FA Flashback

[wopphil]

I was strongly for Cobb and Darvish. I went 0 for 2. 

[Inside Pitch]

9 minutes ago, nando714 said:

JD At 5 -110 is a steal the way he’s been playing. I still like upton. Both of them defensively aren’t gonna blow anyone’s doors off 

It would be if it was actually a 5/110 deal but JD is likely going to end up as 2/50.   

018	30	Boston Red Sox	$23,750,000	6.036
2019	31	Boston Red Sox	$23,750,000	7.036	Can opt out of contract following 2019 season with a $2.5m buyout.
2020	32	Boston Red Sox	$23,750,000		Can opt out of contract following 2020 season.
2021	33	Boston Red Sox	$19,350,000		Can opt out of contract following 2021 season.
2022	34	Boston Red Sox	$19,350,000

He's a Boras client, he specifically front loaded the contract with the intentions of maximizing his earning potential.   As great as he was last year and likely will be again next season the last thing the Angels would need is to go into Trout's last year also having to fill LF..  again..

 

[ten ocho recon scout]

2 hours ago, Inside Pitch said:

It would be if it was actually a 5/110 deal but JD is likely going to end up as 2/50.   

018	30	Boston Red Sox	$23,750,000	6.036
2019	31	Boston Red Sox	$23,750,000	7.036	Can opt out of contract following 2019 season with a $2.5m buyout.
2020	32	Boston Red Sox	$23,750,000		Can opt out of contract following 2020 season.
2021	33	Boston Red Sox	$19,350,000		Can opt out of contract following 2021 season.
2022	34	Boston Red Sox	$19,350,000

He's a Boras client, he specifically front loaded the contract with the intentions of maximizing his earning potential.   As great as he was last year and likely will be again next season the last thing the Angels would need is to go into Trout's last year also having to fill LF..  again..

 

I suspect this is what harper will do as well. Sign a big contract with an opt out quick, while hes still young. 

Without knowing exacts, i could imagine theres a strategy to being a FA when target teams will need you. As in "i want to play for X, but theyre set there for 2 more years so Ill wait."

[Jeff Fletcher]

Free agents are generally going to be bad. It's been this way for  as long as there have been free agents.

Most players don't hit free agency until they are 29-31 and you pay a huge price for ages 30-34. What do you think is going to happen?

 

[Angelsfan1984]

15 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

Free agents are generally going to be bad. It's been this way for  as long as there have been free agents.

Most players don't hit free agency until they are 29-31 and you pay a huge price for ages 30-34. What do you think is going to happen?

 

We expect all FAs to play like Barry Bonds and play better after 35 years of age

[Angel Oracle]

28 minutes ago, Angelsfan1984 said:

We expect all FAs to play like Barry Bonds and play better after 35 years of age

And pitch well until early to middle 40s, like Carlton and Ryan did.

[DCAngelsFan]

23 hours ago, Second Base said:

I saw that deal Chatwood got from the Cubs and couldn't believe the Angels weren't in on him. 

Same - I thought he was a bit of a steal, and the only one on that list I'd wanted. 

Turns out, the only thing stolen was Theo's money, and looking at his stats, I don't see a lot of reason to be optimistic he bounces back - those walks are egregious.   

[SlappyUtilityMIF]

Odd.....No mention of Logan Morrison?....

[kevinb]

15 hours ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

Free agents are generally going to be bad. It's been this way for  as long as there have been free agents.

Most players don't hit free agency until they are 29-31 and you pay a huge price for ages 30-34. What do you think is going to happen?

 

I am of this same notion. Hence why I like the early couple year opt outs in contracts like JD. People were against it but I find it awesome if I was a team I would much much much rather give someone an opt out after 2 or 3 years then have them for 7 or 8. But my question to you is, as you say teams pay a huge price for players declining years after say 30-32 years. Would you be more willing to trade Trout and not have to pay him for his 33-40 seasons or would you rather take the risk and have him being the highest paid baseball player in the league in his declining years? I go back and forth on this in my head, I want to keep Trout on the Angels forever, but there is going to come a time when he isn't Trout and becomes a shell of himself. I don't think he will ever Pujols it, being as I think Trout is much more athletic and seems to take care of his body much better. But still a curious question none the less. People will think I am crazy for asking it, but we have seen time and time again that over 32 ish players just aren't what they used to be especially with all the "testing" now a days. 

