Mike Trout, Angels Discussing Six-Year Extension

MONDAY: MLB.com's Alden Gonzalez reports that the Angels don't have to wait until Opening Day to sign Trout to an extension in order to avoid luxury tax ramifications. Because Trout has already had his 2014 salary set, the Angels can structure an extension beginning with the 2015 season without undergoing penalty. In other words: they can extend Trout as soon as they want. This, Gonzalez writes, is the same rationale the Yankees used when signing Brett Gardner to a four-year extension that doesn't kick in until 2015.

SUNDAY, 2:00 pm: "No comment, but I like how a lot of people are writing it. It's pretty funny," Trout told reporters, including Mike DiGiovanna of the Los Angeles Times.

12:46 pm: Mike Trout and the Angels are discussing a six-year deal worth about $150MM, Jeff Passan of Yahoo! Sports reports. The deal would buy out two free agent seasons, and allow Trout to become a free agent at age 28. FOX Sports' Ken Rosenthal tweets the Angels' desire is for a seven-year pact in the $150-160MM range. Trout is represented by LSW Baseball.

There are still details to iron out, as Passan notes that there remains a difference between the two sides in the "low eight figures." The deal will cover one pre-arbitration season, as well as three arbitration years. Fangraphs' Dave Cameron recently wrote about the possibility of a Trout extension and estimated Trout might make a total of $60MM during his arbitration seasons, so a $150MM extension over six years might essentially buy out two free agency years at a little less than $45MM apiece.

Passan suggests that, in practice, Trout might actually get $35MM and $38MM in those seasons. Those still sound like enormous figures, but they're hardly surprising given the escalation of salaries throughout baseball and given that those two free-agency years would be the age-26 and age-27 seasons for the best player in the game. The $25MM average annual value would tie teammate Josh Hamilton as the richest for an outfielder (per Cot's Baseball Contracts), but the six-year, $150MM proposal would still fall far short of the record-setting seven-year, $215MM extension Clayton Kershaw signed with the Dodgers last month.

The timing of the extension is crucial to the Angels, according to Jeff Fletcher of the Orange County Register. The Angels are not believed to be interested in signing Trout to a deal that includes 2014, because it would likely push them over the $189MM luxury tax threshold. Fletcher reports the Angels are approximately $15MM under the threshold now and, by reaching a deal on a 2015 contract sometime after Opening Day, could avoid going over because it would not count against this year's cap, even if Trout receives a sizeable signing bonus to be paid in 2014.

Recently, Jeff Todd asked MLBTR readers about the parameters of a Trout extension. The consensus (as measured by the median of responses) was the Angels should be willing to give Trout a 10-year, $300MM deal, but a nine-year, $250MM contract is more likely to be reached. 

Edward Creech contributed to this post.


175 Responses to Mike Trout, Angels Discussing Six-Year Extension Leave a Reply

  1. baseballfan92 1 year ago

    Trout becomes super rich for the rest of his life and is still set up to get the biggest contract ever when he’s 28. Angels get the best player in the world for an extra 2 seasons. Sounds like a win win.

    • LocustFarm 1 year ago

      Well put. As an Angels fan, I’d certainly like to see a few more years added in on the deal and bump the amount up along with the years, but this deal would play it safe for him and work out for both sides, while setting him up for a huge contract afterwards if he keeps his pace up.

      • liberalconservative 1 year ago

        Only in a perfect world. Don’t forget the same thoughts when Arod signed. Hamilton and Pujols contracts weigh down the team and Weaver contract will be up in a few years. This is better than signing another old vet but what about the pitching?

        • RyanWKrol 1 year ago

          The Pujols and Hamilton contracts are not weighing the team down. Those two will eat up exactly $40 MM in payroll in 2014. And the team is currently at a projected $149 MM. That’s $109 MM remaining. That alone is about the same payroll they had when won 5 division titles in 6 years. And the remainder will increase when Trout is extended. Paying Wells $18 MM to play golf and Blanton $9 MM to sit in the bullpen are what’s weighing the team down. That’s $27 MM. That’s two Matt Garzas. Or Two Ubaldos. Or both! Or about 12 Capuanos. The Angels will finally be going over the luxury tax when they extend Trout, so the contracts of Pujols and Hamilton are not that big of an issue.

          • Ryan 1 year ago

            The Angels wouldn’t sign Mike Trout to an extension until after Opening Day that way it wouldn’t affect their 2014 Payroll even if Trout received a large signing bonus paid in 2014

          • RyanWKrol 1 year ago

            I know that. Whether it’s now or after opening day, they’re going over the luxury tax.

        • brianc6234 1 year ago

          Contracts that have hurt the Angels are the ones like Vernon Wells. All those millions for pretty much nothing. Arte Moreno should have signed Adrian Beltre and he wouldn’t have had that big problem.

          • RyanWKrol 1 year ago

            Word around the Angels beat writer camp fire is that Beltre approached Arte about signing and Arte slammed the door in his face. Good one! Now he’s ripping it up in Texas.

    • LAAUSC 1 year ago

      They will wait until after opening day to announce any extension….he will make a million or 2 for 2014 but the extension will be for 2015 and beyond because of the luxury tax cap for 2014…. so 10 million signing bonus ( paid in 2014 ) and 5 million for 2015….18 million for 2016….22 million for 2017 ( 55 million total for 3 arbitration years ) 30 million for 2018….30 million for 2019….35 million for 2020….total extension = 6 years 150 million…..free agent at 29…..

      • RyanWKrol 1 year ago

        Sounds right to me. New reports have the Angels and Trout signing the deal after opening day for that very reason, with Wells being paid $18 million to be a fan as the primary culprit.

  2. Tony Matias 1 year ago

    OOOHhhhhh,… this should be interesting.

  3. Dbacksfan44 1 year ago

    That is a great deal if it is only for 150 million

    • Christopher A. Otto 1 year ago

      I can’t believe we’ve gotten to the point where that sentence actually is reasonable.

      • Matt Mccarron 1 year ago

        No one, not Miggy, not Cutch, not Goldy will have a shot at 300M in there life, Trout has a chance to over take Arod as the richest MLB player.

        • Christopher A. Otto 1 year ago

          Hell, he might double A-Rod.

