Angels, Trout discussing six-year, $140M deal

[Jimmag]

Like some said 6 years is good 7 would be better.

 

We do 6 six years and let him know this is not a catch and release contract.

[DB24]

Do it. Do it now!

[Inside Pitch]

No, it wouldn't. Because 8 of those years would be like Albert Pujol's contract and we all know how much you love that contract.

 

Troutatross!

[VariousCrap]

If this is the deal that happens, I will be very happy; however I'm really hoping they end up signing him for something like 7/175.  I just like the idea of the Angels having Trout for four years of free agency.  Then the Angels can sign him for his 30's as well. 

Edited February 27, 2014 by Jim B

[Brandon]

Did anyone actually say that?   Probably a a few.  I wasn't thrilled with the Angels' renewal. An increase more in line with most Rookies of the Year wouldn't have been much money in the grand scheme of things.  Their explanation was that they do that for all of their 0-3 players.  Their explanation for breaking that practice this year was that he's a special case, which is what people argued last year.  Why the change?  Because they want him to sign a long term deal. It may or may not matter, but it certainly doesn't hurt.  

 

Yes and more than a few.

 

It was embarassing then and is now. Much like Trout saying where he played affected him as it came out of his mouth and people still were arguing that it was't the case. Trout understood the system and process and even said "his time will come" but a lot of people here went nuts and acted like the sky was falling. But it's a moot point, some of the posts I remember have chimed in on these extension threads and just glossed over the knee jerk.

 

Next on the agenda is to eradicate the ridiculous notion of a 20 year contract.

[Hubs]

Pujols was in a similar situation, after 3 years of service when he managed 20.5 WAR over three seasons, won the ROY in 2001 at age 21, had two 2nd place MVP's and a fourth place MVP. He set the then-record for a third year player on a one year salary, at 900k, which had been matched by Ryan Howard, and then broke by Trout this week.

 

Right before his 24th birthday, the Cardinals signed him to a 7 year 100 Million dollar deal. It included an 8th year option. He was paid  7M in 2004, 11M in 2005, 14M in 2006, 15M in 2007, and 16M in 2008-2010. The option was also at 16M with a 5M buyout.

 

Eleven years later, as the Angels are in a very similar situation, a 7 year deal which is 60-70% higher would probably be very fair. The Cardinals deferred money, but the Angels don't usually do that. 

 

If they did 7 years at 170 with an 8th year option, we are probably looking at say a 5M signing bonus, 10M in 2015, 15M in 2016, 20M, 25M, 28M, 30M, 32M. 35M option for 8th year with a 5M buyout. It would be worth 200M over 8 if they exercised the option.

 

If it's 6 years at 140-ish million, then basically delete year 5 at 30M, so 5M signing bonus, then 10/15/20/25/28/32. Add a 7th year option at 35M with a 5M buyout. Then it's 7/175 which beats Posey's guarantee.

[fan_since79]

I like the sound of 7/170.

[Docwaukee]

If Trout is against that 7th year and the halos really want it, just make it a very expensive club option year.  Like 40mil with a 10mil buyout.  Or a player option that says he gets 1mil over the highest AAV for any other contract. 

 

Even though it's every player's right to pursue free agency, I feel like the perception of a player changes if they chase the big payday to another team after being with one their entire career before that.  So it will be interesting to see how this plays out, but in the meantime, I will be very happy to get him locked up for any extended period he would accept. 

[Thomas]

If Trout is against that 7th year and the halos really want it, just make it a very expensive club option year.  Like 40mil with a 10mil buyout.  Or a player option that says he gets 1mil over the highest AAV for any other contract. 

 

Even though it's every player's right to pursue free agency, I feel like the perception of a player changes if they chase the big payday to another team after being with one their entire career before that.  So it will be interesting to see how this plays out, but in the meantime, I will be very happy to get him locked up for any extended period he would accept. 

 

I was wondering about a 7th year club option too. With the way the luxury tax works could they even get away with a conditional value contract?  How would you determine the AAV of a contract if the last year is an unknown? Or do they even take option years into account when determining that?

[gotbeer]

I was wondering about a 7th year club option too. With the way the luxury tax works could they even get away with a conditional value contract?  How would you determine the AAV of a contract if the last year is an unknown? Or do they even take option years into account when determining that?

 

They do, but usually for CBT purposes, it's a wash year.  They only take guaranteed contracts, so an option isn't considered a guaranteed contract year.  

[Catwhoshatinthehat]

I think a 6 year deal buying 3 FA years is just fine.  I understand as fans why people are saying it would be great to sign him for 10+ years but that's just begging for trouble with a guaranteed contract.  A 6 year deal starting in 2015 keeps Trout in an Angels uniform for most of his prime years age wise.  If he plays anything like he has the last 2 years over the next 7 (this year + 6 year contract) the Angels would have a great shot at getting someone into the hall with their cap.  

[Jeff Fletcher]

For team options the buyout is guaranteed so that counts toward the value and AAV

[gotbeer]

For team options the buyout is guaranteed so that counts toward the value and AAV

 

CBT purposes, I don't think a team option counts.  Page 106, 5 a i of the CBA.

