Should The Angels Consider Trading Mike Trout?


  • Ruby REd Coat - 6 years ago

    Kershaw for trout

  • SJM - 7 years ago

    Trout for arod

  • SJM - 7 years ago

    Trout for arod

  • Stephen M. Kerr - 7 years ago

    Fire Mike Sciopath

  • Danny Henderson - 7 years ago

    It's easy to see that people who say that the Angels should trade Mike Trout are fans of other teams and they are selfish and stupid enough to say that it would be in the best interest of baseball and the Angels to do what serves their team best! If he gets traded, how about they trade him to their teams most hated rival? I'll bet they'd change their tune about what's good for MLB and the Angels if that were to happen!
    The Dodgers, Cubs or Nationals? How about the Giants, Cardinals or Mets instead? Suddenly those same people would have different opinions about trading Mike Trout being good for MLB and the Angels!
    The best thing for MLB and the Angels is to not trade the first player that will enter the Hall of Fame wearing an Angels hat if they keep him!!! Trading him is not going to get the others on the team to step up their game, which is what needs to happen! The Angels haven't done well with trades and they greatly overpaid for Andrelton Simmons! Simmons is a great talent but he would have to hit .325 and score 100 runs in each of the next five years to justify what they paid for him! They gave up possibly three Cy Young awards in the future and an all star shortstop for Simmons! No! I don't want to see the Angels making any trades! Least of all Mike Trout!!!
    No apologies for him not going to "your" favorite team!!!
    How about this trade cubby fans, Rizzo, Bryant and Arrietta for Trout? All of a sudden you changed your mind about Trout being traded to the Cubs being in the best interest of MLB!!!
    How about Conforto and two stud pitchers to bring him to the Mets? How about Toronto or Texas? Either one of those teams might possibly go undefeated for the next five years with him in their lineup everyday! The problem is that interested teams are not going to be add him to their current lineup! They would have to give up a substantial part of their lineup to get him! You won't get him for anything less than three potent bats from your current lineup and probably a solid pitcher as well! Do you still think that it's in the best interests of MLB even if he does go to your team? He absolutely cannot be added to your current lineup! You would have to destroy your lineup to add him! Mike stays in Anaheim!!!

  • bob sparky - 7 years ago

    Rebuild around the best player in baseball!!!!!

  • Gary Rogers - 7 years ago

    Trout and Bandy to the Braves for Aybar,Inciarte,Grilli,Pierzynski and Prospects Newcombe,Toussaint and Thurman

  • GilaGator - 7 years ago

    What would be better is for Arte to stay out of ALL free agent signings; he was responsible for the terrible contracts of Gary Matthews Jr (then a year later sign Tori Hunter) Albert, Hamilon (when they should've resigned Hunter) and Wilson.

    They're currently playing $70M to 3 players; 2 on the DL (one who's with another team) and 1 that barely touches 80mph.

    I love Arte's passion as an owner, but he needs to be more like Cuban. Leave the baseball decisions to the baseball people & stop paying for players that don't play for you anymore.

    Historically the wasted deadline trades of both Greinke & Texiera were just that, wasted.

    The small payroll teams who are filled with players who played at various levels together are winning (kinda like the 2002 Angels).

    But, for the love of everything holy, do not trade a player bc the haul could possibly be tremendous. The things he brings off the field as just as important.

  • Tom C. - 7 years ago

    First of all the Angels will NEVER trade Trout within the AL West, probably not even to any AL team. They don't want to play against him. Secondly, Trout makes a ton of money FOR the Angels who market him non-stop all season long. Fox will pay many many more millions for broadcast rights renewal if Trout is on the team too. It's a lot more than just his on field value to consider.

  • Carl Allen - 7 years ago

    I'm not one that believes any player should be "untouchable" especially when your team is out of contention and you could command a haul for one player.

    That being said, from the perspective of the Angels, the short-term revolt probably doesn't merit the long-term benefit of this trade.

