Why I'm confident Trout will be extended (but with an opt out)

[Angelsjunky]

Machado and Harper are going to get huge contracts. We don't know yet how huge, but they'll be huge - possibly the largest ever. 

The Angels are going to offer Trout signficantly more than what Machado and Harper get. How much more, we don't know - but it will be a lot more.

The Angels will also give up an opt out, probably after four years - which doubles the current guaranteed two years, but also let's Trout go back to free agency at a relatively young age (31) if he decides he wants to play on the East Coast. Four years also gives him a chance to see if the Eppler Plan works.

So the Angels offer Trout, say, 10/400, with an out out after 2022. Is there any reason on god's green earth, if you were Mike Trout, that you would refuse a guaranteed $400 million, even if you ultimately wanted to end up on East Coast? For him the choices would be between:

A: Guaranteed 2/68 million, free agency at age 29

B: Guaranteed 10/400 million, optional free agency at age 31 

It really is a no-brainer. Add in the fact that there are glimmerings that contract inflation is slowing down and we may not only see contracts level off, but drop at some point, and Trout would be a fool to leave that kind of money on the table - especially when it only extends his club controlled years by two.

 

[UndertheHalo]

i get your thinking here AJ and obviously there’s appeal for Trout, but I really dislike the idea of giving him an opt out.  If the Angels are going to sign him they need to make him an Angel for life.  He means more to the organization then a typical FA.  I think it’s important that they make sure he wears an Angels cap his entire career and just get this over with.  This guy isn’t a 33 year old Albert Pujols.  There’s an unquantifiable value in making him our Stan Musial or Tony Gwynn. 

[Angelsjunky]

17 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

i get your thinking here AJ and obviously there’s appeal for Trout, but I really dislike the idea of giving him an opt out.  If the Angels are going to sign him they need to make him an Angel for life.  He means more to the organization then a typical FA.  I think it’s important that they make sure he wears an Angels cap his entire career and just get this over with.  This guy isn’t a 33 year old Albert Pujols.  There’s an unquantifiable value in making him our Stan Musial or Tony Gwynn. 

Obviously that would be ideal, but if the choice is between an extension with a four-year optout and no extension, would you take the extension?

It also could be that the Angels present him with options, something like:

A: 12/$500M, no opt-outs - "Angel for life."

B: 10/$400M, opt-out after 5 years.

C. 10/$375M, opt-out after 4 and 6 years.

[Docwaukee]

If I'm Trout, there no way I sign with anyone without an opt out.  

If I'm the Angels, there is no way I let him out till after 2023.  

[UndertheHalo]

3 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

Obviously that would be ideal, but if the choice is between an extension with a four-year optout and no extension, would you take the extension?

It also could be that the Angels present him with options, something like:

A: 12/$500M, no opt-outs - "Angel for life."

B: 10/$400M, opt-out after 4 years.

 

I mean I’ll take as many years with Trout as I can get.  Even if I don’t like it that it’s only guranteeing 2 more years in your scenario.  But I think that if the Angels offered him these two choices you listed, Trout is going to take option B.  Because why wouldn’t he ? If he stays healthy and productive he could easily make another 250 million at age 31. 

I just feel like the Angels would be putting a gun to their heads.  And I know that my “sense” isn’t worth anything.  But the “sense” that I get is that now is the time to do a life deal with him.  He’s still young enough that it doesn’t kill the Angels and stick them with a 40 year old player.  And from Trouts perspective he gets to lock in the biggest contract ever with a good look at what his near peers are worth and have great certainty for his career.  On top of that he ensures his place as the greatest Angel. I think there’s value in that. 

[Angelsjunky]

I added a third option, as I think there are many variations possible.

Anyhow, I hear you @UndertheHalo. I just don't think he'll sign a big contract without some kind of opt out. He's earned his right to having some degree of freedom as to where he plays out the rest of his days. He's going to get some kind of opt out, imo.

[wopphil]

I am not convinced the Angels will offer him 400+.

[Jay]

3 minutes ago, wopphil said:

I am not convinced the Angels will offer him 400+.

Me, either.

I think there will be an opt-out clause though.

 

[Second Base]

6 minutes ago, wopphil said:

I am not convinced the Angels will offer him 400+.

If Moreno wants to maintain a fan base, he better offer the best player in franchise history, the best player in the game, the best player of this generation just beginning his prime, 400  freakin' million dollars.

[Angelsjunky]

Trout will get $400 million. At least. 

[floplag]

9 minutes ago, wopphil said:

I am not convinced the Angels will offer him 400+.

Im not convinced i even want them to.  Thats a truly absurd amount of money for any one player. 
If we are truly tied to a limited budget i dont see how one guy getting 20+% of the total available is a positive unless they commit to exempting him from that budget which i do not think they will do. 

[jessecrall]

Just now, floplag said:

Im not convinced i even want them to.  Thats a truly absurd amount of money for any one player. 
If we are truly tied to a limited budget i dont see how one guy getting 20+% of the total available is a positive unless they commit to exempting him from that budget which i do not think they will do. 

