Angels/Trout talking "monster" extension

[John_Havok]

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.

 

True, but Trout would break the system, much like Kimbrel would have if he had gone through it.

[Jim_Ackers_balls]

One knee or leg injury and he becomes just another guy with the downgraded speed.

[fatcowxlive]

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.

 

Yup, the best thing he can do is sign this. Gaurentee 150M until his age 28 season, where most people are in their prime, and hit the FA market and cash in more. If he gets injured to the point that it affects his abilities he's still netting in 150M

[Vdubfan]

I'm not understanding the 6/150 concept. That seems very favourable to trout, but not to the Angels...

 

I haven't seen this discussed yet on this thread, but do you people remember that he's entitled to like 600k this season?? The contract then, would essentially be 5/149 for the years 2015-2019. 3 of those years are under arbitration, where he is entitled to 40, 60 and 80% of his worth. A $30 mill aav over a 5 year period, where 3 are arb, seems crazy. I'm not saying he's not worth the money, but low salary in 2014 and arbitration protect the Angels check book to some extent...

 

If Trout DOESN'T sign an extension, this is how I'd anticipate his next 4 year playing out in Anaheim (conservatively):

 

2014: $1 million

2015: $13M

2016: $21M

2017: $30M

=$65 million

 

So you're buying out 2 FA years at $42.5M per. Would the Angels not be better served either seeking a much longer term deal, or just playing out 1 or 2 more season?

[Caper]

They should trade him.... Value doesn't get higher then this.

[GD]

They should trade him.... Value doesn't get higher then this.

 

jesus

[G-Snarls]

They should trade him.... Value doesn't get higher then this.

 

What is this I don't even...

[BlueJayWay]

Sounds like a huge discount for the Angels.

[G-Snarls]

If you have a winning lottery ticket, you don't trade it for 3-4 more lottery tickets. You cash in.

 

Do not trade

[Angrioter]

Sounds like a huge discount for the Angels.

 

Why?

 

Trout next 4 years of control = ~60M

6Ys/150 - 4Ys/~60M = 2Ys/~90M

[G-Snarls]

I'd say the deal as discussed sounds just about right. Though if I'm the Angels I would prefer 7 years too.

 

Trout becomes stinking rich and never has to worry about his next contract or what might happen if he misses a year due to jnjury or has a bad year some time. Angels know they don't risk having him walk after his last arbitration year and they can plan their future budgets around this.

[Angrioter]

I'd say the deal as discussed sounds just about right. Though if I'm the Angels I would prefer 7 years.

 

Trout become stinking rich and never has to worry about his next contract or what might happen if he misses a year due to jnjury or has a bad year some time. Angels know they don't risk having him walk after his last arbitration year and they can plan their future budgets around this.

 

 

The Angels prefer 8 or 9 years (30 years old)......Trout agent and Cruz agent's isn't the same.

[G-Snarls]

He might make more money over all if he played the arb and FA game sooner. The Angels would pay less over the next few years if he did that but then they risk either losing him or having to grossly overpay later. If he keeps up his current level of performance the Angels get a nice savings deal. If Trout has a stumble it won't hurt him as much.

 

It's a reasonable risk mitigation strategy on both sides.

[The Cats Ass]

But what if he loses his hand to a lawn mower?

[Abomination]

In doing this, attaching a 5% surcharge/compensation onto the player, you're most likely retarding the market for the player even more than the current QO/lost draft pick system does, and you're hurting the smaller market clubs even more.

 

Small to mid market teams generally don't sign much in the way of FA's away from big clubs anyway (at least major ones, with the apparent exception of Seattle). The net effect would still be positive for most if not all of those clubs. All players are affected equally by it, so it wouldn't retard any player over any other player. It would simply factor in to the contract they received - which actually brings up the more serious problem that it would never pass the player's union anyway since it would in effect be taking money out of the players pockets and giving it to the owners.

