Effectively Wild: A FanGraphs Baseball Podcast - Effectively Wild Episode 880: Extending Strasburg and Trading Trout

Episode Date: May 10, 2016

Ben and Sam banter about Stephen Strasburg’s extension, then discuss whether the Angels should trade Mike Trout.

Sitting here wondering how the things go wrong Every night asking myself what happened to our happy home Will I ever see you again? I need to know, my friend Now the past is gone But tomorrow's on the scene Good morning and welcome to episode 880 of Effectively Wild, the daily podcast from Baseball Perspectives, brought to you by The Play Index, BaseballReference.com, and our Patreon supporters. I'm Sam Miller, along with Ben Lindberg of FiveThirtyEight.

Hey, Ben. Hello. How you doing? Just itching to tell people about our upcoming events, so I will do that now. Tomorrow in Washington, D.C., I will be at Busboys and Poets at 6.30 p.m. That's at 5th Street Northwest. And on Thursday, I will be at the Burgino Baseball Clubhouse on East 11th Street at 7 p.m.

And you will be in San Francisco at 6 p.m., also on Thursday, at Book Passage at 1 Ferry Building. So you can find the details of those things on the website. There is an events page on theonlyruleisithastowork.com. So come see us and hear us and get your book signed. Yep. This will be fun, right? You've done it. I haven't done it. I did one last week. It was very fun. Any advice for me?

No. Okay. Be yourself. How long do they go? I was probably at the one last week for, I don't know, an hour and a half. Oh, wow. Okay. Yeah.

All right. I don't know that they will all go that long. Depends how many people show up and how many questions they have and how many books they buy. That's the length of the feature film Jungle Book. So if you are trying to decide what to do in an hour and a half, that's really, that's the choice. That's the choice before you. Yep. Only two options.

Steven Strasberg signed an extension. Do you have any thoughts on that? Well, sort of surprised. We've all been bracing for the Strasburg-Harper departures for years now, right? It's a, what, seven-year deal, heavily backloaded. Maybe he doesn't want to risk getting hurt again because he has been hurt before. I mean, he'd only have to stay healthy for another less than five months to get a bigger deal than this. Well, so say you're the Nationals and you're like, yeah, man, you know, it's going to suck to lose Steven Strasburg.

Should we go? Should we offer him an extension and someone else? Because it was never going to take it. They'll never take it. Come on. They'll never take it. And you go, well, let's just try. What should we offer him? Seven years and 175 million. Oh, he's not going to take that. He's going to, he's not, he's not going to take that. Well, let's just try. Okay. So you're happy that you're going to go propose this. And Scott Boris says, yeah, sure. We'll take that. How now, how scared are you that, like, what does it tell you that Strasburg accepted this? If you're the Nationals, do you now think, oh, we should have traded him? Yeah, it would be a little happy

at first and then sort of taken aback. Like, is there something we didn't know? Because Max Scherzer had that insurance policy taken out, right? So that it minimized his risk so that he didn't have to sign an extension like this. And so that's something that Boris can do for his clients. And so you'd think that Strasburg would have had that option too, unless no one wanted to insure him because they were scared to do that too. So yeah, I mean, it's surprising and it seems like it's good for the Nationals and it's not bad for Strasburg that he gets lots of money and gets to stay where he is. But yeah, it's surprising so much so that you might wonder whether there's something you don't know. But probably not.

Probably not. Probably not. I mean, it just seems like a reasonable enough deal. What would Strasburg have gotten if he'd hit the market healthy? What did Granke and Price get? 7 and 217 and 6 and like 208. Yeah. So he would have gotten 200. I mean, he's younger than those guys, but I think he's also less proven than those guys.

