Angels renew Trout @ 510K. Agent mad?

[Lou]

Correct. That's why I posted "His family and friends might"

 

why didn't you put that they might not ?

[CaliAngel]

Correct. That's why I posted "His family and friends might"

Exactly. So you're making a big stink for no reason.

Nothing new to see here folks, move along...

[Wallerrrr]

So, from what I read...Trout has no problem with the contract right? He said he doesnt have an issue....his agent does apparently.

 

so its the fans b*tchin about it being unfair because they THINK he might be offended or his family MIGHT be offended.

 

just wanna make sure i got the facts straight...

 

player has no problem....agend/fans do

[Lifetime]

in your speculative opinion

[Wallerrrr]

Why risk alienating him by paying him the minimum (when other high performing rookies got big salary bumps) when you can add 250,000 on (it's not like Arte can't afford it) and cultivate a good relationship? You assume Trout won't care in a year or two. My question is: What if he does and we could have prevented it by making a small gesture like that?

lol @ alienating...its his 2nd year!

He will see his fair share of contract offers from the Angels, no need to fear the team is "alienating" him...lol.

[Brandon]

They gave him slot money.  

 

They gave him more money than his rookie contract states, seems like a plus for Trout.

[Jobu]

He's signed for 5 more years, said he's fine with it, and will have as many as 4 opportunities to make his case for a higher salary in front of an arbitration panel.

 

Is this thread just so we can practice arguing?

[stormngt]

This is a really stupid move by the Angels. Why risk pissing Trout and his agent off? Why not just give him something respectable like 1.5 million? We all know Arte can afford to pay him an extra million bucks. I don't like this at all

Does giving Trout let's say 900K instead of 500K guarantee the Angels to resign Trout to a long term deal later?

 

That is what goes through my mind.  You have a good point that you don't want to piss Trout off with a low ball number, but let's remember, after FA players are all over paid and until arbitration every player is under paid.

 

Personally, If was Dipoto I would have offered Trout a 10 year deal now!  Thus over paying him during his club control days and then underpaying him four years after that.  However, the club may feel that is too much of a risk for a player with less than one year of performance, or Trout may not have been interested.  

 

If Trout wasn't interested in a long term deal now, than I say the Angels were smart low balling him now because your going to have to over pay him later.

 

This issue is a tough call for me.  If treating Trout better now ensures a long term deal later than I think it would have been a dumb move by the Angels.  However, there was no guarantee of the so called long term later so why would the Angels pay him more when they don't have to?

[Brandon]

#1: He can't reject the contract. Don't you know how the system works? His three options: a. Sit out, don't play, and get paid nothing. b. Sign the contract and play. c. Don't sign the contract and play. I believe C was what actually happened. Pre-arbitration, a player's signature(/agreement) is not required on the contract to make it official. He's contracted for this year at the price the Angels stipulate. End of story.

 

#2: The precedent is in regards to what players who have had extraordinary rookie seasons were paid in their second season. No one *ever* pays someone by what they will do, because nobody knows what a player will do. You pay them based on what they've done, hoping it will continue. It's why big contracts aren't given out until unrestricted free agency (usually). And if you'd read my reply (bottom of it), you'd know I don't advocate a high contract (10-20 million). I'm advocating that Trout gets paid based on what other players who had comparable first-year seasons received (were given by their team) in their second year.

 

#3: Reading comprehension, bro, look into it. Two different groups: a. All rookies. b. Rookies who played at an extraordinarily high level. You have suggested Trout is being treated fairly because he's being paid what all other rookies are being paid. I pointed out that rookies who perform at a level comparable to Trout in their first year, have gotten pay increases in their second seasons. Trout received a 20,000 increase - lower than virtually any other example in history of a high-performing player going from first to second year. Going from 490,000 (league minimum) to 510,000 is disrespectful. Going to 1 million would cost the Angels little. That would be fair. The current contract (that Trout did not sign, as far as I'm aware) is not.

 

#4: Prince Fielder. Was lowballed repeatedly both pre-arbitration and during arbitration by the Brewers. First year of free agency, Fielder left. This isn't my opinion, it is a very real possibility. I take it you have never been in a position of authority over other people. If you had, you would know that the key to running efficiently is having a happy, but disciplined staff. Satisfaction starts with treating them as others in their field are treated. Trout outperformed 99% of rookies in history. He's being paid like the bottom 50%, not like the top 1-5% of rookies.

