MLB fans need to stop trying to trade Mike Trout away from the Angels

Mike Trout has hit three home runs in his last two games at Yankee Stadium, and despite hitting into some brutal luck, he enters Wednesday's action with a .895 OPS on the year. He might not be the five-tool superstar he once was, but he's playing as well as he has in years, and most importantly, he looks completely healthy. Frustratingly, the response to Trout's resurgence from MLB fans isn't how great it is to see a future Hall of Famer play well after several injury-riddled seasons; it's "trade him!" That's a problem.

Stephen A. Smith isn't on an island, here. MLB fans have been wanting Trout to be traded away from the Los Angeles Angels for years, but it's time for this clamoring to end once and for all. Trout is not going anywhere. Let's dive into why.

Mike Trout does not want to be traded

First and foremost, a trade cannot happen without Trout's approval. When he signed his mega-extension to remain with the Angels - a 12-year deal consisting of no opt-outs, by the way - the deal consisted of a full no-trade clause. This means that even if the Angels wanted to trade him, Trout would need to waive his no-trade clause. He has never given any indication of wanting to do this.

As recently as 2024, Trout has said that being traded would be taking "the easy way out." Perhaps this mindset has changed, but why should anyone believe that to be the case? Sure, Trout wants to win, and probably knows he won't in Anaheim, but clearly, he's very loyal to the organization that drafted him, or at the very least is eager to stay in Southern California. Who can blame him on either front?

Unless Trout expresses a willingness to waive his no-trade clause, this conversation is meaningless. There's nothing the Angels can do if Trout wants no part of leaving.

The Angels don't want to trade Mike Trout

Should the Angels want to trade Trout? Probably. He's an older player with a substantial injury history and a hefty contract. Now, while he's playing as well as he has in quite some time and is healthy, would theoretically be the best time to trade him. Does anyone actually think they want to, though?

We need to focus on the Angels franchise when answering this question, and Arte Moreno in particular. Moreno has never expressed a willingness to rebuild during his tenure owning the Angels. Not a single time. Despite his injuries and his decline, Trout is one of, if not their best player. It's hard to envision Moreno moving on from that.

Even beyond his skills, Trout is the best player in franchise history and remains the franchise's face. Moreno wouldn't even allow the Angels to trade Shohei Ohtani away before he hit free agency when he knew he wasn't going to pay what it'd take to keep him in Anaheim long-term because Ohtani was too valuable to his bottom line. Is Moreno going to approve any deal involving Trout, his most marketable player?

Again, an argument could be made that the Angels are better off moving Trout for whatever they can and entering a rebuild. This is not something the Angels franchise has ever expressed a desire to do, though, and there's no reason to believe Moreno has suddenly changed.

The Angels wouldn't ever get close to fair return in a Mike Trout trade

Let's say an unlikely event occurs: Trout wants to be traded, and the Angels want to trade him. Even if both sides want out, how likely is a deal to come to fruition given Trout's contract? Trout and the Angels finalized a 12-year, $426.5 million deal ahead of the 2019 season. As a result of the deal, he's making over $37 million this season, and every year through the 2030 campaign. The $37.1 million Trout is making every year until his contract expires would rank as the 10th largest AAV in MLB history.

Why would any team want to commit to paying Trout, a 34-year-old who has not played more than 130 games in a season since 2019, one of the richest AAVs in MLB history for a half-decade? The Angels could theoretically eat some of that money, but does anyone expect Arte Moreno to do such a thing? Plus, even if he was willing to, how much would he have to take on for the contract to be palatable for another suitor?

In the unlikely event that the Angels and another suitor agree on any set of terms involving Trout's contract, the Angels would want to be compensated for trading the future Hall of Famer. What are the odds that a team would be willing to pay Trout a substantial amount and trade enough value away to make the Angels interested? Los Angeles isn't going to trade the best player in the history of the franchise just for the sake of making a trade - they're going to want something of real value back.

There are too many moving parts here. It's unlikely enough that both Trout and the Angels would want a deal badly enough for one to be discussed, and it's even more unlikely that the Angels would get what they deem to be acceptable compensation for a player of Trout's caliber. All of these things coming together just isn't going to happen.

Since when was player loyalty a bad thing?

I understand that MLB fans are eager to see Trout, the best player of his generation, win something. It's a crime that he's played just one postseason series in his illustrious career, and that series came in 2014. I understand that the Angels are unlikely to be competitive in the remainder of Trout's playing career because, well, they're the Angels. Even with that being said, since when was it a bad thing for a player to want to will the franchise that drafted him back to October glory?

MLB fans consistently get on the best free agents for signing with the Los Angeles Dodgers every winter, and understandably so! It's boring to see the best team get the best players every offseason. With that in mind, isn't it refreshing to see a star-level player actually want to be loyal to his franchise?

Trout could have tested free agency and not only gone to an organization that gave him a better chance to win, but gotten more money, too. He is Mike Trout, after all. He also could have demanded a trade at any point to a team that would've given him a better chance to win. He refused to do either thing, and even took a deal without opt-outs because he wants to win with this team.

It's time for MLB fans to come to terms with that. There's something to be said about a future first ballot Hall of Famer spending his entire career with one team, even if said team doesn't win much with him. Yes, he does deserve to be on a winner, but we should be applauding his loyalty. It'd be cool if other stars were as eager to be as loyal as Trout is. A deal isn't going to happen realistically, and frankly, one shouldn't. Trout should be an Angel for life, and that's exactly what he'll be.

More MLB news and analysis:

Add us as a preferred source on Google

Follow