Which Of These Free Agents Will Get Four-Year Deals?
Last offseason, 14 players received free agent contracts of four or more years, excluding international signings. Some of the borderline guys, like Ben Zobrist and Darren O’Day, successfully obtained the guaranteed fourth year. Others, such as Yoenis Cespedes and Daniel Murphy, were not able to get there, at least at an acceptable salary. This winter, Cespedes and elite relievers Aroldis Chapman and Kenley Jansen seem locks for four-plus years. Everyone else, not so much. Here are 13 cases to consider, and vote on:
- Edwin Encarnacion, 34 years old in January. Encarnacion is having a great season, sitting second in MLB with 36 home runs. He’s hit 34+ home runs in each of the last five seasons. His market will likely be limited to the American League, though there is precedent with Nelson Cruz‘s four-year, $57MM deal. Encarnacion is facing a lawsuit alleging he knowingly infected a woman with multiple STDs in February.
- Ian Desmond, 31 in September. Desmond has reinvented himself as the Rangers’ center fielder, though he has struggled offensively this month.
- Jose Bautista, 36 in October. Bautista recently finished his second DL stint of the year, and his production has been down this season. He’s the oldest player in this poll.
- Mark Trumbo, 31 in January. Trumbo leads MLB with 40 home runs, but he also sports a .317 on-base percentage and has struggled on defense.
- Wilson Ramos, turned 29 this month. The Nationals’ catcher has age on his side, and is in the midst of a breakout season.
- Justin Turner, 32 in November. Zobrist signed his deal heading into his age-35 season, so surely his contract will be considered a precedent by Turner’s agent. Turner has set a career-high with 24 home runs already, and is headed toward a career best in games played.
- Neil Walker, 31 in September. After being traded to the Mets in December, Walker is having the best season of his career. Chase Headley‘s four-year, $52MM deal with the Yankees in December 2014 suggests Walker can reach the same term.
- Dexter Fowler, 31 in March. Fowler ranks eighth in the NL with a .389 OBP, though a June hamstring injury may keep him shy of 130 games played for the third time in the last four years.
- Michael Saunders, 30 in November. Like Desmond, Saunders has re-established himself but scuffled in August. As with a few others on this list, Saunders’ injury history will give teams pause.
- Josh Reddick, 30 in February. Reddick once seemed like a lock for four years, but he missed time earlier this year due to a broken thumb and has been terrible since joining the Dodgers in a deadline deal. It’s fair to question whether four years will be on the table for him.
- Mark Melancon, 32 in March. Though not as dominant with strikeouts as Chapman and Jansen, Melancon has a 1.75 ERA in 272 innings since 2013, and he’s been great for the Nationals. His agent will at least aim for four years.
- Jeremy Hellickson, 30 in April. Hellickson is one of the best free agent starters available this winter, and the weak market and his relative youth could theoretically push him to a four-year deal.
- Ivan Nova, 30 in January. Nova is a long shot for four years, but he’s been great since coming over to the Pirates, and teams can act irrationally in free agency.
Your turn: which of these free agents will get four or more years? Check all that apply, and click here to view the results. Those using our app or Safari on their cell phone can click here for the poll.
Poll: The Diamondbacks’ Front Office
Derrick Hall will remain the Diamondbacks’ CEO for the foreseeable future, but that won’t necessarily preclude a major overhaul to the franchise’s baseball operations department. Hall stated this week that the club will make decisions on the two heads of that department, chief baseball officer Tony La Russa and general manager Dave Stewart, after the season.
“There’s a lot to think about here,” said Hall, who doesn’t seem eager to make radical changes to Arizona’s front office.
La Russa and Stewart only took the helm in Arizona during the 2014 campaign, but the team has regressed enough under their leadership to make a regime change a legitimate possibility. After going 79-83 and posting a plus-7 run differential in 2015, the Diamondbacks’ first full season with La Russa and Stewart at the controls, the club has plummeted to 53-75 this year. Only two teams have lesser records than the D-backs, and just one has a worse run differential than Arizona’s minus-132. Injuries, primarily the fractured elbow that has kept star center fielder A.J. Pollock out all season, haven’t helped Arizona’s cause. However, even with a healthy roster, it’s fair to say the Diamondbacks would not have pushed for a playoff spot this year. Their front office had other plans, however, as evidenced by its aggressive offseason maneuverings.
