Don't look now but the Angels suck again..
olb31
Posts: 4,218 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
and Trout has basically turned into Dave Kingman. 13 hr 28 rbi 56 k's .239 batting average. Another lost year for Trout. Maybe he should take less money and go to a good team so he can actually try to win at least 1 playoff game in his career.
Work hard and you will succeed!!
0
Comments
I read he didn't want to go anywhere, wants to stay put
Angels being bad is just a sign the new season is going on, they havent had a winning season in a decade.
Trouts not going anywhere. With the contract and the genetic back issues 2029 might be the first time he could be traded unless the Angels are going to eat the money.
Fire AJ Preller
Mike Trout rejects trade talk as Angels face Tigers https://share.google/z2tJZGnYTOj5bkELh
This was what I was referring too with my post
I wouldnt want to go there either lol but yea he has final say on everything. I dont think those talks would have really amounted to much anyways and saved some people from wasting their time.
I think there are teams he would be willing to go but will be really picky. Tigers arent good this year and with everything from health family hes going to want a contender if he allows a a trade with his no trade clause
Fire AJ Preller
He wants to go to the Brewers but their lineup is stacked with Bauers there.
I would imagine you started this thread with the purpose of making hyperbolic statements to get some responses, other than showing an understanding what constitutes a good hitter(or good comparison), of which your statements show a good lack of understanding.
Trout's OPS+ is 150. That is nowhere near being a "lost year", and nowhere near Dave Kingman(115 OPS+ lifetime and never had an OPS+ above 150 for a year in any year of his career).
Of course, it is common for people to not understand the connection between OPS and it equating to how good a hitter is...so sticking with YOUR method of old school numbers...
The true old school number/measurement for a hitter is Runs Scored and Trout is second in the AL in Runs Scored, and doing it on a very bad team. Or for another comparison, Trout has 40 runs scored compared to 26 for Freddie Freeman who plays in a much better lineup.
As for the no trade clause, he would be a great fit for the White Sox. One can only speculate the real reason why he doesn't want to get traded as there could be numerous reasons, most of which you or I would be guessing at, so I don't really care guess.
Trout is gonna end up with 500 HR for a CF and a tremendous lifetime OPS+, and a rookie card still more valuable than Freeman's lol, despite not having any championships. Maybe that is what you are upset about?
1948 Robinson -- "Trout is gonna end up with 500 HR for a CF and a tremendous lifetime OPS+, and a rookie card still more valuable than Freeman's lol, despite not having any championships. Maybe that is what you are upset about?"
Not upset at all. The Dodgers look formidable. They have a great chance to win it all again.
As for Freeman, I think he has a great shot at 450+ Hr's and 3000 hits. Possibly finish in the top 5 all-time in doubles too. He has won 3 championships already and could win 1 or 2 more. Plus he has a two monsterous walk off HR's in back to back world series. One being a grand slam, the only time it has ever happened.
When comparing all of that to Trout. Trout has a 150 OPS and a good chance to top 500 HR's.
trout is not going anywhere. he has no desire to play anywhere else. he is perfectly happy playing for the Angels. he has had chances to leave before. winning is not his top priority.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I had heard this awhile back so I asked my phone if this was true…..
@olb31 I'm a big fan of Freeman in every way. I hope he does all that and more.
Its just that the nonsense you say about Trout just comes off very oddly weird, and wrong.
If anything, this year has been a bit of a resurgence for Trout. He is 4th in the MLB in runs in a crap lineup and is 11th in HR. 18th in OPS+...while manning CF nicely too.
Its just that Trout's first seven years were so incredibly top tier that a year like this does look 'lost' so maybe you are right.
Their team is terrible.
Craig how do you know if he is interested in winning or not because he isn't being traded? Why doesn't his team actually make some good moves? They are still paying Rendon 38 million dollars this year and there are people that actually think it is because of Trout they are not winning?? lol.
Every other HOF who plays for one team their whole career gets praised for that fact.
I think he said it was loyalty. When you leave that out it sounds like he doesn’t care about winning but I don’t think that’s the case.
For whatever reason a players loyalty to one organization along with it's fan base has to have some merit. And yes the paycheck helps with that loyalty.
Could be Trout also likes the West Coast weather, no east Coast snow. However, fires, quakes, have to be dealt with.
Agreed, I definitely respect a player who is legitimately loyal to an organization
That loyalty might be influenced by family being settled in with kids in certain schools ect. and the wife calling the shots.
