Mike Trout Leaves Money On the Table Again
Mike Trout is a better player than Bryce Harper and Manny Machado combined. He’s been more than twice as valuable as each of those players in their young careers. And yet Mike Trout is about to agree to a contract that, per ESPN’s Jeff Passan, will pay him like he’s one of the greatest players of this generation instead of potentially being the greatest player of this century, and one of the greatest baseball talents of all time. As first reported by Passan, Mike Trout and the Angels have agreed to a 12-year deal worth $430 million, with Bill Shaikan reporting the deal will come in at $426.5 million. Because Trout was already owed $66.5 million over the next two seasons, the contract is functionally a 10-year extension worth $360 million. Trout is essentially accepting something similar to the Harper/Machado deals two years in advance. This is not the first time Trout has made this choice, which is very much a personal decision, but it is one that has cost him potentially hundreds of millions of dollars.
In 2014, Trout was coming off an eight-win season, which itself came on the heels of two 10-win campaigns. His 29.2 WAR mark through his age-22 season was the best in baseball history. Before he signed a six-year, $144.5 million contract giving away three free agent seasons, Dave Cameron wrote about the potential for a contract extension, and expected a figure more than $100 million higher. When Trout actually signed, Cameron followed up:
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.
That bargain five years ago made the current one possible. Because Trout had two more years left until free agency (instead of entering the market last offseason), he was limited to the Angels when it came to contract partners. Because the Angels’ risk of losing Trout wasn’t going to present itself for another two seasons, any new contract with him was going to come with a discount. In this case, the discount meant signing a deal like Harper and Machado’s instead of one like Alex Rodriguez’s.
After Harper and Machado signed their contracts, I attempted to compare the two deals because it can be difficult to put a 13-year deal and a 10-year deal for differing amounts into proper context. The present-day values of each contract is below, with the numbers translated into a 10-year deal, and Trout’s contract listed with just the extension (2021-2030), as well as with the two years Trout was already guaranteed (2019-2030). The numbers have been updated now that we know Trout is paid $36 million the next two seasons and $35.45 million each year beginning in 2021.
| Total Value | Present-Day Value | 10-Year Equivalent | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bryce Harper | $330 M | $220.8 M | $305 M |
| Manny Machado | $300 M | $217.4 M | $300 M |
| Mike Trout (2021-2030) | $360 M | $225.5 M | $311 M |
| Mike Trout (2019-2030) | $426.5 M | $289.6 M | $400 M |
The Angels appear to have looked at Mike Trout and said, “We know we owe you about $65 million over the next few seasons. Keep that and we will give you the Harper/Machado contract right now.” Trout said yes, and now the Angels have one the best players in baseball history locked in for his age-29 through age-38 seasons. Even when you factor in the two years Trout is already owed, that $400 million is significantly below his value, assuming that Machado and Harper are worth $300 million. Those two years left until free agency meant a massive discount for the Angels.
When we call this deal a bargain, we can look at Mike Trout’s contract relative to Harper and Machado’s, and know that Trout is only receiving a little more money despite being a lot better. We can also look at potential future value. I love to look at comps and try to get a sense of a player’s future, but comps aren’t really fair for Mike Trout because there are barely a handful of players who even come close to his level of play. Consider Trout’s career trajectory by year, and the number of players ahead of him by WAR.
Ty Cobb the only comp for Mike Trout. Ty Cobb! Trout ranks third right now through age-27 even though he hasn’t even played the season yet, and he needs just four wins to pass Cobb and Mickey Mantle. He’s already surpassed the average Hall of Famer. Maybe you think that the early start to Trout’s career inflates the numbers. Even taking away his first two seasons, from age-22 through age-26, the only players with more WAR are Mantle and Cobb. Even just looking at the last three years, which includes an injury-shortened 2017 campaign, only Babe Ruth, Mantle, Rogers Hornsby, Jimmie Foxx, Lou Gehrig, Tris Speaker, Alex Rodriguez, and Cobb are ahead of Trout. If Trout plays like any of those players, he’ll cost something like $4 million to $5 million per win over the last 10 years of the deal. If we wanted to conservatively estimate the current value of a win on the free agent market at $9 million without any inflation, Trout wouldn’t need to age like one of the 10-best players in history — aging like the 50th would still be a good value.
The deal is such a slam dunk for the Angels that it feels a little silly to talk about what it means in baseball terms. The Angels get to keep one of the best players in history. They can now plan for the future knowing they have Trout. It would have been fun to see what an all-in Angels team would’ve looked like in 2020 with Trout a pending free agent, but hopefully this deal means we get to see the fun of a franchise that is secure in its star ensuring that that star gets a ring. After all, Mike Trout in the playoffs is good for baseball.
When it comes to adjusting the biggest contracts in baseball history for inflation, this one is a little tough to assess. We have that $430 million, but we also have that $363.5 million that doesn’t kick in until 2021. To provide some historical context — as I did for Machado and Harper earlier this offseason and later updated — I’ve included two Trout contracts below. The first is the $426.5 million figure representing the total value of the money owed to Trout; the second is Trout’s extension, assuming 5% inflation in the following two seasons.
| Player | Year | Years | Total Value ($/M) | 2019 Adjustment ($/M) | AAV 2019 ADJ ($/M) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alex Rodriguez | 2001 | 10 | $252 M | $592 M | $59.2 M |
| Alex Rodriguez | 2008 | 10 | $275 M | $448 M | $44.8 M |
| Derek Jeter | 2001 | 10 | $189 M | $444 M | $44.4 M |
| Mike Trout | 2019 | 12 | $426.5 M | $426.5 M | $35.5 M |
| Giancarlo Stanton | 2015 | 13 | $325 M | $393 M | $30.3 M |
| Manny Ramirez | 2001 | 8 | $160 M | $376 M | $47 M |
| Albert Pujols | 2012 | 10 | $240 M | $358 M | $35.8 M |
| Bryce Harper | 2019 | 13 | $330 M | $330 M | $25.4 M |
| Ken Griffey, Jr. | 2000 | 9 | $116.5 M | $330 M | $36.6 M |
| Mike Trout (extension only) | 2021 | 10 | $360 M | $327 M | $32.7 M |
| Prince Fielder | 2012 | 9 | $214 M | $319 M | $35.4 M |
| Robinson Cano | 2014 | 10 | $240 M | $310 M | $31 M |
| Manny Machado | 2019 | 10 | $300 M | $300 M | $30 M |
| Kevin Brown | 1999 | 7 | $105 M | $297 M | $42.5 M |
| Joey Votto | 2014 | 10 | $225 M | $290 M | $29 M |
| Mark Teixeira | 2009 | 8 | $180 M | $290 M | $36.2 M |
| Joe Mauer | 2011 | 8 | $184 M | $289 M | $36.1 M |
| Mike Hampton | 2001 | 8 | $121 M | $284 M | $35.5 M |
| Clayton Kershaw | 2014 | 7 | $215 M | $277 M | $39.6 M |
| Todd Helton | 2003 | 9 | $141.5 M | $277 M | $30.8 M |
| Jason Giambi | 2002 | 7 | $120 M | $276 M | $39.4 M |
| Carlos Beltran | 2005 | 7 | $119 M | $263 M | $37.6 M |
| Nolan Arenado | 2019 | 8 | $260 M | $260 M | $32.5 M |
When stacked up against comparable players and comparable contracts, Mike Trout was a humongous bargain in his last contract and will be one in his the next, but if we can play devil’s advocate a little, it’s tougher to determine how much Trout actually cost himself. Let’s say he had been a free agent last offseason like he would have without a contract extension. What would his contract have been? There’s a reasonable argument for 15 years and $600 million. Look at the Alex Rodriguez contract above. In another two years, might $500 million been on the table? That might have been what Trout was looking at, but what if last year the market didn’t quite develop as he had hoped, and he ended up with just $500 million? What if the top offer had only been $400 million after 2020? Does that seem so far-fetched given the way these past two offseasons have progressed?
