Should the Angels try to sign Trout now to a 10 year contract?

[Stradling]

I would make the initial offer of 10 years $175m with a five year club option for another $150m. So essentially it is 15 years $325m if he continues to be amazing. If he gets hurt or regresses for some reason it's only $175m.

[Halos of Anaheim]

That's proof alone to how screwed up WAR is as a stat or whatever it is in reality.

You think that was just some made up number? Every good player in the league is making 25 million per year now through FA, for 1 WAR as a player, that nets you about 4.5 million dollars. Trout was worth 45 million last year, and will be worth 44 this year according to fWAR http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=10155&position=OF#value. 

Edited September 2, 2013 by Halos of Anaheim

[tdawg87]

180 million is more than fair and would probably get it done.

 

That's not for anyone but Trout to decide.

[Troll Daddy]

He is not that dumb!

You guys who think that Trout would want to wait for FA obviously believe injury is not a possibility. Yes, know it may not be likely but it is seriously possible. So much so you can't possibly leave a big contract on the table and wait!

You're a 100% correct but that analogy works both ways . I think Got Beer is on the right track with a six year offer if you can save money through the arbitration years .

Scary thought for a team paying three players around $75M per year ... especially if Trout craps out.

[Halos of Anaheim]

You're a 100% correct but that analogy works both ways . I think Got Beer is on the right track with a six year offer if you can save money through the arbitration years .

Scary thought for a team paying three players around $75M per year ... especially if Trout craps out.

Only way he craps out is due to injury. There can't be any more ''he's going to regress'' comments. He's the best player in baseball history through his age 21 season according to WAR, and the guys on that list are all Hall of Famers, so you can't pull that ''WAR is bullshit'' comment.

[Stradling]

I believe war has some merit, but I think the dollar value per win in war is silly. I'm not going to pretend I know much about war but to say each win is worth 4.5 million dollars just seems arbitrary at best. Can someone explain how they came up with this? Did they take all of the war of players, then add up their contracts and come up with that?

[ScottT]

Why would he want to do it? If he makes it to free agency, he'll probably break every contract record there is.

 

Because he would get much more than $120 million... and could still sign another long term deal... like Alex Rodriguez and Albert Pujols did.  

[gotbeer]

Through the first two years of significant action, offensively who was the better player?  Trout or Howard?  

 

This is the problem the Angels will face.  Players are not superstars forever.  It's a question of when their declines begins.  And as I posted a while ago, when you look at superstar players, their shelflife is usually no more than 8 years, sometimes 10.  Unless you are chemically enhanced.  Look at the stats of any superstar, count up their prime years, and not their decline years.  Trout is in year 2, and I'd rather pay him one year short, than 2+ long.    

 

Baseball is an unpredictable sport.  

[Halos of Anaheim]

I believe war has some merit, but I think the dollar value per win in war is silly. I'm not going to pretend I know much about war but to say each win is worth 4.5 million dollars just seems arbitrary at best. Can someone explain how they came up with this? Did they take all of the war of players, then add up their contracts and come up with that?

Something like that. 4.5 sounds reasonable, look at how many guys are being paid 15 million for a 2-3 WAR year in and year out. 13.5 mil a year for 3 WAR sounds right.

[tdawg87]

Through the first two years of significant action, offensively who was the better player?  Trout or Howard?  

 

This is the problem the Angels will face.  Players are not superstars forever.  It's a question of when their declines begins.  And as I posted a while ago, when you look at superstar players, their shelflife is usually no more than 8 years, sometimes 10.  Unless you are chemically enhanced.  Look at the stats of any superstar, count up their prime years, and not their decline years.  Trout is in year 2, and I'd rather pay him one year short, than 2+ long.    

 

Baseball is an unpredictable sport.  

 

Trout is also only 22 years old. Big difference than if he were say, 25.

[mancini79]

This would screw up arbitration for the next 50 years.  

 

How would it screw up arbitration? The contract gets him out of needing to use arbitration.

