Trout wanted a 13 year deal

[Angels]

You have a potential once-in-a-lifetime type talent who was willing to basically be an Angel for life (through age 36), and the Angels said no? Pretty dumb.

 

Yeah, every long-term contract comes with a big downside risk, but Trout is well worth the risk. He's a special player. By the time Trout's current deal expires with the Angels, Pujols will only have one more year left on his contract. Pujols would be the only one still under contract by the time Trout becomes a free agent in his current deal. And with salaries escalating and budgets getting bigger and bigger, there is no reason why they felt the risk wasn't worth the reward. Also, afraid of a potentially catastrophic injury? That's what insurance is for.

 

Just don't get this. 

[Stradling]

Yes but to insure a deal like this it is literally 50 cents on the dollar. So if it was a 13 year deal for $350 million it would be more like 13 year $525 million if you insure the entire sum. Also you can't wait till he's hurt to insure it.

[Angelsjunky]

It sounds like Trout wanted as many or as few years as possible, which makes sense. My guess is he said "12+ years or 4 years," and the Angels countered with 8-10, then they settled on 6.

 

Still, I would have given Trout 13.

 

Grady Sizemore was no where near as good as Trout.

 

That's not the point.

[jsnpritchett]

Yes but to insure a deal like this it is literally 50 cents on the dollar. So if it was a 13 year deal for $350 million it would be more like 13 year $525 million if you insure the entire sum. Also you can't wait till he's hurt to insure it.

 

Where are you getting your numbers?

 

http://metsmerizedonline.com/2013/02/understanding-the-business-of-baseball-insurance-on-player-contracts.html/

 

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20130811/PROFESSIONAL_SERVICES/308119973/a-rods-return-costs-Yankees

 

These articles mention premiums between 4-10%.

[Angels]

Yes but to insure a deal like this it is literally 50 cents on the dollar. So if it was a 13 year deal for $350 million it would be more like 13 year $525 million if you insure the entire sum. Also you can't wait till he's hurt to insure it.

 

Not quite true in regards to the amount you're talking about. And regardless of the $, insurance protects the Angels against catastrophic injury. Every team gets it to protect themselves. 

 

Also, what are players going to be making in 2020? How big will the cap limit be by then? Hell, look at what marginal players are making nowadays. What are they going to be making well into the future? What Trout would've/could've gotten this year could end up looking like peanuts not too far from now.

 

Once Trout becomes a free agent and if he stays productive and healthy, he is going to absolutely DWARF what he could've gotten from the Angels @ a 13-year deal. Oh well.

Edited April 18, 2014 by Angels

[Stradling]

I remembering hearing the Yankees and Angels talking about it being 50 cents on the dollar. It could have been with specific players I guess.

[Docwaukee]

Trout wanted 4 years or 13 years.  

 

The halos wanted something in the middle.  The article even says they preferred longer than 6.  

 

It sound like Trout is the one that didn't want the tweener.  He either wanted a contract that would allow for him to be a FA at a young age or one that basically ate his entire FA career.  

 

Doesn't sound like the halos were given the option of discussing something in between.  

[Stradling]

It still comes down to I don't care what he gets paid as long as it is the Angels writing the check. I'll just enjoy the next 7 years.

[Brandon]

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.

 

It explains it in the article and makes total sense.

 

Trout wants to secure a long term 13 year deal where he and generations after are set or he wants to hit FA as soon as possible and sign the 10-13 year deal for similar. The Angels have no problem locking him up, but 13 years is way too much for two years of service and they didn't wnat to lose Trout as soon as he hit FA.

 

The deal was a good compromise and I think a fantastic deal for the club. Too many variables where his contract can easily be terrible at 13 years plus you are also adding in decline years.

[Docwaukee]

those additional 6 years would have had an AAV of 35-40mi.  which is just so much to commit to a single player that far in advance.

 

I can't blame them for not going that long, but I do agree that they are going to regret it.  

 

They are either going to let the most important player in franchise history go, or pay him 40-50 mil per year thru the age of 40.

