How long until he demands a trade?

My money's on it happens this winter if they miss the playoffs again.

He's 30 now; it takes about that long for it to really begin to dawn on a person that you're not going to be 25 forever. And he has lost a lot of time to injury the last few years. If the Angels continue to be, well, the Angels, it can't be much longer before he forces his way out, because he wants to play in some playoff games before the end.

The Dodgers are probably already working on the marketing materials.

If he's forcing a trade, he's coming east to DC/Balt/Philly/NY/Boston. Local kid.

If he forces a trade it'll to be play for a successful team. He'd be in barely better a situation in Philly than he's already in, to say nothing of DC or Baltimore.

Then again the Commissioner is hot on the job of getting almost every team into the playoffs every year, so maybe he'll push that through while Trout still has a few years left to stay put in Anaheim and enjoy it.

Why didn't Trout call time and run in and tell him?

Then again the Commissioner is hot on the job of getting almost every team into the playoffs every year, so maybe he'll push that through while Trout still has a few years left to stay put in Anaheim and enjoy it.

Perhaps Manfred would consider putting an expansion team in Atlantic City to accommodate Trout.

If he's forcing a trade, he's coming east to DC/Balt/Philly/NY/Boston. Local kid.

Whichever team would be most likely to wildly overpay for a great player who's now injury-prone and who's better days are behind him? CAN'T IMAGINE

Trying to think of what an offer would legitimately have to look like to trade for Trout, and what would be the equivalent in recent sports history.

If they traded him this off-season (and I believe Trout is a 10-and-5 guy, so he'd need to approve of the destination), would it be like when Gretzky was traded from Edmonton to LA?

So Boston would want in on this opportunity, and they have no outfielders. They also have a lot of money coming off the books this off-season, so they could absorb his salary (eight more years at $37m/yr, through his age 38 season).

I presume it would take something like four premium prospects, including at least two who were major-league ready (or darned close), so something like:

1B Tristen Casas (#14 overall prospect on current Baseball America list)
2B Nick Yorke (#46)
SP Brayan Bello (#76 and rising fast)
A high-ceiling lower minors guy, like CF Miguel Bleis
A AAA starter with a high floor who can plug into the rotation immediately, like Josh Winckowski or Chris Murphy.


Would that package be sufficiently competitive? If you are the Red Sox, are you like, "Hey, wait - that's our really good cost-controlled 1B and 2B of the future, plus our best pitching prospect who'll be up next year, plus a guy who's pitching well in our rotation right now?!"

Something working against the Angels: His trade rights might narrow the bidders quickly; also, his injury history requires some discount on the package coming back.

Working for the Angels: On the right team, he would be an absolutely franchise centerpiece, marketing, ticket sales, etc. I think Mookie Betts is a more exciting and marketable player, but he only had a year left on his deal. With Trout, he's your centerpiece for the rest of the 2020s.

Folks seem to be inflating Trout’s ability to ‘force’ a trade, while overlooking the obvious solution - make Trout a player/manager, or at least the assistant pitching coach.

If he's forcing a trade, he's coming east to DC/Balt/Philly/NY/Boston. Local kid.

No self-respecting Philly kid (which Trout is) would consider NY “local”.

Why didn't Trout call time and run in and tell him?

Serious question: does that count as a mound visit, and do outfielders have the authority to expend those?

No self-respecting Philly kid (which Trout is) would consider NY “local”.

Didn't Trout grow up as a huge Derek Jeter fan?

No self-respecting Philly kid (which Trout is) would consider NY “local”.

Trout's from Jersey. No self-respecting Philly kid would consider him a Philly kid.

Just for laughs...

What about Harper + ??? for Trout? Granted, now with the thumb injury this probably wouldn't work unless/until Harper proves he's back at his normal level post-injury, but... It would be a cost savings for the Angels (although taking on 2 additional years of Harper) PLUS allow them to get back as close to Trout as they could get.

Now, as to why Philly would do it... I'm not sure they have pieces to trade otherwise, it is almost a wash financially (although it's another $8-$10 mil a year).

