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

[Angelsjunky]

Just now, Jay said:

In Angelsjunky's business, everyone gets a trophy.

 

Well, yeah. Why not? I am a teacher. I don't look at students as "winner" or "losers," no matter what they're grades. It is my job to help them become who they want to be, whatever that is - be it a brain surgeon or farmer or artist or mechanic. 

[kevinb]

1 minute ago, Angelsjunky said:

 

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.

I watch them to do well. I don't watch them just to watch the process. If the Angels or any of my teams I root for are doing poorly I don't just watch for the fun of them doing poorly. The hope is for them to win. Yes I won't be satisfied 100% of the time that's life. But the goal is to win and if that doesn't happen changes need to be made to win. I don't care for moral victories. I don't believe in momentum from game to game. Winning at the end of the day is all that matters. If the Angels made it to the World Series and lost I wouldn't say well that was fun at least I got to watch KRod strike out some people. The Angels not making the playoffs has sucked... it doesn't matter that we have Trout. I could care less if Trout was on the team. He's great but I would much rather have this team in contention to win a title every year with a bunch of no name scrubs than watch Mike Trout hit the ball 1 out of every 3 at bats. 

[Angelsjunky]

4 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

I watch them to do well. I don't watch them just to watch the process. If the Angels or any of my teams I root for are doing poorly I don't just watch for the fun of them doing poorly. The hope is for them to win. Yes I won't be satisfied 100% of the time that's life. But the goal is to win and if that doesn't happen changes need to be made to win. I don't care for moral victories. I don't believe in momentum from game to game. Winning at the end of the day is all that matters. If the Angels made it to the World Series and lost I wouldn't say well that was fun at least I got to watch KRod strike out some people. The Angels not making the playoffs has sucked... it doesn't matter that we have Trout. I could care less if Trout was on the team. He's great but I would much rather have this team in contention to win a title every year with a bunch of no name scrubs than watch Mike Trout hit the ball 1 out of every 3 at bats. 

I am not saying "just to watch the process" or saying anything about moral victories. And yes, I agree that if the team doesn't win you make changes - the goal is always to improve and, hopefully, win. This isn't mutually exclusive, Kevin, just that if you don't enjoy the process, the whole experience becomes rather bankrupt: win or bust. This is an ideological difference.

Let me ask you this: do you enjoy watching games of teams other than the Angels, when you don't have anything invested? One of the reasons I like watching football (my third favorite sport after baseball and tennis) is that I don't have a clear favorite team, so I can enjoy a game for the game itself - without having emotional investment. Now I usually choose sides, and there are teams I like more than others as well as at least one team (the Patriots) I will always root against, but for the most part I can enjoy the back and forth of the game itself.

[floplag]

16 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

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.  

i think its a cop out to blame guys like Pujols or Calhoun.   This team could go over its budget and still turn a profit, its choosing not to.  At least thats what i believe to be true based on what ive read.

You are correct you never get that value ive never argued otherwise, only that some value is better than no value IF it comes to that.  and im not fully comfy with the idea of a 40M AAV on a limited budget.  

I get the premise, always have, i just dont agree with the requirement that we have to be a 500 team for 2-3 more years for it to come to fruition as the only option available to us.

[Docwaukee]

14 minutes ago, floplag said:

i think its a cop out to blame guys like Pujols or Calhoun.   This team could go over its budget and still turn a profit, its choosing not to.  At least thats what i believe to be true based on what ive read.

You are correct you never get that value ive never argued otherwise, only that some value is better than no value IF it comes to that.  and im not fully comfy with the idea of a 40M AAV on a limited budget.  

I get the premise, always have, i just dont agree with the requirement that we have to be a 500 team for 2-3 more years for it to come to fruition as the only option available to us.

so increase the budget to spend more now on players that are almost assured to produce less relative to what they are being paid

yet don't spend a certain amount to get production above what a player is being paid because of a limited budget?  

now I'm confused.  

[ten ocho recon scout]

2 hours ago, Dochalo said:

 If I'm the Angels, there is no way I let him out ever.  

 

[floplag]

30 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

so increase the budget to spend more now on players that are almost assured to produce less relative to what they are being paid

yet don't spend a certain amount to get production above what a player is being paid because of a limited budget?  

now I'm confused.  