          • Matt Mccarron 1 year ago

            ARod made like 400M, not gonna happen.

          • Metsfan93 1 year ago

            maybe (a huge maybe) if this deal doesn’t happen and he actually hits FA he could double A-Rod’s 275 MM deal. I doubt that happens, but that might be what he meant.

          • cubsfan97 1 year ago

            Doublw 275MM is 550MM. Spread that over 10 years, no one, not even the Dodgers would pay 55 million a year, not anywhere in the near future. Say they gave him 12 years, its still 45 million a year. He will not make 40 million a year, and IMO 35 would probably be the ceiling, and thats if the Yankees, Dodgers and Red Sox all start bidding for him.

          • Metsfan93 1 year ago

            I said a huge maybe, lol. It would need to coincide with, say, the Yankees needing new players once McCann/Ells decline, and wanting to go all out. It’s a long shot, but a 12-year, 550 MM deal would be a monstrosity. An albatross. That’s why I said huge maybe. I agree with you, I was just trying to justify that other guy’s comment since he couldn’t have been projecting Trout to earn over 800 MM in his career..

          • Jeffy25 1 year ago

            Projected breakdown shows 73 million for his two free agent years.

            4 years before he even gets there.

            Kid can easily challenge 40 million a year if he keeps this up

          • bhambravesfan 1 year ago

            He only stands to make 50-60MM in arbitration so they are basically paying him 45-50MM per FA year

          • brianc6234 1 year ago

            Trout will never hit free agency if he keeps it up like he has. The Angels won’t let that happen. Nobody should ever let the best player in baseball become a free agent unless they’re a small market team that can’t afford him. Those teams would trade him.

          • Metsfan93 1 year ago

            You know it takes two parties to sign a contract, right? And a 26-year-old superstar with two 10+ WAR seasons through his age-21 campaign might be enticed to take his talents elsewhere and incite a bidding war at some point, right?

          • Jeffy25 1 year ago

            150 here.

            At 28, get 10/350 easily…

            Yeah, he can easily over take a-rod just by being as good as he’s been for the next 6 years.

          • uberalec 1 year ago

            Arod had two contracts of $252 & $275 which adds up to $527 million (one of those years may have blended). Either way $150 is stupid for Trout especially when Kershaw just got $30 per yer. A $375 million with $150 million still wouldn’t surpass Alex, which would beterrible negotiation on Trouts part considering the insane rate deals are given now.

          • Metsfan93 1 year ago

            Three of those years are blended. He opted out of the final three years of the 252 MM deal..

          • uberalec 1 year ago

            Ah you are completely correct, forgot about that. I guess either way I just see Trout easily being able to at least get a $180 million extension. If the Kershaw extension never happened, I understand, you’re paying for the arb years. Now though since there is precedent, $150 million is a steal for the Angels it seems.

            As stupid as it sounds from pure shock value, $300-$350 million dollar deal isn’t as resounding as the $252 million Alex originally signed. Contracts are so inflated now. I really think if he stays consistent, $400 wouldn’t be out of the picture once teams start bidding for his services.

          • bjsguess 1 year ago

            “Yeah, he can easily over take a-rod just by being as good as he’s been for the next 6 years.”

            — Otherwise known as a run that no player in baseball history has ever gone on. That would give Trout 8 consecutive 10 WAR seasons. Ruth had 9 throughout his entire career (longest run was 3 consecutive seasons). Ted Williams managed to land 4 10 WAR seasons. Bonds was at 5. To just assume that Trout will be the best player in baseball history is a pretty tall order.

    • Meh Sheep 1 year ago

      Not much of a deal when you figure 4 of the six years were arbitration years anyway so he wasn’t likely to get even $20 million per for any of those 4 years. More of a market deal than a bargain.

      • Scott Thorn 1 year ago

        Trout was set to break every single arbitration record ever.

        • Meh Sheep 1 year ago

          That isn’t the way arbitration works you don’t get huge salaries in you first couple of years of arbitration.

          Current Records for arbitration:

          First time: Ryan Howard – $10MM (2008).
          Second time: Miguel Cabrera – $11.3MM (2007).
          Third time: Prince Fielder – $15.5MM (2011)

          • Scott Thorn 1 year ago

            I know how arbitration works, thanks.

            You said he wouldn’t get $20M per for ANY of the 4 years. I could easily see him getting 20+ by the 4th year.

          • Meh Sheep 1 year ago

            Even if he were to get 25 in the 4th, 20 in the 3rd, 15 in the 2nd and 10 in the first. That is still 40 million per year for years 5 and 6 so that isn’t a deal. Like I said market value.

          • Nick Costanza 1 year ago

            Mike Trout isn’t a Super Two, he only goes through the arbitration process three times (maybe you don’t know exactly how the process works).

          • Metsfan93 1 year ago

            The first post Scott responded to referenced “four arbitration years”…

          • Metsfan93 1 year ago

            Two of those salaries are very outdated. Howard would’ve certainly beaten Cabrera and Fielder’s figures but was extended. Cabrera would’ve beaten Fielder’s figure too but was also extended. Regardless, none of the three have Trout’s pre-arb pedigree. I would think a 15-20-25 arb isn’t out of the question, considering he’s superior to all three and the 10 MM was six years ago..

          • pastlives 1 year ago

            yeah but…1M for this season, + 15+20+25 means he’s getting paid like 45M per free agent season…that’s not a deal.

          • Metsfan93 1 year ago

            I don’t think I ever said this contract was a steal for LA. Going year to year would be cheaper, but there’s no way Trout would sell himself for a two-year deal after 2017 if he stays healthy. Overpaying for 2018-2019 now might be the only way for LA to secure those years without worry of him leaving.

          • bjsguess 1 year ago

            “Regardless, none of the three have Trout’s pre-arb pedigree.”

            I suggest you look at Howard’s platform season again. He absolutely crushes Trout on things that arbiters look at. They don’t care about WAR or positional adjustments. They pay for BA, SLG, HR’s and RBIs. It’s not right but it is reality.

            Howard is actually a great comp. With inflation maybe you make the argument like pastlives that he gets 15/20/25. Personally, I think that’s more than he would get but it’s in the right ballpark. That also assumes he is otherworldly for the next 3 seasons.

