Lock Trout Down

[Second Base]

Personally, I think you need to plan for both scenarios. Win now, but also maintain enough high ceiling OF depth that you can attempt to compete post Trout. 

If Trout stays, he'll have an army of prospects to back him up and make winning a long term endeavor. If he goes, it'll be nice to have Adell and Marsh ready to step in.

The biggeat thing the Angels can do to win right now is to acquire a similar aged game changer to couple with Trout. Someone that shows we'll do whatever it takes. 

Flat out, the Angels need to acquire Giancarlo Stanton.

[Ohtaniland]

On 11/17/2017 at 10:47 PM, Dochalo said:

But the team he signs with will be ready to win.  

This is the make or break year of Eppler as a gm.  He's not just deciding on how to build a winning team for 2018, but he's laying the groundwork for whether Trout stays.  

If I am Eppler, I am trying to secure 25/26 yo talent for 1b, 2b, 3b and SP right now.  Those players are what will bring us wins in 2020 or 2021. 

At the end of the day, Trout for 2021-2026 ie his 29-35 is likely more important than whatever any of our top prospects are going to be.  But to get that range, you're gonna nee to pay for another 5 year of him on top of that. 

 

How old will Calhoun, Upton and Maldonado be in 2021? Certainly guys like Norris and Petit won’t be around at that time.

Winning now and building a sustainable winning team by 2021 won’t be an easy thing to balance. I think we kinda got caught up in the “win now” during the good Weaver years. We got greedy with free agent signings that didn’t pan out. 

Moving forward I think the franchise should just try to build a sustainable winning formula through patience, smart trades and good drafts. They need to keep building up the farm and keep functioning long term but most of all stop worrying about Trout. If he’s privately planning on leaving we can only hope that he allows the team to move him for a boatload of upper tier prospects prior to him just hitting the open market. 

Keep in mind that winning won’t be the total solution to keeping Mike Trout. It’s also going to cost about $400M.   

 

[Dtwncbad]

[Tank]

because, as we all know, players ONLY buy property in places near where they play, and none of them EVER buy property for their off-season homes in places where they can just get away from it all.

[Angelsjunky]

The only way to keep Trout is:

1. Show him that the Angels are on the right path, both in the short and long-term. This doesn't mean "win now at all costs," but nor does it mean "wait and see." It is the right balance - one, I think, Eppler might be able to find. 

2. Wait until Machado and Harper get their big pay days, then offer him more. Assuming he's healthy and plays well in 2018, Harper is going to get the biggest contract in baseball history, possibly as much as 12/$500MM. So for Trout we're probably talking at least 12/$550MM - that's almost $46MM a year. If Harper struggles in 2018 and gets less, say 10/$400MM (which is about lowest I could see him signing for), Trout is still likely to get 12/$500MM.

Now Trout might want to wait three years, see how the Angels develop and then test the market. But I don't think so. I think once he sees the Machado/Harper money, he'll want to lock himself in. If he can get 12/$550MM after 2018, why wait another couple years to get maybe a few million more? The only reason to do that would be if he doesn't like the direction of the club, which makes 2018 an important year. I think Eppler knows this, so may surprise us with a biggish move or two to improve the team now.

But even then there's the opt out clause. Trout might be more likely to extend after 2018 if the Angels give him an opt out after maybe 5 years, so after the 2022 season when he turns 31 and could still sign a 10-year contract with the Yankees or Phillies if he wants. 

[Stradling]

He bought that property almost 2 years ago.  This really is only a factor if he wants to play for the Phillies, based on where it’s located.  

[Ohtaniland]

17 minutes ago, Stradling said:

He bought that property almost 2 years ago.  This really is only a factor if he wants to play for the Phillies, based on where it’s located.  

Torii lived in Sugerland, Texas in the offseason. Albert still lives in the KC area. There’s really nothing to it. I’m pretty sure that Trout will own a number of vacation type getaway properties during his lifetime. 

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

In another thread we talked about AngelGraffit, He and I used to argue about extending Trout before the old Message Board was shut down.

I was saying that Trout might decide to leave the Angels if he wasn't shown the Angels were serious about winning it all. I mean by biting the bullet and surrounding Trout with some great players and really going all in. I also said that Trout has enough money, and would probably take less money to play for a team that had a real chance at a championship.

