This argument has been so overused on this site over the last 3 years... has an argument as unsupportable as this ever had more run? It's literally been used in every thread we've had for trading an established MLB Brewer player for a prospect in season. The only other statement that's close is the proven/unproven thing, we're certainly dropping plenty of cliches into a single thread here. The obvious point that someone else made is that possibly in the short term Trout + Gamel > Gomez + Fielder. In the long-term there's no doubt that 6+ years of Trout and 5 years of Gamel is worth more than 2/3 of a Fielder season + whatever the team gets out Gomez. I struggle with the fact that a concept so simple is routinely dismissed or ignored, the merits of a deal of this type is are obvious. This exactly like the whole Hardy for Buccholz deal I wanted to make when Hardy was actually hitting... Escobar + Buccholz > Hardy + Looper but just couldn't seem to get their minds around the trade. I'd much rather have Buccholz than Greinke, we'd still have Jeffress, Cain, and Odorizzi. Heaven forbid we ever make a deal when we can sell high on a player that can have an immediate impact as well as solidfy the future... I know, that's crazy talk. It's much better to make Overbay and Hardy deals when pinned in a corner so we end up with impact talent like Gomez, Jackson, Bush, and Gross... If the Angels are dumb enough to trade us Trout for Fielder, that's a deal Melvin should make 100% of the time, whatever the rest of the trade looks like. There's less than a .1% chance this deal would go through in any form, and certainly I wouldn't count on the Angels overpaying for a rental. The original Teixeira trade has had a lasting impact on MLB, teams just don't make those kinds of deals for rentals anymore... and by the way, the throw in player in the Teixeira trade was one of my all time favorite prospects and might be the best young closer in baseball, Neftali Feliz. I still think Feliz should be in the rotation but that's a discussion for another time. I disagree. How is this team going to contend this season by trading arguably their best offensive weapon? I think that it's a tremendous leap of faith to assume that Gamel could come in and pull the load or even that the team could take the 'Prince money' and adequately fill the void (even if they were to raid the farm again). As for the Angels, they wouldn't trade Trout under any circumstances. I saw an article comparing him to Mickey Mantle for heaven's sake (though due to my cynicism of any prospect, especially a 19 year old at AA, I'd say the odds are long that he will ever even hit the 200 MLB homers that Prince has). In closing, would the Angels make the deal? Absolutely not. This makes the whole thing a moot point.