Trout wanted a 13 year deal

[MVTrout]

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/mike-trout-angels-ended-up-meeting-in-the-middle-on-monster-contract-041714

[gotbeer]

A lot can happen in 13 years.  I'd rather lock him for 6 and revisit an extension in 3-4.  

[AngelsFaninGA]

That would have been better. Get all of his good years and none of the post-35 bad years that whatever team signs him to his next contract will have to put up with. 

[Ohtaniland]

In before the Yankees told him not to.

[ELEVEN]

13 is bad luck

[arch stanton]

I would do 13 but I'd want a buy out option at 9 or 10.

[Make Angels Great Again]

Christ Jesus.

[Taylor]

The Angels gave Trout less than half of what he wanted? He's going to leave for sure.

[CanadianHalo]

I would do 13 but I'd want a buy out option at 9 or 10.

This.

Atleast it's nice to know he was open to the idea of spending his next 13 years playing for the Angels.

[nando714]

When will the 7 yr extension be signed already

[Chimi]

While having Trout for the next 13 years would be awesome, that is way too long to give any player. Especially if there wasn't an out for the team at some point in the later years.

[NJHalo]

Way too long, way too risky.

 

Take that money and extend Pujols and CJ Wilson

[Angels_Make_Me_Drink]

Should have given him at least 10

[Angels_Make_Me_Drink]

And I absolutely love how the article refers to $75 million as "ample security"

[Stradling]

I guess we know why he isn't stealing bases.

[red321]

I don't know...13 sounds risky but I'm not sure the Angels won't be regretting this. I imagine some of that stems from not wanting that huge AAV to be on the books. Currently it's at around 24 million starting next year. You add 30 million for another 6 years and the overall value of the contract hits the books at a much higher rate than the current contract at 7 years. Hmm...doing the math...350 million over 13 years is a 27 AAV. So, it actually isn't a huge bump. Yeah, I'm going to fall back in the camp that there's a good chance the Angels might regret this.

[19HALO71]

I would have only went to 13 years if there was a club option at years 7, 9 and 11. Or eliminate the "No trade" after year 7. Not enough protection for the organization based on what was in the story. Otherwise, I am happy with the current deal.

[MVTrout]

Only time will tell, if he turns into the next Grady Sizemore we will be glad we didn't sign him for 13 years.

[fan_since79]

I guess we know why he isn't stealing bases.

 

When he slid into 3rd base face-first the other day, my heart almost stopped.

[Make Angels Great Again]

Grady Sizemore was no where near as good as Trout.

[Jay]

Let's win a couple of WS and see where we're at.

[Stradling]

So basically instead of getting him for 13 years we will have to have him for 16 years after this, because at age 28 he will still get a ten year deal.

[MVTrout]

I expected that response, just using the example the article did.

[HaloFan85]

Why would they settle on 6 years if both parties wanted a longer deal?

 

Doesn't add up.  Someone is lying about how many years they wanted.

[Agalloch]

I'd have definitely done a 13 year deal when you consider he's gonna get a 10 year deal after this one's up. Plus 13 is my lucky number so I like to think it would've been a successful contract!