I mean, he's only had the one 200 inning season And has always been sort of More about promise than Completely fulfilling that promise Except for some stretches So I think he would have gotten 200 but I don't think he would have Gotten way more than that He's younger than Price and Granke obviously

But doesn't quite have the Track record either It's also really hard to answer that question uh without knowing how the rest of the season goes he's got a 2.23 fip he's i don't know he might be the uh well after clayton kershaw maybe even including clayton kershaw he might be leading the you know theoretical cy young race this early in the season. And so that would change things considerably if he ends up rolling off a nice little seven or eight war season. Yeah, definitely. All right. Oh, one more thing about this. A couple of people have noted that now Rich Hill seems like he might be the

best free agent pitcher on next year's market. And I'm wondering if it's time for me to switch from uh saying how much i would give rich hill in a theoretical uh 2015-16 offseason and just start looking forward to what uh a team should offer him next offseason do you feel like it's time has rich hill established himself enough this year that we can start thinking about the future i think it'd probably be less confusing to everyone listening it's true even i'm not totally sure what the hypothetical contract that he could have signed yeah there is a sign and there's a lot of uh like terminator time travel mind-blowing stuff that goes on every time you do that. Exactly. So sure, let's talk about the future. All right. So I've had him at 3-39 in last offseason,

just without any change in, you know, he hasn't pitched since 3-39. So just moving it forward a year, how much should I dock him? We could say if the season ended today, because I think with him it's a very different answer if he looks the same in four or five months. Yes, it's if the season ended today because i think it is a with him it's a very different answer if he looks the same in four or five months yes it's if the season ended today but he's still you know he's still going to be 37 next year right yeah so does it matter does an aging curve matter that much to you for a starting pitcher who is either 36 or 37 is there any real difference to you in those two numbers? Eh, I mean, slight, I suppose.

I don't know. It's not like he has a lot of, it's not like he's been worked hard, but he hasn't been worked hard because he's been hurt and missed time. So I don't know. You get a year older and no one fixes your toe. And so maybe when he, I mean, he must be slightly more likely to get hurt, right?

He's a year closer to dying. Yeah, although also inflation though too. Yeah, true. We're now a year more inflated in salaries. So maybe that cancels out. Maybe, yeah. Okay. So you'd stick with your three-year term?

I'm talking through it For a 37-year-old Rich Hill? Yeah, I think I will Okay I think I'll stay with 3-39 for now All right By the way, he hit a batter in each of his last two starts So he is on pace

He is just narrowly on pace to break whatever hit-by-pitch record I set for him As if we needed another reason to watch Rich Hill Six in seven games Leads the majors Alright, so Ben A couple days ago The Angels had a really horrible day Garrett Richards, it was announced

Would need Tommy John surgery Andrew Heaney has Some UCL issue and Probably if we had to draft Tommy John pitchers right now, he'd be the first pick. And then a couple days later, yesterday, it was revealed that Anderton Simmons is going to need surgery on his thumb. He will be out until at least July, it appears. And the Angels were a fairly poor team coming into the season, at least by projections. They're a very expensive team. They have the worst farm system in baseball. And they've just basically had a nightmarish

last few days as their rotation has been decimated. And their second best player probably will now miss a month and a half or so. So, uh, this brought up lots of conversation about Mike Trout being traded. And, you know, we have previously talked about how, uh, Mike Trout's, uh, having the greatest start to a career in history, and it's almost entirely been wasted. Not, not, you know, just partly by chance. I mean, the Angels have had good teams, uh, that have just come up short. Uh, they also had a very good team that then got swept in three games by the Royals in a division series. And so they, you know, it's conceivable that the team around him would have been good enough to win a World Series with him. It's not like they've given him, you know, the 1930s Phillies or anything like that.

But even with this 10-win player making the minimum or below, you know, far below market, and even with the big payroll and even with, you know, I would say a pretty good GM, and also even though just before Trout came up, they had locked up a bunch of their really good, seemingly in their prime veterans to seemingly below market extensions, and we're going to have them for a long time, Kendrick, Ibar, and Weaver. And even though they also had around him three young players who seemed like they would be, you know, major league quality, perhaps even starting players in Borges, Trumbo, and Conger, they have still managed to do absolutely nothing with him. And

so this has caused some people to say, well, it is not any, it's not, it's never been any worse than now. The only way to rebuild these angels is to trade Mike Trout. And so I don't know that I want to get too deep into Mike Trout trade proposals. But I have, I think maybe three different things I want to ask you about this. Are you game? Sure. All right. So first of all, I, again, I think maybe three different things I want to ask you about this. Are you game? Sure. All right. So first of all, I, again, I don't want this to be a trade proposal. I don't want any trade proposal.

