If Mike Trout hadn’t signed his six-year, $144.5MM extension with the Angels in March 2014, the superstar outfielder would’ve been a free agent this offseason. As CBSSports.com’s Mike Axisa writes, this would have led to the single biggest contract in sports history, let alone baseball history. Trout just turned 26 last August, and thus a long-term deal would’ve easily topped Giancarlo Stanton’s record 13-year, $325MM record pact with the Marlins. Axisa figures a Trout free agent deal would’ve landed well north of $500MM, with even a potential of $600MM in total earnings (in the event of a 14-year deal with bonuses and a buyout of an option year) if Trout didn’t exercise any of what probably would’ve been multiple opt-out clauses. The scenario makes for a fun “what-if” read for baseball fans, and certainly a sigh of relief for Angels fans in particular.
Here’s more from around the AL West…
- The Angels “extensively examined” Phillies second baseman Cesar Hernandez this season, Pedro Moura of the L.A. Times writes, and Hernandez figures to be on the Halos’ target list as the club looks to fill its longstanding hole at second base this winter. The two teams also briefly discussed Hernandez last offseason but the Angels balked at Philadelphia’s high asking price. If anything, that price tag will be even higher now, as Hernandez is coming off another strong campaign — .294/.373/.421 with nine homers and 15 steals over 511 plate appearances. Hernandez is projected by MLBTR to earn $4.7MM in 2018, the second of four arbitration-eligible years as a Super Two player.
- Beaumont native Jay Bruce would like to sign with one of his home-state teams (the Astros or Rangers), NJ Advance Media’s Abbey Mastracco writes. A return to the Mets is also a possibility, though Bruce’s top priority is to play for a contender. Bruce isn’t a perfect fit on either the Houston or Texas rosters, though the Astros could use another left-handed bat and the DH spot is opening up with Carlos Beltran’s likely departure. The Rangers could also have DH or right field at-bats open depending on where Shin-Soo Choo plays, or if the team wants to give top prospect Willie Calhoun a look. What doesn’t seem likely, however, is that either Texas club signs Bruce at his initial five-year, $80-$90MM asking price.
Trout was 23 and signed a 144 million dollar deal. Cant blame him for that. He will still get a massive payday when the time comes
144M is a massive payday. An injury could have ruined his career. It was the smart move.
Hey if the money is right there why not.
Can’t go out like Bo Jackson did
“An injury could have ruined his career.””
Why do MLB players get paid backwards?
Trout should be pulling down $50 million + a year now.
Most MLB players never get paid what they could have earned because they burn out before free agency., especially pitchers.
He’s the highest paid player for 2018 I believe, 33.25 m passes Kershaws 33 m
I think Greinke for the Dbacks is the highest paid ! Not for sure though!
Greinke is set to make 31 m
He wanted to sign a lifetime contract but Arte said no. The settled on the 6/144 – halosheaven.com/platform/amp/2017/6/22/15858024/ml…
I think Bruce wants to sign in Texas bc of no income tax.
The Astros will only be interested in a DH on a one year deal. He makes no sense for this team.
Not ideal, but he could fit in left if they get a good deal, plus play some dh.
Astros can have Bruce.
With Derek Fisher likely platooning in left field in 2018 with Marwin Gonzales, and Kyle Tucker likely up by 2019, I doubt the Astros will sign someone like Bruce who wants a long term deal. If the Astros sign an outfielder it will be someone like Cargo for a 1-year make good deal.
Have the Astros given up on Preston tucker ?
It seems. I liked him, but he’s a minus defender who doesn’t get on base enough. A solid replacement player, but that’s it apparently.
Unfortunately, yes. I would like to see him used as trade bait, but he has little to no value.
Dang. thanks for the response. I️ liked him he was solid in 2015 then 2016 he didn’t perform well. I️ kept looking to see if the Astros called him up but nothing then I️ thought something was off when he didn’t get called up for the 40 man rosters.
Not sure why I️ gets replaced with that symbol
It’s a bug iOS that was patched in 11.1.1, update your device and it should fix it.