I'm not sure whether you'd want Trout's career going forward or Harper's, but this would be a hell of a challenge trade if made.

I can't imagine a package that would be worthwhile to the Angels. Having an all-time great on your team for his entire career is the sort of thing that a franchise is built around. Mickey Mantle, Ted Williams, Stan Musial. It gives your little expansion team a real identity. Add in the fact that he's absurdly underpaid, and he has the kind of value to the Angels that really no set of prospects, no matter how many or how good, can match. And he *doesn't* have that kind of value for any other team, which is also going to make him hard/impossible to trade.

Now watch them send him to the Yankees for Jasson Dominguez or some such nonsense.

Serious question: does that count as a mound visit, and do outfielders have the authority to expend those?

Catchers are now restricted on their number of mound visits, right? I would have to imagine that this would count as a catcher visit. I also would assume that in such a case the catcher would join everyone else on the mound to see what's going on.

I think Trout doesn't make that trip because it's just one of those things that isn't done. He would definitely say something in between innings, but when have you ever seen a CF trotting to the mound in the middle of the game to give advice to the pitcher? Plus I'm not sure if it's a fix that could be easily done in the middle of an inning if there's a mechanical issue that needs to be corrected.

I’ll be the only one with this weird take but why is he showing up the pitcher [?] - it would be better if he called a time out, stormed to the mound and have a quick heart to heart rather than mocking his pitcher and acting all pissy.

no. 17, i thought that was odd as well. plus, the inning's still going on, and you're in the outfield demonstrating how your pitcher is tipping pitches! that seems ... problematic.

when have you ever seen a CF trotting to the mound in the middle of the game to give advice to the pitcher?

Every time a CF has noticed his pitcher tipping pitches mid-inning, minus one.

Catchers are now restricted on their number of mound visits, right? I would have to imagine that this would count as a catcher visit.

I would think it would count as well. But I'd argue there is NO better time for a player or coach to visit the mound than to tell a pitcher how he is tipping his pitches.

MLB Trade Simulator has Trout as a 152 value and listed as untradeable - guys over 100 are almost impossible to make a package for unless you get 2 super-gutsy GM's willing to do a 1-1 trade. The Yankees peak is a 55 for Volpe, Mets a 67 for Alvarez, Phillies Nola at 52, the O's Rutschman is at 89. Basically it measures expected value over team control minus expected cost. The Jays have 2 guys over 100 in Bo Bichette and Alek Manoah but no way they would trade either of them, even for Trout I suspect. Atlanta has Acuna Jr. at 232 and Riley at 118, Will Smith of the Dodgers is at 93. That gives an idea of what it takes to make a Trout deal happen unless the Angels GM gets really dumb - Will Smith plus the Yankees top prospect might get it done, but would still be short on total value. Insane eh? I use that site to get a reality check on trade ideas I get - great for reminding one that we fans overvalue our own often. The National's Soto has been subject of rumors a lot and they put him as virtually untradeable at 191 value.

The Jays have 2 guys over 100 in Bo Bichette and Alek Manoah but no way they would trade either of them, even for Trout I suspect.

Vlad Jr. is lower than those guys?

OK, I went to the site. They have Vlad at 86. I have no idea why they think he will be significantly less valuable than Bichette over the next 3.5 years. He's already more valuable and is 1 year younger.

The link in #20 isn't allowing me to even enter Trout or Harper in a trade. What's the point of a simulator if you can't simulate something?

Based on the trade value simulator in #20, my suggestion in #8 isn't too out of line.

A Trout for Casas/Yorke/Bello/Mayer trade actually is more trade value going to the Angles than Trout returns to Boston. There is no way the REd Sox would do that - those four represent the four prospects the team have in the top 100 in the sport, including two top-20 guys (Mayer and Casas) and two guys who will almost certainly be in the bigs to start 2023 (Casas and Bello).