[GregAlso]

CBT purposes, I don't think a team option counts. Page 106, 5 a i of the CBA.

The option doesn't count but the buyout portion does, because the buyout is guaranteed money.

[GregAlso]

Sabermetrics don't account for a player's draw. Jeter hasn't been worth his contract by saber standards, but as a business it has worked well for the Yanks. There is an added value when an established star represents a team.

The research tends to show that two of the issues when big long term deals go bad are these: wrong side of 30 & branding over baseball. It doesn't mean they are guaranteed to go bad just the research tends to show. The branding over baseball is clear in Aroids contract with Texas when he left Seattle.

[tdawg87]

Yes and more than a few.

 

It was embarassing then and is now. Much like Trout saying where he played affected him as it came out of his mouth and people still were arguing that it was't the case. Trout understood the system and process and even said "his time will come" but a lot of people here went nuts and acted like the sky was falling. But it's a moot point, some of the posts I remember have chimed in on these extension threads and just glossed over the knee jerk.

 

Next on the agenda is to eradicate the ridiculous notion of a 20 year contract.

 

Keep fighting the good fight.

[Blarg]

CBT purposes, I don't think a team option counts. Page 106, 5 a i of the CBA.

So offer Trout a 3 year deal and 7 years of team options with a $1 million buyout. That will screw up the AAV calculations.

[gotbeer]

So offer Trout a 3 year deal and 7 years of team options with a $1 million buyout. That will screw up the AAV calculations.

 

Exactly.  That's why I don't think the buyout portion even counts towards the CBT.

[Jeff Fletcher]

So offer Trout a 3 year deal and 7 years of team options with a $1 million buyout. That will screw up the AAV calculations.

Lol if you can get Trout to accept that, good luck.

And the options would count after they're exercised, so it wouldn't really make much difference unless the option amount was a lot different than the other years.

For simplicity...

2 year, 22M deal

9m

11m

13m or 2m option

It counts as 11m AAV for first two years. If option is exercised, then it becomes a 3-33 deal, so it's still 11m AAV

[ten ocho recon scout]

The more I think about it, the more I realize how little time is actually spent being required to be where the team plays. It's slightly over half a year (April-September/October). Out of that time, half is spent traveling for away games.

yep. Ive mentioned that a few times on here. The area a team plays is about as relevant as what hotel you stay at in vegas. Youre only sleeping there.

Teams in nicer cities have an advantage, but not one that overrides money. And like it or not, though some will sign team friendly contracts, most want the most money (as you and I would)).

The window these guys have is a lot smaller than 'normal' people. These guys know they will likely be out of the game in their early 30's, with the better guys sticking around a few years after. So if a guys doesnt sign his FA contract until heslate 20's, thats gonna be the last one he signs. When thats the case, most (understandably) will want to get paid.

Im sure they all have team pride. And im sure they all have a preference to where they would love to play. But, first and foremost they are profesionals, and this is their job. Their goal (financially) is to make the most money to do what they want in the offseason, not the 6 months a year theyre 'home', especially when theyre only there for a week or so at a time (usually with no day off).

So when you consider that last part, the draw of any particular city lessens in importance. It might be nice to play in a really cool city, like seattle or new york or whatever, but if you dont have the time to go see it, its not a big deal. (The stadiums themselves might be though).

[ten ocho recon scout]

I dont know how ot would effect AAV, but I wonder if you could loophole things into a deal in terms of jersey sales (and stuff like that) in order to lower the on paper contract, but increase the money towards the player.

[Jeff Fletcher]

I dont know how ot would effect AAV, but I wonder if you could loophole things into a deal in terms of jersey sales (and stuff like that) in order to lower the on paper contract, but increase the money towards the player.

You can't give bonuses for stuff like jersey sales since that's all part of the marketing agreement with the union. And any other bonuses (awards, etc) get accounted for when they calculate the value at the end of the year.

[ScottT]

Yes and more than a few.

 

It was embarassing then and is now. Much like Trout saying where he played affected him as it came out of his mouth and people still were arguing that it was't the case. Trout understood the system and process and even said "his time will come" but a lot of people here went nuts and acted like the sky was falling. But it's a moot point, some of the posts I remember have chimed in on these extension threads and just glossed over the knee jerk.

 

Next on the agenda is to eradicate the ridiculous notion of a 20 year contract.

 

Focus on the extremes if you want, but plenty of people disliked how the Angels handled his contract last year and didn't think the sky was falling.  There was no reason not to give him a nice raise last year that was in line with what other top rookies have gotten in recent years.  If they thought it didn't matter, and Mike Trout would be cool with another raise like that, they wouldn't have given him $1 million this year.

Edited February 28, 2014 by ScottT

[ten ocho recon scout]

Gotcha. I wonder if arte may end up offering s pujols type thing to trout (assuming we sign him now) when he hits FA. Ie, a partnership agreement after he retires. Maybe give him a perxentage share of the team. By that time, if the stsdium renovation and local area development goes through, id imagine even like a 3 percent share would be huge income.

[fan_since79]

Trout will take over as manager when Scioscia retires in 2030.