Thank you
Preston Tucker hit 25 HRs in AAA in 2017 but only hit .250. He seems to have regressed in hitting for average…..this is a guy who consistently hit over .300 in the minors but now seems to be all about pull. So unless he rights himself he’s probably out of the picture. Kyle Tucker is one of their top prospects and also one of the top prospects in all of MLB, but he’ll also need to be more selective on his pitches as he climbs up the ladder.
Bruce should stay in Cleveland! That’s the best he’s done in years!
We have all seen terrific younger players derailed by injuries. Look at Grady Sizemore, who was injured at 26. Trout did the smart thing. He’s making $34M per year for his age 26-28 seasons, then becomes a free agent, where, if he continues at this level of production, he should be able to find a team or two interested in his services.
If he keeps playing at this level, Trout will find a team willing to give him more than $40 million AAV over 8+ years when he reaches FA. His deal will be larger in total $ than Stanton’s 13-year deal and larger than any deal including Harper and Machado’s in AAV. If he stays healthy and if he opts out after 2018, Kershaw could see a FA deal north of $40 million AAV.
You see so much criticism these days about signing guys to extensions. but this is an example of why teams do it. Trout has to be the best bargain in baseball by far. Had he been more seriously injured than he has been though, he would be cited as an example of why extensions are bad. There are no absolutes in baseball. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, and sometimes you’re just rained out.
Altuve
Altuve still will make $20M in the deal. A steal for the Astros, but at the time, life changing money for a young player.
Look at Villar. He just passed on 20M, and it looks like a terrible move on his part.
It looked that way for Segura too when he also turned down an extension with the Brewers. His numbers crashed, but he was able to rebuild his value with the Dbacks and get a nice payday with the Mariners. Maybe Villar rebuilds value too and one day will be glad he turned down the $20 Mil.. I respect a player who bets on himself.
Honest question: who cites early-career extensions as bad moves for teams? From what I can tell, they universally regarded as team-friendly
Unless the player has a significant injury. or their numbers fall off a cliff That’s the trade off–relative team friendly $$ vs. player security against injury or poor performance.
While the Astros did well with Altuve, there is another player that has been all but written off named Jon Singleton who was demoted to Double A this year. In the overall grand scheme the Altuve deal far outweighed any other bad deals, but the Astros are still on the hook for a guy that has no chance any more of sniffing the majors.
Even though it’s not much money… Jon Singleton.
The Giants believed in their young core and extended several players: Posey, Bumgarner, Crawford, Belt, and Pence, Each one seemed like a good move, and some were, like Posey and Bum, but it has limited their flexibility in trying to make the changes necessary to contend in 2018.
Teams with cheap ass fan bases like the cardinals do. I love the Cardinals but half the fan base here thinks kolten wongs and stephen piscottys contracts are outrageous. They are both getting paid between like 5-10 mill per year in mid 20s, have shown ability to be above average starters at their positions, but 1 bad year by each and fans are disgusted. Pisses me off they dont see the reward completely outweighs the risk of paying a guy like 5 million dollars.
A lot closer to $5 million! That’s cheap for what they get!
You might not want to mention this all to Josh Byrnes, whose own extensions to Luebke, Hundley and Maybin are the outliers that cost him his job
Allan Craig, Jon Singleton, Trevor Cahill and Jose Tabata just to name a few..
LAA Gets: Cesar Hernandez, Jake Thompson
PHI Gets: Andrew Heaney, Jesus Castillo, Jose Suarez
no way. We can get him without having to move heaney
Don’t want Heany. Jordon Adell or no deal.
Lol one of the top young second basemen in the MLB and an excellent leadoff hitter you think the Angels can get him for scraps? Keep dreaming.
Adell isn’t going anywhere. And bucketbrew, a lot more credible people then you have thrown out scenarios where the angels don’t give up heaney, so please.
I’d do that in a heartbeat and I like Heaney.
Hmm.. I don’t know. Heaney might be too much. Pitchers coming off TJ usually take about 2 years to get back to where they were. So I think he’s gonna have a big year.
No pitchers.
Cesar Hernandez is going for Jordon Adell or Keston Hiura.