The simulator has Trout expected to produce 434 units of value over the life of his contract, 8.5 years, ages 30 to 39, 51 per year. It has Vlad expected to produce 152 over the next 3.5 years, ages 23-26, 43.4. That doesn't quite compute. Vlad is unlikely to age well into his 30's, but we are talking about prime years here. Vlad has missed 2 games the last 2 years. Trout has missed 135. he hasn't played a full, full season (53 games in a 60 game season doesn't count) since 2016. Yes, he was still extremely valuable in the seasons since in which he played 114, 140, and 134 games, but that was when he was in his mid 20's. Will he still be able to do that in his 30's?

Trout has missed 135. he hasn't played a full, full season (53 games in a 60 game season doesn't count) since 2016.

Yeah, I really hope we're not seeing Griffey, Jr. part 2 here.

Wrote this like 10 posts ago, forgot to submit ... any cokes owed will be in the mail on an equally timely basis.

These trades are very difficult to work. A team getting Trout has to decide how much value they are getting over and above what he's owed (which is about 8/$300 through age 38). Even among the greats, you don't usually get a lot of value at 36-38 ... but for some of the super-greats you do but that's part of what makes them super-great so you don't know you're getting that ahead of time. Among the all-time greats who are the most obvious comps for Trout you've got Mays (14 WAR 36-38 plus another 14 WAR left) and Mantle (3 WAR at 36 and done). You start knowing there's a good chance you will be paying Trout $110 M for almost nothing in the last 3 years. Of course if you're paying him $110 M for 14 WAR then no problems.

Ages 31-36 are when Mantle really started losing time. He'd been very durable before then, much moreso than Trout has been. So over those 6 seasons, Mantle had just 2700 PA and 20 WAR. $300 M for 20 WAR is pretty disastrous. Mays put up 66 WAR from 31-38 and you'd be very, very happy with that.

Anyway, trades ... I did this about 5 years ago for Trout befoe he signed his extension and we were playing what if games. I don't recall the details, maybe you'd be trading for 3/$100 and the chance to extend him. For the Cubs, given the $ differences, one could argue that Kris Bryant would have been enough but I figured you'd have to throw in another ML-ready kid like maybe Baez. Anyway I think it was 4 years of Bryant (back when he was a 6-WAR player) for 3 years of Trout then a piece to get the deal done. As it turned out of course, Baez blossomed, Bryant got fragile and less productive and Trout got fragile.

So I guess that must have been the 2017-18 offseason. 2018-21 Bryant put up 10.5 WAR for about $62 M; Baez put up 18 WAR for about $28 M; for 2018-20, Trout put up 20 WAR for $108 M. The Angels woulda won that trade by a mile (it's an easy win on $, a win on WAR, a win on $/WAR and a tie on WAR/season but it does cost one extra roster slot). They also wouldn't have signed Rendon (but might have given Rendon's money to Bryant in an extension). And extnding Trout, given what Bryant and Baez have done so far in their FA years, it looks like the Angels will be getting a lot more value (for about the same total amount if they had given Bryant/Baez their current contracts). In that alternate universe, do the Cubs even extend Trout or does their infamous rebuild start a year earlier? If they do extend Trout, he'd now be stuck on a team even worse than the Angels.

The recent examples that spring to mind are Mookie and Stanton. The Red Sox got good value for one year of Mookie -- they should have just extended him but once they made that decision, they did a good job. They got Verdugo a good, young ML OFer (off a cliff this season) and Jeter Downs a lower top-100 prospect and relief from half of Price's salary. Of course that was for just one year of Mookie ... but also not a $300 M commitment from the receiving team.

Stanton cost the Yanks essentially nothing but Stanton's salary, they even get money from the Marlins. But that was correct because Stanton's back-loaded contract meant that he was not likely going to be worth what he was owed (the Marlins extracted the excess value in the first few years of the deal). Trout's deal is not backloaded and if we set his expectation at the mean of Mantle/Mays then ... well then his contract is pretty close to fair market value at 43 WAR for $300 M. Even if we put the cost at $10 M/WAR, 30 WAR is the break-even point.

