Mike Trout Extension

[Vanimal46]

12 years $430 million.

 

[Vanimal46]

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

[biggentleben]

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?

[SomeGuy]

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.

[Mike Sixel]

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

[gunnarthor]

Good for him and the Angels' fans. 

[MMMordabito]

 

I hope he's generous with his donations.

 

+1 million

 

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

[PseudoSABR]

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.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

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.

[Mike Sixel]

 

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.

[RatherBeGolfing]

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

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

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.

[Mike Sixel]

 

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)? 

[Twins33]

I was thinking he deserved 500-550M so this is a nice discount for the team.

[Miggy's Little Helper]

 

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.  

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

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.

[Mike Sixel]

 

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?

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

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?

[Mike Sixel]

 

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.....

[nicksaviking]

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.

[Mike Sixel]

 

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.

 

9th ranked farm system now that the new GM took over 3 years ago. I think you are looking at the past......

[nicksaviking]

 

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?

 

Trout costs $36M per year for a franchise than can support a $200M payroll; the club is a top 10 spender every year. His contract isn't harmful in any possible way.

 

Even on the Twins, $36M wouldn't be unmanageable.

[nicksaviking]

 

9th ranked farm system now that the new GM took over 3 years ago. I think you are looking at the past......

 

Yeah, historically they've been brutal. I'm not sure that a 9th ranking is going to put a ton of guys around Trout, but maybe, it's a better situation now than it has been in forever. I liked their GM and managerial change; they probably should have made those moves long before. I'd feel a lot better about the future if I was an Angles fan.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

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?

 

MLB has them at 14th.  And when you system is ranked 30th in 2016 and 29th in 2017, it's hard not to get better.  Maybe their GM has turned around their drafting, maybe he hasn't--two years seems a bit soon to tell.

 

I believe they'll have the same team because they have to pay $85M a year for the next 3 years for three players; they don't have the ability to upgrade their team without having to rely on players on rookie deals or blowing past their historical payroll limits--if they're willing to do that my entire argument is moot, but I assume Arte Moreno isn't going to ok $225M to $250M payrolls.  Prove me wrong Arte.

 

As for who they would get instead of Trout, you're absolutely right, the Angels in all likelihood would not get equivalent WAR back.  Or maybe they would get the next Jose Ramirez who, 3 years before posting a 4.7 WAR season in the bigs had an 88 wRC+ season in AA.  But to a larger degree, my point is that if you can't win a World Series with your team as currently constructed, why stand pat?  The Angels, based on the past 2-3 years seem to have hit their ceiling, and due to massive salary constraints, seem unlikely to be able to break through it.  Therefore, what they are essentially doing with this deal is deciding to hope that 32 year old Mike Trout will remain a premier player when the balance sheet finally becomes manageable.  Based on the list of comps I provided earlier, maybe he will, maybe he won't.  After all, when Griffey Jr. was 26 (Trout's current age) he put up a 9.7 WAR.  But he only had two more seasons in him of 6+ WAR production, and by the time he was 33, only had two more season of positive WAR in him (one of which was 0.1).

[Blackjack]

I think he'll be able to feed his family after signing this contract!!

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

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.....

 

I think a lot of teams would rather have Jose Ramirez at $19M or Christian Yelich at $36M over the next three years than Mike Trout at $108M.  You could sign an extremely useful player for 3/24 or 3/30 that would easily make up the difference between the (fairly small) difference in WAR.  You also aren't on the hook to pay Trout $144M AFTER he turns 35, and will most likely be worth only a fraction of that.  In history, Chipper Jones is 10th all time in OPS+ after age 35 at 139.  If Trout equals that, he would not be a top 10 hitter in the league (based on last year).

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

Trout costs $36M per year for a franchise than can support a $200M payroll; the club is a top 10 spender every year. His contract isn't harmful in any possible way.

 

Even on the Twins, $36M wouldn't be unmanageable.

 

The Angels have never been above $175M.  if they wouldn't push to $200M in the heart of Trout's prime, why would they do it now, as we move to the end of it?

 

$36M would not be unmanageable on the Twins, but mostly because they don't have $50M a year tied up in Pujols and Upton for the next three years.  If they did, I guarantee you it would be extremely unmanageable.

[biggentleben]

 

Their farm system is improved, but still not great, with only two in the top 100 (according to MLB.com).

 

You're off here significantly. They've done incredible work on the farm system. While you source MLB.com (and BA has 2 as well), Baseball Prospectus had 5 in their 101, Keith Law had 3, Fangraphs had 5 in their top 132, and I know in my top 150 that I placed 5 but had another 3 that were in strong consideration and likely were in the next 50-75.

 

Of course, all that to say the number of prospects in a top 100 list has almost no bearing on the strength of a farm system overall. The Angels are a legit top-half farm system. I have them #11 right now, but they're very nearly a top 10 overall farm system in most rankings.

[biggentleben]

 

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.

 

Much like those who spew crap on the Orioles pitching development the last two years, not realizing that it changed drastically, the tired comments about how poor the Angels are at development have nothing to do with the current regime. That was Jerry Dipoto. Billy Eppling was brought in intentionally to have an emphasis on building a long-term strategy for competitiveness, not a year-to-year modality that Dipoto espoused.

[biggentleben]

 

The Angels have never been above $175M.  if they wouldn't push to $200M in the heart of Trout's prime, why would they do it now, as we move to the end of it?

 

$36M would not be unmanageable on the Twins, but mostly because they don't have $50M a year tied up in Pujols and Upton for the next three years.  If they did, I guarantee you it would be extremely unmanageable.

 

1. Significant sources of new income for the team (new local TV deal money kicking in and national money from new deal)

2. Clearing crappy deals from the Dipoto era clearing dead payroll space (2018 was the first year with no money heading to Josh Hamilton, for instance).

3. Moreno has said over and over that the money is there if it makes sense, and he has opened the pocketbook to leap forward in payroll many times when it came to competitiveness.

4. That number is wrong. They have had end-of-season payrolls between $175-190 million the last three seasons.