AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:Right now, if the Angels were shopping Trout (which they assuredly are not), what would it take to get him?
He (and harper too I guess) has to be the most valuable trade asset....ever.
There's not a single individual in baseball I'd trade away Trout to get. If the Cards called up, I'd be wanting Lynn, Shelby and Taveras in return, I believe.
AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:Right now, if the Angels were shopping Trout (which they assuredly are not), what would it take to get him?
He (and harper too I guess) has to be the most valuable trade asset....ever.
Strasburg pre-TJ was probably up there as well, although he was more expensive.
Also you'd have to think about Longoria and his monster 10 year deal for peanuts.
Strasburg was a pitcher. So, they imo don't have as much value as position players right off the bat due to 1. only being involved every 5th day and 2. increased injury risk (rightfully so with strasburg obviously).
Longoria..yeah, probably a pretty decnet comp. Though, Trout is better. Earlier to the show, similar bat, faster and plays a premium defensive position and plays it like a rockstar. Not to take anything away from Longoria...
AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:Right now, if the Angels were shopping Trout (which they assuredly are not), what would it take to get him?
He (and harper too I guess) has to be the most valuable trade asset....ever.
Strasburg pre-TJ was probably up there as well, although he was more expensive.
Also you'd have to think about Longoria and his monster 10 year deal for peanuts.
Strasburg was a pitcher. So, they imo don't have as much value as position players right off the bat due to 1. only being involved every 5th day and 2. increased injury risk (rightfully so with strasburg obviously).
Longoria..yeah, probably a pretty decnet comp. Though, Trout is better. Earlier to the show, similar bat, faster and plays a premium defensive position and plays it like a rockstar. Not to take anything away from Longoria...
I agree, I'd take Trout too. I was thinking Longoria tho partially also because he was being paid peanuts over the course of his entire 10 year deal. At the pace Trout is going, unless he signs a similar long-term extension, over the course of his first 10 years he'll be a ton more expensive.
I only mentioned Strasburg because he was considered like the best pitching prospect ever.
Cycles have always seemed inherently dopey to me. Your guy comes up in the ninth needing to hit a triple to get a cycle, and instead he hits a second home run--are you supposed to be disappointed that he "failed" to hit for the cycle?
Anyway--google tells me that the oldest person to hit for the cycle is Dave Winfield, who was 39 when he did it in 1991.
I guess the Cardinals don't feel bad. And the Nats probably don't feel bad with Strasburg. But the Orioles probably feel bad about Matthew Hobgood.
Things like that make me curious. Was that just bad luck? Or did the Orioles F that up the way the Padres did when they picked Matt Bush over Justin Verlander?
Vidor wrote:Things like that make me curious. Was that just bad luck? Or did the Orioles F that up the way the Padres did when they picked Matt Bush over Justin Verlander?
I read there is a bias against players from the East Coast like Trout who did not play nonstop throughout the year. I believe that was in the SI feature about him last year.
