NEWSLETTER
Even as the walls kept crumbling around them the last few years, the Los Angeles Angels never would have considered trading Mike Trout. There are emotional reasons for that, I’m sure, but there was also the matter of riding out the years while you still have Trout and Shohei Ohtani, hoping for the best. Moreover, if you ever wanted ANY CHANCE whatsoever at keeping Ohtani beyond 2023, you simply could not trade away Trout.
But now Ohtani is headed for free agency (and surgery), and there is little to no expectation that the Angels will be the team to sign him.
So it makes sense to me that this report from USA Today now pops up:
The Los Angeles Angels, perhaps for the first time, are open to trading All-Star outfielder Mike Trout if he indicates to them that he wants out. Trout has exclusive no-trade rights and said recently that he wants to have a private conversation with the front office and ownership about their direction.
However, Trout, 32, would not generate the same trade return as in the past. He has not played more than 140 games since 2016, and will have missed 249 games the past three years if he doesn’t return this season.
He still has $248.15 million owed to him the next seven years.
We call that a “give us a call” report. The Angels would like the world to know that they want to turn over into a new era, and if they can still get a big return for Trout, they will do it.
But can they get a big return?
On the one hand, Trout is the greatest player of this generation and one of the best of all-time. He still puts up monster numbers at the plate, and plays solid defense in the outfield.
On the other hand, Trout just turned 32 and has lost significant time to injury the last three years. Guys tend not to get more durable as they reach their mid-30s.
I think Trout is easily still WORTH what’s left on his contract, but I’m not so sure that he’d command a monster trade package when you consider all the factors. And if the Angels can’t get a monster return, would they really trade their homegrown superstar? Well, the answer there, I suppose, is “yes, if they can tell the world that it was totally Trout who wanted out.” See that language in the report.
We’ll see if this actually goes anywhere in the early part of the offseason. Because of the contract, this is likely the type of move that would have to happen relatively early if it were going to happen at all.
