As I was digesting the latest serving of bland filler on Mike Trout's prospects for playing time ("Yes he should play more / Wells sucks / But what about the money" - rinse and repeat), courtesy of our friends at Fangraphs yesterday, my eyes were drawn to a comment about half-way down, from some bloke named Colin.
Here's what he had to say:
How about a strict challenge trade, Trout for Harper? The Nationals need a CF more than they need a corner OF. The Angels appear set in CF with Bourjos, and Trout’s value is diminished in a corner spot. Harper could stand a few more months of seasoning in AAA (not to mention the Super II status benefit), which would probably delay this decision for long enough to let an injury determine the call up date (or complete ineffectiveness from Wells).
Of course this will never happen. Neither GM wants to run the risk of swapping a superstar for a lessor, or even failed, player. However, it would be fun to debate this trade for the next decade, especially if they remain essentially equal players moving forward.
Clearly both players bring something different to the table - Trout offers the better glove, more speed; Harper on the other hand will spend his 20s making some very large ballparks look very small indeed. You could probably make some assumptions about the attitudes and outlooks to life and to baseball of both prospects (which may or may not be accurate) as part of your assessment.
For me, it's a difficult one. I suspect Trout's speed and defense sit too well with Scioscia-ball for Mike to want to let him go, but it's tricky - you could argue that the National League might be the better fit. Flip that argument around and perhaps Harper is more of an American league prospect. Ultimately, as a dyed-in-the-wool Angels fan, I have, over these last couple of years, been conditioned to love Mike Trout like he's my own son, and so that tells you where my vote would go - I'd do the trade, but I'd need a little encouragement.
How would you vote?
This Fan-Post is authored by an independent fan. Tell us what you think and how you feel.
1 recs | 63 comments
Hell Say You!
(nods grudgingly)
GrichManPoorMan - February 3, 2012
Wow that's quite the question
I would say no just because I like the idea of having the drafted and developed talent but on the other hand Harper offers a ton of power and is a lefty…I’m holding onto Trout
Morales8 - February 3, 2012
At first, I thought this was another post that I probably didn't want to read due to probable waste of my time.
It’s an interesting exercise trying to make the choice if the roles were reversed, i.e. if we owned Harper and the Nationals owned Trout.
Clearly, if that were the case and everythinig else were the same, we would NOT make that trade…..Wait. Maybe not so clearly. (Thoughts of “the next Mickey Mantle” creep into my head.)
However, he’s my son too…….and I say, “Hell, No!”
wumbug - February 3, 2012
Yep, I was a little wary of throwing in "another dumb trade" fanpost - they make my heart sink...
…but it seemed like an interesting question to me. And anyway, if it was dumb, it was someone else’s dumb idea.
The Limey - February 3, 2012
Already, the vote count is 54. Very Interesting.
wumbug - February 3, 2012
One reason this trade will NEVER happen: Scott Boras
After re-confirming that Boras is Harper’s agent, I can now stop worrying about it…forever.
wumbug - February 3, 2012
Give us Strusberg and it is a deal
DAD OF VLAD - February 3, 2012
he's with Boras too
C.A._Rep_Los_ANGELS - February 4, 2012 via mobile
Character has to be a factor
Beside Boras, Harper has all the makings of a complete douche (if he isn’t already). Think Jose Guillen with greater upside.
I would keep Trout and his Salmon-esque character.
SoCalWine - February 3, 2012
and Salmon-esque jawbone.
dannyras - February 3, 2012
And piscine name.
red floyd - February 3, 2012
10 points for using that word.
I’ve been waiting my whole life and haven’t yet found the right moment.
Rock Island Line - February 3, 2012
I am a pisces
but find myself using the word lupine much more often.
Halowitz - February 3, 2012
I think Harper would drive Big Mike nuts.
Don’t make the trade.
Unclearnie - February 4, 2012
Trout
1) Trout was the only player to show up for the draft, the kid has character for DAYS son.