            If Trout is injured or posts more pedestrian numbers he’s not going to sniff at $15M for his first time through arbitration.

          • Jeffy25 1 year ago

            Yeah, trout was set to beat each one of them.

            People don’t seem to be aware how good his traditional stats really are.

  4. Matt Mccarron 1 year ago

    Best possibility for both sides. He gets another chance at a major contract his age 28 season, and the Angels lock him up until then. Interesting.

  5. Runtime 1 year ago

    And he still gets to sign a 10 year deal with the Yankees afterwards.

    (Don’t take me seriously, guys. It’s a joke)

    • Trock 1 year ago

      A joke that very well could happen…lol

      • Jeremy Schiff 1 year ago

        By that time the Mets will also be at full power and you can bet the dodgers will be in the bidding aswell. Get ready for a big market bidding war

  6. JoeyBats13 1 year ago

    6 years and 150 million would be a steal for the Angels. 10+ WAR players do not come around very often

    • phillies1102 1 year ago

      Just keep in mind that these are the arbitration years that are mostly bought out. We’ll see how much of a steal it is when we see the salary on last 2 free agent years.

    • Kevin Yochim 1 year ago

      Scary thing is he could easily be 12+ if he has a better year defensively than 2013.

      • Jeremy 1 year ago

        Yup, his 2012 defence combined with 2013 offence would be a 12 WAR player.

    • bjsguess 1 year ago

      How is this a “steal”?

      I don’t care how good any player is he won’t be worth $45M in salary in today’s market. Let alone that price being a “steal”.

      The 6 year deal covers 4 years of pre-arb and arbitration. He would have to shatter the records (not beat – but completely demolish) for arbitration THEN he would be paid 25% more than any other player in baseball history. That is not a steal.

  7. Trock 1 year ago

    Angels need to do whatever it takes to lock this guy up for as long as possible. Not a fan of the angels but love it when home grown guys stay with a team long term

  8. Smart move. Trout gets financial security and the Angels get two FA years out of the guy who will likely get a contract of historic value when he hits FA.

  9. Kevin Yochim 1 year ago

    Keep in mind this is not the Angels saying he’s worth $25M AAV. Interested to see the breakdown and what they value the 2 FA years at (my guess is around $36M).

    • Metsfan93 1 year ago

      36 MM would mean he’s earing 78 MM for one pre-arb year and three arb years….

      • Matt Mccarron 1 year ago

        He was tendered a contract for this year already. Hes making 500K this year.

        • Metsfan93 1 year ago

          If they extend him I’d have to imagine that salary is being wiped off the books and he’ll earn more now and less in the future. If it’s six years after 2014, it’s taking three FA years, not two.

  10. Scott 1 year ago

    As an Angels fan, it sounds A LITTLE BIT like a disappointing development, if a bit inevitable.

    If this is buying out two years of free agency, then that means the six-year deal is also paying him for this year, when he could be making less than a million. If you assume his arbitration years will go something like 15-20-25, then he’s making $60-65 million over these next four years without a new contract. Which means the remaining two years of free agency in a 6/150 deal are going for about $40-45 million a piece (even if they won’t actually be measured out that way in terms of team payroll).

    That’s a heck of a premium to pay for those years (even if his WAR/$ ratio thus far suggests he’s worth it) to only be getting two non-controlled years out of him. I want this guy to be an Angel for as long as possible, but only getting two extra years of him guaranteed sounds like a poor return at that price for the Angels.

    That said, it IS exactly what works best for Trout. He gets paid handsomely for the next few years, and steps into free agency, ostensibly right in the middle of his prime, poised for the biggest contract ever.

    • RyanWKrol 1 year ago

      This ensures that he doesn’t leave right after arbitration. This means he’s an Angel for the first 9 years of his career (2011 debut included). That’s just 1 year less than the Pujols contract; or just 2 full seasons less. Be careful what you ask for. We already have the privilege of watching the best player in the game play on our team. And it will soon be for a long time.

      • Scott 1 year ago

        “Long” needs to be measured relative to what we’re already guaranteed…which is six full years of Trout. Getting an extension that gives us eight full years instead, with those final two years coming at the absolutely maximum market price that he would get in FA isn’t really much of a deal for the team.

        • RyanWKrol 1 year ago

          Yes it is. Better deal than 10 years, $300 MM. And it looks like they’ll probably extend him after opening day. So make that 9 full seasons of Mike Trout overall, covering 3 free agent years. The Angels caught lightning in a bottle, and are going to harness it. Enjoy it while you can.

          • Scott 1 year ago

            10/300 would, unequivocally, be better for the team than 6/150.

  11. BitLocker 1 year ago

    25M a year, and Trout can get a bigger deal at 28. This is a win-win.

  12. trsitdh 1 year ago

    Not questioning his greatness, but that seems like a lot for only 2 free agent years. How much can he anticipate getting through arbitration? Maybe $50M total? So does that mean this is roughly $100M/2 for the free agent years?

    • Scott 1 year ago

      Probably closer to $60 million total in arbitration, but yeah, I agree. This contract makes for two VERY expensive FA years.

    • Metsfan93 1 year ago

      I feel like they’ve gotta have this wrong and it’s 2015-2020, buying out three FA years, not two. Because I thinl 55-60 MM is his arb ceiling, and even at an optimistic 40 MM a year for FA years and 60 MM for arb, that’s only 140 MM..

      • RyanWKrol 1 year ago

        Additional reports are stating the deal will be finalized after opening day since Arte likely won’t want to go over the luxury tax this season with Vernon Wells’ salary on the books. I don’t blame him.

  13. Mike1L 1 year ago

    Interesting. I’m in the minority, I think, but I like the deal for both sides. Trout gets enough money to set him for life (lives, I think) and the Angels are securing him through 28, meaning they can judge his skills, injuries, etc far better at that time. If he’s a FA at 26, that forces their hand that much earlier.

