Mike Trout, King of Trade Value Now and Forever
According to Alden Gonzalez, the Angels and Mike Trout are close to finalizing a six year contract that will pay Trout $144.5 mlilion over the 2015-2020 seasons.
Trout deal for $144.5M. Average annual value is nearly $24.1M. Makes Trout third #Angels player with AAV of at least $24M (Pujols, Trout).
— Alden Gonzalez (@Alden_Gonzalez) March 29, 2014
Those six years cover Trout’s three arbitration eligible seasons and his first three free agent seasons. Instead of hitting free agency after his age-25 season, he’ll play for the Angels through at least his age-28 season.
You don’t need another 1,500 word explanation of why this is a hilarious steal for the Angels. Trout would have made something like $50 to $60 million in arbitration had he gone year to year, so the Angels are basically getting three free agent years for $85 to $95 million. This doesn’t come anywhere near Trout’s value, and Trout has left an enormous amount of money on the table. Even if his goal was to reach free agency again and sign a second monstrous contract, he still is worth so far more than the roughly $30 million per year he signed away three free agent years for.
It’s very possible that Trout simply doesn’t care about maximizing his career earnings, or that he didn’t want the pressure of a precedent setting contract. $140 million is enough money that Trout will never have to worry about his financial well being again — to be realistic, though, he passed that point a while ago — and it certainly is Trout’s right to sign whatever deal he wants.
But Mike Trout has basically secured the #1 spot on the Trade Value series for the next four or five years. There’s no contract in baseball that will provide more return for the price than this contract. There’s no contract that will even come particularly close. A day after Miguel Cabrera reminded everyone of just how much money baseball teams have, Mike Trout took a deal for a fraction of his actual value. Good for him, if he’s happy. And great for the Angels. So great for the Angels.
Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.
A win-win deal for both sides, honestly.
Dave, what could possibly top this rollercoaster of Marte (steal), Cabrera (bigger overpay), then Trout (biggest steal of all)??
Phillies re-extend Ryan Howard, 7 more years, $175 million.
I’ve got a great 7 year old scouting report on Howard that says he’s still capable of 58 HRs…lock it up!
How many Ribbies tho?
Over seven years there’s a fairly good chance you’re right.
Even unfunny comments get a lot of likes when they are there at the top viewed by so many people.
He should have held out for a 20 year – $1 Billion deal.
I feel like this article is a bit hyperbolic. The deal is team-friendly, but it’s hardly highway robbery.
Agreed. Its a fair deal for both sides given the current structure of MLB contracts for guys that are pre-arb.
Sure, he could have went year to year and probably made more money. There’s a huge amount of risk there though.
No, he will clearly be the most valuable trade commodity FOREVER.
that is probably true no matter what contract he signed.
What you think Trout would have made in arbitration impacts the value of the deal. Dave says that Trout would make around $50-60M over his arbitration years, and threw out a “15-20-25” figure in the linked article. This assumes that he would have set massive records in arbitration, which I don’t think is a given. Here are the two most recent comparable players, and some key stats when they hit arbitration for the first time:
– – – – HR / RBI / R / SB / Avg
Pujols: 114 / 381 / 367 / 8 / .334
Howard: 129 / 353 / 255 / 1 / .291
Trout: 88 / 283 / 364 / 117 / .318 (w/ 2014 Steamer)
Howard went through arbitration and received a record $10M in 2008. Pujols asked for $10.5M in 2004, the Cardinals countered with $7M, and they ended up agreeing to a long-term extension. Granted these deals are 6 and 10 years ago, but while free agent prices have ballooned in recent years, arbitration salaries haven’t seen the same increase.
This is all to say, given Trout’s inferior HR/RBI numbers compared to Howard and Pujols, and knowing that those are the two most important factors in arbitration salaries (along with playing time, but these guys were all every-day players), I don’t think it’s a given that Trout would top $10M in his first arbitration year. If you project $10-15-20M for $45M total in arbitration, you get over $33M for each free agent year, as opposed to $28M. Still below market value, but maybe not the team-friendly deal it’s being made out to be.
Maybe more towards market value, BUT you also have to consider commitment. How often can you get elite free agent for only 3 years commitment?
The Angels wanted to give him a longer deal. Trout was smart not to take some 12 year deal that would have made him a free agent around age 35-36.
But those numbers don’t take into account park factors. I saw an analysis recently that argued that Tout in a more hitter friendly park would be around .335/.450/.600.
Arbitration does not usually take advanced stats into account. From what I’ve heard the most used stats are BA, HR, RBIs with some mention of defense that is often based on fielding percentage.
“Arbitration does not usually take advanced stats into account.”
According to what?
But they also look at MVP voting, 2nd place in his 2 seasons, might win this year, should have won those 2 years. I could see him getting 12.5/17.5/22.5 in the 3 years of arb.
Completely agree with this. Yes, Trout would have set the record for arbitration, but by how much? Cameron is assuming that Trout would have, on average, DOUBLED the previous high arbitration award. I think that’s optimistic thinking at best, insane wishcasting at worst. Keep in mind that the same type of thinking that just awarded M-Cab the MVP over Trout 2 years in a row would dominate the arbitration awards. More realistically, I could see Trout “merely” getting $40 million over 3 years (which would still shatter the previous arbitration records), up to maybe something like $50m at the high end (which would still average about $17m per year, 70% higher than the previous record). Looked at from that perspective, the deal is something like $31m to $35m for each of his free agent years, while still setting him up for free agency at age 29, when he can demand one of those 10 year A-Rod type deals (assuming some inflation, would a half billion dollars be out of the question?).
Think the Angels got a good deal here, but I don’t think this is a “steal” by any stretch. But again, as Matt points out, what you think Trout would have gotten in arbitration is key here. My understanding is that it’s a fairly conservative process, which I don’t think is informing Dave’s opinion enough.
Agreed. There is typically a discount for this kind of deal. Look at Rizzo and Longoria. Trout is getting price certainty for the next 6 years. No having to haggle and no risk of reputation damage each year of arbitration and free agency has value. Contract negotiations can get ugly and public.
I think its also a win for Trout in that he will become a free agent just around his peak years. Assuming he stays great, he is still in line for a massive payday down the road. If he hits free agency at 28, smart teams will be lining up 6 years from now with offers in the 40+ mil/year range. Considering Cabrera’s, Howard’s, and Pujols’ contracts, I can see a 8 year, 300+ million contract. Because, of course, by then, a decent ticket to a ball game will cost $250 and the monthly cable bill will be $10/month more for whatever local channel is carrying baseball.
Yeah this article basically assumes that Trout will more or less replicate his 10 WAR production over the next three years because that’s the only way he makes 60 million in arb.
I love Angel’s scout Greg Morhart’s initial report on Trout, when he was 17: “Best athlete. Best player in the world—period. Best player on the planet.”
