What are our thoughts on Trout's trade value?

With a chronic back injury and a history of getting into only 100-110 games per season as he enters his decline phase, his contract is upside down. An optimistic ZIPS projection has Trout as ~20 WAR over the next seven years (though a single 8 WAR Troutian season will change the math), so is this a situation where a single 45 FV player gets it done? Or do we think that Moreno will eat a chunk of the contract to get back some prospect capital?

$37.1 million each year through his age 38 season in 2030.

Games played each season since 2017, his age 25 season:
114
140
134
53 (out of 60)
36
119
82

His OPS+ is "only" 130 this year.

At age 20, he stole 49 bases in 54 attempts.
In the last four years, he is 6-for-7 in stolen base attempts.

Look, in his first six full seasons, he made a total of $44 million, and they got six seasons where he won the MVP twice, finished second three other times, and finished 4th in a season where he only played 114 games. He had 48.5 WAR in that six years, so they paid less than a million per WAR for six unreal years. If you want to say that this next quarter billion of salary is simply deferred payment for the elite years, then great. At least, unlike the Pujols contract, they aren't paying the "deferred" salary for some other team's benefit of the peak years.

But who on Earth is going to trade anything of value for Trout and his contract? Serious - can you name a team that would make the trade, and what would they give up for him?

Phillies.

Castellanos for Trout + Tyler Anderson.

Hometown team, and they are all-in on Trout's timeline. That's with the Phillies taking the whole contract. If the Angels pay half, the Phillies can include some goodies.

Serious - can you name a team that would make the trade, and what would they give up for him?

Mets would make the trade for Marte.

Every team would trade for Trout.*. That is, if you picked up the phone and said I want to trade you Mike Trout are you interested? 29 teams say yes. Now, some teams will want a salary buy down and some teams will absorb the salary and minimize the return. But I'm guessing if you can get salary down to $25 AAV there will be a deal with decent prospects going back

* the caveat is the back injury that was talked about as a career ender last year. If in fact a physical shows he had a Correa -issue, then maybe not

Of course in #3 and #4, the Angels would be taking on 3/$60 for Castellanos or 2/$41 for Marte. (Why the Phils want Tyler Anderson in the deal I don't know.) Those are certainly steps in the right direction but it's not a refutation of Balboni's point/question (which maybe they weren't intended as). Stanton for Trout would be interesting (4/$128 with $30 covered by Marlins).

Yes, Trout still has (significantly) positive market value but his current market value is well below 7/$260 (or whatever). The Angels need to eat money to get the conttract down to market value -- whether they want to eat even more money to buy a prospect in return is essentially a separate question. A fully healthy season where he puts up a 130-140 OPS+ or a 400+ PA season where he produces like the old Trout would help and obviously a healthy season of the old Trout would be best of all.

Does he have value as a DH? I don't know what causes all the injuries, but playing the field can't help.

Would the Brewers do a Trout for Yelich challenge trade? Pretty sure the Rockies would trade Bryant for Trout. Red Sox for Story and Sale. The Dodgers and Giants both have room in the budget for Trout. The Orioles have a contender full of young players and a lot of room to add payroll.

Yelich has had a solid year but I assume doesn't project well and is owed 5/$136. I'm not sure the Angels take that straight up given thhe PR hit of losing Ohtani and Trout. But yes, I assume the difference beteen Trout's projection over the next 7 is sufficiently higher than Yelich's over the next 5 to justify the extra $125 MM. Story is owed 4/$100 but Sale has just 1/$27.5 left (barring a healthy and effective 2024 triggering a $20 M option) so his inclusion doesn't matter much oen way or the other. Story probably projects to about 10 WAR even if we ignore the injury -- that's the sad part, Trout for Story straight up and you might be taking on $160 extra M for 10 extra WAR.

For a Trout deal to make sense to another team, the Angels would seem to have to eat at least $60 M (with nothing in return) and the receiving team has to project him to at least 20 WAR in 7 seasons. If they can find a team that projects him to 30 WAR, then they can get some value back. For that to happen, I think he'll need to prove himself next year.

