What's your max extension for Trout (if you're Eppler)?

[Ohtaniland]

1 hour ago, Angelsjunky said:

I think we're all in for some eye-openers when Machado and Harper hit the market. I would be very surprised if Trout doesn't end up getting a contract worth half a billion or more. Hope I'm wrong.

Teams that plan on committing that kind of money to these type of elite players are preparing for that now. 

[Docwaukee]

so the floor for his AAV has been set at 34mil.   Which makes him the highest paid player in mlb.   Interesting that for the next 3 years, the other players at the top of the market are all pitchers.  

Trout had 3 FA years bought out for age 26-28 at 3/102. 

Let's do a quick comp though just so everyone can see the difference between Trout, Harper, Stanton and Machado to date.  

Age	Machado	Harper	Stanton	Trout
19	1.6	5.1	0	0.7
20	6.7	3.7	2.8	10.8
21	2.4	1	4.1	9.3
22	7.1	9.9	5.5	7.9
23	6.7	1.6	2.4	9.4
24	3.5	4.7	6.5	10.5
25	0	0	3.7	6.7
Total	28	26	25	55.3

So Harper and Machado are obviously a year behind Trout by age and Mike had 3 FA years bought out so it's a little tough to comp.  Stanton's 13/325 bought out 2 years of arb and then 11 free agent years taking him through age 37 with a 38 yo option at 25mi with a 10m buyout.  So he was a year behind the three above in anticipated age at FA.  (Ie he would have been 27 while Trout, Machado and Harper would have been or are going to be 26).  

Stanton, to me, is a good floor for Harper or Machado.  But his 13 years kicked in at age 25 because of the arb years bought out.  

Another thing you have to ask yourself is who is going to pay these guys?  

Harper - WSN, LAD, CHC, STL, CWS, PHI, ATL.  I think are the likely candidates.  I just don't see BOS or NYY in on him considering what they already have. 

Machado - pretty much any big market team could find room for him at 3b/SS.  

I have personally been discounting Machado's ability earn as much as harper, but he's actually been just as good and plays more of a premium and sought after defensive position.  

I think they'll get anywhere from 10-12 years with an aav of 31-34 mil.  They should both eclipse Stanton.  Something like from 11/352 to 12/408.   Then in late jan or early feb, Trout will sign a 10yr extension for 360-400 depending on where those other contracts landed.  Even though by the numbers, Trout deserves more, there is a law of diminishing returns here.  He'll be the highest paid player but he's so good, there's almost no market to compensate him for how much better he is than everyone else.  

[mrwicked]

I would probably start at 250,000,000 years.

$2 per year.

With a CLUB option for 250,000,001st year at $3. Option is guaranteed if he finishes in top 3 of WNBA MVP voting.

Can opt-out after 1,000,000th year, with one-time payment of whatever those nachos in helmet cost at the Big A.

[Ohtaniland]

6 minutes ago, mrwicked said:

I would probably start at 250,000,000 years.

$2 per year.

With a CLUB option for 250,000,001st year at $3. Option is guaranteed if he finishes in top 3 of WNBA MVP voting.

Can opt-out after 1,000,000th year, with one-time payment of whatever those nachos in helmet cost at the Big A.

Lock him up!

[floplag]

I dont think he signs any extension till after Harper gets paid first off and yes whatever Harper gets he will go above it, rightfully so.  

I want him to be here his whole career, but at some point you have to say  does this make sense.   500 million?  this seems reasonable to people?  35+ mil PER season?    That's literally Darvish AND Arietta money.  Thats Moustakis, Hosmer, and Cain money.   At some point you have to wonder if putting that many eggs in one basket makes sense.   

There's a part of me that says no, you dont do that for any player.  And another part that thinks hes  not going to sign it either way as his love for Philly is well known and i suspect at some point he will want to play there.  Would StL be happy if they had kept Albert at this point?  Not quite the same  comparison i know but still, also not quite the same numbers were talking about.  

Those numbers terrify me on so many levels i cant even put them into logical order.  

[fan_since79]

If Tom Brady can play into his early 40's, Mike Trout certainly deserves consideration. He's our franchise player. I want him in the lineup until he's at least 43.

15 years, $510 million ($34 million/year)

 

 

 

[Angelsjunky]

2 minutes ago, fan_since79 said:

If Tom Brady can play into his early 40's, Mike Trout certainly deserves consideration. He's our franchise player. I want him in the lineup until he's at least 43.