When is FanGraphs introducing WBT (Wins Below Trout)?
aka WUT:
http://www.fangraphs.com/not/report-mlb-and-fangraphs-to-announce-creation-of-mike-trout-award/#comment-309801
FanGraphs is replacing the WAR statistic with WUT (Wins Under Trout). League leaders for 2013 are:
NL – Andrew McCutchen (2.2 WUT)
AL – Mike Trout (0.0 WUT)
WAR, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing’!
Fuck off Old School.
If that is a Seinfeld quote Old School then I approve.
Did I say ass to trout? I meant to say bass to mouth, though I guess it’s basically the same thing, not that I did it.
I cant believe nobody has given props for that
And yet the Angels still picked Randal Grichuk ahead of him.
dude they had two picks in a row and they took trout after grichuk to make him have to take lower slot money
Actually they didnt do it for any financial reasons, they did it as a goof on the guy that has scouted him. This story has been told a few times and yet people still want to talk about Grichuk having been taken first…
man, this whole series of comments–which appears on !every_single_article! about Trout–just never gets old. NEVER. FOREVER FUNNY.
I wonder if the Nats ever regret passing on Trout in order to “snag” Drew Storen that year. Imagine if they hadn’t and had actually taken Strasburg and Trout in the same 1st round. Would that have been the best 1st round in baseball history for drafting acumen?
Smart of them to “save” money though after going all in for Stras though.
Maybe he realized that anything can happen and it was better to take the ridiculously fair deal now and guarantee he’d be set for life rather than risking being the next Grady Sizemore.
Ironic that Sizemore was announced as Boston’s Opening Day CF this morning, tucked right after the Cabrera deal but before Trout’s deal.
Definitely ironic…but look at where he was after the 2008 season. He’d been consistently one of the best CFs in baseball and was coming off his Age 25 season. Nobody could have foreseen him having to fight his way onto a roster in ST on a league-minimum deal in 2014 at that point…especially after having missed 2 full seasons to injury.
If he hadn’t taken that 6 year extension after 2005, he’d probably have a career earnings around $3-4 million instead of nearly $30 million. Do you think he’s happy he took it given his issues?
Now imagine a contract 4.5 times larger and you’ve got what Trout just did. He’s 22 and set for life. Not a bad place to be.
And in Sizemore’s first four full seasons, he played an average of 160 games. It would have been tempting to wait a few years for that long contract with an 8-figure salary.
I keep feeling like we’re critiquing “Deal Or No Deal” contestants who take the $200K offer from the banker instead of risking it all for the $1 million. In Sizemore’s case, I’d bet the difference between $3-4 million and $30 million is the difference between being set for life and having to sell insurance after baseball is done.
Exactly, he was an ironman right up to the moment where he wasn’t.
You really need to rethink your priorities if you believe $144 million is enough money to be “set for life.” After taxes, it’s not even enough to get a nice apartment.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/adamdavis/new-yorks-most-expensive-apartment
@JimNYC Now enough to buy an apartment, but nice enough to buy an island… did you only look at the top part of the article you linked to?
Who wants an island? I’m just saying that $80ish million after taxes and agent fees isn’t really that much money in the scheme of things, when hedge fund managers can make ten times that every year.
@JimNYC
Are the hedge fund managers making 10x that amount 22 yo and the best in their field? I wonder how many were office gophers making 40K when they were 22…? 🙂
He’s getting financial security (and $144 million!) and he’s freaking 22 years old. He’ll be a free agent at 28, when he can sign a deal that could dwarf Miguel Cabrera’s. This is GREAT for both team and player.
Actually, he will be 29 when he hits FA, a little more than a year younger than Miggy is now. If Cabrera tanks in a few years, and if Pujols continues to struggle, maybe the market will be a little cooler at that point.
Given the way revenues keep increasing, I dunno. Unless the bubble finally bursts, but it’s impossible to judge when that happens.
That’s an interesting thing to think about. Most of the projections I see assume that FA salaries will keep inflating forever and ever, but there has to be a limit to baseball’s revenue growth, no?
Yeah, if Trout is actually good enough through his arb years to make what Dave’s projecting him as, he’s going to be in line for $800m on a new extension after 2018.
List of two-time 10 fWAR position players: Bonds, Mays, Ruth, Hornsby, Mantle, Williams, Gehrig… Trout.
List of guys to start off their career with 2 10+ WAR seasons:
TROUT, Michael
That is all.
In his career, Trout has been worth 155 runs above average, putting him #374 all-time, just ahead of Chick Stahl and Eric Davis, and one spot behind David Ortiz.
List of Angels making $20M+ per year: Wells, Pujols, Hamilton… Trout.
….completing Arte Moreno’s Mount Rushmore
List of Angel players who will sign a subsequent $20M+ per year multi-year contract: Trout
Haha – list of players ever who might conceivable sign a third $20M+ per-year multi-year deal: Trout
list of players who caused a home run by having the ball hit his head and bounce into the stands: Jose Canseco
$24M per year is better deal than Trout’s closest comp in pro sports this millennium:
http://espn.go.com/nba/truehoop/miamiheat/story/_/id/10690666/lebron-james-envious-miguel-cabrera-rues-nba-salary-cap
Personally, I’d rather have Walter Johnson than Trout. Johnson would replace 2 starters.
How out of line is this with the 9 year $260 million deal you suggested? If you subtract the 144 he’ll be getting, that would work out to about $120 million over 3 years which is what you suggested his FA years would be priced at. Is Mike Trout betting on himself for his next big contract and not willing to discount any more FA years? Or do the Angels have significantly lower risk/financial commitment with a 6 year deal than they would with a 9-10 year deal which means they should have paid him closer to market value?
It isn’t. Trout turned down a longer deal so he could be a free agent again during his prime. A 9 year deal would have put Trout in free agency as a 32 year old which makes less sense for him. Cameron’s critique here is really bizarre.
Completely agreed, Mark. It’s also worth pointing out that there’s reason to think that MLB clubs will be doling out $50-60m/yr contracts in three years. It would be folly for Trout to assume that he’ll be even a $40m/yr player in 2017 – and it certainly isn’t worth betting his health on. If that means that Trout is never going to paid what WAR says he’s worth – so be it. He was smart to make this deal, and the Halos were smart to give it.
Er, NO reason to think there will be $50-60m contracts.
Good for him. Personally, I’m sad because I was incredibly curious to see what would be the highest a contract could ever possibly go. He still may get it but I feel like Trout at 26 creates the first time a player is ever paid via ownership buying them their own franchise.
I don’t think $95MM for 3 FA years is that ridiculous an underpay. What would he have gotten, $40MM/yr? A deal for sure, but not insane.
