Under the De La Hoya precedent, Trout can now potentially elect to opt-out of his contract at any time (Fangraphs)

[Inside Pitch]

26 minutes ago, CALZONE said:

Nope the union would have no issues if a player opted out to get a salary increase. A player could sign a ten year deal for $180M and then opt out after six years to sign another six year $180M deal. The players union would support that. 

No you dolt, the union would have an issue with CA teams suddenly backing away from making offers a player could walk away from after 6 years.  It's a situation that could limit a team's offer or make for less competition to sign players -- the end result is it could drive salaries down for players at the very top creating a very real ripple effect for everyone else.   

Try looking at things from a perspective other than one that suits your agendas..   

[Ohtaniland]

8 hours ago, Inside Pitch said:

No you dolt, the union would have an issue with CA teams suddenly backing away from making offers a player could walk away from after 6 years.  It's a situation that could limit a team's offer or make for less competition to sign players -- the end result is it could drive salaries down for players at the very top creating a very real ripple effect for everyone else.   

Try looking at things from a perspective other than one that suits your agendas..   

The Greinke contract is a perfect example of just how much this can benefit the players. He made $70 million in his three years with the Dodgers then opted out and signed a $206.5 million for the next six years in Arizona. That's a nine-year stretch in which he'll make $276.5 million. A player would only opt out if it will improve his own personal situation. It gives the player more control and opportunities to make more money. The players union would not have a problem with that. The players and the union would welcome front loaded contracts.

In Trout's situation it's not an issue unless he wants more money or just wants to get out of here. Should that worry anybody?

[mulwin444]

2 hours ago, CALZONE said:

The Greinke contract is a perfect example of just how much this can benefit the players. He made $70 million in his three years with the Dodgers then opted out and signed a $206.5 million for the next six years in Arizona. That's a nine-year stretch in which he'll make $276.5 million. A player would only opt out if it will improve his own personal situation. It gives the player more control and opportunities to make more money. The players union would not have a problem with that. The players and the union would welcome front loaded contracts.

In Trout's situation it's not an issue unless he wants more money or just wants to get out of here. Should that worry anybody?

His Opt Out was part of the language of an existing contract so the mechanism for opting out would not be the same.  

[Ohtaniland]

33 minutes ago, mulwin444 said:

His Opt Out was part of the language of an existing contract so the mechanism for opting out would not be the same.  

The same scenario would apply. The player gets the advantage by having an option to exercise the opt out. 

[mulwin444]

13 minutes ago, CALZONE said:

The same scenario would apply. The player gets the advantage by having an option to exercise the opt out. 

The only thing that would be the same is the "opt out" part.  In Grenke's scenario, his contract had language that allowed him to exercise an opt out.  In Trout's scenario, he would be breaking an existing contract that met league and union guidelines and approvals that didn't have an opt out option.  He would be going against his league, team and union and acting in poor faith by opting out of a contract he initially pursued and agreed to voluntarily - a contract that makes him among the highest paid players in baseball from 2018 through 2020 at $34 mil per season - just to pursue addition money.  I don't think you fathom what a PR hit this would be for him - if the league and union even allowed for it to happen in the first place. 

[Ohtaniland]

17 minutes ago, mulwin444 said:

The only thing that would be the same is the "opt out" part.  In Grenke's scenario, his contract had language that allowed him to exercise an opt out.  In Trout's scenario, he would be breaking an existing contract that met league and union guidelines and approvals that didn't have an opt out option.  He would be going against his league, team and union and acting in poor faith by opting out of a contract he initially pursued and agreed to voluntarily - a contract that makes him among the highest paid players in baseball from 2018 through 2020 at $34 mil per season - just to pursue addition money.  I don't think you fathom what a PR hit this would be for him - if the league and union even allowed for it to happen in the first place. 

I'm not saying that Trout would try this approach but if he did it would certainly be for personal reasons that only he could explain. And as far as the PR is concerned........don't kid yourself, I guarantee there will be at least 10 MLB teams lined up to pay him even more. It would not hurt his baseball career in any way.

Do you think Pujols cared about his PR in St Louis? He went for the almighty dollar and we celebrated his arrival while making butt hurt jokes about their fans. 

If Trout ever does this.....pot meet kettle.

[mulwin444]

2 minutes ago, CALZONE said:

I'm not saying that Trout would try this approach but if he did it would certainly be for personal reasons that only he could explain. And as far as the PR is concerned........don't kid yourself, I guarantee there will be at least 10 MLB teams lined up to pay him even more. It would not hurt his baseball career in any way.

