Feels like everyone’s talking about Mike Trout these days,

Feels like everyones talking about Mike Trout these days, doesnt it?The 2016 season has been a disaster for his Angels. Staff ace Garrett Richards is out for the season with an elbow injury, and potential ace Andrew Heaney is on the 60-day disabled list. Slick-fielding shortstop Andrelton Simmons, the prize offseason acquisition, is out until at least July. Albert Pujols, the guy making $25 million this year (and an additional $140 million from 2017 to 2021), is batting .185 with a .347 slugging percentage. Jered Weavers fastball checks in at 83 mph.MORE: Oh, and the team has a 13-20 record, which is next-to-last in the American League, and the potential for a bounce-back season in 2017 doesnt really look promising, either.So, yeah, people are talking about super-duper-star Mike Trout and his future with the club.Its a discu sion with two basic camps: 1. The Angels should trade Mike Trout and restock the organization with desperately needed young talent. 2. The Angels shouldnt trade Mike Trout because hes a superstar who means so much to the club, on and off https://www.prohurricanesstore.com/Willie_Herenton_Jersey the field.But here are the questions that should be asked: Could the Angels trade Trout even if they wanted to? Is it even remotely po sible they could find a team willing to (and maybe more to the point, able to) offer up an acceptable return for a star most consider the best player in baseball?Thats hard to imagine.Well start with this truth: The Angels should be open to trading Trout. Every team should at least be open to listening to whatever crazy offer another team might throw their way. Theres a pretty distinct https://www.prohurricanesstore.com/Sam_Waardenburg_Jersey difference between actively shopping and inquisitively listening. The Angels should engage in the latterbecause there are plenty of teams that would love to add Trout to their lineup.Heres a quick look at the basics of Trout. In his four full seasons in the majors, . Hes compiled a 37.8 fWAR over those four seasons, (Andrew McCutchen is second among position players, at 27.9). He's an elite defensive center fielder. Trout, who somehow only turns 25 in August, offers pricy but relatively reasonable cost certainty with a when hes eligible to be a free agent.MORE: Oh, and he has full no-trade protection, which means hed have to approve any trade. Yeah.What would it take to land a player like that? Lets look at examples of three trades that disproportionally benefitted the team that traded the superstar.Trading Bartolo Colon: The Expos were determined to make a push toward the 2002 playoffs, so they made a deal forColon, Cleveland's ace, that June. The package they gave up still makes people cringe, whether or not they had an attachment to the Expos they traded away Grady Sizemore, Cliff Lee, Brandon Phillips and Lee Stevens. Sizemore, Lee and Phillips all became All-Star regulars (not nece sarily for the Indians, though), and Stevens had hit 57 homers for the Expos from 2000 until the 2002 trade. Yikes.Trading Mark Teixeira: The Braves needed to add a power bat to their lineup, so they made a deal that landed Teixeira, the Rangers’ switch-hitting slugger, at the 2007 non-waiver trade deadline. They sent Elvis Andrus, Neftali Feliz, Matt Harrison and Jarrod Saltalamacchia to Texas, a group that formed part of the core that helped the Rangers become a power in the AL West and reach the World Series a couple of times.Trading Glenn Davis: In January 1991, the Orioles decided they wanted to add a proven veteran slugger to their lineup, so they traded for Davis, who had https://www.prohurricanesstore.com/Dominic_Proctor_Jersey averaged right around 30 home runs a year the previous five seasons. To pry Davis away from Houston, Baltimore put together a package that included Curt Schilling, Steve Finley and Pete Harnish. Orioles fans still complain about losing those young talents, as they would have had the right to do even if Davis didnt turn out to be a ma sive disappointment in Baltimore (which he was).At this point, you might be saying, See? It can happen.But comparing Trout as a player to anyof those three guys is kind of foolish, and thats even before you consider that whatever team would deal for Trout would have him for four more years, compared with Colon (who was a free agent after the season), Teixeira (who was a free agent after the next year) or Davis (who was a free agent after the season). And thats not even factoring in the way front offices now view prospects; theyre no longer the raw trading chips