It's sad but Trout looks like a worse bet than Griffey after his age 30 season (7 WAR left), much worse than Mantle after age 31 (17 WAR left). His recent injury history means we no longer really consider Mays, Aaron, FRobinson or other super-durable guys ... at this point in his career, Trout looks much less durable than even Griffey or Mantle. Assuming Ohtani doesn't return, I'd shift him to DH and hope the Edgar/Molitor magic happens but, realistically, you'd probably be pretty happy with a Frank Thomas 21 WAR in 3700 PA.

But if his projection at this point really is 7/20 WAR then, as a FA, we would be talking about something closer to Marte (4/$80), Castellanos (5/$100) or at best Story (6/$140) or Swanson (7/$177). That means his contract is off by at least $90 M before a team starts to give up real value for him. I hope Trout makes that sentence look foolish, he's been such a great player.

Trout seems destined to go down the Mickey Mantle route -- inner-circle hall of famer who somehow seems to have not lived up to his potential in the end.

But if his projection at this point really is 7/20 WAR

We know players get old, injured, etc, but seeing that in print is just sad. Needless to say MIKE TROUT is not walking through that door again. Nothing would please us all for him to have a couple 130 game seasons left along with some 110+ games type of thing and put together another 30 WAR.

I'm not sure the extent of the back injury, but everyone I've known with a back injury pretty much just manages it, they don't seem to ever go away or heal completely. I hope I'm wrong here.

Basically, it seems, Trout has no trade value at all. Which is a massive ####### disappointment. Obviously it was going to happen some day, but young Trout was so phenomenally, well, phenomenal that it's crushing to see it all end so soon.

When I'm feeling optimistic, I tell myself that Trout finished in the top 10 in the MVP vote last year. That he's only a year removed from hitting 40 home runs in 119 games and slugging 630. If he plays out the contract, he's still going to get to 500 home runs. And his injury this year was from a HBP.

But then I take off my optimistic hat and I realize that hand/wrist injuries often don't fully heal. And, as Hugh notes, neither do back injuries (especially strange chronic conditions like he's got). And it looks like it's going to be a long sad slog through the 2020s, instead of celebrating the newest version of Hank Aaron or whatever we were going to get.

Man, remember when he signed this contract? The consensus was that he was leaving lots of money on the table.

BuT yOu cAn'T tRaDe TrOuT!

Yes, I hope the projections are wrong about Trout. (Where did that 7/20 WAR come from?) I'm maybe being too pessimistic about this season's small sample. The avg EV and HH rate are unchanged, the BABIP is still nice and high. It's just 362 sub-par (for Trout) PAs, maybe he will bounce back to a 170 OPS+ during his healthy periods. And if Edgar can put up a 159 OPS+ and 47 WAR in 5500 PA from 32-40 there's no reaon that Trout can't. Or Stargell -- 156 OPS+, 27 WAR, 4000 PA from 32-39. Or Larry Walker 143 OPS+, 30 WAR in a mere 3300 PA from 32-38. Manny 151 OPS+, 30 oWAR in 3900 PA from 32-39. Those things are all very possible, Trout (amazingly) is much more talented than any of those guys.

None of us is in a position to know, but I pretty strongly suspect that Trout's back condition is more or less career ending. Any attempt by the Angels to trade him without eating most of his contract will probably be stopped dead in its tracks as soon as the medical records are shared.

Rarely have I more fervently hoped to be wrong.

Can't see Trout being traded without at least $50+ million in cash or dead contracts being covered by the Angels. Even if they include their best non-Trout/Ohtani players in the deal. Trout is just too injury prone at this stage and past 30 so no team would want his contract.

the Mets already traded Escobar to the Angels this summer - they ate the whole contract, and thus got two reasonable pitching prospects in return.

I wonder if Moreno would agree to let the Mets take Trout and his entire contract off their hands for a handshake and a back pat at a dinner at a Red Lobster.