This is simply a calibration exercise. I just want to know, as we talk about this, what in your head is a reasonable return for my trout in your head. You're not, or you're not suggesting it. You're not telling people this is what they need to value Trout out. I just need to know what you think about when you think about a Mike Trout trade. Okay. I would say probably a team's, say, top two prospects, provided that they are good prospects, not, you know, the Angels' top two prospects. Like if they were Urias and Seager, for instance.

Yeah. Okay. Right. So two of those guys, and then, you know, maybe a third piece, a third prospect who is just a complementary part. And then something at the major league level. Some, you know, youngish, not overly expensive, some asset at the major league level who is under team control for a few years. Doesn't have to be a star, but a productive player.

You're basically saying the Josh Donaldson trade, except instead of Kendall Graveman, a very top prospect. Otherwise, all the parts are the same. You've got your Nolan. You've got your Barreto. You've got your Brett Laurie. And then you throw, instead of Graveman, you've got one real top 20 type prospect. Yeah, I suppose so. Okay.

That's lower than my mental calibration is. To me, it would have to be a lot more shocking than that. I would think that something like Schwarber and Baez and also a top 50 prospect and maybe also two more team top 10 prospects. So I'm asking for more than you. Would agree? I think so And I talked to a very smart friend Who I asked him the same question And he scoffed at mine And said way more than that So Trout's contract situation He's got five more years of club control

During which time he probably projects To something like 40 or 45 Four more years after this one, right. Four more years after this one, right? Four more years after this one, yeah. Yeah. So 40 or 45 wins. He'll be paid, what, $130 million for that time. And so, yeah, you know, I mean, it's not cheap exactly.

It's basically you're paying him To be Shinsu Chu And instead you're going to get Mike Trout So I don't know how much you So what's the surplus value there So what will he be paid per win He'll be paid 3.25 million per win Okay well that's really good

If he's a 40 win player So if he is a 40 win player over that time He would be He'd be worth 300, 350, somewhere between 300 and 350. So you'd pay probably more than twice what he will earn for him and be happy about it. know how much surplus wins matter for a guy like Trout because it depends whether you think that wins above replacement have kind of linear value or if something like Trout is just so such a unicorn that having four horses doesn't really accomplish the same thing. Yeah. Do you have an opinion about that?

I don't know. We've seen historically that teams haven't really paid more for a star player as opposed to just multiple players who can produce the same combined. So I suppose that would be true on the trade market also. Yeah. Okay. All right. Anyway, so that's calibrated. Now, my real question, though, is do you think that this is a conversation that is considerably

more worth having than it was two weeks ago? Because nobody was talking about trading Mike Trout two weeks ago. Probably somebody was. Well, yeah, internet people were. But it wasn't really part of the conversation about him. It was, I think, fairly well assumed that Trout was not going anywhere. Maybe it should still be assumed that way. Although, just as I don't think that we should put too much stock in a writer suggesting the Angels should trade Trout, I also don't think we should put too much stock in the Angels general manager declaring that he will not be traded. Both of those things are fairly irrelevant to the future, I would say.

I had not, for really any significant moment of any of my days, thought about whether the Angels would or should trade Mike Trout or for how much. And then after basically the day that the Heaney and Richards news came out, it seemed like I read about nine things on it. So do you think that there is a lot more incentive for the Angels to do something now than there was before those injuries? I wouldn't say a lot more. I mean, I would say they lost a few wins this year. And I guess the thing that makes it more compelling now is that they probably also lost a few wins next year, because if Richards and Heaney end up having that surgery, they'll probably miss a big chunk of next season because if Richards and Heaney end up having that surgery they'll probably miss a big chunk of next season if not all of next season so you know we had already kind of written them off for this year or at least projections wise they were projected to be one of

the worst teams in the league and they've been playing like that so far and so you could kind of just write them off for this year already. So now the only thing this really changes is that next year gets even harder and even more of an uphill climb. So it makes it more sensible, but not extraordinarily so. You know, it's a difference of a few wins here and there, but it doesn't change the fundamental situation, which maybe was already strong enough to make a pretty good case for them to trade him, given that they have this horrendous farm system and money tied up in expensive players. And it seems like it would be tough to pull out of this dive in the next few years while