AG would say that Trout would go to the team with the highest offer regardless of their chances at the post season. He said that money is the deciding factor for 99% of all FA signings. When I mentioned Weaver leaving money on the table, he dismissed it as the 1% exception.

I still believe the only way to keep Trout for his entire career is prove to him, in the next two seasons that the Angels are really serious about winning, more than turning a profit. Trout will get paid very well no matter where he signs, so he will IMO sign with a team that has a good chance to go all the way even if it's not the highest offer. I also think the Angels, being the team that drafted him after 21 other teams past him by, gives the Angels an edge into extending him before he reaches free agency.

[Stradling]

16 minutes ago, Calzone said:

Torii lived in Sugerland, Texas in the offseason. Albert still lives in the KC area. There’s really nothing to it. I’m pretty sure that Trout will own a number of vacation type getaway properties during his lifetime. 

So, why post a two year old quote from his dad?

[Ohtaniland]

29 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

The only way to keep Trout is:

1. Show him that the Angels are on the right path, both in the short and long-term. This doesn't mean "win now at all costs," but nor does it mean "wait and see." It is the right balance - one, I think, Eppler might be able to find. 

2. Wait until Machado and Harper get their big pay days, then offer him more. Assuming he's healthy and plays well in 2018, Harper is going to get the biggest contract in baseball history, possibly as much as 12/$500MM. So for Trout we're probably talking at least 12/$550MM - that's almost $46MM a year. If Harper struggles in 2018 and gets less, say 10/$400MM (which is about lowest I could see him signing for), Trout is still likely to get 12/$500MM.

Now Trout might want to wait three years, see how the Angels develop and then test the market. But I don't think so. I think once he sees the Machado/Harper money, he'll want to lock himself in. If he can get 12/$550MM after 2018, why wait another couple years to get maybe a few million more? The only reason to do that would be if he doesn't like the direction of the club, which makes 2018 an important year. I think Eppler knows this, so may surprise us with a biggish move or two to improve the team now.

But even then there's the opt out clause. Trout might be more likely to extend after 2018 if the Angels give him an opt out after maybe 5 years, so after the 2022 season when he turns 31 and could still sign a 10-year contract with the Yankees or Phillies if he wants. 

Chewing on the same gum isn’t going to change anything. I totally get what you’re saying but they’ve procrastinated enough about this issue that they may just run out of time to build a sustainable championship type team in three seasons. 

 

[Ohtaniland]

3 minutes ago, Stradling said:

So, why post a two year old quote from his dad?

Just kidding around. Trout is getting married now so he and his spouse will make their own decisions. None of us have a clue about where he will be playing in 2021. 

[Dtwncbad]

1 hour ago, Ace-Of-Diamonds said:

In another thread we talked about AngelGraffit, He and I used to argue about extending Trout before the old Message Board was shut down.

I was saying that Trout might decide to leave the Angels if he wasn't shown the Angels were serious about winning it all. I mean by biting the bullet and surrounding Trout with some great players and really going all in. I also said that Trout has enough money, and would probably take less money to play for a team that had a real chance at a championship.

AG would say that Trout would go to the team with the highest offer regardless of their chances at the post season. He said that money is the deciding factor for 99% of all FA signings. When I mentioned Weaver leaving money on the table, he dismissed it as the 1% exception.

I still believe the only way to keep Trout for his entire career is prove to him, in the next two seasons that the Angels are really serious about winning, more than turning a profit. Trout will get paid very well no matter where he signs, so he will IMO sign with a team that has a good chance to go all the way even if it's not the highest offer. I also think the Angels, being the team that drafted him after 21 other teams past him by, gives the Angels an edge into extending him before he reaches free agency.

Yes AG was on a rant about extending Trout for what seemed like forever.

What he didn't quite realize is the sooner you extend a very young player the more risk there is that you miscalculated.  Yes every month they produce sick numbers might cost you more in dollars but it also better proves they are legit, so it reduces your risk.

When they finally got the extension done he was then on a rant about how much cheaper they could have extended him had they done it much sooner.

That stance never acknowledged that a team is perfectly happy committing more money to a safer bet.  It's a tradeoff.

Further, if you kick down a player like Trout super cheap, at some point you risk the player feeling like he got chated a bit.  Human emotion is real.

As far as I am concerned, the Angel/Trout extension timeline went about perfect.

