Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

IGNORED

The Three Big Contracts (Machado, Harper, Trout)


Angelsjunky

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Anyone want to revise their guesses on these contracts?  We have seen one 6 year deal, not sure we have seen a 5 year deal, and I think I read only 6 deals of more than 2 years this off season.  At this point I wouldn’t be surprised if Harper and Machado only get 7-8 year deals.  

I wouldn't be surprised, for reasons given by various posters, that Machado only gets a 3-4 year contract.  Machado just seems like a player you want to keep interested in performing (ie performing for his next contract)  I think if you give him a 5+ year contract, he will just turn into an slightly above average player.  Pretty much riding out his contract on natural diminishing skill, rather than skill + hard work.   I'd say 3+1/$30 a year.

Harper may get a 6-10 year, but my guess would be he has an opt out after year 3 (right after Trout gets his), and that he gets a 5-6 year deal.  His issue is health, and outside of the Nationals, I don't think there are any Pujols bidders out there.  Grienke is the highest paid player in total right now at a bit over $34 million.  I could see Harper get a 5/$175 with a opt out after the 3rd year.  

Trout though is someone that teams will be throwing 10+ year contracts at.  He has the right attitude.  He has been pretty healthy.  And he has a consistent track record.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve definitely cooled on my predictions a bit, at least for Machado who is the hardest to predict. Someone probably still gives him something like 8/$250M.

I think Harper still gets 10/$300-330M, or maybe 8/$280M. Maybe he goes back to the Nationals with his tail between his legs.

With those slightly lowered contracts I think Trout signs for something like 10/$400, possibly 12/$450M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most I could offer for Machado is maybe 5yr / $100m. I know people will think that is crazy low but realistically can you say you'd feel comfortable with the Angels going with more years and a higher AAV? He is a good player but I would never commit to him into his mid 30's, and his bat just isn't strong enough for me to feel comfortable going into the $25m AAV range. 

I'm sure someone will give him a lot more than that, but it does not feel wise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

The most I could offer for Machado is maybe 5yr / $100m. I know people will think that is crazy low but realistically can you say you'd feel comfortable with the Angels going with more years and a higher AAV? He is a good player but I would never commit to him into his mid 30's, and his bat just isn't strong enough for me to feel comfortable going into the $25m AAV range. 

I'm sure someone will give him a lot more than that, but it does not feel wise.

I'd go up to 7/175.  But I agree with your sentiment in general that he brings a ton of risk along with his ability.  

I think he'll ultimately get around 8/240 with an opt out after 4yrs.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

I think Harper still gets $300M. Maybe he goes back to the Nationals with his tail between his legs.

That offer expired. If Bryce has to go back to the Nationals it will be for less money and fewer years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Teams are getting smarter, so they won't be doing to themselves what the Angels did with Pujols and Hamilton, or what the Tigers have done to themselves with Miguel Cabrera. But those sluggers were older, and were either confined to the corner infield or corner outfield. Injuries and bat speed decrease have robbed them of their former glories. But what all three of these players have in common are their size. Pujols is a solid 6'3", 230. Cabrera is 6'4" and 250. Josh Hamilton was 6'4" 240. 

Flat out, size hasn't typicality aged well in professional baseball. All three fell off the proverbial cliff at 32/33. Even David Ortiz's production took a nose dive as 32/33, though it "magically/artificially" climbed back up to peak levels the closer h got to 40. The fact that his bat was worth 5 wins above replacement at age 40 when it wasn't even worth that at 28 tells me a lot about how Ortiz figured it out. 

Bryce Harper shares the same size, and is entering his age 26 season. Harper is probably going to give whatever team he signs with a solid 6-7 years of elite or semi-elite production. He'll probably be ok for another couple years after that, making this still a wise investment at 8-9 years. But if you give him a 10 year deal, you do so going in knowing that the end of the contract is not going to be pretty. Optimistically, you'll have one sunken year. Most likely two. Quite possibly three. But if Harper ends up getting 12 years....best case scenario it'll start to get back the last 3 years. Realistically, the last four or five could turn brutal. 

Manny Machado is lighter than the aforementioned names and is a middle infielder. Same age as Harper, though more consistent, and as I said, lighter, chances are he'll remain solid through age 33, though defensively he'll be a concern after that. I'd feel comfortable giving Machado 7-8 years and seeing his bat remain solid during that duration, if not for the simple fact that I think Manny Machado lacks the work ethic and personality to remain at the top of his game when he starts fighting against age. Because of that, I think 6-7 years seems about right. 

