AngelsWin.com Today: 2019 Angelswin.com Primer Series: Center Field

[AngelsWin.com]

By Robert Cunningham, Angelswin.com Senior Writer

This is the point in the series where we try to answer the $500,000,000 question.

Yes you read that right.

No seriously go back and count up the zeroes, we will wait.

The question of a Mike Trout extension is not so much when, but what it will constitute in terms of contract length and total payroll commitment.

So, to be clear, it is the author’s firm opinion that #27 will ink an extension deal this off-season. He will most likely put pen to paper (or his finger on a touch pad) between the time the dust settles on Manny Machado’s and Bryce Harper’s newly-signed deals and the beginning of Spring Training give or take. A signing could even happen on Opening Day or shortly after.

This, of course, makes sense. Trout deserves to be compensated for his peerless production and having Manny and Bryce set the free agent market from a price perspective will set the table for what the Angels will have to fork out, in a Millville Meteor deal.

In last year’s Outfield section of the Primer Series, we discussed what a Mike Trout extension would look like based on a conservative valuation, using a base of $9.5M/1 WAR, a modest 5% inflation increase in $/WAR year-to-year, and a base 8-WAR season through age 30, a -0.5 WAR age adjustment through his age 34 season, and a -1.0 WAR age adjustment for every year after that.

Even with that relatively conservative set of assumptions, the raw, rough numbers still spit out a jaw-dropping value of $870,000,000! Guess what? Mike Trout just put up a 9.8 WAR season in 2018, beating that base 8 WAR starting point for 2018 by a whopping 1.8 WAR!

On some level it is absurd for any team to pay any player the amount listed above but the point I am trying to make is that the Angels need to compensate Trout in a manner that reflects his worth and how the free agent market would pay him. Machado and Harper will likely hit or exceed $400M each in all probability and those contracts will be record setting ones for all of about 5 minutes before Trout signs his new deal with the Angels. These are lofty pie-in-the-sky numbers but Mike’s vertical leap lets him play in the clouds.

Beyond the actual eye-popping dollar figures we should discuss the very real and probable opt-outs that will be inserted into Mike’s new contract. Trout seems like a loyal guy so a career-long compact may have genuine appeal to him but I think Mike wants to ensure that he gets enough opportunities to win a World Series Championship and thus it is the author’s opinion that the Angels will insert one or more opt-outs in Trout’s new extension deal.

An opt-out after the 2020 or 2021 season will allow Billy Eppler to continue building the farm system and team, to show Mike the Angels can and will be competitive. It gives Trout the opportunity to get the big money contract and the ability, if things are not going well, to leave and sign with a team that he feels has a better opportunity to win in the post-season. Multiple opt-out’s are a very real possibility.

This action by the team would be an act of good faith toward Trout and his agent by acknowledging his worth and desire to win in the present. It does little for the Angels other than building some good faith with their superstar, Hall of Fame-bound center fielder unless they get an extra year (or more) of control by starting after the 2021 season which would be the end of Mike’s age 29 year of control.

The bottom line is that there is nothing holding the Angels back from doing this now. Adding opt-outs allows Mike to exit, if he desires, a long-term commitment and is in-line with how contracts are being written nowadays (reference Clayton Kershaw for example). Whether it is $400M, $450M, or $500M offer (or crazily even higher) Trout is worth it by even the most conservative $/WAR assumptions.

If you believe the WAR valuation (and believe me that takes some courage too), a Mike Trout extension is THE value-buy of the off-season and Arte Moreno and Billy Eppler know it. Despite the monumental cost and commitment to one player they would be foolish not to act on it. If Mike Trout is not Moreno’s “right guy” then no one is.

As if you need a reminder here is Mike Trout’s last three seasons:

Crazily, Mike just keeps getting better. Might he become the twelfth player in Major League history to have an on-base percentage over 50%? Could he also be the twelfth player of all time to exceed a 200 wRC+, as well? Who knows! No matter what it will be fun to watch!

