Nobody ever acknowledges risk in Trout age 35+?

[Dtwncbad]

First of all he is the best thing to ever happen to this franchise period.

But it seems close to 100% of the emotional stance on Trout is about keeping him here for his whole career.

That's fine.  My first choice is he is here til he retires and keeps putting up sick numbers.

But are we all really convinced Trout will be worth the money past age 34ish?

History says we really should be realistic and accept that he may not age as perfectly as we hope he will.

Do we have our eyes open that a 10+ years contract for Trout when he hiys free agency may deliver the goods for the first half of the years and then not perform?

I don't CHOOSE to manage it for the Angels to lose Trout but I am open to the idea of fiscal discipline if another team goes completely haywire and starts throwing around numbers that scream albatross on the back half.

I dont think the Cardinals are unhappy that Pujols isn't there I guess is my point.

Now please please don't anybody start yapping at me about wanting to trade Trout or not appreciating him or whatever.

I am just noticing I literally never hear anyone even acknowledge the potential downside of some basically lifetime contract with Trout.

[halomatt]

I’d extend him for the next ten years right now. Get him to his age 36 season and everyone wins. If he hasn’t fallen off a cliff by then but still wants to stay I’d go year-to-year if he’d take that. 

[Second Base]

Is this because he's fat?

[KDWells]

Only having one team listed on his plaque in Cooperstown would be worth any potentially poor seasons on the back-end of his career. He'd be so beloved at that point anyways it probably wouldn't matter what his actual performance was at the time for most fans.

[Mark68]

Give him ten more years + 10 more for "personal services".

[JustATroutFan]

Boy, it will feel like the world is ending if Trout has one of those seasons like Salmon had in 2001.

[AngelsLakersFan]

This is why I say we need to go in heavily on the next 3 years where he is under contract at a reasonable AAV. Once those 3 years are up, even if he is still putting up 7+ war seasons consistently he will be playing on a market rate contract and not providing all that much, if any, surplus value.

[UndertheHalo]

2 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

This is why I say we need to go in heavily on the next year years where he is under contract at a reasonable AAV. Once those 3 years are up, even if he is still putting up 7+ war seasons consistently he will be playing on a market rate contract and not providing all that much, if any, surplus value.

Also it clears up what the situation with him is going forward.  Knowing that we’ll need to deal with his contract has to be a consideration for just about everything the Angels do.  The sooner it’s dealt with the better.  The Angels have to know this.  Right ?

[Blarg]

Why are we worrying about Trout ten years from now? 

[Dtwncbad]

2 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Why are we worrying about Trout ten years from now? 

The concern is the decision in 3 years.  If this team isn't planning and considering all options and possible outcomes on Trout just 3 yrs away, decisions that will impact the team for another decade, then they would be fully failing at their jobs.

So if it's in the scope of reasonable planning, it is in the scope of fan discussion. 

[ten ocho recon scout]

2 hours ago, Mark68 said:

Give him ten more years + 10 more for "personal services".

Most here would gladly personally service him for ten years.

[tdawg87]

Priority 1: extend Trout

Priority 2. Surround Trout with a winning team.

Priority 3. Worry about his last few years.

[VariousCrap]

The Angels have never had a legendary player that came up in their system and stayed with them their entire career.  I'm willing to put up with Trout's "older years" production if it means they have him for his entire career.

[stormngt]

4 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

First of all he is the best thing to ever happen to this franchise period.

But it seems close to 100% of the emotional stance on Trout is about keeping him here for his whole career.

That's fine.  My first choice is he is here til he retires and keeps putting up sick numbers.

But are we all really convinced Trout will be worth the money past age 34ish?

History says we really should be realistic and accept that he may not age as perfectly as we hope he will.

Do we have our eyes open that a 10+ years contract for Trout when he hiys free agency may deliver the goods for the first half of the years and then not perform?

I don't CHOOSE to manage it for the Angels to lose Trout but I am open to the idea of fiscal discipline if another team goes completely haywire and starts throwing around numbers that scream albatross on the back half.

I dont think the Cardinals are unhappy that Pujols isn't there I guess is my point.

Now please please don't anybody start yapping at me about wanting to trade Trout or not appreciating him or whatever.

I am just noticing I literally never hear anyone even acknowledge the potential downside of some basically lifetime contract with Trout.

No one is going to offer Trout a dime to compete with us.  We have exclusive negotiating rights until he files for free agency.  If he doesn't sign an extension he would be signaling he is moving from the Angels and we will trade him.  

 

That said I have no problem paying Trout through his declining years if he continues to dominate through his productive years.

[Tank]

4 hours ago, Mark68 said:

Give him ten more years + 10 more for "personal services".

nah, that's been done to death.

[Tank]

the "what happens to trout in ten years" guy.

[nando714]

Trout at age 35?

That’d be a New York Yankees issue to deal with . 

[IEAngelsfan]

1 hour ago, Tank said:

the "what happens to trout in ten years" guy.

Wrong thread.

[cez]

i'd take that "risk"

[Troll Daddy]

It would be painful to watch Trout in his declining years at $40 plus per season. 

 

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

11 minutes ago, Troll Daddy said:

It would be painful to watch Trout in his declining years at $40 plus per season. 

 

He will be the DH, A lot of players have preformed above average at 35+.

Yogi Berra @ 36 - .293/.360/.497.856

Mickey Mantle @ 36 - .237/.385/.398/.782

Stan Musial @ 41 - .330/.416/.508/.924

Willie Mays @ 41 - .267/.402/.446/.848

Hank Aaron @ 40 - .301/.402/.643/1.045

I'm sure there are plenty more, but don't feel like looking them up. Not everyone ages like Pujols.

 

[VariousCrap]

3 minutes ago, Ace-Of-Diamonds said:

He will be the DH, A lot of players have preformed above average at 35+.

Stan Musial @ 41 - .330/.416/.508/.924

 

Holy Crap!!!!!!!!

[Blarg]

4 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

The concern is the decision in 3 years. . 

And this is a concern now, because?

[maximus p]

7 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

 

 

I dont think the Cardinals are unhappy that Pujols isn't there I guess is my point.

 

Pujols was still worth it until his age 39 season...*wink wink

[Troll Daddy]

27 minutes ago, Ace-Of-Diamonds said:

He will be the DH, A lot of players have preformed above average at 35+.

Yogi Berra @ 36 - .293/.360/.497.856

Mickey Mantle @ 36 - .237/.385/.398/.782

Stan Musial @ 41 - .330/.416/.508/.924

Willie Mays @ 41 - .267/.402/.446/.848

Hank Aaron @ 40 - .301/.402/.643/1.045

I'm sure there are plenty more, but don't feel like looking them up. Not everyone ages like Pujols.

 

David Ortiz comes to mind