[Stradling]

I don’t think you’re crazy for asking it, I think it’s a foregone conclusion that if he signs a ten year deal we will pay for his decline.  He’s the type of generational talent that you pay for his decline.  He has provided such crazy value in his career that you just have to justify that way mentally down the road when he makes $40 million and is a 2 win player.  

PS.  I will encourage the decision makers on this board to ban people at first sight of shitting on Trout during his decline.  

[Jeff Fletcher]

7 hours ago, Kevinb said:

I am of this same notion. Hence why I like the early couple year opt outs in contracts like JD. People were against it but I find it awesome if I was a team I would much much much rather give someone an opt out after 2 or 3 years then have them for 7 or 8. But my question to you is, as you say teams pay a huge price for players declining years after say 30-32 years. Would you be more willing to trade Trout and not have to pay him for his 33-40 seasons or would you rather take the risk and have him being the highest paid baseball player in the league in his declining years? I go back and forth on this in my head, I want to keep Trout on the Angels forever, but there is going to come a time when he isn't Trout and becomes a shell of himself. I don't think he will ever Pujols it, being as I think Trout is much more athletic and seems to take care of his body much better. But still a curious question none the less. People will think I am crazy for asking it, but we have seen time and time again that over 32 ish players just aren't what they used to be especially with all the "testing" now a days. 

Old guys like me remember when you had to buy the whole album even if you only liked a few of the songs. 

Obviously whoever signs Trout is likely to be overpaying him in his decline for the last 2-3 years of the deal, but that’s the price you have to pay to get him. He’ll be getting back the money he got screwed on in his first few years, with interest. 

[Angelsfan1984]

1 hour ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

Old guys like me remember when you had to buy the whole album even if you only liked a few of the songs. 

Obviously whoever signs Trout is likely to be overpaying him in his decline for the last 2-3 years of the deal, but that’s the price you have to pay to get him. He’ll be getting back the money he got screwed on in his first few years, with interest. 

I'm curious as to why its not a given that most 7 year plus contracts are more front loaded. That seems to make the most logical sense to me to pay the value up front when you are getting it rather than at the end. Essentially the opposite of the Pujols contract. If they were paying the 20/18/16 in the final 3 years of his contract it would have been far more palatable while paying him the 30+ in the front end when he still had legs.

How about something like 8 years 300 million

45/45/45/40/35/35/30/25

[Blarg]

3 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

He’ll be getting back the money he got screwed on in his first few years, with interest. 

I think you should take another look at his contract. 

[T.G.]

49 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

Old guys like me remember when you had to buy the whole album even if you only liked a few of the songs.

And the days when you could spend hours making mixed tapes...

[Lou]

10 minutes ago, True Grich said:

And the days when you could spend hours making mixed tapes...

you really loved her, didn't you? 

[Barrett]

1 hour ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

Old guys like me remember when you had to buy the whole album even if you only liked a few of the songs. 

Obviously whoever signs Trout is likely to be overpaying him in his decline for the last 2-3 years of the deal, but that’s the price you have to pay to get him. He’ll be getting back the money he got screwed on in his first few years, with interest. 

Oh I remember buying the CD just for the one song or two songs. Then Napster and all those sites came. So the question would be do you offer Trout a shorter deal instead of the 10 year deal but offer him the same amount of money just for fewer years lets say to his 37th birthday instead of 40th and above? Will teams start offering just larger 5 year deals or are teams just going to continue to offer the 10 and 12 year deals for these super star players? 

[Lou]

1 hour ago, Barrett said:

So the question would be do you offer Trout a shorter deal instead of the 10 year deal but offer him the same amount of money just for fewer years

That would make no sense

[jessecrall]

Mike Trout is unlikely to be a great player at the tail end of a, say, 14-year extension because time is undefeated and injuries are common. But it's hardly a sure thing that a $40 million AAV would be a problem by the late 2020s. Consider: There have only really been 4 players that compare to Trout in terms of skill set and success at so young an age: Mays, Mantle, Bonds & Griffey. Maybe Frank Robinson and Henry Aaron but the former didn't reach Trout's heights and the latter didn't have his speed (though he was an excellent baserunner who did, consequently, age exceptionally well).