It's sad but Trout looks like a worse bet than Griffey after his age 30 season (7 WAR left), much worse than Mantle after age 31 (17 WAR left). His recent injury history means we no longer really consider Mays, Aaron, FRobinson or other super-durable guys ... at this point in his career, Trout looks much less durable than even Griffey or Mantle. Assuming Ohtani doesn't return, I'd shift him to DH and hope the Edgar/Molitor magic happens but, realistically, you'd probably be pretty happy with a Frank Thomas 21 WAR in 3700 PA.

My admittedly hazy memory is that Jr stubbornly *insisted* that he keep playing CF, no?

When I look him up on BBREF - I see that he really shouldn't have been playing CF after 30 or so, but kept getting most of his time there until age 37. Using age 31 (roughly the season when it looks like it started to be a real mistake keep him in CF) through 37 (the point when he got pawned off by the Reds), he batted 273/357/517 (OPS+ 122). Not great - and he also averaged about 100 games a year over that period - but the story of his WAR cliff-diving seems like (hey, Walt - here's where do some linear weights and tell me I'm wrong :-) -- which I'd accept) it brutally a matter of his increasingly shitty defense giving back more than he gained with the CF position adjustment.

At least, it seems to me most teams would be pretty happy with 273/357/517 from a corner OF. Maybe just not one paid Griffey's then-relative salary.

I don't disagree with the larger point - I wouldn't take on that contract whole - but I do wonder whether Trout has the same insistence on staying in CF. He actually looks like he really should have been moved off CF several years ago.

but the story of his WAR cliff-diving seems like (hey, Walt - here's where do some linear weights and tell me I'm wrong :-) -- which I'd accept) it brutally a matter of his increasingly shitty defense giving back more than he gained with the CF position adjustment.

This inherently depends on how his defense would have graded out in the corner spot. If he would have been league average there, he definitely should've been moved. (Of course, the Reds were already running out Dunn/Kearns in the corners for most of those years; I don't know that you want either of them in center either.)

If Dunn and Kearns were his outfieldmates that probably made Griffey look even worse than he was. Bad enough for him to be playing center, much less trying to do Garry Maddox's job of covering 70% of the Earth.

If Mike Trout has any baseball future at all, it is as a DH. You'd hope at this stage of his life he's smart enough to understand that and wise enough to accept it.

My admittedly hazy memory is that Jr stubbornly *insisted* that he keep playing CF, no?

He did. His stated reason was that it kept him healthier because he didn't have to chase balls in the corner or near the stands.

Kearns was the nominal starter in RF from 2002 through mid 2006 and was a solid fielder. It would've made baseball sense to move Griffey there in 2002 as Kearns was coming up but that wasn't going to happen.

Sale and Story for Trout? Yes, please!

Maybe all of you know this, but Trout's injury this year had nothing to do with his back. He broke his hamate. He also insists that some of the stories regarding the back injury from last year exaggerated how serious of an issue it was. That said, before he broke his hamate this year, he was having a down year, so who knows whether that was due to lingering back issues or something else. Just wanted to clarify that he did not miss any time this year due to back issues.

If Mike Trout has any baseball future at all, it is as a DH.

Convenient that the Angels have an opening at DH going forward.

Maybe all of you know this, but Trout's injury this year had nothing to do with his back. He broke his hamate. He also insists that some of the stories regarding the back injury from last year exaggerated how serious of an issue it was. That said, before he broke his hamate this year, he was having a down year, so who knows whether that was due to lingering back issues or something else. Just wanted to clarify that he did not miss any time this year due to back issues.

Well, repeating first that I fervently hope he plays 150 games a year for another decade yet...

First, I'll be more inclined to believe him after he actually plays baseball for longer than a couple months without severely injuring himself.

Second, I'm not feeling much comfort from the line of argument, "My back's not shot, it's just that everything in my body is prone to break when I try to play baseball".