Assuming Trout gets $40 mil a year, he needs to put up about 5 WAR a season to generate surplus value based on the cost of wins on the free agent market. That doesn't include his additional value as a franchise player who is sure to put asses in seats, eyes on the tv and credit card numbers on merchandising sites. Plus, his skill-set and current, sustained level of play suggests that only serious injuries would prevent him from being a valuable player even as he ages. There's risk to giving him $400 million but there's risk to trading him for prospects. There's risk to letting him go and expecting who ever takes over CF to produce and retain fan loyalty. There's risk to getting on an airplane, crossing the street, ordering your steak rare...you need risk in order to thrive and this team has never developed and held a true Hall of Fame talent. Why screw that up because of risk?

[Jay]

27 minutes ago, Second Base said:

If Moreno wants to maintain a fan base, he better offer the best player in franchise history, the best player in the game, the best player of this generation just beginning his prime, 400  freakin' million dollars.

True, without Trout the Angels are essentially garbage.

Even with Trout they still aren't very good.

There's a very real chance that Trout will leave. Will the fans go with him? I don't think so.

 

[floplag]

15 minutes ago, jessecrall said:

Assuming Trout gets $40 mil a year, he needs to put up about 5 WAR a season to generate surplus value based on the cost of wins on the free agent market. That doesn't include his additional value as a franchise player who is sure to put asses in seats, eyes on the tv and credit card numbers on merchandising sites. Plus, his skill-set and current, sustained level of play suggests that only serious injuries would prevent him from being a valuable player even as he ages. There's risk to giving him $400 million but there's risk to trading him for prospects. There's risk to letting him go and expecting who ever takes over CF to produce and retain fan loyalty. There's risk to getting on an airplane, crossing the street, ordering your steak rare...you need risk in order to thrive and this team has never developed and held a true Hall of Fame talent. Why screw that up because of risk?

I notice nothing about the team winning in that post though.    I'm certain hes put up surplus value for the last 3 years but I took little enjoyment in the last 2 seasons watching this team hover around 500.
I want the team to win, preferably with Trout, without him if it must be so.  The team comes first to me over any one player. 

[jessecrall]

1 minute ago, floplag said:

I notice nothing about the team winning in that post though.   

No, you're right. If you want to win, it's a great idea to get rid of the best 20-something player in baseball history. You can probably replace him pretty easily. Replace the best 20-something player. In baseball history. No problem.

[Angelsjunky]

Trout's a good reminder that life, even baseball, isn't only about winning. I know that it is a game, and the point of a game is to win. But winning the WS is only one moment in the year; most of what we experience is the day to day, from each of the 162 regular season games to offseason Hot Stove. Winning is a moment, the process is the entire year. And even when you win, you enjoy it for awhile and store it in your memories to revive every so often, but you turn back to the new season and enter the process again.

I'd even go so far as to say that winning is secondary; enjoyment of the process is primary. Even if winning is the goal of the game, the process of getting there - the "quest" - is most of what we experience. And a great source of my enjoyment of the process is watching the greatest player in the world play in an Angels uniform. You can't put a price on that, although it has immense monetary value. He puts seats in the stands, and he creates a legacy - as the greatest Angel ever, the greatest player of his generation, and one of the greatest players of all time.

So yeah, I want to see Trout remain an Angel, even if it costs an absurd amount of money. He's worth it - and more. 

 

[floplag]

1 minute ago, jessecrall said:

No, you're right. If you want to win, it's a great idea to get rid of the best 20-something player in baseball history. You can probably replace him pretty easily. Replace the best 20-something player. In baseball history. No problem.

Thats not what i said or meant at all.  You truly dont need to convince me of his value, hes everything youve stated and has been so for the last three years while the team played 500 ball.  

[floplag]

3 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

Trout's a good reminder that life, even baseball, isn't only about winning. I know that it is a game, and the point of a game is to win. But winning the WS is only one moment in the year; most of what we experience is the day to day, from each of the 162 regular season games to offseason Hot Stove. Winning is a moment, the process is the entire year. And even when you win, you enjoy it for awhile and store it in your memories to revive every so often, but you turn back to the new season and enter the process again.

I'd even go so far as to say that winning is secondary; enjoyment of the process is primary. Even if winning is the goal of the game, the process of getting there - the "quest" - is most of what we experience. And a great source of my enjoyment of the process is watching the greatest player in the world play in an Angels uniform. You can't put a price on that, although it has immense monetary value. He puts seats in the stands, and he creates a legacy - as the greatest Angel ever, the greatest player of his generation, and one of the greatest players of all time.

So yeah, I want to see Trout remain an Angel, even if it costs an absurd amount of money. He's worth it - and more. 

 

To each thier own but i take little enjoyment watching him hit for the cycle in a 7-5 loss.  I also dont think he would either.  Its just my opinion. 

