Why Trout would agree to an extension NOW.

[Angel Oracle]

6 minutes ago, Troll Daddy said:

Yea those 63 RBIs and 88 runs are priceless 

Hitting in a lineup with question marks, plus missing about 20 games, will always affect the rbis and runs scored.

[Stradling]

2 minutes ago, Troll Daddy said:

Is that all you got ok

Well Facts are Facts

[Troll Daddy]

4 minutes ago, Angel Oracle said:

Hitting in a lineup with question marks, plus missing about 20 games, will always affect the rbis and runs scored.

Agree I wasn’t really knocking my favorite player  ... I’m not a fan of WAR and the use of it in Doc’s post.

I grew up looking at newspaper stats

[Docwaukee]

11 minutes ago, Troll Daddy said:

Yea those 63 RBIs and 88 runs are priceless 

so you're saying we need some guys to get on in front of him and some guys to drive him in?  

I agree

[Stradling]

1 minute ago, Dochalo said:

so you're saying we need some guys to get on in front of him and some guys to drive him in?  

I agree

No he said, “look at me”

[Troll Daddy]

30 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

so you're saying we need some guys to get on in front of him and some guys to drive him in?  

I agree

I agree  ... don’t you believe with Trout’s speed he should have more than 21 Doubles? 

GA in his prime had 40-50 doubles every season and he’s not know for his speed. 

Why does Simmons have more RBIs with a sub .800 OPS?

This year Trout started out on fire then kind of sizzled out a little. I suspect he will put up huge numbers next season. He’s still the best player on the planet !

[stormngt]

3 hours ago, Lou said:

he may not want to be traded because he wants to hit free agency without having to bounce between teams 

True but that means Trout is willing F*** the Angel's.  Has ever indicated that type characteristic?  No If Trout refuses an extension than he will cooperate with the Angel's and letting them make a trade.

[Troll Daddy]

18 minutes ago, stormngt said:

True but that means Trout is willing F*** the Angel's.  Has ever indicated that type characteristic?  No If Trout refuses an extension than he will cooperate with the Angel's and letting them make a trade.

 

[Stradling]

40 minutes ago, Troll Daddy said:

I agree  ... don’t you believe with Trout’s speed he should have more than 21 Doubles? 

GA in his prime had 40-50 doubles every season and he’s not know for his speed. 

Why does Simmons have more RBIs with a sub .800 OPS?

This year Trout started out on fire then kind of sizzled out a little. I suspect he will put up huge numbers next season. He’s still the best player on the planet !

GA had 40 more doubles than Trout has in their first 8 seasons.  I think it has more to do with the fact that in those 8 years Trout has almost 500 more walks.  

[Troll Daddy]

13 minutes ago, Stradling said:

GA had 40 more doubles than Trout has in their first 8 seasons.  I think it has more to do with the fact that in those 8 years Trout has almost 500 more walks.  

I’m proud of you ... you actually engaged in a discussion instead of name calling for once. 

btw GA was never considered the best player on the planet ... walks are nice but contact is much better imo

this is just a discussion so don’t get excited 

[Stradling]

2 minutes ago, Troll Daddy said:

I’m proud of you ... you actually engaged in a discussion instead of name calling for once. 

btw GA was never considered the best player on the planet ... walks are nice but contact is much better imo

this is just a discussion so don’t get excited 

You’re a dumbass

[Tank]

4 minutes ago, Troll Daddy said:

I’m proud of you ... you actually engaged in a discussion instead of name calling for once. 

2 minutes ago, Stradling said:

You’re a dumbass

 

[eligrba]

1 hour ago, Stradling said:

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.

 

1 hour ago, Troll Daddy said:

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

I should have qualified my statement with "continue to play with rebound type players."  I understand why those players needed to be signed and why the Angels have patiently waited for things to change.   I suspect their probable plan is to prepare for a future without Trout with the hope that he will sign an extension.

Lots of great players never won, but in this era most at least were able to play in the post season a few times.

I do not disagree with either of your responses.  I certainly could have written my post better..

[tdawg87]

7 minutes ago, eligrba said:

I do not disagree with either of your responses.  I certainly could have written my post better..

Wtf is this crap

You're supposed to call them dumbasses

[Vegas Halo Fan]

11 hours ago, floplag said:

i dont know if we can wait a year to be honest, IF hes not staying, we lose a ton of value by losing another year under contract to whoever hes traded to.  Right now, we could almost ask whatever we want within some level of reason, next year, not so much 
We could literally get Atl or Phi top 5 guys... a year from now thats maybe 2.  Were never going to get full value, it comes down to making the best possible deal we can, and thats a very different proposition a year from now than it is now 

This is exactly my thinking. To get maximum value, Trout has to have more than one year of club control left, if the Angels are inclined to deal him. No team is going to strip their farm to get him if they only get one season. They would also know that the Angels would probably take less, knowing that they were facing the prospect of him walking at the end of the season and getting nothing back.