Trout is now set to make around $460 million for the remainder of his free agent years. He jumped the gun twice and took a discount. The value he will provide will far exceed the money he is set to earn. It’s possible, however, because of the way spending has progressed, that Trout has actually cost himself little to no money by signing these extensions. Mike Trout was always going to be a bargain; we have a hard time wrapping our heads around the number he’s really worth. He’s the best player in baseball, and simultaneously the most underrated one. That’s a ridiculous feat, but with Mike Trout, we’ve grown accustomed to ridiculous feats.
Craig Edwards can be found on twitter @craigjedwards.
True, but. Even moving the payroll up to the luxury tax, there is only so much LAA can pay Trout and still have money for the rest of the team. Does no good for him to make $60M per year and have the team be in third place. Plus he has a lot of endorsement $. And maybe breaking the bank wasn’t his primary objective?
Only making $30 million (or less) hasn’t really stopped the Angel’s from finishing 3rd or worse in Trout’s career.
While it would be great to see Trout in the playoffs, I’m weary of the narrative that the Angels and Arte Moreno don’t deserve him or somehow aren’t trying to build a winner around him. The Angels have had a top 10 payroll every single year of Mike Trout’s career. Every single one, including the pre-arbitration years where Trout himself was making a pittance. Last off-season they signed Justin Upton to a five year deal, added Ian Kinsler and Zack Cozart, while also managing to bring in Shohei Otani. Unfortunately those moves didn’t work out and the team still finished below .500, but that’s the nature of baseball. It’s difficult to build a winner, even if you’re blessed with one of the greatest players of all-time.
Well, part of the problem has been that they’ve also had to work around the money owed to Hamilton and Pujols (and once the Hamilton contract expired, Pujols’s salary kept getting higher). Perhaps they can field a winner starting in 2022.
Expert on the past that tells us nothing about the future. Dead weight contracts are nearly all cleared and farm system has been rebuilt into a top 10 system and rising.
Pay him what he’s worth and he has to hope they can develop a top rate farm system. So far, the Angels have shown they aren’t capable of that. So maybe there will be enough money left to buy a decent team.
Last time, I checked that’s actually what the Angels did over the past couple years.
When Stephen Curry was in talks about his new contract, he commented, “My Pop told me never to worry about how much money another man makes.”
Damn straight! If you enjoy what you do—and excel at it—the money will be there anyway. That’s exactly what my Dad told me when I first entered college forty yrs. ago.
Depends on the man. When Bill Russell heard Wilt Chamberlain signed a $100,000 contract for the next season, he told Red Auerbach he wanted a hundred thousand and one dollar. Players are competitive but Trout has no competition.
“Does no good for him to make $60M per year and have the team be in third place.”
No good? Making $25 million more per year is “no good”?
How would the extra money improve his life? I’m sure he’ll have massive regret for not accruing another $100m for his heirs…
This is actually an important point, in evaluating how much Trout left on the table. When you start getting past amounts of money that could actually be consumed as fast as you earn them, overall utility is sharply decreasing. You can’t do twice as many things with $200M as you can with $100M; nearly all of the the things people enjoy can already be done with $100M. And, conversely, being known to have only $100M doesn’ t make you and your family significantly less of a target than being known to have $200M.
In terms of lifestyle, getting what he’s expected to be worth wouldn’t have changed Trout’s future options much. If he’s not into bragging about whose is bigger, and he likes playing for the Angels, maybe he’s being sensible.
So having career earnings in the region of 577m is leaving money off the table? If you need more than that something is wrong with you. And he also took 30m more for 3 less years than the Harper deal. You’re just upset he’s staying
So you agree there is “something wrong” with Arte Moreno for “needing” more of his billions rather than paying an employee a fair amount.
Moreno is the owner, it’s his money on the table. Let the down votes commence.
I don’t care one way or the other to be honest. But it’s disingenuous as hell to say that one person wanting money is “wrong” and another person wanting that same money is totally normal.
Only one of the two parties can use the extra money to build a better team. Clearly, they both understand this. Fangraphs commenters….not so much.
The money comes from the fans, through attendance and viewership. It’s their money before it becomes Moreno’s money.
A. Having 577M is leaving money off the table if there was opportunity for more than 577M, which short of a major injury there most likely was.
B. Nobody ever insinuated that he “needed” more money. Is there something wrong with wanting to be able to make sure that your descendants don’t have financial issues if he decides to have kids? Or maybe there’s a charity he would give some of the money to that he supports. (I don’t follow Trout’s personal life enough to know how philanthropical he is.) Even if he does neither, this money would have been made legitimately, and can do (essentially) whatever he wishes with it.
C. How many people really believe that Trout over 10 years is only worth 4 more wins (That’s setting $7.5/WAR even though it’s normally assumed at $9/WAR on this site.) than Harper over 13?
“Is there something wrong with wanting to be able to make sure that your descendants don’t have financial issues if he decides to have kids? ”
No. There is also nothing wrong with realizing that hoarding hundreds of millions of dollars for your kids is simply unnecessary. Trout made his decision. Why is everyone telling him how to run his life?
Saying Trout left money on the table isn’t being upset. It’s just a fact.
So, factually, someone offered him more money and he turned it down?