 

#5: I never said he should get paid above what he signed. You apparently don't understand the position of pre-arbitration players. I noted it in #1, but I'll say it again in hopes you'll grasp it: Players in their second year do not really have the ability to negotiate. The agent can discuss the contract with the team management, but when all is said and done, the player is given a contract. His signature is a formality - he is officially signed regardless of whether his name is on the dotted line. Only when he reaches arbitration does he have any bargaining power at all. Your example makes not sense and is apparently arguing a strawman of what I said.

 

You give out money to employees when they excell to show them you appreciate them. The business model you're thinking of is a third-world level economy in which people are employed in the only business open to them. They either work at the pay assigned or they don't work. Repeated again: This isn't about paying Trout 30, 20 or even 10 million on a second year contract. A rookie who performs well-above the average rookie, like the examples shown in the Fletcher article, are given a bump (Pujols, for instance, received 600,000 his second year, when the minimum was 200,000; Salmon, as someone else pointed out, made 500,000 his second year, 19 years ago). 1 million this season would not be a significant bump in money, but it would show that the Angels organization recognizes Trout's high-level of play this last season and are rewarding him for it.

 

 

I don't mean to be a dick, but I am not reading or responding to that. There is tl;dr and then there is what you just posted which is novel length.

 

Just figured I would say something instead of disregarding it and being an asshole since you seem to want to debate this at length.

 

Sorry dude, I guess you win.

[ScottT]

 You state..."He gave it out to Vernon Wells.  That's the absurdity of this in a nutshell.  We aren't talking about $80 million, $20 million, or even $2 million."

 

He gave what to wells? Money? a fat contract?

 

 

Money.  Read what I was responding to.   Point is... and I've said it several times... we aren't talking about much money.  You can give him a sizable raise for not much money in the grand scheme of all things MLB.  You can afford to give him more because of him.  

[jshep]

FWIW, the Angels are giving Trout the maximum a player with his service time can get on their scale.

 

So while it's not a large bump, it is a recognition of his high level of play and a reward for that.

 

I'm guessing Trout and his agent would have prefered more money in a perfect world(who wouldn't?), but I don't buy that this is going to be a significant factor when it comes time for the Angels to start talking to him about a contract with a total value north of a hundred million or two.

 

It's pretty much a non-story IMO, if it weren't for the fact that nothing else even kind of interesting is happening today.

[stormngt]

I think you might be missing the point: compared to other good seasons by rookies, Trout is being paid percentage-wise very low. And yet, he had one of, if not *the* best rookie season of all time. It's not primarily about a few hundred thousand dollars, it's about respect.

The Angels are saying in effect that performance is irrelevant for first year players: there will be virtually no bonus if you do well. That's a dangerous message to be sending. Breeds bad results.

In five more year Trout will be over paid enough.  Paying fairly doesn't make a lot of sense.  In baseball players under club control get paid less than they are worth.  Players in FA usually get paid  way more than they are worth.  That is how it is done.

[ScottT]

They gave him more money than his rookie contract states, seems like a plus for Trout.

 

 

Weak considering comps and the fact the Angels are not a cheap ass team like the Marlins. They should be able to afford a bump.  

[ScottT]

Does giving Trout let's say 900K instead of 500K guarantee the Angels to resign Trout to a long term deal later?

 

 

What harm does it do to give him $750k?

[Brandon]

Does giving Trout let's say 900K instead of 500K guarantee the Angels to resign Trout to a long term deal later?

 

That is what goes through my mind.  You have a good point that you don't want to piss Trout off with a low ball number, but let's remember, after FA players are all over paid and until arbitration every player is under paid.

 

Personally, If was Dipoto I would have offered Trout a 10 year deal now!  Thus over paying him during his club control days and then underpaying him four years after that.  However, the club may feel that is too much of a risk for a player with less than one year of performance, or Trout may not have been interested.  

 

If Trout wasn't interested in a long term deal now, than I say the Angels were smart low balling him now because your going to have to over pay him later.

 

This issue is a tough call for me.  If treating Trout better now ensures a long term deal later than I think it would have been a dumb move by the Angels.  However, there was no guarantee of the so called long term later so why would the Angels pay him more when they don't have to?

 

While I generally like this idea, I don't think it's good for the Angels or Trout.

 

In 3/4 of a season the Angels nor Trouts camp can determine his long term worth.

