Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Photo

Mike Trout Extension

  • Please log in to reply
102 replies to this topic

#1 Vanimal46

Vanimal46

    Opener Poster

  • Members
  • 12,006 posts
  • LocationAustin, TX

Posted 19 March 2019 - 08:35 AM

12 years $430 million.


#2 Vanimal46

Vanimal46

    Opener Poster

  • Members
  • 12,006 posts
  • LocationAustin, TX

Posted 19 March 2019 - 08:50 AM

No opt outs in the deal according to Bill Shaikin, Angels beat writer, on Twitter.

#3 biggentleben

biggentleben

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,201 posts

Posted 19 March 2019 - 08:52 AM

No opt outs, either.

 

One great Tweet out there is that the Angels did not mess with Trout's service time and paid him now twice long-term, standard-setting deals. All of these things would be considered inefficient. When Trout sat down to negotiate, you don't think his team consistently having his back made an impact?

  • Brock Beauchamp, Mike Sixel, scottz and 6 others like this

Purveyor of videobaseballscout.com to cover all kinds of baseball!!

 


#4 SomeGuy

SomeGuy

    Ft Myers Miracle

  • Members
  • 294 posts

Posted 19 March 2019 - 09:00 AM

That makes 4 contracts of at least 260M this offseason.All 4 are in the top 6 for largest contracts ever.

 

$1,320,000,000 total for 4 players.


#5 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 29,475 posts

Posted 19 March 2019 - 09:12 AM

Given the revenue in MLB, he deserves it. I hope he's generous with his donations.

  • Mike Frasier Law, Sconnie, SF Twins Fan and 1 other like this

It's IL now, btw, not DL.....


#6 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 9,697 posts

Posted 19 March 2019 - 09:29 AM

Good for him and the Angels' fans. 

  • Mike Sixel, nicksaviking, Oldgoat_MN and 3 others like this

#7 MMMordabito

MMMordabito

    Formerly nasu1970

  • Members
  • 646 posts

Posted 19 March 2019 - 09:36 AM

 

I hope he's generous with his donations.

 

+1 million

 

(I'm sure others just want to tax the #$%# out of him)


#8 PseudoSABR

PseudoSABR

    Pitch-to-contact poster

  • Twins News Team
  • 5,332 posts

Posted 19 March 2019 - 09:36 AM

Trout must have missed the memo; he's supposed to join Harper in Philly in two years!

 

But good for the Angels and Trout.Still wish the Angels were more competitive so we could see Trout play on the national stage.

  • gunnarthor, James, Mike Frasier Law and 3 others like this

#9 Cap'n Piranha

Cap'n Piranha

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,064 posts

Posted 19 March 2019 - 09:37 AM

 

No opt outs, either.

 

One great Tweet out there is that the Angels did not mess with Trout's service time and paid him now twice long-term, standard-setting deals. All of these things would be considered inefficient. When Trout sat down to negotiate, you don't think his team consistently having his back made an impact?

 

Given that the Angels have exactly as many MLB playoff wins in the Trout era as my beer league softball team, perhaps it is right to consider handing him record-setting deals inefficient.

  • gil4 likes this

#10 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 29,475 posts

Posted 19 March 2019 - 09:38 AM

 

Given that the Angels have exactly as many MLB playoff wins in the Trout era as my beer league softball team, perhaps it is right to consider handing him record-setting deals inefficient.

 

You think the lesson is that they shouldn't keep maybe the best player ever on their roster, not that they should draft better, or not sign mediocre players to put around him? I don't think we agree that is the right lesson to learn here.

  • gunnarthor, TheLeviathan, Sconnie and 1 other like this

It's IL now, btw, not DL.....


#11 RatherBeGolfing

RatherBeGolfing

    Ft Myers Miracle

  • Members
  • 259 posts

Posted 19 March 2019 - 09:59 AM

Well he did finally move out of his parents place a year or two ago, I suppose this will help with the mortgage on the new place

  • Mike Sixel, scottz, gunnarthor and 6 others like this

#12 Cap'n Piranha

Cap'n Piranha

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,064 posts

Posted 19 March 2019 - 10:15 AM

 

You think the lesson is that they shouldn't keep maybe the best player ever on their roster, not that they should draft better, or not sign mediocre players to put around him? I don't think we agree that is the right lesson to learn here.