The Phillies aren’t trying to clear a high priced aging veteran in Hernandez. I suspect they are looking for more than three fringy arms. Heaney is coming off TJS and was fringy even before that. He and two back 20 prospects is not going to pry Hernandez from the Phillies
Agreed…I’m not going to pretend that Hernandez is a super-hot commodity worthy of multiple top-tier prospects, but he has been impressively consistent over the past two years and teams have taken notice. Add in the bonus of years of team-friendly control and you can easily see how the Phillies could wait out and field a few decent offers. A win-win. You keep him as a solid table setter for the heart of the order or you trade him now when his value is pretty high. I’d be fine with either option. Kinda reminds me of the Giles situation two years ago in which the Phils would have been happy with keeping or trading the player. Bottom line–if the Phils don’t get a better offer than Heaney, probably best to wait it out a year anyway. Is Kingery really ready to take over that 2B job at this point anyway?
Yes, Kingery is ready.
Kingery __is__ the Phillies 2B in 2018.
What makes Hernandez a super hot commodity is that he’s averaged 3.8 fWAR the last two year. In 2017 he was 8th in fWAR among 2B. He’s also cheaper than Dee Gordon and has a brighter future than Ian Kinsler. What makes him not as hot is that there are few teams in the market for a 2B. When demand is low value is low. Unless the Phillies decide not to trade him. The Phillies are looking for a TOR starter and they could use Scott Kingery in such a deal.
No, if the Phillies were looking for a top of the rotation starter they would be after Shohei Ohtani.
Are you suggesting that there is another reason, a Japanese reason for the Phillies zero level of interest in Ohtani?
You constantly overlook the fact that of the little that is known about Otani’s interests we do know he wants to hit and pitch. So, an NL team doesn’t make much sense. Plus, you have no idea the Phillies level of interest plus because of the rules its not like they can just outbid everyone else. In fact there’s like 7 or 8 teams with more international cap space available than Philly. What exactly do you wish for them to do to get this guy?
He doesn’t want the Phillies to get him. He wants to complain about how the Phillies won’t get him.
Plus you overlook the fact that plus Hoskins is older than Ohtani, plus the Phillies can plus give Ohtani 550 PA as primarily a corner outfielder and plus give him a look as a starter on both five and six days rest plus use Ohtani out of the bullpen plus just give Ohtani the widest latitude of anyone in seeing where he truly fits in MLB as the Phillies plus won’t be trying to win anything plus the first pick in the plus MLB Draft in 2019.
Plus!!!!
Yes! Over
and over! It’s getting old fast!
Phillies get Jordon Adell
No Adell, no Cesar.
Phillies have bullpen assets that could go along with Cesar, but Adell is coming to the Phillies farm.
Milwaukee is on Line Two with Keston Hiura.
guarantee your wrong with the no adell, no cesar idea
The Angels want to give up and talk about a Trout trade instead?
It’s either, or.
Trout will be a Phillie soon. Might as well get a haul for him now. Arte won’t pay what it take to keep him and that could include s piece of ownership. In the meantime Trout should try to streamline as with all that weight he will have physical problems before his free agency time.
So many things wrong with this comment old ranger.1) Arte will absolutely pay mike trout. 2) Did you just suggest that in order to sign trout arte needs to give him a piece of the franchise?
Phillies don’t have bullpen assets we have 2 or 3 guys that showed promise towards the end of the year, I could see the phillies going after Skaggs and maybe a lower grade prospect, the phillies has a asking price that was too high for the angels last year now imagine since Cesar had a better year what the price will be
Why would the Phillies go after Skaggs? He’s had a 0.6 bWAR in each of the last two seasons. His fWAR was 0.7 and 0.9. He’s not any better than what the Phillies have and right now they have way so many guys like this that they’ll probably have to waive a guy like Zach Eflin and leave Jose Taveras and Brandon Leibrandt available to be drafted Rule 5.
The Phillies got very good years from Neris and Garcia while Morgan and Milner killed lefties. Ramos was great after his recall. They’re not desperate for players who aren’t established with several years of effectiveness.
The Angels have nothing the Phillies would want, other than Mike Trout. The only way I can see the Angels getting Hernandez would be if the Phillies want to unblock Scott Kingery and the Angels are the only team interested. Hernandez is a 3-4 WAR player and top lead off hitter and is just now entering arbitration.