 

If he puts up last year two more years then you try to Longoria him.

[Blarg]

I hate to think what 21 year old me would do with half a million dollars.

Probably end up eating it in cheeseburgers.

[Brandon]

Scott, if 200k is going to make or break a long term deal that would be the most ridiculous thing ever.

 

Just like it's menial for the team to drop on him, it's menial in the grand scheme of what Trout is trying to accomplish and he has said as much.

[Blarg]

What harm does it do to give him $750k?

It is a business, the harm is the bottom line dollar. You have some strange idea that the money is never a factor to ownership but always a factor in the players favor.

[stormngt]

Problem #3: It's dangerous because these guys aren't robots. Sometime in the next few years, Trout will most likely be offered a long term deal by the Angels. If he does not like the way they've treated him in comparison with how other teams treat their players, he may decide this is an organization he does not wish to stay with. That may or may not happen. But why risk it?

 

Problem #4: It sets a bad precedent for first year players. They know coming into the Angels organization that even if they have an MVP level season, they will still be paid less than the same player having the same season on another team (Cardinals, for instance, gave Pujols 600,000 his second year when the minimum was 200,000 - Pujols had a good season, but probably still not quite as good as Trout's).

 

Problem #5: "It's not dangerous, it's the economic system of baseball. You don't see players giving back money to the owners when they don't perform."" In a word: Huh? What are you talking about? Does your employer require you or your coworkers to 'give back money' if any of you don't perform? Or, if you are an employer, do you require employees to 'give back money' when they don't perform? This statement seems nonsensical to me, and I'm lost as to why you even included it.

 

Let me clarify: Not suggesting they pay him 20 million, or even 5 million. But even bumping him up to 1 mil/1.5 mil would send a positive message that they appreciate his contributions. And it's laughable to suggest Arte can't afford that.

Problem 3 is a valid argument.  Except, there is no guarantee that if the Angels pay Trout better now that he would give the team "a home town discount" later.  That is why I am torn on the idea of paying him less.

 

Problem 4:  Who gives a SH**.  It doesn't matter if there is a bad precedent or not.  Minor Leaguers just want to get a shot at the majors.  They are not going to be less motivated to make the majors just because their parent club doesn't pay their ROY candidates better.  Rookies want to stick in the majors and have a career.  They are not going to be less motivated just because their pay is "unfair".  That is quite the contrary, they would work harder, build up great numbers and then strike it big in free agency.

 

Your argument on problem 5 doesn't make sense.  NO, no one gives back their money.  However, I do think there is an argument that the players take advantage of the system once they reach FA.  Therefore, why shouldn't the owners take advantage of their control prior to the player reaching FA?

[ScottT]

Scott, if 200k is going to make or break a long term deal that would be the most ridiculous thing ever.

 

Just like it's menial for the team to drop on him, it's menial in the grand scheme of what Trout is trying to accomplish and he has said as much.

 

It just came up on CBS Sports Central with Jim Hill.  $200k pretty much eliminates the talk and the questions, wouldn't you agree?  Might be worth it just for that.  If it makes Trout and co. happier... steal of a move.  

[ScottT]

It is a business, the harm is the bottom line dollar. You have some strange idea that the money is never a factor to ownership but always a factor in the players favor.

 

$250k is chump change to Arte Moreno. 

[Angel_Fan_4_Life]

Yahoo Sports' article included:

''Mike, himself, does not wish to comment on this matter,'' Landis said. ''As when he learned he would not be the team's primary center fielder for the upcoming season, Mike will put the disappointment behind him and focus on helping the Angels reach their goal of winning the 2013 World Series.''

 

The money AND disappointed not playing center field.....hmmmm.  Makes me super nervous he will want to leave us when he can.  

 

I'm not happy about this!!!!  

[Brandon]

It just came up on CBS Sports Central with Jim Hill.  $200k pretty much eliminates the talk and the questions, wouldn't you agree?  Might be worth it just for that.  If it makes Trout and co. happier... steal of a move.  

 

I honestly don't think there is an issue or question in the first place, which is what Mike has stated.

 

It really just seems like more media sensationalism.

[ScottT]

People are asking Mike Trout questions about it.  People are asking Moreno, Dipoto, Scioscia, and the team about it.  It is annoying, I'm sure.  

[Brandon]

$250k is chump change to Arte Moreno. 

 

There is no such thing as chump change when you are running a business.