Josh McDaniels wife dictated where he could and could not go, she put the kaboah in him going to Indianapolis
I'm sure a lot of players decisions are based on their families input
because he had the chance to go as a free agent, to literally any team he wanted, for more money, and instead decided to extend with LAA. there was also at least one trade deadline where he was on the block, but did not want to leave. He would have been one of the hottest Free Agents of all time and gotten a HUGE contract.
he is perfectly happy where he is. a losing team.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
the days of loyalty in sports are long gone. that culture pretty much died out with ripken/gwynn etc. now it is all about chasing chips. you can also bet that had free agency been a thing back in the 1920s, there would have been much less "loyalty" amongst golden age players.
how much loyalty do owners/management show players?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
this is true. there could be many factors involved. He could just be comfortable where he is. I know I could make more money elsewhere, but I am very comfortable where i am. and i hate change. That said, we know from his choices that winning is not his deciding factor. He has shown us that.
He could have done the exact same thing Ohtani did. he chose not to.
I think being "loyal" to a franchise is overrated. I truly dont see it as a feather in a players cap.
Who is revered more, Nolan ryan (4 teams) or Tony Gwynn?
I would argue that Gwynn was a better player, but Ryan is placed amongst the mountain top of players.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Had he gone to a contender to win a title you would have nit picked at him for that, much like Lebron.
Loyal to his fans.
Fans show the loyalty. Many fans do like when the player they paid money to see and supported, stays with the team instead of jumping ship.
Lebron jumped ship to win and he got tons of crap for it. Trout stays and he gets crap for it(from a few of you guys).
Perhaps the real solution was to have a front office make better personnel moves and blame them for losing instead of blaming Trout. They spent. They spent on the wrong people. They actually took your advice and signed a proven "winner" in your methodology, Rendon, and look how that turned out.
nope, not me. I cant stand LeBron, but I have no problem with him going to where the best situation for him to win is.
I just dont see it as some noble cause when a player stays with one team.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
those fans would still be his fans if he played for the yankees or the phillies or any other team. more so now than even in the past because fans can stream just about any game they want.
I have been fans of players who went to different teams. it didnt bother me. When Brady went to the Bucs, I was still a huge fan. didnt care a lick about the bucs, but i always rooted for him to have a big game.
the same would have happened with trout.
did fans start to hate Ohtani because he switched teams? I think everyone (including Angels fans) understood why he left. LAA is a dumpster fire and i think most fans wanted him to leave and go to a contender.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
You may not see it as noble, but you don't speak for everyone, and in fact I have heard people going back decades saying that "free agency' ruined the game...so yes, staying with one team is very much appreciated by legions of fans.
As for Lebron, that is a constant critique of him. You might not have said it, but it is said all the time.
In the end, Trout is walking into the HOF with 500 career HR, a WAR over 100, and one of the best primes in modern times...regardless of the complaints by a few of you.
I did not hate Lebron for going to Miami. I hated his staged, narcissistic joke of a press conference when he "took his talents to south beach." I dont remember anyone hating chris bosh for going to miami.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I know of several Cleveland fans who did hate him for that. So back to the point, the loyalty is certainly appreciated by a good number of fans who spent their time and money on them.
I think he's similar to Ripken then - stays with the team that drafted them and is paid like a superstar. I agree with you on the pre-1970s free-agency changes that there was very limited opportunity for players to enforce their will. Ruth, Williams, DiMaggio... there were a lot of stars that held out. for the most part I think the fans ripped the players.
>
I mean some for sure. It's a business - not a family, but that doesn't mean family isn't marketed in baseball.
ripken could be a good comparison, except he had playoff experience and won a world series in his second season. perhaps that satiated his desire?
It is hard for me to think of a good comparison to trout. a HOF level player in the free agency era who never really tasted post season play (except for 12 AB in the first round) and chose to stay with a poor team.
Gwynn stayed with San Diego, but was in a world series early and late in his career. I think he may be the closest comp, but he really isnt because he played in 2 world series. I think Gwynn is the best I can come up with, but he really isnt a great comp either.
It is fine with me that Trout has decided to stay with LAA. I have no problem with his choice, but I do have a problem with his fans pretending he wants to go to a contending team when winning is clearly not his top priority. lets just call a spade a spade.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
500 dingers is far from certain at this point especially since it’s highly likely there won’t be a season next year. The players association just submitted a proposal and the owners are expected to counter but there was nothing about a salary cap. I don’t care one way or the other if he gets to 500 but he’s probably one cancelled season and a couple season ending injuries, which is common for him, of not getting to 500.