2) Harper is a world class Dbag of Situation-esq proportions. For so, so many reasons.
3) Trout’s arm is incredibly weak, a corner OF slot (LF probably) is his future full time position. In my mind his “win the lottery” ceiling is Carl Crawford with less speed, more plate discipline.
4) Harper’s swing is awful long
5) Harper is a total douche.
PhiSlamma - February 3, 2012
by most accounts
Trout has an average arm with well above average range and speed. Not sure why you don’t see him as a CFer. This report rates his arm as a plus while this one says his arm is average while his range and routes make him an overall plus defender.
angelsownredsux - February 3, 2012
Ive watched him play
He throws like my sister.
PhiSlamma - February 3, 2012
even with your sister's manly 20' bicep'd arms
Trout’s range and route taking make him an above average CFer. I think we’re all spoiled by Bourjos’ league best defense. Trout shouldn’t have to compare to that.
angelsownredsux - February 3, 2012
OMG 20 FOOT BICEPS!!!
POST PICS!
BruinHalo - February 3, 2012
I don't have pics of Phi's sister nor am I friends with her on facebook
angelsownredsux - February 3, 2012
got em
Halowitz - February 3, 2012
20" bicep'd arms
angelsownredsux - February 3, 2012
the douchiness of harper is alarming
as is his eye black
ItCouldHappen - February 3, 2012
Harper's a creepoid, but if anything could caponize him...
…it’d have to be playing beside Pujols.
This trade would likely never happen, but it does make plenty of sense. Harper hitting in front of Pujols would be devastating — and he makes for a more sensible corner OF than Trout.
Angels would have to double-down on a true leadoff guy at some point, but maybe Segura pans out and offers something in that dept.
Turks Teeth - February 3, 2012
I've always pulled for Seggie.
Also, I’m going to use caponize in a sentence today.
RexTookMyStash - February 3, 2012
Trout has more value for THIS team than Harper.
“Harper hitting in front of Pujols would be devastating”? Harper hasn’t proven to be able to consistently devastate any sort of MLB pitching. I love watching footage of the guy, he is a fancy beast and will probably be very good, but he may be Ron Kittle for all we know. Just cause they say he’s as powerful as Mike Stanton doesn’t mean he’ll make contact at all.
And is he really going to be a corner outfielder? Or a good NL power hitter who can’t field anywhere and is stored in left field ah la Barry Bonds, Manny Ramirez, etc?
Try to imagine a pitching rotation of Weaver, Haren, Wilson, Santana, and Ringo Starr, with an infield that includes Mr. 3B (maybe Callaspo, who has good D) Aybar, Kendrick, and Pujols, and an outfield of Trout, Bourjous and Mr Inexpensive Power (or VW).
We could end up like those old Orioles teams with multiple 20 game winners. With Harper we have Bourjos scrambling to cover for him and a lame right fielder, with Trout we have guys catching those would be HRs that the marine layer snuffed into doubles. Defensively an outfield of Trout/Pete/Wells is something most teams would kill for. We just hate VWs contract so much it’s hard to see it.
Plus, rumor has it this Trout kid can hit a little too. And with the possible power that will come out of the mix of Pujols, Morales, Trumbo, Wells, Hunter, and maybe Iannetta (I included the last three cause I think they can all break 20HR) men on base may mean more than another power bat.
gitchogritchoffmypetis - February 5, 2012
Done deal. I'd do it in a second
hauldog - February 3, 2012
Me too...
If only because of the age difference. Trout didn’t look like a world-beater last year. He had flashes of brilliance, but…..
Harper is a bit younger and has tools that translate more accurately to the bigs. Raw, elfin’ power. Trout could very well be a Grade A star, but Harper has a higher ceiling and his floor might be a lot higher than Trout’s as well.
But, it’s all a guessing game – there’s just a little more evidence on Trout at this point at the major league level – and it wasn’t great work, so I take Harper.
jimmuscomp - February 3, 2012
Stop the insanity
Seriously, “Trout didn’t look like a world-beater” when he played all of 40 games at age 19?
