Would they engage in talks with LA for Trout? Is so,what would it take and would they try to offload Castellanos as part of a package?
Discuss.
Trout
Moderator: Christopher
-
Christopher
- Posts: 4139
- Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2021 2:18 pm
Re: Trout
I don't think it's an offseason priority for the Phillies whatsoever .... unless it becomes a situation where Philly is his only preferred destination and the Phillies have some leverage in the talks.
He's got 7/260 remaining on his contract headed into his age 32 season. With that money and his injury history, the small handful of teams that could afford him are going to be reticent. And rightfully so.
Angels won't make a trade in which they don't save face. They'd probably rather eat a little bit of money than take back a bad contract, so it's hard to imagine Castellanos interesting them. I wonder if they'd be interested in having Marsh back? They're not getting one of the Phillies' Top 3 or 4 prospects, so it would have to be a "bulk" deal for them.
Maybe something like this would work....
PHILLIES GET: Trout and the Angels pay $49 million of what he's still owed, getting it down to 7/211 ($30M per year)
ANGELS GET: Marsh, McGarry and 3 of the Phillies prospects between #10 and #20
Of the "top" prospects (Rojas, Painter, Abel, Crawford, Miller), the only one I'd be willing to part with is Abel ... and I wouldn't give much beyond him.
Phillies would be getting even OLDER and taking on a pretty big $200M risk when it's pitching that they need.
So, that's how it would/could work. But I wouldn't do it. Time to stop getting guys past-peak and keep building younger
He's got 7/260 remaining on his contract headed into his age 32 season. With that money and his injury history, the small handful of teams that could afford him are going to be reticent. And rightfully so.
Angels won't make a trade in which they don't save face. They'd probably rather eat a little bit of money than take back a bad contract, so it's hard to imagine Castellanos interesting them. I wonder if they'd be interested in having Marsh back? They're not getting one of the Phillies' Top 3 or 4 prospects, so it would have to be a "bulk" deal for them.
Maybe something like this would work....
PHILLIES GET: Trout and the Angels pay $49 million of what he's still owed, getting it down to 7/211 ($30M per year)
ANGELS GET: Marsh, McGarry and 3 of the Phillies prospects between #10 and #20
Of the "top" prospects (Rojas, Painter, Abel, Crawford, Miller), the only one I'd be willing to part with is Abel ... and I wouldn't give much beyond him.
Phillies would be getting even OLDER and taking on a pretty big $200M risk when it's pitching that they need.
So, that's how it would/could work. But I wouldn't do it. Time to stop getting guys past-peak and keep building younger
Re: Trout
Yeah,you’re right. Too many 30+ guys now already.Christopher wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 3:31 am I don't think it's and offseason priority for the Phillies whatsoever .... unless it becomes a situation where Philly is his only preferred destination and the Phillies have some leverage in the talks.
He's got 7/260 remaining on his contract headed into his age 32 season. With that money and his injury history, the small handful of teams that could afford him are going to be reticent. And rightfully so.
Angels won't make a trade in which they don't save face. They'd probably rather eat a little bit of money than take back a bad contract, so it's hard to imagine Castellanos interesting them. I wonder if they'd be interested in having Marsh back? They're not getting one of the Phillies' Top 3 or 4 guys, so it would have to be a "bulk" deal for them.
Maybe something like this would work....
PHILLIES GET: Trout and the Angels pay $49 million of what he's still owed, getting it down to 7/211 ($30M per year)
ANGELS GET: Marsh, McGarry and 3 of the Phillies prospects between #10 and #20
Of the "top" prospects (Rojas, Painter, Abel, Crawford, Miller), the only one I'd be willing to part with is Abel ... and I wouldn't give much beyond him.
Phillies would be getting even OLDER and taking on a pretty big $200M risk when it's pitching that they need.
So, that's how it would/could work. But I wouldn't do it. Time to stop getting guys past-peak and keep building younger
-
FolesMVP09
- Posts: 4649
- Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:55 pm
Re: Trout
Trout is the best player of the past 50 years, but just too much of a health risk
-
ConnieMack
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2021 2:12 pm
Re: Trout
Trout and Castellanos are roughly the same age, maybe 6-7 months difference.
Last 3 years Trout has averaged 79 games played, Casty 140.
If Angel's want to move Trout they would have to take Casty in return.
Casty is at 20 million and Trout 37, so offset by 17 million.
If Angels want any of the above mentioned prospects they'll have to include most of the 17 million per year of the offset from Casty's salary.
Trout's a huge injury risk, but on this team He could make a difference, when healthy, but I'm not in favor taking on that 37 million with his injury risk.
Angels could sell Casty as a potential 30 HR guy who is in the lineup and doesn't miss much time.
Phil's could keep Marsh in center, Trout can play left or right and / or DH , move to full time DH after Schwarber's contract is done 2025..
Last 3 years Trout has averaged 79 games played, Casty 140.
If Angel's want to move Trout they would have to take Casty in return.
Casty is at 20 million and Trout 37, so offset by 17 million.
If Angels want any of the above mentioned prospects they'll have to include most of the 17 million per year of the offset from Casty's salary.
Trout's a huge injury risk, but on this team He could make a difference, when healthy, but I'm not in favor taking on that 37 million with his injury risk.
Angels could sell Casty as a potential 30 HR guy who is in the lineup and doesn't miss much time.
Phil's could keep Marsh in center, Trout can play left or right and / or DH , move to full time DH after Schwarber's contract is done 2025..
-
Christopher
- Posts: 4139
- Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2021 2:18 pm
Re: Trout
Four years ago, this would have been a meaningful and fun discussion.
At this point, we must at all costs avoid looking at this with our hearts and use our heads.
Trout's ship has sailed. Maybe he makes sense on a younger team, as the over-the-top piece, but putting him on an already old & expensive roster would be a catastrophe.
Obviously the Phillies are still Harper, Wheeler, Turner, Schwarber, Castellanos.
But they're also Stott, Bohm, Marsh, Rojas, Suarez, Sanchez ... Maybe Marchan, Crawford, Painter, Abel in the future. You have to keep building around that, and make WISE acquisitions through trade and free agency, not foolhardy ones based on a hometown boy who likes the Eagles
At this point, we must at all costs avoid looking at this with our hearts and use our heads.
Trout's ship has sailed. Maybe he makes sense on a younger team, as the over-the-top piece, but putting him on an already old & expensive roster would be a catastrophe.
Obviously the Phillies are still Harper, Wheeler, Turner, Schwarber, Castellanos.
But they're also Stott, Bohm, Marsh, Rojas, Suarez, Sanchez ... Maybe Marchan, Crawford, Painter, Abel in the future. You have to keep building around that, and make WISE acquisitions through trade and free agency, not foolhardy ones based on a hometown boy who likes the Eagles