The Diamondbacks’ most notable winter transactions included signing 32-year-old right-hander Zack Greinke to a $206.5MM contract and swinging a trade with the Braves for righty Shelby Miller. While still a quality option, Greinke has gone backward in his first year as a Diamondback (and spent time on the DL himself), which wasn’t the scenario they envisioned when awarding a franchise-record payday to him.
Assessing The Indians’ Options At Catcher
The Indians are in first place in the American League Central, yet they possess one of the most glaring weaknesses of any contender in the game. Cleveland catchers this season — Yan Gomes (currently injured), Roberto Perez and Chris Gimenez — have combined to bat a staggering .172/.225/.296 in 457 plate appearances. The company line has been that they’re high on the defensive capabilities of each backstop, but no club in all of Major League Baseball has received worse production out of its catchers. How best to remedy that situation — or whether they even need to — is up for debate.
Obvious Trade Candidates
Paul Hoynes of the Cleveland Plain Dealer writes today that Cleveland has had some discussions with the division-rival Twins about Kurt Suzuki in the past, but “there’s nothing happening at the moment.” Suzuki cleared trade waivers yesterday, making him a logical candidate for any club in need of catching help. The main sticking point for Cleveland, it seems, is that Suzuki isn’t regarded as a strong defender, and he would obviously be tasked with learning an entirely new pitching staff in a short amount of time in the event that the Indians made a move. That’s a tall order for any catcher, and it could conceivably lead to further difficulty in framing/blocking pitches if he’s not fully familiar with the full arsenal of each pitcher he’s catching. Then again, Suzuki is affordable (owed $1.5MM through season’s end) and hitting .281/.321/.435 — an enormous upgrade over the offensive deficiencies that have plagued Cleveland catchers in 2016.Read more
Poll: Most Surprising Non-Trade Prior To The Deadline
Heading into last Monday’s non-waiver deadline, there was no shortage of trade candidates that many expected to be moved (or hoped would be moved). While 20 of the names on MLBTR’s final list of top trade candidates did indeed find new homes, there were still quite a few that stayed put. A quick rundown…
- Jeremy Hellickson, Phillies: As an impending free agent that is enjoying a resurgent campaign on a rebuilding team, Hellickson was the prototypical trade candidate. He’s affordable, effective and was seemingly in demand, with as many as a eight teams connected to him at various points throughout deadline season. However, he’s still with the Phils and now looks likelier to end up the recipient of a qualifying offer than to be traded in August.
- Jeanmar Gomez, Phillies: Gomez entered the season as a middle reliever that was ticketed more for a multi-inning role than high-leverage spots, but he was placed into the ninth inning by manager Pete Mackanin out of necessity early in the year and hasn’t looked back. Gomez is controllable through 2017, so there’s still time to move him if the Phillies wish (be it this month, in the offseason, or next year), but late July was arguably the highest his trade value has ever been.
- Derek Norris, Padres: The Friars reportedly shopped Norris quite heavily in the weeks leading up to the deadline, likely hoping to move him in order to clear a spot on the roster for Austin Hedges. The Rangers, Astros and Brewers were among the teams to show late interest, but Norris ultimately stayed put. He’s controllable through 2018, so the Padres can explore trades for quite some time, but with his replacement absolutely obliterating Triple-A pitching and the Padres aggressively shopping veterans, he seemed a likely candidate to move.
- Kurt Suzuki, Twins: A well-timed hot streak for Suzuki looked like a stroke of good fortune that would allow Minnesota to extract some value in exchange for the free-agent-to-be heading into the deadline. Suzuki was quietly one of the league’s hottest hitters in June and July (.333/.362/.533), making his $6MM salary look plenty affordable. He could go in August, but a trade is obviously more difficult now.