  14. bravesnjays 1 year ago

    Hard to project the arbitration process…But they are basically paying 40-45 mil a year for those 2 FA years (and that is a somewhat conservative estimate). That is insane. Even for Trout as amazing as he has been. On the open market today I think he would get a lot of guaranteed money but not at a 40-45AAV… (all this is predicated on the numbers proposed being realistic)

    • Metsfan93 1 year ago

      I don’t think a 40 MM AAV is entirely unreasonable for a player of his ilk. Kershaw sold away his FA years for 32.5 MM per, and Trout projects to provide mountains of surplus value on Kershaw in the next few years. Trout’s *projected* as a 9-win player. That’s nuts.

      • Matt Mccarron 1 year ago

        40M is a ton considering there is only 3 who overtook 26M.

        • Metsfan93 1 year ago

          Trout’s young as heck and the best player in baseball, and teams are flush with cash. If anyone deserves 40 a year, it’s him..

          • bravesnjays 1 year ago

            I don’t think anyone is questioning whether he “deserves” it or whether his stats would justify such a salary. We are simply questioning what the FA market would pay. (Technically also what he’d earn in arbitration is being discussed). Not many teams can afford signing Trout to long term deals worth 40-50mil AAV. Honestly, nobody but the Dodgers and Yankees can right now. Anybody else is essentially committing a third of their payroll for a decade to a single player.

          • Metsfan93 1 year ago

            I’m talking more in the 35-40 range, with 40 AAV as the ceiling, not 50. When the player is that good, if you’ve got room, do it, I guess. I would imagine the Cubs, Red Sox, Angels, Dodgers, Yankees would all be in on Trout if he hit FA in a few years, at minimum.

      • bravesnjays 1 year ago

        Also, that 40 mil AAV would mean he’d earn 70mil in arbitration. That is equally insane (not insane as in crazy, insane as it hasn’t happened before/its never been close)

    • RyanWKrol 1 year ago

      Could be 3 FA years now. The deal will likely be done after opening day to count for 2015 – 2020.

      • bravesnjays 1 year ago

        true, then it becomes a more like 30-33mil a FA year, I think we would all agree Trout gets that in a heartbeat as a FA on the open market.

      • bravesnjays 1 year ago

        Yep, updated article shows that you are correct. 3 arbitration years and 3 FA years. This deal makes a lot more sense financially now. Good call.

  15. Nick Costanza 1 year ago

    I wouldn’t do this if I was the Angels…if you’re going to do an extension now, it should be at least 8 years.

    • Matt Mccarron 1 year ago

      He won’t sign thru his prime, atleast not without an opt out.

      • Nick Costanza 1 year ago

        Then I personally think it would be better to go year to year…it’s not worth shelling out a ton more cash just to get two more years.

        • Jeffy25 1 year ago

          Trout is one of the players who should go year to year.

          If I was his agent, I would be focused on him hitting free agency as young as possible.

          But if they want to give near market value several years in advance and it’s two free agent years? Then sure.

          • northsfbay 1 year ago

            If Trout gets injured he doesn’t get much money.

        • bjsguess 1 year ago

          Nick is right on. I love Trout. Followed online the Angels draft when they took Randall and Mike back to back. Have been tracking his stats since A ball. He is an amazing player with really no weaknesses. He makes the team so much better.

          All that said, I would trade him in a heartbeat if he is going to command $35-45M/year on a long term deal this many years before FA. I’d keep him for the next 2 years and then sell him with 2 years to go. If a team wants the chance to lock him up at that rate they surely would be willing to part with every interesting piece of their farm system.

          There are not a lot of great examples where teams went out, spent top dollar on the best player in the game (at the time) and ended up enjoying the contract. Maybe Trout’s the exception. Or maybe he’ll be like the other 99% of the deals that look really ugly really quick.

  16. Scott 1 year ago

    This deal makes a lot more sense for the Angels (and really not much LESS sense for Trout, who would still go to free agency at 29) if it’s NOT buying out this year, and is instead buying out his 3 arb years and his first 3 FA years.

    The Angels were trying to avoid having the AAV of Trout’s contract extension hit the books THIS season while Wells and Blanton are still on the books, when they’d be pushed over the luxury tax.

    Also, as I said below and you noted above, the structure of a 6/150 contract starting THIS year would be such that his 2 free agency years are being priced out at about $45 million/year. Which seems almost insane.

    If the deal is instead 3ARB + 3FA years, it would mean those 3FA years are going for closer to $30-35 million, which seems much more reasonable and likely)

    • Bromacho 1 year ago

      Yeah I think it’s the latter. A deal like the one proposed right now would push the Angels into the luxury tax they have been trying to avoid all offseason

  17. ChrisSEA84 1 year ago

    We’ll if anyone deserves it, it’s him.

  18. Rusty_Arcadia 1 year ago

    This makes sense for both sides. Financial security for Trout and a few extra years of Trout for the Angels, even though a new deal isn’t necessary yet. Doing it now shows Trout that if he stays healthy and productive, the Angels have a desire to make him their franchise player and when the new deal is close to being up, I’m sure they’ll attempt to extend him again well before he hits free agency. Teams don’t let players they want to keep get into free agency unless they can’t afford the player or aren’t sure they want him back.

  19. While a deal of six years makes sense for everyone, I still find it hard to fathom that a player can secure roughly $40-45M for free agent seasons when he’s four years away. You would think that would have some drastic impact on future young stars getting locked up early

    • Mike1L 1 year ago

      You could look at a different way, which is that LA is buying itself more time to decide whether it wants to make a gigantic multiyear commitment. Trout may get injured, or his performance may drop back some, and perhaps they won’t.

      • I definitely get trying to extend him for a couple years. They get more guaranteed years of Trout, Trout is set for life and hits free agency in his twenties. But at or around the 6/$150M is very steep. It’s just not a bargain whatsoever to give a guy market-value money for his free agent years on an extension signed four years before free agency. Even the $35M & $38M figures tossed around are hardly discounts (if at all)

  20. Chad Woelk 1 year ago

    Only buying out two years of free agency. If that happens they will lose him when he becomes a free agent again.

  21. Paul Shailor 1 year ago

    So what you are saying is I wont be able to see him sign a 400 million dollar deal at 26? I was actually really looking forward to seeing what a 26 year old with his talent would get on the open market.