That would depend entirely on what they were being paid and since we dont know that as yet, it doesnt matter.  
Im more concerned with the team winning than the value of a given player contract.  Most player are overpayed past arbitration years.  If we only sign guys that are likely to met their values we would struggle to fill a roster. 

[kevinb]

58 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

I am not saying "just to watch the process" or saying anything about moral victories. And yes, I agree that if the team doesn't win you make changes - the goal is always to improve and, hopefully, win. This isn't mutually exclusive, Kevin, just that if you don't enjoy the process, the whole experience becomes rather bankrupt: win or bust. This is an ideological difference.

Let me ask you this: do you enjoy watching games of teams other than the Angels, when you don't have anything invested? One of the reasons I like watching football (my third favorite sport after baseball and tennis) is that I don't have a clear favorite team, so I can enjoy a game for the game itself - without having emotional investment. Now I usually choose sides, and there are teams I like more than others as well as at least one team (the Patriots) I will always root against, but for the most part I can enjoy the back and forth of the game itself.

I don’t usually watch baseball outside of the Angels. I went to a couple padres games this year mostly because I like downtown SD and while I was there I rooted for SD but I could care less. I also went to the Dodgers WS just to watch the Dodgers lose which was fun in itself. I can’t usually watch with out having some rooting interest. As for football I either watch my team play or I watch because I’m interested in my fantasy players doing well or guys I’m playing against do poorly. I can’t watch just to watch I don’t find joy in it. I play sports as well but I don’t just play to goof off I want to win. Losing sucks. 

I get from a teachers standpoint where u can’t view your students as winning and losing and there is a process to it. 

[VariousCrap]

Everything the Angels are doing so far this off-season shows a team that is focusing on 2020 and beyond and when it comes to the Trout's next contract, those are the years he will care about.  Trout won't give a crap that the Angels have been around a .500 team the last several years.  He will care about what the team will look like 2020+ and I'm confident that the Angels organization are selling him on this right now.  The question will be whether Trout buys into this plan or not.

Money won't be a factor at all as the Angels will offer him pretty much any contract he wants.

[angelsnationtalk]

I don’t think Trout is the kind of player that wants the opt out. He probably wants a contract that will last him till retirement and given a chance to win and that’s it. Don’t get me wrong, he’ll get payed big bucks, but I think he just wants to play baseball. 

After Harper and Machado sign, the Angels will get to work in the FO about presenting numbers to Trout. Either during ST or towards the end of the season they will sit him down and say we want you an Angel for life, and here’s how we do that. They’ll give him a massive number and show him their future plans for winning and he’ll simply sign his name.

We’re talking about the most humble player in the game who wants to play baseball and that’s it. He doesn’t want to flash his name around and be a cocky player that thinks he’s top dog. He knows he’s top dog but he acts like a regular player that loves his teammates and fans. Make him feel special and he’ll easily sign. Period.

[UndertheHalo]

 the take that the players who suck ass.  Especially the one making 25+ million a year to suck ass are in fact.  Not to blame for the Angels being very average.  But Trout making a lot of money is a problem and maybe we should spread his money out among a bunch of players.  Anyway I think this is a bad ass and extremely scorching hot take. 

Edited January 4, 2019 by UndertheHalo

[Blarg]

4 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

Well, yeah. Why not? I am a teacher. I don't look at students as "winner" or "losers," no matter what they're grades. It is my job to help them become who they want to be, whatever that is - be it a brain surgeon or farmer or artist or mechanic. 

[Angelsjunky]

Let's take my 10/$400M as a possible scenario. According to Fangraphs, the price per WAR on the free agent market last year was $10.5M/WAR. Now that's a bit steep, because it implies a linear valuation, and it also doesn't take into account cost-controlled players that form the bulk of value on any major league roster (or should). But it gives us a sense of what Trout is "worth" on the free agent market - meaning, if we round down to $10M/WAR, a $400 million contract would break-even if he produced 40 WAR over those ten years or an average of 4 WAR/year.