- Jim Johnson, Braves: Atlanta has been willing to trade virtually everyone on its roster other than Freddie Freeman and Julio Teheran, and Johnson was a natural candidate to be dealt. He’s on a cheap one-year deal and has pitched brilliantly since returning from a DL stint in early June. His name was all over the rumor mill heading into last Monday’s deadline, but he’s still in Atlanta a week later. A waiver deal can’t be ruled out, but the Braves will be faced with a much more limited market.
- Zack Cozart, Reds: Cozart looked to be on his way to Seattle early last Monday with the deadline just hours away, but the medical hangups in the Reds’ Jay Bruce trade with the Mets reportedly slowed their ability to finalize the details on the Cozart deal with the Mariners. Cozart is controlled through 2017 and could be shopped again this winter, but an August deal looks unlikely since he’s a lock to get claimed — probably by a team with higher waiver priority than the Mariners. The Reds know they’ll be able to market him to more clubs and drive up the price this offseason.
- Yasiel Puig, Dodgers: There’s some hindsight in play here, as Puig looked like a trade candidate as the deadline loomed but looks more likely to be done as a member of the Dodgers a week later now that they’ve added a new right fielder (Josh Reddick) and demoted Puig to Triple-A. Knowing how much Los Angeles had soured on Puig, it’s fairly surprising that no agreement was reached prior to the non-waiver deadline.
- Danny Valencia, Athletics: Despite the fact that Valencia has been one of Oakland’s most productive hitters this year, the A’s called up prospect Ryon Healy and gave him Valencia’s everyday job at third base. Valencia is bouncing around the diamond now, but with just one year of club control remaining beyond the 2016 season, he looked like a very solid bet to be on the move following his displacement at the hot corner.
- Jake Odorizzi, Rays: Odorizzi and teammate Matt Moore were rumored to be drawing interest from seemingly half the league prior to the deadline, but it was Moore who ended up moving. Odorizzi can be controlled through 2019, so there was no rush to move him, and the Rays ultimately elected to move just one of their young arms.
- Yunel Escobar, Angels: What’s perhaps most surprising about Escobar, who is hitting well on a fourth-place team and has a reasonable club option for the 2017 season, is that his name scarcely surfaced on the rumor circuit. Escobar seemed like an obvious candidate based on his productivity and contract, but perhaps questions about his reputation and the Angels’ desire to compete in 2017 made trade chatter minimal.
- Chris Sale, White Sox: I never considered a Sale trade to be all that likely, but there was plenty of speculation about it, and many were captivated by the idea of one of the game’s best pitchers (and one of the game’s best contracts) changing hands. His clubhouse tirade a week prior to the deadline only fueled speculation about his availability.
All that said, it’s time for everyone to weigh in (link to poll for Trade Rumors app users)…
Who was the most surprising player NOT to be traded prior to the non-waiver deadline?
-
Jeremy Hellickson 37% (3,975)
-
Yasiel Puig 16% (1,759)
-
Derek Norris 10% (1,078)
-
Chris Sale 9% (1,024)
-
Danny Valencia 7% (740)
-
Jim Johnson 7% (720)
-
Zack Cozart 5% (512)
-
Jake Odorizzi 3% (306)
-
Kurt Suzuki 2% (209)
-
Jeanmar Gomez 2% (182)
-
Yunel Escobar 2% (177)
-
Other 2% (176)
Total votes: 10,858
Poll: The Yankees’ Decision To Trade Aroldis Chapman
I’ll go ahead and assume that everyone has largely caught up on yesterday’s big news, which involved a blockbuster deal to send relief ace Aroldis Chapman from the Yankees to the Cubs. It’s all the more notable since New York isn’t entirely out of the post-season picture, and because the move signals Chicago’s intentions to push the pedal to the floor in pursuit of an elusive World Series title.
Ultimately, Yankees GM Brian Cashman says that making the move was “an easy decision” — despite the fact that it unquestionably hurts the team’s immediate chances. The reason? Parting with a short-term asset, even one as good as Chapman, was a no-brainer for the veteran executive when it meant adding a blue-chip infield prospect in Gleyber Torres, a useful MLB hurler in righty Adam Warren, and two more assets with real potential in the form of minor league outfielders Billy McKinney and Rashad Crawford.
