Angels/Trout talking "monster" extension

[G-Snarls]

[John_Havok]

Wow. that would be a pretty big discount for the Angels.

[G-Snarls]

Wow. that would be a pretty big discount for the Angels.

 

Yep. In the long term it sure would. But for the next few years it sure costs a lot of $ unless it's structured to escalate late in the 6 years.

[G-Snarls]

[G-Snarls]

Will he take it?

 

http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/sojo1049.com/files/2012/07/27-mike-trout-e1343422909249.jpg

 

http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/thumbs_down_gladiator-300x125.gif

[John_Havok]

 

Interesting guesstimate. I think Trout would smash 13 million in his first arbitration contract if he really wanted to go that route.

 

What argument would the Angels have to pay him less? He could submit a number of 20 million and if the Angels came in at 13, he'd only have to prove he was worth more than 16.5, and then point to all the players he's better than who are making more than 16.5. Would be the easiest case for an arbitrator.

[G-Snarls]

Why not? Set for life at age 22???

[eastcoastjaysfan]

Will he take it?

 

http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/sojo1049.com/files/2012/07/27-mike-trout-e1343422909249.jpg

 

http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/thumbs_down_gladiator-300x125.gif

 

He better. Get a guaranteed 150M and will still be super young when it's time for another deal.

 

All it'll take is a severe injury and all that earning power is gone. Take the money and don't be stupid young man.

[G-Snarls]

[John_Havok]

He better. Get a guaranteed 150M and will still be super young when it's time for another deal.

 

All it'll take is a severe injury and all that earning power is gone. Take the money and don't be stupid young man.

 

This is all Atlanta's fault. Signing their core players to market value deals rather than the team friendly ones that used to happen for guys still under team control. I bet the players union is loving Wren right now.

[G-Snarls]

Now Dinger is REALLY going to want marry him

[G-Snarls]

This is all Atlanta's fault. Signing their core players to market value deals rather than the team friendly ones that used to happen for guys still under team control. I bet the players union is loving Wren right now.

 

No more Longoria rookie style extensions will ever happen

[NorthOf49]

This would only buy out two free agent years so it's not the true extension people have been speculation about for months. 6/150 would make sense for both sides. Trout would still become a free agent at a relatively young age.

[G-Snarls]

Yeah seriously, horrific injuries do happen and that's still a stupid amount of cash, true values be damned.

 

Yep. If your team is willing to do this deal after less than 2 years of MLB service, you take it, even if you might be the best player in the game for another decade and might make more money going year to year until free agency hoping to cash in big then.

[G-Snarls]

This would only buy out two free agent years so it's not the true extension people have been speculation about for months. 6/150 would make sense for both sides. Trout would still become a free agent at a relatively young age.

 

New reports saying Angels want 7 years

[G-Snarls]

They can have our entire roster for him.

 

But AA will only take him if he's on a 5 year deal LOL

[John_Havok]

Yeah seriously, horrific injuries do happen and that's still a stupid amount of cash, true values be damned.

 

Yup. It's an interesting shift lately from some FO's being willing to pay market value for players in their prime, rather than say signing them to team friendly deals and wind up overpaying for older veterans who no longer provide positive value on their deals. THe qualifying offer in a few years is going to 20 million at this rate.

[John_Havok]

New reports saying Angels want 7 years

 

Freeman got 8/135. Trout is worth double that easy without blinking. The thing with Trout though, is really how much more is he going to improve? He's already playing at the highest level out of everyone so chances are he's already peaked. It's how long his peak lasts that will be the question.

[glory]

AA would have offered three years with two team options.

[G-Snarls]

AA would have offered three years with two team options.

 

---Insert #Despaired meme here---

[G-Snarls]

Angels irony:

 

- Spending 55M+ per year on Pujols and Hamilton

 

- Only relevant because they fell in to Mike Trout late in the first round of the draft

[Anemic0ffense]

AA would have offered three years with two team options.

 

That's an "overpay" in AA land

[TwistedLogic]

 

Only douchebags say "guesstimate".

[Caper]

Trout will tweek an ankle... Or a wrist... then will never be the same.

[TheHurl]

Interesting guesstimate. I think Trout would smash 13 million in his first arbitration contract if he really wanted to go that route.

 

What argument would the Angels have to pay him less? He could submit a number of 20 million and if the Angels came in at 13, he'd only have to prove he was worth more than 16.5, and then point to all the players he's better than who are making more than 16.5. Would be the easiest case for an arbitrator.

 

Record is $10M and Cutch only got $4.5M in his extension. Most of the projections I've seen for Trout have been on the conservative side.

[Abomination]

Yup. It's an interesting shift lately from some FO's being willing to pay market value for players in their prime, rather than say signing them to team friendly deals and wind up overpaying for older veterans who no longer provide positive value on their deals. THe qualifying offer in a few years is going to 20 million at this rate.

 

They really need to fix the QO and compensation. Get rid of losing draft picks, and do something like the following:

 

1. The team that loses a player gets monetary compensation from the new team at a rate of 5% of the yearly salary (including incentives and signing bonus) per year the old team had the player, up to 20% total. (ie, if a team signed Price at 20M / year, they'd have to pay Tampa an average of 4M / year for the life of the contract). This should also apply rather than the Japan posting system imo.

 

2. The team that loses the player receives a special "slush fund" equal to 1% of the new contract per year the old team had the player (up to 5%) which they can apply as extra cap space for the draft or for IFA's. (In the above case of Price, Tampa would get an extra 1M / year that they could use to increase their cap space).

[z3r0s]

They really need to fix the QO and compensation. Get rid of losing draft picks, and do something like the following:

 

1. The team that loses a player gets monetary compensation from the new team at a rate of 5% of the yearly salary (including incentives and signing bonus) per year the old team had the player, up to 20% total. (ie, if a team signed Price at 20M / year, they'd have to pay Tampa an average of 4M / year for the life of the contract). This should also apply rather than the Japan posting system imo.

 

2. The team that loses the player receives a special "slush fund" equal to 1% of the new contract per year the old team had the player (up to 5%) which they can apply as extra cap space for the draft or for IFA's. (In the above case of Price, Tampa would get an extra 1M / year that they could use to increase their cap space).

 

Don't like it really. Doesn't fix the 'hurting the player for playing good' problem, plus greedy owners aren't necessarily going to reinvest that into players (see Miami)

[NorthOf49]

Get rid of the draft and go with a free-for-all with spending limits. The initial limits are based on a weighted ranking of team records over the past four years (35-30-20-15)

 

On Opening Day (the end of the offseason), rank all 30 teams in terms of free agent dollars guaranteed. Then, dock the highest-spending team 15% of their amateur pool, the next highest 14%, and so on until 15 teams have been affected.

 

There you go. No player or team is treated unfairly.

[Abomination]

Don't like it really. Doesn't fix the 'hurting the player for playing good' problem, plus greedy owners aren't necessarily going to reinvest that into players (see Miami)

 

It hurts all players equally regardless of how they play, really. It just seems like a more fair system of still compensating teams for losing players. The Miami situation needs to be dealt with separately.

 

I guess an alternative would be to abolish the current draft system entirely and treat it more like they do with IFA's, with teams who lose players gaining extra cap space to allow them a better chance at scoring top players. With so many players being available it would be a bit of a drawn out nightmare, but would certainly be interesting. What it would also do though is make teams less likely to want to resign their top players, so there'd need to be some kind of incentive for that too.

[SAAviour]

Lock him up and keep him out of the yanks hands.