Angels Sign Trout To One-Year, $1MM Deal

While the rumored long-term deal has yet to come to fruition, the Angels and Mike Trout agreed to a record-setting one-year deal, according to Bill Shaikin of the L.A. Times. Trout will earn $1MM in 2014, marking the largest payday in Major League history for a pre-arbitration player. Trout's deal surpasses the $900K guarantee achieved by Ryan Howard in 2007 and Albert Pujols in 2003 (though as Jeff Fletcher of the Orange County Register tweets, Howard's deal was farther north of the then-lower league minimum salary).

The $1MM salary likely makes it easier to extend Trout; as MLB.com's Alden Gonzalez reported earlier in the week, once Trout's 2014 salary is agreed to, the Angels can structure a long-term deal to begin in 2015 without fear of incurring luxury tax penalties in 2014. Talks with Trout are rumored to be surrounding a six-year, $150MM extension. That mark would be historic in its own right and would buy out three years of free agency, were it to begin in the 2015 season.

Earlier this morning, our own Zach Links examined how pre-arbitration salaries are determined, noting that several teams use rigid scales that afford only minimal raises to players with 0 to 3 years of Major League service time. As that post explains, performance is often factored into the salaries of pre-arb players, but a raise of this magnitude is virtually unheard of for a player who has yet to hit arbitration.

Angels GM Jerry Dipoto called the deal a "landmark," when speaking to reporters (including Shaikin). Fletcher tweets that Dipoto feels that Trout's performance merited breaking a rule on their 0-to-3 pay scale (referring to years of service time). Indeed, Trout has been arguably the best player in baseball over the past two seasons, slashing an otherworldly .324/.416/.560 with 57 homers, 82 steals, two All-Star bids, two Silver Slugger awards, a Rookie of the Year trophy and a pair of runner-up finishes in the American League MVP voting.

The contract is a notable step up from last year's $510K renewal, which was met with some harsh criticism from agent Craig Landis, fans and the media. This coming season marks Trout's final year before arbitration eligibility, and it's fair to assume that Trout could shatter records in arbitration as well, if the two sides are ultimately unable to agree on a long-term deal.


69 Responses to Angels Sign Trout To One-Year, $1MM Deal Leave a Reply

  1. YankeeFanâ„¢ 1 year ago

    Thats A Steal of a deal :p

    • Jeff Hill 1 year ago

      Yea the only problem is that Trout really has no say in what he gets paid. The only thing he can in order to get paid more than what the Angels want to give is to sit out until he gets paid.

  2. Trock 1 year ago

    I long term deal has got to be coming soon. Although its a lot of money for his service time, I think he may have shot for more, but knew he was getting his pay day with a 6 year 150+million deal that is coming.

    • BK 1 year ago

      Id bet closer to Id guess closer to 185 for 7 or 210 for 8.

      • Trock 1 year ago

        I could see it but I also think he will want to become a fa a few years before 30. If the kid keeps it up the way he has he would be in line for another huge payday around 7+ years as well

  3. Quikmix 1 year ago

    This is a smart “good-faith” effort by the Angels. I think they absolutely need to convince Trout that they want him there for his foreseeable career. This seems to be an excellent way to head into long-term negotiations with the Trout camp. Now, they just need to work on locking him up for longer than 6 years.

  4. JacobyWanKenobi 1 year ago

    Complete overpay.

  5. JordanMantor 1 year ago

    Deal of the century!

  6. NYBravosFan10 1 year ago

    Trout is about to become a big fish in the money world…sorry, couldn’t help it

  7. Akasya 1 year ago

    Not going to lie, I was confused when I first saw the title. But ok, 1M for 3rd year player is kind of a big deal I guess. Hope we can sign him for longer than 6 years.

  8. teddy 1 year ago

    What a great long lucrative extension that sets up trout for life and gives the angels years of control at a discounted rate!

  9. rct 1 year ago

    I get that Trout is about as sure of a thing as there is out there, but why not wait until next offseason to hammer something long term out? What’s the harm in waiting another season to see if he can maintain his performance and remain injury-free?

    • $3513744 1 year ago

      to name a couple:

      1. he could play even better and cost even more.
      2. he may develop resentment for not being able to get a deal now and not want to sign at all.

      • Ben-Dessa Anderton 1 year ago

        #1 is basically all there is to it. And #2 would certainly be viable since he knows the other LA squad or NY squad would happily fork out the biggest chunk of change of all time.

        • teddy 1 year ago

          or boston, or chicago, or philly i think any of those teams would fork over the required money to sign him and do it happily

          • Jeff Hill 1 year ago

            Or any other team that has the money to sign him. And I bet you could see a number of small market teams even make a worthy bid for his efforts when he hits FA

          • Ben-Dessa Anderton 1 year ago

            I was too lazy to name them all. I used the two most prime examples.