  22. Triteon 1 year ago

    If I were Trout I wouldn’t concern myself so much about the money — it’s already huge and generous, though well-deserved — I’d be asking for assurances that the Angels will continue to field a competitive team and not panic and sell-off at the first sight of failure like the Marlins have.

    • Comfy_Wastelander 1 year ago

      Trout has put up two MVP-level seasons and has been paid virtually the minimum MLB salary each year. Not exactly “huge and generous” money. It’s not the Angels’ fault – it is just how the system is set up. From Trout’s side, it would be hard to fault the guy for wanting to get out of the year-to-year cycle ASAP and securing himself a guaranteed multi-year deal.

      I don’t really understand the Marlins comparison. Even if Arte Moreno lost his mind and decided he wanted to run a bare bones payroll (and instantly alienate his team’s entire fan base, which would cost him so much more than he could possible save in payroll cuts), he isn’t going to be able to get down to a Marlins-style roster any time soon. Their current payroll commitments can’t just be wished away.

      • Triteon 1 year ago

        No, no — I was referring to the final dollar negotiation: “there remains a difference between the two sides in the ‘low eight figures.’ ” If you’re Trout and you have a $140-160MM offer ($10MM from $150MM) in front of you that’s only for 6 years, I would think that while you want all the money you can get, you’re also wanting to win. At that level and at his age, who would want to be bound to a losing team, especially with financial concerns behind him?

        And I absolutely do think that Moreno could get down to a Marlins-like level, though I seriously doubt he — or any reasonable owner — would. Hypothetically, to do this Moreno would need to shed a few contracts that have the “albatross” label popularly attached, and that would be a huge barrier. I have no expectation this is the case, but if I were Trout I would ask the question.

  23. AmericanMovieFan 1 year ago

    Mike Trout will wind up making like $400MM+ in his career unless he is forced into early retirement or become less than a 25 HR/100 RBI guy.

  24. jann key 1 year ago

    I’d say he deserves 32.5 a year, maybe even 35/yr only bc he isn’t making them ink a ten year contract

  25. LazerTown 1 year ago

    If he gets $150/6 that covers this year he should take it without thinking

    pre-arb – 500K
    Arb : Think 15/20/25 (bit optimistic)
    That would put FA years at $44.75M each.

    • Comfy_Wastelander 1 year ago

      Agreed. Plus, he will be in excellent position to renegotiate/extend in the last two years of the deal. A six year deal today still lets him shoot for the blockbuster 10 year however-many-million dollar deal in his mid to late twenties.

  26. Jake13 1 year ago

    Letting them buy out 2 Free Agent years at only 25 million a year isn’t that smart, but overall he probably makes more money because nobody can make what they’re worth in arbitration.

  27. rikersbeard 1 year ago

    Don’t do it Trout. Hit FA when you are 26. It would be even more awesome to see how much people would line up and pay knowing that they will get a couple more years of prime Trout.

    • Comfy_Wastelander 1 year ago

      The Angels (allegedly) think prime FA Trout is worth about $45 million a year.

  28. Wainwrights_Curveball 1 year ago

    6 years 150 million? Fail

    Try 10 years 300 million. That’s more fair.

    • Jake13 1 year ago

      They are buying out his arbitration mostly, in Free Agency obviously 10/300 is fair but in arbitration you don’t get huge contracts.

    • snowbladerp14 1 year ago

      a 10 year contract would make him a free agent at 32 which is not what he wants if he can get paid now and then again at 28 its a much better scenario

    • snapcase8p 1 year ago

      How is that fair? 2 great years equals 300M?! What if he breaks his ankle next year, tears his ACL the year after that and never is same the player again? Is 300M still fair? Oh wait, you’re assuming Trout is going to produce at the same level or better for the next 10 years. It’s a given, right?

      • Wainwrights_Curveball 1 year ago

        It’s a gamble with any player.

        • bjsguess 1 year ago

          But any other player it isn’t a $300M gamble.

  29. northsfbay 1 year ago

    It would be cheaper to a 10 year contract now then extend Trout later.

  30. Lefty_Orioles_Fan 1 year ago

    Admittedly, he is fun to watch, but ever since his rookie season and even during, he (Trout) has been like: Just Show me the Money!
    The Angels should win something first! Then give him an extension!
    They have ‘Gigantic’ Contracts and now they want to add another.
    I mean they just got over the Vernon Wells deal!
    I just SMH!

    • Christopher A. Otto 1 year ago

      To be clear, the Angels’ inability to win the past two years has had nothing to do with Mike Trout.

    • RyanWKrol 1 year ago

      The Angels don’t really have to prove they’ve won something lately, nearly as much as a lot of other teams do. They’re just 4 years removed from ending a run of 6 playoff appearances in 8 years that included 1 WC, 5 division titles, 3 ALCS’s, 1 AL Pennant, and 1 World Series Championship. I’m sure Mike Trout is intelligent enough within the game to realize that a big reason his team has missed the playoffs (with him) is that every team has to fall back sometime, and other teams like the A’s and Rangers will get (and deserve) their shot. It’s part of the game. And I’m sure he knows that the process of a team extending a star (on both ends) involves building to win something. Otherwise, he probably wouldn’t even want an extension and would test free agency as soon as he was eligible.

  31. Eric Droegemeier 1 year ago

    Holy cow this would be a steal for the Angels, 150 million?

  32. Eric Droegemeier 1 year ago

    Holy cow this would be a steal for the Angels, 150 million?

  33. brianc6234 1 year ago

    The Angels should offer 15 years with an opt-out in six or seven years. Lock Trout up long term.

    • snowbladerp14 1 year ago

      15 years insane 10 years is crazy 6 is about right

    • Adam R 1 year ago

      There’s two sides to the deal. Trout wouldn’t take 15 years because he’s 22 and no 22 year old wants to commit to anything past 30.

  34. twins33 1 year ago

    Feels crazy for me to type, but 6/150 seems too low. If the Trout we’ve seen is the Trout he’ll continue to be the Angels should give him 10/240. I can easily see why Trout wouldn’t want 10 years though. FA in late 20s could easily bring him a second six year deal and maybe more dollars. The AAV on 6/150 is right on, in my opinion. The Angels need to lock in as many years as he’s willing to give.