And going forward it is totally unrealistic that the Angels and Trout get an extension done before Harper and Machado set the market.  There is no way on earth they Trout would or should even begin a conversation until that happens.

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

3 hours ago, Calzone said:

Keep in mind that winning won’t be the total solution to keeping Mike Trout. It’s also going to cost about $400M. 

Giving Trout $40M in AAV only increases the Angels total payroll $16M. He is already receiving $24M in AAV. That would still leaves plenty of room to sign a couple more top players while staying under the tax threshold. Plus the tax limit goes up every year until a new CBA is reached in a few years.

[Blarg]

Giving any player $40 million a year is irresponsible on a long term contract. He's an athlete and any accident, on or off the field, can end his productivity. Spending 1/5 of the teams resources on one player is stupid. If that is Trout's number then the Angels should pass. 

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

On 5/14/2017 at 4:27 PM, fan_since79 said:

Harper just got extended for 2018. Why does he need to sign this off season?

He is under team control through 2018. Is avoiding arbitration by agreeing on a salary for your final year before free agency, the same thing as signing an extension? I don't think so, if he hadn't agreed he would still be on the Nats until the end of the 2018 season, same as now, the only difference is the amount of his salary.

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

Just now, Blarg said:

Giving any player $40 million a year is irresponsible on a long term contract. He's an athlete and any accident, on or off the field, can end his productivity. Spending 1/5 of the teams resources on one player is stupid. If that is Trout's number then the Angels should pass. 

You get accident/health insurance to cover a large portion of his contract much like the Rangers did with Prince.

 

[Stradling]

11 minutes ago, Ace-Of-Diamonds said:

You get accident/health insurance to cover a large portion of his contract much like the Rangers did with Prince.

 

I’ve heard that the insurance is 50 cents on the dollar.  So are you willing to pay $60 million a year on Trout?

[ettin]

17 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Giving any player $40 million a year is irresponsible on a long term contract. He's an athlete and any accident, on or off the field, can end his productivity. Spending 1/5 of the teams resources on one player is stupid. If that is Trout's number then the Angels should pass. 

Most contracts of large enough size have full insurance attached. The Rangers recovered money when Fielder couldn't return as I recall.

EDIT: Didn't see Diamond's post....

Edited November 26, 2017 by ettin

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

Just now, Stradling said:

I’ve heard that the insurance is 50 cents on the dollar.  So are you willing to pay $60 million a year on Trout?

The Rangers were. Do you have a link for that insurance quot×e? Prince seems to have been a bigger risk of injury than Trout, considering his age and weight.

[Blarg]

16 minutes ago, Ace-Of-Diamonds said:

You get accident/health insurance to cover a large portion of his contract much like the Rangers did with Prince.

 

I doesn't cover AAV but it's not about death and dismemberment, how about something simple like a torn knee that never fully heels. Then you have Trout on Pujols lower body. Your still penciled him into the lineup but he performs at league average. 

[Stradling]

1 minute ago, Ace-Of-Diamonds said:

The Rangers were. Do you have a link for that insurance quot×e? Prince seems to have been a bigger risk of injury than Trout, considering his age and weight.

I don’t have a link I’m going off of memory of something I read years ago. 

[Blarg]

5 minutes ago, ettin said:

Most contracts of large enough size have full insurance attached. The Rangers recovered money when Fielder couldn't return as I recall.

EDIT: Didn't see Diamond's post....

They get the money the Tigers agreed to pay. 

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

12 minutes ago, Stradling said:

I’ve heard that the insurance is 50 cents on the dollar.  So are you willing to pay $60 million a year on Trout?

 

 

5 minutes ago, Blarg said:

I doesn't cover AAV but it's not about death and dismemberment, how about something simple like a torn knee that never fully heels. Then you have Trout on Pujols lower body. Your still penciled him into the lineup but he performs at league average. 

 

No, but inflation over 10 years may make $40M/yr seem reasonably for a player of Trout's caliber in 6 years or so. Someone will pay him tat and it's only a $16M more than he is making now in AAV and only $10M in actual dollars.

[Angelsjunky]

I see $40 million as a baseline yearly salary for Trout - and it could go as high as $50 million. 

[Jason]

13 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

I see $40 million as a baseline yearly salary for Trout - and it could go as high as $50 million. 

Good lord! As good as he is this just seems like a really poor investment. Unless money becomes no object for Arte.