[Troll Daddy]

Show me amazing defense

Show me at least 10 OF assists

Show me 50 stolen bases

Show me 120+ RBI's

Show me 120+ runs scored

Show me clutch hitting

Show me some walk off winning hits

and I'll show you $25-30M dollars!

[ScottT]

Big difference if Ryan Howard was a legit comp, too. 

[tdawg87]

Show me amazing defense

Show me at least 10 OF assists

Show me 50 stolen bases

Show me 120+ RBI's

Show me 120+ runs scored

Show me clutch hitting

Show me some walk off winning hits

and I'll show you $25-30M dollars!

 

Just stop.

[Troll Daddy]

Just stop.

This is a discussion forum and those are my opinions. I like Trout as much as you.

[Halos of Anaheim]

Show me amazing defense

Done last year.

Show me at least 10 OF assists

This isn't warranted.

Show me 50 stolen bases

Done last year.

Show me 120+ RBI's

He needs his #1 and #2 hitter to get on base and not have a combined OBP of .305 (plus he's played in the #1 and #2 spot all year)

Show me 120+ runs scored

Done last year in 134 games.

Show me clutch hitting

Agreed with this one, but it'll come.

Show me some walk off winning hits

I'd rather Trout get on base in these situations (like he always does) instead of trying to hit a 5 run homer and being a hero. He sticks to his gameplan in every at bat, getting on base.

and I'll show you $25-30M dollars!

Were lucky you aren't a GM of a baseball organization.

In bold.

[gotbeer]

Show me amazing defense

Show me at least 10 OF assists

Show me 50 stolen bases

Show me 120+ RBI's

Show me 120+ runs scored

Show me clutch hitting

Show me some walk off winning hits

and I'll show you $25-30M dollars!

 

Good thing Trout's never had 50 SB's a season.  And this year, he will be lucky to get 35.  

[DW711]

I think if you're Mike Trout you say  - no.  He has the potential of someone that can break the $30 million/yr. salary.  If he signs a 10/$120 he loses money maybe in his arb. years.

 

It's more understandable from the Angels perspective.  They want to tie up their superstar for 10 years.

 

Discuss

 

Obviously.

[Troll Daddy]

On base guys usually don't get the big bucks ... RBI guys do.

Please don't tell YOT

Btw I believe Trout has the ability to be a big RBI guy if he continues to bat third in the lineup next season.

Edited September 2, 2013 by Troll Daddy

[Stradling]

TD, you are trying too hard.

[gotbeer]

How would it screw up arbitration? The contract gets him out of needing to use arbitration.

 

yes, give Trout $25 - $30 million in his arbitration years, and see how Boras will use it.  

[tdawg87]

What? Boras isn't even Trout's agent? Or are you talking in general? That isn't really how arbitration works though.

Edited September 2, 2013 by tdawg87

[mancini79]

yes, give Trout $25 - $30 million in his arbitration years, and see how Boras will use it.  

 

Lincecum got over $40 mil in his arbitration years (all of which was settled before going to arbitration). It hasn't changed the arbitration process.

[gotbeer]

What? Boras isn't even Trout's agent? Or are you talking in general? That isn't really how arbitration works though.

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ys-maurybrownarbitration011910

 

 

In general.  You give Trout $25-30 million in arbitration, and it will be an enourmous tsunami sized ripple through all future arbitration cases.  Guys who are only half as good as Trout, may then say they are worth $15 million in arbitration.  Howard set the bar, and every arbitration case uses that bar.  If the Angels gave Trout what he wanted, it could make arbitration years unaffordable for teams.  

[tdawg87]

Could that article have chosen a worse font color? Holy christ.

 

Players and agents can request whatever amount they want during arbitration. Ideally they look at the deal being offered and say "no I think we can do better" and when they can't reach a deal they go to a hearing. As the article states, that can go both ways, either in favor of the player or the team, so in its own right it's a risky decision. If he wants to balk at a 10/200 offer then so be it. I would be shocked if the panel felt he was worth more than a 3,500% increase in salary, regardless of how great he is.