  • Jimbo - 7 years ago

    There are not enough prospects and active roster players to make trading the Face Of MLB and the Angels even seem doable! Arte just has to step up and bite the bullet and spend a little over the next two years. He will see that he can still win now to compensate for going over the luxury Tax as the big contracts, Weaver, CJ Wilson and Hamilton"s come off the books. Remember, It was Arte who could not get more for Hamilton but it was also Arte that wanted him to begin with. Trade for Braun, Spend some on Lincecomb and Losch on two year incentive deals. Find a way to bring back Aybar and put him at 2nd where the braves have been playing him. He has been very unproductive in Atlanta and needs to be back with his family here with the Angels. Trade Johnny G and throw in our $8,000,000 signing bonus baby from Cuba who is an up and comer if with the right organization. Who's to say that when CJ does come back. That he is not going to be good this year???? Arte needs to just let Eppler do what he let Dipoto do. Spend a little and draft well. I like Braun in left and Milwaukee has said they will eat some of his contract. Just do it and STOP This TRADE STUFF about Trout!!!

  • Kingcannsly - 7 years ago

    Trout to the Chicago Cubs......he might hit 80 home runs....Trout to the Houston Astros......Anaheim could raid Houston's farm system ...the guy is gonna be Ernie Banks in Disneyland.....Baseball would be better off... that talent buried in Houston gets a chance to play and Trout in the October baseball should want its best talent playing not riding the Matterhorn at Disneyland....

  • Chris - 7 years ago

    So 100 years ago, the Red Sox traded their best player. How did that work out? Trout has not even hit his peak years yet. Why give that to another team for unproven prospects? The Angels will be cursed for a century if they trade Trout.

  • Ethan - 7 years ago

    No player should ever be immune to a rebuilding process. Arrogant to think otherwise.

  • Allen - 7 years ago

    It would be horrible, but it may end up being worth while to send him away. I'd personally get rid of Pujols before Trout though. Resupply the farm system, and get a mediocre 1st baseman with 2 prospect in return for Pujols. Not sure what his contract looks like in the small print, but if possible, I'd say goodbye to Pujols.

  • Curley Michael - 7 years ago

    Trout is our Jeter we need him. If you trade him not only will we lose the 120 + runs we get with him & + his defense , we still have to possibly play him. I agree, with Sean. You don't throw away possibly the best player in a generation. You should not even be thinking about trading Trout. The best teams play thru diversity & injuries. And that's the way I want to feel about the ANGELS again & get that bad taste out of my mouth after they threw away the Championship team. PS the reason there are more yes trade him is because them rangers are voting too. Look what happen to us the last time Mike please don't go 57 & a life time ANGELS FAN

  • John - 7 years ago

    Sure I'd trade him. For Bryant, Baez, Russell, and the Cubs top two prospects. Other than that, no. The only people screaming for him to be traded are east coast writers and fans that are mad he doesn't play for the yanks, Red Sox, or Cubs.

  • Mike - 7 years ago

    You absolutely do not trade Trout. I would rather see the entire team be traded before him. If you want to end up like Oakland and have an empty stadium, then do it, but he is the franchise. If they trade him away, they will lose out on so much more money than his underpaid contract because of the fans that would boycott the team. He is untouchable and should sign a contract that keeps him in Anaheim for his career. The mastermind behind the fantastic contracts of Pujols and Hamilton needs to figure this out or else the fans if the Halos will be calling for his head. For starters, renegotiate Trouts contract to guarantee him that he is the highest paid player in the bigs for the next 10 years and then build around him (again). The draft is coming up soon, and they better get nothing but pitchers. No more wash out players, no more large contracts for anyone else and certainly do not sign Lincecum to a big deal, he isnt that good anymore!

  • vince - 7 years ago

    Send him home.

  • Jim - 7 years ago

    Only an IDIOT would trade Trout. The Bucks tried it with Kareem and the Oilers tried it with Gretzky and neither team had won since. Trading Trout would be like the Red Sox trading Ted Willians or the Cubs trading Ernie Banks. Trout is that good

  • Jim - 7 years ago

    Only an IDIOT would trade Trout. The Bucks tried it with Kareem and the Oilers tried it with Gretzky and neither team had won since. Trading Trout would be like the Red Sox trading Ted Willians or the Cubs trading Ernie Banks. Trout is that good

  • Barbara Schriebman - 7 years ago

    Trading Trout would be enough to have me, personally, not continue to be a fan(and I am longtime and avid). That is the worst thing I have ever heard. Trout is a once in a lifetime player( hasn't even reached his peak). He is a player you build around(i.e. Stanton), not trade.

