What would it take for you to deal Mike Trout in a redraft league?
Michael Rathburn (Rotowire, @FantasyRath): If I owned Trout, I’d have to be in the bottom half of the league to make a deal. Ideally Id look to get 2 players worth about $25 per or 3 players totaling $50-$60 in value. 1 hitter/1 pitcher or 2 hitters/1 pitcher.
Patrick Davitt (BaseballHQ, @patrickdavitt): A redraft league offers a more clear-cut decision path: I’d trade Trout for players who would move me more points in the categories than I would lose from trading Trout. For instance, I can see a two- or three-for-Trout if I had Trout plus some dead weight or replacement-level guys, while some other team had a roster surplus through returning DL players. The particular players would depend largely on where I stood—if I had a good position in OBP, I might look at acquiring, say, Khris Davis and Dee Gordon, and while I’d be getting 85 cents on the value dollar (using HQ projections), losing some ground in OBP and breaking even on HR, I’d be gaining 33 runs, 23 RBI, and 18 steals. Those are numbers that could move a team in multiple categories. But again, it all depends on where I was in the categories at the time of the proposed deal—and where I saw my team at season’s end.
Perry Van Hook (Mastersball, @): A redraft league of any kind is likely the only type of league where you would deal Mike Trout and you SHOULD if a trade will pick up enough categorical points to win the league or dramatically increase the likelihood you will finish in the money. As great a season as Trout is having this year if you can improve your pitching more than you will lose in hitting points (if any) then you definitely should work on a trade that will help you and your potential trading partner(s).
Mike Gianella (Baseball Prospectus, @MikeGianella): If I’m trading Trout (I have him in LABR AL, a redraft league) I’m looking for the perfect combination of quality and volume. Teams that sunk $40+ into Trout in a redraft usually had to skimp somewhere else so I’m looking to make up those deficiencies. So a second tier-hitter plus a high end arm or three solid hitters to fill in dead spots might do the trick. It’s a tough sell though, because even with Trout and some zeros on offense I’m still near the top in runs/RBI because Trout is that good.
Gene McCaffrey (Wise Guy Baseball, @WiseGuyGene): Very simple: I want more value in return – and I daresay it wouldn’t be too difficult to find it. Dispassionate analysis shows that any top SP is worth more in the roto format, so that pitcher plus a mediocre hitter is a good deal. There is greater risk in the pitcher, and that’s the trade-off, but assuming health such a deal is a winning move.
Rick Wolf (Fantasy Alarm, @RickWolf1): Let’s look at this as a BA league since if it is OBP, you would NEVER trade Trout. You need to look at categories, how big your lead is and then calculate what you need to gain points. EXACTLY what you need. Then calculate the loss in points that is possible by losing him. Normally with players of this caliber, I wait until August first and then make the move to make sure that I WIN. Sometimes it means that you would be trading for multiple closers or multiple STUD starting pitchers, but generally not for hitters. If you are middle of the pack or bottom, trading now makes sense because if you are not 1st – you are last. Thanks Ricky Bobby. Find someone fishing for Trout and get the maximum number of points based on your needs. Remember, in most leagues pitching is easier to fix so get A LOT and sure things. Make the COMPLETE plan on how the trade will help you and do not just look at VALUE. Someone could give you Kluber and Mookie Betts and that might seem good, but you need to look to see if you need what the guys you get will move you to the TOP of the standings. Like Commander Mike Metcalf says in Top Gun, “Gentlemen, there are no points for second place.”
Ray Flowers (Fantasy Guru Elite, @BaseballGuys): Trout is an A+ in terms of production and consistency. Still, in a game where we start 14 hitters and nint pitcher, and with all the injuries everyone is dealing with, there has to be a point where you would consider dealing him for a relative bounty. Considering that you could get two all-stars for Trout in any format, potentially even three in many deals, you have to consider it. You don’t deal Trout for prospects. You don’t deal Trout for guys on the DL. You also don’t deal Trout for guys that are performing out of their minds who have no track record of success. You deal Trout to fill holes getting back guys who are likely to fill the hole/need you have. With all the injuries in today’s game, trading Trout for a multitude of top level players to aid your team makes sense a while lot of sense to me.
Scott Pianowski (Yahoo! Fantasy Sports, @Scott_Pianowski): The first point in all this is that anyone should be tradable. Your team should be “the touchables.” Don’t let fear of looking bad sabotage you from doing something you think can or will work. If you constantly live your life afraid to make a mistake, you’re doing it wrong. As for what it would take, several of my colleagues have already hit on the key point – it’s all about solving the standings puzzle. You’d need to get back stuff that would make sense categorically. I occasionally screw this up myself, but if you’re going to trade a star, two things are essential: let the league know the star is in play, and do an extensive audit of the league standings and the opposing rosters to figure out where the fitting pieces might be.
