A Chicagoan’s Take On Mike Trout

Story by John Zackrison

Opening day approaches, and as it does, Cubs fans look forward to watching their team studded with young stars take on the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. For all the Cubs’ talent, the best player on the field that day will belong to L.A., in the form of center fielder Mike Trout. Forget this year, Trout may be the most well-rounded baseball player the game has ever seen, and yet he is languishing on a team that has won exactly zero post-season games with him, getting swept 3-0 in a LDS series in his only post-season appearance. The entire Cubs roster as been farther into the post-season than Trout. To what degree does this hurt his legacy?

As a native Chicagoan, I have been blessed to watch and root for some of the most talented athletes professional sports has ever seen. Jordan, Pippen, Toews, Kane, Payton, etc. can all be considered in the conversation as the best at their respective positions and crafts. All have won regular season accolades, all have or are on course to make Hall of Fames, but the reason they are so beloved in Chicago are the championships they brought to the city. The 1985 Bears are legends in Chicago – and the only team to bring a Super Bowl to the Windy City.

But when it comes to baseball, Chicago lacks a certain luster with its heroic pantheon. Certainly the 2005 White Sox team, with notable Chicago favorites like Paul Konerko and and Mark Buehrle could be considered worthy for a baseball Mt. Rushmore, but the story of the 2005 White Sox was more “band-of-misfits-who-overcome-all-odds-to-triumph” than a collection of supremely talented staples who bring a long-term success. (Disclaimer: I am a Cubs fan). Certainly both the Sox and the Cubs have had supremely talented, modern era players (Sammy Sosa, Kerry Wood, Frank Thomas) and have stars in the making currently on their rosters (Kris Bryant, Anthony Rizzo, Chris Sale, Jose Abreu), but until they deliver Championships, they will fade like all the rest of the great-but-not-champion players Chicago baseball teams have had.

Take Ernie Banks.

He won the MVP award twice while playing for a last place ball club. He hit over 500 home runs, won a gold glove, made 14 All-Star appearances, all without ever making a single post-season appearance. Banks could have been the greatest player of that decade had he played on a decent team.

But he didn’t.

Instead, his memory has been relegated to die-hard Cubs fans, who by nature cling to the past like a babe to their mother’s breast. His sunny personality and incredible cheerfulness are what are remember most, not the incredibly talented ball-player that player on the field. Outside of Chicago, good luck finding a casual baseball fan who has heard of let alone is familiar with Banks’ on-field prodigious production.

By no means is Trout’s story even close to being written, but one cannot help but notice the similarities. The Angels lineup is aging and their rotation is underwhelming. The farm system appears barren, and they have few pieces to trade to start a retooling process. Trout is young still (he turns 25 during the course of this season), but the Angels do not appear to be in contention anytime within the next three years–perhaps even the next 5. Trout makes them relevant, but without a concerted effort to build around him, the Angels will not compete with the next wave of AL powers, with the influx of young talent that teams like the Astros and Royals have gotten in recent years. Trout is a crown jewel, but he needs a solid base in which to be set.