How About a 12 Year Deal for Trout?

[Ohtaniland]

Claude you are underestimating the importance of risk vs reward. If he waits until he is a free agent that is four years to go without a major injury. If he signs early it is a huge insurance policy against injury. He would not turn down a 10 year $200+ million contract. No agent would advise him to turn it down.

 

So marry for money?

[Stradling]

No, not at all. If he is miserable here then he can work out opt out clauses in his contract. Not only that, he signs the contract it's not like he couldn't force a trade later. Give me one example of a great baseball player that wanted to be traded where it didn't happen.

[Ohtaniland]

No, not at all. If he is miserable here then he can work out opt out clauses in his contract. Not only that, he signs the contract it's not like he couldn't force a trade later. Give me one example of a great baseball player that wanted to be traded where it didn't happen.

 

Well Strad, the "opt out clause" changes everything. I'm sure Mike Trout would sign a long-term 10 year contract that wipes out his arbitration years with an opt out clause. Mike Trout would sign that today but.......that's not really a long-term deal is it.   

[Stradling]

If it's a ten year deal with an opt out in 7 years, then yes it is.

[Ohtaniland]

If it's a ten year deal with an opt out in 7 years, then yes it is.

 

If it's a front loaded deal he might consider it.

[Stradling]

They could also offer him a big contract with a huge signing bonus. I understand you're wired to look at the glass being half empty but there is no reason to panic for at least another year.

[AngelsLakersFan]

No he's an amazing player. I just don't agree with all of the over the top long-term deal suggestions. Arte must just laugh when he reads stuff like that. 

It's funny you say that because it would likely be Trout who would turn down such a deal.

[wopphil]

If you were 22, making $450k per year, with the possibility that you could lose that if you got injured, and someone guaranteed you $200+ mil for the next 10-12 years....you would take it. There is no way Trout would turn down a 10-12 year deal for $200-250 million.

[AngelsLakersFan]

If you were 22, making $450k per year, with the possibility that you could lose that if you got injured, and someone guaranteed you $200+ mil for the next 10-12 years....you would take it. There is no way Trout would turn down a 10-12 year deal for $200-250 million.

 

I'm sure Trout would negotiate a shorter deal. I can't imagine a young guy wanting to make such a huge commitment. I'm sure there is some lesser contract that would make both sides a little more comfortable with long term risk.

[Ohtaniland]

If you were 22, making $450k per year, with the possibility that you could lose that if you got injured, and someone guaranteed you $200+ mil for the next 10-12 years....you would take it. There is no way Trout would turn down a 10-12 year deal for $200-250 million.

 

Like I posted earlier in this thread, none of us know what motivates Mike Trout. He's a phenomenal athlete and he can play wherever he wants to play. Money, winning, hometown, organization, stadium or being close to his family are all things for him to consider. That's his choice to make and our opinion won't be a factor. 

Edited November 17, 2013 by Hamiltown

[Brent Maguire]

I think a realistic extension will be somewhere around 7-8 years so Trout still has he chance to hit free agency if he chooses. A 7/8 year deal around 210-230 million would be a good deal for both sides.

[wopphil]

I think a realistic extension will be somewhere around 7-8 years so Trout still has he chance to hit free agency if he chooses. A 7/8 year deal around 210-230 million would be a good deal for both sides.

I disagree. That is too much to guarantee him for only 7-8 years. Too much risk for the team without the necessary upside.

[Ohtaniland]

I disagree. That is too much to guarantee him for only 7-8 years. Too much risk for the team without the necessary upside.

Pujols was a bigger risk.

[YouthofToday]

Under no circumstances should we include an opt-out clause.

The contract's AAV for luxury tax purposes is the average of the entire deal -- not when the opt out clause is. Considering the years after the opt out clause would be free agent years they would boast the overall AAV of the deal.

[Brent Maguire]

I disagree. That is too much to guarantee him for only 7-8 years. Too much risk for the team without the necessary upside.

I don't think that's too much at all for the best player in baseball. It's not like most guys who get these deals at free agency when they're near age 30 and are ready to decline.

Barring injury, Trout should be the best player in baseball for the next 10 years.

[YouthofToday]

I disagree. That is too much to guarantee him for only 7-8 years. Too much risk for the team without the necessary upside.

I don't understand. Were you in favor of #5's deal at age 32? Weaver's when he was in his late 20s?

If we wait till Trout is a FA dude could easily command a minimum of 10 years.