 

The second part of the suggestion probably has a better chance of success, where teams gain extra draft and IFA cap space based on the contract the player signs with a new team (or an extension with their current team). Since the larger FA contracts are usually signed by the larger market teams / teams not rebuilding, it should cause small market and rebuilding teams to have a shot at adding better talent in a free-ish market environment. Boras would love it at any rate, and it would certainly make the draft period a heck of a lot more entertaining when moved away from it's current slot format. Offer any player any amount you wish within your budget.

[G-Snarls]

But what if he loses his hand to a lawn mower?

 

Hot wife should be mowing lawn in a bikini

[Cooler Heads Prevail]

They should trade him.... Value doesn't get higher then this.

 

The most interesting example of a similar guy might be Alex Rodriguez when he was with Seattle. Would we say Texas or Seattle best benefited from the big trade with the benefit of hindsight ? Alex got a pretty large contract at the time so he's a similar example ( generational position player ).

[Nox]

The most interesting example of a similar guy might be Alex Rodriguez when he was with Seattle. Would we say Texas or Seattle best benefited from the big trade with the benefit of hindsight ? Alex got a pretty large contract at the time so he's a similar example ( generational position player ).

 

Arod got traded to Texas? News to me, everyone else.

[jays_fever]

The short answer is no..you don't trade the best young player of the past decade

[Cooler Heads Prevail]

Arod got traded to Texas? News to me, everyone else.

 

Ok fine, guess he was a free agent signing. Texas did have a big trade way back but not him ( Canseco ). Point still stands on ARod, was he worth the big bucks he got on his contracts at the time ? How much did his move affect both teams ?

[z3r0s]

Ok fine, guess he was a free agent signing. Texas did have a big trade way back but not him ( Canseco ). Point still stands on ARod, was he worth the big bucks he got on his contracts at the time ? How much did his move affect both teams ?

 

The contract the Yankees signed him too was not a good contract. The one the Rangers signed him to could be considered ok. He was worth 70.1 WAR in the 10 years after the original rangers contract was signed. Not sure how much a WAR was worth at that point, but they would only play $3.59M per win.

[G-Snarls]

That's pretty damn incredible for a deal of that magnitude/length.

 

It's easy to forget it now, but he really was THAT good for a pretty long time.

[G-Snarls]

Informal poll: A decade from now, which will be seen as the worst long term contract in the history of modern baseball:

 

Alex Rodriguez

Albert Pujols

Prince Fielder

Robinson Cano

Zack Grienke

[Abomination]

Wha? You're essentially adding a 5-20% tax to any and all FA signings. As the cost and quality of those players increase, that tax becomes a much larger burden, and a substantial impediment to being able to afford those mid-level to upper-level guys. AND, in doing so, you're directly benefiting larger teams, possibly. I'm the Twinkies and I have to pay $1.2M to the Yanks over the life of the Hughes deal? And he's at the bottom of the guys who could be affected. You're just making it even harder for those "lesser" orgs trying to add a free agent piece to their puzzle.

 

It might do that year to year, but overall the big deals signed for free agents by teams like the Yankees would probably funnel more money to the mid market teams than it cost them. It would also mean that their own players might be more likely to sign extensions with the mid market teams since they wouldn't be "taxed".

 

Actually, no ... now that I'm looking at it and re-reading it, I don't even understand your compensation structure. 5% of yearly salary per year the old team had the player up to 20% total. Huh? Is that 5% of his new deal salary? Is that for each year the former team had him? Or for each year he's signed for, going forward? In your Price example, did they reach the 4M per on the 20M because he was with the Rays for 5 years or more, or because they hypothetical FA deal was for more than 5 years? The Twinkies sign Hughes at 3 years, $24M total ($8M per) ... are they paying 20% of that per year ($1.6M) to the Yankees, because he was with the Yankees for 6 years, or are they paying 15% of that to the Yankees per year ($1.2M) because the new deal is for 3 years?