The veteran exec also suggests that New York can still try to qualify for the playoffs. While that’s true, it doesn’t change the fact that the chances of reaching and succeeding in the post-season are now clearly diminished. There’s no real question that Cashman (and, more importantly, ownership) weren’t convinced that this team was a full-throated contender, and that must have weighed heavily in the balance.
But did the Yankees’ brass perform an accurate assessment? Should the club have traded Chapman, and was the return sufficient? Tell us what you think:
How Did The Yankees Do In The Aroldis Chapman Trade?
-
Good decision to make this trade 91% (26,107)
-
Shouldn't have traded Chapman for this package 6% (1,583)
-
Shouldn't have traded Chapman at all 3% (987)
Total votes: 28,677
MLBTR Poll: Best Low-Cost Acquisitions
Some moves pan out; others don’t. And then there are those whose importance turns out to be of an entirely different magnitude than had been anticipated. We’ll look at that latter category here.
Among the many great first-half performers, there are many heralded veterans and rising youngsters who were widely expected to do just what they’ve done. But there are also some surprisingly valuable assets who were added for a relative pittance over the winter. Steve Adams already recently covered beneficial minor-league signings, but here are a few who were acquired in other ways:
- David Freese, INF, Pirates — He’s a well-known player, but that doesn’t mean that anybody was expecting this kind of production (.291/.373/.472 over 287 plate appearances). At just $3MM on a one-year term, that late-spring signing is already a certifiable bargain.
- Leonys Martin, OF, Mariners — Seattle has benefited from Martin’s good glovework, wheels, and solid bat — which has produced a surprising double-digit homer tally. Better still, the club now has both Martin and the key piece that it originally gave up to get him (reliever Tom Wilhelmsen).
- Jonathan Villar, SS, Brewers — David Stearns went from Houston to Milwaukee, and it didn’t take long for him to bring a few former ‘Stros with him. Villar, picked up in a minor trade, has been perhaps the best get of all with above-average hitting and big-time speed on the bases driving his value.
- Drew Pomeranz, SP, Padres — When we’re comfortably discussing a player as one of the best starting pitching assets at the deadline, it’s safe to say his organization did well to acquire him just months prior for a package of Yonder Alonso and Marc Rzepczynski.
- Dan Straily, SP, Reds — Passed around multiple times at the end of camp, Straily has settled in as a useful arm in Cincinnati. He’s still not going to provide exciting results, but one hundred frames of 4.35 ERA pitching has value.
- Brad Hand, RP, Padres — At the cost of a waiver claim and a 40-man spot, Hand has delivered a 3.10 ERA over 49 1/3 frames. Even better, he’s jumped to a career-best 10.9 K/9, suggesting he may have found another gear upon moving to the pen full-time.
- Dan Otero, RP, Indians — Acquired for cash by Cleveland, Otero is another player who bounced around over the winter. All he has done is post a 1.27 ERA with 8.7 K/9 and 2.0 BB/9 over 35 1/3 strong frames.
From this list, which has been the best bargain? (Link for mobile app users.)
Best Surprise Bargain Acquisition Of The Winter?
-
Drew Pomeranz, Padres 38% (3,681)
-
Jonathan Villar, Brewers 24% (2,308)
-
David Freese, Pirates 22% (2,166)
-
Leonys Martin, Mariners 8% (736)
-
Dan Otero, Indians 4% (421)
-
Dan Straily, Reds 3% (297)
-
Brad Hand, Padres 1% (89)
Total votes: 9,698
MLBTR Roundtable: Trading Julio Teheran
Earlier today, I laid out a high-level overview of the cases both for and against the Braves trading Julio Teheran. While there are certainly some gray areas in making a decision — every player, no matter how good, becomes tradeable once the value received in exchange reaches a certain point — we’ve asked the entire staff at MLBTR to offer its thoughts on whether the Braves should be open to making a move or should hang onto their best starting pitcher.