Well, neither did Tim Salmon, when he first came up to the big club for 23 games at age 23.
Or Troy Glaus, who underwhelmed in 48 games at age 21.
For that matter, few would have projected the Matt Kemp of 2011 from his inaugural exposure of 53 games at age 21.
We all need to pass around the bottle of Milk of Amnesia until the phrase “next Mickey Mantle” is gone from our memories. We need to recall that this kid hasn’t played an inning of AAA ball. We need to keep in mind he came to bat against pitchers anywhere from 5 to 20 years older than himself.
I remember what I was doing at 19, and it sure as hell wasn’t trying to outplay more experienced guys a decade older. He’s learning. Let’s give him the room to make mistakes, to touch the hot stove in order to learn that it’s hot.
Instead of expecting him to be Jesus (albeit with a faster time from home to first), why don’t we let him be Mike Trout? Let’s expect him to open the season in SLC, let’s expect him to stumble a few times, let’s expect him to need a year or two of seasoning before the potential becomes reality.
George Kaplan - February 3, 2012
Agreed.
We need to stop this dumb ass conversation. Trout is ours, and I prefer to back my players. Harper is good, so is Trout. Instead of worrying who is better, let’s just accept Brcye has the greater upside, even though I don’t agree, and route for the freaking underdog.
I personally can’t wait to see Trout play again. The kid was extremely impressive in all aspects. If I didn’t have as much respect for Weave, Trout would be prominant in my HH screen name.
King Weaver - February 3, 2012 via Android app
I didn't read the post as a "who is better" dilemma...
..but rather “who is the better fit”?
And in that case, I think we could use more cheap middle-of-the-order power, and the Nats could use an athletic CF.
Otherwise, happy to have Trout on the club, in whatever capacity.
Turks Teeth - February 4, 2012
This is why I would've voted for GK if he wasn't pit against me
Moondoggy - February 5, 2012
He's only faster from home to first
Because Jesus wears sandals and Trout wears cleats. Otherwise, I think they’re the same ballplayer.
highlandhalo - February 5, 2012
"Harper is a bit younger"
Mike Trout is one year and two months older than Harper. Last year Harper hit .318/.423/.554 in his age 18 season in A ball. Trout also played most of his age 18 season in A ball, where he hit .362/.454/.526. Harper made the jump to AA to finish his season, where he hit .256/.329/.395 in 37 games. The Halos were a bit more conservative with Trout, finishing his age 18 season in high A, where he hit .306/.388/.434 over 50 games. Looking at those lines, can anyone really say that Trout wouldn’t have done just as well as Harper if he also made the jump to AA when he was 18?
For all intents and purposes, Trout and Harper were virtually equal hitters at age 18, with Harper obviously showing greater power and Trout displaying the more balanced skill set at the plate and outpacing Harper in stolen bases, 56-26. So if two guys bring nearly equal value with the bat but one of them is an elite defender with supposedly better make up, you’ll still take the meathead who hits more home runs?
And it’s not as if Trout is some slap-hitting rabbit whose value would be diminished in a corner spot. At age 19 the guy is 6’1 200 pounds and slugged .544 in a AA ballpark that is notorious for suffocating power. He also hit 5 home runs in 40 games in the majors. His power is real and he’s only going to grow a bit more. Yes, Harper is already bigger than that at a younger age and will undoubtedly hit for more power in the majors. And if Harper meets his power potential, it will be hard for Trout to compete with that kind of game-changing skill, value-wise.
When all is said and done, would you rather have Rickey Henderson or Mark Mcgwire? I know who I would take.
dmhead - February 7, 2012
Sock a few dingers!
BruinHalo - February 7, 2012
so would I...
I think the character issues with Harper are overstated
angelsownredsux - February 3, 2012
Why not have both
the Scottsdale Scorpions of the Arizona Fall League did.
Rev Halofan - February 3, 2012
btw
this thread got a front page link by mlbtraderumors.com
angelsownredsux - February 3, 2012
Yuhhhh!