So, at your $40MM/year, this saves them $25MM over 3 years, which is a solid chunk of change. However, $40MM/Year is below his value now, account for inflation of $/WAR and that teams pay over the average $/WAR in FA than it is not hard to make a case for Trout deserving at least $50MM per FA season those 3 years. That turns the savings into at least $55MM over those 3 years, however I can’t blame Trout for wanting financial security in case anything crazy happens. He hasn’t been paid enough the past 2 seasons to be financially secure for life.
I think the reasoning on the FA years being an underpay is that there’s simply no way he would have only signed for 3 of his peak years. He probably would be looking at a 10-12 year deal for north of $35 million per year.
There are several counter-arguments that point out pretty clearly how silly it is to say a player isn’t really valuable because his team isn’t making the playoffs anyways.
1. Flip it. If a team wins their division by 10+ games, then they couldn’t possibly have an MVP winner, because they’d have won their division anyways. How valuable is their best player, really? They’d likely be in the same position either way.
2. Play it out further. If a team wins their division by 1 game, then literally every player who helped them win a single game is more valuable than Mike Trout. Because each of them made the difference between making the playoffs and not, whereas Trout did not. Ergo, using this logic, Brandon Inge was more valuable than Mike Trout last season.
Here’s an analogy to consider. We each want to buy something that costs $1. I’ve got a quarter, 8 nickels, and 10 pennies. My “team” of coins is worth 75 cents and falls short of being able to buy the item. You have one dime and 18 nickels. Your “team” is worth $1, and you successfully buy the item.
If your dime more valuable than my quarter simply because it led to a successful item purchase?
2012*
What are you doing.
This always seems to assume some kind of hyperbole. I’m pretty sure it’s not that Mike Trout’s wins are worth nothing, but that they are worth somewhat less. Think of it kind of like a reliever: The ones who pitch in higher WPA scenarios, and well, probably added more value than someone who put up the same numbers in lower WPA scenarios. The question is if a player should be looked at on a view of some elements that are not in his control.
(I’m of the opinion that Miggy winning when he hit the Triple Crown was fine and Trout should have won the other year)
See, I’m the other way around. Miggy was historically great offensively last year. He wasn’t the year before.
Then there’s the fact that the Angels had a better record than the Tigers in 2012, while they were a below .500 team in 2013, so the “Playoffs!” argument makes a lot more sense.
Quick question to Dave and All:
Wouldn’t it have been a good idea for Trout to push for a long deal like a 10 year/$300M deal or not sign a deal with a bit more risk? A lot of this value is tied to speed and defense, things that don’t age particularly well. So, wouldn’t a long term deal essentially sell ultra high on Trout? Even if he is a good hitter in 2020, I doubt he’ll be able to increase his offense to a level that would make up for those declining skills. He might still be a great runner/defender at in 3 years. But I’m not sure he will be at age 31.
No, because if he stays healthy, he’s in line for an utterly MASSIVE deal as he’ll still be on the right side of 30 when this one is up.
Exactly — at 29, he’ll still be able to get that 10-year, $300MM+ deal (or 350, or whatever his unparalleled performance warrants at that time), only with $144.5 already in the bank. If he really wants to absorb some risk and milk every dollar he can, though, he could try to get a team to ink him to a 5-year, $180MM deal, then be in line for another ~$25MM/year long-term payday to close his career.
He should have waited, I’m annoyed. I wanted to see what deal he could have gotten.
You still can. The contract after this one is going to be astronomical.
As Weaver said when he signed his team friendly extension, how much money does any human being need? Going year to year carries risk of injury and/or diminished performance. He got security and nearly $150M guaranteed. If you had $150M, how would you even know if somebody stuck an extra $30M in your wallet? Great deal for club and player. And if Trout is still fantastic at the end of the deal, he can get a 10 year, half-Billion dollar contract to round out his career.
Hard to tell when you can’t even REACH your wallet.
Weaver became a favorite of mine when he said that. Also, to the extent the Angels are underpaying Trout–and I agree with Dave, they are, by a lot–they are in better position to sign other talent that will help them make the postseason.
Curt Schilling said the same thing as one point in his various negotiations. He recently filed bankruptcy. . . .
Curt Shilling Career Earnings: 114.15 Million
Mike Trout Career Earnings (by age 29): 145.5 Million
Even if Trout decides to invest heavily into a future personal company (Troutco) and that goes horribly bankrupt he’s still got 30 million dollars and an extra contract or two before he hits Schilling.
Anyone can go bankrupt, but you’ve got to work a lot harder to do it with that kind of cashflow.
Inflation probably puts them at about equal purchasing power.
What if Trout sold shares of his future earnings right now?
I’d invest a grand or two in Troutco.
Schilling took an incredible risk though, Trout can just hit cruise control and coast on this money if he wanted to (just as Schilling could have as well).
It all depends on what you do with it. $144 million can be enough for several generations, or it can be gone in a few years.
Would Mike Trout spitting into a teammates’ mouth be considered performance enhancing?
Miguel Cabrera is still better – two time MVP.
How many MVPs does Trout have? Zero.
I hope they finish tied in WAR just for everyones heads to explode.
How could people seriously argue Trout for MVP last year? His season last year was slightly worse than the year before, while Miggy’s was slightly better. WAR is a flawed stat that’s always changing how its even formulated. It shouldn’t really even be mentioned in an MVP discussion but stubborn folks around here just like to keep beating their WAR drums and it carries over to mainstream sports media where people take your (fangraph’s) expertise and run with it. Sure Trout is awesome, but get off his nuts already. Miggy deserved the MVP. Trout wasn’t good enough, regardless of what some flawed metric says.
Worse only because he lost some WAR value moving to LF instead of staying in CF. Offensively, he got even better. He gains that value back now that Bourjos was shipped to STL.
“His season last year was slightly worse than the year before, while Miggy’s was slightly better.”
Picking Cabrera over Trout in 2012 was a travesty. You’ve shown that picking Cabrera over Trout in 2013 was somewhat better than that travesty. Fine. There’s still a big gap between ‘better than a travesty’ and ‘right decision.’
WAR is flawed because it has the temerity to point out how awful Miggy is on defense and the basepaths, and to add up all of the double plays he constantly grounds into.
Old School is actually right on a thought or two here. Dave Cameron will agree that the FG people/readers hang their hats too much on WAR. Now the mainstream sports media (ESPN) is quoting it as gospel. It ain’t and will probably never be. So hearing the WAR argument over and over gets old. But Dave is clearly behind Trout as MVP. And although Cabrera was not UN-deserving, Trout was not un-deserving too.
Anyway, for those of us who will never understand what it’s like to be millionaires it’s easy to understand any player accepting less than market value for $144mm and one more huge payout. Mike Trout didn’t just buy out his arb and fa years. He bought out injury uncertainty. There’s absolute value in that. Enjoy yourself Mike Trout. You’ve just made yourself and generations of Trout in the future richer than most can even conceive. And you can still break the bank in the future. Well done!