You can read the above-linked post for more info on the 25-year-old righty. Or, skip right ahead to the opinions of the MLBTR team:
Tim Dierkes: As the saying goes, “Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t.” Teheran has been in the Braves’ organization for nearly a decade, and they know him better than anyone. It was that familiarity that led them to sign him to a deal guaranteeing $32.4MM back in 2014, a fairly aggressive extension for a pitcher with less than two years of Major League service time. Research from Matt Swartz has shown that it is hard to avoid lemons when signing away free agent pitchers from other teams. The Braves may have good money to spend this winter in advance of their new stadium opening, but in addition to the issue of the “Other People’s Players” premium Swartz discovered, the free agent market for starting pitching looks historically bad. Even with Teheran, the Braves will need to add significant starting pitching if they hope to contend in 2017. Verdict: Retain him.
Steve Adams: There’s virtually no scenario in which trading Teheran makes the Braves better in 2016, and they’d be hard-pressed to find a deal that makes them definitively better in 2017 — the year in which they supposedly aim to contend in a new stadium. The Braves have stocked their farm with pitching depth, but Teheran is their best pitcher in the Majors right now, and his $32.4MM contract has enough surplus value that the asking price could (and should) reasonably rival the Shelby Miller haul. A return of that magnitude strikes me as extremely unlikely, and given the backlash they’ve had from fans in John Coppolella’s first season as general manager, moving the team’s clear top starter for more young pieces wouldn’t sit well with their audience. Verdict: Retain him.
Jeff Todd: As things stand, Teheran has had great results in three of his four full seasons in the majors. He’s young, he racks up innings, and he has an appealing contract. On the other hand, he doesn’t have elite swinging strike rates, isn’t much of a groundball pitcher, and has always outperformed ERA estimators — yes, even in 2015 — which have recently viewed him as a ~4.00 (and change) performer. In large part, then, his value is dependent upon whether one believes that’s sustainable. He’s still a nice piece regardless, and at worst he provides Atlanta with a sturdy mid-rotation piece as it exposes its top prospects to the majors, but I’m actually in favor of looking to sell while the gettin’ is good. Teheran’s value is up, especially with a mediocre set of fellow trade targets and a seemingly barren free agent starter crop coming this winter, and frankly I’m not bullish on Atlanta’s 2017 outlook. Too many things need to go right, and the lackluster overall free agent class may not be conducive to building out a competitive roster for a reasonable price. PR considerations aside, a deal that includes at least a high-quality, advanced position-player prospect makes sense to me, even if a truly premium youngster can’t be had. Verdict: Shop him.
Mark Polishuk: The Braves’ long-stated plan was to return to contention when their new ballpark opens in April 2017. While that timeline may have been pushed back a bit thanks to their terrible record this season, the organization obviously still wants to be competitive sooner rather than later. Even if they wait until 2018 to make a push, that’s still well within the life of Teheran’s contract and the prime of his career. If I’m the Braves, I hang onto Teheran now (barring a Godfather offer from another team, of course) since I’d find myself looking for a Teheran-type of pitcher within a year or two anyway. Verdict: Retain him.
Charlie Wilmoth: Not to straddle the fence, but I think the Braves should strongly consider trading Teheran but keep him if they don’t get a return they like. A rebuilding team should consider trading any veteran starter in the midst of a good year. You never know when a pitcher might lose velocity, get hurt, or decline for other reasons, so keeping Teheran to pitch for a bad team is risky asset management. Teheran and Shelby Miller are different types of pitchers, but Miller’s case demonstrates that principle. Even leaving aside the terrific return the Braves wouldn’t have received if they hadn’t dealt Miller, how bad would it have been for Atlanta if the Braves had kept him and then he had a 2016 season like the one he’s having now with the Diamondbacks? On the other hand, Teheran is only 25 and is under control and cheap through 2020, so he could easily be part of the next good Braves team. Add in that the Braves would surely like to play well next season for the opening of their new ballpark, and there are compelling reasons to keep Teheran around. I’d try to deal him, but if the offers are underwhelming, holding on is reasonable too. Verdict: Hung jury!