Let's start with Mays. He doesn't appear on Trout's statistical comps yet because he missed most of his age 21 and 22 seasons due to military service before breaking out with a 10-WAR season at 23. Mays is basically a smaller Trout. Swap some plate discipline for defense and they're even. Mays arguably peaked between the ages of 31 and 34, played at an MVP level at 35 and put up a 6-WAR season at 40. He's the gold standard for players aging. He stayed healthy throughout his career which required a measure of luck we can't expect from anyone. But he also shows that it's not impossible to remain extremely productive for 20 years.

Mantle is an even closer physical comp (though Trout still has ~30 pounds on him) and is essentially Trout's equal in all skill sets (he even gave an interview at the very end of his career admiring Mays' aggressive defense and lamenting his own tendency to play balls in front of him tentatively. That's Trout. His biggest weakness on defense involved coming in on balls, which he seemed to rectify a bit this season.) Mantle peaked at 23-26, had a 10-WAR season at 29 and then saw injuries and defensive degeneration sap his overall value. He remained an excellent hitter through the end of his career, managing a a 143 OPS+ in his age-36 and final season. Had he played today, he probably could have held on a few more years as a 2-3 WAR DH. So Mantle wouldn't be a great pattern to follow; you can put a guy like that at the top-3rd of your lineup but at $40 mil a year, you're not getting a value surplus. At the same time, Mantle suffered from osteomyelitis, a series of serious leg injuries and a fondness for...extracurricular pursuits that didn't do his body any favours. Trout has no lingering health issues and appears to be a hard-working fitness fanatic throughout the year.

Barry Bonds comes with an obvious asterisk but his 20-something seasons look at a lot like Trout's. Power, speed, walks, good average, plus defensive value...exempting the strike-shortened 94 and 95, Bonds put up 8 WAR every season between his age 24 year and his age 33 season, supposedly his last clean year. So Bonds played at an MVP-level through 33 and could have been expected to age well considering his broad skill-set and no sign of any decline (though he was hurt and comparatively unproductive in 1999, his first roid year). Would you take 7 more 8-10 WAR seasons from Trout at $40 mil before decline sets in? I would.

Griffey's the worst-case scenario. He took a step back at 28 and hit the wall at 31. Injuries, weight gain and the accompanying decline in his skills both in the field and at the plate rendered the second half of his career more unproductive than Pujols'. He made about $12 mil/year through it and didn't play in a single playoff game with the Reds.

So you've got two examples of guys whose value would exceed even a $400-450 million contract, one guy with a particularly bad injury history who would fall short but still remain productive enough to warrant playing time and one guy who represents a complete washout. None of this means Trout WILL age spectacularly or crash and burn and all these guys had different personalities, training habits, styles and luck. But if you factor in Trout's value as a franchise player (which didn't really exist with Pujols or Griffey doing their biggest damage with another team), extending him for 12-14 years is a bet I'd absolutely make. Not just to appease fans or win in 2021 but to potentially have a great player well into his 30s. Time is undefeated but if anyone in baseball today can go 12 rounds, it's Trout.

[T.G.]

Now that's quite the first post....

[Jeff Fletcher]

2 hours ago, Blarg said:

I think you should take another look at his contract. 

His first four years he made 492K, 510K, 1M and 6M. 

I am pretty sure he was underpaid in those years. He won his first MVP when he made 1M,.

[Second Base]

2 hours ago, jessecrall said:

Mike Trout is unlikely to be a great player at the tail end of a, say, 14-year extension because time is undefeated and injuries are common. But it's hardly a sure thing that a $40 million AAV would be a problem by the late 2020s. Consider: There have only really been 4 players that compare to Trout in terms of skill set and success at so young an age: Mays, Mantle, Bonds & Griffey. Maybe Frank Robinson and Henry Aaron but the former didn't reach Trout's heights and the latter didn't have his speed (though he was an excellent baserunner who did, consequently, age exceptionally well).