Ps. You’re fucking good Mike Trout! WOW!
Is it just me or does Old School come out of the woodwork every time something big happens just so he can antagonize everyone. Seriously dude, no one’s buying it. Fuck off.
Talking about antagonizing, what really sucks reading about constantly is the Trout circlejerk. Two years this kid has been a stud; TWO YEARS. Not 15, not 10, not even a few. Hundreds of ballplayers have had such a peak. Not all at the beginning of their careers like Mike and Sizemore had, but they all were the best in the game at some point.
What’s even worse about the ‘jerk is that if Mike peters out for just a single year every one of you will forget him, mentioning this 6/150 as one of the worst contracts of all time. You’re an .750 OPS away from being forgotten, Mike, better keep it up!
Actually, Flowboy, just about nobody has ever had a peak like this, and those that did, didn’t do it this young. The beginning of Trout’s career is unparalleled in baseball history. You may not like it, but it’s a fact.
You’re retarded.
I think there was an argument, but that Miggy was the correct choice in the end.
2012, though, was a travesty.
Kid has never even cracked 100 rbi.
He won a Triple Crown too…nobody’s done that since like Secretariet. Still trying to figure out how a horse could hit so well.
Performance enhancing oats.
Even better than Billy H. on the bases, too! Not only steals every attempt, but a sure fire break up of double plays!
It IS possible:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=elway-001joh
Damn – numbers look like a young Jason Heyward.
why? just, why
Dave you are so obviously mad about someone not being greedy and trying to financially damage the team he’s going to play for for the next four years. Get a grip man
I have no idea how you concluded that from reading the article, if you even read it.
I don’t know that Dave is mad about it. But I get the impression he doesn’t like it. He writes, “this is a hilarious steel for the Angels”. Adding the word hilarious gives me the impression of emotion. So either mad or at least not happy about it. My guess is Mike read it Naveen. Enjoy!
The word hilarious makes you think of being mad/not happy? I tend to picture someone chuckling or something.
Here is to holding out hope that Bryce Harper puts up 10 WAR seasons starting this year till he is a free agent and then goes for all the money he can so we can see the most ridiculous contract ever.
Those are his instructions.
Bryce Harper is the next Grady Sizemore.
This might be the best comment I ever gave a + to. Good write Scott Bora$.
Forever and ever. Amen.
Honestly would’ve never expected to see a country music reference on a baseball nerd website, but I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. Great job haha
Fangraphs is more than just time that we’re killin’. This country boy knows all about that.
Damn Dave, you really wanted to get this post out as soon as you could hahaha. Agreed on all your points though.
Articles like this are automatically written in a vacuum as career-ending injures can’t be factored into the equation.
If Trout stays healthy until age 29, then this article is most likely correct. But if Trout has a Tony Conigliaro experience this season, then this article is absolutely wrong. If I’m Trout, I absolutely take this contract ASAP.
What’s the worst that could happen?
Don’t go there
I’ve been calling it HIGHWAY ROBBERY since it first broke, and getting EXTREMELY criticized for it by people talking about how it was a joke that anyone thought Trout could get $300 million. I just feel that even by “ONLY” giving up 3 free agent years, he could have got AT LEAST another $35-50 million
You are an hero.
its frustrating…I have the Marlins beat writer actually arguing that nobody would ever pay anyone $300 million the day after a 33 year old 1st baseman that I sat behind literally every day for his first few years just got $350 million to play to age 43. He keeps calling what Trout got the market price, pretty much in his usual condescending tone. This is hours after he confirmed that the team doesnt give merit to SABR metrics, and called that a good thing
and now he has called Miguel Cabrera the best player in the game
…(the lack of an edit function on this site once again gets me) He said that responding to me pointing out that Cabrera just signed for what he signed for in response to him saying nobody would pay anyone $300 million, which was in response to me calling Trout the unequivocal best player in the game…this is the typical petty, ridiculous argument that metric and traditional people seem to have on the internet and various other avenues. I’m a realist. I understand the value of both sides. I can say with a straight face that there is no doubt who the best player in the game is. Somehow, I’ve allowed myself to get caught up in this argument after I promised myself I wouldnt over these last 2 years…The Marlins beat writer constantly enters into petty arguments such as these too, so its not like this is a one time thing with him
and now the douche that argued this with me a couple of weeks ago has entered the frame saying that facts dont back up my argument, but back up the other side. Once again, I have to deal with them calling this market value for Trout…sorry for the play by play, but this is just really entertaining (though frustrating to the core)
Now its REALLY getting funny. I’ll post the link here if you want to check it out…http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article/mia/for-marlins-to-take-next-step-it-starts-with-team-concept?ymd=20140327&content_id=70108560&vkey=news_mia
If you’re a realist you’ll realize you just wrote way too much. I like to keep it positive but that was just too much for me.
`
Dang you zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz! As if I wasn’t tired enough. Enjoy!
So you think it’s realistic that Trout should have gotten basically a 3 year/$130m guarantee for his first three years of FA? There’s almost no way he could have possibly made more than $60m in his 3 arb years. I’m sorry, but as great as Trout is he wouldn’t get a 3 year/$130m deal if he hit free agency today (assuming the deal had to be for 3 years).
I’d have to disagree there. for 3 years, $130 million (or the $140 million I was thinking of) would equate to a $43.3 million AAV (or $46.67 million). That is arguably an underpay
(again lack of edit function)…for only 3 years, teams would easily pay that
But there’s a huge difference between what teams should theoretically pay and what they actually pay. What if teams have Trout’s WAR using internal functions at 6-8 instead of 8-10? Teams are pulling in big profits for a reason: they spend less than they can and should.
I’m not blaming the Angels for getting an incredible discount. I just am acknowledging that Trout gave them a big one, and hope that is part of the story when people speak about it
You cannot say that. There is no way to know if a team would suddenly pay 30%-40% MORE for Trout than what any other positional player would make.
It is only an underpay when you compare to Trout’s previous WAR totals. WAR does not dictate pricing. The market sets the price.
As a free agent today maybe. If it were possible for a team to agree now to sign Trout for 3/$130 for 2018-20 while he still played for the Angels until then, that would be very high-risk, and certainly a bad idea for anybody but the top half-dozen TV contract teams.
It would be an overpay to spend $130M for 3 years of Mike Trout, WHEN THOSE YEARS ARE 4 YEARS AWAY.
The angels would be taking all the risk, risk that he doesn’t regress at all, that his real performance level truly is 9+ WAR, that he won’t get hurt, arrested, busted for PEDs, that league revenues don’t hit the wall or take a hit in a recession, etc.
No team intends to pay a player what he will be worth, they intend to pay him less than what he he will be worth in order to generate surplus value. If Mike Trout gives you 8 WAR for $43M a year, but if you can spend the same amount to buy 10 WAR signing 2 or 3 other players you’d do that instead.