Connor Byrne: The crop of starters who are expected to be available prior to the trade deadline looks mostly unappealing, as does the upcoming class of free agents, so the rebuilding Braves should at least shop Teheran. The next several months could serve as the perfect time frame for the Braves to get more for Teheran than he’s worth. If they put Teheran on the block and don’t get a palatable enough offer, then keeping him wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world. With his team-friendly contract, Teheran won’t have to perform like much more than a back-end starter to provide value over the next few years, meaning the Braves won’t be in a negative position if they retain him. However, by no means should John Coppolella be so intent on acquiring a young, established major league hitter in return for Teheran that he summarily spurns other offers. Teheran’s only a year removed from a 4.00 ERA season with a below-average 2.34 K/BB ratio. We’re not talking about a Jose Fernandez-esque superstar here; rather, Teheran’s contract and durability are arguably the two best things he has going for him. The Braves shouldn’t need to be “overwhelmed” to trade him, then, even though Coppolella said otherwise last month. Verdict: Shop him.
That’s where we stand, but we’ll also open this one up to our readers with a poll (Link to poll for Trade Rumors mobile app users):
Should The Braves Trade Julio Teheran?
-
Yes, sell him (or at least shop him) while his value is at its peak. 66% (3,501)
-
No, retain him to help contend in the near future. 34% (1,780)
Total votes: 5,281
MLBTR Poll: The James Shields Trade
It’s not often we see significant players swapped in June — read this if you don’t believe me — but the White Sox made an early strike on Saturday to acquire James Shields from the Padres. Chicago gave up controllable righty Erik Johnson and young infielder Fernando Tatis Jr., with San Diego keeping about $31MM of the $58MM owed to Shields.
From Chicago’s perspective, Shields represents a dependable — if diminished — rotation piece who can help keep the team in contention this year. He’ll also likely be around for the next two seasons to come, though Shields has the right to opt out at year end. While there’s little reason to believe that he’s still a top-of-the-line starter, Shields is incredibly durable, still reasonably effective, and quite fairly priced with the discount included in this swap. He certainly deepens a rotation that has some questions at the back end.
If the White Sox felt that Johnson was a viable option to play that sort of role, they surely wouldn’t have parted with him. The 26-year-old has failed to stick in four stints at the major league level, so he’s had his chances. On the other hand, he’s been much more effective at Triple-A — even if he hasn’t maintained a promising strikeout rate bump from a year ago — and none of those four stints included more than six appearances. With just 89 days of service coming into the year, the Cal-Berkeley product could be a long-term asset for the Padres; on the other hand, he’ll also soon be out of options. As Eric Longenhagen of Fangraphs explains, Johnson has a “mediocre” arsenal but still carries a bit of upside. Tatis, meanwhile, is a quality prospect in Longenhagen’s evaluation, though there are some limits to his ceiling and he remains a long ways from the majors.
So, MLBTR readers, did it make sense for the Sox to give up that package and take on that much salary? Were the Pads wise to act quickly to save some cash and get something back for Shields? Vote here (link for mobile app users):
How Do You Evaluate The James Shields Trade?
-
Win-Win: both teams did what they should have 35% (3,755)
-
ChiSox did well here; what were the Pads thinking?! 30% (3,282)
-
Nice haul for San Diego; Shields wasn't worth it for Chicago 20% (2,177)
-
Lose-Lose: the trade came too early for both teams 15% (1,570)
Total votes: 10,784
Poll: What Should The Mets Do With Matt Harvey?
Matt Harvey showed improved velocity early in his outing last night, but his fastball faded and he was again hammered as batters got second and third looks. The Mets now face a tough call on their former ace.
Many columnists are calling for Harvey to be removed from the rotation, at least temporarily. (See, for example, here and here.) With Logan Verrett on hand, the club certainly has a viable fill-in.
Indeed, the Mets appear to be considering some kind of move, even if they aren’t ready to reach a decision. “Right now we’ve got to think what’s not just best for Matt, but what’s best for us moving forward at the moment,” said skipper Terry Collins (via ESPN.com’s Adam Rubin). “There’s a lot of things to consider.”
As Collins hints, the devil is often in the details. In this case, the particular move to be made isn’t clear. Harvey has maintained that he is healthy, and no apparent injury issues have been reported. But to send him to the minors otherwise would require passing him through optional assignment waivers. They are revocable, and usually are easy to secure, but teams also don’t generally seek to send down assets like Harvey. Keeping him at the major league level while he’s figuring things out, though, would mean either using him out of the bullpen or wasting a valuable roster spot.