I hate to say it but I'm not sure there's a lot of excess value in the Trout contract anymore. His health track record is looking pretty Stanton-esque at this point. Griffey was a highly durable player through 30, then he wasn't (8 WAR 31-38). We've seen great hitters like Pujols and Cabrera decline dramatically before age 35 (ages 31-38, Pujols 90 Rbat; Cabrera 114). Not everybody is as athletic as Nelson Cruz. :-)

He's still Mike Trout of course. You trade for him knowing that you've got a team/resources where any of the next 4 years when he's healthy, you've got a real shot at the WS. Yankees, Dodgers, maybe Mets, maybe Red Sox. And the Angels are not the Marlins, they don't "need" to trade Trout for financial reasons. You've got to make it worth their while and since trading Trout risks losing the Angels' fanbase for the next 20 years, that's probably gottta be quite a bit.

So proably the current equivalent of Bryant and Baez 2018. For the Red Sox, you'd think a minimum of X (extended) or more likely Devers plus some prospect-y stuff. (Except Devers plays 3B ... so maybe the Red Sox take on a sizable chunk of Rendon.) If the Red Sox have a good CF prospect maybe it's a doable trade. So Devers plus top prospect (pref CF or SP) for Trout and half of Rendon. Angels hope Correa opts out and give him something like 8/$250-300.

Heresy I know but ask yourself some questions ... would you trade Julio Rodriguez for Trout? Wander Franco? Mookie's contract (10/$320 remaining, heavily deferred, ages 30-39) for Trout's contract (8/$300, not deferred, ages 31-38)? (My response on the last one I'm pretty sure is yes but I'd love for my nerds to give me some good estimates on injury risk.) If Correa is available this offseason, would you rather have him (through age 35) or Trout for 8/$300?

FYI: Correa is up to a 141 OPS+ this season after a slow start, just 2.1 WAR though because apparently the defense is off (DRS and statcast agree).

Heresy I know but ask yourself some questions ... would you trade Julio Rodriguez for Trout? Wander Franco? Mookie's contract (10/$320 remaining, heavily deferred, ages 30-39) for Trout's contract (8/$300, not deferred, ages 31-38)? (My response on the last one I'm pretty sure is yes but I'd love for my nerds to give me some good estimates on injury risk.) If Correa is available this offseason, would you rather have him (through age 35) or Trout for 8/$300?

As I wrote above, the trade simulator linked in 20 had Trout with far more excess value per year from ages 30-38 at $35 mil per year than Vlad Jr from 23-26 at arb salaries. That's just nuts.

I don't want to be known as the guy bad mouthing Trout. I think he is fairly valued under his current contract for what he can be expected to produce over the life of his contract. The notion that his median projection is a humongous surplus in value minus salary is nuts.

Haven't checkd out the trade simulator yet but it doesn't really matter how Vlad will or won't age -- as of right now, the Jays have 3.5 years of control and that's all they have to trade and that's all the other team will receive. (OK, both have an exclusive negotiating window which is not worthless but not a big deal) Moreover, until Vlad is signed, even if you assume he will be extended, you have to assume he will be extended at full market value in accordance with his expected value, resulting in no additional surplus value.

Some values

Wander 234
Tatis 206
Correa 17 (less than 1 year control)
Baez -35
Story -2

The notion that his median projection is a humongous surplus in value minus salary is nuts.

If he's Willie Mays, it's a bargain. :-) More seriously, I'd like to see their methodology (which might be on the site) ... what sort of playing time assumptions are they making, what sort of age-based decline factor, what $/WAR and inflation values?

So, solving all sorts of "problems" ... a horribly complicated 4-way trade

Angels send Trout, Rendon and some $$ (some portion of Rendon) to the Dodgers

Dodgers send Freeman and a toppish prospect to the Braves, a top prospect to the Angels and Justin Turner (last year of the contract) and Gavin Lux to the Red Sox

Braves send Matt Olson to the Red Sox

Red Sox send Devers, Verdugo and a prospect to the Angels (I'd say that 1B guy but the Angels have a good 1B)

Let's see that gives us (if I didnj't miss anything):

Angels give up Trout and save Rendon money for Devers, Verdugo, a top prospect and another good prospect. Note, Rendon is owed 4/$154 ... maybe they cover half, with Trout that's $375 M off the books.