But then I take off my optimistic hat and I realize that hand/wrist injuries often don't fully heal. And, as Hugh notes, neither do back injuries (especially strange chronic conditions like he's got). And it looks like it's going to be a long sad slog through the 2020s, instead of celebrating the newest version of Hank Aaron or whatever we were going to get.


It's not hard to be optimistic looking at the numbers. If he had some sort of degenerative injury, we'd expect it to show up in statcast but his EV was 91.9, above his career average and slightly higher than the last couple of years. Now, his expected stats still don't bump him up to what he was, his K-rate has taken a sizeable jump over the last three years that keeps his average down, but I think this is a guy who has plenty of value to offer if he gets out of CF everyday (he DH'd twice all year, otherwise CF every time he played) and is sent to a competent organization.

It's sad but Trout looks like a worse bet than Griffey after his age 30 season (7 WAR left), much worse than Mantle after age 31 (17 WAR left)

Short of an actual bus, Trout almost certainly has more than seven WAR left. He's signed for seven more years, and baseball teams love the sunk cost fallacy, so he's going to play seven more years basically no matter what. He was on a 5.4 WAR /162 pace this year. Except for his cup of coffee, this was by far the worst year (rate-wise) of his career. Now, it's bad when your worst year is your most recent, and the hand injury is concerning, but there's reason to think that he'll be better than this (rate-wise) next year. The question, of course, is playing time. But given that he's got seven years left, almost any amount of playing time is going to get him over 7 WAR. Properly managing his playing time to prevent aggravating injuries, he can get into maybe 120 games a year, put up a couple 5 WAR seasons, and pass Mantle's 17 WAR before it's over.

FWIW, ZiPS is projecting about 105 games/year over the next three years and WAR scores of 5.3/4.9/4.1. That seems reasonable. It assumes his injuries won't lead to a dramatic drop in ability (that's still a rate of ~7WAR/162 next year), followed by some ordinary age-related decline.

@27

ZIPS projected 5.3/4.9/4.1 beginning in 2023. Trout's actual WAR this year is 3.0, so we can presume the 2024-2026 projections will look more like 4.4/3.6/2.8 and tailing off from there from 2027-2031. That's how I arrived at my "optimistic ZIPS projection" of 20 WAR over the rest of his contract: ~11 WAR over the next three years, then ~9 WAR over the subsequent four years.

Rats. I'll try reading next time.

Stanton for Trout would be interesting (4/$128 with $30 covered by Marlins).

Stanton’s no-trade clause would be a complication, but perhaps a return to the pleasant Southern California weather of his youth might have some appeal, even if playing for the stripped down Angels probably wouldn’t.

over and under on Trout career should probably be around 16-18. Looking at Eddies numbers in post 28. But as I understand zips projections are on the optimistic side and assume no injury or unexpected drop off. There is a correction factor of 20% on those.

#28: thanks, seems reasonable.

#27: That's partly why Griffey got all his playing time. He signed a 9-year extension in 2000 ... apparently with enough deferred money that he was one of the highest-paid Reds this year! From ages 26-30, Griffey had 3400 PA (680 per season), Trout has had less than 2100. So sure, the Angels (or whoever) will keep trotting Trout out there through 2029-30, just like the Reds did with Griffey through 2008. The last 7 years of Griffey were 3000 PA and 6 WAR. There's no clear reason to expect Trout to get more than 3000-3500 PA over the next 7 seasons.

Griffey was coming off a 5 WAR season in 1999 when the Reds extended him and he put up 5.5 WAR in year 1. Healthy Trout is probably still better than that. And I'll agree that we should do something to adjust for Griffey's terrible DRS/TZ (as I did using Manny's oWAR) ... but Griffey's oWAR as a LF for those last years would have only been about 10 or so. If Trout is going to be fragile and has only 3000 or so PA left, then Walker is pretty much the gold standard. For 32-35, he produced at 6.5 WAR/650 in 2000 PA; 21 WAR total. He then slacked off a bit but still added 9 WAR over the next 3 years and 1300 PA. That's clearly a possibility for Trout and that would even be worth his remaining contract (or close enough).