Even if Mike was a free agent today, paying him $43M a year would be audacious. Basically the deal would only produce surplus value for the team if he continued to perform at the highest level any modern player has ever sustained and never got hurt. If he gives you 9 years of 8 WAR and misses one season due to injury, a $430M/10 year deal costs over $6M/WAR.
League revenues have always grown to the sky and made long term deals tolerable because of the ever increasing value of WAR. But obviously baseball revenues can’t outgrow GDP forever, and the MLB will face hiccups where payrolls stagnate or retrench occasionally. Right now the US is going bankrupt and will probably default on it’s debts within a decade given how unsustainable the deficits are.
When the US starts looking for fresh revenues, and ways to cut spending, do you think the very wealthy MLB and it’s players will still be able to rely on a half billion in stadium subsidies per year? Removing those subsidies would reduce league payrolls by 15%, that’s a pretty painful hiccup if you are counting on 10 straight years of +5% to make a huge contract (Miggy, baby!) work out.
This is hardly the remarkable discount people are making it out to be. He’s making slightly less than he would have had he become a free agent at 26.
Agreed. Mike Trout will make as much money in six years as Evan Longoria will make in 15 years. And Longoria can’t become a free agent until he’s 37.
Except now he’s becoming a free agent at 29, having burned three free agency years in his absolute prime (26/27/28, my god) at a below market rate.
It isn’t the arb years everyone’s worried about (though those are likely at a slight discount as well), it’s the free agency years.
Dave makes an assumption that the value of WAR is linear. It may very well be that after 6 WAR that the value of WAR hits a ceiling at the 30 million per year AAV range.
The average MLB team has 250 million in revenues. 30 million is about 12.5% of a teams revenues. That 12.5% may be the ceiling today
There are 3 reasons LAA was able to get Trout cheaper than Cabrera. First off Trout has yet to get that first big pay day, making only 500K a year, and may be a bit impatient to start leading the good life. Second, Trout is 4 years away from free agency while Cabrera is 2 years away. Third, Cabrera is a better hitter and offense is valued more highly than defense.
Trout has his security now and if he still plays well and avoids injury has a much bigger pay day ahead of him. LAA has him locked up for 3 FA seasons at a modest 28 million which could be as low as 20 million in nominal dollars by the end of the deal. Good deal for both.
I don’t think it’s fair to compare the two contracts.
The Tigers essentially played chess with themselves in that negotiation as it’s unlikely that any team was going to pay Cabrera 30 million a year once he hit free agency.
The Tigers weren’t negotiating with anyone but it’s not like the Angels were either.
That’s what the investigation determined.
why would the value of WAR be less after 6 WAR? If Trout was worth only 6 WAR and they paid him (say 5m per WAR to keep things simple) market value or 30m and they spent 20m on a/several different payer(s) to get 4 WAR for 10 overall, isn’t it better that they’re paying Trout only 40m for those 10 WAR?
What i’m trying to say is, although there is a benefit to not having a large portion of your team’s value wrapped up in one player, because of injuries(or maybe other issues i’m not aware of), the flip side is that you get that value for a lot less then if you are paying for it in seperate installments (at least in free agency). The 3+ extra wins that Trout produces shouldnt help the team any less than if Trout was a 6 win player, and you add a seperate 3 win player (unless Trout gets injured, obviously)
Yeah, theoretically you are right. I guess what I am saying is there may be a law of diminishing returns for teams on a budget, and pretty much every team has a budget.
I don’t know where the cut-off may be but no matter how good a player is you still have to construct a team to win. I just don’t see any team but the Yankees going beyond 40 million.
Furthermore, like you say, there is much greater risk in having too much of your projected WAR and payroll invested in 1 player, enough so that that a team might want to hedge against that risk by paying less for it. Teams still have to construct a roster to win, and paying one player 30-40% of the payroll for 20-25% of the required WAR is putting too much on one player.
Call it a quantity discount if you want. A supplier with 10 tons of a commodity is going to sell for a cheaper price than a sale for 3 tons. That is pretty much true in any business.
Trout is just selling too much WAR, he can’t get the same $/WAR as someone with smaller quantities of 5-6 WAR, even if he gets more money overall. He has to sell that quantity at a bit of a discount.
Another possible issues is insurance on contracts. How much are insurance companies willing to insure for and at what premiums. Teams are going to insure their mega deals and if too much of a contract is uninsureable they are not going to do it. Maybe 30 million a year is pretty much the upper limit for insurance companies.
Technically you are right. Right now MLB teams pay 3.6 billion for 1000 WAR, or about 3.6 million per WAR. I answered the rest below.
This includes players under team control, and is thus not a particularly useful piece of evidence.
“This includes players under team control, and is thus not a particularly useful piece of evidence.”
Why not?
The fact that FA players get paid more than players under team control doesn’t mean that the WAR they produce is worth more.
If someone gives you $1000 for free, and then you work 40 hours for another $1000, is that 2nd $1000 worth more than the first?
Dave isn’t making the assumption that WAR values are linear. Dave has done and published the research that shows WAR values are linear.
Except the research he did shows that WAR isn’t linear.
It’s like people are forgetting that there’s still a tremendous amount of risk involved with Trout staying healthy (or as good as he is)for the next 4 years. Of course he’s going to take a “discount” relative to what he should get, because he’s only able to negotiate with one team.
Trout basically agreed to delay his free agency by 3 years in exchange for $80-90m over that time period, plus guaranteeing himself $50-60m for his 3 arb years. Then when he hits 29 if he’s still good he’ll get an 8-12 year deal that will take him to retirement.
What’s this tremendous amount? The risk of catastrophic injury for a position player is extremely low, and even so he was getting paid anyway. Trout could ride his dirt bike off a cliff, miss this entire year, and he would still get a minimum of $8-9 million in arb for 2015 and probably more like $10-11. If he still hadn’t recovered by 2016 he gets no less than 80% of what he got in 2015, and the same the next year. That’s $25 million for a worst-case scenario. A normal case scenario is probably $60 or so, and a best case (he continues as a 10 WAR guy) stratospheric.
Obviously we’re all risk averse to some degree and there’s always some risk in not having your future locked up. But we’re also all balancing that risk and how great we feel it is against what we’re willing to take in compensation against it. Trout and his team apparently decided that risk was worth $50 million, which seems exceptionally conservative to me.
Exactly. The Angels are very fortunate that Trout decided to treat them like this. But good for both of them.
I would not advise riding Dirt bikes at all.
http://articles.latimes.com/1994-03-16/sports/sp-34662_1_left-fielder
Teams aren’t required to offer arbitration fool.
Wow. 3 arb years and 3 free agent years. What a steal. The free agent years are worth $150 million easy. And the arb years are worth $85 millon.