I remember back when Ray Bourque left the Bruins to chase a ring. I am not a hockey guy, but I remember tons of folks up here in NE who actively rooted for him to win one.
would anyones opinion of Ernie Banks have changed if FA would have been an option for him and he left to play a few seasons either in Baltimore or St. Louis to win a WS? if anything, my opinion of him may be even higher!
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I am not questioning him being a HOF quality player. I am questioning his desire to win. He is complacent. seemingly very happy right where he is. losing. A great player, just not a winning one...
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
imho, the bouncing around has a tarnishing effect on the legacy of an all-time great. i know many variables are in play, but if you're able to stick and stay with one franchise over the course of an illustrious career, that's serious brownie points imo. for that reason, i'd never put LeBron over Jordan. i know the orgs he was with played a sizable role in that, but if he was greater than Michael Jordan that simply wouldn't have happened as many times as it has. if you're truly the GOAT, at some point you're the rising tide that lifts all boats. Jordan did it. so did Brady. LeBron has never been that guy. MJ & TB never had to chase chips, and that's all LeBron has done. and he's probably going to do it again next season.
to my initial point, yes, i know MJ played for Washington for two seasons. i really wish he hadn't done that. when he put Bryon Russell on skates and held the pose, there wouldn't have been a better ending until the end of time for an all-time great. perfect ending, 6 championships, no finals losses, one team. but alas. i will give him a slight pass, however, because coming back to the Wiz wasn't because he couldn't win a ring with a previous team, a la LBJ. he just couldn't shake the competitive gene. LeBron bounces for completely different reasons, and it's for those reasons that i'll never, ever have him looking down at MJ on the hierarchy.
but with that said, it doesn't always work out for great players who remain a permanent fixture with one team. to those who choose to discount Trout's career for that reason, one name for you: Barry Sanders. many consider him to be the GRBOAT, and those who don't have had to seriously mull it over. no one has ever cared that he played for the Detroit Angels for 10 seasons.
I view it a little differently. I dont see that changing teams tarnishes a legacy. legacies like Jordans, Montana's, Willie May's, Wayne Gretzky's were already established. well established. all of it was already written in the record books. Jordan playing for washington, mays falling down in the outfield, Gretzky playing for multiple franchises do nothing to change what they did when they were at their best. in their primes. those legacies were written in stone.
it wouldnt change the way I think about larry bird one little bit if he had decided to play an extra year for the knicks at the tail end. the story of what he was and how he played had already been written.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
perhaps 'tarnish' was a little too harsh. let me rephrase it. if you're a stud in your sport and managed to play for only one team the duration of your career, there's an added coolness factor attached to your story. that's just my own personal take. Banks, Bench, Clemente, Rice, Brett, Musial, Bagwell, Ted Williams, Biggio, Feller, Gibson, DiMaggio, Gwynn, Jeter, Chipper Jones, Kaline, Ford, Koufax, Larkin, Drysdale, Mantle, Palmer, Gehrig, Puckett, Rice, Yount, Ripken, Rivera, Stargell, Brooks Robinson, Jackie Robinson, Schmidt, Yastrzemski et al..........if i erred on any of those names, feel free to correct me but i think they all played for one team only. when i think of any of them, their on-field accomplishments are obviously at the forefront. but i also never lose sight of the association with that one particular team. that hat, those colors, that city, and that team name are all i could ever possibly know them for. there's just something inherently cool about that.
be honest, if Larry Bird had played one final season with the Indiana Pacers and averaged 12 points on 14 shots, wouldn't you have wished that he had simply retired a Celtic instead? would it not have been a little extra sweet to say that he was the property of the Boston Celtics and no one else, ever?
no, I get it. just different takes. guys hanging on too long or ending a long career with a year or two in a different city never bothered me. It truly wouldnt have bothered me if Bird had gone to atlanta or indy for a year or two at the end. just like it didnt bother me that montana ended up a chief, Killebrew a Royal or even dwight evans playing that year in baltimore. I actually like it when the greats play an extra year or two rather than finishing a year or two early. I like getting a chance to watch them for those extra few years. I did then and always will think of Montana as a 49er.
I know it is a little different scenario because it was with the same team, but I think no differently of Magic Johnson after watching him play forward 35 pounds overweight for those 20-30 games years after he first retired. He wasnt the same player (of course) but I enjoyed watching just a little extra "magic" years after I thought he was done.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.