15 years, $510 million ($34 million/year)

 

 

 

But look how bad Pujols has been playing the last few years in his 40s.

(Sorry, but if I didn't someone else would've)

[Angelsjunky]

10 minutes ago, floplag said:

I dont think he signs any extension till after Harper gets paid first off and yes whatever Harper gets he will go above it, rightfully so.  

I want him to be here his whole career, but at some point you have to say  does this make sense.   500 million?  this seems reasonable to people?  35+ mil PER season?    That's literally Darvish AND Arietta money.  Thats Moustakis, Hosmer, and Cain money.   At some point you have to wonder if putting that many eggs in one basket makes sense.   

There's a part of me that says no, you dont do that for any player.  And another part that thinks hes  not going to sign it either way as his love for Philly is well known and i suspect at some point he will want to play there.  Would StL be happy if they had kept Albert at this point?  Not quite the same  comparison i know but still, also not quite the same numbers were talking about.  

Those numbers terrify me on so many levels i cant even put them into logical order.  

He could very well out-perform all five of those players combined, in terms of WAR, over the next ten years.

[T.G.]

Let him walk and take the draft pick...  draft the next Mike Trout and sign an old guy for $200 million

[VariousCrap]

I'd extend him through the age of 40.

The Angels could easily set up the contract so that he gets paid a higher amount of money per year until he is 35 and then lower the last five years.  Trout won't care because his contract will still be huge and he'll be making what he deserves.

[floplag]

Just now, Angelsjunky said:

He could very well out-perform all five of those players combined, in terms of WAR, over the next ten years.

Perhaps,  I'm not clairvoyant.  We still have to field 9 guys though, how are they going to get paid?   He cant play the entire outfield himself and the landscape of the game is changing.
I just cant wrap my head around these numbers, its literally insane.  Half a billion?  Hes going to get paid, i have no issue with that, but at these levels i just cant... sorry. 
Hate me, call me crazy call me whatever if you want but i cant do that, not for one player, the name doesnt matter at that point im still more worried about the name of the front than i am the back.
IF IF IF however I was to even consider it though it would be far more front ended in the first extension years so as not to cripple the team later when he tapers off as we all do and he would have a more manageable deal when he is ultimately dealt to Philly. 

[VariousCrap]

18 hours ago, mtangelsfan said:

Whatever the hell he wants.  You keep the best player in baseball 

 

Not only is he the best player in baseball, but he also gives the Angels something they have never had, a franchise legend.  This team needs to finally have a player that came up in the system, had a HOF career and stayed with the team their entire career.  This organization deserves to have that and Trout is it.

[Stradling]

21 minutes ago, floplag said:

I dont think he signs any extension till after Harper gets paid first off and yes whatever Harper gets he will go above it, rightfully so.  

I want him to be here his whole career, but at some point you have to say  does this make sense.   500 million?  this seems reasonable to people?  35+ mil PER season?    That's literally Darvish AND Arietta money.  Thats Moustakis, Hosmer, and Cain money.   At some point you have to wonder if putting that many eggs in one basket makes sense.   

There's a part of me that says no, you dont do that for any player.  And another part that thinks hes  not going to sign it either way as his love for Philly is well known and i suspect at some point he will want to play there.  Would StL be happy if they had kept Albert at this point?  Not quite the same  comparison i know but still, also not quite the same numbers were talking about.  

Those numbers terrify me on so many levels i cant even put them into logical order.  

No, you will not be able to sign Hosmer, Moustakas and Cain all for $35 million, nor will you be able to sign both Darvish and Arrieta for that per season.

[mrwicked]

28 minutes ago, OHTANILAND said:

Lock him up!

Plan the parade!

https://media.giphy.com/media/LngHkCdZABOqQ/giphy.gif

[Docwaukee]

25 minutes ago, floplag said:

I dont think he signs any extension till after Harper gets paid first off and yes whatever Harper gets he will go above it, rightfully so.  

I want him to be here his whole career, but at some point you have to say  does this make sense.   500 million?  this seems reasonable to people?  35+ mil PER season?    That's literally Darvish AND Arietta money.  Thats Moustakis, Hosmer, and Cain money.   At some point you have to wonder if putting that many eggs in one basket makes sense.   

There's a part of me that says no, you dont do that for any player.  And another part that thinks hes  not going to sign it either way as his love for Philly is well known and i suspect at some point he will want to play there.  Would StL be happy if they had kept Albert at this point?  Not quite the same  comparison i know but still, also not quite the same numbers were talking about.  