You know precisely what it means so you can stop being disingenuous any time now. Thanks.
It’s not about needing it, it’s about what he’s worth. Obviously Trout will be fine. Obviously he’ll be happy and richer than any of us can reasonably hope to be. But that doesn’t change that he’s underpaid.
Also, as others have pointed out, the money not being paid to Trout is just sitting in Arte Moreno’s bank account instead of Trout’s. If you’re going to be mad at greedy rich people, why not be mad at the significantly richer owner who is paying his employees less than they are worth and not the guy who just took a lower salary than he should have to out the goodness of his heart?
Why not respect a grown man’s decision to enter an employment contract without telling him what he should have done?
So rich and happy are directly correlated now? You have to respect his decision – I don’t buy the evil owner narrative in this case. How thick do you think Trout and his advisors are? Could it possibly be his prime motivator wasn’t tagging on the nth million to his contract?
Everyone understands that Trout’s prime motivator wasn’t getting the absolute maximum amount of money possible. That’s the entire point of the article and what just about every comment is saying.
I mean, the money is coming in to the Angels organization. It’s going _somewhere_. Hopefully there is an extra-contractual handshake agreement to put most of the “savings” into payroll for other players so that the team gets better. If it just stays in Moreno’s pocket, I would find myself feeling badly for a dude who’s looking at career earnings close to $600M
I agree that the deal does not pay him what he is worth. I disagree that he left significant money on the table. Given his age when he would have hit free agency and the upper limit to what any team would ever be willing to pay anyone, I doubt would get significantly more on the open market. Teams don’t pay for age 37 and 38 seasons any more, but the Angels did here. By and large, the very top and very bottom of any set tend to be the most likely to have skewed prices in relation to value because of the practical minimums and maximums that exist in most things.
Harper(2019) is getting $23.5M for ages 37-38, 85% of what he will get for age 27.
Stanton(2014) is getting $25M for age 37 and has a $25M option for age 38.
Greinke(2016) is getting $35M for age 37
Cabrera(2014) is getting $30M+ through 40 with two more option years on top.
Cano(2014) is getting $24M for ages 37-40
Ellsbury(2014) has a $21M option for age 37
Pujols(2012) *got* $26M per for ages 37-38 and still has three more years at similar rates.
I guess it depends on what you specifically mean by “any more”. When did “any more” start?
Looking at your examples and seeing that over 70% are 2014 or earlier I’m gonna guess after 2014.
To be fair, those Harper and Stanton deals bought more prime-aged seasons than a Trout contract in 2021 would. Also to be fair, more than one of those deals were panned at the time and likely wouldn’t have been inked in today’s market.
I think it’s legitimate to question what a 29 y/o Trout would get in free agency, particularly if he either got hurt in the next 2 years or put up a more mortal looking season. Trout, like any other player, faced some downside if he elected to play his contract out.
I don’t disagree that he’d get paid, but even if he put up two more classic Trout seasons, maybe the top offers look more like 6/270 or 7/300 than 10/500 or whatever monster number we can imagine as teams become less and less inclined to bet on anyone too long past 35.
” When did “any more” start?”
About two years ago.
Harper took a significant AAV discount himself in order to get those extra years, and the other deals no longer reflect the current market landscape.
Wow
This was not “a Bryce Harper-sized extension.” Was that stated just to annoy people/get clicks?
Honestly, what am I missing here? Am I supposed to genuflect only to approved sentences?
You’re missing an understanding of net present value of money. The new money in this deal doesn’t start for 2 years, so it’s worth less than if it kicked in this year (as Harper and Machado’s deals do). That closes the gap, the precise amount depending on what NPV discount you use.
To use the simplest possible example, Machado will earn $60 million before Trout sees a dollar of his new deal. Ally offers 2.2% interest for savings accounts. If Machado put his money in a savings account and didn’t touch it he’d turn his $60 million into just under $62 million before Trout makes anything under this deal.
The reality’s obviously more complex. Machado doesn’t actually get $30 million (agents, taxes, etc), and what he gets he doesn’t get all at once. Machado (or, perhaps more relevantly, Trout) will probably spend a lot of his money and may or may not invest what he doesn’t spend wisely, but that’s the idea. Poll 10,000 finance guys/CPAs and approximately 10,000 will tell you the same amount of money is worth more today than 2 years from now.
I’m not sure it’s fair to reference the time value of money the way you did in this context. Harper’s deal covers the same years Trout’s new contract will cover.
Precisely.
The entire article explains how it’s a Harper-sized extension. If you make an unsubstantiated, snarky reply… Were you expecting people to cheer you internet commenter average-ness?
Well its basically around 10 years $360 extension. So are you quibbling with the 3 years? Or the fact that total money is higher than what Harper got? Would you have felt better if they said a “Machado-sized extension”?
I quibble with the 3 years…plus the notion that Trout’s previous extension matters at all. It’s still ~$25M AAV vs ~$35M AAV, over 13 vs 12 years. $100M more overall dollars, across the same years.
Everyone is talking about how much he left on the table in free agency. How about how much he left on the table from the *Angels* in a poor negotiation? There’s no way that the 36 mil/year in the extension part of the deal was the Angels’ ceiling to lock up Trout forever. Pujols’ AAV in 2019 Dollars is $35.8 million on the contract he signed at age 32(per FG).
Unless Trout really REALLY loves living in Anaheim for six months every year and/or playing for a perennially mediocre team, he and his agent must be absolutely horrible negotiators.
Even if he does really REALLY love Anaheim/the Angels, he could have easily given a convincing impression during negotiations that he does not love those things very much.
This is just confusing.
You don’t seem to understand that most people with $400m have very little desire for an incremental $100m.
Trout is not as insecure as the avg FG commenter, so he has no need to try to increase his status with money he could never use.
it is only people like us, with no hope of earning anything close to these numbers, that say things like “whats the difference between 400m and 500m.” In fact, it’s a difference of 20%.
If you were making $18 an hour and your co-worker was making $20 for the same job, would you say “what’s the difference? it’s only 2 dollars!”
For some reason, I doubt you would.
Well, look at what that Pujols deal got them. Even if he had aged more gracefully, the second half of that deal was still going to suck hard. The Angels are just as capable of learning from their mistakes as any other team.
Based on the chilly market I’d guess he’d only get like 10/400 (compared to 10/360) if he actually hit free agency; if he took like a one year deal and the next CBA was the most player favored one of all time then maybe he’d do better but I doubt things will get better on the player’s side. Seems fine for Trout, good for the Angels and Trout’s position in the Trade Value rankings.
