I don't care if Trout's the #1 prospect in baseball, an extended Fielder (proven MLB superstar) is worth more than a rookie Trout (unproven future potential). Just because you think this is true doesn't make it true, though -- it's your opinion. There is absolutely no way the Angels should be dealing a prospect like Trout for the chance to try to extend Fielder or re-sign him as a FA. I think the original suggestion that they might be willing to trade him for Fielder in & of itself is way too pie-in-the-sky. By this standard, once upon a time Ryan Braun wasn't worth as much as Alfonso Soriano. That doesn't mean it would've been a good idea to trade an "unproven" Braun for Soriano (expensive bat-only star) before Braun hit the bigs, though. At some point you have to have faith in scouting & that a guy is producing in the minors -- Trout is currently dominating AA pitching to the tune of a 1.000+ OPS... as a 19-year old. I'm probably taking more of an issue than I should be with your post, but the notion of proven/unproven just grates on me. I understand the typical success rate for prospects isn't high, but a guy like Trout is hardly a typical prospect. Trout is worth a lot right now, especially in the current MLB trade market where pre-arbitration star talent is more valued than ever. He's certainly worth more than a partial season of Fielder. And let's be honest, Prince is going to play the FA market. He's not going to re-sign with a team without at least seeing if there'll be a bidding war for his services. So, if you're the Angels, why would you not only trade for Prince when you are just going to have to give him the highest FA offer anyway, and on top of that, send arguably the best hitting prospect in the entire league for him? Just doesn't make any sense imo.