Dodgers give up Freeman, Lux, a top prospect, a toppish prospect plus $75+ M on Rendon for Trout.

Braves give up Olson for Freeman and a prospect ... probably somebody needs to give the Braves some money or a prospect (maybe the Red Sox)

Red Sox give up Devers, Verdugo and a prospect for Olson and Lux.

Griffey was a 148 OPS+ hitter through age 30, 114 after that. It wasn't just the missed playing time, it was a decrease in effectiveness.

Trout has been a 186 OPS+ hitter since 2015 despite the missed time. That's actually better than the 170 he put up prior to 2015.

Hopefully he'll be more like Larry Walker as he ages -- a guy who had some trouble staying on the field but was still highly effective when healthy.

Haven't checkd out the trade simulator yet but it doesn't really matter how Vlad will or won't age -- as of right now, the Jays have 3.5 years of control and that's all they have to trade and that's all the other team will receive.

Yes. That's my point. The simulator has Trout as far more valuable per year from ages 30-38 getting paid $37 mil/year than Vlad from ages 23-26 getting arbitration wages. I don't see it.

Put another way, just doing a straight extrapolation based on what they have done so far this year, Vlad will get about 5 WAR for $8 mil. Trout 9 for $37 mil. Vlad wins that one easily. Let's say that over the next 3 years, Trout outperforms Vlad, but due to Vlad not making $37 mil/per, Vlad is still ahead on WAR/$. Vlad is now a FA, but the team holding Trout has him for 5 more years at $37 mil per from ages 34-38. Maybe he makes up the difference, maybe he doesn't. But he's likely to not have a huge amount of excess value. I think it would take a lot of salary inflation to make that likely.

I would think it would count as well. But I'd argue there is NO better time for a player or coach to visit the mound than to tell a pitcher how he is tipping his pitches.

Not only that Angels were already losing adn Peguero was getting hit.

is it possible that Peguero does not speak English and Trout was just trying to signal the bench to get him out of there?

#34 ... I agree. Well, I'd have to think about Vlad's value/$ but agree with the general point. I'm just explaining the main reason why the raw totals are so different.

But I'm not entirely sure Vlad's really the guy you want for that example. He was a beast last year but is on pace for maybe 5 WAR this year. Bloody good but I'm not sure he'd project to more than 12-15 WAR for 2023-25 for (crude WAG) $60 M. A healthy(!!!) Trout probably projects to 24-27 WAR for $120 over the next 3 years. Twice the WAR for twice the money.

It's reasonably clear that whatever methodology they're using "expects" Trout to either be pretty full-time or to never decline in quality. Over the last 4.5 seasons (which included a pretty full 2020), Trout has "only" 25 WAR. So either the playing time will remain spotty butj not the quality so he'll always produce 5 WAR per season or he'll produce at an 8-war pace now, declining to a 2-WAR pace at 38 but stay on the field.

On Griffey ... the quality _eventually_ declined as the injuries piled up. From 31-35, he had a 130 OPS+ which is in line with his age 29-30. True, the defense is gone by 31 but everything fell apart at 36. Really that age 35 season is pretty astounding: 555 PA of 301/359/576 with 35 HR, Trout would be pretty happy with that I think.

Walker would certainly be a good outcome -- 36 WAR -- but maybe it's time to accept reality and just move him to DH. Obviously he's still a solid CF, presumably a good corner when healthy but maybe you can keep him healthier. But then what do you do with Ohtani. Maybe the solution is to trade Ohtani!!

Hold on ... the page I see from that trade simulator puts Trout's value at 152, where does 434 come from? Or is 434 "raw" value (152 I take to be "surplus value.") He's just behind Luis Robert, just ahead of Corbin Burnes. He is still way ahead of Vlad (87) but that's the contract control issue. That seems perfectly reasonable, even a bit pessimistic. The "highest/lowest" page puts Franco #1, Jose Ramirez #2. Ohtani is at 98, just below Manoah.

