[Fangraphs] Trout has been as good as Harper + Machado

[Angelsjunky]

I noticed this a few months ago - just amazing, if you think about it.

Sullivan loves himself some Troutporn.

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/mike-trout-has-been-as-good-as-manny-machado-and-bryce-harper-combined/

[tdawg87]

I'll be in my bunk.

[T.G.]

10 years, $700 million.

[Taylor]

34 minutes ago, True Grich said:

20 years, $700 million.

Fixed.

[GrittyVeterans]

Trout would absolutely be taking a discount if he agrees to the speculated numbers

[Docwaukee]

player contracts/salaries are non-linear 

[ScruffytheJanitor]

12 hours ago, Taylor said:

Fixed.

700 Million Years, $20.

Fixed again.

[Angel Oracle]

I still say that the Padres will wish by year 5 that Machado opts out.

10 years/$300 million?   SMFH

[yk9001]

This is some crazyass sh*t.

[fan_since79]

Best player of our generation. Do whatever it takes to keep him in an Angel uniform for the duration.

 

[GrittyVeterans]

12 hours ago, Dochalo said:

player contracts/salaries are non-linear 

Sure but you’re telling me that if Trout is twice the player Machado/Harper are he isn’t worth $50 mil AAV? Remains to be seen what Harper gets but I’m guessing it’ll be 9/310ish.

i am not advocating for him to be paid double.

 

[Docwaukee]

54 minutes ago, GrittyVeterans said:

Sure but you’re telling me that if Trout is twice the player Machado/Harper are he isn’t worth $50 mil AAV? Remains to be seen what Harper gets but I’m guessing it’ll be 9/310ish.

i am not advocating for him to be paid double.

 

he's worth it and deserves it but he's not going to get it.  There's a ceiling to the market that doesn't accommodate his greatness.  Even with Mike Trout there is tremendous risk in paying him for his current value.  

[Docwaukee]

btw, the super extreme example as to why.  Imagine a player that was worth 40 WAR.  Even if you paid him your entire payroll of 200m and let everyone else on the roster make league min, you'd still be short of paying him what he's worth.  

there's a number (which I am sure teams have worked out) where paying one or two or three players for elite production actually starts to inhibit your ability to get production in other areas.  Of course that number has a lot to do with your cheap talent/control etc.  

Also, the more a player is worth, the greater impact it has if they get hurt or decline.   

[yk9001]

We must have some other shitty players since Trout provides all this WAR and we can't sniff a division title.

[eaterfan]

10 minutes ago, yk9001 said:

We must have some other shitty players since Trout provides all this WAR and we can't sniff a division title.

Trout and Simmons are great. Ohtani and Upton are good. I think you about nailed the rest.

[Docwaukee]

1 minute ago, yk9001 said:

We must have some other shitty players since Trout provides all this WAR and we can't sniff a division title.

that's been the chronic problem for sure.  Too many holes to fill from year to year and relying on cash to fill them.  

Here are the players that will likely start the season on the roster with less than 4 years of service time:

David Fletcher
Andrew Heaney
Jaime Barria
4 guys in pen
Kevan Smith 

In order to have a reasonably competitive roster, The team spent almost $50 on free agents cozart, harvey, cahill, allen, lucroy, and bour.  How about instead you fill 4 of those spots with guys that are 0-4 players with similar production and then spend that 50 mil on two spots instead of spread over 6.  

It's those 5 or 6 roster spots that's making a huge difference for the team right now.  

[Docwaukee]

6 minutes ago, eaterfan said:

Trout and Simmons are great. Ohtani and Upton are good. I think you about nailed the rest.

Heaney and Skaggs are good. 

[Angel Oracle]

3 hours ago, Dochalo said:

that's been the chronic problem for sure.  Too many holes to fill from year to year and relying on cash to fill them.  

Here are the players that will likely start the season on the roster with less than 4 years of service time:

David Fletcher
Andrew Heaney
Jaime Barria
4 guys in pen
Kevan Smith 

In order to have a reasonably competitive roster, The team spent almost $50 on free agents cozart, harvey, cahill, allen, lucroy, and bour.  How about instead you fill 4 of those spots with guys that are 0-4 players with similar production and then spend that 50 mil on two spots instead of spread over 6.  

It's those 5 or 6 roster spots that's making a huge difference for the team right now.  

I'm hoping that Eppler will do that, once the team is in perennial contender mode (hopefully real soon).   Gerrit Cole would look great here, being reunited with Doug White. 

[ettin]

23 hours ago, tdawg87 said:

I'll be in my bunk.

Squeezin' out the funk.

[Troll Daddy]

6 hours ago, yk9001 said:

We must have some other shitty players since Trout provides all this WAR and we can't sniff a division title.

What good is it to have a 10 WAR player if you can't field a team to get maximum production from that player. Trout averaged around 110 runs and 90 rbi's over the last six seasons. Those are well above league average numbers but do I really want to pay the player $40M+ a season for that type of production if I can't afford to surround the player with a quality lineup.

Trout is capable of 150 runs and 150 rbi's a season based on his WAR. 

 

 

[Docwaukee]

7 minutes ago, Troll Daddy said:

What good is it to have a 10 WAR player if you can't field a team to get maximum production from that player. Trout averaged around 110 runs and 90 rbi's over the last six seasons. Those are well above league average numbers but do I really want to pay the player $40M+ a season for that type of production if I can't afford to surround the player with a quality lineup.

Trout is capable of 150 runs and 150 rbi's a season based on his WAR. 

 

 

Imagine if there was this repository of players that teams could draw from where they didn't have to pay them as much to produce for like 6 years or something?

that could be really helpful.  

[Sam Sanchez]

Final post by Jeff Sullivan before announcing him being hired by the Tampa Bay Rays. Very fitting it was a Trout post but sucks he won't be on Effectively Wild anymore.

 

Wouldn't have minded Him working for the Angels if they ever considered it.

[disarcina]

TROUT better than Machado and Harper combined ?  The only possible issue I have with this assertion and this post/thread is that THIS IS NOT BREAKING NEWS.

Anyone who watches MLB knows this.

Machado is a good ballplayer -- prefer him at SS over 3B but he's probably now going to be a corner power guy (Will Petco bring the fences in for him at that pitcher's park?)

Machado IMO did not help himself with his playoff performance with the Dodgers. I sort of think he may be more of an AL player and may find adjustment to the NL difficult. He's got ten years now to adjust.

If Machado is 10 years at $300 million, then Trout is worth more than that -- I can see Trout getting a contract (hopefully an extension from the Halos) for more than that and IF a ten year deal (will Arte ever agree to a ten year deal again?) is signed - I could see Trout wanting an opt out option after five or six years. Trout IMO is a once in a generation type player and if he remains healthy for the long term -- he could possibly hit another big pay day in 5 or 6 years depending on whether the MLB market and financial health have not totally collapsed. (I keep checking the year by year drop off in Little League/ youth league sign ups : baseball and football down - soccer up).

As for Harper. I really don't think he even qualifies for a comparison to Trout (Machado does and falls short). Harper needs to put two quality stat seasons in a row on the Board. Hasn't done that yet.  Every season since his arrival in MLB has been a quality stat season for Trout -even when he missed time on the DL.

Now that the Washington Nationals have said they're OUT (I sort of thought Harper would wind up back in a Nat's uniform with a one year deal) -- I could envision opening day with Harper watching from his couch.

White Sox may be a team interested -- but I don;'t see (and would not give Harper) a ten year deal and nothing close to Machado's contract.