Trout has averaged 9.1 fWAR per year, from 2012-18, a total of 64 WAR. Meaning, his free agent value in those seven years has been about $640 million, or $91M/year. Now no one would actually pay even a 9 WAR player $90M a year, but still. $50M if you knew you were getting 9 WAR? A lot of teams would do that.

But of course you can't assume you're ever going to get 9 WAR from any player, even Trout. Let's consider a few possible futures for Trout. 2019 will be his age 27 season, meaning a 10-contract would take him from age 27-36. Let's say they actually go crazy and add 10/$400M to his existing contract, meaning it ends up being 12/$468M (2 @$34M for 2019-20, 10@$40M for 2021-30). So let's speculate three possible career trajectories for Trout, age 27-38:

Debbie Downer: Trout has some injury issues, doesn't age well (gets fat), loses speed, and with it defense, stolen bases, and some average. Still a very good to great player at times, but we've already seen his best.

Projected Age 27-38 WAR: 8, 7, 5, 7, 4, 3, 6, 2, 4, 2, 1, 0 = 49 WAR.

Meaning, even in a very pessimistic outlook, Trout still amasses about 50 more WAR, finishes with ~115 for his career, which puts him in the mix with Mantle, A Rod, and Gehrig and among the top 20.

Moderate: Trout continues as is for a few years, starts a slow decline in his early 30s, then a quicker decent around 35. He misses a bit of time, but not a huge amount.

Projected Age 27-38 WAR: 10, 8, 9, 5, 8, 9, 7, 4, 6, 3, 5, 2 = 76 WAR.

Trout finishes with ~140 WAR for his career, which would be just ahead of Aaron and Wagner, and just behind Cobb and Mays at 5th all-time.

Optimistic: The signs have been there, but Trout is only now entering his peak. For the next half a decade he has an unprecedented run, declines slowly, and plays until he's 40 or beyond.

Projected Age 27-38 WAR: 11, 10, 12, 8, 9, 7, 8, 6, 8, 5, 5, 3 = 92 WAR, plus a few more to make 100 for his career.

Trout finishes with 160+ WAR, putting him in the same conversation with Bonds and Ruth. If we're optimistic we can hope he nudges past even Ruth and finishes with 170.

.............

Anyhow, we don't know what the future will bring, but even in the "Debbie Downer" version of Trout's future, he's still "worth" $500 million or so. And that doesn't touch upon the pricelessness of him as a legacy player.

[Angelsjunky]

14 minutes ago, Blarg said:

I have no excuses; well, I type very fast, and often catch mistakes when I proofread, which I rarely do (except on longer pieces). But you caught me, so kudos.

Dick.

[Stradling]

I truly hate the $X per WAR in free agency.  It is asinine and it quite frankly full of shit.  Show me a 3 WAR player that is getting $31.5 million a season in free agency.  This isn’t being critical of you AJ, it just is dumb.  No 5 WAR player is getting $50 million.  Trout isn’t going to get $100 million a season, or $90, or $80 or even $50.  I can only assume that because I hate it I must not understand it because it gets spoken about by guys I respect on here like Ettin and AJ.  

[Blarg]

7 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

I have no excuses; well, I type very fast, and often catch mistakes when I proofread, which I rarely do (except on longer pieces). But you caught me, so kudos.

Dick.

My wife is a teacher. Her emails are rife with spelling and grammar errors. Something about not bringing her work home is the excuse, even though she is always bringing work home. 

[Docwaukee]

3 minutes ago, Stradling said:

I truly hate the $X per WAR in free agency.  It is asinine and it quite frankly full of shit.  Show me a 3 WAR player that is getting $31.5 million a season in free agency.  This isn’t being critical of you AJ, it just is dumb.  No 5 WAR player is getting $50 million.  Trout isn’t going to get $100 million a season, or $90, or $80 or even $50.  I can only assume that because I hate it I must not understand it because it gets spoken about by guys I respect on here like Ettin and AJ.  

it's a reasonable way to estimate value on a year to year basis for the FA market.  It's just an average.  

[Angelsjunky]

12 minutes ago, Stradling said:

I truly hate the $X per WAR in free agency.  It is asinine and it quite frankly full of shit.  Show me a 3 WAR player that is getting $31.5 million a season in free agency.  This isn’t being critical of you AJ, it just is dumb.  No 5 WAR player is getting $50 million.  Trout isn’t going to get $100 million a season, or $90, or $80 or even $50.  I can only assume that because I hate it I must not understand it because it gets spoken about by guys I respect on here like Ettin and AJ.  

