The Angels left field situation is arguably the deepest black hole at any one position in the major leagues this season, and has been one of the lowest-producing spots for a team in baseball history over the last two years. Many, myself included, were extremely disappointed to see Yoenis Cespedes, easily the best outfielder on the market last winter, re-sign with the New York Mets despite rumors that the Angels had in fact put an offer on the table. Despite promising results out of the gate in Spring Training, the Daniel Nava-Craig Gentry platoon worked about as well as anyone thought that it would: terribly. This has forced players such as Ji-Man Choi, Gregorio Petit, and Jefry Marte into playing left this year for the Halos despite the fact that none would even be in with a shout of playing at that spot on any other major league team. These factors have left the Angels faithful wondering what this team could truly be if we weren't playing at a one-man disadvantage every single time out, if the Angels were to go out and get a Yasiel Puig or Carl Crawford or a Carlos Gomez. However, despite how tantalizing it may look to buy low on these three, a proven track record of success in Anaheim means something, which is a factor that only plays to the advantage of one man: Mark Daniel Trumbo.

Mark Trumbo has hit the most home runs in Major League Baseball this season, which means it hasn't been Nelson Cruz, nor Bryce Harper, nor Todd Frazier. The Angels have been in dire need of another power bat to play their weakest position since the Josh Hamilton trade, and seem to be one more 100-RBI guy from reclaiming the crown of baseball's best offense, a title they last had when they won an MLB-high 98 games in 2014. Trumbo already has 34 homers and 85 RBI with over a month and a half left in the season, which should see him easily eclipse 40 homers and 100 RBI on the year, all while hitting .260, which isn't great, but is considerably better than what one would normally get out of a guy with as much pop as Trumbo this season. Now, consider the fact that the Angels have started 8 left fielders this season, with all of them posting a combined -3.7 WAA (Wins Above Average) in 2016, meaning they have lost the Angels nearly 4 games by themselves that the Angels would have won if they had even had a league average left fielder.

To put this in perspective, Carlos Gonzalez, a player the Angels were once considering trading for, has posted a 1.5 WAA by himself this season, which adds to that 4 game total previously discussed, putting the Angels at nearly 6 games better than they are this season, give or take, by adding just one piece. Granted, that's not enough to make a bad team into a great team record-wise, but 6 games is the difference between 85-77 (2015 Angels), a good team, and 91-71, a potentially great team. It can turn a decent team (83-79) into a playoff team (89-79) or a bad team (75-87) into a respectable team (81-81). Now, Carlos Gonzalez isn't the subject here; he's merely being used to illustrate what a player of that caliber could be for the Angels next year, and I believe Mark Trumbo could put up a 1.5-2.0 WAA type of year in 2017, and that those 6 games could even come up huge in hindsight.

Now, everyone knows that the Angels need something new in left, that's old news, but why Trumbo over a Yasiel Puig or Carlos Gomez? Despite both Puig and Gomez having terrible seasons, both are available at all-time lows for their careers, and either one could come up in discussions for trade bargains of the decade should a team take a chance and succeed with them, which I won't deny. Picking up either of these guys would be a shrewd move by Billy Eppler, and it could be great for the team's chances within the Mike Trout-2020 ticking time bomb. Its not that either would be a bad move by any means; a trade for either Puig or Gomez, both currently in Triple-A, would prove cheaper than what it will take to sign Mark Trumbo in free agency, and this whole idea could be in jeopardy should there be no changes to the current qualifying offer system and the Orioles offer Trumbo a QO, which would cost the Angels a crucial pick in next year's draft. However should this not occur, Trumbo is worth the money over the other two, despite the lowered risk.

Mark has a proven track record in Angel red, and more importantly, against American League pitching, something neither Yasiel nor Carlos can say. Puig is untested against the AL, although generally, it is an adjustment to hit against an entire new set of pitchers, especially for a high average, something that Gomez has ironically proven emphatically. Gomez has struggled tremendously since his move to Houston at the deadline last season, and would face nearly the exactly the same pitchers, down to the same division. After being the subject of Houston's biggest trade splash just one year ago, he is already in AAA trying to recover the form that saw him become one of Milwaukee's most feared hitters for years during their 2011-2012 run. Therefore, neither of these two are surefire bets to solidify left for the Halos, while Trumbo has done it before, and is having a career year against the very same pitching Puig has never faced and Gomez can't hit.

Signing Mark Trumbo this winter is a huge risk, but it's something we need to do. Look around! That clock, the one where #27 is still wearing Angel red, is ticking very quickly. We have until 2020 to convince Mike Trout that this team can win a World Series, and we're a lot closer than just about every other last place team in the bigs, most of whom have an entire lineup of question marks. We're a healthy pitching staff and a left fielder away from 90+ wins and a ticket to October, and we Angel fans could be laughing all the way to the bank as, "Driven out to left, big fly for Mark Trumbo!" rings in our ears night after night after night. Is splashing cash on a guy who hasn't been effective for a few years until now a risk? Yes. But when have teams that never took a risk ever won a World Series? We've been so angry, so scared, so vehement as a fanbase toward our ownership and front office for taking a risk a few years ago that didn't work out. Did it hurt us? Of course it did, but if we had sat back and done nothing, I can guarantee that the successes of the past two years never would have happened. If the Angels hadn't been risk takers, we would've taken some college pitcher in that fateful compensation round of 2009 instead of a certain high school centerfielder called the "Millville Meteor". It's time to step up to the plate once again, get back into the arena and make something happen for this franchise by going all in on winning this thing by 2020, because the Angels, like everything in this world, have a 0% success rate on the shots we never take.