That’s $235+ million is value. Angels are paying $144. They finally made a good signing.
No one was going to pay Trout 50 million a year in free agency. I’ll be surprised if his AAV exceeds 35.
Come on man, there’s almost no chance a team would pay somebody $50m per year over 3 years, let alone “easily.”
Ugh. Yeah they would. Prime years. Would you sign Mike Trout to a 3 yr. 150 mil deal? Yes. Of course. See scouting report. The best. He’s LeBron good. Or whatever.
I don’t think this sentence makes any sense:
But Mike Trout has basically secured the #1 spot on the Trade Value series for the next four or five years.
How could you possibly know that? You don’t think it’s possible that next year or the year after Trout falls off a cliff like Roberto Alomar, Mo Vaughn, or (probably the best of these limited examples due to age although readers of Fangraphs will think I am making a joke here) Jeff Francoeur?
I understand what is meant – you think Trout is exceptionally great (he had two years that torque any years of the three previously mentioned players) and further that he will remain great – but to write sentences like this where you basically imply that is a guarantee that he will continue along the same trajectory as the last two years (or moderately decline) ignores the fact that players (even young players) who seem like they will be stars way out into the future often drastically decline in performance rather than improve, maintain, or moderately decline. I would think my previous sentence is obvious but maybe not based on the way this article is written.
Dave would probably counter by saying “Even if he ‘moderately declines’ there is still huge surplus value under this deal” but again I think my point is the decline could be significantly more than moderate: we can’t predict what Trout will be next year or any year afterwards.
Sizemore, Baldelli, Conigiaro…
Obviously there’s a chance Trout is catastrophically injured and can’t play baseball anymore. But how good is that chance? How much money is it worth to mitigate it? As stated above, Trout decided that chance was worth $50 million, to basically insure he wouldn’t become one of the very small handful of guys who were so injured that they couldn’t play anymore. Add in that Trout is way better than any of those guys and so has much further to fall. $50 million seems like a ton of money to give up to insure against such a miniscule event occurring.
Not if you already have $150 million.
Or, just as likely, somebody else could show up who’s not quite as good as Trout but still has all his team control years. Trout may be cheap for Trout, but he’s still going to be making a lot of money, and he’s only under team control as long as Byron Buxton is.
If Buxton or Bogaerts or Tavares has a stellar year, they could pass Trout. Not to mention whoever the next guys are.
It’s a good thing Mike Trout is so good at baseball, because he sucks at math.
That’s silly. He just established lifelong financial security at the age of 22.
and we have a winner
I guess he would have been equally smart if he only took 30 million right, isn’t that enough for life long security? It’s just a plain bad argument, he had lifetime security before if he simply went through arbitration (based on what others have already gotten in arbitration awards, not to mention he’d be setting new records, hell look at the rewards Lincecum got through arbitration).
Anything short of a limb literally falling off of him and he was going to get his security.
He was going to get his security literally next year. $10 million is enough to set anyone up for life, and quite lavishly. And that’s just the start. This is just an incredibly risk-averse move on his part.
…unless he pulls a Grady Sizemore, Rocco Baldelli or Tony C and doesn’t get that $10 million.
He couldn’t even have wrenched $30 million a year out of them for those three free agent years? That’s half the value he could potentially be providing during those seasons.
mike trout, i wish this new contract you signed put you on the phillies
signed
a man drinking and reading fangraphs on a friday night
The contract after his next one, it’ll happen.
You have my word dang.
You are a complete idiot.
Good deal for both sides. Angels got great value, Trout got set for life and if he stays good then at age 28 he’ll get a huge deal anyway. And if he does badly then, hey, good thing he signed early!
There’s sort of a thing going on here that functions not totally unlike the opt-out clause, with the growing expectation that every star player will be negotiating extensions starting two years before free agency. In the winter of 2018, if Trout has continued to be awesome, and this deal is as backloaded as I expect, he’ll have a nice foundation of say 2/$65 to start with, and probably end up with something like 11/$420, leaving him around $500m in career earnings. We can project him for more than that if he went straight to FA, but probably not a lot more than that. (Relatively.)
Alternately, if Trout has stopped being awesome, he’s got a nice guaranteed paycheck that the Angels have to ride out.
From a pure math standpoint he’s probably trading off $100m or so of career earnings in his best case for this guarantee. Judging Trout’s proper risk tolerance from here is pretty much impossible, and it needs to be fairly low for this deal to make sense, but not incredibly so.
Correction: even if he stops being a good baseball player Mike Trout will still be awesome.
Fair point there: at the tiggers presser said that extensions for top playrs need to be negotiated at free agency minus two years go remove the “pressure” of looming free agency. (Probably made 30 owners grind their teeth there.)
With that as the “new normal”, Trout does get a new crack at market rates at age 27 so he may only have sold only one free agent year, two at most, since the contract will likely get torn up in 4-5 years.
In practical terms Trout is going to get a *minimum* of $144m over the six years covered by the contract. He could easily end up with $160-170m if he is still Clark Kent by the time he hits 27. Possibly more if Harper does get $40m aav when he hits free agency.
Unless the Angels willing to let Trout walk away at 29, he’ll get his money in the end, if he stays healthy and productive. The money he “left on the table” is money he’d only get if he gets hurt or declines, because otherwise he’s just going to come back for it later.
Not only is baseball’s financial state evolving, so are the negotiating rules.
Thst was Dombrowski who said extensions need to be negotiated tso years before FA, btw.
” and it needs to be fairly low for this deal to make sense, but not incredibly so.”
I disagree here.
In terms of quality of life, money is non-linear. IE, the first $10M are worth more than the next $10M, etc.
FE, the difference between $500K and $150M is a lot more important than $150M and $200M. I think Trout’s risk tolerance would have to be very high to say no here.
On aggregate, not a ton of players have career ending injuries during arbitration, but that doesn’t help one bit if you’re the guy, and you left a shit-ton of money on the table in order to maximize your earnings.
How is the trade value of a guy making more than 20 million dollars a year better than, say, Paul Goldschmidt, who’s making 1.1 million next year? There’s no doubt Trout is a better player, but isn’t that more trade-worthy? Am I missing something?
Besides applying average annual value to Trout and curiously not doing it to Goldschmidt?
Goldschmidt’s six-year contract costs the same as 2 years of Trout. He may not put up as much WAR in that time but he could put up enough to be a better value
Dave, this is another piece of evidence against your repeated insistence of a “new market.” So far still the one and only thing you have for your argument is Frank Wren.
One thing I haven’t seen anyone mention yet. With this deal I hope the Angels have also bought some goodwill from Trout. They didn’t have to commit to paying him $145m now. They could have gone through arb each year trying to pay him the least they could. Hopefully in about 4 years if Trout continues to play the way he has, he agrees to sign another 7-9 year extension to stay with the Angels for life and we finally have a Hall of Famer!