I don't like it either, as I said, because a) it implies a linear progression of value, and b) it doesn't include cost-controlled players, but...it is actually based on factual info: the money spent on free agents and how they perform via WAR.

 

[Stradling]

3 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

it's a reasonable way to estimate value on a year to year basis for the FA market.  It's just an average.  

Doc, educate me.  How is it an average?  I mean most anyone of value on the free agent market is a 2 WAR player or better.  Yet we won’t see many $20 million a year contracts.  I don’t get it.  Hell they could drop that number in half and it would be about right.  

[Stradling]

Just now, Angelsjunky said:

I don't like it either, as I said, because a) it implies a linear progression of value, and b) it doesn't include cost-controlled players, but...it is actually based on factual info: the money spent on free agents and how they perform via WAR.

 

Oh ok.  So how far back does it go?  So it is factual on money spent on free agents over what time period? 

 

[nate]

My guess is that Trout takes an extension, and any negotiating happening is probably over the opt outs.

I really don't think money is the determining factor with him at all.  We know he wants to win, an opt out provides him protection from being stuck on a bad team forever.

[Docwaukee]

5 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Doc, educate me.  How is it an average?  I mean most anyone of value on the free agent market is a 2 WAR player or better.  Yet we won’t see many $20 million a year contracts.  I don’t get it.  Hell they could drop that number in half and it would be about right.  

it's retrospective.  Total WAR that the entire pool of FA's produced over how much was spent in any given year.  

[Stradling]

Thanks @Dochalo

[Docwaukee]

11 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Oh ok.  So how far back does it go?  So it is factual on money spent on free agents over what time period? 

 

it also helps when it's broken down by category (RP, SP, position player etc) so you can get a feel for what might be over or undervalued.  

I actually like that it doesn't include cost controlled players because they're not really available to everyone.  

it's never going to match player for player and it's always nice to get good relative value on a player, but the actual value is obviously the determining factor of how good your team is.  

the only thing it helps you predict is how much you're going to spend on certain levels of production in the FA market or what a trade may cost you in terms of projecting value.  

[WeatherWonk]

I think Trout going to the Yankees is the most likely outcome. I think he is an east coast guy, as well. I dont think he'll want to wait for an opt out when the Yankees will be willing to give him 40 mil/year in 2021.

Hey, it's always been a right of passage in baseball. Good players put on the pinstripes, nearing the end of their career, to have the best chance at making the playoffs and getting a ring. Or adding to their total. Oh yeah, and then there's money.

Catfish, Reggie, Rickie, Baylor, Winfield, A-Rod, Clemens, Giambi, Sabathia, Cone, Boggs. The list goes on and on. Not all signed FA contracts, of course, but most did.

The list of players coming to Anaheim via free agency to pursue a ring seems a bit shorter........... 

The Yankees have only missed the playoffs four times since 1995, when Trout was 4 years old. Trout read all about that growing up, no doubt. The Angels have missed the playoffs SEVEN times in Trout's eight years as an Angel.

Plus, the Yankees are going to have holes to fill in the outfield, soon. Gardner and Hicks are free agents after this year. Stanton is best suited as a DH. Judge is too tall and not mobile enough to cover CF. And the Yankees will become desperate as the Red Sox win yet another AL East title this year. 

It will be time for him to take his place with Dimagg, The Mick and The Babe, as the greatest outfielders in Yankee history. The greatest of all time, mebbe. The Kid. Jersey Boy on Broadway.

Irrespective of any salary differential that might exist between a contract with the Yankees or the Angels, playing on the east coast in that sports media market.will mean beaucoup endorsement bucks for Trout. Suddenly, everyone in every time zone will be able to follow him "live". He will truly become the face of baseball with his smile, his performance and his exemplary demeanor, on and off the field. I would welcome him as the sports ambassador, wholeheartedly.

It might be by trade (the Yankees still have lots of young players to deal) or it might be by free agency, but I bet Trout ends up being a Yankee by 2021. The siren call is strong from New York.