 

Based on years played for their old team (up to 20%), so 1.6M for each of the 3 years. It doesn't matter though, since as I realized after the players union would never go for it anyway. It wouldn't add complexity though for bonuses or option years, since it would be paid out after each year is completed and those totals were known.

 

Regardless, teams losing a "QO" guy already receive a selection at the end of the first round. The average of those slot values was about $1.7M last year. There are also competitive balance selections. Your suggestion only lessens the potential compensation in any given year (but increases the potential reward over years), but gives discretion of application to IFAs.

 

This is really the point though. The QO system sucks (no matter how you manipulate it it's going to be unfair for someone), adding millions of extra picks sucks (even though we gamed it well).

 

Giving teams the extra slot bonus to apply to the IFA's and the draft (I think I mentioned that the draft would move to a similar format as IFA rather than people getting picks) would seem to strike a good balance. Teams who can't retain their stars should have an increased opportunity to draft new ones since they could offer more money if they chose to. Teams also wouldn't be rewarded for sucking to the degree they are now. The players shouldn't be hurt at all under the system too.

 

You could also perhaps modify the system so that the calculated bonus was the difference in AAV that the player received. IE, under that system an aging star who switched teams probably wouldn't net the team that lost them anything (and they shouldn't), but the type of key player that a rebuilding team might lose certainly would.

[Cooler Heads Prevail]

The contract the Yankees signed him too was not a good contract. The one the Rangers signed him to could be considered ok. He was worth 70.1 WAR in the 10 years after the original rangers contract was signed. Not sure how much a WAR was worth at that point, but they would only play $3.59M per win.

 

The interesting thing is he put up huge offensive numbers, but Texas wasn't a very good team during those years ( 73/72/71 wins ). Texas did get some flak about signing him at the time.

[Abomination]

The short answer is no..you don't trade the best young player of the past decade

 

I actually think they SHOULD. Honestly, the haul they could get would likely help their team overall far more than Trout would alone, especially if you consider the money it would also free up in the last few years of the contract he'd get.

[Cooler Heads Prevail]

Another brilliant post from CHP.

 

Why thank you, points out I can't be bothered to research everything I plan on posting to satisfy your requirements. But you know what, imagine what this forum would be like if every time you made a forecast or evaluated a team that dozens of people brought up your predictions for the 2013 AL East ? Wow, we'd just be swamped with negativity. Or maybe you could exercise some restraint ?

Edited February 24, 2014 by Cooler Heads Prevail

[Cooler Heads Prevail]

I actually think they SHOULD. Honestly, the haul they could get would likely help their team overall far more than Trout would alone, especially if you consider the money it would also free up in the last few years of the contract he'd get.

 

I think it comes down to a few things :

 

a. How meaningful is the implied discount at the top in the sport ? ( the soft cap on superstars )

b. Can the contract easily be absorbed into the team's payroll without stretching it badly elsewhere ?

c. Real Market for him player wise.

 

No right answer, especially if someone wants to trade you top of the line healthy pitching.

[KingKat]

Fielder or Cano. Pujols will bounce back, but I can see these two becoming pumpkins fast.

 

Pujols will bounce back but for how many years? One bounce back season or two won't necessarily make that contract anything other than a bad deal. Fielder is at least young, he may not be as good as expected at the front end of the deal but he should at least still be playable until the very end. Pujols could easily be a sunk cost for most of his contract. That's the no-brainer worst deal for me.

[Abomination]

Pujols will bounce back but for how many years? One bounce back season or two won't necessarily make that contract anything other than a bad deal. Fielder is at least young, he may not be as good as expected at the front end of the deal but he should at least still be playable until the very end. Pujols could easily be a sunk cost for most of his contract. That's the no-brainer worst deal for me.

 

The concern for me about Fielder is his weight. If he can keep it under control, he'll probably be playable until the end, but that seems kind of iffy. The last 3 years of that contract they may be paying him to be the world's fattest (but happiest) cheerleader.