If the Red Sox tried to trade for Mike Trout, who would they have to give up?
If the Angels did make the superstar outfielder available – and that seems unlikely – Dave Dombrowski could make an overwhelming offer. But should he?
COMMENTARY
Mike Trout is younger than Jackie Bradley Jr.
He is younger than Christian Vazquez and Travis Shaw.
He is younger than Pat Light, Brian Johnson, and Matt Barnes.
He is 16 years younger than David Ortiz, though he’s not hitting quite as well as Big Papi, who theoretically is old enough to be Trout’s papi. (Now that would be a cool scandal.)
Trout was born on August 7, 1991. He is, as of Wednesday, 24 years, 278 days old. He has played four major-league seasons, won one American League Most Valuable Player award, should own two (or three) more, and has already accumulated more career WAR than the accomplished likes of Roger Maris, Harold Baines, and Dave Parker.
He fits securely among legendary company already. His top four statistical comps through age 24 are Mickey Mantle, Frank Robinson, Junior Griffey, and Hank Aaron. Barring a Tony C.-caliber catastrophe, he will remain a legend for all time.
If Trout is not our Mantle, then he is our Mays. No matter how dismal your franchise’s immediate outlook, you don’t trade a player of that youth and accomplishment, even if that player happens to have the public charisma of a Subway sandwich. You pray that another one will be born.
http://cinesport.boston.com/boston-globe-sports/finn-should-sox-offer-it-all-trout/
So far as I can tell, this week’s fresh conjecture that the mediocre Angels – who lost ace Garrett Richards and elegant shortstop Andrelton Simmons to significant injury this week – ought to consider moving Trout to facilitate a rebuild rather than fortifying the roster around him began in an astute corner of the baseball internet.
Here’s what Fangraphs’ Dave Cameron wrote Friday under the headline, “The Garrett Richards Injury and the Mike Trout Question.”
It’s not a decision the Angels want to be faced with, but Richards injury should force them to at least consider the possibility that the best path forward for the franchise is to blow this thing up. Trading Mike Trout would not only bring back an incredible return in young talent — imagine the package the Dodgers could put together — but would also allow the team to admit that it’s time to pivot, focusing on loading up with as many young players as possible, spending big on international free agency and the draft instead of throwing $15 to $20 million at another pitcher at the end of his career who might not be good enough to help anyway.
A few paragraphs later, he brings our neighborhood into it:
But at this point, with 2016 likely another lost year and 2017’s ability to bounce back being put into question as well, it’s time for the Angels to at least start thinking about what a Mike Trout trade would look like. And if the Dodgers or Red Sox want to overwhelm them with a crazy package of young talent, then they should at least have that discussion.
Now, let me emphasize this: I don’t care that the tattered Angels roster is currently comprised of Trout, Albert Pujols’s carcass, Gary Pettis (I think), and 22 Quadruple-A roster-fillers, with the worst-regarded farm system in baseball in helpless reserve. During seasons in which a few breaks go the Angels’ way and a few unheralded finds show up on the lineup card, Trout will give them a chance. He will always give them something of a chance.
I’m not saying they can’t trade him. I’m saying it’s as close to a dead-bolted can’t as anything can be, and that’s before considering the reaction the Angels fan base would have. Trout is more popular than their two great mascots of recent vintage – the Rally Monkey and David Eckstein. Even if they got a breathtaking haul of talent in return, Angels fans would be furious.
When the prize is a generational player like Mike Trout, you don’t just ask for the moon. You ask for every decent planet in the solar system, all of those planets’ corresponding moons, and the rights to each and every four- and five-tool life form on all of those planets.
It is impossible to entertain the idea of an actual Trout trade with any seriousness. It, is however, very easy to entertain with the goal of amusement and good ol’ what-if baseball chatter. (And click-bait, too. Guilty as charged, convicted again.) It’s practically irresistible.
Headlines in reaction to Cameron’s piece can be found on virtually any sports website: Angels are in desperate times but determined to resist desperate measures, like trading Mike Trout … 3 reasons the Angels won’t trade Mike Trout anytime soon … Which 5 teams could deal for Mike Trout. And here you get another.
Perhaps the most thoughtful reaction – and the most pertinent to the Red Sox that I’ve read – came from ESPN’s David Schoenfield, who has long been one of my favorite baseball writers. Under the headline “Think the Unthinkable: The Angels Will Have to Consider Trading Mike Trout,” Schoenfield had a good time speculating on which teams might have the vast resources to entertain the blockbuster of all blockbusters. Here’s what he wrote about the Red Sox:
“…. They have four huge upside talents in third baseman Rafael Devers (the No. 7 prospect in baseball, per Keith Law), second baseman Yoan Moncada (No. 17), center fielder Andrew Benintendi (No. 18) and pitcher Anderson Espinoza (No. 38). Moncada is hitting .348/.478/.506 with 19 steals for Class A Salem and Benintendi is hitting .376/.435/.653, although both have hit just one home run. Still, Benintendi could be on the Michael Conforto path: drafted in one year and reaching the majors the next. He should be moving up to Double-A soon and could reach Boston before September. Jackie Bradley Jr. also could be part of the deal, along with Pablo Sandoval (just kidding!).
Panda jokes. We’ve all got ‘em. You look at that What Would It Take For Trout? guesstimate, though: Devers, Moncada, Benintendi. It’s basically the whole Salem roster, plus Espinoza and a breaking-out JBJ; I’m curious whether your first reaction is similar to mine:
That’s a hell of a lot. And it’s not nearly enough.
That theoretical deal would be asking for the moon on the Angels part – and hey, did I mention the Salem Red Sox, a Single A team, have three players older than Trout? But when the prize is a player like this one, you don’t just ask for the moon. You ask for every decent planet in the solar system, all of those planets’ corresponding moons, and the rights to each and every four- and five-tool life form on all of those planets. It’s not just the Angels’ right to do so. It’s their obligation.
The Red Sox have an abundance of toolsy life forms in their organization. But the Angels would not trade Trout for four exceptional prospects who haven’t an inning of Double A ball among them and a 26-year-old center fielder who seems to be figuring it out but who owns a .674 career OPS. They wouldn’t. What they would do is ask for Mookie Betts or Xander Bogaerts, or Mookie Betts and Xander Bogaerts, and they should ask for both and more.
To look at it another way: Andrew Benintendi turns 22 in July. When Trout was his age, he was on his way to his second straight runner-up in the AL MVP balloting, following up on his extraordinary 30-homer/49-steal .326/.399/.564-slashing rookie season with a similarly dazzling sophomore campaign. Trout is exceptional even among the exceptional.
Sure, legends get traded – Mays, Aaron, Robinson, and Griffey all did at one time or another. But not at age 24. The Red Sox should not give up Betts and Bogaerts for him, and it would hurt to give up either.
But that’s the paradox that makes imagining a Mike Trout deal so fun. For a trade to make sense for the Angels, it must devastate the team they’re trading with.
Trout is so transcendent in his own time that the joy of acquiring him would inevitably be accompanied by the anguish of who and what had to go to make it happen.
The payoff comes with pain. Xander and/or Mookie would be too much, and yet the moon is not enough.
To comment, please create a screen name in your profile
To comment, please verify your email address
Conversation
This discussion has ended. Please join elsewhere on Boston.com