Angels renew Trout @ 510K. Agent mad?

[Blarg]

$250k is chump change to Arte Moreno. 

It is not change to anyone in business.

 

This is a thread of stupidity to the n'th power. Trout signed willingly, the Angels are getting ready for a season, quit trying to make up shit that isn't a factor in the big picture.

[stormngt]

Wells is relevant when illustrating what kind of money is being talked about.  It is penny pinching.  Why risk affecting future negotiations, everyone asking Trout about this.... over so little money? 

But that proves the point that I have been saying.....players in the mlb are over paid after they reach FA.  The owners know they have to over pay them.  That is they owners want to take advantage of the fact that they can under pay a player when they are in club control.

 

Hey guys, If I knew giving Trout an extra 2 million this year and next year would guarantee him resigning with us than I would agree with you.  The fact is  Trout could take the Angels good kindness and five year pull a Grienke and say "i am going where the money is".  

 

So why shouldn't the Angels try to underpay him now?

[ScottT]

It is not change to anyone in business.

 

This is a thread of stupidity to the n'th power. Trout signed willingly, the Angels are getting ready for a season, quit trying to make up shit that isn't a factor in the big picture.

 

What did I make up, sir?

[ScottT]

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

 

There is, but I'm exaggerating.  This is an amount of money that they can easily afford and is well worth it.  

[stormngt]

Clearly this means they should do away with contracts and base a player's salary on the previous year's performance. That would be fun to see.

I wonder what Wells would be paid if this wan in effect?

[Jobu]

Remember how excited everyone was for the MultiQuote button?

[stormngt]

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

250K is more than 500K  

 

I know for us it seems like monopoly money but it isn't.  I don't like alienating Trout and agree he should have been paid more, but loyalty on one end doesn't ensure loyalty at the end.  The Angels could have paid Trout the extra 250K and Trout still could leave in 5 years.  That is how the business works.

[Brent Maguire]

Wow complete overreaction by some of you guys. You really think Trout is going to be bitter about not earning a little bit more? If he performs the same in 2013, he'll get a humungous contract and everybody will forget about this.

[Brent Maguire]

With that said, I think they should have just paid him the 1 million instead but in the end this isn't going to hurt the team or Trout. He'll be an Angel for life.

[ScottT]

Where is the overreaction?  People don't want a new owner or GM.  Nobody is saying they won't go to any games this year. 

[Lou]

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

 

almost a quarter of a million dollars

[Lou]

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.  

 

who said they couldn't afford it?

 

they can also afford to give Bourjos a $10 million deal and a new pony.  

[Lou]

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.

 

 

i skimmed it

 

i read: "  I take it you have never been in a position of authority over other people.  If you had,..."

 

lol

[bloodbrother]

9 pages and counting on a complete non issue. God bless AW

[Wallerrrr]

Where is the overreaction?  People don't want a new owner or GM.  Nobody is saying they won't go to any games this year. 

 

 

just people bitching trout and his family MIGHT be offended by the offer and wont sign here 5 or so years down the road...right, no overreaction at all lol

[bloodbrother]

250K is more than 500K  

 

I know for us it seems like monopoly money but it isn't.  I don't like alienating Trout and agree he should have been paid more, but loyalty on one end doesn't ensure loyalty at the end.  The Angels could have paid Trout the extra 250K and Trout still could leave in 5 years.  That is how the business works.

 

Loyalty is when the team offers him a long term deal(which they will) and he accepts(which he will)

 

The end.

[bloodbrother]

I can't wait for the Trout presser on his 8 or so year extension with the Halos where he comments about how things were a little rocky back when the Halos only gave him a 20K increase from his first year to his 2nd

 

and then laughs it off

[IEAngelsfan]

who said they couldn't afford it?

 

they can also afford to give Bourjos a $10 million deal and a new pony.  

I can agree with the $10M, but the pony?  You're going too far.

[jshep]

I heard the Angels only offered a mule, which isn't even close to a pony.

 

Disrespectful, really.

[angelduck]

Wow complete overreaction by some of you guys. You really think Trout is going to be bitter about not earning a little bit more? If he performs the same in 2013, he'll get a humungous contract and everybody will forget about this.

 

 

With that said, I think they should have just paid him the 1 million instead but in the end this isn't going to hurt the team or Trout. He'll be an Angel for life.

 

So which is it? Should they have paid him a million or am I overreacting? You seem to be contradicting yourself here

[bloodbrother]

So which is it? Should they have paid him a million or am I overreacting? You seem to be contradicting yourself here

You definitely are overreacting, as usual. It's cool though, that's your thing

[Blarg]

9 pages and counting on a complete non issue. God bless AW

We should be discussing the Angels new losing streak and if anyone cares.

[Mark68]

This is a non-issue.

 

This is how it works. You don't get paid for the value you have now or COULD have in the future. You get paid for the value you've already provided. This is why Wells, Hamilton, and Pujols make more than $20 million/year. Because of the value they HAVE provided. In the past. Players are not paid on projected future performance.

 

It also doesn't make sense for the budget to pay him now.

 

Trout will get paid, I suspect, when Wells is no longer. Not before.

 

This is how baseball works.

[ScottT]

It doesn't have to work that way, and often doesn't work that way.  Ask Derek Jeter, Albert Pujols, Ryan Braun, Tim Salmon, and others.  

[ELEVEN]

http://www.bettycrocker.com/

i can throw links out too...how about explain your point of view. 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?

That pimento cheese dip looked pretty good.