they once were. Theyre worth their weight in gold, https://www.prohurricanesstore.com/Miami_Hurricanes_Jersey as the old saying goes.So where would a potential trade package start?MORE: Remember, the Angels are in the position of power here. Even though their franchise severely lacks talent both at the big-league level and in the minors (the Angels were back in February) they absolutely dont have to deal Trout. Hes beloved by the fan baseand hes under contract for four more years. Having him take the field and develop into a superstar is pretty much the only consistently good thing thats happened over the past few seasons. Theyd only move him if, in their eyes, they were the clear winners in the trade.So lets say the Cubs were hypothetically interested (you know they would be), and lets say they offered Kyle Schwarber, Javier Baez, Jorge Soler, Kyle Hendricks and Adam Warren, along with a younger prospect or two. All are young, cost-controlled players with bright futures, some with legitimate star potential. Would that be enough? Would the Angels demand that Addison Ru sell or Kris Bryant be included? Why wouldn't they?How about the Red Sox? Theyd certainly have to start this hypothetical package with two of these three young rising big-league stars Xander Bogaerts, Mookie Betts and Jackie BradleyJr. then throw in top prospect Yoan Moncada and add two or three of their high-ceiling young arms. Would that be enough? Maybe, maybe not.And then theres the other side of the coin. Healthy Mike Trout is a superstar worth a sultans treasure in return, but one career-ending injury, on or off the field baseball https://www.prohurricanesstore.com/Brad_Kaaya_Jersey history is full of those changes everything. And, sure, thats always an injury risk inherent in any trade, but theres a difference between the risk of trading two star prospects and the risk of trading the five or six potential franchise-altering players, which is what it would take.MORE: So even if a team has the trade chips needed to landTrout and only a handful probably do is the risk worth it? Would a team be willing to put together the nece sary package on the hopes that Trout stays healthy for the next several seasons?Thats hard to imagine, too.The idea is fun to discu s, no doubt, but Mike Trout isnt going anywhere.

Feels like everyones talking about Mike Trout these days, doesnt it?The 2016 season has been a disaster for his Angels. Staff ace Garrett Richards is out for the season with an elbow injury, and potential ace Andrew Heaney is on the 60-day disabled list. Slick-fielding shortstop Andrelton Simmons, the prize offseason acquisition, is out until at least July. Albert Pujols, the guy making $25 million this year (and an additional $140 million from 2017 to 2021), is batting .185 with a .347 slugging percentage. Jered Weavers fastball checks in at 83 mph.MORE: Oh, and the team has a 13-20 record, which is next-to-last in the American League, and the potential for a bounce-back season in 2017 doesnt really look promising, either.So, yeah, people are talking about super-duper-star Mike Trout and his future with the club.Its a discu sion with two basic camps: 1. The Angels should trade Mike Trout and restock the organization with desperately needed young talent. 2. The Angels shouldnt trade Mike Trout because hes a superstar who means so much to the club, on and off https://www.prohurricanesstore.com/Willie_Herenton_Jersey the field.But here are the questions that should be asked: Could the Angels trade Trout even if they wanted to? Is it even remotely po sible they could find a team willing to (and maybe more to the point, able to) offer up an acceptable return for a star most consider the best player in baseball?Thats hard to imagine.Well start with this truth: The Angels should be open to trading Trout. Every team should at least be open to listening to whatever crazy offer another team might throw their way. Theres a pretty distinct https://www.prohurricanesstore.com/Sam_Waardenburg_Jersey difference between actively shopping and inquisitively listening. The Angels should engage in the latterbecause there are plenty of teams that would love to add Trout to their lineup.Heres a quick look at the basics of Trout. In his four full seasons in the majors, . Hes compiled a 37.8 fWAR over those four seasons, (Andrew McCutchen is second among position players, at 27.9). He's an elite defensive center fielder. Trout, who somehow only turns 25 in August, offers pricy but relatively reasonable cost certainty with a when hes eligible to be a free agent.MORE: Oh, and he has full no-trade