Author’s Choice

Clearly Mike Trout is the best player the Angels have ever had and may be one of the best, if not the best, players in Major League history. He is in his prime and the Angels are in the driver’s seat to ink a new career-long deal if “The Kiiiiid” is also.

I think this is an easy call by all parties involved so I am all-in on my belief we sign him this off-season.

Time will tell the tale!

View the full article

[tdawg87]

Nice article. I still don't agree on your figures at all but we'll see. 

I think Trout will get 10/380. Harper gets something like 10/330.

[Blarg]

There is no value to the Angels to offer him an extension then give him an opt out that equals the end of his current contract. 

[Inside Pitch]

My version of the Angels CF primer...

The second fish would be the extension...

[Docwaukee]

Nice job as always Robert.  

 

[floplag]

Great article, great series, well done.
I know its not a popular opinion but im really not sure i want to give out the first 400M contract or more.
Considering our apparent financial limitations we are facing today adding another 7-10M to one player is scary.   I know building the farm giving cheaper cost controlled guys offsets much of that but were still going to have to dip into free agency to fill in the blanks.
I would love to see him be an angel for life, im just not sure i want to set that precedent 

[AngelsLakersFan]

1 hour ago, floplag said:

Great article, great series, well done.
I know its not a popular opinion but im really not sure i want to give out the first 400M contract or more.
Considering our apparent financial limitations we are facing today adding another 7-10M to one player is scary.   I know building the farm giving cheaper cost controlled guys offsets much of that but were still going to have to dip into free agency to fill in the blanks.
I would love to see him be an angel for life, im just not sure i want to set that precedent 

This is the contradiction of the concept of the Mike Trout extension. The argument could be made that Trout is not just a lot more valuable than Machado or Harper, but that Trout is TWICE as valuable as Machado and Harper. Ettin's analysis of Trouts 'worth' is completely in line with what players have been paid on the open market in recent years. Does Trout's status as the one player light years ahead of the rest of the league break the mold, or is he going to be a 'victim' of a market the rewards the best player of each offseason a similar amount?

We will see how it goes, but it's hard to imagine anything other than some middle ground extension where Trout is paid far more than anyone else has ever been paid, while simultaneously being severely underpaid in comparison to other top players to which is his far superior. 

[floplag]

21 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

This is the contradiction of the concept of the Mike Trout extension. The argument could be made that Trout is not just a lot more valuable than Machado or Harper, but that Trout is TWICE as valuable as Machado and Harper. Ettin's analysis of Trouts 'worth' is completely in line with what players have been paid on the open market in recent years. Does Trout's status as the one player light years ahead of the rest of the league break the mold, or is he going to be a 'victim' of a market the rewards the best player of each offseason a similar amount?

We will see how it goes, but it's hard to imagine anything other than some middle group extension where Trout is paid far more than anyone else has ever been paid, while simultaneously being severely underpaid in comparison to other top players to which is his far superior. 

It isnt really about his value, if we can even quantity that, hes the best player on the planet, there is no debate, and he should be paid as such.  There is literally noone in the game today that can say hey deserve close to his money in my view, including Betts who is probably the clear #2.  Im just not sure i want to be the one to pay it. 
 
Assuming this around 160M is our limitations, do we really want 25% of that going to one player?  How do you build around that when so much is gone off the top?  
If hes worth 40, the other top players are going to argue they are worth 30 arent they?

I dont want to lose the guy but there is a very large part of me that just feels this is too much for any one player and I dont want to see that precedent breached. 

[ettin]

3 hours ago, Blarg said:

There is no value to the Angels to offer him an extension then give him an opt out that equals the end of his current contract. 

Exactly, that was my point, this would simply be a gesture from the front office to Trout, giving him flexibility. It is unlikely in my opinion but everything surrounding Trout is unlikely. To me it will more likely be an opt-out after 2021 or perhaps even 2022 or spread out along the length of the contract.

[AngelsLakersFan]

20 minutes ago, floplag said:

It isnt really about his value, if we can even quantity that, hes the best player on the planet, there is no debate, and he should be paid as such.  There is literally noone in the game today that can say hey deserve close to his money in my view, including Betts who is probably the clear #2.  Im just not sure i want to be the one to pay it. 
 