    • Cubstein 1 year ago

      Look at it this way. They still have 4 years of team control left, so it would only really be a two year extension. If he shattered records in arbitration (which he probably will) he’d still make only about 60 million over the next 4 years in which case you are paying him 90 million for two extra years.

  35. BlueSkyLA 1 year ago

    So we already know that Trout will be the “best player in the game” in 2017 and 2018?

    Somebody has a crystal ball and they aren’t sharing.

    • Comfy_Wastelander 1 year ago

      Of course, there are no guarantees in life. But if you had to pick the best player in 2017-8, Trout would be a really solid guess.

      • BlueSkyLA 1 year ago

        It wasn’t phrased as a guess, and guesses are never solid.

    • RyanWKrol 1 year ago

      The fact that Trout’s peripheral stats are making him the best in game right now, and among the best all time at his age. Mix that with the fact that his BA, OBP, etc. have yet to reach levels that players like Ted Williams reached, is a good indicator.

  36. northsfbay 1 year ago

    Some fans think that Trout is a god. If god wants a billion dollars, you give it to him.

    • snapcase8p 1 year ago

      Teams that treat/pay their players like Gods often regret it. Personally, I think I’d rather have B. Harper (and I’m no fan of Harpers’) heading towards their 30’s and beyond. I think Harper’s ceiling is higher going forward and isn’t going to require the $ that Trout is going to command. Really can’t believe I said that cause Harper’s attitude and some of the comments he made early on really turned me off to him as a ball player.

      • Maxxx Depth 1 year ago

        Pujols is a prime example.

        • RyanWKrol 1 year ago

          The Angels aren’t regretting that signing. It was a move they needed to make as an organization. And even if they never get the same Pujols we saw with the Cardinals, their payroll is high enough to absorb it. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be making those deals, and wouldn’t be working on extending Trout. If you take away the 2014 salaries of Pujols and Hamilton, you’re still left with a higher payroll than the Angels had in all those years they kept making the playoffs. That being said, there’s no reason they can’t continue building a winner with those contracts, upcoming Trout extension included.

  37. snapcase8p 1 year ago

    I love all the Mike Trout fan club members!! They are the most unrealistic people in the world!! I think what most people/fan club members fail to realize is that Trout reached his ceiling early in his career. Trout is either going to continue this level of production or he’s going to decline. The thing that separates Trout from most MLB elites is his combo of speed&power. Unfortunately, I think with the way Trout puts on weight and his reckless play will sap him of his speed faster than most players who rely on speed. Why is this important? Because it is what makes him an elite defender (he isn’t going to get any better on defense than he is right now, even if his speed doesn’t regress), it also increases his BA/OPS/SLG (he had 34 infield hits which is more than 1/6 of the total hits he had, not to mention the increase in stats the speed gives him in stretching a single into a double or double to a triple). While Trout may hit more HRs the older he gets, the way he is already jacked up suggests that he isn’t really going to fill out anymore and I don’t see a massive increase in HRs for him. The best case I see for Trout is that he maintains an ARod (disregarding PEDs and just looking at performance) type production into his mid-30’s (which is really good), but IMO his stocky frame will limit him faster than it did for ARod as ARod was much leaner than Trout. In the end I think Trout is a fantastic player, but IMO, I think his first few years are the best you’re ever going to see from him and its all downhill from here.

    • Comfy_Wastelander 1 year ago

      Trout’s 10 most similar batters through age 21 (courtesy Baseball Reference):

      Frank Robinson (957) *
      Mickey Mantle (939) *
      Orlando Cepeda (929) *
      Al Kaline (924) *
      Jimmie Foxx (922) *
      Vada Pinson (922)
      Ted Williams (918) *
      Hank Aaron (917) *
      Ken Griffey (915)
      Tony Conigliaro (907)

      He’s really good.

      • snapcase8p 1 year ago

        The difference is that these guys produced throughout their whole career. Projecting is easy, doing is another. A good example is Hanley Ramirez. Hanley was an absolute beast and then all of a sudden he was a shell of his former self. Yes he had a nice 1/2 season resurgence last year, but before that he was almost an afterthought to what used to be an elite performer. I think Trout is set up for the same type of decline. Trout may eventually etched in stone on your list, but IMO he is set up for more of a Hanley decline than people think he is.

        • RyanWKrol 1 year ago

          Hanley Ramirez does not have the amount of tools that Trout has, nor has he ever had the same admirable amount of discipline and maturity at a young age that Mike Trout does. The latter is not a knock on Hanley, it’s just another example of how much better of a player Trout is.

          • Comfy_Wastelander 1 year ago

            Agreed.

            Also, I don’t see Hanley as a great comp to make in criticism of the proposed deal. He was really good throughout his age 26 season and then got hurt (and probably depressed from being a Marlin for so long). Basically, he was good to great throughout the ages that would be covered by the proposed Trout deal.

            I’m not sure that Hanley is a good comp to Trout overall, but he certainly isn’t a cautionary tale against signing players through age 27.

          • Maxxx Depth 1 year ago

            Trout is the absolute Epitome of 5 tool. I hope he can sustain this kind of production for years. The only guy i watched growing up in the 90’s that i compare to Trout is Griffey…obviously Trout with a much higher ceiling.

      • snapcase8p 1 year ago

        The difference is that these guys produced throughout their whole career. Projecting is easy, doing is another. A good example is Hanley Ramirez. Hanley was an absolute beast and then all of a sudden he was a shell of his former self. Yes he had a nice 1/2 season resurgence last year, but before that he was almost an afterthought to what used to be an elite performer. I think Trout is set up for the same type of decline. Trout may eventually etched in stone on your list, but IMO he is set up for more of a Hanley decline than people think he is.

      • RyanWKrol 1 year ago

        According to OPS+, the only player I’ve found that adds up over their first 2 full seasons is Willie Mays. I need to keep searching though. I can’t remember if I looked up Hank Aaron yet.

        • Comfy_Wastelander 1 year ago

          I’d be interested to see if anyone was ever this good this young and DIDN’T go on to have a great career. Conigliaro was the only guy I could come up with, but I don’t think a career-ending freak injury should count. It doesn’t mean that the guy suddenly fell off or the league “figured him out”.