[stormngt]

1 hour ago, Troll Daddy said:

 

And?

That's a typical PR response.  

[WeatherWonk]

2 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

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.

 

OK, he's THAT GOOD right now. But nobody is THAT GOOD for ten years after the season they turn 30 in. Which would be 2021. GMs are wary of the Albert Syndrome, though he was older.

BTW, you and many others are forgetting about another potential 9 WAR player this year, or going forward. A guy who is right there with Ramirez. But Ramirez is stumbling down the home stretch. Hitting only .223 in his last 30 games. Under .200 in his last 15.

It's Alex Bregman. He's been hitting .368 for the last 30 games and has hit in 27 of those 30 games. Leads the majors in doubles, I believe. This guy is the real deal. He's even played 22 games at short this year.

[GrittyVeterans]

Let’s face it...the guy wants to be in Philly. He likes the Eagles

Better shot at winning there too

[VariousCrap]

5 hours ago, Angel Oracle said:

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.  

That would be a good contract for him, but I'd still offer him 10/380 and at the most, offer two opt outs for him.  One at 2 or 3 and then one at 5 or 6.  For me personally, I want Trout for the rest of his career if possible.  If that means we get a few down years towards the end of his contract, so be it.

[Dick B Back]

16 hours ago, Scotty@AW said:

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.

Angels can have a new centerfielder, but they can’t “replace” Trout.

[Dtwncbad]

I don't expect the Angels to be exactly like the Yankees and Red Sox.  But I expect the Angels to be close.

I often see a fan mindset that seems to expect too little from the organization in terms of being committed to winning.

Any time I hear talk of "being competitive" it is actually annoying.  The Twins should be committed to being competitive.

Commit to win.

[Stradling]

2 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

I don't expect the Angels to be exactly like the Yankees and Red Sox.  But I expect the Angels to be close.

I often see a fan mindset that seems to expect too little from the organization in terms of being committed to winning.

Any time I hear talk of "being competitive" it is actually annoying.  The Twins should be committed to being competitive.

Commit to win.

It really comes down to losing their ways under Reagins and Dipoto as it relates to building the farm.  They also in hindsight made bad decisions with Albert and Hamilton, which also affected their ability to draft in the first round and were incapable of drafting well after the first round.  They also had the 2010 draft with 5 of the top 40 picks where they totally shit the bed.  To me it is less about expecting too little and more understanding that it can’t be fixed over night and any attempt to do that more than likely sets you back again.  I have no issue with signing veterans to 1 year deals to fill holes until the farm is ready.  

[Angelsjunky]

I agree with the above @Stradling, except would nitpick and say that the Hamilton and Pujols contracts were not simply bad in hindsight, but poorly conceived at the time. We were all excited about Pujols and no one could have predicted that he would collapse in a historically terrible way, but he had been showing signs of decline and with rumors about him being older than advertised, a 10-year contract for an aging 32-35 year old wasn't so smart. I don't need to go into Hamilton. 

I would also add Vernon Wells to the mix as that trade was akin to another bad mega-contract (4/$88MM, if I remember correctly). CJ Wilson's contract wasn't terrible but it wasn't good. The point being, the Angels have had a string of large contracts that have all pretty much turned out poorly - all except the Trout extension.

So what is the difference between the Angels and Yankees or Red Sox? I think you could add in the Astros and Cubs as being on the other side of the spectrum: terrible for years, strong farm development and good acquisitions leading to powerhouse franchises. I think the Yankees and Sox don't only spend big, but they have been great at domestic and international scouting, farm development, and have a higher rate of return on their free agent signings and trades. The point being, they are just better run and also have more money to compensate any internal deficiencies.

But the Angels don't need to throw tons of cash around to compete. In fact, that mentality is what got them into the place they are now with the Wells, Pujols, and Hamilton contracts and the depletion of the farm (at least before the last year or two). In fact, I think they need to look back to 2004-09 for a good recipe for success: focus on farm development, hoard prospects, and be savvy about acquisitions. But unlike the Angels, be ready to pull the trigger on trading prospects if the right opportunity arises (Miggy). Kind of like the Red Sox, actually, when they traded a bunch of prospects for the best pitcher in the AL (Sale). The two best prospects in that deal have been varying shades of disappointing: Yoan Moncada is looking seriously flawed and Kopech needs TJS.