Assuming this around 160M is our limitations, do we really want 25% of that going to one player?  How do you build around that when so much is gone off the top?  
If hes worth 40, the other top players are going to argue they are worth 30 arent they?

I dont want to lose the guy but there is a very large part of me that just feels this is too much for any one player and I dont want to see that precedent breached. 

I'm a little surprised to hear this from you actually. I mean I understand the fear of getting locked into a Pujolsian albatross and the team will hopefully put that into consideration when they come to an agreement. 

The bottom line is that the FA market has been trying to force players annual salaries down by adding in opt out clauses, pushing free agency back into a players 30's and attaching draft pick compensation. Trout isn't really going to be affect by any of this from the Angels perspective. He's also going to be twice the player of any recent free agent. I mean Bryce Harper has been worth about 11 war over the last three seasons, Machado 15, and Trout almost 26. Trout has literally been worth Harper and Machado COMBINED. 

Give him whatever he wants. The Angels are still supposedly a big market team, so I don't want to hear it from them that the best player on the planet was too expensive, just to watch them go sign four or five guys for more money who can't even come close to a single season worth of Trout production. Trout may be 25% of the budget but he is currently something like a third of the team's total production.

[floplag]

16 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

I'm a little surprised to hear this from you actually. I mean I understand the fear of getting locked into a Pujolsian albatross and the team will hopefully put that into consideration when they come to an agreement. 

The bottom line is that the FA market has been trying to force players annual salaries down by adding in opt out clauses, pushing free agency back into a players 30's and attaching draft pick compensation. Trout isn't really going to be affect by any of this from the Angels perspective. He's also going to be twice the player of any recent free agent. I mean Bryce Harper has been worth about 11 war over the last three seasons, Machado 15, and Trout almost 26. Trout has literally been worth Harper and Machado COMBINED. 

Give him whatever he wants. The Angels are still supposedly a big market team, so I don't want to hear it from them that the best player on the planet was too expensive, just to watch them go sign four or five guys for more money who can't even come close to a single season worth of Trout production. Trout may be 25% of the budget but he is currently something like a third of the team's total production.

But thats just it, we may be in a big market, but we dont seem to be acting like a big market team. 

I know i know were still spending more than most, very true, but when we make bad decisions we seem paralyzed by them and simply accepting our fate till they expire instead of accepting them and moving forward and in comparison to other large market franchises in similar situations.   Trout as others have mentioned largely pay for himself to a point, but even with that at current levels we appear handcuffed and unwilling to go beyond a certain levels for whatever reasons.   

He may have been better than both of them in the sense you mention, but consider this for a moment... what if the Angels had both of them and didnt have Trout, would we be better or worse overall?  I dont know the answer to that im no psychic but i think you could make that argument. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

10 minutes ago, floplag said:

But thats just it, we may be in a big market, but we dont seem to be acting like a big market team. 

I know i know were still spending more than most, very true, but when we make bad decisions we seem paralyzed by them and simply accepting our fate till they expire instead of accepting them and moving forward and in comparison to other large market franchises in similar situations.   Trout as others have mentioned largely pay for himself to a point, but even with that at current levels we appear handcuffed and unwilling to go beyond a certain levels for whatever reasons.   

He may have been better than both of them in the sense you mention, but consider this for a moment... what if the Angels had both of them and didnt have Trout, would we be better or worse overall?  I dont know the answer to that im no psychic but i think you could make that argument. 

We would be far worse because there is no way we are getting them both for $15m (based on Trouts current deal) or even $20m based on the assumption Trout gets $40m.

[ettin]

TFW when Debbie Trout retweets your 2019 Primer Series article:

https://twitter.com/AngelsWin/status/1084531916684967936 https://twitter.com/AngelsWin/status/1084531916684967

[tdawg87]

7 minutes ago, ettin said:

TFW when Debbie Trout retweets your 2019 Primer Series article:

https://twitter.com/AngelsWin/status/1084531916684967936 https://twitter.com/AngelsWin/status/1084531916684967

Oh god it won't stop moving

[ettin]

Just now, tdawg87 said:

Oh god it won't stop moving

I think you should forego the normal "if still erect after 4 hours go see a doctor" this time, Toby.