Since I’m getting downvoted do people really think that Trout would get 10/900 or something? Or even 10/600 or whatever other theoretical cost of a win that’s not actually accurate to the current market rate (however owner favored that rate may be)? I mostly agree with the owners being worthless anonymous billionaires (of whom various character judgments can be made based on the current behavior of non anonymous billionaires) and the players being the real source of interest in the sport and what not, but there’s no way Trout is getting some comically insane deal at 29, unless it was a 1-3 year deal. Best case scenario is something like 4/220 from the Dodgers and he gets 10 WAR every season then gets another 4/200ish deal or 6/250 or something, but that involves a whole lot of risk vs just taking a big payday.
Obviously Trout has so much money that accumulating more money is utterly meaningless so why not go for the biggest meaningless FIAT number possible so you can have a bigger Inflation-Based money-peen than A-Rod; but I just don’t think Trout has the character traits necessary to have centaur pictures of himself mounted on the wall.
It’s not good for the players as a whole if Trout took a hugeass miracle contract for 10 years and 10 GDPs of China, it really does absolutely nothing for the minor leaguers. For the most part it simply makes the Free Agency market for that year more interesting, but it turned out to be not interesting at all this year with two mini Trouts.
The reason you’re getting downvoted is because 29 teams(sorry Marlins) would jump at the chance to offer him 10/400 in free agency. He’d likely go above $600 million because you’d have a bidding war between the richest teams in baseball.
But the market is not chilly for top tier talent. Did everyone just forget about the Harper contract?
This is a purely intellectual exercise but HOLY SHIT $430 MILLION DOLLARS IS SO FRIGGIN MUCH
You’re ignoring the fact that now he doesn’t have to try anymore.
I’m not sure why this was downvoted. I legit smirked.
At this point, I suspect it’s a knee-jerk response to the poster.
You’re going to shocked, but stat oriented baseball fans sometimes don’t detect a joke.
Interesting deal to leave so much on the table. Between Gavin Newsome and some of the incredibly awful tax plans put forth to steal Mike Trout’s hard earned money I would have held out for more.
Your comment is germane and I commend you for attempting to make this discussion about your personal political grievances.
I mean when you are talking about leaving money on the table it is part of the discussion. The Peoples Republic of California where I live has ridiculous tax rates on it’s contributing citizens. Silly to leave a lot of money on the table to give it to those who haven’t earned it.
Also pretty sure you did not use germane correctly.
“contributing citizens”
Says the person posting on an internet forum in the middle of the afternoon.
“Germane: relevant to the topic under consideration” per Oxford English Dictionary. Unless you missed the sarcasm, I got exactly what I was going for.
Lives in California, where half the world dreams of living, yet complains living someplace so desirable is also expensive. Feel free to take your numbnuts mindset to South Dakota or some other cheaper place.
Also, jeez, how the heck is anyone contributing if there are no taxes? Contributing to who in that case? That sounds like taking.
I suppose you drive on the roads to get to work if you are contributing. And you use the water that is clean to shower and hydrate and expect the fire department and police to come in an emergency?
Are those the things you think aren’t worth/didn’t earn it? You can move to Kansas you know. Probably suit you better.
And if you complain that there are no jobs there, then, again, you prove you don’t understand what taxes do.
Is this a typo or am I misreading?
Even when you factor in the two years Trout is already owed, that $400 million is significantly above his value, assuming that Machado and Harper are worth $300 million. Those two years left until free agency meant a massive discount for the Angels.
Shouldn’t it be “significantly below his value”?
Correct. Thanks
I like to think he was staring out his telescope and got a call from his agent, saying the Angels offered you 12/420 and he just mumbles ‘that’s fine’ and went back to looking at stars while occasionally checking his phone for any Eagles offseason moves.
He does seem like the least likely player to only care about the money.
Trout definitely left money on the table, but it’s pretty clear that he isn’t interested in chasing the best deal he can get. He’s such an anomaly. How often do we see someone this good at what they do and yet almost casually unconcerned about actually getting compensated as fairly as possible?
Ever studied music history?
I mean, he is still going to be one of the highest paid players in baseball, if not THE highest. Its not like he decided to forgo his salary and play for $1 a year or something. I get your point but i think you are getting a bit carried away by saying he is unconcerned about being compensated fairly. He will sign the richest deal in history
FWIW, Ohtani almost certainly gave up hundred million (or more) by choosing to come over last year instead of waiting to become a free agent.
Thomas Paine wrote “Common Sense”, which changed public opinion in the colonies and made America possible, and passed on getting paid because he wanted everyone to be able to read or hear of it. Would have made him a very rich man had he charged the going rate. Also George Washington said that he was against revolution, and that reading Paine changed his mind. Just a little history 🙂
Yeah, I was wondering if the A-Rod contract(s) would still be worth more when adjusted for inflation, turns out they are. It really just shows you how huge those contracts were
Trout is going to make over 500 million in his career from his contracts when all said and done. Not many people in the world that is not an executive or business owner gets to say that.
Nobody’s asking anybody to feel sorry for Trout.
This site’s about baseball. The fact that Trout’s deal is a bargain relative to the market (the baseball market, specifically) doesn’t mean we’re calling it an injustice. It does, however, mean that his team just gained a pretty big competitive advantage for the foreseeable future. Specifically, a competitive advantage in baseball.
I like baseball.
I agree completely. But, when you figure in age, and long term productivity, I think it’s a good deal all around. Still very expensive, I don’t think teams could have too many players like this, so we will see how it shakes out in 10-20 years from now.
Trout is in the business of sports entertainment. Which makes him an entertainment celebrity (a very low key one). To get some perspective, all of the top 100 celebrities in 2018, ranked by Forbes, made more than Trout did or will in any of his contract years. Some will top Trout’s career earnings in just a few years. Compared to other celebrities, he is not especially well-paid.
That is a list of celebrities’ total income which includes endorsements, businesses, investments, etc..
How much do you think Trout makes per year in endorsements, businesses, and investments?
I love it, and I’m a Yankees fan. I’ll root for him all but a handful of games per year. He’s the greatest player of his generation, and has a chance to be among the best of all time. Seems like a decent guy all around. He agreed to a discount, realizing it was an enormous amount of money empirically. He left his team some money to trade for a needed part if they get close to the playoffs. The discount is not really going to hurt other players, because virtually everyone realizes this is a special case. Every fan in America should give this guy a hand when he shows up in their home ballpark–and root for him to strike out four times, then maybe hit a HR in the 9th on the losing side of a 9-2 game.
