The Angels Are Going To Screw Up Trout's Contract

[nando714]

http://deadspin.com/the-angels-are-going-to-screw-up-mike-trouts-contract-1529835325

[wopphil]

There is a huge difference between the contract buying out two years of free agency rather than three. I would agree that 6/150 starting now would be horrible, but 6/150 starting in 2015 is more palatable. And while i agree that a ten year deal would be optimal, I wouldn't surprise me in the least if Trout has made it clear that he won't consider a deal of that length.

[Ohtaniland]

Until I see the terms and conditions of the entire deal I would hold my opinion on this. If there's a player only opt out or no trade clause then we can cry foul.

[ScottT]

The Angels won't make a deal like that.

 

Ken Rosenthal â€@Ken_Rosenthal  8m

To repeat on Trout: Sources say #Angels’ goal is 7-year deal covering 2014-20. One pre-arb year, 3 arb years, 3 free-agent years. FA at 29.

 

. 

[ScottT]

Ken Rosenthal â€@Ken_Rosenthal  9m

Sources say #Angels want Trout deal in $150M-$160M range. Guesstimate of $150M breakdown: $1M (pre-arb), $12M, $15M, $20M, $32M, $34M, $36M.

[eligrba]

Dumb.  The article is written as though Trout has little say in contract length.  Why would anyone sign a longer contract at his age?

[Angel Oracle]

Seven years is reasonable, meaning first nine seasons at the least were spent here.

$160 million (including $10 million bonus) should work as well.

Starting a new deal at age 29 is still reasonable. 

Who knows, maybe the org will look good enough to him that he will want to stay.

By then, Pujols' contract has just one year to go. 

Edited February 25, 2014 by Angel Oracle

[tdawg87]

I didn't think the extension was ever going to be just 2 years of FA. I always thought the 6/150 was meant to start in 2015, giving them 3 extra years. The Angels want 7, which would give them 4.

 

Then again, all of this is speculation so for all we know it will be a 10 year deal.

[nando714]

7 yrs starting in 2015 would be perfect imo.

[bloodbrother]

Yeah all these writers talking about the rumored deal keep thinking that they are looking to cover only 2 of his FA years. I just can't envision that being the case when it's all said and done

 

They'll do a deal that covers at least 3 of his FA years

[Blarg]

Is it too soon to start the rumor that Trout is really 26 so the Angels would be letting him go when he is 33?

[Docwaukee]

This article reflects my sentiment about this deal as first reported.  Although I'd like the deal to be longer, the author doesn't even really consider that perhaps Trout is fairly insistent on the length of the deal. 

 

I think we can be assured of the fact that the halos aren't buying out two years of FA to the tune of 40+mil per.  7/150 would be fine.  8/180 would be better.  Hopefully an option year or two will be added. 

 

This deal would actually be pretty similar to pujols first contract starting with his first arb year.  Pujols was (at least) a year older at the time of his deal had an option. 

[fan_since79]

Seven years is reasonable, meaning first nine seasons at the least were spent here.

$160 million (including $10 million bonus) should work as well.

Starting a new deal at age 29 is still reasonable. 

Who knows, maybe the org will look good enough to him that he will want to stay.

By then, Pujols' contract has just one year to go. 

 

The best of both worlds for Trout.

 

He makes an insane amount of money and then gets to double down on the insanity at the peak years of his baseball life.

 

If I were him, I'd be warming up the fountain pens and asking "where do I sign?".

[laagamer]

Face it folks, when Trout hits FA he's out of here.

 

Probably to the Yankees. 

[fan_since79]

If we can keep him for seven more years, I don't care where he goes after that.

 

First things first. Worry about the other stuff later.

[Ohtaniland]

Face it folks, when Trout hits FA he's out of here.

 

Probably to the Yankees. 

No way! His girlfriend loves So Cal so he'll probably be a Dodger.

[Sherlock31]

Face it folks, when Trout hits FA he's out of here.

