Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

Writer trying to make Trout look selfish.


gurn67

Recommended Posts

`

The writer is just pointing out the obvious and how his peers might feel about his contract.  I didn't sense any bitterness from the writer.

Wrong. He compares Trout to Ian Desmond and talks about what a wonderful guy Ian Desmond is for supposedly leaving money on the table.

 

Ian Desmond 28 years old career 9.6 WAR in 4+ seasons

Mike Trout 22 years old career 20.3 WAR in 2+ seasons.

 

Obviously, these two are comparable players.

Edited by gurn67
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We had that thread a couple days ago about how casual fans don't understand Trout's contract compared to a free agent contract like Cabrera's.  Apparently we need to include journalists in that category.  

 

Would most agree that we will probably be getting Trout for under market value for those free agent years we locked up?  Probably.  But that's the entire point of locking up a player while under club control.  To claim Trout has somehow damaged the market when his contract is the largest ever of its kind is a bit of a head-scratcher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong. He compares Trout to Ian Desmond and talks about what a wonderful guy Ian Desmond is for supposedly leaving money on the table.

 

Ian Desmond 28 years old career 9.6 WAR in 4+ seasons

Mike Trout 22 years old career 20.3 WAR in 2+ seasons.

 

Obviously, these two are comparable players.

It's all in the context of this "code" among the players how they view players that take hometown discounts.

 

"But the reason the deal rankled is that there’s a code in baseball, and that code involves not taking an under-market-value contract. Fans might laud Trout opting for personal financial security that also insures he’ll be with his original team for a while. Players, though, cringe, because one contract affects the next, and so on."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This guy has no idea what is he talking about, The salary for the 3 FA years is 33 MIL/year. Name me one other player that is going to demand that kind of money. 

 

Agreed. I don't see this like Weaver's deal at all. In Weaver's case he was close to free agency. Trout isn't. Trout's deal is fair for both sides. Angels get a slight discount compared to what Trout might in arbitration and free agency in exchange for taking on more risk (ie Trout might get hurt in the next four years). 

 

Also, even if Trout were to turn down the contract, go year to year then hit free agency as the best overall player in baseball, I doubt his contract would have blown away records for AAV. Precedent for record contracts has usually been to go with AAV only slightly higher than the previous record. Highest AAV for MLB players so far has been Kershaw and Cabrera at $31M. Angels are getting Trout's future free agent years at $33M. 

Edited by ScottLux
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sports Agents should be ecstatic about the Trout contract. He broke every $$ record for a 2 year player. Now agents don't have to wait til FA (or close to FA) to get the $130m+ AND get an even bigger contract when they are FA in their late 20's-early 30's. That will be 2 monster contracts for one payer's career.

 

I would also argue that the guaranteed $140m is more important to a 22 yr old than the "what if" $300m when they are 30. There is great comfort knowing your are filthy rich at such a young age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so, i'm to understand that no sportswriters on earth understand the arbitration process? they just compare mike to cabrera and think he took a below market deal. nevermind the fact that his 1 million dollar contract for this year is a record for any prearbitration  player ever, which is to say it sets a new pay standard for future great young players. perhaps that may ring familiar after they consider his 144 million dollar contract, which is also a record contract for any prearbitration player. i'm sure that contract will be brought up when some team is attempting to sign their own prearbitration allstar long term.

 

edit: mancini basically beat me to the point.

Edited by ukyah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think he could have gotten much more on a six year deal.  It was a record contract any way you look at it for a player with his service time.

 

Playing baseball for a living has perks, but these guys also don't get that many real choices.  They are somewhat stuck with whoever drafts them.  The better the player, the fewer choices you really have in free agency.  

 

Cracking on someone for making this decision is ridiculous.  It isn't like Mike Trout signed a 20 year, $250 million deal, or something else out of the norm.   The deal made sense for both sides.  That's why it got done.  

Edited by ScottT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

sure he could have gotten more.....if he waited and took the risk of a career threatening injury while playing year to year for the next four years until becoming a FA.  He'd have gotten about 60 mil from arb, and probably an AAV of 35-40mil in free agency. 

 

So I look at it this way - he probably paid 35-40 mil to off set the risk of getting a lot less than 145mil.  This isn't a under market deal.  This is pure risk management on both sides. 

 

The thing that will be interesting is what the market will look like when he hits free agency.  We are still seeing 'steroid era' contracts taking the big names thru age 40.  Over the next 7 years, I think we will see guys declining at age 34/35 as opposed to 38/39.  There is just so much money in the sport right now that it's going to get spent somewhere.  Even though the contracts are going to be long, the pujols, cano and cabrera deals really should be looked up as 6-7 year deal with deferred money. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all in the context of this "code" among the players how they view players that take hometown discounts.

 

"But the reason the deal rankled is that there’s a code in baseball, and that code involves not taking an under-market-value contract. Fans might laud Trout opting for personal financial security that also insures he’ll be with his original team for a while. Players, though, cringe, because one contract affects the next, and so on."

That paragraph suggests the writer either ignored or doesn't know how player salaries work. Trout is certainly worth more on the open market, but he wouldn't have hit the open market for a few more years. Therefore, the Angels paying Trout more than they are obligated to, but less than his open-market value, is effectively a long-term discount for the Angels and a huge insurance policy for Trout. I'm sure that 99% of players understand that and have no problem with Trout taking the contract. The Rays have built a great organization with that strategy, while also making several guys under 25 filthy rich.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...