 

I thin that in 2019, 2020, and 2021 the Angels will have to pay around $85M to three players--Pujols, Upton, and Trout.The Angels have been hovering around $170M in payroll, which means for the next three years they can only pay about 3.9M per player for the rest of the team, which is under the MLB average for 2018.Their farm system is improved, but still not great, with only two in the top 100 (according to MLB.com).

 

I think the lesson is that when you sign multiple players to enormous deals, it becomes extremely difficult to sign anything but mediocre to bad players to fill out your roster.Combine that with poor drafting/development, and you are likely to get what the Angels have been--a decent team that will need all the stars to align simply to compete in the playoffs, with little to no margin for error.

 

Let me put it another way--while almost everyone would agree Trout is the best player in MLB, would you rather pay Trout $36M, or have any of the below players;

 

Betts (better WAR than Trout last year)--$10.5M

Ramirez (less than 2 WAR below Trout)--$19M for the next THREE years, PLUS two option years

Yelich (3/4 of Trout's WAR last year)--$36.3M for the next three years, plus an option year

 

I'd argue any of those three would be superior options to Trout, at least until 2022 when the Pujols contract can be shed, or certainly 2023 when Upton is gone.But Trout is 31 and 32 in those years; what will his production look like then?Pujols was a 3 WAR player in his age 32 season, Cabrera was 4.6.Here's the list of his career comps according to baseball reference, and what they did in their age 32 season;

 

Frank Robinson--5.7 WAR

Griffey Jr--0.2 WAR

Mantle--5.5 WAR

Aaron--6.9 WAR

Cabrera--4.6 WAR

Cepeda--4.4 WAR

Ott--4.7 WAR

Mathews--4.2 WAR

Andruw Jones--0.6 WAR

Pujols--3.3 WAR

 

To summarize; the Angels are paying Trout to be the best player in the game.Historically speaking, within 4 years, Trout will likely not be the best player in the game, and those happen to be the 4 years where the Angels are least able to take advantage of Trout's abilities.If the Angel's goal is to employ perhaps the greatest player of all time when its said and done, this was a good deal.If their goal is to win a world series, this deal is a massive impediment.

Edited by Cap'n Piranha, 19 March 2019 - 10:15 AM.

  • ewen21 and Original Whizzinator like this

#13 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 29,475 posts

Posted 19 March 2019 - 10:26 AM

 

I thin that in 2019, 2020, and 2021 the Angels will have to pay around $85M to three players--Pujols, Upton, and Trout.The Angels have been hovering around $170M in payroll, which means for the next three years they can only pay about 3.9M per player for the rest of the team, which is under the MLB average for 2018.Their farm system is improved, but still not great, with only two in the top 100 (according to MLB.com).

 

I think the lesson is that when you sign multiple players to enormous deals, it becomes extremely difficult to sign anything but mediocre to bad players to fill out your roster.Combine that with poor drafting/development, and you are likely to get what the Angels have been--a decent team that will need all the stars to align simply to compete in the playoffs, with little to no margin for error.

 

Let me put it another way--while almost everyone would agree Trout is the best player in MLB, would you rather pay Trout $36M, or have any of the below players;

 

Betts (better WAR than Trout last year)--$10.5M

Ramirez (less than 2 WAR below Trout)--$19M for the next THREE years, PLUS two option years

Yelich (3/4 of Trout's WAR last year)--$36.3M for the next three years, plus an option year

 

I'd argue any of those three would be superior options to Trout, at least until 2022 when the Pujols contract can be shed, or certainly 2023 when Upton is gone.But Trout is 31 and 32 in those years; what will his production look like then?Pujols was a 3 WAR player in his age 32 season, Cabrera was 4.6.Here's the list of his career comps according to baseball reference, and what they did in their age 32 season;

 

Frank Robinson--5.7 WAR

Griffey Jr--0.2 WAR

Mantle--5.5 WAR

Aaron--6.9 WAR

Cabrera--4.6 WAR

Cepeda--4.4 WAR

Ott--4.7 WAR

Mathews--4.2 WAR

Andruw Jones--0.6 WAR

Pujols--3.3 WAR

 

To summarize; the Angels are paying Trout to be the best player in the game.Historically speaking, within 4 years, Trout will likely not be the best player in the game, and those happen to be the 4 years where the Angels are least able to take advantage of Trout's abilities.If the Angel's goal is to employ perhaps the greatest player of all time when its said and done, this was a good deal.If their goal is to win a world series, this deal is a massive impediment.