protection, which means hed have to approve any trade. Yeah.What would it take to land a player like that? Lets look at examples of three trades that disproportionally benefitted the team that traded the superstar.Trading Bartolo Colon: The Expos were determined to make a push toward the 2002 playoffs, so they made a deal forColon, Cleveland's ace, that June. The package they gave up still makes people cringe, whether or not they had an attachment to the Expos they traded away Grady Sizemore, Cliff Lee, Brandon Phillips and Lee Stevens. Sizemore, Lee and Phillips all became All-Star regulars (not nece sarily for the Indians, though), and Stevens had hit 57 homers for the Expos from 2000 until the 2002 trade. Yikes.Trading Mark Teixeira: The Braves needed to add a power bat to their lineup, so they made a deal that landed Teixeira, the Rangers' switch-hitting slugger, at the 2007 non-waiver trade deadline. They sent Elvis Andrus, Neftali Feliz, Matt Harrison and Jarrod Saltalamacchia to Texas, a group that formed part of the core that helped the Rangers become a power in the AL West and reach the World Series a couple of times.Trading Glenn Davis: In January 1991, the Orioles decided they wanted to add a proven veteran slugger to their lineup, so they traded for Davis, who had https://www.prohurricanesstore.com/Dominic_Proctor_Jersey averaged right around 30 home runs a year the previous five seasons. To pry Davis away from Houston, Baltimore put together a package that included Curt Schilling, Steve Finley and Pete Harnish. Orioles fans still complain about losing those young talents, as they would have had the right to do even if Davis didnt turn out to be a ma sive disappointment in Baltimore (which he was).At this point, you might be saying, See? It can happen.But comparing Trout as a player to anyof those three guys is kind of foolish, and thats even before you consider that whatever team would deal for Trout would have him for four more years, compared with Colon (who was a free agent after the season), Teixeira (who was a free agent after the next year) or Davis (who was a free agent after the season). And thats not even factoring in the way front offices now view prospects; theyre no longer the raw trading chips they once were. Theyre worth their weight in gold, https://www.prohurricanesstore.com/Miami_Hurricanes_Jersey as the old saying goes.So where would a potential trade package start?MORE: Remember, the Angels are in the position of power here. Even though their franchise severely lacks talent both at the big-league level and in the minors (the Angels were back in February) they absolutely dont have to deal Trout. Hes beloved by the fan baseand hes under contract for four more years. Having him take the field and develop into a superstar is pretty much the only consistently good thing thats happened over the past few seasons. Theyd only move him if, in their eyes, they were the clear winners in the trade.So lets say the Cubs were hypothetically interested (you know they would be), and lets say they offered Kyle Schwarber, Javier Baez, Jorge Soler, Kyle Hendricks and Adam Warren, along with a younger prospect or two. All are young, cost-controlled players with bright futures, some with legitimate star potential. Would that be enough? Would the Angels demand that Addison Ru sell or Kris Bryant be included? Why wouldn't they?How about the Red Sox? Theyd certainly have to start this hypothetical package with two of these three young rising big-league stars Xander Bogaerts, Mookie Betts and Jackie BradleyJr. then throw in top prospect Yoan Moncada and add two or three of their high-ceiling young arms. Would that be enough? Maybe, maybe not.And then theres the other side of the coin. Healthy Mike Trout is a superstar worth a sultans treasure in return, but one career-ending injury, on or off the field baseball https://www.prohurricanesstore.com/Brad_Kaaya_Jersey history is full of those changes everything. And, sure, thats always an injury risk inherent in any trade, but theres a difference between the risk of trading two star prospects and the risk of trading the five or six potential franchise-altering players, which is what it would take.MORE: So even if a team has the trade chips needed to landTrout and only a handful probably do is the risk worth it? Would a team be willing to put together the nece sary package on the hopes that Trout stays healthy for the next several seasons?Thats hard to imagine, too.The idea is fun to discu s, no doubt, but Mike Trout isnt going anywhere.

#33 Feels like everyone’s talking about Mike Trout these days,