Key Points
Bullet point summary by AI
- Boston's offense ranks second to last in MLB with a wRC+ of 29th, putting postseason hopes at serious risk
- A veteran sports commentator suggested a blockbuster move that would bring a star player back to the majors but faces major obstacles
- The idea ignores contract risks and roster fit issues that could deepen the team's current struggles
You can't blame Boston Red Sox fans and media for trying to come up with something that might bring life to what's been one of the limpest offenses in baseball so far this season, a problem that reared its head once again in a 2-1 loss to the Philadelphia Phillies on Tuesday night. The Red Sox now rank 29th in the Majors — second to last! — in team wRC+, and unless that changes soon, they can kiss their postseason hopes goodbye.
But whoever coined the phrase "there's no such thing as a bad idea" clearly never spent much time listening to Boston talk radio. Because the latest trade rumor making the rounds is one that is not only implausible, but would also make this team's situation moving forward even worse: No, the Red Sox should not try to trade for Mike Trout.
.@mikefelger has a brown-checkmark source that says "don't be surprised" if the Red Sox trade for Mike Trout 🍿@FelgerAndMazz @TonyMassarotti @bigjimmurray @IAmJamesStewart @MaggioreKevin @_JakeSeymour pic.twitter.com/xln3NN2dai
— 98.5 The Sports Hub (@985TheSportsHub) May 12, 2026
Trading for Mike Trout is the last thing Craig Breslow should be considering
98.5's Mike Felger, a Boston sports institution (derogatory), said on his afternoon show on Tuesday that he wouldn't be surprised if the Red Sox swung a deal for the future Hall of Famer. And I understand why it's tantalizing on its face. Trout's in the midst of a resurgent season, with 11 homers and a .936 OPS while returning to every-day duties in center field. He still does more damage on contact than just about anyone in baseball, and he's exactly the sort of impactful right-handed hitter this lineup has been missing all year.
But of course, it's not that simple; if it were, he'd probably be on a different team by now. First is the fact that Trout has a full no-trade clause and has shown zero indication that he wants to play anywhere but Anaheim. Even setting that aside, though, you're not just trading for Trout the player — you're also trading for his contract, and while he's crushing the ball right now, that deal still projects to be one of the ugliest in the sport moving forward.
Yes, Trout is great right now. He's also going to be 35 in August, and his contract runs for four more years after this one — paying him upwards of $35 million a year, every year, through his age-38 season. It won't be long before that deal is underwater, considering the harsh reality of the aging curve and the fact that Trout has played in 120 or more games just once since 2019. It's awesome that he still has this sort of production in him, but we have no idea whether he can sustain it over a full season, and we have no idea how long it'll last.
There's also the matter of fit. Boston has an outfield logjam as it is, in addition to Masataka Yoshida at DH; if the team adds Trout to the mix, who winds up playing where? You can try to say that the Red Sox can send back someone like Jarren Duran in the trade, but how would that make sense for an Angels team whose timeline has no use for a 29-year-old set to hit free agency after the 2028 season?
Maybe adding Trout's bat is what Boston needs to get back into the AL East race. The more likely scenario, though, is that he wouldn't singlehandedly lift this lineup out of mediocrity, and then the Red Sox would be on the hook for paying him until he's 39 — just a year after they managed to dodge a bullet by getting out from under the Rafael Devers contract. Not only is that the opposite of Craig Breslow's value-focused M.O., but that risk simply isn't worth the reward.
Trade targets that might actually make sense to boost Boston's lineup
That doesn't mean Breslow should just sit on his hands and watch this offense continue to flail. This infield, in particular, is in desperate need of a boost, and the Red Sox have both Major League and Minor League talent to get some sort of deal done.
Trades involving Houston Astros infielder Isaac Paredes, whose approach is tailor-made for Fenway Park, have been circling since the winter. Or, if you're willing to add big long-term money, why not target Arizona's Ketel Marte instead given that the D-backs are currently mired under .500? Would the Mets be willing to part with someone like Mark Vientos? What about the Nationals and CJ Abrams?
You get the idea. Throwing Trout's name out there is a great way to generate discourse, but it doesn't make sense for Boston on just about any level.
Add us as a preferred source on Google