$600m? 14 years? The only problem with such an enormous contract is that there’s just not enough teams to actually bid it up to that level at this point. Even the teams with virtually no practical limit on their spending know that these long term mega deals almost universally suck on the back end. The big teams only sign them because they have the resources to pay out legacy contracts on the DL and on the bench and still afford to have mildly useful players on the roster.
I can’t imagine anyone doing that. Most players aren’t productive after age 34-35 and you certainly can’t identify those that will at age 26. Teams regret these contracts almost every time.
I’ll grant that the teams that sign these deals know full well that the players are likely going to be run down at the end, so, in practice, they’re basically signing a huge 4-5 year deal with a crapload of deferred money. Any production they get out of the player in the later years of the contract is a nice bonus. The problem is, contracts like that really expose the fatal flaw in baseball’s financial system. Most teams flat out can’t absorb that kind of cost, but have to find a way to compete with teams that can. So, they rebuild and hope that all of their guys click at once before they get priced off the roster, and sometimes it works (Royals being the best example).
The other way to look at it is that the player that signed a backloaded, long-term deal had tremendous surplus value in the early years of that deal.
Just taking Stanton deal as an example:
In 2015 he earned $6.5 million and put up a 3.9 WAR worth about $32 million.
In 2016 he earned $9.0 million and put up a 1.8 WAR worth about $14.5 million
In 2017 he earned $14.5 million and put up a 6.9 WAR worth about $55 million
So far the Marlins have received about $70 million in surplus value. More than $100 million in value based on WAR for $30 million in salary.
Wherever he plays in 2018-2020, Stanton is projected to produce about 15 WAR or over $120 million in value. He is in his prime years and his average over the last 7 seasons is 4.5 WAR per season, so that number is entirely realistic. He is owed $77 million over that period. If he does so, he will provide his team a surplus value of more than $40 million.
By the time he can opt out Stanton will have provided his team(s) more than $110 million in surplus value.
The remaining portion of his contract after the opt-out is 7 years/$208 million. He would have to put up 3.0-3.5 WAR on average for the team to breakeven on those years alone. That assumes that the value of a point of WAR stays constant instead of the steady inflation we have seen.
Just for the sake of argument, let’s say he only is able to put up an average of 1.8 WAR for those 7 remaining years on his contract after the opt-out. That is the same WAR as in the worst season in his career so far. So a total of 12.6 WAR. The value of that in today’s dollars is more than $100 million.
If he stays with the Marlins then Stanton will have produced about $320 million in value and earned $325 million.
Things to keep in mind:
The value of a point of WAR has steadily increased in value. It’s a good bet it will continue to go up.
A dollar next year is worth less than a dollar today. A dollar in 10 years even less.
Salaries are going up. For 2018 Trout ($34 million), Greinke ($34 million), Kershaw ($33 million), Price, and Cabrera all have salaries of $30 million or more. Greinke has a $34 million AAV. Scherzer earns $42 million per season from 2019 to the end of his contract in 2021.
Harper and Machado are in line for $400 million deals after 2018. Trout will probably get an AAV of $42-45 million on an 8+ year deal when he is a FA following the 2020 season.
With salary inflation and the increasing value of each point of WAR, Stanton may look like a bargain by the end of his deal.
The idea that WAR translates to monetary value—and specifically how much—is greatly skewed. It is like an agent-driven idea used to drive up prices, much like the “Quality Start” stat is.
If one WAR is worth roughly $8M, then nearly every team in baseball received significant value in terms of their payrolls, and their players are greatly underpaid.
Only the White Sox and Tigers received negative value for their performance, while the Royals just about broke even. Every other team received significant surplus value based on the formula of 1 WAR=$8M.
For example, the Giants who went 64-98 produced a total team WAR of 27.8. Multiplied by 8, their payroll value should have been: $222M, but their actual payroll was $181M, a surplus value of $41M on a terrible team.
A middle of the road team, the Angels, went 78-84, produced a total WAR of 35.1, or $280M worth of value, but their payroll was just $166M, or $114M in surplus value.
Even good, high payroll teams benefitted. The Dogers, who won 104 games, and have recorded the highest payrolls in baseball history received $143M in surplus value (48 WAR worth $384M, yet a payroll of only $241M).
