If you were the Red Sox what would you be willing to give up for Trout?

[FrozenRopes]

still too little. We're talking about Mike Trout here

 

Exactly, Trout and Harper demand astronomical return.

[Jonn]

Mike Trout will never be traded unless he demands one.

[Stangstag]

Baez, Bryant and Russell - done deal.

 

If you have to trade Bryant +... Why even bother at that point?

[Jimcanuck]

Baez, Bryant and Russell - done deal.

 

massive overpay, angels would be all over that one

[Brownie19]

If you have to trade Bryant +... Why even bother at that point?

 

Because Trout may be the best player of all time...

[Brownie19]

massive overpay, angels would be all over that one

 

jesus - I'm just throwing s*** out there. Is Betts/Bogaerts really that much worse than Bryant/Russell? I mean adding in Benintendi would even that out quite a bit I think.

[The Cats Ass]

Because Trout may be the best player of all time...

 

1 injury can change that.

[Terminator]

I dunno. I could see it making sense for LA. They won't be good anytime soon and they could deal Trout for real impact talent that the Red Sox definitely do possess.

 

What would be the odds of moving him this season in your opinion? I'd say probably above 0% but not by much. Next year I wouldn't imagine it being much higher either.

 

When he gets to 1 or 2 years left on his deal and if they still suck then I could see them trading him.

[Brownie19]

If you have to trade Bryant +... Why even bother at that point?

 

Well they are the same age and Trout was 34.8% "better" than Bryant was last year in terms of WAR - and has "proven" he can make the necessary adjustments to remain amazing even after the league adjusts to his weaknesses...

[Cyborg]

massive overpay, angels would be all over that one

 

No thats not massive. Its actually practical and maybe a bit light.

[L54]

The Angels should absolutely entertain the idea of moving Trout. He's the only player who can save that franchise, ironically enough it's by not playing for them.

 

Most likely scenario is they just hold onto him for a couple of years and trade him mid season 2018 or whatever.

[Jimcanuck]

No thats not massive. Its actually practical and maybe a bit light.

 

Come on. More years of control and collectively far higher annual WAR than Trout alone.

[Cyborg]

Come on. More years of control and collectively far higher annual WAR than Trout alone.

 

Collective WAR sure. Except with Trout you still have places to add other WAR at two positions. Hes more valuable.

[Cyborg]

Come on. More years of control and collectively far higher annual WAR than Trout alone.

 

Far higher is also a stretch. If Trout is 9 WAR and Bryant is 5 then that means 4 WAR from Russell and Baez. It would be close.

[Jimcanuck]

Far higher is also a stretch. If Trout is 9 WAR and Bryant is 5 then that means 4 WAR from Russell and Baez. It would be close.

 

Bryant was 6.5 WAR in his ROOKIE year, and 1.7 already this year.

[burlingtonbandit]

If the Sox offered Betts, Moncada, Devers, Espinoza, Benintendi it would certainly get the Angels thinking of a trade. If I was the Angels and the Sox added a couple more low end prospects I think I might actually do that.

[Boxcar]

What would be the odds of moving him this season in your opinion? I'd say probably above 0% but not by much. Next year I wouldn't imagine it being much higher either.

 

When he gets to 1 or 2 years left on his deal and if they still suck then I could see them trading him.

 

I agree with you mostly on the likelihood of it happening (mostly) but I'm saying it could make sense for both teams pretty easily, and it's definitely a topic worth exploring.

[Nafro]

massive overpay, angels would be all over that one

 

That certainly isn't a massive overpay. I would ask for Bryant, Russell, Almora, Torres and Oscar De La Cruz.

 

I think the only thing that would justify trading Trout would be filling multiple holes on their Major League team and replenishing the farm system.

[Nafro]

So since this conversation has been put out there, we'll enter into fantasy world. I traded Mike Trout in a 30 team dynasty for as follows ; Michael Conforto, Jonathan Schoop, Tom Murphy, Sonny Gray, Steven Matz, Ken Giles, Rafael Devers and one mid round picks (6 round draft).

 

This has no basis on reality and doesn't show market value, but thought it would be neat to add to the conversation.

[Stangstag]

Well they are the same age and Trout was 34.8% "better" than Bryant was last year in terms of WAR - and has "proven" he can make the necessary adjustments to remain amazing even after the league adjusts to his weaknesses...

 

Yes but Bryant has 6 years of control left, and is ALOT cheaper than Trout. Add in some guys like Russell etc. who also have lots of control, and I don't really see that point in a trade like that.

 

Also, injuries can derail a career. You just never know.

[CrackerJack]

Stroman, Sanchez, Pillar, Pompey & Colabello for Trout.

[FrozenRopes]

Trout is the Chuck Norris of baseball, he's priceless

[crazy47larry]

Because Trout may be the best player of all time...

 

i feel like people dont realize THIS FACT

[Nafro]

Stroman, Sanchez, Pillar, Pompey & Colabello for Trout.

 

The inclusion of Colabello causes the Angels to say yes.

[SAAviour]

Can we get two of those top prospects from Boston for Bautista, then flip the prospects with Stroman or Sanchez, Pompey or Alford, Pillar...and as I type this I realize it's not even close to enough so never mind.

 

The angels should ask for the moon, get close to the deal, and just before shaking hands say, 'by the way, your taking Pujols as well.' Then I believe it would be worth trading Trout.

[Boxcar]

Can we get two of those top prospects from Boston for Bautista, then flip the prospects with Stroman or Sanchez, Pompey or Alford, Pillar...and as I type this I realize it's not even close to enough so never mind.

 

The angels should ask for the moon, get close to the deal, and just before shaking hands say, 'by the way, your taking Pujols as well.' Then I believe it would be worth trading Trout.

 

There's absolutely no way the Sox are giving up Benintendi, Moncada, Espinoza, or Betts for Bautista. Maybe Devers but not much more than that.

[GD]

So since this conversation has been put out there, we'll enter into fantasy world. I traded Mike Trout in a 30 team dynasty for as follows ; Michael Conforto, Jonathan Schoop, Tom Murphy, Sonny Gray, Steven Matz, Ken Giles, Rafael Devers and one mid round picks (6 round draft).

 

This has no basis on reality and doesn't show market value, but thought it would be neat to add to the conversation.

 

How have you not repressed this memory yet?

[Nafro]

How have you not repressed this memory yet?

 

Because every time, I look at my roster and than see you below me in the standings, I feel better about it.

 

Yeah I'm going to eat those words, I'm sure.

[thatoneguy]

http://nesn.com/2016/05/mike-trout-angels-scoff-at-idea-of-trade-you-do-not-move-superstar-players/

 

Mike Trout, Angels Scoff At Idea Of Trade: ‘You Do Not Move Superstar Players’

 

...that's not what the Athletics thought hehehehe...

[4thOFan]

Red Sox dont need Trout. Bradley is nearly as good and it's not worth giving up Bogaerts and/or Betts + Moncada/Benintendi/Espinoza to make up the difference. People might not realize the season Bogaerts is having and is still just 23.