Trout will still be under contract. Yeah, I think that we can talk in a minute about whether they should consider it anyway for years, you know, three, four, five. But for years, you know, one in particular is the one that is affected by this news. You know, obviously, Angleton Simmons' thumb injury, for instance, doesn't have really any bearing on next year. And Richards and Heaney do But what would that knock your way-too-early projection for the Angels by next year? A win, maybe? Yeah, I mean, maybe two or three Okay, so it's not going to dramatically change what they are going to be next year anyway

Which probably wasn't that great in the first place And if some things go right and they turn great Well, they'll still probably look pretty good. One way or another, it's not going to necessarily be the defining thing for their next year's projection. And so I think that you, I always sort of struggle with this. You could make the case that, well, the Angels are 100% not getting anything out of Trout this year. Like they're just not going to win the West this year. They're not going to win the wildcard.

They're not a good team. They haven't started well. I think on opening day, they had perfectly fine reasons to hope. Much worse teams than them have won divisions. And so definitely feel like it was a fine idea to take this year seriously. But at this point, they're probably, it's not going to happen, right? It's just not going to happen. And so if you have Mike Trout for five good years, and at the most, guaranteed at the most four of those years, he's going to be relevant to your postseason chances, then there are other teams where it's going to be five that are,

they're in it right now. The one sure thing is that they're in it right now and that they can make use of Trout. And so from a very simple market based way of looking at this, it seems undeniable that Mike Trout is more valuable to another team right now than the angels. He's extremely valuable to the angels. Even in a losing year, he's probably very valuable because fans get to see him. You get to celebrate his achievements. He gets to, you know, be the center picture in your airport collage. And trading him is sort of a psychological wound that you're imposing on your fans.

So obviously, I'm not saying that he doesn't have tremendous value and the Angels fans shouldn't desperately want him as well. But the Nationals, to give one example, would make more use out of Mike Trout than the Angels this year. And if that's all we know, then you would think that two rational actors in a free marketplace would be able to do this math and conclude that, yes, Mike Trout should be traded right now to a team like the Nationals. And yet, there just seems to be, well, two things. One is this is true all the time, and yet player movement is fairly limited. There aren't that many trades, even though situations like this are constantly happening all around us. And so there is either a lot of friction in the trade market that prevents these things from happening,

or there is a transaction fee that we're not accounting for, or maybe that we are accounting for, that makes it less obviously positive in terms of incentives, or everybody's just dumb, which I think is the least likely. But to give you a counterexample of this, the Cubs are a very good team right now. The Cubs are obviously playing for the World Series this year, and Kyle Schwarber is not going to contribute to that at all. Kyle Schwarber is an extremely good player who has extremely good long-term forecasts and will be a valuable major leaguer as soon as next year. But this year, the Cubs are playing for this year. And some other team, like maybe, say, the Angels, that is no longer going to be able to play for this year, can absorb the lost year of

Kyle Schwarber without it affecting them at all. Whereas the Cubs, it does affect them. If the Cubs could trade Kyle Schwarber for somebody who is going to contribute this year as well as in future years, it would make a lot of sense to do it. And yet it's not as though there are a lot of columns talking about how now's the time for the Cubs to trade Kyle Schwarber, right? No. Well, you'd have to get back someone who's going to be just as good as Kyle Schwarber in the future. No, you wouldn't. Almost as good. Well, as good minus this year. Yes.

