It's that time of year again

[stormngt]

the only issue i have with pujols contract is that he got 10 years and trout only got 6.   this organization doesn't seem to have it's priorities straight.

I think the 6 year option was Trout's idea.  He has a second chance at a big FA payday.

[eaterfan]

I seem to recall that Trout wanted a longer deal and the Angels limited it.

But the situations aren't comparable. Trout had 3 years until FA and Pujols was a FA.

[Hollyw00d]

Trout won't be a free agent, he will re-up before his new contract is done.

I give it a 80% chance that doesn't happen.

Unless the Angels offer a 10 year 300+ million extension like cabrera's

[Stradling]

I give it a 80% chance that doesn't happen.

Unless the Angels offer a 10 year 300+ million extension like cabrera's

Well after they disrespected him by not paying him more his second year he was never going to sign long term here. I am confident if he continues to play like he has the Angels will pay him.

[NrM]

The last five years of Pujols will be #1 each year for that article.  

Miggy and Cano might give him some competition.

[Angel Oracle]

More Cabrera, being heavier makes it harder to maintain that level into your mid-late 30s.

Unless you are Big Poopy and doing it with help.

[Oz27]

For me the ultimate bad contract test is, if no trade clauses and other obstacles didn't exist, who wouldn't you trade Albert/Josh for of the players mentioned. That can actually get a little complex, because while Albert Pujols is a much better player than Ryan Howard, would you trade Pujols for Howard (in fantasyland) to be rid of your problem much quicker? I probably wouldn't, even though the reality is Pujols one day is going to be what Howard is now.

 

Of that top 10, there's probably only one I'd definitely swap for Pujols straight up and that's Ethier, since he's not a terrible player and the dollars and years left aren't that high. But as for the others, I'm not sure there's anyone else I'd take even if it meant being free of the Pujols contract. Looking at it that way, the number six ranking might actually be a little harsh on Albert.

[Guest]

Trout wasn't going to sign a 10-year contract.  He's still really young and by signing a 6 year deal, he can become a free agent again when he's 29 and then go for the 10-year, $300MM+ contract at that time.  In the long run, Trout will get more money doing it this way rather than signing a 10-year deal now and becoming a free agent in his 30's when teams are reluctant to give up long deals worth tons of money.

Trout's agent basically offered the Angels two options: a 6 year deal, or a 13 year deal (simialr to what Stanton ended up doing). With a 6 year deal Trout completes the deal and is still young eonugh to get another full blown free agent contract. With a 13 year deal it's basically the same as the Angels pre-committing to a 7 year free agent deal after the completion of the first 6.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

Trout's agent basically offered the Angels two options: a 6 year deal, or a 13 year deal (simialr to what Stanton ended up doing). With a 6 year deal Trout completes the deal and is still young eonugh to get another full blown free agent contract. With a 13 year deal it's basically the same as the Angels pre-committing to a 7 year free agent deal after the completion of the first 6.

 

A lot can happen in 13 years. I believe that the Angels were wise not to commit to it, regardless of the player.

[Blarg]

For me the ultimate bad contract test is, if no trade clauses and other obstacles didn't exist, who wouldn't you trade Albert/Josh for of the players mentioned. That can actually get a little complex, because while Albert Pujols is a much better player than Ryan Howard, would you trade Pujols for Howard (in fantasyland) to be rid of your problem much quicker? I probably wouldn't, even though the reality is Pujols one day is going to be what Howard is now.

 

Of that top 10, there's probably only one I'd definitely swap for Pujols straight up and that's Ethier, since he's not a terrible player and the dollars and years left aren't that high. But as for the others, I'm not sure there's anyone else I'd take even if it meant being free of the Pujols contract. Looking at it that way, the number six ranking might actually be a little harsh on Albert.

 

Currently Pujols isn't a problem while Howard is.

[JarsOfClay]

Trout wasn't going to sign a 10-year contract.  He's still really young and by signing a 6 year deal, he can become a free agent again when he's 29 and then go for the 10-year, $300MM+ contract at that time.  In the long run, Trout will get more money doing it this way rather than signing a 10-year deal now and becoming a free agent in his 30's when teams are reluctant to give up long deals worth tons of money.

 

that is not true.  trout said  he was willing to go for a lifetime contract in the 10-12 year range.  the team wanted 7 years, so they went with 6 instead so he can be a free agent at 29 and get a big deal possibly elsewhere.

[tdawg87]

that is not true.  trout said  he was willing to go for a lifetime contract in the 10-12 year range.  the team wanted 7 years, so they went with 6 instead so he can be a free agent at 29 and get a big deal possibly elsewhere.

 

I think his agent stated that a lifetime contract was on the table but the Angels balked at it. Not sure how true that is but they ultimately came to the 6 year deal.

 

If true, I'm not really sure what to think about it. I understand not wanting to give 12+ years to any player, especially considering the amount of money involved. However, they gave Pujols 10 years as a 32 year old so I'm a bit perplexed. You have what may end up being the greatest player to ever put on your uniform willing to stay in said uniform for pretty much his whole career, with his best years likely ahead of him, and you are against it. Yet you have no problems giving a 32 year old who never played a single game in your uniform the largest contract ever in the organization's history.

 

I'll just assume that we don't know all the facts and his agent could be full of it. But from that one perspective, it's a little odd.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

I think his agent stated that a lifetime contract was on the table but the Angels balked at it. Not sure how true that is but they ultimately came to the 6 year deal.

 

If true, I'm not really sure what to think about it. I understand not wanting to give 12+ years to any player, especially considering the amount of money involved. However, they gave Pujols 10 years as a 32 year old so I'm a bit perplexed. You have what may end up being the greatest player to ever put on your uniform willing to stay in said uniform for pretty much his whole career, with his best years likely ahead of him, and you are against it. Yet you have no problems giving a 32 year old who never played a single game in your uniform the largest contract ever in the organization's history.

 

I'll just assume that we don't know all the facts and his agent could be full of it. But from that one perspective, it's a little odd.

 

My guess is that Pujols' contract made such a deal for Trout implausible. To have two players under contract for ten years or more is a lot of money to commit for a long time for a big unknown. Since baseball contracts are fully guaranteed (unlike those in the NFL, NBA and NHL), it is a tremendous risk to an MLB club.

 

IMO the Angels have come to understand that the length of Pujols' deal was a gigantic mistake, but once it was done that was it. The only thing you can do is avoid making the same mistake twice.

Edited February 9, 2015 by Vegas Halo Fan