Trout's injury this year ... I am a bit confused. He hit the IL after July 3 (the HBP a week earlier?) Did they not X-ray it or did he knowingly play for a week with a fractured hamate or was it not quite fractured then fractured a week later? Then he came back for one day on Aug 22 then out again (and it looks like for the year). So he fractured it, missed 7 weeks, took a few swings and had enough pain he was shut down again. That's not promising.

But as I understand zips projections are on the optimistic side and assume no injury or unexpected drop off.

Yes and no. It applies an age-based decline factor in production per PA and in playing time. It obviously can't predict injury or "unexpected" drop offs, it is just trying to estimate the median (mean?) of the distribution of those outcomes. Whether the reduction in playing time is due to serious injury or day-to-day stuff or getting 1 then 2 games off per week doesn't really matter. The unexpected will be in the confidence intervals which aren't always published.

Which doesn't mean Dan necssarily has things just right. There are various ways to model scenarios that combine a risk of total collapse and expected production or to create asymmetric confidence intervals (I think Dan may already do some of the latter) which might better mmodel long-term outcomes. Such models might introduce so much uncertainty and/or bias as to not be very useful. (Usually the goal is to introduce some bias -- i.e. error in the expected outcome -- to reduce the uncertainty.)

If I offered you the following bet, even money, would you take it:

I say that Mike Trout will play no more games the next seven years of his contract (ages 32-28) as he has the last seven years (ages 25-31). Would you bet that he will play more games the next seven years than he has the last seven years?

I'll even assume that he would played in about 88% of the 162 games in 2020 if there had been a full season. He played 53 of 60 games that year, which would translate to about 143 games in a full season. Let's be honest: That is a very generous assumption.

If you do that generous assumption, that is 768 games in the last seven years (678 without the 2020 adjustment), an average of about 110 games a year.

From ages 32-28, Griffey played in 730 games. From ages 25-31, he played in 946 games.

George Brett? 859 games, followed by 948 games. But that 25-31 span included the 1981 strike season, so you'd need to add about 40 games to it, to be fair. And the 32-38 span had Brett playing a lot of 1B and DH.

I mean, there are very few examples in MLB history of a star playing more games from 32-38 than they did from 25-31, for the same reason almost all of us notice the difference as we age: The body doesn't recover as quickly when we get hurt, and we are more likely to get dinged up. And if Mike Trout has a lot of trouble getting injured when he is in his 20s and early 30s, there is no way he is suddenly going to get injured less often as he gets older.

It saddens me, because Trout was going to be this generation's contribution to the Top 10 All-Time Player List. (Mookie could still do it, but he also seems to get dinged up a fair amount.)

The interesting part to this story is that it means the Angels are as pessimistic about his back/health as some on this board have been.

Hi Walt. Not to disagree but just going on something I learned earlier this year when we were looking at projected WAR numbers in the preseason and Snapper I think it was pointed out that "hey these numbers add up to more than 1000 WAR" (1000 being basically how much WAR there is in a season) and someone pointed out that preseason projections are somewhat inflated so they actually predict about 1200 WAR because some of these guys wont suit up for various reasons.

So what Im guessing is the predictions Eddie showed us in 28 are more or less ideal, gentle curves, which are more or less close to some ideal decline rate. And that it does not really account for any sudden and/or dramatic changes. So I suggest subtracting 20% of that. But that's just a guess on my part.

You are probably saying the same thing or maybe not. But do you have anything to add to that? Thanks.

on the plus side, Trout's speed seems to have stayed the same the last couple of years. He's still in the top quartile or better of CF speed. His defensive numbers had dropped some and then he said he was going to work on his jump and it looks like the numbers improved a bit. Hell even if he doesnt hit like young Trout, if just his speed can hold up he could cover CF for quite a few years with just an average bat.

