Mike Trout

[YodaDaSoda]

https://twitter.com/TalkinBaseball_/status/1700888109301313854?s=20

Bob Nightengale, but still….

[brewmann04]

The MLB screwed us in that draft 

[nate82]

I don’t believe Trout would wave his no trade to Milwaukee.

I think the short list is Phillies, Yankees, Mets, Dodgers, Padres and Giants.  I think the Phillies would have the best chance out of all of the teams as Trout is from the Philly area.  

[jay87shot]

My offer would be something like Yelich, Weimer, Peguaro, and Gasser ( I'd also want the Angels to pay about 50 million of his salary.

Maybe 3 team deal where we can find value like the Contreras deal.

We get Kyle Schwarber and a good prospect, the Phillies get Trout  and the Angels get Yeli, Adamas, and a bunch of prospects from Phily

[jerichoholicninja]

The Angels are going to have to eat a lot of money to move Trout.

[nate82]

44 minutes ago, jay87shot said:

My offer would be something like Yelich, Weimer, Peguaro, and Gasser ( I'd also want the Angels to pay about 50 million of his salary.

Maybe 3 team deal where we can find value like the Contreras deal.

We get Kyle Schwarber and a good prospect, the Phillies get Trout  and the Angels get Yeli, Adamas, and a bunch of prospects from Phily

I don’t see why the Angels would want Yelich or even agree to this trade.

[jay87shot]

2 hours ago, nate82 said:

I don’t see why the Angels would want Yelich or even agree to this trade.

Agreed, but to get Trout we probably need to unload Yeli. I suppose a 3 team trade wouldn't need him in however.

[wiguy94]

Angels are going to have to eat quite a bit of money to get a sizable return. Entering his age 32 season with 7/$248,150,000 left on his contract. That's a lot of money to pay a guy that has played 237 of a possible 486 games (48.8%) in his age 29-31 seasons. 

[nate82]

The Angels are going to have to eat or bring back an equivalent salary in a trade but the teams that Trout will OK a deal to is probably extremely limited.  A Trout for Stanton deal would be close money wise but probably not what the Angels would be looking for.  I think they would want someone who is closer to becoming a FA. 

Not sure the Braves would do this as it adds significantly more payroll to their team but an Ozuna + for Trout is probably what the Angels would prefer in return.  Another option would be the Phillies doing a Castellanos + for Trout.  This again would add more payroll to the Phillies but it gets them a hometown hero in Trout.  Merchandise alone would probably pay for the extra salary and penalties they would have to pay.  These trades would also have to be approved by the players being sent out. 

A Trout trade without the Angels kicking in money is going to be near impossible. 

[BrewerFan]

13 hours ago, nate82 said:

Merchandise alone would probably pay for the extra salary and penalties they would have to pay.  These trades would also have to be approved by the players being sent out. 

I don't think the Phillies would see a whole lot of money from merchandising. The revenue is divided among the teams with the team keeping more or maybe even all of what is sold IN stadium, but my understanding is that all officially licensed merchandise is equally distributed among teams. 

I'm sure Trout coming back to Philly would drive a ton of excitement, but I don't know that his merchandising would make much of a dent into his remaining money on the books. 

[CheezWizHed]

On 9/10/2023 at 11:12 AM, YodaDaSoda said:

https://twitter.com/TalkinBaseball_/status/1700888109301313854?s=20

Bob Nightengale, but still….

The Angels are open to trading Mike Trout if he indicates to them that he wants out

It is a tweet by a non-LA employee, but the optic of LAAoA putting out the notion that they are open to trading Trout without actually talking to him (i.e. if he indicates he wants out) seems pretty dysfunctional.  Kind of like a media leak hoping to seed Trout's mindset? Blah

If you haven't talked with him, you shouldn't be mentioning it to outsiders.  If you have talked with him, why add the caveat.

If the Brewers did trade for Trout, what would we do with him? Play him at DH?  How do you keep him healthy?