Do you think Pujols cared about his PR in St Louis? He went for the almighty dollar and we celebrated his arrival while making butt hurt jokes about their fans. 

If Trout ever does this.....pot meet kettle.

Actually,you don't kid yourself, despite being financially set his opting out would hurt his reputation.  He seems to care about his public perception and it would be impacted. 

Pujols didn't break a contract with his existing team and he even took less money offered to him if he wanted to go to Miami.  St Louis wanted to lowball him and he left for a 10 year guaranteed contract.  If Trout leaves because the Yankees offered more years and money, are you going to throw him the same criticism or would that be reserved for Arte for not making him a competitive offer to keep him in LA?

[Junkballer]

37 minutes ago, mulwin444 said:

The only thing that would be the same is the "opt out" part.  In Grenke's scenario, his contract had language that allowed him to exercise an opt out.  In Trout's scenario, he would be breaking an existing contract that met league and union guidelines and approvals that didn't have an opt out option.  He would be going against his league, team and union and acting in poor faith by opting out of a contract he initially pursued and agreed to voluntarily - a contract that makes him among the highest paid players in baseball from 2018 through 2020 at $34 mil per season - just to pursue addition money.  I don't think you fathom what a PR hit this would be for him - if the league and union even allowed for it to happen in the first place. 

I agree with this 100% as a fan perspective.  Not being a lawyer, but sleeping at a Korean knock-off Holiday Inn Express last night, I think that a legal perspective may differ.  He would be exercising his rights and fulfilling his contract with a California employer under California law, not breaking it.  Contract provisions not in accordance with laws are not enforceable.  Bad faith would be trying to interfere with his ability to negotiate a subsequent contract after legally fulfilling the previous one.  Obviously it would take years of legal wrangling to see if either argument is true

Trout wouldn't be the one to be the test case for this and its hard to envision all the headache and uncertainty one would have to go through to make it worthwhile, but some players, not Trout, have enormous egos.  An interesting speculation would be if a disgruntled star player who is at odds with team management and felt he didn't have anything to lose, a Josh Hamilton whose talent didn't drop off a cliff type, opted out.

 

[mulwin444]

1 minute ago, Junkballer said:

I agree with this 100% as a fan perspective.  Not being a lawyer, but sleeping at a Korean knock-off Holiday Inn Express last night, I think that a legal perspective may differ.  He would be exercising his rights and fulfilling his contract with a California employer under California law, not breaking it.  Contract provisions not in accordance with laws are not enforceable.  Bad faith would be trying to interfere with his ability to negotiate a subsequent contract after legally fulfilling the previous one.  Obviously it would take years of legal wrangling to see if either argument is true.

To be clear, I am not arguing the legality of it in terms of what Trout could potentially accomplish by opting out.  Based on CA law, he's got a great case and could certainly accomplish it based on what we know.  I am just stating that the union and league have agreed that, in their respective eyes and per the CBA, Trout agreed to a contract in good faith and opting out would potentially disrupt league/union relations and cast doubt on future contracts negotiated for teams within CA.  As an individual player, Trout could opt out but I don't know how enthusiastically even his own union would support his decision.

[Ohtaniland]

6 minutes ago, mulwin444 said:

Actually,you don't kid yourself, despite being financially set his opting out would hurt his reputation.  He seems to care about his public perception and it would be impacted. 

Pujols didn't break a contract with his existing team and he even took less money offered to him if he wanted to go to Miami.  St Louis wanted to lowball him and he left for a 10 year guaranteed contract.  If Trout leaves because the Yankees offered more years and money, are you going to throw him the same criticism or would that be reserved for Arte for not making him a competitive offer to keep him in LA?

I've said many times that Trout is not all about money. If he ever leaves it will be for personal reasons that only he could explain. Location? Family? Team competitive status? Historical value? Hitters ballpark? Or he just might need a change of scenery. Many great athletes leave teams for other teams. That's been going on for over 100 years and people still go to the games. 

[Blarg]

39 minutes ago, mulwin444 said:

Actually,you don't kid yourself, despite being financially set his opting out would hurt his reputation.  He seems to care about his public perception and it would be impacted. 

Pujols didn't break a contract with his existing team and he even took less money offered to him if he wanted to go to Miami.  St Louis wanted to lowball him and he left for a 10 year guaranteed contract.  If Trout leaves because the Yankees offered more years and money, are you going to throw him the same criticism or would that be reserved for Arte for not making him a competitive offer to keep him in LA?

Arte couldn't match another teams offer under this law because he couldn't get out from under the 7 year rule regardless. Every year the contract extension could be an opt out year for the player only. This simply destroys a West Coast teams ability to hold on to any player they develop from the minors to majors.