  • Snowcourt - 7 years ago

    The Rangers have the high upside prospects that are also nearly ready to step into the Angels lineup. Gallo is at AAA. Mazara is in the bigs. Profar is healthy again at AAA. They could even throw in the #4 overall pick in last years draft in Dillion Tate. This is a WIN-WIN trade that helps the Halos now, and doesn't hurt the current make up of the Rangers.

  • Tom - 7 years ago

    In this day & age, nothing should be off the table. What if they could get DeGrom, Syndergaard, & Matz from the Mets & include Pujols with Trout where Mets agree to absorb 50% of the remaining cost. The Angels would have a fresh super staff & boatloads of cash to reload w/ hitters after this season & next. Not saying Mets would do it, but if they would, Angels should jump on it!

  • Tom - 7 years ago

    In this day & age, nothing should be off the table. What if they could get DeGrom, Syndergaard, & Matz from the Mets & include Pujols with Trout where Mets absorb agree to absorb 50% of the remaining cost. The Angels would have a fresh super staff & boatloads of cash to reload w/ hitters after this season & next. Not saying Meys would do it, but if they would, Angels should jump on it!

  • George Kaplan - 7 years ago

    Presumably, fans of 29 other teams are favoring the Angels trading Trout. We all recall the Marlins dramatic turnaround when they received Maybin, Miller, Badenhop, and three other guys who saw little or no MLB service before leaving the game. I know we all remember how the haul of formerly untouchable prospects made the Marlins the top franchise in the NL East.

    Prospects are nothing more than prospects. Trout is the real thing. There is no conceivable trade scenario which could justify the Angels moving Trout.

  • Dennis - 7 years ago

    How about the new GM start doing his job and find some good pitchers, start running the farm system pitchers up and try all of them never no what you will find.

  • Dylan sattler - 7 years ago

    If the Angels look to be out of the West and Wild Card race nearing the deadline, I think they absolutely need to consider trading him. If not they will at least be wasting this year and possibly 1-2 more of non competitive teams. He is a superstar, yes, but he cannot win a world by himself. If management is stubborn and wait another two years to consider trading him, they will lose out on an enormous haul they could get this year. A haul that it would require would set the Angels up nicely for the long term. Or they could suffer through the 3-4 more underperforming seasons and lose him for nothing at the end of his contract. There's no way he signs an extension before then.

  • Jlad - 7 years ago

    There's a price for everything but unless the offer is absurdly good you can't trade Trout. The chances of finding another player like him via a trade for prospects is slim to none. He's a once in a generation type player. Again, there's a price for everything/everyone but you better be damn sure you're getting good value and not just gambling on prospects.

  • Peter - 7 years ago

    The whole twins staff for trout. Lol jk... seriously tho

  • Ryan - 7 years ago

    Trout is like training wheels on a bicycle. Sometimes you realize that the thing that should be helping you along is only most useful when you eventually part with it.

  • Will - 7 years ago

    Ross, Myers, Renfroe, and Margot for Trout. Make it happen Preller!

  • Yuki Taga - 7 years ago

    If they can get the world for him, sure. If not, of course not. A simple yes or no answer will not suffice.

    Frankly, the prices cited above are ridiculously high. Only a team with a loaded farm system that felt it was one superstar from a championship would be interested. And that team might have to have a poor front office, too. :)

  • Austin - 7 years ago

    The future is what matters for the angles and I don't see trout in it

  • Nick - 7 years ago

    This is why draft picks need to be tradable b.c the angels would be able to swap him for a few first rounds and a couple top prospects

  • Sean - 7 years ago

    Tou do not trade the best player of a generation. The face of baseball. One who puts butts in seats, whose every at bat has the potential to amaze. One ace pitcher going down cannot dictate that. A few bad fa signings should not dictate that.

Leave a Comment

0/4000 chars

Submit Comment