 

Hopefully, about halfway thru this deal they will starting talking about another extension that tacks on 6-7 years.  It's gonna cost them though.   

[Blarg]

13 years for an athelete is absurd.

[Brandon]

those additional 6 years would have had an AAV of 35-40mi.  which is just so much to commit to a single player that far in advance.

 

I can't blame them for not going that long, but I do agree that they are going to regret it.  

 

They are either going to let the most important player in franchise history go, or pay him 40-50 mil per year thru the age of 40.

 

Hopefully, about halfway thru this deal they will starting talking about another extension that tacks on 6-7 years.  It's gonna cost them though.   

 

I disagree on the regret portion.

 

Either they extend him with a hit, but one that would have been deserved, or they battle it out with the Yankees, etc. which would also be deserved if he performs.

 

The key is that if the Angels are in any regret mindset that means this total of 7 year extension was worth it and worked in their favor.

[Dave Saltzer]

Am I the only one thinking that there are two pieces of good news in this article? First, Trout is happy her. If he were unhappy, he would not have signed any extension with us. The fact that he wanted to extend longer says he's happy. So, in a few years when people post that he'll go to the Yankees because he's an east coast guy, we know that's just BS.

Second, the fact that he wanted a full no trade clause in the contract says that he really wants to make So. Cal. his home. He's the one who gets security with that clause. So, I can see him fully settling in here, making it even more likely that he will extend in the future.

As for all the stuff about him not getting the largest contract, I say blah, blah, blah. Year per year he is the highest paid for and comparing a longer deal for more money isn't the same. Make the contracts equal in length and he got a great deal, as did th Angels.

[wopphil]

I would have been stoked if they got him on a 13-year deal. 13/350 would have been a steal.

[Brandon]

I would be stoked if Subway picked up a portion of the 13 years.

[tomsred]

Not quite true in regards to the amount you're talking about. And regardless of the $, insurance protects the Angels against catastrophic injury. Every team gets it to protect themselves. 

 

Also, what are players going to be making in 2020? How big will the cap limit be by then? Hell, look at what marginal players are making nowadays. What are they going to be making well into the future? What Trout would've/could've gotten this year could end up looking like peanuts not too far from now.

 

Once Trout becomes a free agent and if he stays productive and healthy, he is going to absolutely DWARF what he could've gotten from the Angels @ a 13-year deal. Oh well.

 

For that matter what will the general economy be like in 13 years?

[HaloFan85]

I'd have no problem giving 13 yrs to a 22 yr old Trout if I was willing to give 10 yrs to a declining 32 yr old Pujols.  Throw in a player opt-out after 7 yrs and it works out for both sides.

 

Again, something isn't adding up.

[Jeff Fletcher]

A few comments on this...

1. A no trade clause doesn't necessarily mean you want to stay in your current city forever. It means you want to have control over where you go.

2. Why do so many people just assume that Mike Trout is going to be awesome forever? It's possible, but there are a lot of things that can happen over 13 years. There are a lot of things that can happen over the 7 he is signed for. It only takes one awkward dive to change everything. I think it would be insane for any team to guarantee a player 13 years for something like $350-400 million. The Angels did want to go to about 8 (9 including the one year in 2014), which itself is a lot of risk. But Trout obviously wanted to make sure he could get his second bite at the apple at an optimal age (29) to get the maximum deal, instead of 31.

[mp170.6]

You guys are crazy to offer Trout any more than 7 years. 

 

There's never been a 10-year deal in the history of MLB that has worked out.  13 years is just asinine. 

[Carlota Gonzalez]

You can tell who read the article and so didn't by the responses. It's entertaining reading the responses from the people who didn't read the article....

[Rochambeau]

We don't even have all the facts. What if he was asking for 13 years with a 7 year opt out? That would carry all the risk and minimize the upside from an Angels point of view.

[Sherlock31]

13 years.......that sounds more like a NHL deal

[YouthofToday]

13 years would have been nearly perfect. Sigh...