Those numbers terrify me on so many levels i cant even put them into logical order.  

you aren't getting Darvish and Arrietta for 35m per.  Probably closer to 50m.  Nor Moustakas, Hosmer or Cain.   Also likely about 50m.  

Trout is gonna make 34m the next three years.  The bar is set.  Either this franchise will want to keep him or they won't.  Eppler understands legacies and their importance.  He may think they aren't, but I doubt it.  

[VariousCrap]

20 minutes ago, fan_since79 said:

If Tom Brady can play into his early 40's, Mike Trout certainly deserves consideration. He's our franchise player. I want him in the lineup until he's at least 43.

There is a reason Brady has aged so well and that is his health/exercise/wellness program that he lives by everyday of every year.  It is an entire lifestyle.  Not many are up to that type of commitment.

[floplag]

OK so for you clairvoyant folks... whos winning the 5th at LosAl?   Seriously though, we dont know whos signing for what yet, we just dont.   Well see when they sign but right now it appears to be a buyers market which suggest noone might get 20+ mil.  Maybe im wrong, wont be the first time.

Regardless if those guys are 20 mil guys then Trout must be 40ish, right?  Is any one player worth that?  Were talking literally 20% of your budget, on one guy.  Whats the implication of that in the larger scheme?   Half a billion, let that sink in.

I just cant, im sorry no.  He might be worth it who knows what guys will be making in 10 years but the day a player in any game is worth that i question our priorities. 

[Ohtaniland]

23 minutes ago, floplag said:

OK so for you clairvoyant folks... whos winning the 5th at LosAl?   Seriously though, we dont know whos signing for what yet, we just dont.   Well see when they sign but right now it appears to be a buyers market which suggest noone might get 20+ mil.  Maybe im wrong, wont be the first time.

Regardless if those guys are 20 mil guys then Trout must be 40ish, right?  Is any one player worth that?  Were talking literally 20% of your budget, on one guy.  Whats the implication of that in the larger scheme?   Half a billion, let that sink in.

I just cant, im sorry no.  He might be worth it who knows what guys will be making in 10 years but the day a player in any game is worth that i question our priorities. 

Better yet, which one of these high end free agents still be without a team when the pitchers and catchers report.

[Tank]

1 hour ago, fan_since79 said:

If Tom Brady can play into his early 40's, Mike Trout certainly deserves consideration. He's our franchise player. I want him in the lineup until he's at least 43.

here's hoping the trout angels can be as successful as the brady patriots.

[Stradling]

1 hour ago, floplag said:

OK so for you clairvoyant folks... whos winning the 5th at LosAl?   Seriously though, we dont know whos signing for what yet, we just dont.   Well see when they sign but right now it appears to be a buyers market which suggest noone might get 20+ mil.  Maybe im wrong, wont be the first time.

Regardless if those guys are 20 mil guys then Trout must be 40ish, right?  Is any one player worth that?  Were talking literally 20% of your budget, on one guy.  Whats the implication of that in the larger scheme?   Half a billion, let that sink in.

I just cant, im sorry no.  He might be worth it who knows what guys will be making in 10 years but the day a player in any game is worth that i question our priorities. 

Well Jordan got $33 million in a salary cap league 20 years ago.  Beckham got $50 million a year from the galaxy 10 years ago. Trout will get close to $40 million. 

[floplag]

2 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Well Jordan got $33 million in a salary cap league 20 years ago.  Beckham got $50 million a year from the galaxy 10 years ago. Trout will get close to $40 million. 

im not sure i put him in that class quite yet, no matter well see when we see

[Ohtaniland]

11 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Well Jordan got $33 million in a salary cap league 20 years ago.  Beckham got $50 million a year from the galaxy 10 years ago. Trout will get close to $40 million. 

Lol at those comparisons. Trout is the best player in baseball. Those guys are champions. There’s a difference. 

[Stradling]

17 minutes ago, OHTANILAND said:

Lol at those comparisons. Trout is the best player in baseball. Those guys are champions. There’s a difference. 

That literally means nothing as it relates to this. How many championships does Stanton and his $325 million contract have?  How many did Arod have when he got $250 million 17 years ago?  Greinke?  David Price?  

[eligrba]

At this point in Trout's contract, the Angels aren't just paying for a player but also for a marketing opportunity that will last well beyond his career.

[Blarg]

Like Pujols, right?