        • teddy 1 year ago

          or boston, or chicago, or philly i think any of those teams would fork over the required money to sign him and do it happily

      • rct 1 year ago

        1. Could he really play much better than he already has? He’s had ‘prime Barry Bonds’-level WAR in his first two seasons.
        2. Would he be that thin-skinned? Dude is in line to make hundreds of millions of dollars and isn’t set to be a free agent until 2018. Even if you waited another year, you’re still buying out three full Arb years. That seems like plenty of goodwill to me.

        • $3513744 1 year ago

          like you, i don’t have a crystal ball. those are just possible scenarios. none of of those things would be impossible. if it was such a black and white scenario, they wouldn’t even consider it. and it’s not about being thin skinned. it’s still a business and he may simply choose to maximize what he can make. there’s nothing wrong with that.

        • John Cate 1 year ago

          Trout could be half as good as he’s been in 2012-13, and the Angels would still get their money’s worth in an extension. He’s been that good. And the only way that he could possibly drop to a 5 WAR player is if he had a terrible injury. Trout is basically Mickey Mantle, only by all accounts, he’s much more self-disciplined than Mantle was. The Angels should sign him for as many years as they can, as soon as they can.

    • np2392 1 year ago

      I’m totally on board with you. It seems to me like baseball fans in particular have such short term memory. How many times have teams gotten burned by players not living up to their contracts? Look at Ryan Howard, the Phillies only gave him 5yrs/$125m and they’re still feeling the pain from that. At the time he seemed like a sure bet too and was one of the up and coming superstars in the MLB. How about Jeff Francouer who was supposed to be the future superstar of the Braves? Imagine how much the Braves would have regretted giving him a long term deal. Of course, Mike Trout is MUCH better than both those players were even at their best but the point is still relevant. He probably won’t slide nearly as much, but I’d be absolutely shocked if he keeps this up for 6-8 more years. He would literally be the best baseball player of all time. Just think about how many players had two incredible years, were crowned superstars, and then never heard from again. People are already calling Trout a future HOF and he has played TWO YEARS!

      If I’m the Angels I’m waiting at least a year, probably two, before considering a long term deal. If I gamble and lose, and if this “offends” Trout, which would truly be pathetic since it would show apparently everyone else who plays baseball understands its a business besides Trout, then I don’t care. If the Angels are gonna win the World Series in the next 5-7 years, it won’t be because of Trout. This isn’t the NBA where one star can carry a team.

      Commence downvotes. I’ll be laughing in a few years when the Angels are saddled with yet another overpaid ‘superstar’ and Trout is getting paid $25m a year to put up good, but not great, numbers.

      • John Cate 1 year ago

        “Mike Trout is MUCH better than both those players were even at their best but the point is still relevant.”

        No, it’s NOT relevant because he is much better than they are. Trout doesn’t have to continue to be a 10 WAR player to justify a long-term deal. Ryan Howard was a 5.2 bWAR player in his best season. Trout could lose half of his ability and still be better than Ryan Howard ever has been or will be. And he’s 22 years old, for crying out loud. Unless he gets hurt, he’s not going to lose any skill to aging for years to come.

        Seriously, Trout is in a league of his own, and there’s no comp you can make. Bryce Harper is even younger and a fierce talent in his own right, but he doesn’t have Trout’s speed. Harper’s upside is to be a 40-50 homer guy, but nothing else, and he’s got to stop getting hurt. Andrew McCutchen might be almost as good as Trout, but Cutch is 27, and that’s an enormous difference. This is his peak. In all likelihood, Trout has better years to come.

  10. DerekJeterDan 1 year ago

    Um…. what?

  11. Tony Matias 1 year ago

    Although historic by comparison.. certainly not very exciting.

  12. itstheduke 1 year ago

    “Record-setting 1M deal” Took me back to the ’70s!

    • Jose Ochoa 1 year ago

      pre-arbitration

      • itstheduke 1 year ago

        Yeah, I know. I meant that that was my initial impression before I started digging into the article.

    • essmeier 1 year ago

      Back then, a “record-setting 1M deal” would have covered five years…

      • itstheduke 1 year ago

        Well it’s pretty close actually. According to baseball-almenac.com, the first $1M contract was Nolan Ryan in Nov 1979.

    • essmeier 1 year ago

      Back then, a “record-setting 1M deal” would have covered five years…

  13. Unassisted Triple Play 1 year ago

    Well that’s 1 mill down the tubes!! Mike Trout saw the Angels FO coming!! It’s just goes to show how wasteful major league franchises are these days.

  14. Sky14 1 year ago

    I’m glad the Angels wised up and paid the man a little bit more for his incredible production. They didn’t have to but an extra 480k is worth the goodwill and avoids the negative publicity plus it won’t break the bank. Perhaps this will lead to a historic extension.
    “Trout has been arguably the best player in baseball over the past two seasons.”
    Yet finished behind Cabrera both times in the MVP award. This is often debated but wish they wouldn’t punish players because of their teammates, some voters need to wake up, I don’t think there’s much argument he is and has been the best player in baseball.

