Why Trout would agree to an extension NOW.

[floplag]

5 minutes ago, WeatherWonk said:

So, conversely, if he doesnt sign now, by your way of reasoning, he ISNT truly serious about winning here?

I think Mike Trout will be serious about winning wherever he goes. It's just seriously less likely that the Angels will be a winning team between now and 2020. Beyond that, no one can predict  how our farmhands develop. 

Even in the near term, at the likely time that the Angels will pursue an extension (mid 2019), he wont know if Calhoun or Simmons will be part of the Angels future. He wont know if Ohtani will ever be an effective pitcher again. That's three of the top five players on the current Angel roster (Trout and Upton being the other two). Whether the Angels will be an over .500 team is very much up in the air. This doesnt even address our biggest bugaboos, starting and relief pitching.

But imagine the excitement of joining an organization with a boatload of young talent like the Yankees, Phillies, the Red Sox or the Braves. He would likely have chances at the playoffs for multiple years, before some of them become free agents.

I think it not likely, from a competitive perspective, that he returns. Our odds of being seriously competitive are not great.

in part , yes.   He has to know the impact he would have on potential signees.  I dont question his desire to win in any way, and i hope it will be as an Angel, but since we dont look to be that for the remainder of his deal, what does that leave?  
We have 2 choices right now as an org, re-tool or rebuild, the latter i suspect he wouldnt want any part of.  You wait till mid 19 to trade him you get 2 fringe prospects, you do it now you get a motherload.
You simply cant lose this man for nothing but a couple random fringe guys under any conceivable circumstances. 

[Stradling]

11 minutes ago, floplag said:

and how would 5 mil more affect our cap space?  whats would be left to improve the club?  
why are we even having this discussion it should be obvious, i think some of you are letting what you want cloud your logic. 

Logic says keep the best player in the league if it costs you $5 million more than you’re paying now.  

[Angel Oracle]

2 hours ago, VariousCrap said:

If I was the Angels, I'd offer him 10/380 with a player opt out option after five years.  If he declines it, you trade him.  Plain and simple.

 

 

 

I'd go more like 8 years/$320 million with a player opt out after 2 seasons.   He's more likely to sign that, plus by 2023 (season after opt out) they figure to have his replacement should he decide to opt out.   Plus, he would be 31 going on 32 in 2023, with 11+ Halos seasons played.   From a HOF standpoint, he would be a cinch to go in as a Halos player.  

[Troll Daddy]

16 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Logic says keep the best player in the league if it costs you $5 million more than you’re paying now.  

It’s really not about the $5M is it #years

[WeatherWonk]

I think Trout would get a lot more than two fringe prospects in mid 2019. A team trading for him would have him for a year and a half. It's not like a trade at the trading deadline in his final year.

In any event, I think we are a little more in agreement about the Trout Dilemma.

[Stradling]

1 minute ago, WeatherWonk said:

I think Trout would get a lot more than two fringe prospects in mid 2019. A team trading for him would have him for a year and a half. It's not like a trade at the trading deadline in his final year.

It is less about that as it is about what team actually has the pieces in house to trade to make it worth trading him?  Then matching that up with a team he would like to go to.  

[Stradling]

I have heard people on other message boards say they would rather have 3 $100 million players than one Mike Trout for $350 million.  My response to that is so you’d rather have three guys that get paid 10 years and $10 million a year than one Mike Trout?  They don’t get it.  

[WeatherWonk]

1 minute ago, Stradling said:

It is less about that as it is about what team actually has the pieces in house to trade to make it worth trading him?  Then matching that up with a team he would like to go to.  

So, the Angels decide that there is no deal worth trading Trout............and they flounder along at .500 for his final two years, and get nothing for the future?

I think they find a trading partner. They must, if he wont sign an extension.

[Stradling]

Just now, WeatherWonk said:

So, the Angels decide that there is no deal worth trading Trout............and they flounder along at .500 for his final two years, and get nothing for the future?

I think they find a trading partner. They must, if he wont sign an extension.

Or Billy can bet on himself.  He convinced Ohtani to sign here when he could have signed with any team.  

[Troll Daddy]

Teams are not likely to give up as much for him and his $70M price tag imo

[WeatherWonk]

2 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Or Billy can bet on himself.  He convinced Ohtani to sign here when he could have signed with any team.  

It's possible. The two unknowns are whether he feels a strong enough affinity towards someone in the Angels organization and whether there is a monetary figure that he simply can't refuse.  Those will have to outweigh all the attractions of some of these young, better East Coast teams, with respect to competitiveness and being closer to home.