 

Probably to the Yankees. 

 

Actully he is a Phillies fan

[fan_since79]

Actually he is a Phillies fan

 

Yep.

 

Trout’s father recalled a story from a few years back when in the middle of the night, Jeff heard Mike scream from his room.

“Dad, 

we

 got 

Roy Halladay

!” Mike yelled. To which his Dad responded: “the Angels got Halladay?”

“No, the Phillies did!” Mike replied. “Son, you’re a member of the Angels. What’s with this 

we

?!”

 

That was in December 2009, six months after Trout was drafted by the Angels and had already played in Rookie and Low-A ball for the club.

 

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/09/27/mike-trout-still-a-phillies-fan/

[yk9001]

If we can keep him for seven more years, I don't care where he goes after that.

 

I'm with this guy.

 

Let someone else pay for the downside years, for once.

[Jim]

Trout’s father recalled a story from a few years back when in the middle of the night, Jeff heard Mike scream from his room.

 

“Dad, we got Roy Halladay!” Mike yelled. To which his Dad responded: “the Angels got Halladay?”

“No, the Phillies did!” Mike replied. “Son, you’re a member of the Angels. What’s with this we?!”

That was in December 2009, six months after Trout was drafted by the Angels and had already played in Rookie and Low-A ball for the club.

Yes, however, I would imagine the view from the MLB locker room is far different than the view from the seats as a fan, or even from a minor league bench. With all the considerations that go into making a decision as to what's best for Mike and his baseball legacy, the fact that he was a childhood fan I believe has little bearing on the direction he finally takes. Maybe his second signing might have more of a sentimental attachment, but I don't see his love for the Phillies having all that much weight when it comes to his current decision of which direction to take. Although, being on the east coast could very well be a significant factor, having many positives for him personally. And after all there are some good teams over there, no doubt willing to pay very well I’m sure.

 

Could be why Trout appears to be asking for terms not so beneficial to the Angels? Does he feel Arte won’t bend that far? Or does he just want to see how far Arte will bend?

 

I hope he stays, but it’s anybody’s guess at this point

[VariousCrap]

The Angels won't make a deal like that.

 

Ken Rosenthal â€@Ken_Rosenthal  8m

To repeat on Trout: Sources say #Angels’ goal is 7-year deal covering 2014-20. One pre-arb year, 3 arb years, 3 free-agent years. FA at 29.

 

. 

 

 

 

I'd be happy with this.  Then in 2020, the Angels can offer him some sort of 10 year deal.

[VariousCrap]

 

Ken Rosenthal â€@Ken_Rosenthal  9m

Sources say #Angels want Trout deal in $150M-$160M range. Guesstimate of $150M breakdown: $1M (pre-arb), $12M, $15M, $20M, $32M, $34M, $36M.

 

 

 

 

The Angels should just offer him 7/160 and get this thing done.

[wopphil]

The Angels should just offer him 7/160 and get this thing done.

 

Not saying I wouldn't do that, but even 7/160 is kind of high.  Assume he breaks all arbitration records and goes 15/20/25.  That means you would be paying him $100,000,000 for three free agency years (which would shatter all annual salary records). 

 

Again, not saying I wouldn't do that, because obviously if you can pay him $33 mil per year for only three years, as opposed to $33 mil for ten-plus years, then you are mitigating your risk.  But at the same time, it is still a ton of money to guarantee a guy who is four years from free agency.  And most likely, my arbitration figures are way too high.  If his actual numbers were closer to 13/18/22, then you would be paying him closer to $36,000,000 for each free agency year. 

[VariousCrap]

Ken wrote the Angels are wanting to sign him 7/150-160.  At that point, is it really a big difference between 7/150 and 7/160?

[Jim]

Ken wrote the Angels are wanting to sign him 7/150-160.  At that point, is it really a big difference between 7/150 and 7/160?

Is that starting in 2015?