[kevinb]

Dynamics are changing. The reason Machado Trout and Harper are going to get paid very very well are because they are young. If Trout hits free agency at 31 I don't see a team giving him a 10 year contract. I wouldn't want to see the Angels give him a 10 year contract at 31. Teams are going younger and are not giving crazy length contracts to guys who aren't young anymore. No team should want to pay Trout 40 million dollars a year at 38 let alone 41.

Also there is no owner in sports (Maybe Mike Brown) that will give their GM 8 years to build a winner. If the team isn't seriously contending this year or next Eppler will be gone. 

[jessecrall]

2 minutes ago, floplag said:

Thats not what i said or meant at all.  You truly dont need to convince me of his value, hes everything youve stated and has been so for the last three years while the team played 500 ball.  

They would have played .500 ball with Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, Honus Wagner, Roid Bonds, etc etc. Trout and his contract had NOTHING to do with their struggles. Without him, they would have lost 90 games last year. They've been crappy because they had a historically awful farm system (nothing to do with Trout), gave huge contracts to Pujols and Hamilton (nothing to do with Trout) and had catastrophic injuries to their pitching staff (nothing to do with Trout). Signing Trout to an extension won't affect the farm system, won't affect Pujols and it won't affect their pitching staff. It means they won't have $40 million a year to sign someone else. Fine. If the farm produces the way Eppler intends, they won't need to.

[Docwaukee]

16 minutes ago, floplag said:

I notice nothing about the team winning in that post though.    I'm certain hes put up surplus value for the last 3 years but I took little enjoyment in the last 2 seasons watching this team hover around 500.
I want the team to win, preferably with Trout, without him if it must be so.  The team comes first to me over any one player. 

you win with surplus value Flop.  The team has not won because of the other crappy or injured players around him sucking up money that could go other places.  

if you take the money you'd spend on Trout and give it to someone else, you wouldn't get anywhere close to the same value.  

It's exactly the premise Eppler is using to make the team better.  

[Jay]

11 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

Trout's a good reminder that life, even baseball, isn't only about winning. I know that it is a game, and the point of a game is to win. But winning the WS is only one moment in the year; most of what we experience is the day to day, from each of the 162 regular season games to offseason Hot Stove. Winning is a moment, the process is the entire year. And even when you win, you enjoy it for awhile and store it in your memories to revive every so often, but you turn back to the new season and enter the process again.

I'd even go so far as to say that winning is secondary; enjoyment of the process is primary. Even if winning is the goal of the game, the process of getting there - the "quest" - is most of what we experience. And a great source of my enjoyment of the process is watching the greatest player in the world play in an Angels uniform. You can't put a price on that, although it has immense monetary value. He puts seats in the stands, and he creates a legacy - as the greatest Angel ever, the greatest player of his generation, and one of the greatest players of all time.

So yeah, I want to see Trout remain an Angel, even if it costs an absurd amount of money. He's worth it - and more. 

 

Congrats, you are the Homer of the Day.

Winning is secondary... because we have Trout!

What better way to describe the Angels perennial futility by calling it a "quest"... Bravo!

 

[kevinb]

16 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

Trout's a good reminder that life, even baseball, isn't only about winning. I know that it is a game, and the point of a game is to win. But winning the WS is only one moment in the year; most of what we experience is the day to day, from each of the 162 regular season games to offseason Hot Stove. Winning is a moment, the process is the entire year. And even when you win, you enjoy it for awhile and store it in your memories to revive every so often, but you turn back to the new season and enter the process again.

I'd even go so far as to say that winning is secondary; enjoyment of the process is primary. Even if winning is the goal of the game, the process of getting there - the "quest" - is most of what we experience. And a great source of my enjoyment of the process is watching the greatest player in the world play in an Angels uniform. You can't put a price on that, although it has immense monetary value. He puts seats in the stands, and he creates a legacy - as the greatest Angel ever, the greatest player of his generation, and one of the greatest players of all time.

So yeah, I want to see Trout remain an Angel, even if it costs an absurd amount of money. He's worth it - and more. 

 

Winning is secondary? Actually the only thing that matters is winning. You obviously didn't play sports and I cant imagine why you watch them. If at the end of the day you lose what is the point? I can't imagine what your job is? I lost every customer our business had but it was about the journey. 

[Jay]

In Angelsjunky's business, everyone gets a trophy.

 

[Angelsjunky]

1 minute ago, Kevinb said:

Winning is secondary? Actually the only thing that matters is winning. You obviously didn't play sports and I cant imagine why you watch them. If at the end of the day you lose what is the point? I can't imagine what your job is? I lost every customer our business had but it was about the journey. 

 

A team wins a game at the very end of the game. Why do you watch the entire game? Why not just watch the 9th inning? Could it be that you, perhaps, enjoy the process of the game itself? Otherwise, if winning is "the only thing that matters," then you might as well skip the whole thing and watch the last out and then, at best, you'll be happy 65% of the time.