But if a team wants elite level production, they'll overpay. That much hasn't changed in the last decade. So Harper will push for 12 and settle for 10 with a buy out and no trade protection. Machado will probably get 8 years with s buy out and a NTC as well.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Rico said:

Looking at the funny numbers you guys keep throwing around for Machado reminds me of how we whiffed on Justin Turner.  But also reminds me you can still get great talent at half the cost.

We didn’t whiff on Justin Turner, he was never leaving the Dodgers.  If we outbid the Dodgers, they would just outbid us again.  Remember they can have a $300 million payroll and it is covered by their TV deal.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/7/2018 at 12:19 PM, Angelsjunky said:

Another thought that I saw floated somewhere is that if Harper doesn't get what he wants (let's say at least $350M), that he might sign a one-year deal with someone for $45M or so. If he has an 8 fWAR season, he's more likely to get that $400M contract. On the other hand if he fails to reach, say, 5 fWAR, then his value might go down a bit. So I suppose it is more likely he signs for a long-term deal for less than what he wants, but with an opt-out.

I suggested that a few months back. Make him a short term deal, where he gets to bat behind trout and see if that can up his counting numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Stradling said:

We didn’t whiff on Justin Turner, he was never leaving the Dodgers.  If we outbid the Dodgers, they would just outbid us again.  Remember they can have a $300 million payroll and it is covered by their TV deal.  

pretty savvy for them to have a tv deal where no one can actually watch them on tv. go blue!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Second Base said:

Teams are getting smarter, so they won't be doing to themselves what the Angels did with Pujols and Hamilton, or what the Tigers have done to themselves with Miguel Cabrera. But those sluggers were older, and were either confined to the corner infield or corner outfield. Injuries and bat speed decrease have robbed them of their former glories. But what all three of these players have in common are their size. Pujols is a solid 6'3", 230. Cabrera is 6'4" and 250. Josh Hamilton was 6'4" 240. 

Flat out, size hasn't typicality aged well in professional baseball. All three fell off the proverbial cliff at 32/33. Even David Ortiz's production took a nose dive as 32/33, though it "magically/artificially" climbed back up to peak levels the closer h got to 40. The fact that his bat was worth 5 wins above replacement at age 40 when it wasn't even worth that at 28 tells me a lot about how Ortiz figured it out. 

Bryce Harper shares the same size, and is entering his age 26 season. Harper is probably going to give whatever team he signs with a solid 6-7 years of elite or semi-elite production. He'll probably be ok for another couple years after that, making this still a wise investment at 8-9 years. But if you give him a 10 year deal, you do so going in knowing that the end of the contract is not going to be pretty. Optimistically, you'll have one sunken year. Most likely two. Quite possibly three. But if Harper ends up getting 12 years....best case scenario it'll start to get back the last 3 years. Realistically, the last four or five could turn brutal. 

Manny Machado is lighter than the aforementioned names and is a middle infielder. Same age as Harper, though more consistent, and as I said, lighter, chances are he'll remain solid through age 33, though defensively he'll be a concern after that. I'd feel comfortable giving Machado 7-8 years and seeing his bat remain solid during that duration, if not for the simple fact that I think Manny Machado lacks the work ethic and personality to remain at the top of his game when he starts fighting against age. Because of that, I think 6-7 years seems about right. 

But if a team wants elite level production, they'll overpay. That much hasn't changed in the last decade. So Harper will push for 12 and settle for 10 with a buy out and no trade protection. Machado will probably get 8 years with s buy out and a NTC as well.

 

By this analysis it's also a bad idea to offer Trout a 10-year deal.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

I suggested that a few months back. Make him a short term deal, where he gets to bat behind trout and see if that can up his counting numbers.

Yup, I would definitely kick the tires. People don't realize how sick Harper-Trout-Ohtani-Upton-Simmons would be in the same lineup. It would probably take us from mediocre offensively to near the top of the league!

Of course, tight ass Arte would probably nix it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Jay said:

By this analysis it's also a bad idea to offer Trout a 10-year deal.

 

Comparing Mike Trout, perhaps the greatest of all time, certainly the greatest in at least a couple generations, to Harper and Machado isn't fair to Harper and Machado. And comparing him to Hamilton would only be fair if you took away the drugs, gave him a great upbringing and kept him healthy. Trout to Pujols, two completely different games. 

The best we can do is compare him to Griffey Jr., had he managed to stay healthy, or Mantle under the same circumstances, minus alcohol. And that's a lot of what ifs. And not a single player listed so far had Trout's build and could move like him.