Fred Zinkie (Years in Tout Wars: 8, @): Aces are so valuable that I would have to consider trading Trout if my pitchers were struggling. A top-5 starter and a $20-25 hitter sounds like a fair return. Or a top-10 starter and a $25-30 hitter.
Phil Hertz (BaseballHQ, @prhz50): Give me a Scherzer, Verlander, or deGrom and someone akin to Freddie Freeman, and Trout is yours.
Ron Shandler (RonShandler.com, @RonShandler): This is purely a hypothetical question for me because I have never known the bliss of Trout ownership. I did make a trade offer for Trout this year – an act that was completely out of my comfort zone. I offered any one of Carrasco, Greinke, Flaherty or McCullers, plus Nelson Cruz, plus $200 of FAAB. GIven Phil’s asking price above, I suspect even $300 of FAAB wouldn’t have done it.
Lawr Michaels (CreativeSports2, @lawrmichaels): I pretty much agree with the bulk of my comrades in that it obviously depends upon the depth of the league, standings and categories relative to what I need and I can afford to give up at the time. I think Scott and Fred hit the closest to my belief, that anyone should be tradeable at anytime depending upon what was needed and how I can ideally improve my team enough to win..
Scott Wilderman (OnRoto, @): I would never have Trout on my team in an auction league — too much money to risk on one player. In a mixed draft league, it’s hard to imagine that Trout + an FA would not be more productive than any two players you could trade for, unless both of them are very good players and one is a catcher. I love SPs, but a huge part of their standings points gain production comes from wins, the most valuable but most fickle roto commodity. Even on a good run scoring team, you might got get the return you need picking up an ace — a 2.50 ERA and 0.950 WHIP with 6-4 doesn’t justify trading Trout. I would make one exception to that right now, though — the Indians have almost 20 game left with KC and CWS, meaning Kluber is going to get a bunch of starts in which he has a way better than usual chance of winning. If I had Trout and needed pitching, I would slow-play a deal to package Trout for a hitter better than the FA list and Kluber.
Scott Swanay (FantasyBaseballSherpa, @fantasy_sherpa): In order for me to trade Trout, as others have already pointed out, I’d have to be confident that I’d be better off in the overall standings after the trade than before the trade. Simple as that sounds, I can’t imagine too many combinations of players that could do that. If I were focused on getting pitching back, the deal would almost certainly have to include Kluber, Scherzer, or Sale (sorry, Kershaw) and either another mid-upper tier starting pitcher or a well-above average hitter. If I were focused on getting hitting back, it would probably take 2-3 All-Star caliber hitters who in aggregate would be better than Trout + the other hitter(s) they’d be replacing. And if you’re in a dynasty league (the only format I currently have him on a roster), then given Trout’s relative youth, I have a hard time imagining a deal that would make sense – I’d probably need to get either Acuna or Vlad Jr back, plus a whole lot more.
Mike Podhorzer (Fangraphs, @MikePodhorzer): There’s never a player that is off limits on my teams, so even though it would be painful to trade Mike Trout, if the value is there, you make the move. The key is determining when the value is there. Of course, it’s extremely context dependant, including where you are in each of the hitting category standings, along with how the rest of your roster looks and what holes, if any, you stand with. In a shallow mixed league, I would need two top tier guys, like second round levels, at the very least, and two second rounders might not even be enough. In this format, I always want quality over quantity given the talent level in the free agent pool, which makes it that much more difficult to find a Trout trade that truly benefits you.
Doug Dennis (BaseballHQ, @dougdennis41): I would find it very hard. I think you want all that value back and that would mean the players coming back would have to be worth Trout AND the players you are subtracting from your active roster to use the players you are acquiring. (And by “worth” I mean to your position in the standings, not in any other way).
Todd Zola (Mastersball, @toddzola): My colleagues have covered almost. Something I’d like to emphasize is Pianow’s assertion (among others) everyone is on the block. I’m impressed no one invoked the tired cliche to never deal the best player. A few (correctly) suggested getting back an ample return would be tough, but it’s heartening no one said impossible. While a few focused on value, Doug’s parenthetical point about worth/value is the correct approach. It’s not about dealing a $50 Trout for a $30 pitcher and $25 hitter — or whatever algebra you want. It’s about gaining more points than you lose. That said, some leagues have veto rules and those voting haven’t grasped this concept, hence disallowing some excellent trades on the premise one side is getting more value. For those still on the value train, Wiseguy Gene referenced this, allow me to embellish. Every dollar amount cited assumes conventional valuation where we allocate between 65-70 percent of budget to hitting. Why this is the case isn’t germane, it’s a story for another day. The point is, in-season, when talking value, the budget should be distributed equally. This knocks a $30 hitter down to $21 while elevating a $30 pitcher to $50! So, on paper, in most eyes, dealing a $30 hitter for a $30 pitcher is even Steven. In my eyes, it’s worthy of a veto (typed tongue in cheek, but you get the point).