*Note: since this post was published, Collins has stated that Harvey will make his next starter, as Mike Puma of the New York Post was among those to tweet.
It’s always interesting to take the temperature of MLBTR readers on matters like this one. If you were sitting in Sandy Alderson’s GM seat, how would you handle Harvey? (Link for mobile users.)
How Should The Mets Handle Matt Harvey?
-
Skip a start ... see if a little time off helps 26% (2,987)
-
15-day DL ... even if it requires some creativity 22% (2,517)
-
Keep him in the rotation ... quit overreacting! 18% (2,088)
-
Option him ... and hope he doesn't take it too hard 13% (1,448)
-
Trade him ... for whatever you can get? 12% (1,414)
-
Move him to the bullpen ... he's good first time through 9% (1,060)
Total votes: 11,514
Poll: Should The Angels Consider Trading Mike Trout?
The Angels entered the season with some uncertainty surrounding their roster, and though we’re only a week into May, the 13-18 Halos may be facing an uphill battle to get back into contention. Injuries have ravaged the pitching staff, and the loss of ace Garrett Richards to Tommy John surgery is a particularly crushing blow that will hurt the Angels both this season and next, as Richards likely won’t return until late in the 2017 campaign. With closer Huston Street also on the DL and the lineup producing middling numbers in most offensive categories,
Compounding the problem for Anaheim is that the club is spending a lot of money (an Opening Day payroll of roughly $164.67MM) for this underwhelming performance, and the Angels’ farm system is widely considered to be by far the weakest in baseball. Some payroll relief will come when C.J. Wilson and Jered Weaver are off the books this winter as free agents, though the minor league system is in such dire straits that the Angels will realistically need a few years of strong drafts to replenish their stock of prospects.
The rumor mill is already beginning to swirl around the Angels as a possible trade deadline seller, and perhaps inevitably, there has been speculation that the Halos could completely shake things up by dealing Mike Trout. Needless to say, a Trout trade would be a milestone transaction for baseball as a whole, there’s almost no limit to what the Angels could demand in return for a player whose early-career exploits have put him alongside some of baseball’s all-time greats.
Trout would fetch, at minimum, a multi-player package of several blue chip prospects and slightly more developed talents who are close to the big leagues. A deal could also includes one or more established Major Leaguers. Could the Angels even look to move Albert Pujols‘ increasingly-burdensome contract by attaching it to Trout’s services? That last scenario may be perhaps a bit too far-fetched, though it’s hard to really gauge what a Trout market would look like given how rare it is for a superstar player in his prime to be shopped.
Angels owner Arte Moreno and GM Billy Eppler, unsurprisingly, have both flatly denied that the Angels have any inclination of dealing Trout. Even if this season goes completely off the rails for Anaheim, you would think that it would take another rough year in 2017 for the Angels to even begin considering a Trout trade given his importance to the franchise…and even then, the Angels are free of Josh Hamilton‘s contract after 2017 so they’d have even more available funds for a reload rather than a rebuild. Furthermore, Trout’s six-year, $144.5MM deal that runs through the 2020 season contains a full no-trade clause, so the superstar would have the final say on whether or not he left for another team.
Even the vague idea of Trout being swapped has inspired quite a bit of debate amongst pundits. Sports On Earth’s Brian Kenny and ESPN’s Buster Olney argue that the Angels would be foolish to deal such a once-in-a-generation talent, with Olney adding the caveat that the club might reconsider if Trout were to tell the Angels that he wasn’t going to re-sign after his current contract is up. Fangraphs’ Dave Cameron and ESPN’s David Schoenfield, on the other hand, think the idea isn’t completely absurd given how dire Cameron feels the Angels’ long-term situation is and (as Schoenfield illustrates) the incredible potential trade packages Anaheim could command.
While trading Trout is a complex question, let’s boil it down to a simple yes or no question. Is Trout the definition of an untouchable player, or are the Angels’ problems severe enough that they need a drastic move like a Trout deal to reinvigorate the franchise? (MLBTR app users can weigh in here)
Should The Angels Consider Trading Mike Trout?
-
Yes 54% (9,838)
-
No 46% (8,425)
Total votes: 18,263