 

What do you think Betts is going to be paid, when he re-ups? What do you think any of those guys would be paid if they were free to sign with any team? 

 

The Pujols deal was stupid, and most people said it at the time. He was older, and played 1B/DH. 

 

Let's say they traded Trout before this, what do you realistically think they'd get? Remember, using three or four players to get 7-8 WAR (if they even make the majors) is a lot less valuable than using 1. Because those other 2-3 players not the 1 guy will also be producing positive WAR.

 

Which 2-3 free agents would you use the Trout money for, that would be better than Trout by 3 or more WAR for sure (since you are using more roster spots to get the same WAR, they need to be much more valuable)? 

  • Vanimal46 and Original Whizzinator like this

It's IL now, btw, not DL.....


#14 Twins33

Twins33

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 495 posts

Posted 19 March 2019 - 10:26 AM

I was thinking he deserved 500-550M so this is a nice discount for the team.
  • Mike Sixel, nicksaviking, Sconnie and 2 others like this

#15 Miggy's Little Helper

Miggy's Little Helper

    Cedar Rapids Kernels

  • Members
  • 53 posts

Posted 19 March 2019 - 10:29 AM

 

Let me put it another way--while almost everyone would agree Trout is the best player in MLB, would you rather pay Trout $36M, or have any of the below players;

 

Betts (better WAR than Trout last year)--$10.5M

Ramirez (less than 2 WAR below Trout)--$19M for the next THREE years, PLUS two option years

Yelich (3/4 of Trout's WAR last year)--$36.3M for the next three years, plus an option year

 

I'd argue any of those three would be superior options to Trout, at least until 2022 when the Pujols contract can be shed, or certainly 2023 when Upton is gone.But Trout is 31 and 32 in those years; what will his production look like then?Pujols was a 3 WAR player in his age 32 season, Cabrera was 4.6.Here's the list of his career comps according to baseball reference, and what they did in their age 32 season;

 

 

I'll put it in a bit of a different way: that's not how baseball works.You don't get to magically put Betts/Ramirez/Yelich on your roster.  

 

Trout is the greatest player in several generations.They did the right thing.  

  • Mike Sixel, Twins33, Oldgoat_MN and 2 others like this

#16 Cap'n Piranha

Cap'n Piranha

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,064 posts

Posted 19 March 2019 - 11:24 AM

 

What do you think Betts is going to be paid, when he re-ups? What do you think any of those guys would be paid if they were free to sign with any team? 

 

The Pujols deal was stupid, and most people said it at the time. He was older, and played 1B/DH. 

 

Let's say they traded Trout before this, what do you realistically think they'd get? Remember, using three or four players to get 7-8 WAR (if they even make the majors) is a lot less valuable than using 1. Because those other 2-3 players not the 1 guy will also be producing positive WAR.

 

Which 2-3 free agents would you use the Trout money for, that would be better than Trout by 3 or more WAR for sure (since you are using more roster spots to get the same WAR, they need to be much more valuable)? 

 

I'm going to guess Betts will not get the same as Trout when he signs again, although it will be close.At which point, his contract will become an impediment to winning (although Boston is one of about 3 teams that realistically has almost no financial impediment to winning).

 

I think the larger point I was attempting to make is being missed; it's not that Trout is not worth this contract (implying someone else is).It's that no one is worth this contract (for the Angels). It's also about the holistic state of the entire Angels organization.Having $50M worth of useless players hanging around your neck has to be taken into account.Having a farm system that is middle of the pack, and probably not able to provide cheap, quality options is a problem.Going into this year, a Trout deal would have made a lot of sense for the Twins; plenty of salary space available even after a mega-deal, and a deep system with top-end talent to fill gaps either through trades or playing.

 

Ignoring the fact that the Angels, with this deal, have essentially committed to having the same roster as last year for the next 3-4 years, other than rookies, misses the reality of the situation.The Angels, hamstrung by bad deals, will not win in the next 3 years.A better use of resources would be to blow it up now, and be ready to compete in 3 years with a clean balance sheet, rather than win 240 games over the next 3 years, and have nothing to show for it.