Realistically, Trout's speed will be gone around 33, and with that speed will go his range as a CF, forcing him to a corner where he'll remain a good defensive option, probably through 36. And while bat speed will diminish, Trout's inside-out approach requires less quick twitch, but more brute strength to remain a HR threat. Luckily for Trout, most athletes remain quite strong through their 30's, and he's got it in spades, as we can see from his build. We also have a precedent in his swing type with Derek Jeter, who was also an inside-out hitter. Not identical to Trout, but similar. Jeter remained a viable hitter through age 38. Troyt's plate discipline and approach can probably last that long. He'll likely remain a 10 win player for another 5 years. Once the speed and range goes, likely a 6 win player for another 3. Age 36-38, maybe a 3 win player. But there's a cliff typically, at some point, where there's more more gradual decline. For a player as historically great as Mike Trout, 38 seems a fair target.

That should put him around 130 wins above replacement for his career, which is a conservative estimate.

So once Trout is 29, and he reaches free agency, he should be good for 9 years. If he were a free agent right now, he'd deserve 12. But Harper deserve 12? Crap no. He might get it, but there's no way he's good for all 12 of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Second Base said:

Comparing Mike Trout, perhaps the greatest of all time, certainly the greatest in at least a couple generations, to Harper and Machado isn't fair to Harper and Machado. And comparing him to Hamilton would only be fair if you took away the drugs, gave him a great upbringing and kept him healthy. Trout to Pujols, two completely different games. 

The best we can do is compare him to Griffey Jr., had he managed to stay healthy, or Mantle under the same circumstances, minus alcohol. And that's a lot of what ifs. And not a single player listed so far had Trout's build and could move like him.

Realistically, Trout's speed will be gone around 33, and with that speed will go his range as a CF, forcing him to a corner where he'll remain a good defensive option, probably through 36. And while bat speed will diminish, Trout's inside-out approach requires less quick twitch, but more brute strength to remain a HR threat. Luckily for Trout, most athletes remain quite strong through their 30's, and he's got it in spades, as we can see from his build. We also have a precedent in his swing type with Derek Jeter, who was also an inside-out hitter. Not identical to Trout, but similar. Jeter remained a viable hitter through age 38. Troyt's plate discipline and approach can probably last that long. He'll likely remain a 10 win player for another 5 years. Once the speed and range goes, likely a 6 win player for another 3. Age 36-38, maybe a 3 win player. But there's a cliff typically, at some point, where there's more more gradual decline. For a player as historically great as Mike Trout, 38 seems a fair target.

That should put him around 130 wins above replacement for his career, which is a conservative estimate.

So once Trout is 29, and he reaches free agency, he should be good for 9 years. If he were a free agent right now, he'd deserve 12. But Harper deserve 12? Crap no. He might get it, but there's no way he's good for all 12 of it.

Trout would be a good 3 years younger than Pujols when he signed his deal, too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phillies meeting with Harper tomorrow.

Kind of hope they sign him and over-pay for him which means they probably wouldn't be in the market for Trout in the near future.

Machado ? From his play in Los Angeles, if I were a GM I wouldn't be willing to bust the bank for him, He should wind up back in the AL which he knows and seems to do a lot better.

Obviously, I am a Halos fan and favor Trout -- but really, I have trouble even putting those guys in the same sentence/ category as a Mike Trout.

IMO, Mike Trout is one of those Once in a Generation players.  Harper can't seem to put together back to back solid seasons -- when he's on he's ON -- but some folks remember he spent almost the entire 2017 season getting untracked and finally woke up at some point in late August

Machado's play down the stretch for the DODGERS  was less than inspiring.  He's a solid player - his years in Baltimore showed that - but there were times in August/ September last year where I didn't think I'd want him on team -- lack of fundamentals , apparent lack of hustle.  

Trout never has those issues. Trout's issue is being frustrated when he hits in front of Pujols - Mr. GIDP -- and Trout doubles or whatever and gets stranded on the base paths.

Trout has also made highlight reel catches and throws from the outfield that challenge those made by Jimmy Edmonds, Torri Hunter and others as atop the board for the best catches in Angels history (no, I did not forget Devon White or Darrin Erstad).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/1/2019 at 12:01 PM, AngelsLakersFan said:

The most I could offer for Machado is maybe 5yr / $100m. I know people will think that is crazy low but realistically can you say you'd feel comfortable with the Angels going with more years and a higher AAV? He is a good player but I would never commit to him into his mid 30's, and his bat just isn't strong enough for me to feel comfortable going into the $25m AAV range. 

I'm sure someone will give him a lot more than that, but it does not feel wise.

His strength is his pitch recognition and ability to smash off speed and breaking pitches, similar to a young Pujols but not NEARLY as talented, Pujols hit a decline around 32, 33 because his inability to recognize and adjust quick enough to the breaking balls and off speed pitches. With Manny I see him hitting his decline at a younger age then Pujols did because he’ll loose his eye and above average ability he has for his pitch recognition, so a deal longer then 4-5 years is awful 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...