[mulwin444]

1 hour ago, CALZONE said:

I've said many times that Trout is not all about money. If he ever leaves it will be for personal reasons that only he could explain. Location? Family? Team competitive status? Historical value? Hitters ballpark? Or he just might need a change of scenery. Many great athletes leave teams for other teams. That's been going on for over 100 years and people still go to the games. 

So, just like Pujols then

[Docwaukee]

this law has been around for awhile yet it's never found it's way into baseball and isn't going to.

Claude's only joy stems from trying to force others into sharing his neutered outlook.  

[Ohtaniland]

1 minute ago, mulwin444 said:

So, just like Pujols then

Yes just like Shaq, Labron, Teixeira, ARod, Greinke and many others. The point is that you can throw all of the loyalty crap out the window. Professional athletes will always do what they want to do. They all have their own motivation. 

I will say this.....Trout is a terrific human being and a superstar athlete who we all love. He's Gold in my opinion. We all love Trout the MVP Angels centerfielder the best baseball player in the world but we may not end up liking Mike Trout the businessman.

[mulwin444]

Just now, CALZONE said:

We all love Trout the MVP Angels centerfielder the best baseball player in the world but we may not end up liking Mike Trout the businessman.

Perhaps but if the Angels do to Trout what St Louis did to Pujols, in terms of offering a below-market/low-ball offer (the Cardinals last offer was 10/$210 mil after it was known the Angels were at 10/$254 mil), any fan butt-hurt would be unjustified.  It will still be there but it will be unjustified. Knowing what we know about Trout now, if the Angels match or exceed the best offers out there and Trout still ends up someplace else, I think, at that point, you have to question the organization.    

[Ohtaniland]

39 minutes ago, mulwin444 said:

Perhaps but if the Angels do to Trout what St Louis did to Pujols, in terms of offering a below-market/low-ball offer (the Cardinals last offer was 10/$210 mil after it was known the Angels were at 10/$254 mil), any fan butt-hurt would be unjustified.  It will still be there but it will be unjustified. Knowing what we know about Trout now, if the Angels match or exceed the best offers out there and Trout still ends up someplace else, I think, at that point, you have to question the organization.    

If the Red Sox were to offer Trout $650M / 10 years in the open market would that truly be his real market value and should Arte be compelled to match that or is that an overpay? 

Lets do this. Lets list what type of deciding factors you think Trout will consider when he actually has to make a decision about his future. Pros and cons.

Everyone can join in on this. 

[mulwin444]

8 minutes ago, CALZONE said:

If the Red Sox were to offer Trout $650M / 10 years in the open market would that truly be his real market value and should Arte be compelled to match that or is that an overpay? 

Lets do this. Lets list what type of deciding factors you think Trout will consider when he actually has to make a decision about his future. 

Everyone can join in on this. 

Well, since Trout is not going to be offered that amount by any organization in 2021 I guess the best place to start this little game is with realistic hypotheticals.

The market is established by what offers are made...pretty simple.  If two organizations offer Trout 10/$400 mil and the Angels come in with 10/$350 mil, are Angels "low-balling" or are the other organizations "overpaying"?  Mike will no doubt look at all factors but I don't think it will be a coincidence that wherever he ends up will be strikingly similar to the best offer he received out of his many suitors.     

 

[zenmaster]

Seems like this is some clickbait stuff going on.

[Ohtaniland]

3 minutes ago, mulwin444 said:

Well, since Trout is not going to be offered that amount by any organization in 2021 I guess the best place to start this little game is with realistic hypotheticals.

The market is established by what offers are made...pretty simple.  If two organizations offer Trout 10/$400 mil and the Angels come in with 10/$350 mil, are Angels "low-balling" or are the other organizations "overpaying"?  Mike will no doubt look at all factors but I don't think it will be a coincidence that wherever he ends up will be strikingly similar to the best offer he received out of his many suitors.     

 

Let me simplify it and throw this out there. What if the Yankees, Red Sox, Orioles, Phillies and or the Cubs show interest and start a bidding war for Trout. Does Arte join the party? Will the fans be upset if he doesn't? Will the fans be upset with Mike Trout if he were to grab the richest contract in baseball history from a competitor? I think Doc was accurate when he stated that Trout won't be the test pilot on this opt out law but if he was it would certainly be a "get me out of here" message for sure. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

15 hours ago, Inside Pitch said:

This is IMO the bigger issue -- breaking the contract would mean breaking with the union -- the same union that gets on players for taking less money and working with teams, even when they want to.    Anything that could cause a ripple effect or impact salaries in a negative way (like creating a world where none of the LA teams would ever sign a player for more than 6 years), would see stiff resistance from the union.