#17 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 29,475 posts

Posted 19 March 2019 - 11:28 AM

 

I'm going to guess Betts will not get the same as Trout when he signs again, although it will be close.At which point, his contract will become an impediment to winning (although Boston is one of about 3 teams that realistically has almost no financial impediment to winning).

 

I think the larger point I was attempting to make is being missed; it's not that Trout is not worth this contract (implying someone else is).It's that no one is worth this contract (for the Angels). It's also about the holistic state of the entire Angels organization.Having $50M worth of useless players hanging around your neck has to be taken into account.Having a farm system that is middle of the pack, and probably not able to provide cheap, quality options is a problem.Going into this year, a Trout deal would have made a lot of sense for the Twins; plenty of salary space available even after a mega-deal, and a deep system with top-end talent to fill gaps either through trades or playing.

 

Ignoring the fact that the Angels, with this deal, have essentially committed to having the same roster as last year for the next 3-4 years, other than rookies, misses the reality of the situation.The Angels, hamstrung by bad deals, will not win in the next 3 years.A better use of resources would be to blow it up now, and be ready to compete in 3 years with a clean balance sheet, rather than win 240 games over the next 3 years, and have nothing to show for it.

 

9th ranked farm system, btw, and getting better every year since they switched GMs. And they just added Ohtani.....

 

Why do you believe they'll have the same team? 

 

What are the odds they can compete in 3 years? Look at, I don't know, the Twins....how long since they competed?

 

Again, what do you think you can realistically get for Trout, before this deal? And, what are the odds any of those players get to even 3 annual WAR?

Edited by Mike Sixel, 19 March 2019 - 11:28 AM.

  • biggentleben likes this

It's IL now, btw, not DL.....


#18 Cap'n Piranha

Cap'n Piranha

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,064 posts

Posted 19 March 2019 - 11:29 AM

 

I'll put it in a bit of a different way: that's not how baseball works.You don't get to magically put Betts/Ramirez/Yelich on your roster.  

 

Trout is the greatest player in several generations.They did the right thing.  

 

Wait, MLB didn't adopt video game rules for roster management?Thanks for the update, I had no idea.

 

It's not about the value of a player only on the field, it's about the value of the player in totality.You can assert that Trout is better on the field than Betts/Ramirez/Yelich, and I won't spend much time arguing with you.But there is no team in baseball except maybe the Angels that wouldn't prefer to acquire Betts/Ramirez/Yelich rather than Trout.

 

Finally, as I said, I'm not that interested in how historically great of a player Trout is right now.What does that matter if the cost of employing him contributes to an inability to create a team capable of reaching and winning in the postseason?I'm sure it will be nice when Trout goes into Cooperstown with an Angel hat on, but if the cost of that is 0 World Series titles, is that a price the Angels should be willing to pay?


#19 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 29,475 posts

Posted 19 March 2019 - 11:32 AM

 

Wait, MLB didn't adopt video game rules for roster management?Thanks for the update, I had no idea.

 

It's not about the value of a player only on the field, it's about the value of the player in totality.You can assert that Trout is better on the field than Betts/Ramirez/Yelich, and I won't spend much time arguing with you.But there is no team in baseball except maybe the Angels that wouldn't prefer to acquire Betts/Ramirez/Yelich rather than Trout.

 

Finally, as I said, I'm not that interested in how historically great of a player Trout is right now.What does that matter if the cost of employing him contributes to an inability to create a team capable of reaching and winning in the postseason?I'm sure it will be nice when Trout goes into Cooperstown with an Angel hat on, but if the cost of that is 0 World Series titles, is that a price the Angels should be willing to pay?

 

I want to understand....are you saying before the deal that you'd rather have those other players than Trout? I'll bet you are 100% wrong that every team thinks that. Or maybe I'm not understanding.....

It's IL now, btw, not DL.....


#20 nicksaviking

nicksaviking

    Billy G.O.A.T

  • Twins Mods
  • 14,032 posts

Posted 19 March 2019 - 11:34 AM

Good for Trout and the Angels fans; I assume there is such a thing.

 

The Angels have made some brutal personnel decisions the last decade and can't draft and develop to save their lives. Trout seems to be the exception. If they weren't in the same league as the Twins, I'd hope they'd get their act together with their farm system to get Trout some more playoff spotlight.