    • RyanWKrol 1 year ago

      Every star athlete has the possibility of regressing or getting injuries. But what evidence do you have that Trout has reached his ceiling. If not for his negative WAR on defense, he would’ve been a 12 WAR player. That’s astronomical. So, there’s the first bit of proof right there that he has yet to hit his ceiling.

      How about some more?

      His career high BA is .326. The best player in the game (all time at his age) is going to hit higher than that very soon. Probably much higher. Wade Boggs and Tony Gwynn weren’t as good at this stage in their careers, and they were hitting around .350 in many seasons, and even flirted with .400.

      Mike Trout will likely challenge that very soon.

      There are great players in the past who reached a .500 OBP, even in eras with less offense, like today. Mike Trout is very likely to reach that soon.

      Mike Trout has not even stepped on the ladder to reach the ceiling yet. That’s another reason he’s the best in the game.

  38. armccallum 1 year ago

    Sound like a terrible deal for the Angels at 6 years 150million. He will make 600k this year and probably around 60 million in 3 years of arb (which crushes all the records but still vastly under pays him compared to 40/60/80 of market value). Angels have all the cards. Why would the Angels bare the risk of him getting injured or seriously regressing during the next 4 seasons just to lock him up for 2 additional years at $45 million per season? And even if they do care about locking him up to be the face of the fanchise more than getting a good deal then why let him become a FA at 28? This deal sucks for the Angels as it pays Trout as much he could possible get every year but does not lock him down during the middle of his prime. Negotiating with the four years of control left the Angels need to get either a noticeable discount on 2-3 free agency years or need to be able to lock him down through his prime at a fair per year price.

    • Comfy_Wastelander 1 year ago

      It does seem like an overpay, but I can see a devil’s advocate argument for the Angels’ side. By signing him through two FA seasons, they avoid the potentially ugly arbitration process with Trout entirely. This should keep player and team on good terms throughout at least the next 4 seasons. Additionally, they they would have him signed through his age 28 season – the historic peak age for hitters. So, peak years for the arguably the best player in the game for 6 years/$150 million – most teams would take that deal. As the deal winds down, they have the opportunity to extend him if they see fit. By that point, Hamilton and Wilson will be finishing up their deals and payroll should be available if they’d like to break the bank for Trout. If not, I’m sure they will received fair compensation via trade or whatever the future version of the qualifying offer system is.

      tl;dr Great deal for Trout. Arguably good deal for the Angels.

    • Spit Ball 1 year ago

      It’s unprecedented but I do not see it as an overpay. Wait till he hits his arbitration years. If he has another year like his first two the prices are going to get absurd. He would easily set the record for a first time arbitration eligible player. I mean what could the Angels possibly say to drag his value down? I can’t think of anything.

    • RyanWKrol 1 year ago

      The Angels are getting a bargain. The amount of wins Trout provides (based on millions per win) is probably worth more than $50 million a year.

  39. Zak Arn 1 year ago

    Anytime I see these huge extensions, I can’t help but think of Ryan Howard bursting his Achillies in the playoffs..

    • RyanWKrol 1 year ago

      That’s just part of the game. Gotta keep moving forward no matter what. All long term contracts are a risk. Any player can have a career ending injury at any time. The possibility of being hit in the face by a comebacker never stopped me from taking the mound. Huge extensions will continue so that teams will have their young core in place for the future.

      • Zak Arn 1 year ago

        None of these players are worth the money in reality. I get the % of the earnings argument that’d come up in this debate. But at some point these contracts become too absurd/dead weight. Wells, Howard and ARod become unmoveable/almost unplayable. Play the arbitration game as long as you can, and then if he still is a 10+ WAR guy, work out that long extension, I need more than 2 years – he was better in 2012 than 2013. Injuries are part of the game, but I still would wait to extend him being that arbitration years will provide some discount even if he gets a 10 year near 300 MM deal it’d be better have 4 years of sample size. It’s great to extend a player if you’re getting some kind of a discount on his FA years, but there’s no discount to be had in this situation. The arb. process is there for a reason, play it out.

        • RyanWKrol 1 year ago

          Players often leave because of the arbitration process. This trend of locking up young players is part of the formula for long term success. During the free agency era, teams have had to scramble once a young star leaves. Locking them up for several years allows teams to focus on building around them. Working in the film industry during my lifetime, as well as having family and friends (some famous) in both the film and music industries, I can go on all day long with evidence to why organizations are paying players as much as they are. But I have yet to see sound evidence (data) that these players aren’t worth the money they’re making.

  40. dubinsky 1 year ago

    six years @ $150 makes no kind of sense for the team and it simply won’t happen. they have him for four years at little more than 1/3 of that sum and paying 90 mil or so for the two next years is nuts…….. either it has to be a longer contract or none at all.

  41. WhoKilledTheRallyMonkey 1 year ago

    Mike Trout is an amazing player, I will even watch an entire mediocre Angels season just to watch him play, but no player, not even Mike Trout, is worth 45 MM a year.

  42. RyanWKrol 1 year ago

    I forgot about that rule. So, if that is the case, then it’s a 6 year deal starting in 2015, and buys out 3 FA years. Right? I’m hearing (and not surprised) that Arte Moreno would rather have the extension count toward the tax in 2015 in part because Vernon Wells’ contract is still on the books for one more season in 2014.

    • northsfbay 1 year ago

      The deal goes from 2014 to 2019. PS I didn’t see the latest update. They can do a deal from 2015 to 2020.

      • RyanWKrol 1 year ago

        But they’re using Brett Gardner’s extension as an example. And his extension doesn’t kick in until next year, and is 2015 through 2018, with a 2019 club option. That’s another thing. I wonder if Trout’s extension will have an option. Perhaps a mutual option?

  43. WhoKilledTheRallyMonkey 1 year ago

    If this is to be a 6/150 contact that starts in 2015 then it make a lot more sense. It would buy out 3 FA years (not the 2 suggested), at about 30 MM per year, and allow Trout to hit the FA market at age 29. That is way more reasonable and realistic than giving Trout 45 MM per year for his FA years.