So I think there’s a pretty good idea (I don’t know where this comes from) that if you project what a guy will get in free agency if he keeps going along his current trajectory, you should pay about 80% of that in an extension (in new money). That’s a fair deal for both sides; the player guarantees against the low-but-catastrophic outcome of getting hurt and not getting any money at all; the team gets the player at a likely discount.
So if you take that as your starting point, you can back your way into figuring out if this is a “good” deal for the Angels and/or Trout. If you back your way out, 360*5/4=450. So this deal would be fair if we think Trout would have gotten $450M in free agency if he goes along his current trajectory.
I think–and I don’t think I’m being unreasonable here–that Trout, as the best player of century, would have whipped up a bidding war like we’ve never seen before. I would have pegged it at $500M (I don’t really care about “years” because…who cares? It’s a lifetime contract when you get to numbers that big). So from that angle, I think Trout is probably leaving about $40M on the table relative to what I expected him to get.
This would be a good deal for Trout if you think the percentage should be, say 70%, or if you think he’d come in south of $450M. But this looks like a huge steal from here.
My guess is that if Trout stays healthy and puts up 16+ WAR over the next couple years that he could have made over $500 in a free agent contract.
I don’t have any clue how to estimate what sort of contract Trout would get. First, he’s so much better than any other player right now (unless you think what Mookie Betts did last year is sustainable, which I doubt it) that he has no easy comps. $/win is an interesting guide, but because you’re dealing with such huge value (like, somewhere between 40 and 80 wins over the rest of his career) small differences in the assumptions–$/win, net present value, position players vs. pitcher, non-linearity–all of those changes in the assumptions will lead to tremendously different valuations. On the other side, he’d be hitting the market at 28 (29?), and we know teams are lukewarm on paying for years in your 30s. On top of all that, we know that somewhere, there is a maximum value that any team is willing to pay for any player (especially if you look at the age where he’d be a free agent).
So here’s how I’m thinking about it: Mike Trout–despite being 2-3 years older when he would have hit the FA market–would be likely to be a markedly better player than Harper or Machado is this year. So $300M over 10 years is Machado’s contract; if Trout is 50% better and we think will provide 50% mroe value over 10 years as Machado will over this contract, that’s $450M. Throw in a couple extra years to make it a 12 year deal (you wouldn’t get much out of him at the end, but if you need to seal the deal, someone might do it) and you could get it up to $500M. So that’s where I’m at: I think he’d get a $500M deal over 12 years.
500M for 12 years is exactly the same as 500M for 10 years. The last two years are meaningless from the contract’s perspective.
80% of 500M is 420M.
No, the extra two years are just ways to stretch out the guaranteed money a bit more.
That seems like a reasonable analysis.
My calculations: if one assumes 8.5 WAR for his age 29 season and $8.6m/WAR in 2021, and then drop 0.5 WAR and add $200k/WAR per year from then on, one arrives at 66 WAR and $623m from age 29 to 39, 2021-2031. (3.5 WAR and $10.6m/WAR in the final 2031 year)
But your analysis makes sense to me also, and, as you say, it’s such an outlier of a case that who knows how it could have bent the normal rules and what the final outcome would have been.
I don’t think you can generically discount extensions that way without taking into account when they’re signed relative to when they go into effect. If an extension that starts next year is worth 80%, an extension that starts the year after is probably somewhere in the 70-75% range.
Maybe Trout thought about how a certain future HOF teammate has been viewed after NOT leaving money on the table, and figured that not being called an albatross is worth taking a home-team discount.
(If so, he obviously hadn’t spoken to Joe Mauer….)
Trout-Mauer conversation:
Trout: …
Mauer: …
Trout: …
Mauer: …
Trout: …
Mauer: …
Trout: …
Mauer: …
Trout: Good to talk to you, Joe.
Mauer: Yeah.
Think he’ll need a gofundme page?
I don’t believe he’s leaving money on the table. He is represented by an agent who presumably spent a lot of time thinking about this, and in the end he accepted the Angels’ offer taking all the risks into consideration. He didn’t have to take a team-friendly deal, his first contract ensured he is not cash strapped by any means.
I believe his contract considers the risk that his performance drops off a cliff, due to injury and age. It’s always hard to imagine a player like Trout declining precipitously. But players like Ken Griffey Jr., Albert Pujols–in their primes, it was unimaginable they’d be anything but a superstar for years to come–can suddenly decline.
When you factor in the real risk that a player can all of a sudden be worth 0 wins each year going forward, and it can happen at any time during a long term contract, that’s how you arrive at these “discounted” 10 year contracts. Trout (and his agent) know this.
Yeah, I agree. Without this contract, Trout was two years from free agency. And we have absolutely no idea how Trout will perform during those two year, if he’ll stay healthy, etc.
A good example is Mickey Mantle. He averaged just over 10 WAR per season from ages 23-26, similar to what Trout has done at those same ages. He then followed that up with seasons of “only” 6.6 and 6.3 WAR. So imagine Trout does the same. How much less is he worth if he puts up 6.6 WAR this year and 6.3 WAR the next? By signing him now, The Angels have basically assumed all the risk for what might happen to Trout’s value over the next two years.
Also, a year or two out from free agency people were projecting that Harper could become the first $500 million man. He ended up nowhere near that. Which just goes to show how hard it is to project what someone will get in free agency that far in advance.
I don’t think Pujol’s decline was sudden and precipitous, at least not like Junior or Ceasar Cedeno or someone like that. And, as always, the shape of Pujols’ career makes more sense if one imagines that he is a year or two older than he is officially listed as.
I think that Pujols’ decline looks precipitous if we start after the 2009 season (his age 29 season, going by his stated age). His 2009 season totals were 8.4 fWAR (180 wRC+), and his 2008 production was almost identical. He’d averaged 7.8 fWAR per season to that point, over a 9 year career, and his “bad” season total was 5.4 fWAR in 2002. His lowest seasonal fWAR totals other than 2002: 7.2 in 2001 followed by 7.7 in both 2005 and 2007.
After 2009, his production declined in both 2010 (6.7 fWAR, 164 wRC+) and 2011 (3.9 fWAR, 147 wRC+). He signed with the Angels after the 2011 season, so I *do* agree that Pujols’ decline doesn’t appear sudden from the standpoint of looking back at signing him as a free agent.
Or, summarizing it a bit differently:
Pujols 2008-2009 totals: 17.1 fWAR (1,341 PA’s over 2 seasons)
Pujols 2010-14 totals: 17.1 fWAR (3,159 PA’s over 5 seasons)
I think the magnitude of that decline very much surprised people.