[BrewerFan]

7 hours ago, CheezWizHed said:

The Angels are open to trading Mike Trout if he indicates to them that he wants out

It is a tweet by a non-LA employee, but the optic of LAAoA putting out the notion that they are open to trading Trout without actually talking to him (i.e. if he indicates he wants out) seems pretty dysfunctional.  Kind of like a media leak hoping to seed Trout's mindset? Blah

If you haven't talked with him, you shouldn't be mentioning it to outsiders.  If you have talked with him, why add the caveat.

If the Brewers did trade for Trout, what would we do with him? Play him at DH?  How do you keep him healthy?

I'd guess you'd move him to LF, have him DH as often as possible and when he is in the OF, you have one of the young CFers out there? And then on top of that, I guess you tell him to just ease up a bit on the bases as the Yanks have done with Stanton. There are things I'd imagine he'd be able to do that sounds kinda overly simple, but maybe ALWAYS being such a great athlete, he hasn't felt the need to stretch or do yoga or take those extra precautions that you see a guy like LeBron or others take.

I feel like his injuries are a little bit...not exaggerated as he's clearly missed time, that's easy to quantify, but not necessarily predictive of the future. He missed 139 games on a bad calf strain that can lead to an Achilles injury. We just saw Rodgers injury and there was a Dr on Twitter talking about how a weakened calf can lead to a higher potential for calf strains, but even when KD hurt his, it was coming off a calf injury.

So that was most of '21. Then this year he gets hit with a pitch and breaks his hamate bone. That's just a brutal injury for a hitter to overcome. That's the overwhelming number of games he's missed from those two injuries. 

He's also 32 and despite his greatness, if I was actually running a team(particularly one in which he's going to account for at least 20% of the payroll) I wouldn't go with my "feeling" on that and I don't see any reasonable scenario in which the Brewers trade for him. 

The Angels HAVE to know Ohtani is not coming back at this point to even start talking about something this stupid, right? Are they just this poorly run? Leaking for no discernible reason other than covering their rear that they offered Ohtani an MRI on his elbow and he declined and now with Ohtani coming into FA and them desperate to retain him just casually throwing it out there, "hey, we'll trade the most accomplished player still playing if asks us."

 

Everything we hear as Packers fans about only winning two SBs with two HOF QBs, that organization has somehow failed to make the playoffs but once in a decade despite having the modern day Mickey Mantle and Babe Ruth on their club. So I get wanting to tear it all down, but why show your hand in early Sept? Are they hiring Rockies executives now or what?

[nate82]

9 hours ago, BrewerFan said:

I don't think the Phillies would see a whole lot of money from merchandising. The revenue is divided among the teams with the team keeping more or maybe even all of what is sold IN stadium, but my understanding is that all officially licensed merchandise is equally distributed among teams. 

I'm sure Trout coming back to Philly would drive a ton of excitement, but I don't know that his merchandising would make much of a dent into his remaining money on the books. 

It is 48% of all:

Local revenues, including gate receipts, local TV revenue, concessions, parking, sponsorships, etc, and the funds are then divided equally among all 30 teams.

From this article: https://www.blessyouboys.com/2021/12/16/22831008/mlbs-revenue-sharing-problem-and-how-to-solve-it

So the merchandising should still pay for most of Trout's contract which would be something like Trout's contract minus whoever they dump on the Angels or a third team probably Castellanos.  Each team gets about $100m a year from the shared revenue fund.  For a team like the Phillies taking on Trout's contract and removing one of their other higher priced free agent signings shouldn't be an issue.  This is also not taking into account the national revenue that the teams also get which is about $90m per team and also the sale of the MLB.tv technology that each team received this year.  I believe that was about another $90m per team.  

I don't see adding salary being an issue for the Phillies their revenue streams for merchandising and others are already strong.  Bring in someone like Trout who is from the area and you probably have a really easy marketing platform to sell enough jerseys, shirts, hats and other things that people will buy up. 