Overall baseball teams produced a combined WAR value of $7.804B (975.5WAR) with a payroll of $4.1B, or a surplus value of nearly $3.7B.
I doubt anyone would agree that baseball players are underpaid by almost half.
On top of which, the “$/WAR” calculation is based on several major considerations that people seem to forget.
1: The $/WAR number is based on what contracts were actually signed. In other words, it’s descriptive, not prescriptive: If the number really is $8MM/WAR, that’s because it’s what was paid, not because it’s how much it was worth.
2: That’s FA WAR. In other words, that’s how much it costs to sign someone that year to put up that much WAR. It doesn’t include those who are still on their rookie contracts (or contract extensions), because they almost always under-earn, and it also doesn’t count those who signed mega-deals 5 years ago, even if they’re still performing at an elite level, because their contracts are based on outdated information.
3: Outliers in performance always end up breaking that formula. Literal 1 WAR players don’t get $8MM contracts; literal 0 WAR players don’t play for free; literal -1 WAR players don’t pay their teams $8MM for the privilege of playing. By the same token, regardless of the fact that Kershaw averaged 7.6 WAR/season from 2013-2015, he was never going to be earning $50MM/year, even if he was a FA.
The thoroughly-replaceable and the ultra-elite both have salaries that regress away from what a hard-and-fast benchmark of FA$/WAR as calculated annually would indicate they’re worth. Even if we forget that their salaries are partially responsible for setting the FA$/WAR values.
So your saying it’s actually the median value?
Probably closer to median than mean most years, yeah.
Although the biggest thing to “throw off” the calculation is the fact that it’s based on first-contract-year numbers, and only for FAs. It breaks down quickly thereafter, and is even imperfect for that – let’s say a FA SP gets $120MM for 5 years. and had put up 4.5 WAR/season prior to that. Then, he goes down in ST and needs TJ surgery, and puts up literally zero WAR. His AAV of $24MM still impacts the median and mean, but is very different than someone who pitched all season and put up 0 WAR (i.e.: a bad pitcher).
$8.25 million this year. Whenever you hear or see the words “Surplus Value” it is based on WAR, typically fWAR.
As you said, it is what has already happened. FA players that signed for the 2017 season and beyond will earn $8.25 million for the WAR they put up in 2016.
The words surplus value refer to the player’s salary compared to the value of a point of WAR. That is where the term comes from.
Their salaries are wholely responsible for setting the $$/WAR value.
If you want to talk surplus value, you base it on the value of a point of WAR. While WAR differs slightly between FA and BR, its end result is the same. We can go through and do the same calculations using the value of a point of bWAR and find that in long term contracts the team receives tremendous surplus value at the beginning of the contract and pays for that on the back end, but since the dollar is worth less at the end of the deal than it was when the contract was signed, they typically get a neutral or positive surplus value. Teams are not stupid. They don’t sign these big deals to lose money or value. They just get most of the surplus value at the beginning.
The median value is the middle point between the high and the low number in the set. If 6.9 is the high and 1.8 is the low, median is halfway between those 2 or 4.35.
The mean or average is the sum of the numbers in the set divided by the number of numbers in the set.
6.9+1.8+3.9=12.6 then divide the sum by 3 and that equals 4.2.
The dollar value of WAR is based on the net AAV of a contract, not the first year.
Here is a great article on how its determined on Fangraphs.
fangraphs.com/blogs/the-recent-history-of-free-age…
One issue with the monster contracts is that seasons are episodic in nature, and so a great deal of meaning is lost in act of averaging. A player posting an 8.0 WAR one season and then a lost 0.1 WAR the next season most emphatically did not deliver the practical equivalent of two 4.0 WAR seasons. It’s mathematically true that that’s the average, but that number washes out all the meaning. His miserable year does not diminish the value his amazing year provided in that season, but his amazing season does nothing to alleviate his unproductive season. In the same vein a team winning 100 games one year and 60 the next is not the same as two 80 win seasons. Each season has to be viewed in isolation to a large degree, because each season is played in isolation. If we’re in, say, year 10 of a monster contract and the player is a shadow of their former self (as they usually are at that stage) there is absolutely no level of production in years 1-6 that helps the current team on the field offset it.