I saw that. So with all these Nats and Angels rumors I’m going to go on every post/shot and have the same comment…Bourjos for Rendon, Trout starts ST as being the CF but if his struggles continue send him to Salt Lake to make more adjustments, Rendon becomes the Angels 3rd baseman of the future
Morales8 - February 3, 2012
It's also in the Register
Sam Miller goes over this thread in an article in the Register http://angels.ocregister.com/2012/02/03/mike-trout-for-bryce-harper-and-why-it-doesnt-happen-more/116539/
AngelKeith - February 4, 2012
Halos Heaven
is becoming the think tank of Anaheim
eyespy - February 4, 2012
Trout will be our born-and-raised star
and he’s not reported to be a massive, dick, either.
That’s enough for me to not want him traded.
Caseys Kiss of Death - February 3, 2012
+1
Also, could you imagine having Hubie Brown announce the games and call him Hawp-paw, like he used to call Derek Harper on the Clips?
Downing Rules - February 4, 2012
The dbag thing concerning Harper are over the top.
I actually have grown up with him knowing him personally and he is really good guy. He has an ego and is kind of cocky given the status he has been built up too. He can be an occasional ass like any of us can.
Angelsrthebest101 - February 4, 2012
WHY I NEVER
Caseys Kiss of Death - February 4, 2012
i can be an ass more than just occasionally
tell him to call us when he turns pro in that department
Rev Halofan - February 4, 2012
Loll
He can get there if his ego further inflates.
Angelsrthebest101 - February 4, 2012
Harper is a dick
Teixeira Who? - February 4, 2012
Harper for Trout
I’ll keep the guy I drafted. Harper is a complete jerk and a douche.
May have a little more power, but I’ll take the guy who has a better avg, more speed and better defensive capability.
Oldtime - February 4, 2012
Harper will implode under the enormous weight of his own hubris.
He’ll be the PED poster child of this decade. Mediocrity his domain.
PieceOfAase - February 4, 2012
weird.
clover_black - February 4, 2012
Keep those Harp-oons away from our Trout
Seraphan - February 4, 2012
Trout seems like the better bet for some reason
He seems like he’s got a better make-up, and has the speed and ability to really succeed. Harper looks good, but he hasn’t mashed in the minors yet, so I’d be wary.
joberooni - February 4, 2012
Bryce is the one who wears makeup
:P
Downing Rules - February 4, 2012
Does it make sense?
Yeah, a bit. Probably, I can see the argument.
Would I do it? No. I’ve been conditioned for almost three years to love Trout, from him being the only person to show up at the draft [love that character], to his fish name, to his hustle in the game. Plus, from most everything I’ve read [although granted, it could be false] it seems much more likely that Trout would want to be an Angel for life, as opposed to Harper.
Mike Trout for life.
TheKingfish - February 4, 2012
Man
that would be insane. Shockwaves would be an under statement.
McCutchenIsTheTruth - February 5, 2012
No
Don’t trade Trout!!!!
Don’t trade Bourjos for Lannan!!!
Speeeeeeed!!! Keep it!
CaptainCarlos - February 5, 2012 via mobile
Why do I keep hearing these trade talks about Bourjos for Lannan I thought JD put this to rest and that he wants to keep Trout and Bourjos in the same out field for years to come? would be the worst move ever don’t even think about it JD!!!
NamesWoody - February 5, 2012
Because writers are desperate to fill space.
~MMP~ - February 5, 2012
U R RIGHT
I HOPE you are RIGHT!
NamesWoody - February 5, 2012
yea I don't think id make that trade.
Not sure why anyone would want to trade Bourjos who has a lot of upside still and is still very young for a 27 year old that is boarderline #4 or #5 starter on most rosters.
MoralesHomers - February 5, 2012
EXACTLY!
NamesWoody - February 5, 2012
job well done
solid argument. dug the piece
Chris Buckley - February 5, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Halos Heaven to post a comment.