And so if you've got a team like the Angels or the Braves that has value sitting on the bench right now, not on the bench, but value in their lineup right now, it makes perfect sense that that value is being wasted, that those resources should be going to a buyer who can make use of them in exchange for something like Kyle Schwarber. And yet, I'm not calling for that trade. Nobody's calling for that trade. Nobody's saying Schwarber for Freeman now. It makes too much sense not to do it, although it doesn't make sense because where would Freeman play? Left field? Probably not. All right. But the point is, what is the point, Ben? The

point is that I think that this is an exactly comparable situation and yet makes the case that these, that, I don't know, that there's something about looking at what a team is this year that just doesn't, I don't know. I'm not sure. I think I've said it's all, it's all in there. You just listen twice and you'll get my point. There has to be a psychological and emotional attachment component to this attached to specific players so that they are not just pieces on a chessboard or projected wars or whatever that you can just interchange very easily. They're guys that you know personally that you've drafted and developed and gotten to know and gotten invested in and all of that.

And so that must make you a little more reluctant to make these moves. And so I wonder whether the fact that the Angels have changed front office regimes makes them any more likely to make a trout trade. Not that they don't recognize the value of trout or something because they didn't acquire him, but just because they didn't get themselves into this mess, they were hired to fix this mess. And so sometimes the fixer has to do something unpleasant. And so if they had to trade Mike Trout, they could justify it by saying, well, we walked into this situation. There are no prospects. We had to get some prospects. We didn't make the mess that this team is in. We were gifted Mike Trout, and he was the one card that we could play to fix this thing in a somewhat reasonable time frame.

And so we did it. And so, you know, maybe they could talk themselves into doing that or justify doing that a little more easily than if you had gotten yourself into this mess and then had to use Mike Trout to get yourself out of this mess. Yeah. For any other team, for any other organization, I might buy that except Artie Moreno is still there and Artie Moreno is the one you're going to have to convince. And so I don't know that that applies for Artie Moreno. It's now just being Artie Moreno, it's also just as possible that he hates Mike Trout for some horrible reason. And he'll maybe trade him for pennies. You never know. But, yeah, you're right.

Anybody who's trying to figure out what I think about this at this point, I apologize and I sympathize. I think my point is that it's less obvious that you should trade Mike Trout than some of the writing makes clear. Now, there's a secondary type of article that comes out of these, though, which I also disagree with. And that is that it is obvious that you shouldn't trade Mike Trout because there's no way you'll get enough for him. And I don't like this kind of article at all. Because why? Why wouldn't you get enough for him? Like the case is always, oh, well, Mike Trout is so good. How can you trade him?

Everybody knows how good he is. There's 29 teams that know how good he is, and you only need one or two of them to decide that they're willing to pay that much for how good he is, right? So does this – I forget who, but there were good writers writing pieces about how unlikely it is that you'll get something valuable enough for Mike Trout. Does this ever convince you of anything? I mean, in support of these articles, I think that you, again, you can't assume a perfectly rational marketplace. And maybe the pieces that are likely to be worthwhile as a return for Mike Trout are just never going to get traded. Like we know, for instance, I wrote about why Mike Trout for Bryce Harper trades don't

happen when they were both rookies. I think probably rookies, maybe the year before they were rookies. There is a risk averseness that keeps such trades from happening, even if they would make sense, even if they would make sense for both sides. And so if you were, for instance, to put together a hypothetical trade of Mike Trout to, you know, a team like, I don't know, say the Giants, well, the Giants, they don't have those two top 20 pieces you have. And so you could make a mathematical, you know, a sum the wars type of trade that would make sense, but it wouldn't make sense for the Giants anymore because then they're trading from the present in order to do this.

So, you know, you can't just be like, well, it starts with Buster Posey because there's realistically, there's no way that that trade is ever going to happen. So is it fair to say, to look at the history of major league teams making trades, to look at the state of the teams that are likely to trade for Mike Trout and conclude that while yes, you, you know, you would listen to a trade, it's just not likely that a team is going to give you the package or that any team is going to give you the package that would make it worthwhile. It's hard, I think, to trade Mike Trout because obviously there are only so many teams that have the talent to give up for Mike Trout. And then, you know, maybe you winnow it down a little further.