This also makes me like Trout more. He hasn’t come across as overly greedy through this process. Same way Weaver was happy to take a home town discount. As has been pointed out, this might help the Angels be more competetive than if he tried to squeeze out every last cent he could. Hopefully all the contract talk goes away and he can just relax and carry on being Mike Trout.
So, Dave Cameron, in 3 years, if Trout puts up another 10 WAR at $24 million, and someone else who is younger and has less than 2 years’ service time puts up 6 WAR at $500K, or 7.5 WAR at $500K, Trout is still more valuable from a trade perspective?
I’m sorry that I don’t understand. If Trout continues to be worth 10 WAR every year throughout the deal (sure, why not?), and MLB every year has a player worth 7 WAR earning the league minimum with another year remaining before arbitration (let’s call the player 24 years old for argument’s sake), under your system of measurement, at what point does our phantom 24-year-old have more trade value than Trout?
I know this is rhetorical, but yes, obviously.
Still only second all-time career WAR for Angels’ outfielders named after a fish.
Talk about hilarious steals!
This is more risky than if he had just played out his arb years without giving away FA years. Now, he has to keep up this performance for 3 additional years. His back to back 10 WAR seasons will be 3 years further in the rear view mirror if he doesn’t maintain this pace. And that’s also 3 more years for him to suffer a terrible injury. So this isn’t the safe, risk averse choice. This is him betting on remaining at his current level for 6 more years.
Perhaps Mike Trout thinks that he is currently quite a bit overrated by the baseball community. People on this site seem to think of Trout as being in the same company as Barry Bonds, but maybe Trout knows that isn’t true because he intuitively knows his talent level relative to his peers and doesn’t think himself that extraordinary (and indeed there are several players with OBP around .400 and SLG around .550). Maybe Trout thinks the baseball community will come to its senses in the next few years and reevaluate how good he really is, so he is happy to take a massive quantity of money now while it is available to him. Also, perhaps front offices that don’t use the unjustified positional and park adjustments that FanGraphs does, view Trout as a bit more ordinary.
…seriously, Barry Bonds career OBP, SLG and ISO are better than Trout’s career highs. And Bonds did that with a more reasonable BABIP of 0.285 rather than Trout’s likely unsustainable 0.366. Trout is obviously a great player, but it isn’t so obvious he is as great as we are led to believe on this site. This is a lot of money, but also perhaps actually not far off the proper value given the circumstances and given Trout’s skill level.
…I know, I know, down votes.
That’s because Barry Bonds used steroids, which weren’t punished at the time. Bonds didn’t have a year as good as Trout’s rookie year until his 5th.
Maybe Trout doesn’t have access to the internet and believes in your theory, though. That much is possible.
Josh Donaldson’s first full season was better than Bonds’ first four seasons. Will Donaldson have a better career? Highly unlikely.
Trout has set such a high bar for himself that it’s hard to imagine he’ll get any better. If I had to guess, I’d say his career will wax and wane similar to Alex Rodriguez’s. If all goes well for the next 7 years, he’ll get a 10-year, 300 million dollar contract.
And we have detailed accounts of Barry Bonds: Steroid User that indicate he didn’t start juicing until 1998, well after his 5th season. Either way, regardless of what he was injecting it’s way too early to compare Trout to him. That’s just sensible.
*Half way through 1999
Regardless of the steroids, Trout is considered to have provided similar value to Bonds at time in Bonds career when he had OBP around ~.600 and SLG ~.800. Considering this, is it really unreasonable to question the adjustments that go into WAR?
Yes it is, if you continue to ignore that fact defense matters.
If you can’t accept defensive value is just as valuable as offensive value, then unreasonable is exactly what your questions are.
Defense does matter. Of course. Whether we can actually measure it is another issue altogether. Mike Trout is a pretty average defender by my eye. Good speed, bad routes. This is obviously just my meaningless opinion. But, considering that Bonds offense was something we haven’t seen since Babe Ruth, you’d have to believe that Trout is among the greatest defenders of all time to make up the massive deficit in offense that he gives up to Bonds. Call me crazy, but I find it easier to believe that there is a bit of measurement error going on.
“Mike Trout is a pretty average defender by my eye. Good speed, bad routes”
Is it possible, that for an outfielder expected to cover large areas, that speed is more important than routes? Jacoby Ellsbury was pilloried for poor routes to the ball for most of his career. He was still a good CF.
“ut, considering that Bonds offense was something we haven’t seen since Babe Ruth, you’d have to believe that Trout is among the greatest defenders of all time to make up the massive deficit in offense that he gives up to Bonds. ”
No, you don’t. You seem to be forgetting that Trout is one of the best hitters in baseball, and that by the time Bonds was hitting that well, he was a bad outfielder. You also have to remember that the MLB environment was drastically more friendly to offense when Bonds played.
Seriously, we’re talking about guys who are putting up more than 70 runs above average offensively, and you’re arguing that 10 runs above average is a huge over-measurement defensively. Do you realize how ridiculous that is?
I think it’s a reasonable viewpoint. He’s obviously great, but $50 million valuations should be heavily scrutinized even if they’re valid.
Yawn.
“than Trout’s likely unsustainable 0.366”
There’s no reason to think that Trout’s .366 is unsustainable. His BABIP in the minors was over .400. He hits the ball hard.
McCutchen’s contract is at worst close to this one in value per $.
It’s a discount, sure, but we’re still dealing with one of the largest pre-FA contracts ever in MLB. Plus it sets him up to be a FA at age 28, where he should still be an amazing hitter, where he should easily be the first player to top 400M, and maybe even top 500M is salaries keep going up.
Absolutely not. Unless there’s a sharp rise in the economy’s inflation, Trout isn’t going to get 50 million a year. I’d be shocked if he got more than 35 per year.
If he keeps going at 10 WAR/year, 12/500 isn’t insane to think of, and that takes him to his age-40 season or so.
He wasn’t getting $40m per. Just wasn’t going to happen unless he could maintain 10 WAR indefinitely. Basically to say he took a massive discount is to say that you think he’s Willie Mays. He might be but let’s see it for more than 2 years.
He took a small discount in order to be financially secure. Been happening for years and will continue to happen forever. (Although I could see Harper holding out and going for the big bucks.)
Based on his first two years, he’s better than Willie Mays. By a lot.
(Of course, that’s unfair, because Mays didn’t have a breakout season until age 23, and lost his age 22 year to military service.)
Everyone on his BR top ten similar batters by age is in the Hall of Fame except Ken Griffey Jr. (sure to be elected), Tony Conigliaro (devastating injury), and Vada Pinson (arguably a marginal HOFer and not that similar, as Trout has 65% more WAR at the same age). Barring devastating injury, there is no precedent for someone who starts like this not to have a HOF career, and Trout has started better than all of them.