Let's start with Mays. He doesn't appear on Trout's statistical comps yet because he missed most of his age 21 and 22 seasons due to military service before breaking out with a 10-WAR season at 23. Mays is basically a smaller Trout. Swap some plate discipline for defense and they're even. Mays arguably peaked between the ages of 31 and 34, played at an MVP level at 35 and put up a 6-WAR season at 40. He's the gold standard for players aging. He stayed healthy throughout his career which required a measure of luck we can't expect from anyone. But he also shows that it's not impossible to remain extremely productive for 20 years.

Mantle is an even closer physical comp (though Trout still has ~30 pounds on him) and is essentially Trout's equal in all skill sets (he even gave an interview at the very end of his career admiring Mays' aggressive defense and lamenting his own tendency to play balls in front of him tentatively. That's Trout. His biggest weakness on defense involved coming in on balls, which he seemed to rectify a bit this season.) Mantle peaked at 23-26, had a 10-WAR season at 29 and then saw injuries and defensive degeneration sap his overall value. He remained an excellent hitter through the end of his career, managing a a 143 OPS+ in his age-36 and final season. Had he played today, he probably could have held on a few more years as a 2-3 WAR DH. So Mantle wouldn't be a great pattern to follow; you can put a guy like that at the top-3rd of your lineup but at $40 mil a year, you're not getting a value surplus. At the same time, Mantle suffered from osteomyelitis, a series of serious leg injuries and a fondness for...extracurricular pursuits that didn't do his body any favours. Trout has no lingering health issues and appears to be a hard-working fitness fanatic throughout the year.

Barry Bonds comes with an obvious asterisk but his 20-something seasons look at a lot like Trout's. Power, speed, walks, good average, plus defensive value...exempting the strike-shortened 94 and 95, Bonds put up 8 WAR every season between his age 24 year and his age 33 season, supposedly his last clean year. So Bonds played at an MVP-level through 33 and could have been expected to age well considering his broad skill-set and no sign of any decline (though he was hurt and comparatively unproductive in 1999, his first roid year). Would you take 7 more 8-10 WAR seasons from Trout at $40 mil before decline sets in? I would.

Griffey's the worst-case scenario. He took a step back at 28 and hit the wall at 31. Injuries, weight gain and the accompanying decline in his skills both in the field and at the plate rendered the second half of his career more unproductive than Pujols'. He made about $12 mil/year through it and didn't play in a single playoff game with the Reds.

So you've got two examples of guys whose value would exceed even a $400-450 million contract, one guy with a particularly bad injury history who would fall short but still remain productive enough to warrant playing time and one guy who represents a complete washout. None of this means Trout WILL age spectacularly or crash and burn and all these guys had different personalities, training habits, styles and luck. But if you factor in Trout's value as a franchise player (which didn't really exist with Pujols or Griffey doing their biggest damage with another team), extending him for 12-14 years is a bet I'd absolutely make. Not just to appease fans or win in 2021 but to potentially have a great player well into his 30s. Time is undefeated but if anyone in baseball today can go 12 rounds, it's Trout.

I'm just not sure any of it is applicable by today's standards.  The game of baseball was very different when Mantle and Mays played.  The game is just at a different level today and so are the athletes and the access to information and self maintenance. 

The only standard still present that would've been equally as applicable back then is simply the age curve.  Generally speaking, around age 32 or 33, you're not going to have the quick twitch reflexes or explosion you had in your teens and twenties.  You can still remain a good ball player through age 36 or 37 if you really really take care of your body and adjust your game to fit your declining skill set, sort of like Torii Hunter did, but you still won't be the great player you once were. 

Pretty much every modern example of guys competing into their 40's with success, were from known steroid users like David Ortiz and Nelson Cruz.  I don't care if they're respected in today's game, they're both cheaters. 

I think realistically, you can expect trout to remain a great player for another 8 years, and a good player for another two after that.  But beyond those years, there's very little middle ground, there's a cliff.  So if you offer Trout a 14 year contract, you go into it knowing that the last four years of that deal are going to mirror the last four years of Pujols' deal.  A whole lotta suck.

As a team, you hope for 10, and don't under any circumstance exceed twelve.  I hope the Angels can get Trout for 10/400, but that may not be enough.