I've undersold Devers in #32 (or overrated Olson), the Red Sox need to get another piece but no reason for anybody to give them one.

The most valuable Cub was Brennen Davis in the 30s but the back surgery leaves him with no value until he comes back. That leaves Happ, Hoerner and Suzuki all around 20. They still have Madrigal at 17 and I'm sure the Cubs would be more than happy to trade him for an equally cheap 10.

But I'm not entirely sure Vlad's really the guy you want for that example. He was a beast last year but is on pace for maybe 5 WAR this year. Bloody good but I'm not sure he'd project to more than 12-15 WAR for 2023-25 for (crude WAG) $60 M. A healthy(!!!) Trout probably projects to 24-27 WAR for $120 over the next 3 years. Twice the WAR for twice the money.

That's my point. Unless things change drastically, Vlad is going to seriously outperform Trout on a WAR/$ scale this year. And push him at worst the next 3. That leaves Trout to make up a bunch in his age 34-38 years at $37 mil per.

I see where the 434 came from now ... that the "AFV" which is the total future value. I don't think that's surplus value, just total value. It's saying Trout for the next 8 years will produce at about the same average level as Vlad for the next 3. If Vlad's producing at 5 WAR per, it's basically saying that Trout projects to 40 WAR over the next 8 years. Depending on playing time assumptions, that seems reasonable to me.

There's then a "surplus" column which is described as "difference between AFV and salary." That's 127 for Trout (which matches his "low" projection) and 87 for Vlad (which matches his median projection) -- I'll guess that's an age thing, be conservative in valuing old guys, median for others? So when we look at surplus, the Angels get $127 over 8.5 years or an average of $15 M/yr; the Jays get $87 M over 3.5 years or about $25 M per year. Vlad is producing 2/3 more surplus value over the next 3.5 years because of the arb salaries.

Now salary is in $ so I assume AFV and surplus are in $. That suggests to me that they're using something like $10 M/WAR -- at least that works out conveniently for my Vlad = 15 WAR and Trout = 40 WAR guesstimate.

The least valuable (median)

Strasburg -155
Rendon -141
Bryant -121 (I hope that's not true but such a Rockies thing to do)
Yelich -101
Stanton -84
... some others of note ...
Lindor -42
Berrios -39
Betts (!) -37
Cole -33
Semien -29
Scherzer -26

Wow, they have Corey Seager as positive (barely).

On these (and others) ... I don't think they're making any adjustment for deferrals. Fair enough, that would be a pain in the ass but almost half of Mookie's money is paid over the 12 years after the contract ends which I'm pretty sure cuts the NPV by enough to balance out that -37.

#38 ... my #39 give the actual numbers they're using but using my earlier example ...

If Bob Fish produces 24 WAR for $120 M then (at $10/WAR which they seem to be using) that's a surplus of $120 M.

If Leon Ortiz produces 15 WAR for $60 M then that's an excess of $90 M.

Obviously Bob is already well ahead and, unless he falls off a cliff, would continue to produce excess value while Leon's projected surplus value stops counting.

As it is, Trout's total excess is only a bit over that $120 M. They are saying that in 8.5 years, Trout will produce only about $35-40 M more in excess value than Vlad in 3.5 years. That's 4 extra excess wins over an extra 5 years. I don't consider that unreasonable (I'd still like to see their playing time and age-decline numbers though).

Right. But what I am arguing is that Vlad will produce an excess over the next 3.5 years, and Trout won't make up the difference.

Back to the original topic ... I know that umpires can pretty much do what they want but, under the rules, can a player ask for time for any reason? Mainly I think the best solution here is Trout calls time, goes to the dugout to talk to the coach/manager then the coach/manager decides how to handle it. (Trout calling time and running in from CF to play pitching coach is not a good look either.)

Also, how easy is it to fix pitch-tipping? Or is the solution here just "get somebody up and get him out of the game ASAP" ... which Trout calling time, visiting the dubout and generating a mound visit would help kill time.