So, all his comps are all-time greats. . . .well, except that guy. . . .and that other guy. I’m as high as anyone on Trout and I think he’s been the best player in the league by a lot the last 2 years but let’s see a couple more years before we start anointing him as an all-time great. Great starts to a career are a good thing but no sure thing. Justin Upton looked like a future star at 21 (not at Trout’s level, but a star) – hasn’t really happened yet.
My larger point is that he took a discount to secure his financial future and that has been true of almost every top prospect for a number of years now.
But Mike Trout can’t bar devastating injury. That’s the point.
From a players’ perspective, Cabrera’s contract is obviously better…and it’s not even close. From a players’ perspective the 5 best contracts in MLB history are Howard, Wells, Hamilton, Pujols, and Cabrera. The first 4 guys have proven that if you play well early, you don’t need to play well late in your career to make–not earn–your millions. lol
Seriously, though, this is a good contract–a landmark contract–for both sides. What will be odd is watching Mr. Moreno suffer a personal ‘reverse’, selling the team to the Rays owners for 4 cents on the dollar, and then watching them trade Trout back to the AL East…
Álex Rodríguez says “hey”.
Twice.
I actually meant to put him in there instead of Cabrera!
Cabrera is not a bad choice. I’d be inclined to include Prince Fielder’s contract also.
Alex Rodriguez earned his first contract.
Why does Dave continually shit out amazingly bad quality articles on this site about economics and personal finance when he has no grasp of it? He doesn’t even understand concepts such as marginal utility.
Generally you are allowed to post whatever you want on your own website.
Oh. I thought he was running a business and that someone would help explain to him that really shitty content detracts from revenue.
But I forgot that you think that professional websites are actually blogs. Good comment!
He clearly hasn’t lost your traffic.
Your last sentence explained why Dave Cameron doesn’t understand me.
Thank you Garrett.
Guy’s got a degree in Economics, he understands those things. He doesn’t think they’re particularly relevant in this situation.
If he doesn’t think Personal Utility is relevant, then he doesn’t understand it.
Kill yourself.
yES, Trout left money on the table, but its a good deal for him too. He could get injured if he went year-to-year and now if anything horrible happens he is covered with 144 million. If he is still top-notch in 6 years then he can break the bank again with that deal.
In all honesty I’m not sure how one can say that Mike Trout “left money on the table” in this deal. This deal accomplishes many things while being both player and club friendly to an extent. There are many variables being 4 years from free agency and all that equates into the current deal. Predicting arbitration numbers focused on zero regression and absolute health are dangerous and unknown. Obviously this is true in all contracts but purchasing all these possibilities for four years in which the club in financially protected is a risk. And ultimately, it’s hard to argue a player has left money on the table when they cannot negotiate with anyone else for the next several years
I would say that Chris Sale’s contract is certainly in the ballpark, given that he is making less than 1/2 the amount of money and the White Sox have him signed for as long.
He’s got a full no-trade clause. So trade value is nill.
I think we are all forgetting what happened the day before. If Mightcan get a megadeal in his thirties with 2 years left on his contract than who’s to say that Trout can’t get his next mega heal going in tto his age 27 season. And who’s to say that deal won’t have a player opt out clause allowing Trout an opportunity for a third mega deal?
I’m a big fan of Dave’s work but this piece lacks key information. For instance:
“Trout would have made something like $50 to $60 million in arbitration had he gone year to year, so the Angels are basically getting three free agent years for $85 to $95 million.”
Can you spend even a paragraph or two outlining your assumptions on how you arrive at those numbers? I feel like it would have made the article more complete.
He literally begins that paragraph by linking to an article that goes into those details, which is why he didn’t repeat them here as “another 1,500 word explanation.” Check it out and you’ll have the explanation you seek.
He might just love his club. I’m looking forward to him signing a record contract at age 28, though.
Trout’s got a big extension, but Cabrera’s is bigger, and I’m not just talking about contracts, if you know what I mean.
Trout is pretty damn ignorant for taking this deal if he’s really worth $50M a year. He should -4 WAR for stupidity.
I assume the payouts increase w time, but if they’re more evenly spread this could be much more favorable to Trout as there will be big pressure on Angels to void the last two yrs and get started on the really big deal when Trout is 27.
It only takes one really bad injury for things to swing pretty quickly.
Man, looking at this a day after it’s even worse. $5.25 million for 2015? He would have gotten at least double that and probably more if he’d just gone to arb like hundreds/thousands of players have before him. That 5.25 then sets up big time underpays for this next two arb years (15, then 19.25, when he’s theoretically getting 80% of his free agent value). And then three free agent years beyond that. This contract would be fair if it started this year. With it starting next year it’s a big, big win for the Angels.
Actually the breakdown is 10.25, 15.25 and 19.25 which makes him the highest paid player at each year of arb-eligibility. Then 3 years of $33m which will make him the highest paid player in MLB (until the next mega deail which break that record).
I don’t see how Trout can complain, and he’s not. Hopefully a happy Trout = a productive Trout.
Interestingly there was reference to a possible lifetime deal, which would have been interesting.
Nice arguement…But Trout has the money and the options to go along with the 144.5 Million. Let’s just sit back and watch what he actually will do on a good Angels team. Then with six years plus the 2012 and 2013 behind him already, he will be ready for the biggest payout of all time. Should be fun, so sit back with a beer in hand and watch what he does, enjoy the show!!!
Yeah, the above-referenced Angels outfielders have cool names.
If I didn’t know better, I’d thought you all were talking about Wall St. millionaires but then they don’t entertain the public. Sports stars are much more glamorous than Wall St brokers, so it’s ok to gaggle over their millions. C’mon, 10-20-30 million for catching and hitting a ball. Been a bball fan for 50 years but this is like reading a bunch of drunken groupies who have been drinking the kool aid for years. It’s wayyyyyy out of hand, you know it and the public knows it.
If I read Dave ‘ s earlier article correct, then 60 mil for arbitration years and 40 mil per FA season at 3 years is 12 mil or 180 mil for this contract would be where Dave says would be lowest fair market value for this contract…so he left a minimum of around 35 million on the table for this deal?
That is good value for Angeles, but closer than seems to be portrayed.
He got 34 million for his free agent years. Came in a bit low for the arb years. The arb years are uncharted territory, arbitrators don’t look at WAR and don’t value defense as highly, so no guarantee he gets 60 million.
120 million (bot 12 million)
Not (dang phone! )
Who else would laugh uncontrollably if Trout fell flat on his face this year?
And that in Mike Trouts case is average major league numbers, but that would still be a massive shock.
Off to a good start.
You have to limit your look to the free agent years. He has 3 free agent years and is making 34 million a year. Even at 9 WAR that’s about 4 million/WAR. That’s good, but remember, its not like this was a free agent deal. You expect extensions to be about 80% of a free agent price since there is no competitive bidding process