 

Back on topic now and I believe the Angels have finally realized they are not going to be competitive with their current club and are finally doing a tear down.  This has probably come about three years to late.  I don't think they had to trade Trout or not go after Ohtani but signing Rendon was a mistake and it was a mistake at the time they did it.  They haven't figured out free agency and they have gone through a few GM's trying to do everything through free agency without actually knowing what they are doing.  There is no team identity with the Angels and it shows with the on field product.  There isn't a focus on anything other than target whoever is the big name free agent for that year.  Moreno hasn't figured this out after going after Hamilton, Pujols and others.  It has been one big line of horrible free agent signings that Moreno has been apart of.  You can't fill all of your holes with free agents you have to be able to develop, trade and sign free agents not just one but you need to do at least two of the three and the Angels have failed at all three with Ohtani being the exception.  The Angels did make a good trade last year with the Phillies acquiring a really good catcher for a middle of the road OF in Marsh. 

I don't expect the Angels to get much back in return for Trout as the number of suitors for Trout is a handful of teams at best.  Some of the large market teams may also be hesitant on spending more also.  The best option really is the Phillies but that means either getting buy in from Castellanos or someone else in waiving a no trade to the Angels or getting a third team involved.  If the Angels don't want to take salary back then they are going to have to pay for a significant amount of Trout's contract and would be in a similar situation as the Rockies were with Arendao. 

[BrewerFan]

36 minutes ago, nate82 said:

It is 48% of all:

Local revenues, including gate receipts, local TV revenue, concessions, parking, sponsorships, etc, and the funds are then divided equally among all 30 teams.

From this article: https://www.blessyouboys.com/2021/12/16/22831008/mlbs-revenue-sharing-problem-and-how-to-solve-it

So the merchandising should still pay for most of Trout's contract which would be something like Trout's contract minus whoever they dump on the Angels or a third team probably Castellanos.  Each team gets about $100m a year from the shared revenue fund.  For a team like the Phillies taking on Trout's contract and removing one of their other higher priced free agent signings shouldn't be an issue.  This is also not taking into account the national revenue that the teams also get which is about $90m per team and also the sale of the MLB.tv technology that each team received this year.  I believe that was about another $90m per team.  

No, not of Merchandising. Jersey sales and such is all put into a pot and divided equally among teams. My understanding is merchandise sold in their individual team stores and...maybe online they get a larger percentage of, but I'm not even sure about those details. That'd likely be what goes into the 48% pool that's split up;

 

As for the sale of MLB.tv technology, that was 900M and 30M went to each individual team, but that's a one year payout that already took place and I really doubt would be factored in to a contract like Trout's even if it was 90M. It's still a one time payment. I'm not saying Philly couldn't handle it, just that the sale of his merchandise isn't going to be a factor. Ticket sales, TV rights when they renegotiate them, I'm sure those would go up if he went back to Philly.

But that contract and the luxury tax payments aren't going to be covered by the merchandising.  

 

https://ballarelife.com/do-mlb-players-get-paid-for-jersey-sales/

[CheezWizHed]

16 hours ago, BrewerFan said:

I feel like his injuries are a little bit...not exaggerated as he's clearly missed time, that's easy to quantify, but not necessarily predictive of the future. He missed 139 games on a bad calf strain that can lead to an Achilles injury. We just saw Rodgers injury and there was a Dr on Twitter talking about how a weakened calf can lead to a higher potential for calf strains, but even when KD hurt his, it was coming off a calf injury.

Yes, I was thinking about this a bit as I was writing up my part.  Obviously, I'm arm-chair GMing the injury situation and would hope our own people do more diligence if this was a consideration.  

But still, it doesn't really fit our MO to go get high priced aging players when we are already budget constrained and building a core of young players and have a few FAs of our own to carefully consider for the future. 

[BrewerFan]

53 minutes ago, CheezWizHed said:

Yes, I was thinking about this a bit as I was writing up my part.  Obviously, I'm arm-chair GMing the injury situation and would hope our own people do more diligence if this was a consideration.  