II think the union would love it. California teams would be unable to compete long term, so the owners and MLBPA would come together to figure out a way around the issue that is uniform to all teams. The end result would be a huge win for players because you are likely going to see free agency begin after 7 years instead of 7-14 years. This would also be the end of high school draftees and would result in some seriously competitive college ball.

[mulwin444]

1 minute ago, CALZONE said:

Let me simplify it and throw this out there. What if the Yankees, Red Sox, Orioles, Phillies and or the Cubs show interest and start a bidding war for Trout. Does Arte join the party? Will the fans be upset if he doesn't? Will the fans be upset with Mike Trout if he were to grab the richest contract in baseball history from a competitor?

Does Arte join the party?  Yes, he'd be in the mix

Will fans be upset if Arte doesn't "join the party"?  Yes, and rightfully so

Will fans be upset with Mike Trout if he were to grab the richest contract in baseball history from a competitor?  Oh course they will...they are fans.  I'm assuming the most anger will be directed at just the fact he is leaving than at Mike Trout himself though.  If he gets all offers and goes with the highest offer, there will be grumbling about greed but the franchises that could afford such a deal are going to be the ones that traditionally will spend to win so, wherever he goes, he will initially be on a playoff contending team.  If Mike's behavior is consistent, he will handle the situation with class and the anger will be short-lived.  However, if he pulls a Lebron-I'm-taking-my-talents-to-South-Beach ESPN signing special with reaction shots from all his suitors as the "winner" is revealed, the hate would be real and deserved.   

[Ohtaniland]

2 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

II think the union would love it. California teams would be unable to compete long term, so the owners and MLBPA would come together to figure out a way around the issue that is uniform to all teams. The end result would be a huge win for players because you are likely going to see free agency begin after 7 years instead of 7-14 years. This would also be the end of high school draftees and would result in some seriously competitive college ball.

A lot more front loaded contracts would result. That's a win for the union. 

[Ohtaniland]

4 minutes ago, mulwin444 said:

Does Arte join the party?  Yes, he'd be in the mix

Will fans be upset if Arte doesn't "join the party"?  Yes, and rightfully so

Will fans be upset with Mike Trout if he were to grab the richest contract in baseball history from a competitor?  Oh course they will...they are fans.  I'm assuming the most anger will be directed at just the fact he is leaving than at Mike Trout himself though.  If he gets all offers and goes with the highest offer, there will be grumbling about greed but the franchises that could afford such a deal are going to be the ones that traditionally will spend to win so, wherever he goes, he will initially be on a playoff contending team.  If Mike's behavior is consistent, he will handle the situation with class and the anger will be short-lived.  However, if he pulls a Lebron-I'm-taking-my-talents-to-South-Beach ESPN signing special with reaction shots from all his suitors as the "winner" is revealed, the hate would be real and deserved.   

I think Trout has too much class to go the Labron route. What if Trout says...."I know that the Angels will match the highest offer (Yankees or Red Sox) but I just want a change in scenery and be closer to my family." 

Should we be upset with that?

[mulwin444]

7 minutes ago, CALZONE said:

I think Trout has too much class to go the Labron route. What if Trout says...."I know that the Angels will match the highest offer (Yankees or Red Sox) but I just want a change in scenery and be closer to my family." 

Should we be upset with that?

 I'd be upset at his leaving but I wouldn't be upset at him personally.  If we come in with the exact same offer and it comes down to location and family, something that can't be monetized in a contract, what are going to do?  Is it a possibility that scenario plays out?  Sure, but its also possible he's perfectly happy to continue play for the Angels with a 10+ year extension at somewhere between $35-$40 mil per season.Time will tell and its something we won't know for a few years.

[Inside Pitch]

20 hours ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

II think the union would love it. California teams would be unable to compete long term, so the owners and MLBPA would come together to figure out a way around the issue that is uniform to all teams. The end result would be a huge win for players because you are likely going to see free agency begin after 7 years instead of 7-14 years. This would also be the end of high school draftees and would result in some seriously competitive college ball.

So for it to work they would have to redo the CBA -- is that what you're saying?  Because in a system with a luxury tax, a CA team that front loads a contract to stay competitive could suddenly find themselves in luxury tax hell if a player opts out and that 10/300 contract is suddenly a 6/240 contract.  That 10 mil per year difference hit to the CBA tax figure could be a huge issue.   That's a concern teams in every other state wouldn't have.   So again, if the end result is that CA teams stop making offers that could punish them down the road then there's a good chance it impacts salaries in a negative way