 

[Angelsjunky]

Haven't read the whole thread so don't know if this has been said already, and I know it is a bit of a Debbie Downer, but I think if he doesn't sign this offseason--after Machado and Harper--then the chances of him remaining an Angel after 2020 drop substantially. I mean, maybe he doesn't sign because he wants to see how they do next year. Maybe he wants to clear his head from the death of his brother in law. 

Another possibility--perhaps even the most likely one--is that he does sign a 10+ year extension, but with an opt-out after 4 years. It is the best of both worlds for him: he gets to see if the Angels re-building effort succeeds, he gets $400++ million guaranteed (possibly half a billion), and he also gets the option to be a free agent while still in his prime (age 31 after 2022).

The Angels get four years of Trout guaranteed, which is better than two. Obviously we'd like more, but if Trout wants the opt out, he gets the opt out. Let's just hope it is after 4-5 years rather than 3.

[WeatherWonk]

5 minutes ago, Troll Daddy said:

Teams are not likely to give up as much for him and his $70M price tag imo

When has that ever stopped the Dodgers, the Red Sox and the Yankees? The Phillies can spend, too.

I still think the Braves are a sleeper club that might want Trout. 

[Docwaukee]

35 minutes ago, floplag said:

and how would 5 mil more affect our cap space?  whats would be left to improve the club?  
why are we even having this discussion it should be obvious, i think some of you are letting what you want cloud your logic. 

what?  

it's a bit more but you're saying there would be nothing left.  there's plenty left.  

it's also not just about the number but about what you get.  map out for me how you replace 10 WAR for less than $40 million dollars.  

let me put it this way.  Mike Trout's 8 WAR is greater than half of the entire offensive production of 15 teams.  

he could be paid 50 mil per year and he'd still be worth it.  

clouded logic?  you may want to check your own forecast.  

[Second Base]

I don't anticipate Trout signing an extension here. And that's ok, we all have to make our own decisions, and I won't think less of him for it. Example, in my own life, I didn't return to my hometown until I was ready to settle down, have a home, have a kids, career, etc... But now that I have, I'm grateful that I did. 

If Mike Trout decides he wants to be near home, and start a family, good for him. 

In the mean time, I'm glad Eppler has had the wherewithal to stack up a farm system full of upside OF's in case we need to replace Trout.

[eligrba]

I wouldn't consider signing an extension until after seeing what Eppler does this off-season.  Trout deserves better than playing with a bunch of "rebound potential" players.  Eppler needs to significantly upgrade at least three of the Angels most obvious needs (catcher, 1B, 3B, 2B starting pitching).  It is time for Arte to drop some serious coin and for Eppler to make some bold trades if they want Trout to consider an extension.

[Stradling]

2 minutes ago, eligrba said:

I wouldn't consider signing an extension until after seeing what Eppler does this off-season.  Trout deserves better than playing with a bunch of "rebound potential" players.  Eppler needs to significantly upgrade at least three of the Angels most obvious needs (catcher, 1B, 3B, 2B starting pitching).  It is time for Arte to drop some serious coin and for Eppler to make some bold trades if they want Trout to consider an extension.

Saying “a bunch of rebound potential players” without mentioning why those guys are signed or traded for is disingenuous.  These guys are holding these spots while we wait for the farm to develop.  They aren’t getting long term deals.

[Troll Daddy]

4 minutes ago, eligrba said:

I wouldn't consider signing an extension until after seeing what Eppler does this off-season.  Trout deserves better than playing with a bunch of "rebound potential" players.  Eppler needs to significantly upgrade at least three of the Angels most obvious needs (catcher, 1B, 3B, 2B starting pitching).  It is time for Arte to drop some serious coin and for Eppler to make some bold trades if they want Trout to consider an extension.

Trout’s getting exactly what he deserves ... lot of great players never won. You’re thoughts about the team are uncalled for imo. 

[tdawg87]

55 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

what?  

it's a bit more but you're saying there would be nothing left.  there's plenty left.  

it's also not just about the number but about what you get.  map out for me how you replace 10 WAR for less than $40 million dollars.  

let me put it this way.  Mike Trout's 8 WAR is greater than half of the entire offensive production of 15 teams.  

he could be paid 50 mil per year and he'd still be worth it.  

clouded logic?  you may want to check your own forecast.  

Stop picking on him.

[Troll Daddy]

58 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

what?  

it's a bit more but you're saying there would be nothing left.  there's plenty left.  

it's also not just about the number but about what you get.  map out for me how you replace 10 WAR for less than $40 million dollars.  

let me put it this way.  Mike Trout's 8 WAR is greater than half of the entire offensive production of 15 teams.  

he could be paid 50 mil per year and he'd still be worth it.  

clouded logic?  you may want to check your own forecast.  