Maybe there are some teams that don't have an acute need for a center fielder or an outfielder. You know, maybe the Pirates could probably afford to trade for Mike Trout talent-wise, but they have such a stacked outfield. Would they want to do it? Would it be worth it to them? So maybe you cross them off the list. So you can kind of go team by team and cross out some because they don't have the prospects and cross out some because maybe they have enough talent in the outfield. And

you would be left with probably a pretty small number of logical landing places. But I don't think there's anything to say that it couldn't be done just because Mike Trout is so good. I mean, it's, you know, it's like playing at a high-stakes table or something. Not everyone is admitted, but there are still people who go. There are still people who are willing to gamble that much. And you do have to have a strong stomach, I guess, to make this move because this becomes the signature move of your tenure. If it backfires, if something happens,

if all the prospects that you trade turn out to be great, or if you're on the Angels side, you better get something great. This has to be a great haul for the Angels because, you know, as poor as their system is right now, if you don't really cash in on the Mike Trout trade, then you are seriously doomed for a decade. So there's a lot of pressure there, but I wouldn't rule it out. I wouldn't say it couldn't be done. I would say that it's probably more difficult than just the wars alone would suggest, right? That, you know, if you were just doing this on paper or in out of the park or or some computer program, you could construct a trade and everyone would just do it when it statistically made sense. Whereas in this case, they might not because of the aura of Mike Trout and the significance to the franchise and the job concerns and all those other considerations. So it's harder than you might expect just based on the numbers,

but it's doable. It could be done. A Polanco based trade. Right. Sure. You could just trade one of those guys as a part of the package. That might be the most sensible one that I've thought I've heard of so far. Yeah.

You know, that would actually make sense because then, well, anyway, I'm very close to making fake trades up, so stop me. All right, so the last thing about this, let's say that you're the Angels and you don't want to trade Mike Trout, that you are in it to win it with Mike Trout. You are in a situation right now that looks quite bleak. Payroll commitments are high into the near future. Albert Pujols is not going away for a very long time. The farm system is not just bad, but as I heard some people say in various emails back and forth this winter, that it is perhaps the worst farm system in the

prospect era. So it's not totally clear what you do. I mean, they're not as bad as the Astros were at the beginning of their rebuild and their farm system. Well, their farm system is worse than that, but at least they're not as bad as that. Is there a way? They're maybe as bad as the Astros were when they decided to rebuild, right? I mean, they're kind of in the situation where a team decides we're not going to keep stringing this along and trying to put together 70 or 80 win teams. We're going to tear it down because it just seems like that's the best option. Yeah, I mean, the Astros were the worst team in baseball even before they started rebuilding. But sure, they're a bad team, bad prospects.

But I don't know. They're not really. They don't necessarily have to be that bad a team. They're like the 24th best team in baseball, probably. Something like that. Anyway, is there a way out of this? Can we avoid watching the Angels pit themselves for three or four years? Or is that it? Do they have no way to get anything out of Mike Trout other than letting it get ugly? When you put it that way, it almost makes the case for trading him seem stronger because it forces you to think of the alternative, which is, as you said, bleak. I don't know how you do it

because you've already had your best shot with Trout, right? Because he is getting more expensive and the Pujols players surrounding him, you know, are not getting any better. They're getting worse. So if you were going to do something with Trout, you probably would have done it already. I don't know why, what would be different. The only thing I could say is just, you know, like make some brilliant moves like, you know, trade Steve Clevenger for Jake Arrieta or whatever. If you can do that, then sure. But there's just no prospect on the way that you can say will make the team better. And there's no one on the roster who seems like he's suddenly going to become better. So there just really isn't anything there.