Short of an actual bus, Trout almost certainly has more than seven WAR left. He's signed for seven more years, and baseball teams love the sunk cost fallacy, so he's going to play seven more years basically no matter what.

One thing to factor in with this argument is that, of course, WAR can be negative. So even if Trout is somewhat productive for a few years, he could give a lot of it back at the end if he is an unfortunate combination of healthy and diminished, and the Angels continue to play him.

We can believe that the only options for Trout are (i) healthy and good or (ii) not-healthy and good, but there are other possibilities.

(iii) healthy and not-good:

Miguel Cabrera from his age 32 season to the end of his career (9 years including the Covid year) has been worth 7.3 WAR -- but that includes good seasons of +4.9 and +5.1 at the beginning. From age 34-40 he has been worth -2.7 WAR. Cabrera missed most of his age-35 season, but outside of that he has generally been "available" (not on the IL) despite some nagging injuries. And because of his contract (and fame), he played a lot more than he probably should have. Pujols had a similar trend but was older. Trout could follow this path, perhaps, if he's moved to DH and is healthy enough to play but not healthy enough to excel.

(iv) not-healthy and not-good:

Chris Davis signed a seven-year contract starting at age 30, only played five years of it, and generated -2.7 WAR over those five (seven) years, despite being +3.1 in the first year. He also had some health issues and obviously he only had one or two years where he was comparable to the rest of these guys, and was nowhere near elite as a player. So this does not seem like a likely outcome for Trout, just an example of a worst-case scenario that happened in real life. (Per WAR, the Orioles would've been better off if they paid Davis all that money to not play a single game.)

Trout's injury this year ... I am a bit confused. He hit the IL after July 3 (the HBP a week earlier?) Did they not X-ray it or did he knowingly play for a week with a fractured hamate or was it not quite fractured then fractured a week later? Then he came back for one day on Aug 22 then out again (and it looks like for the year). So he fractured it, missed 7 weeks, took a few swings and had enough pain he was shut down again. That's not promising.

I believe hamate bone injuries happen from swinging the bat, not necessarily a HBP. I am assuming since he didn't immediately have surgery he just cracked it, instead of actually breaking off the small hook of the bone. Pedroia supposedly played the last month of the season & the playoffs in 2007 with a fractured hamate so maybe Trout wanted to just try a little rehab, but with the team now out of contention he's shutting it down.

Not good Trout is certainly possible. But he was on a 5.4 WAR pace this year, and was nearly at traditional Troutian pace last year. So I suspect he's got a ways to fall before he crosses the "not good" line. It would take a collapse of Pujolsian magnitude. Which is possible, but it was pretty shocking when Pujols did it. And given how much trouble he's had staying healthy, I wouldn't be surprised if Trout actually just couldn't play anymore before he got there.

It saddens me, because Trout was going to be this generation's contribution to the Top 10 All-Time Player List

Trout's currently at 85 bWAR. Giving him a reasonable 20 more before retiring would bring him to 105, which would be 20th among position players. Others between 100 and 110: Morgan, Pujols, Schmidt, Lajoie, Frank Robinson, Mantle. He'll need another 20 WAR on top of that projection to dislodge Eddie Collins for 10th all-time, which is possible but unlikely. Walker's 30 WAR would bring him up to #13 (between Gehrig and A-Rod).

The only "recent" position player in the top 10 is Bonds (#1 at 163 WAR). A-Rod falls just short (and at 4+ WAR behind #11 Ted Williams, would likely be there even without the 2014 suspension). So it may be a long wait for another new addition to the top 10. Betts is an extreme longshot (he's one year younger than Trout, and healthier, but 21 WAR behind).

WAR is a poor stat to use for all time great players, it emphasizes longevity and health over skill. WAA is much better for measuring peak performance.