Finally, if the manager comes out on the field to visit the CF for non-injury reasons, is that a "mound visit?" I'm confident I've never seen that for an OF. I don't recall seeing it for an IF either but I can imagine in the old days that a mound visit might have disguised such a thing -- certainly discussing IF strategy during a mound visit happens. Does a player have to come to the mound for the manager to "visit" them?

Trout isn't getting traded under any circumstances. Check back in 5 years.

Check back in 5 years.

Why, will there be no circumstances in 2027? :-)

Infielders and catchers talk to the pitcher all the time, and it does not count against any rules related to mound visits. At a minimum, Trout could call trot towards the infield between plate appearances, and tell the 2B or SS about the problem. Then, they could more easily tell the pitcher and catcher.

it does not count against any rules related to mound visits.

This is incorrect, visits from infielders count as mound visits. But yeah your point is one I haven't seen made and it's a good one. If Trout could see it why not say something?

a great player who's now injury-prone and who's better days are behind him

I don't know if his better days are behind him, or if he's still in the middle of them:

                         
Year   Age  PA   OPS OPS+
2011    19 135  .672   89
2012    20 639  .963  168
2013    21 716  .988  179
2014    22 705  .939  169
2015    23 682  .991  176
2016    24 681  .991  173
2017    25 507 1.071  186
2018    26 608 1.088  198
2019    27 600 1.083  182
2020    28 241  .993  167
2021    29 146 1.090  195
2022    30 287 1.037  190

Injuries are an issue, but the dude is still killing it with the bat the past 400 PA.

Is too much being made of Trout's injuries? He's failed to "qualify" exactly once since his rookie year, and has only one other (non-COVID year) under 600 PA (the COVID year pro-rates to 630 PA, 2022 to 596).

EDIT: RE: the Walker comparison - Walker, on the other hand, had more than 600 PA only twice in his whole career.

I looked up the Tigers in the MLB Trade Simulator, and instead of a value number next to the player's names, all it said was "magic beans".

Put another way, just doing a straight extrapolation based on what they have done so far this year, Vlad will get about 5 WAR for $8 mil. Trout 9 for $37 mil. Vlad wins that one easily.

I don't think Vlad wins that one easily. Vlad has a better $/WAR, but Trout is forecast to produce 4 more WAR for $29 million more. At $8 million per WAR (or pick your number), Trout is probably producing more excess value.

That being said, their projection for Vlad seems overly conservative, which is probably the bigger issue.

I think Trout doesn't make that trip because it's just one of those things that isn't done. He would definitely say something in between innings

The article says that Peguero didn't learn about it until after the game was over... when he saw the video of Trout.

EDIT: RE: the Walker comparison - Walker, on the other hand, had more than 600 PA only twice in his whole career.

Maybe too much is being made of Trout’s injuries. I used Walker as an example because he averaged 122 games per season in his 30s and Trout has averaged 119 since his injuries started, excluding the pandemic-shortened season. My point was that Trout can still be a very valuable player even if he misses 30-40 games a year. There are other examples you can find of guys who had durability issues but continued to play at a HOF level when healthy. They don’t all become Griffey (and even Griffey wasn’t bad, as Walt noted.

I don't know if his better days are behind him, or if he's still in the middle of them:

Listen, it's not like the self-immolation thread is going to self-immolate itself!

The article says that Peguero didn't learn about it until after the game was over... when he saw the video of Trout.

True, but after Peguero pitched his less than stellar two-thirds of an inning, Elvis had left the building. He was done, and not coming out for another inning. Thus, no reason to bring it up in the dugout - in the heat of battle with cameras rolling. Better to let the pitching coach handle it postgame, or even the next day, although since Trout alerted the whole world, except for Peguero, there was really no way to keep it in-house.

Does Peguero speak english? Hes from central america if I recall.

Listen, it's not like the self-immolation thread is going to self-immolate itself!

Speaking of self-immolation threads, Happy Bobby Bonilla Day!