I think his WAR-by-age history looks more dramatic and like a steep fall off using fWAR. Looking at his BRef page and using bWAR, though, it looks to me like more of a normal descending aging curve (for example 23.1 in 2010-14).
bWAR looks a little different, but I don’t think it changes the story that much.
By bWAR, Pujols posted between 8 and 10 WAR per season every year between 2003 and 2009, including over 9 WAR in each of 2008 and 2009.
Then:
2010: 7.5 bWAR
2011: 5.3 bWAR
2012: 4.8 bWAR
2013: 1.5 bWAR (injury-shortened season with 443 PA’s)
2014: 4.0 bWAR
2015: 3.0 bWAR
So I agree that his performance from 2012 to 2015 doesn’t seem that unreasonable if you start from a baseline of ~5 WAR with a decline of 0.5 WAR per year. The issue that’s still there, however, is acknowledging that from 2009 to 2011 he dropped from roughly an 8-9 WAR per season player (which is already slightly discounting 2009 from actual 9.7 bWAR to his average over the prior few years) to about 5 WAR per season.
“it is one that has cost himself potentially hundreds of millions of dollars.”
This is overshooting a bit. Hundreds of millions? Tens, certainly, and maybe as much as A hundred or so if he performs well over the next two years.
I think there’s a problem with the default Fangraphs approach of viewing WAR value as linear, as if 1 WAR = $10 million (or whatever it currently is), no matter what. That would mean a bench player is “worth” $10M, or Justin Upton is “worth” $30-50M a year. No one would ever sign Upton for that much, just as no one would ever sign Trout for ~$90M per year, which is what he’s “worth” as a player with a baseline true talent level of something like 9 WAR per year.
Another factor is investing in a single player. Two 4 WAR players are less valuable than an 8 WAR player in fantasy baseball, but they do have a much higher floor in real life. If you pay the two 4 WAR borderline stars $20M a year each, is the 8 WAR player “worth” $40M? Again, I don’t think it works that linearly in real life. Its the difference between rolling two six-sided dice vs. one twelve-side die.
Not to mention that any such contract takes into account inevitable decline. If Trout ages like Willie Mays, sure, his contract will be a massive bargain. But what if he ages like Griffey? Chances are it will be somewhere in-between, but where? There is no telling.
Trout might have left money on the table, but really only because he signed for the next twelve years. He could have rolled the dice and signed a series of three-year contracts and if he ended up with a Mays-esque 30-something career, would have made twice as much as this contract guarantees. But that’s just it: he is guaranteed to make $430 million over the next 12 years.
All that said, as an Angels fan I’m ecstatic. Trout for life is a great thing. I would have been equally happy if the extension was something like 10/$400M rather than 10/$360M, and maybe even higher, especially given that having one of the best players in baseball history has non-quantifiable value. But once you get to a certain point salary-wise, you have to wonder if it is worth investing that much money in any single player, no matter how good.
Most analyses are done based on the median/expected value, whether explicitly or implicitly.
The funny thing about Trout is that he is so insanely good that his upside is very limited while the downside for any athlete is really only bound by zero.
Next season, he is projected for 8.4~9.2 WAR with 175~184 wrc+ depending on your source.
The odds that he overperforms his projection by more than 1/2/3 WAR is much smaller than the odds that he underperforms it by more than 1/2/3 WAR.
And that asymmetry in the risk could have been a big factor for Trout signing a deal that is clearly lower than what he could have “expected” in the free market.
Given what we know of Trout, I think it’s quite likely that he’d rather have $460M and not have to deal with the free agency circus than have, say, $560M but have to go through that.
Do you think so? I’ve always wondered about this. Some athletes seem extremely unbothered by public opinion of them.
We are the type of people to spend all day absorbing news and social media online. Trout might have other things he does, and lets his agent worry about the media circus.
Also, Trout is probably good at dealing with public scrutiny, given that he plays in front of thousands of fans on a daily basis. I just don’t see why contract negotiations would be more of a burden.
This is personally disappointing only because I wanted to see what Trout would have been offered in true free agency, and hes now avoided it twice. Its definitely in his personality to do so, but man I wanted to see 500m+ offers
Two things about the calculation of the present value. 1) Are you assuming 5% annual inflation or 5% inflation over the course of the next two years? 5% annual inflation would be much to high 2) Using inflation as your discount rate for present value does not seem like the appropriate way to go about doing it.
I’m just disappointed he’s now trapped in this dead-end will they won’t they (they won’t) organisation. He needs to play on a winner, baseball needs him on a winner. The Angels 5 year outlook must be in the 15-20 range with him, but outside of him they have the most injured pitching staff always, old expensive contacts, and a few valuable prospects…. I’m a Jays fan and I’d be happier with him on the Yankees.
I just don’t think the Angels have what it takes to compete until Pujols is completely off the bigs. His salary and lineup presence are a massive liability, and the Angels are still a few pieces away from being a contender. I really hope he swallows his pride and hangs it up after this year.
“Great I’ve got several hundred million locked up, without having to worry about injury risk, and I can just go play baseball.”
I think you need to join a team of any kind to gain perspective. Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.
Maybe he loves LA, loves the Angels, wants to stay there his whole career, and doesn’t want to hamstring the team for selfish reasons. He’s the higher paid player in baseball as he should be. He wants to win.
That’s the story you should be writing. How great of a guy he is for doing this.
How great of a guy he is for helping Arte’s bank account, you mean?
Why is 5% inflation for $/WAR the right number to use if one thinks that franchise value is less and less connected to winning? The relevant number could be -5% or however fast one believes that the decoupling is taking place. This issue seems a lot more interesting than what’s discussed here.
I don’t know, what’s the incentive to squeeze every penny out of this deal? $400 million is silly money. And it’s not like Trout can be used by agents & the MLBPA as an argument to reset the market, since there are no other Trouts. If you’re an ego driven type, you already passed the AAV and total money marks by a mile. I wouldn’t blame him for trying to get his max market value, but I also have trouble seeing why you’d have much motivation for fighting tooth and nail for it if you’ve got an offer in hand that’s at least reasonable… Really, the diminishing returns on the extra money may just not be worth the peace of mind of never having to answer questions about free agency again.
“I don’t know, what’s the incentive to squeeze every penny out of this deal? ”
This. A hundred times this. For Trout — and, to some degree, the Angels, who despite clearly getting a bargain on maybe the best player of all time, are still ponying up the most guaranteed money ever to one player — we’re talking about the most marginal of gains at the very top end of the financial mountaintop. I don’t want to be the dude who’s saying you *shouldn’t* try to maximize every bit out of a contract, if that’s what you want, but $430 million compared to $475 million makes no difference in quality of life. I know this has been said many times by writers better than I and also in the comments section here (in fact, this comment here that I am indeed replying to).