If we wait until he is almost a FA he will want either a very short term contract (without any free agent years) or a 10 year deal.

So by not going 7-8 years now you are essentially stating you are fine with him walking at age 27 (as I doubt you would go more years if forced).

Edited November 17, 2013 by YouthofToday

[AngelsLakersFan]

Under no circumstances should we include an opt-out clause.

The contract's AAV for luxury tax purposes is the average of the entire deal -- not when the opt out clause is. Considering the years after the opt out clause would be free agent years they would boast the overall AAV of the deal.

 

Wouldn't this give a team the ability to low ball the player on the post opt out clause years in order to dramatically decrease the AAV of a deal, for luxury tax purposes...

[stormngt]

Claude you are underestimating the importance of risk vs reward. If he waits until he is a free agent that is four years to go without a major injury. If he signs early it is a huge insurance policy against injury. He would not turn down a 10 year $200+ million contract. No agent would advise him to turn it down.

I agree. There is too much to risk turning down a ten year contract where there are still fours years of team control. However the longer the angels wait to offer that contract, the less incentive trout has to re sign.

[wopphil]

No, my point is that if you are going to give him $230 mil - the fourth richest contract in baseball history - before he even hits *arbitration*, you damn well better be getting 11-12 years out of him (not a mere 7).

[Ohtaniland]

I agree. There is too much to risk turning down a ten year contract where there are still fours years of team control. However the longer the angels wait to offer that contract, the less incentive trout has to re sign.

I'm still waiting to read where any 10 year $180-200M discussion has ever taken place between Trout and the Angels.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

12-years for the winner of the Mike Trout Award every year?  I'm in! 

 

If Pujols is worth ten, Trout is good for 12 easily. Normally I'm not for giving a guy more than 4-5 years, but this is a special case IMO.

 

Not sure what kind of provision contracts of this length have in the event that a player has a career-ending injury.

Edited November 17, 2013 by Vegas Halo Fan

[Troll Daddy]

Reality check time ... I'm guessing that Arte will start with a low ball offer since he has the upper hand for the next four years.

6 years / 80M or 9 years / 150M

[Brent Maguire]

Reality check time ... I'm guessing that Arte will start with a low ball offer since he has the upper hand for the next four years.

6 years / 80M or 9 years / 150M

There's no way Trout is signing for that little and Arte knows that.

If they intend on keeping Trout around long term, he's going to get a huge contract.

[Oz27]

Reality check time ... I'm guessing that Arte will start with a low ball offer since he has the upper hand for the next four years.

6 years / 80M or 9 years / 150M

Since my time of being too busy to post too much, it seems people (thankfully) ignore much more of what you say. But this is just too ridiculous to let slide. You want to give Mike Trout a deal significantly worse than what Torii Hunter got? If Jerry Dipoto went to Mike Trout with that, there's no way I could fault Trout demanding for a trade.

 

As for extension talks, it is going to take a REALLY long deal to get Trout to sign, I think. 12 years might be not far off. He's hitting free agency really young and is the best player to enter the game since Pujols (if not even better than that). If he hits free agency he's getting way more than $300 million,  so any extension is going to take a big pile of cash and some damn good security to go with it.

[Troll Daddy]

Since my time of being too busy to post too much, it seems people (thankfully) ignore much more of what you say. But this is just too ridiculous to let slide. You want to give Mike Trout a deal significantly worse than what Torii Hunter got? If Jerry Dipoto went to Mike Trout with that, there's no way I could fault Trout demanding for a trade.

As for extension talks, it is going to take a REALLY long deal to get Trout to sign, I think. 12 years might be not far off. He's hitting free agency really young and is the best player to enter the game since Pujols (if not even better than that). If he hits free agency he's getting way more than $300 million, so any extension is going to take a big pile of cash and some damn good security to go with it.

Torii Hunter was a free agent ... big difference. You can't compare his contract to a player who's under club control for four more years . Players like Hunter or Pujols put in many years of service time before they got their big payday.

If you want to blow Trout away with a big contract ... then maybe you wait another couple of years to see how he progresses as a player.

The whole concept of offering a big extension right now is to save money in the long term. You don't pay him as if he's a free agent.

You are already acting like Trout is all about the money and some spoiled kid. If he doesn't get wants then he'll request to be traded.

If Trout wants some security .... then he will accept a offer that saves the team some money.

This is how I feel Arte will play his hand. Look how he handled Jerred Weaver. No need to get butt hurt over my opinion.

Peace