But still, it doesn't really fit our MO to go get high priced aging players when we are already budget constrained and building a core of young players and have a few FAs of our own to carefully consider for the future. 

Agreed, this feels like a completely rhetorical question and I'm only really entertaining this for the discussion, but the chances the Brewers go after Trout and take on that 37M a year is not 0%, but it's pretty close.

I approach all of these as just entertainment. Even if you could trade Yelich for Trout, I suspect the Brewers wouldn't make that trade. 

 

[Team Canada]

On 9/13/2023 at 5:01 PM, BrewerFan said:

The Angels HAVE to know Ohtani is not coming back at this point to even start talking about something this stupid, right? Are they just this poorly run?

I mean yes, I think they've demonstrated as much at this point :)

[BrewerFan]

27 minutes ago, Team Canada said:

I mean yes, I think they've demonstrated as much at this point :)

Yes...I suppose that has become abundantly clear making that a stupid question.

 

[tmwiese55]

Saw it mentioned above of the scenario of Trout for Yelich straight up is interesting question for a message board to BS about.  I know its all hypotheticals due to both having no trades. 

Same age.  5/130 so 26 per year left for Yelich.   7/248 so 35 per left for Trout.   Trout is the vastly superior player when healthy. Yelich has been healthier but was basically replacement/average the last two years and good this year before the slump now.   LAA taking Yelich's anchor contract back is similar to kicking in money. 

Due to MKE's financial constraints I would suspect they just cannot take on this money and would say No.  However, I do think I would do it and take the gamble.  A year ago Yelich was completely untradeable if you can now swap him out for a top 5 player when healthy I'd do it and then figure it out lately.  I just think Trout would still be the more valuable 'asset' and more likely you could re-trade down the line when you need to cut costs (maybe eating some money though). Again, I'm ignoring no trades for the hypothetical.   I know it's close/debatable and I do assume MKE says No just purely financially but after seeing two years of Yelich being so bad I can't get it out of my head as what could be the over the next 5 years and I'd rather take this risk. 

[BrewerFan]

On 9/15/2023 at 1:54 PM, tmwiese55 said:

Saw it mentioned above of the scenario of Trout for Yelich straight up is interesting question for a message board to BS about.  I know its all hypotheticals due to both having no trades. 

Same age.  5/130 so 26 per year left for Yelich.   7/248 so 35 per left for Trout.   Trout is the vastly superior player when healthy. Yelich has been healthier but was basically replacement/average the last two years and good this year before the slump now.   LAA taking Yelich's anchor contract back is similar to kicking in money. 

Due to MKE's financial constraints I would suspect they just cannot take on this money and would say No.  However, I do think I would do it and take the gamble.  A year ago Yelich was completely untradeable if you can now swap him out for a top 5 player when healthy I'd do it and then figure it out lately.  I just think Trout would still be the more valuable 'asset' and more likely you could re-trade down the line when you need to cut costs (maybe eating some money though). Again, I'm ignoring no trades for the hypothetical.   I know it's close/debatable and I do assume MKE says No just purely financially but after seeing two years of Yelich being so bad I can't get it out of my head as what could be the over the next 5 years and I'd rather take this risk. 

I'm actually thinking about it and, yeah, I'd definitely do it. 

You'd have a guy who probably has one more MVP caliber season in him, who I believe will still have a run of seasons in which he plays 140 games and puts up big numbers. 

BUT, you also get the 500 HR watch, the...whatever else he may do(3000 hits is still possible, but would take a resurgence...and likely not doable in the 7 existing years). 

 

What are the chances the Brewers have been setting aside a significant amount of revenue for stadium infrastructure? This deal, should it go through, sounds like it's kinda blowing away what the Brewers had expected. So if that 30M they'd been setting aside is now available for payroll, that totally changes the equation.

My guess is that story is nonsense as it's a bit illogical. The Brewers ownership was probably never paying for it's own stadium and thus never setting that much aside each year. 

 

And you're right, both Yelich and Trout would need to completely agree to a trade...