If we do take the long view and look at the overall value of the contract we have to acknowledge that not only are we stuck with an underperforming player – the payroll space they occupy has been shown time and time again to prevent (most) teams from being able to afford to fill that slot with a productive alternative player. The WAR you can no longer afford to put on the roster ends up being a hidden negative that one really has to factor in to the whole view of the contract.
On another note WAR itself is an abstraction that is meant to compare players doing different things to one another. It’s based on real things that happen on the field, but the actual end number that it produces doesn’t really have a great deal of intrinsic value. It’s meant for comparison. To assign hard dollar figures to WAR misses the point of the stat.
It’s a fun conversation, anyway.
You just explained why his monster year does average out his bad year. An 8 WAR year by definition means he added 8 wins in that year. His 0.1 WAR year means he added .1 wins that year. One year was surplus value, the other negative value. The bottom line is if a player did that every other year for 10 years he would still have provided 41 WAR which has a value in today’s $$$/WAR of $338.25 million. That is exactly why you don’t take a single year when talking about the value of a player’s long-term contract.
That’s not what I just explained. Google “tyranny of averages”. Looking at the contract as a whole is always going to be part of evaluating it, but it’s silly to say that “you don’t take a single year” and analyze it, as if there’s some cogent reason why we’d deliberately discard that context. Evaluating these contracts all about context. The goal isn’t to maintain the best dollars-to-wins ratio but to win the World Series, or at least take steps in that direction. We have to examine a signing in context with the team’s situation, and if you go year-by-year through the contract and find lots of gaping holes, it really does matter. Games aren’t played in a mathematical vacuum against imaginary replacement-level players. They’re played on Kentucky bluegrass ball fields situated on the surface of planet Earth. Teams are in different positions and sign players for different reasons. It’s only by examining the totality of the circumstances – the team’s situation and resources, the current construction of the roster, alternative signings or in-house options, and also that overall math of the deal – that we can decide whether it was a good or bad deal. That context is everything.
That aside, the other point I’m attempting to make: it’s asinine to assign a monetary figure to a point of WAR and then use that for anything other than an at-a-glance comparison of similarly situated players. It’s exceeding the limitations of the idea to take a valuation of what a contract was “actually” worth and then decide whether it was a good or bad deal by comparing it to what the real dollar figure on the contract is. Others have pointed out how preposterous the math becomes if one tries to extrapolate the logic behind it any further. The $/WAR figures are a tool for comparison, not some in-depth analysis of MLB finances.
Yea, these hypotheses for contracts are getting way out of hand. So far Stanton is the benchmark for highest overall potential value for the player. Two guys will shoot forward higher next free agency, but purport that contracts will inflate that large just exposes the author’s ignorance of general business and economics and devalue anything written to that of a schoolyard hyperbole.
If every player and every team existed in a vacuum we may see numbers go that high. But free agency is more like an auction than an appraisal. There are so many variables that affect the final figure. We can take for a given that Player X absolutely will at some point take what he feels is the best offer from one of 30 teams. Beyond that, each team’s financial situation varies. Teams weigh spending on FA with spending prospect capital in a trade. Teams have multiple FA players to consider. All of these things affect the final price one way or another All the player and his agent can really do is try to milk the process for all it’s worth – but for essentially every major FA, there’s a certainty that they will eventually take the best offer. Each factor can drive the price one way or another but there is a realistic limit somewhere where even the biggest money teams* will make their best offer and let the player take it or leave it.
* – Even the Dodgers might have a dollar amount they wouldn’t spend.
Contractually players and owners share in the revenue baseball earns. The revenue of MLB as a whole and the individual teams keeps going up each year. As long as it does, the players will be paid more and more. If at some point the revenue declines for a few years, then the players will not see the same increases in salary either for the individual superstars or for the group.
That is business 101.
if the angels get hernandez and then sign the moose… I’ll be pumped for the season. And as always, trust billy eppler.
Not big on Moose. Especially at the price he will inevitably get.
I am not big on moose either. I do love the toddfather although it seems unlikely
Unlikely the angels will be able to sign him
the moose isn’t perfect, but what options would you prefer? Frazier? pass. Only thing i’m hesitant about is the price plus the fact he got a QO. But i still think he could be worth it
Moustakas is a Scott Boras client, which means contract demands of 6 or more years and negotiations which go past New Years. Arte won’t play that game.
