Angels and Trout to discuss Multi year deal?

[maximus p]

The Angels failed to reach .500 in Trout's first full season.

In fact, Trout's first full season was the first ear since 2003 the team failed to win 80 games.

Seriously though. Offer him a massive 15-20 year deal. Lock him up to a historic contract.

Didn't they win 89 games in 2012?  Did I not get the joke?

[AngelsAndRamsFan]

Didn't they win 89 games in 2012?  Did I not get the joke?

Go back in read page 2 and 3. YOT is pulling a Lifetime.

[Taylor]

Trout did not accrue a full year of service time in 2012. It was thus not a full season.

 

Technically true.

[Season Over]

Trout did not accrue a full year of service time in 2012. It was thus not a full season.

2012 was his rookie year. Whether or not we consider it a "full season" doesn't matter.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

Without him, at best they are a .500 team....AT BEST.

 

Last year we were six games under with  him. Without him we're the Houston Astros, only with older players and bigger contracts.

[Blarg]

Technically the Angels played better in 2012 with Trout as a part time player than in 2013 when he played the entire season. That should be taken into account in any contract discussion. Any questions please forward them to YoT.

[VariousCrap]

I'm happy with a 7-8 year deal after 2014, which takes him through to age 30/31 in last season of that deal.

Beware of including a player opt-out though.

 

 

 

Wouldn't it then make sense to give Trout a 10 year deal with an opt out after 7 or 8 years???

[Brent Maguire]

YoT is technically correct but he basically played a full season in 2012.

[VariousCrap]

IMO, the Angels should offer Trout 10/225 with an opt out after 8 years.

 

No more, no less.

[Taylor]

Since Trout played the entire summer of 2012, can't we technically say he played a whole season in 2012?

[Hollyw00d]

100 years, $2.5M per year.

oh man we'd be getting slammed by Dave Cameron III on fangraphs in 2074

[AngelsLakersFan]

Because it's an option.  They go into it in detail in the CBA.  But the gist was, options aren't considered guaranteed contracts.

 

I had read that player options count and team options do not. Opt outs are ambiguous but certainly its a player option. I'd like to know what specifically rules this out? 

[Jeff Fletcher]

Player options are guaranteed because the team has no control over whether it's paid so it's considered guaranteed. An opt out is just like a player option except the default is the opposite. A player option needs to be exercised for the player to stay. An opt out needs to be exercised for him to leave. Either way, it's out of the team's control so it has to guarantee the money.

Also, the buyout in a team option is guaranteed.

[AngelsLakersFan]

Player options are guaranteed because the team has no control over whether it's paid so it's considered guaranteed. An opt out is just like a player option except the default is the opposite. A player option needs to be exercised for the player to stay. An opt out needs to be exercised for him to leave. Either way, it's out of the team's control so it has to guarantee the money.

Also, the buyout in a team option is guaranteed.

 

This is my line of thinking as well, which would seem to imply that the years after the opt out clause would be counted towards the AAV as calculated in determining luxury tax liabilities. This is what I believe I have read s well.

 

So why then could we not make those post opt out seasons extremely low in salary? The team is still risking payment in the event of catastrophic injury.