Most WAA over 8 year span:
Ruth: 66
Mays: 59
Hornsby: 58
Bonds: 57
Wagner: 56
Trout: 55
Williams: 55
Mantle: 55
Cobb: 54
Pujols: 53
Aaron: 52
Gehrig: 52
Collins: 50
Musial: 49
Schmidt: 49
Rodriquez: 48
Boggs: 43
Henderson: 41
Ott: 41

And of all these players, Trout's score is one of the only where the eight years are their first 8 full years. I think he has the highest first 8 full season WAA in baseball history. What could have been...

None of us is in a position to know, but I pretty strongly suspect that Trout's back condition is more or less career ending. Any attempt by the Angels to trade him without eating most of his contract will probably be stopped dead in its tracks as soon as the medical records are shared.

Interesting thing is that what's cost him this season is not at all related to his back. And while his numbers this season weren't great by his standards, they were fine. I'm actually more concerned about the fact that he is seemingly the most unclutch player I've seen in a while, but I wonder if rehabbing his wrist takes some extra strain off his back for a while. Of course, the fact that he has a serious injury completely unrelated to his other serious injury is not great.

That said, not sure how his no trade factors into this, but absolutely would have included him with all of the guys they waived at the end of last month (along with Rendon and Tyler Anderson).

Short of an actual bus, Trout almost certainly has more than seven WAR left.

I mean probably, but its not a non zero outcome either. Think how often he's on the injury list. Whats the odds that one of those injuries is the final straw. He needs at least a season and a half to hit 7 war. He could encounter that final injury in the next season and a half its not zero.

I think its more likely to end up in a Sandy Koufax or Prince Fielder or Hal Trosky situation where one day he's still very much effective and the next day that's it.

"Short of an actual bus, Trout almost certainly has more than seven WAR left."

I mean probably, but its not a non zero outcome either. Think how often he's on the injury list.

I'm still thinking about this 7 WAR expectation. It doesn't seem like much for a player of Trout's caliber and age, but it's less of a slam-dunk than we might think.

Here's a look at his top 10 comps through age 30 (BB-Ref doesn't have it through age 31 yet, Trout's age this year), and how they did from age 32 through the end of their careers. I've also included Ken Griffey Jr. (though he's not in the top 10) as he seems rather comparable despite what BB-Ref's algorithm says.

1. Duke Snider, 8.0 WAR, 6 seasons
2. Willie Mays, 68.8 WAR, 11 seasons
3. Barry Bonds, 79.1 WAR, 11 seasons
4. Vladimir Guerrero, 9.8 WAR, 5 seasons
5. Juan Gonzalez, 2.3 WAR, 4 seasons
6. Frank Robinson, 30.4 WAR, 9 seasons
7. Manny Ramirez, 22.7 WAR, 8 seasons
8. Dick Allen, 4.3 WAR, 4 seasons
9. Sammy Sosa, 19.1 WAR, 6 seasons (10.3 WAR came from his age 32 season)
10. Mickey Mantle, 16.7 WAR, 5 seasons
X. Ken Griffey Jr., 5.7 WAR, 9 seasons

Three of these 11 failed to reach 7 WAR, and two more didn't clear it by much. Mays, Bonds, Robinson, Manny and Sosa were all much more durable/healthy than Trout through age 31 (and some had chemical assistance), so they might not be so comparable in terms of projecting.

Mantle's the only guy you can really point to and say, "Well, if he did it, then Trout will almost certainly be able to do it." And maybe that's correct, but maybe not.

I didnt realize Snider hit the wall so quickly. He was reduced from one of the best players in the game to just an ordinary player in two seasons. Apparently due to knee injuries.

Properly managing his playing time to prevent aggravating injuries, he can get into maybe 120 games a year, put up a couple 5 WAR seasons, and pass Mantle's 17 WAR

Sal Maglie had a great hint for one of their weaker hitters, Vic Davalillo. "Knock him down, then put the next three pitches knee-high on the outside corner, boom, boom, boom, and you've got him." Everybody laughed. If you could throw three pitches, boom, boom, boom, knee-high on the outside corner, you wouldn't have to knock anybody down.