[AngelsLakersFan]

Great, now Trout's mom is expecting $500 million to a $1 billion contract.

[beatlesrule]

I stated over and over again that the Angels would not win another World Series under Mike Scioscia. I was correct unfortunately but now he is gone. Sadly though, Moreno has proven he does not do whatever it takes to try to win a championship and this offseason hasn't changed that. 

Signing Trout to an extension would be nice, but there will 100% be opt-outs because Mike wants to win and so just extending him is not enough. Moreno will have to go against what he has been doing for the whole time he's had Trout and actually try to feaking win it all for once. 

[Stradling]

6 minutes ago, beatlesrule said:

I stated over and over again that the Angels would not win another World Series under Mike Scioscia. I was correct unfortunately but now he is gone. Sadly though, Moreno has proven he does not do whatever it takes to try to win a championship and this offseason hasn't changed that. 

Signing Trout to an extension would be nice, but there will 100% be opt-outs because Mike wants to win and so just extending him is not enough. Moreno will have to go against what he has been doing for the whole time he's had Trout and actually try to feaking win it all for once. 

They are doing what it takes to win a championship.  

[Jay]

The Angels need to do more than just pay Trout they need to show that they are a top-tier team deserving of having a player of his caliber.

What I've seen the last several years is a second-rate team that by some miracle has the best player of his generation. A total mismatch.

Normally you would expect a player of Trout's caliber to be playing on the biggest stage under the brightest of lights.

Angels seem to be hoping that the team develops into something good by taking a passive approach but that could easily fail.

Yeah, to get Trout to stay in Anaheim may very well cost $500 million.

 

[tdawg87]

I think people are just set in their ways with regards to Trout. The Angels haven't won a playoff game in 9 years, so why would Trout want to sign an extension?

He won't at all consider the direction the franchise is headed. He will only consider what they are doing right this very second. Because who gives a shit what happens over the next 10 years when we aren't winning RIGHT NOW? Trout sure as shit doesn't.

Farm system improving dramatically? Hooplah. 

Eppler focusing on the future and the draft? Hooplah.

Eppler also trying to field a competitor every year? Hoopfuckinglah. 

We didn't win in 2018. Trout is as good as gone. Franchise Facking over dickheads. 

[tdawg87]

That's why he's gonna sign with Philly because they won in 2008. The last Angels world series? 2002. 

Edge: Lowell.

[tdawg87]

Trout will only extend with the Angels if they give him $200 million more than everyone else because winning isn't important only moneyohwait

[tdawg87]

I swear to Lord Reinhold you guys are Facking dumb 

[Docwaukee]

'we were in agreement on a deal with Mike Trout at 10/400 until Robert f'n Cunningham.'  

[Docwaukee]

4 hours ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

I'm a little surprised to hear this from you actually. I mean I understand the fear of getting locked into a Pujolsian albatross and the team will hopefully put that into consideration when they come to an agreement. 

The bottom line is that the FA market has been trying to force players annual salaries down by adding in opt out clauses, pushing free agency back into a players 30's and attaching draft pick compensation. Trout isn't really going to be affect by any of this from the Angels perspective. He's also going to be twice the player of any recent free agent. I mean Bryce Harper has been worth about 11 war over the last three seasons, Machado 15, and Trout almost 26. Trout has literally been worth Harper and Machado COMBINED. 

Give him whatever he wants. The Angels are still supposedly a big market team, so I don't want to hear it from them that the best player on the planet was too expensive, just to watch them go sign four or five guys for more money who can't even come close to a single season worth of Trout production. Trout may be 25% of the budget but he is currently something like a third of the team's total production.

we're gonna spend $40m in free agency somewhere.  Good luck on getting 8-10 WAR for that over the next 5+ years.