    • Karkat 1 year ago

      BBWAA and Tigers fans are the only people who don’t think Trout was the best player in the majors over the last two seasons.

    • Collateral96 1 year ago

      He’s getting ripped off plain and simple he should be getting 15 a year for the production he’s put up maybe even more

  15. John LeClair 1 year ago

    I literally read “Angels signed Trout to 1 YR – 100 Million Dollar Contract.” Bricks were almost ….Well you get the picture 😉

    • John Cate 1 year ago

      If they had to pay him what he was really worth, he’d get $40MM for a year anyway.

  16. jwsox 1 year ago

    Doesn’t this just make his arb years that much more expensive. Correct me if I’m wrong but arb salary is based on the past years salary right?

    • Chris Masteller 1 year ago

      An extension is most likely getting done to buy out his arbitration years. If not, I don’t think they would have given him $1 million in his 3rd pre-arb year.

    • John Cate 1 year ago

      Mike Trout will never see arbitration. Besides, the Angels would never win a hearing and they know it. “Yes, Mr. Arbitrator, he’s the best player in baseball, and he’s historically comparable to Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays, but…”

      They need to pay the man now, and they will.

  17. Adam Bomb 1 year ago

    $1 million? Am I missing something here?

    • davbee 1 year ago

      No, only the entire concept of pre-arb salaries.

      • Adam Bomb 1 year ago

        Sorry, I’m not familiar with the process. All I saw was $1 million and that it was made out to be a big deal.

    • Sky14 1 year ago

      It’s explained in the first paragraph…

  18. AsHeR 1 year ago

    Congrats to Trout. Great character and terrific ballplayer. Nice to see someone of his talent and humbleness receive what he deserves. Trout > Harper

    • Curt Green 1 year ago

      I gave you a thumbs up for the last sentence of your post.

      • $3513744 1 year ago

        as if anyone is saying otherwise?

        • WhoKilledTheRallyMonkey 1 year ago

          The way everyone was talking about them in 2012 there might as well just have been one player named Trout-Harper.

  19. Curt Green 1 year ago

    The word “historic” is getting old and worn out. I remember back in the 90’s when Kirby Puckett signed a 3 year 9 million dollar deal and that was labeled “historic”. From here till when the economy collapses, there will be yearly “historic” deals being signed.

    • WhoKilledTheRallyMonkey 1 year ago

      Things that happen for the for first time in history, for example this pre-arb contract and Trout’s 2012-2013 performance, are historic. Live with it!

  20. WhoKilledTheRallyMonkey 1 year ago

    Hopefully well see the other part of this move announced soon, extension time Arte!

  21. hozie007 1 year ago

    From a talent and production perspective this is a steal but from a business perspective it doesn’t make sense. The Angels will have to pay plenty in his arbitration years based on comparables (which there are none presently) but they are 2 years away from that and there’s no need to pay a player just because he had a decent year or two. I guess its good faith money but in the end, it won’t make a difference. If Trout stays on his current path and holds his numbers in a few years, he’ll be the first $300M contract….and it won’t be with the Angels.

    • Mark T. 1 year ago

      You don’t take the chance of fraying the realationship with the team by renewing his contract. You reward him for his service. Its chump change if it means keeping him happy and in Anaheim for years to come. Renewing his deal last year raised criticism and anger from his Agent and Dad. Why run the risk of upsetting Trout when you are trying to negotiate a extension. I can finally say that this was a smart move by the Angels and the reported extension is even smarter. MLB needs more iconic players staying with one team throught their careers. Derek Jeter would not be so highly revired if he had played for 3 teams . It adds to the nostalgia of a player to see him start and finish his career in one city, hopefully Trout can become an iconic legend in Southern California.

    • Akasya 1 year ago

      There is nothing about this deal that does not make sense. Angels is not a small market team that can’t afford to pay 500k more to a MVP caliber player, and this also make their business relationship with Trout better. You never want to piss the player off by giving him a near league minimum while trying to sign an extension. And Trout just had historic 2 year run, not a “decent year or two.”

  22. Duder Steve Pettke 1 year ago

    How much money did Trout get when he was drafted?

  23. John Cate 1 year ago

    That’s still the bargain of the year. A 10 WAR player for a million? I’ll take two of those.

  24. Karkat 1 year ago

    I’m floundering to come up with another fish pun.

  25. fortunes4 1 year ago

    Can I join the discussion just for the halibut?

  26. Curt Green 1 year ago

    His extension will be a whale of a deal.

  27. jwsox 1 year ago

    His extension will be so big he will swimming in it…..

  28. Dave 1 year ago

    I’d be willing to bet that his long-term deal won’t be too “crappie”.

  29. Trock 1 year ago

    Trouts agent got him a kick bass deal!

  30. Curt Green 1 year ago

    His agent “scaled” it up for him.

  31. Guest 1 year ago

    Whale is a mammal not a fish. Sorry had to say it.

  32. Curt Green 1 year ago

    I stand corrected! Thank you, good sir!

Leave a Reply