Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

IGNORED

$400 million???


Thomas

Recommended Posts

In general contracts in baseball have been getting longer in order to entice players with more guaranteed money. This is a growing trend, particularly with any young player that is willing to sign such a deal as the controlling team takes on a lot of short-term risk but gains long-term value if the player avoids serious or catastrophic injury.

 

The idea of a 20 year, 500 million contract, while absolutely unprecedented in MLB history, is not a bad idea in principal. Longer length contracts usually have insurance policies attached anyway and there is no reason the Angels couldn't take one out in this case. Trout seems like a pretty good level headed kid and no one really knows what his aspirations are but I have seen nothing said by him that indicates that he wants to go anywhere else. Accepting the largest MLB contract in history for a half-BILLION dollars would instantly secure his financial future for the rest of his life and any lives after this one. Would you refuse $500,000,000.00?

 

As far as the money there is no reason you couldn't "mid-load" the contract, paying him $30MM + in his age 25-33 seasons and then taper it up and down at the beginning and the end of the contract, respectively.

 

There is nothing different about this idea from the idea of locking up a young skilled player through his arbitration years and first couple of years of free agency, its just the time frame is greatly extended (and rightfully so in this special, particular case).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There has to be a clause in the CBA to stop this sort of thing.  Hockey tried to do it 2-3 years back by tacking on 3 years at $300,000 per year for a player's 39, 40 and 41 years and it was shut down in a hurry.  Why wouldn't any team close to the cap just *always* do this to get around the AAV thing?  I would have thought this loophole would have been caught already . . . .

 

I'm not sure there is any rule against the loop hole. The reason being, it can be kind of risky. The Angels would be tacking on a ton of extra cash that will only be paid out in the event that Trout completely collapses. I think it is a worthwhile risk for the team but it should still be viewed as an assumption of additional risk, not a loop hole. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There has to be a clause in the CBA to stop this sort of thing.  Hockey tried to do it 2-3 years back by tacking on 3 years at $300,000 per year for a player's 39, 40 and 41 years and it was shut down in a hurry.  Why wouldn't any team close to the cap just *always* do this to get around the AAV thing?  I would have thought this loophole would have been caught already . . . .

A loophole doesnt get closed until someone takes advantage of it. Unless there is limits to how long a mlb contract can be I dont know how it could be stopped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not reward money. Trout is valuable enough to warrant an insane contract.

Arte will make him a fair offer when the time is right. There's no reason to push the limit on an already cash strapped team. Arte has a lot of obligations both on and off the field. They're talking Garza, Tanaka, stadium renovations and development. Trout is going to have to wait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arte will make him a fair offer when the time is right. There's no reason to push the limit on an already cash strapped team. Arte has a lot of obligations both on and off the field. They're talking Garza, Tanaka, stadium renovations and development. Trout is going to have to wait.

Till the Yankees offer him $600 million after 2017. Thanks for trying!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Till the Yankees offer him $600 million after 2017. Thanks for trying!

Mike Trout is not leaving us anytime soon and we will all find out together if he even wants to be here long-term. Only Mike Trout can answer that. Money is just one factor and we shouldn't take it personal if he decides to move on. Remember that this is Albert Pujols' team. Just ask Trumbo, Morales and Hunter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did some valuation of the first A-Rod contract which due to inflation the present value would be somewhere between 300 and 385 million dollars for his contract. 400 today may actually seem reasonable. Although it seems Trout is on a platform of his own, I would expect the future contracts of players like Machado, Harper, and other young "phenoms" to be used as leverage. Also it should be worth checking the contracts on the books for the Mets, Yankees, Phillies, Red Sox, and Dodgers even though every team will be interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A loophole doesnt get closed until someone takes advantage of it. Unless there is limits to how long a mlb contract can be I dont know how it could be stopped.

 

right.

just like the extra $10m to pujols for "services" after his initial 10 year contract ends. 

was a way to get him an extra $10m without affecting the team's payroll.

that loophole is now closed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...