But this sort of just feels like when you buy a TV, or a car, or something expensive that you’ll use all the time… If you want to spend X, but what you want is X+11%, you just pay it, you know? And I know that we’re talking about this in reverse with Trout, in that he’s taking a discount rather than the Angels paying more than they’d want to, but he probably just said to himself ‘I’m going to have the highest AAV ever, the biggest contract ever, but I’m making less money than I could if I fight for it… But what is *that* worth?’ He left money on the table, but he got what he wanted. He won’t be sitting on a porch swing at 92 years old lamenting making $100 less on a $430 million dollar contract.
Yeah, he’ll probably have moved to a corner outfield spot by then.
In that sense, it can be used by teams to depress an already depressed market.
“Well, your no Mike Trout, so…..
The real moral outrage is that I’ve never had the first pick in my fantasy league and he’s always piling up those eye popping stats against me. What a jerk.
While I agree that he left money on the table and the people whining about “he’s going to make more money than he can ever spend” should just stuff it, my disappointment is not so much that the Angels don’t seem to be able to put a winning team out as it is that this means he’s stuck in the hitter’s hellhole that is Angel Stadium. I was hoping he’d get to a more hitter friendly ballpark and start cranking out some ridiculous stats. Put him in Philly and you ad 50 points of OPS. HE’d drive in 100 every year instead of 90 and would score 130 a year instead of 115.
So you;re whining about his park factor, even though it’s barely a pitcher’s park and the Angels are all but certain to move in the next couple years?
Call me crazy, but once your total earnings get within striking distance of a half a billion dollars, I wonder if it maybe starts to make sense to prioritize some other “quality of work” benefits, like maybe leaving your team with more available resources with which to put a championship team around you.
I mean say what you want about team owners being really rich and squuezing players, but if Trout demanded a contract in line with what linear $/WAR models project (something like $700-800mm), he has just demanded a contract worth roughly half of the franchises actual total value. At that point, I think the owners would actually be able to legitimately cry poor when it comes to adding more high-end talent. I don’t think that really helps anyone involved.
There are always people who insist no one will turn down one million dollars, not even Bill Gates, and that anyone who says otherwise is lying.
And those people have no clue what they are talking about.
Guess that makes two of you.
I don’t know if it’s a perfect comparison due to how differently the two sports operate, but Tom Brady has for years signed less-than-maximum deals with the Patriots and has piled up six Super Bowls in large part due to that decision. Mike Trout is in a similar position, where more money will likely not improve his life, and can focus on other priorities, like you say.
When Brady retires, the memories of him leaving money on the table will fade away, but what will forever be remembered is the 6 titles. I am sure that Mike Trout is probably viewing things in a similar manner. At the point that he’s at financially he has the privilege of having entirely different priorities than most.
There is no possible way the LAA could be competitive paying Trout $50M, $60M, whatever, without a significant pipeline of talent coming up through the minors. In fact, no team could reasonably field a competitive roster over the long haul paying one player that much money. I believe the 2009 Yankees are the only team to ever win a WS with a single player making 15% of the team’s total payroll, and in the salary cap age I don’t believe a team could repeat that.
Trout ageing like the 50th best player in baseball history is still assuming a lot. An awful lot of players break down physically before they hit 35.
One other thing just occurred to me.
I would REALLY hate to be Scott Boras’ secretary today. Probably any day, really, but especially today.
I’d love to hear Boras anchoring off of this contract next year. “Trout was good, but Slappy Singles is a generational player…” He’ll practice that speech for days and my bet is he still can’t keep a straight face for the delivery.
I’ve spent this offseason arguing that teams would be foolish to give Harper and Machado (especially Harper) 10+ year deals for more than $300 million, and even I agree that Trout could reasonably claim that he is “worth” more than what he agreed to here. However, he is (presumably) happy with the deal, and that’s all that matters.
Also, it’s nice for him that he now doesn’t have to worry what impact some small–or large–injury might have on his future earning power. He can just do his best to stay healthy and play. There’s some value in that peace of mind.
Also, he manages to get a record-breaking MLB contract in terms of annual salary *and* in terms of total dollars while still retaining his well-earned good guy image, by not putting teams (and himself) through the free agency circus, and by resigning with his original team for what most recognize is at least a little bit of a “hometown” discount. There’s some value in retaining that favorable image, which few in professional sports get to enjoy.
Also, by not pressing for the greatest advantage, and leaving significant room for other payroll, he leaves some flexibility for his team to go out and get other players, or to retain its own excellent players. If Ohtani bounces back from his setback and goes on to keep doing Ohtani things, he’s going to get paid a lot, and the “hometown” team will be able to be in the bidding. If that happens, or even if it doesn’t, they can go after other top players and (at least try to) build a winner. Say what you will about this’s team’s record in terms of actually doing so over the past several years, but at least the payroll space will be there. There’s some value in that flexibility for the team, because it’s a team game after all.
All in all, it’s all the money Trout will ever need, and it still gives those additional non-monetary benefits of peace of mind, retention of his image, and team flexibility. Seems like a big win to me, for everyone involved.
It’s a bit goofy when you genuinely have Ty Cobb as your best comp.
This concept that a win is worth $9M, and I have even heard $10M, has never made sense to me. Where does this number come from? If Mike Trout received $90M per year the Angels could not field a competitive team. The combined WAR of the top 12 Red Sox players last year, which doesn’t include valuable players such as Holt, Barnes, Kelly and Brasier, is over 50 WAR. Are we supposed to believe that a reasonable and fair estimate of the Red Sox payroll should be in excess of $500 million dollars?
Because it’s free-agent wins that cost $9/10m. Mookie Betts put up 10.4 WAR last year for $10.5m because he’s in his arb years. I.e. a big chunk of any team’s total WAR is coming from pre-arb and arb guys. If the team was made up entirely of free agents it would cost a great deal more.
Not anymore!
Not anymore! Is it possible that front offices are recognizing that this $9/10M figure is out of whack and that is the reason that 2-4 WAR players are not receiving the offers they expected? I would like to use Marwin Gonzales as my example here. He is a fine ball player and in 2017 had a 4.7 WAR(offense) and still provided solid numbers in 2018, 1.9. I will use the moment to blast defensive WAR again because he was a negative 0.4 in 2017 despite playing all over the diamond. To anybody who knows anything about baseball, this ability adds considerably to his value to a team and should enhance his overall WAR. If he was a fire hydrant masquerading as a defender that would be a different story but he is capable at these positions and would probably be good if he settled on one, BUT that would clearly take away a reasonable amount of his value. What is that value is what this off-season has been all about. According to the claim that a Free Agent win is worth $9/10M then he should have been offered no less than $20M per year and possibly as much as $47M. That seems just a wee bit outside of the realm of reality.I know I guessed at 3/$36 and he only got 2/21. These figures are extreme but if these are the numbers the players see and believe then they are living in a Fantasyland.