Yea those 63 RBIs and 88 runs are priceless 

[Stradling]

2 minutes ago, Troll Daddy said:

Yea those 63 RBIs and 88 runs are priceless 

Try harder

[Troll Daddy]

2 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Try harder

I don’t need to ... facts are facts. Everyone knows here I not a fan of WAR. 

[Stradling]

Just now, Troll Daddy said:

I don’t need to ... facts are facts

I agree, you are a troll.  

[Troll Daddy]

Just now, Stradling said:

I agree, you are a troll.  

Is that all you got ok

[Angelsjunky]

Trout's true talent level is about 10 WAR. He would have reached 10 fWAR both this year and last if not for injury and tragedy. There have been 52 seasons in baseball history, two of which belong to Trout. In other words, he accounts for almost 4% of 10 WAR seasons for position players - not an insignificant number.

But let's be a bit more conservative and say that his true talent level--right now, in his prime--is 9 WAR.

There have only been a handful of players with a true talent level of 9-10 WAR. I'm not talking about occasional Ellsbury-esque years, but year after year, or at least a few times in their careers.

Assuming he accrues at least 1 more fWAR over the remaining 20 games, Trout will have his 4th such season. How many players have four or more 9+ fWAR seasons?

First of all, there are currently 137 9 fWAR position player seasons since 1871. If we add in Trout, Betts, and Ramirez, that will be 140 in 148 years. Maybe we should only look at MLB history from 1901 to the present, or maybe something even more recent. But I wanted to be comprehensive, and as soon as you make a cut, you end up slicing up some great player's career. Plus, the 137 (or 140) is nicely close to the number of years, so we can imagine a 9 WAR season as a "best player in the world" type of season. A step beyond "MVP caliber" and two steps beyond "superstar."

Of those 140 seasons (again, we're assuming Betts, Trout, and Ramirez make it, which isn't guaranteed - especially for Ramirez, who has been slumping, and Trout slumping a bit too), here is how they break down in terms of players and the number of times they've reached that mark:

10: Ruth

9: Hornsby

8: Bonds

7: Mays

6: Wagner, Cobb, Gehrig, Williams, A Rodriguez

4: Collins, Musial, Mantle, Trout*

3: Morgan, Schmidt

2: Speaker, J Jackson, Lajoie, Foxx, DiMaggio, J Robinson, Yaz, Ripken, Henderson, Griffey

1: Dunlap, Brouthers, McGraw, Kauff, Baker, Sisler, Frisch, Boudreau, Heilmann, Vaughan, Stirnweiss, Banks, Rosen, Santo, Cash, Petrocelli, Bench, Da Evans, Yount, Brett, Dykstra, Piazza, Rolen, Sosa, Biggio, Walker, Giambi, Beltre, Pujols, Ellsbury, Harper, J Ramirez,* Betts*

(I seem to be missing one season but after ten minutes of trying, couldn't find it...oh well)

So let's take a look at that list. Everyone equal or above Trout are inner circle Hall of Famers and all belong in the top 20 greatest position players of all time. Add in Morgan, Schmidt, a few others in the 1-2 range, and maybe Hank Aaron and one or two others, and you've got your top 20. 

Trout belongs in the top 20 players - in terms of greatest peak. 

Even if we take a conservative outlook, Trout likely has more 9 WAR seasons in him. I would say a pessimistic outlook says none, a conservative outlook says 1-2, a moderate outlook 3-4, and an optimistic (rosy glasses) outlook says 5+. If we veer towards the conservative to moderate side of things, Trout ends up with 6 or 7 total, with a chance at more.

He just turned 27 and is entering his traditional prime years of 27-31. Maybe two or three of those five seasons are 9+ WAR, with the rest in the 5-8 range; probably somewhere in the 35-45 range total. Then he'll be in the 32-35 post-peak but still good phase, when we can probably expect another 5-6 pe year with maybe one more 9 WAR season, so let's say 20-25 WAR. Then the decline phase of 36-40, and 10-20 more.

How much is all of that worth? Well, more than any player in baseball history - and by a good margin. Not only are we talking about a guy who can be expected to have several more 9+ WAR seasons and end up with more truly great years than all but a half dozen or so players, but someone who will probably finish his career with somewhere between 120-150 fWAR, making him one of the five or ten best players in baseball history.

So yeah: pay the man, and pay him well. I think the conversation starts at 10/$400MM and ends up closer to half a billion, maybe even more, probably with some kind of stipulation that we've never seen before. He is simply that good and worth that much.