cardinals.

[Brent Maguire]

I would trade Trout to the Cardinals.... for the Cardinals.

And the Cardinals version of Pujols as well. Edited December 28, 2013 by Angels_Baseball

[Docwaukee]

A couple of interesting things to consider in terms of where Trout is relative to his peers. Trout obviously has the highest WAR total for age 20 and 21 seasons but of AJ's list of players with multiple 9+ fWAR seasons, only Eddie Collins had back to back to start his career (age 22,23) like Trout, and it's arguable in that Collins got 375 PA as a 21yo the year before. You could also argue that Ruth did it at age 24/25 upon becoming a full time position player, but had at least a full season's worth of at bats prior to those two years as a pitcher.

 

What Trout is doing relative to his peers at his age when taking into account the level of competition, training, scouting, and just general game specialization is truly unprecedented.

 

So in order to obtain equal value, there has to be a historical measure added to what the player is worth. To the team, franchise, and the game of baseball.

 

But let's play the game and try to determine if you could actually just replace his value on the field without taking those other things into account. So far, Trout is a 10 WAR per year player which is mind numbing in and of itself. Let's say if you were going to sign him to a long term deal it would be for 10 years.

 

Now, let's assume that he's good for an average of 8 fWAR per year over those 10 years. I know it's hard to assume that, but it's also hard to believe that a player could give you 20 fWAR from his age 20/21 seasons, so this could actually be conservative as it make him worse than he has been for the peak of his career.

 

So that's 80 WAR over the next 10 years that you need to replace. But you can't just add up the expected WAR of each of the players you are getting in return. You have to subtract out the WAR from the player they are likely to replace over that time, and that is not an insignificant consideration as the halos have fairly substantial financial resources to fill positions with solid players.

 

About the lowest avg WAR per year a position player or pitcher would have is about 1.0. But over a ten year span, I would assume that if a player had a WAR of 1, the halos would replace them pretty quickly. So the average for any position over a ten year span is probably about 2.0 WAR.

 

Let's assume that we get four players in the deal. One replacing Trout, and the other three replacing a couple of pitchers and one position player (each would have been good for 2.0 WAR for the next ten years or an additional 60 WAR). ie, the haul would have to account for about 140 WAR over the next ten years or about 35 WAR per player.

 

So we would need 40 player seasons of 3.5 WAR from those 4 players. The halos have six players in franchise history that accumulated greater than 35 WAR for their Halo career. Two pitchers, and four position players.

 

The Yankees, arguably the most storied franchise in baseball with over 100 seasons of the most notable players in the game have 31. Bear in mind, that is a cumulative number for those players careers. Not just a 10 year span.

 

Nope.

Edited December 28, 2013 by Dochalo

[ELEVEN]

A couple of interesting things to consider in terms of where Trout is relative to his peers. Trout obviously has the highest WAR total for age 20 and 21 seasons but of AJ's list of players with multiple 9+ fWAR seasons, only Eddie Collins had back to back to start his career (age 22,23) like Trout, and it's arguable in that Collins got 375 PA as a 21yo the year before. You could also argue that Ruth did it at age 24/25 upon becoming a full time position player, but had at least a full season's worth of at bats prior to those two years as a pitcher.

 

What Trout is doing relative to his peers at his age when taking into account the level of competition, training, scouting, and just general game specialization is truly unprecedented.

 

So in order to obtain equal value, there has to be a historical measure added to what the player is worth. To the team, franchise, and the game of baseball.

 

But let's play the game and try to determine if you could actually just replace his value on the field without taking those other things into account. So far, Trout is a 10 WAR per year player which is mind numbing in and of itself. Let's say if you were going to sign him to a long term deal it would be for 10 years.

 

Now, let's assume that he's good for an average of 8 fWAR per year over those 10 years. I know it's hard to assume that, but it's also hard to believe that a player could give you 20 fWAR from his age 20/21 seasons, so this could actually be conservative as it make him worse than he has been for the peak of his career.

 

So that's 80 WAR over the next 10 years that you need to replace. But you can't just add up the expected WAR of each of the players you are getting in return. You have to subtract out the WAR from the player they are likely to replace over that time, and that is not an insignificant consideration as the halos have fairly substantial financial resources to fill positions with solid players.

 

About the lowest avg WAR per year a position player or pitcher would have is about 1.0. But over a ten year span, I would assume that if a player had a WAR of 1, the halos would replace them pretty quickly. So the average for any position over a ten year span is probably about 2.0 WAR.

 

Let's assume that we get four players in the deal. One replacing Trout, and the other three replacing a couple of pitchers and one position player (each would have been good for 2.0 WAR for the next ten years or an additional 60 WAR). ie, the haul would have to account for about 140 WAR over the next ten years or about 35 WAR per player.

 

So we would need 40 player seasons of 3.5 WAR from those 4 players. The halos have six players in franchise history that accumulated greater than 35 WAR for their Halo career. Two pitchers, and four position players.

 

The Yankees, arguably the most storied franchise in baseball with over 100 seasons of the most notable players in the game have 31. Bear in mind, that is a cumulative number for those players careers. Not just a 10 year span.

 

Nope.

/concept

[fan_since79]

Rays: Price, Longoria, and Cobb. 

[Brent Maguire]

Reds could offer up Bruce, Latos, Cingrani, Stephenson and Chapman. I think it takes that type of return to even consider trading Trout.

[ten ocho recon scout]

I wouldn't trade Trout even if it would end world hunger.

not even sure trout could do that. 'Give a man a fish' and all.

[ten ocho recon scout]

I would trade trout. For the dodgers media deal.

This is a fun little thread. I get what AJ is getting at, and his ideas are probably about as close to realistic as the imagination realitt could be.

The reality is this though. In order to get equal return on his upside, cost and actual performance, you would have to completely pillage the other guy. Why would the other guy do it?

the st lou idea is interesting. They have the depth to move wacha or miller. They can replace rosenthal and tavares is just a posext at this point. That being said, if tavares can realistically be expected to be a star player (not trout, but fringe all star), why would they trade the gap between him and trout to downgrade in pitching? (Not to memtion that as good as a return as that is, it would in no way justify losing trout).

I agree with whoever said the real question is would you trade trout, and lets say we know for a fact that he will have a hall of fame career but no rings, for lets say one ring? Even then....you could argue both sides.

[Angel Oracle]

Trade Trout, and Moreno might as well change his name to Harry Frazee.

[nikkachez]

Xander Bogaerts, Henry Owens, Jackie Bradley Jr., one of Anthony Ranaudo or Matt Barnes, and Brandon Workman from Boston or Kris Bryant, Albert Almora, Starlin Castro, and a stud pitcher in a three way deal with Chicago. So basically it's not happening

[m0nkey]

I don't know if the marlins, nationals, and twins do those deals

[DW711]

Just out of curiosity.

 

On a scale 1-10. 1 being it'd favor the A's most and 10 being it'd favor the Angels most....Josh Donaldson, Sonny Gray and Addison Russell for Trout?

[m0nkey]

A two for me, could go with three. Addison russell makes it not a 1. He's going to be a star

[Season Over]

I think they would consider Posey/Bumgarner for a second but ultimately say no.

Edited December 29, 2013 by Season Over