The title of the article might be right, but it’s still funny that we’re talking about a guy who just signed a $430 million contract leaving money on the table. Even after taxes, that’s more money than most people know what to do with. Knowing Trout, he’ll find a way to outproduce his contract.
The Angels lucked out in that they drafted maybe the best player of all time, who also happens to be kind of a goofball rube. Imagine if this guy had a mercenary’s heart how much money he could have made (yes, he’s obviously making plenty regardless).
Imagine if he, I don’t know, had a mercenary professional agent that negotiated his contracts for him?
He might make a lot more money?
But seriously, Trout is the one making the call in the end. No one should have any doubt that his agents have advised him (over and over again) that he would make more money if he waited until free agency. Clearly he values consistency more so than the absolute most amount of money he can make.
It’s stupid decisions like this that keep Trout anonymous to the mainstream.
Stupid decisions like signing the largest sports contract in human history?
What an idoit.
Hey, if he wants to play in miles of bland suburb for a team that doesn’t win for less money that’s his choice.
The author assumes Machado and Harper were worth the money they got. But their WAR numbers (and Harper’s defensive deficiencies) don’t support that position.
Hard to ignore Machado’s home/road splits, even though his glove at 3B is right up there with Chapman and Arenado.
Trout is not only getting paid for his future production, but also for what he contributed up to this time at a discount price.
If the Angels continue to improve their farm system (e.g., guys like Adell and J. Jones) they can afford this massive contract. Their version of a stars and scrubs approach.
Good for Mike Trout, good for the Angels and I believe good for us fans. He could have pushed further down the path toward a lords and serfs split in the clubhouse but he showed some constraint which he could obviously live with. He is still in place to make 80 times more for years on end than many of his teammates … and this bothers so many of you? I’m Cleveland born and raised and a die hard Indian fan but have lived most of my life in Southern Cal so I get the small market realities and also get the fact that some of these guys are TV super stars but it’s also a team game so somewhere the ‘twain’ must meet. Go get em, Mike!
Five years ago, Dave Cameron titled his article about Trout’s extension “Mike Trout, King of Trade Value, Now, and Forever” (https://blogs.fangraphs.com/mike-trout-king-of-trade-value-now-and-forever/). It’s as applicable now as then. I just hope Kiley’s still around doing the rankings in 7 or 8 years when Trout falls from his perch atop the list.
Trout’s career trade value rankings:
2010: unranked
2011: 21
2012: 1
2013: 1
2014: 1
2015: 1
2016: 1
2017: 2
2018: 4
My admiration for Trout has gone up. I didn’t think that was possible. He’s just an amazing human being. What difference should another $100 million dollars make for him, anyway? Either he doesn’t want the acrimony and tension of free agency, or he likes the LA area and doesn’t want to move, or he wants to leaves the Angels more money to spend for other talent so he can finally have some postseason success, or some combination of these, who cares? Getting as much money as possible isn’t the goal of life. My favorite Mike Trout stat: In the last 100 years, out of all batters with at least 4000 PAs, who has the highest infield hit %? Ichiro at 12.2%? Nope, he’s second. Mike Trout. 12.7%. He’s better at beating out infield hits than Ichiro. And he bats right-handed (Jason Bay is third (11.5%), no one else is over 11%). He’s #7 in infield hits in 2012-8 (138), even though he only hits 39.8% grounders (the 6 above him hit at least 47%). On top of everything else, the guy hustles, really hustles.
That’s a great stat. The dude is always reaching on infield errors as well, something the stats don’t give him credit for but really should. The Angels home scorekeeper is also really stingy with hits. If an infielder makes contact with a ball but doesn’t convert an out its always an error. I haven’t looked it up but I’d say the score keeper easily costs him 5-10 hits a year.
I wonder what the MLB Players Association thinks about this…. I can’t imagine they’re all too pleased with this development….
Guess their hope now is that Betts goes out on the market….
There is a problem with those lists of adjusted to 2019 values. A-Rod’s contract is a clear outlier, of course, but there is a problem with adjusting the whole length of these contracts with a single inflation adjustment according to signing date. Pujols’ contract is a clear example: adjusting the 240M$ in 2011 to 2019 dollars overinflates his 2019-season contract by 50% (his 2019 salary is obviously already adjusted to 2019 dollars). Same thing for Stanton and Fielder, whose contracts are still running. It’s a much bigger task, but each year of the contract is different with regards to inflation dollars and need to be account for. A-Rod’s 2000 contract should not be adjusted with the same factor for all 10 years. Then, to estimate future value, inflation could be simulated (and re-adjusted accordingly the next year).
It’s pretty funny the lengths people will go to defend owners while endlessly lambasting pro athletes, who at best only make a fraction of the net worth of owners, as ‘selfish’, ‘entitled’, etc.
Without even getting into the systemic structural inequities that lead to a person being able to amass obscene wealth off the backs of eight to nine dollar an hour workers (or even less in the case of minor league players), a good number of owners obtained their fortunes through heredity, not to mention blatant, outright fraud (see Jimmy Haslem).
I just think it’s amusing (sad) watching the metaphorical ‘serfs’ bend over backwards to defend the feudal masters. Then again, if they stopped doing so then maybe the masters wouldn’t be masters at all anymore.
Part of the problem in the owner/player dynamic is that way too often, the players totally kill themselves with dumb statements that totally turn off folks…
Also, you see too often where players are more worried about conditions than they are things that matter. Saw it in the NFL big time last time- they were more worried about limiting practice times that they gave up the house otherwise to get that.
Thanks JB. According to the thumbs up and down, this place seems to be full of libertarian types who think their taxes are unfair yet still use public roads to get to work and expect help from first responders if they get in trouble. Ya know the type. They really quietly thumbs down people smarter than they are.
Is it really that much of a discount, though? He’s still probably going to be greatly overpaid during the second half of the deal. With the current free agent climate, would he have managed to do that much better through his Age 38 season on the open market? Sure, Harper signed until his Age 39 season, but he had to take a significant AAV discount in order to get it, something that Trout essentially just did with this extension, just even lower due to combining it with the “hometown discount.”