On top of that, Moustakas simply isn’t that good. He’s on display as a FA, but he isn’t in the same league as Machado, Arenado, Bregman, Sano and others. Most deals for him will be a massive overpay.
Yeah neither am I. Especially now that he has a QO with him. Pass
Trout and the Angels need to get that lifetime extension done in this offseason or it is going cost the Angels even more.
What benefit would their be for Trout to even engage in contract talks, let alone sign one? He’s already made more money than he can ever spend, and with next years free agent class projected to significantly drive up contracts, AND the fact that the Angels have been mediocre throughout his tenure, why would he?
In two years Trout can have his pick of any team in baseball, and will be able to pretty much write his own ticket in terms of money. Resigning with Anaheim prior to reaching free agency makes no sense on any level.
Laguna is beautiful.
Can’t imagine why Trout would ever want to leave there.
Then why isn’t he there in the offseason?
Must have mommy issues. He should just move the family out there.
The benefit for Trout could be huge. He has 3 more seasons before free agency. The Angels would pay him as the best player in the game. He could perform at a lower level or get hurt. Ryan Howard signed a new deal a couple of years before free agency and got hurt. Miguel Cabrera did the same and his performance declined. Yes, Trout’s younger but when you’re the best player in baseball there’s a lot to decline to.
The market dropped last season and it’s possible it could drop further subsequently. If Bryce Harper gets $400-$500 million that could benefit Trout, but he’d be negotiating with the Angels as if Harper already has a $400-$500 million deal. The Angels would be bidding against themselves and paying top of the market to do so. it’s what happened with the Marlins and Stanton.
If the Angels offered such a deal, Trout would be smart to take it.
Considering he already has enough money guaranteed to ensure that his great grandchildren will never have to work a day in their lives (assuming nobody goes completely off-the-rails foolish with it), it will likely all come down to what he finds most comfortable.
Sure, making $400MM would be awesome, but at some point the difference in salary becomes purely hypothetical. It’s nice to be able to say “I’m paid the most in history,” but if that’s not where you derive your personal value, then it’s not as important as being able to say that you’re doing what you love, where you want, and with people you respect. All of those things could be in Anaheim, but that’s the case regardless of what his future earnings look like.
The Rangers will take them all lol. They need all the help they can get
Can a team sign Trout to a massive deal in a way the Mets signed Bobby Bonilla, or the dodgers signed manny Ramirez, in which he signs a + 10yr deal at +400 mil with money going to him yrs after the contract ends?
Hard to believe Trout is just 26. What a career. Angels are wasting time, get busy building a team around Trout before he leaves town.
Bridwell plus 2 prospects for Hernandez?
The problem with a Hernandez to the Angels deal is that the Phillies have about 8-10 starting pitchers with big league experience who are like Parker Bridwell. They don’t need more back of the rotation guys. They need less actually because they can’t start all these guys at AAA and the Majors.
The Angels don’t match up well with what the Phillies do need. The only way the Angels get Hernandez is if the Phillies decide they need to clear the spot for Kingery and there isn’t much other interest.
How dem Iggles doing?
Go find a green board to chat on.
Not sure what the Angels have to be able to trade for a 4 win second baseman. Certainly most teams could beat any deal they propose unless the Angels are giving up big league starting pitching or Bedrosian
Jordon Adell will get the deal done. Perfect move for the Phillies.
Jordon Adell would require more than Hernandez in return. You act like Hernandez is one of the best second baseman in the majors. If that was the case, the Phillies wouldn’t be looking to trade him.
Mark Polishuk- you quoted Mike Axisa who suggests a Mike Trout free agent contract would beat Stanton’s 325 MM record contract making it the single biggest contract in Sports history, let alone baseball history. You are both forgetting Neymar’s recent contract from Barcelona to PSG. His 5 yr contract is worth $590MM! As much as MLB contracts are reaching astronomical figures MLB will never be able to compete with contracts of the Worlds most popular Sport- Football/Soccer. England’s Premier League alone signed a 4 yr TV contract worth $6.73 Billion. BILLION!!!