  44. VegasANGELSFan 1 year ago

    I think I speak for pretty much every Angels’ fan when I say, 6 years (2 free agent years) would be decent, but lets go ahead and sign the kid for 10+ years, and just pay him a ton of money. I am not usually of this mindset, but Trout is a special player, and only 2 free agent years is not enough. Just give him a contract in the range of 10 year and 250 million, and keep him around a bit longer, please.

  45. Maxxx Depth 1 year ago

    He needs to go to a winning team. Not one with a horrendous farm. Meaning, i don’t see him wanting a 10 year deal with the Angels because he sees the shape the Franchise is in.

    • northsfbay 1 year ago

      You have teams locking up players before they reach free agency now days. If a player gets injured or their performance declines, they get paid. Big Market teams will have to “gasp” develop their own players.

      • RyanWKrol 1 year ago

        There will always be players available on the market to help big market teams, especially when it comes to depth.

    • RyanWKrol 1 year ago

      Define winning team. The Angels have 10 winning seasons in their last 14, and 8 winning seasons in the last 10 years. Winnings teams are not defined by the state of their farm system, but by the success of their major league team. Any team having success at the major league level with young players from their farm can tank just as easily as the Angels did in 2013. The Red Sox won the World Series with mostly seasoned veterans. As far as the Angels’ system, they have so much control over their major league roster that it wouldn’t matter much even if they had a deep farm. Most positions are blocked. They’d still be trading prospects away, likely for the pitching that they need right now. Aside from all of that though, extending Mike Trout is part of the formula for building for future success any way.

      • Maxxx Depth 1 year ago

        Agreed for the most part, if Trout is the center piece going forward. I think they’ll reach a deal but that 50K raise they gave him is a slap in the face IMO.

  46. Matthew Augeri 1 year ago

    If it starts in ’15 then 150MM is very reasonable.

  47. northsfbay 1 year ago

    60 mil for Trout’s arbitration years and 30 mil a year for his free agent years is a good deal. The other deal would be an over pay. I wonder if Trout would agree to a 10 year 240 deal if he wants to stay with the Angels.

  48. Metsfan93 1 year ago

    On actual $/WAR, for 2014 based on his projection, it’s closer to 54 MM. He’s never going to touch that, but if Kershaw is already around 33 MM per year for FA years, Trout at 35-40 isn’t unrealistic, especially if he actually hits the open market after successful 2014-2017 campaigns…

  49. Metsfan93 1 year ago

    Even if you neutralize his baserunning and defense out to zero he still checks in at more than eighty runs above replacement last year. He was a 176 wRC+ centerfielder with durability, something that will not have eroded by the time he hits FA, if he doesn’t get extended. In fact, I don’t think that plus speed will have completely eroded by then. Regressed? Sure, speed and defense peak early. But we’re talking about a 26-year-old in all hypothetical FA AAV situations, not a 31-year-old.

  50. Metsfan93 1 year ago

    Fwiw, Oliver’s five-year projections have him putting up 51 WAR from 2014-2018. Albeit, that’s not worth too much, I just noticed it on his player page.

  51. True, his WAR should decline due to natural declines in speed and defense (plus defensive WAR is a pretty fickle stat year-to-year), but at age 26? Maybe at age 28; however, Trout is extremely athletic and I wouldn’t be surprised if he ages better than many others

  52. RyanWKrol 1 year ago

    In a way, we actually are seeing what it would be like on paper if Trout’s defense does decline. He had a negative WAR on defense in 2013, and still had a 9-10 WAR. Even at 0 WAR on defense he would’ve been close to a 12 WAR player. Unless something goes terribly wrong for Trout, It’s going to take a quite a decline over a lot of years for him to just be a 5-6 WAR player. I think he’ll settle as a 7-8 WAR player when he hits his thirties.

  53. snowbladerp14 1 year ago

    i guess you dont watch baseball

  54. Patrick 1 year ago

    I’m pretty sure this is sarcasm.

  55. Maxxx Depth 1 year ago

    ??? You’re comparing LA to Dallas???I hope y’all have more of a turnout. I’d love him in Texas trust me, but i see him going to Boston/New York, teams that contend year in and year out.

  56. Maxxx Depth 1 year ago

    and it’s not our fault we share the same parking lot with the Cowboys, who despite getting worn out every year…they still draw “Yankee Numbers” as far as fans go.

  57. Maxxx Depth 1 year ago

    Trout is special, so i understand every Angel fan wanting to lock him up for life…But if i was him, after getting a 50K raise for being rookie of the year, that would leave a sour taste in my mouth.

  58. Guest 1 year ago

    From your past comments you are either a Texas fan or a troll, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. My mistake

  59. RyanWKrol 1 year ago

    The Angels contend year in and year out, dude. Going all the way back to 1995 (after seven .500 or worse seasons in their previous 8 years).

    Going down the list: 1995, 1997, 1998, 2000 (actually led the WC in August), 2001 (before losing 19 of their final 21), 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012.

    That’s 15 of the last 20 seasons where the Angels contended, at least through August (’00, ’01). Not many teams can say that. Especially the Rangers!

  60. Maxxx Depth 1 year ago

    a troll by saying he would be smart to not spend his entire career in LA? a 5-6 year deal would work for both parties…and if he decides he doesn’t want to Re up, he’ll be the ripe old age of 27?

  61. RyanWKrol 1 year ago

    And that’s probably a good reason why you’re not a major leaguer. His salary was not really an issue. Just another media narrative that fans fall for. Every player knows the arbitration process. If it were really an issue, he wouldn’t be considering an extension with the Angels. And if he was carrying the issue, the Angels would probably think twice offering him such a big extension. Players who make a big issue out of things like that are the Raul Mondesi’s of MLB. Mike Trout has far more character in him to be making a petty issue out of his 2nd pre-arb salary.

  62. Maxxx Depth 1 year ago

    you’re missing the point. The Rally Monkey guy posted fan #’s…Really? when the population is more than double that of Dallas yet you have 4-5% better turnout at the games?? And i said nothing about the Angels of the past, if you don’t think they’re in a bind now then i don’t know what to tell ya. And the Rangers have been awful no denying that, but that haven’t been the past 5 years and definitely won’t be going forward. We finally have good owners and a good GM.

Leave a Reply