It's just relying on making really smart trades or spending a lot of money. Yeah, well, spending a lot of money is probably the answer. I mean, this is a team under Artie Moreno that has been a very good franchise, done a lot of great things, but has never really been great at spending money. They've had a lot of success or they had a lot of success building out of this great farm system from the mid 2000s. And they've had a lot of things go well since then. And some things go poorly. And most of the things that have gone

poorly have been when they've taken on money or spent money. So it maybe isn't necessarily safe to say that they could spend $100 million very well. But while I said that their payroll situation isn't great, Weaver's contract ends after this year. Wilson's contract ends after this year. And they only have, including Trout's, $20 million next year. They only have $92 million committed next year and $73 for the three years after that. It seems like maybe the one solution other than a full rebuild or just hoping things break right and you trade, you know, you get your Clevenger for Arrieta trade, is the angels sort of giving up on this idea of being under the luxury tax and just saying, well, you know, forget it. We're just going to go crazy. We are in LA. We have a huge TV contract. We have a rich owner. We don't want to lose. So instead of hanging

around $170, $180 million, you say, forget it, we're going to go $240 million for a couple of years. That's the only way to get out of this. If they did that, well, first of all, let's say they didn't do that. Let's just say that they have $70 million that they could spend next off season if they really wanted to, but in a week free agent class. Do you think that the Angels are a team that is capable of getting good with $70 million? And if not, how much would I have to say they have to spend next year to get good? Yeah, I mean, it is a week class. So if you signed, you know, Strasburg was the best pitcher available and now it's Rich Hill, right? So now it's a big step down, and then it just isn't. I don't know.

Even if you sign the top few free agents, I don't know whether that would get them there, especially if they don't have Richards and Heaney. So no, I mean, you know, if you sign the best five free agents in any winter, you could get good, right? Didn't we do that thought experiment last winter where we talked about if the worst team had signed the best free agents or something, how good would they be? And they would be good, but you'd have to spend a ton of money. So if you could make that

case to your owner, then I guess so. It still doesn't seem like economically the smartest way to do it. So if he balks at the idea of trading Trout, then you could just say, well, are you willing to incur a ton of costs to rebuild this team with Trout? And if not, then what do you want us to do? Yeah, that's a good question. Yeah, that is the question that they probably need to ask him. Yeah. and that's it. Some teams make a lot of deadline trades. The Nationals do not. However, are you at all kind of envisioning a Trout Harper middle of the lineup and outfield? I hadn't been until now. You should. It's fun, too. That would be pretty... Yeah, I would enjoy watching that. It would solve the Ryan Zimmerman problem.

Yeah, and, you know, I don't know. Again, our calibrations are different, but Giolito and Trey Turner is not a bad starting point. Yeah, sure, okay. Let's talk about it. All right, anyway, end of the show. Got Strasburg under contract for the next several years. If you bring Trout, then Harper has to re-sign, right? Why wouldn't you want to?

You've got two of the other best players in baseball. So, yeah, sure. Makes all the sense in the world. All right. All right. That is it for today. You can support the podcast on Patreon by going to patreon.com slash effectively wild. Just like Daniel, Jacob Barak, John Rhine, David Becker, and Daniel

Kleinsorge did. Thank you. You can also buy our book, The Only Rule Is It Has To Work. Again, we have three events coming up in the next two days, one in DC, one in New York, one in San Francisco. So check out the book website for the details, theonlyruleisithastowork.com. There's a ton of extra content on there for those of you who have finished the book. You'll find lots of photos and videos and stats that you'll enjoy. And we could really use some reviews from people who finished the book. So if you liked it, please tell the world about it on Amazon or Goodreads. Help us entice other readers who might not listen to this podcast.

And tell your friends and family, give a copy to your dad for Father's Day. If you want to see more about the book before you buy, you can also, at the website, find excerpts and interviews and reviews. You can join our Facebook group at facebook.com slash groups slash effectivelywild and rate and review the podcast on iTunes. You can get the discounted price of $30 on a one-year subscription to the Play Index at Baseball Reference using the coupon code BP. And you can email us at podcast at baseballprospectus.com or by messaging us through Patreon.

We will be back tomorrow with a listener email show. Whoa, I feel like letting go. Oh, I feel like letting go.