ImageImageImageImageImage

OT: Trout and Angels finalizing 12-year contract worth more than $430 million

Moderators: Rhettmatic, Alfred, Schad

User avatar
BramptonYute
Head Coach
Posts: 6,599
And1: 8,229
Joined: Mar 14, 2013
     

OT: Trout and Angels finalizing 12-year contract worth more than $430 million 

Post#1 » by BramptonYute » Tue Mar 19, 2019 2:29 pm

Read on Twitter
User avatar
Adrian_05
RealGM
Posts: 17,136
And1: 4,334
Joined: Aug 22, 2012
     

Re: OT: Trout and Angels finalizing 12-year contract worth more than $430 million 

Post#2 » by Adrian_05 » Tue Mar 19, 2019 2:36 pm

Surprised he wanted to stay with the Angels. Good for him though.
So_Fresh
Assistant Coach
Posts: 3,992
And1: 3,449
Joined: Jan 29, 2013
       

Re: OT: Trout and Angels finalizing 12-year contract worth more than $430 million 

Post#3 » by So_Fresh » Tue Mar 19, 2019 2:49 pm

Wow... If anyone is worth that kind of money it's Trout. He's a beast!
vaff87
RealGM
Posts: 21,349
And1: 68,433
Joined: Oct 22, 2003
       

Re: OT: Trout and Angels finalizing 12-year contract worth more than $430 million 

Post#4 » by vaff87 » Tue Mar 19, 2019 3:16 pm

Holy ****! I’d take this 10/10 over the Harper deal, tho.
rotty wrote:Wow
The_Hater
RealGM
Posts: 70,770
And1: 23,942
Joined: May 23, 2001
     

Re: OT: Trout and Angels finalizing 12-year contract worth more than $430 million 

Post#5 » by The_Hater » Tue Mar 19, 2019 6:42 pm

This is so good to see after watching Bryce Harper chase one, dumb monetary goal all winter.
AthensBucks wrote:Lowry is done.
Nurse is below average at best.
Masai is overrated.
I dont get how so many people believe in the raptors,they have zero to chance to win it all.


April 14th, 2019.
User avatar
Schad
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 49,871
And1: 10,987
Joined: Feb 08, 2006
Location: The Goat Rodeo
     

Re: OT: Trout and Angels finalizing 12-year contract worth more than $430 million 

Post#7 » by Schad » Tue Mar 19, 2019 10:06 pm

I know that I'm the person against massive extensions, but...$36m AAV over 12 for Trout is perfectly fine. Cheap, even. It overwrites the first two years, so it's really just a 10-year extension plus a rather teensy raise in 2019 and 2020.

Would most players be worth $360m in their ages 29-38 seasons? Nope. Will Trout? Extremely likely. He averages $70m in value per year to date...even if he starts declining by 31 or 32, unless he absolutely falls off a cliff, he'll have the contract paid for before he reaches his dotage.
**** your asterisk.
I_Like_Dirt
RealGM
Posts: 27,315
And1: 4,971
Joined: Jul 12, 2003
Location: Boardman gets paid!

Re: OT: Trout and Angels finalizing 12-year contract worth more than $430 million 

Post#8 » by I_Like_Dirt » Wed Mar 20, 2019 3:31 pm

Schad wrote:I know that I'm the person against massive extensions, but...$36m AAV over 12 for Trout is perfectly fine. Cheap, even. It overwrites the first two years, so it's really just a 10-year extension plus a rather teensy raise in 2019 and 2020.

Would most players be worth $360m in their ages 29-38 seasons? Nope. Will Trout? Extremely likely. He averages $70m in value per year to date...even if he starts declining by 31 or 32, unless he absolutely falls off a cliff, he'll have the contract paid for before he reaches his dotage.



Agreed. Trout is such an outlier that is so much better than his peers at this point that there really isn't a market measure on the scale to make him as overpaid as his peers on mega contracts. Getting ~40% more AAV than Bryce Harper is irrelevant to him because he's waaaaay more than ~40% better as a player and has more room to decline and still have value.
Bucket! Bucket!
VanWest82
General Manager
Posts: 7,891
And1: 8,464
Joined: Dec 05, 2008

Re: OT: Trout and Angels finalizing 12-year contract worth more than $430 million 

Post#9 » by VanWest82 » Wed Mar 20, 2019 6:19 pm

Perhaps I'm in the minority here but I think this is a bad deal even accounting for some payroll inflation (unless you assume crazy huge payroll inflation, which I wouldn't).

If we use A-Rod as a baseline, he accumulated 61 WAR after his seventh full season in the majors which is where Trout is now. Analysts will say that's a really good deal because it's only ~7M per win, and the going rate is more like 10M. Sure. I've never bought that as a good way of looking at it. Not all wins are created equal. Generally speaking, the first few wins are cheap and it gets more expensive as you go.

The Angels appear to have paid something approaching top dollar for wins 72-80 based on the current construct of their roster. Maybe you'd argue it's not really that bad because Trout should generate 8+ WAR over the next 3-4 years, and given his AAV will be ~36M they're really only paying 4-5M per win. Fine, just also acknowledge it's probably going to be much, much worse on the back end of the deal. So it's a win now / pay later move, except Angels aren't really in a position to win now. Maybe others disagree.

We're not dealing in a market with unlimited resources. If we were Angels would carry a 700M payroll so they could win 100 games each year, cause 7M per win is a good deal right? Player resources aren't unlimited either, and that drives up the price but just because the market tells you this is what a player is worth, that doesn't mean it's equal to his intrinsic value to your franchise.

Baseball analysts seem to be justifying the deal in relation to other dumb contracts. How is that a good way of looking at it? We're less dumb than everyone else therefore we made a good deal?? I don't think so.

I always try and look at the opportunity cost. Angels could have traded Trout for a boatload of prospects and picks because he was still under contract for two more years. Build your team back up to the point of contention and then consider adding free agents. But if/when you do, do it on the margins. Pay 7-10M per win for wins 93 and 94, and do it over the short term. No team can win big if they're paying huge sums of money for lower level wins. Just my two cents.
I_Like_Dirt
RealGM
Posts: 27,315
And1: 4,971
Joined: Jul 12, 2003
Location: Boardman gets paid!

Re: OT: Trout and Angels finalizing 12-year contract worth more than $430 million 

Post#10 » by I_Like_Dirt » Wed Mar 20, 2019 7:15 pm

VanWest82 wrote:I always try and look at the opportunity cost. Angles could have traded Trout for a boatload of prospects and picks because he was still under contract for two more years. Build your team back up to the point of contention and then consider adding free agents. But if/when you do, do it on the margins. Pay 7-10M per win for wins 93 and 94, and do it over the short term. No team can win big if they're paying huge sums of money for lower level wins. Just my two cents.


Trout had an NTC. Granted, he still has one, but two years to make a trade and convince him to be traded to the team making the offer is tricky when he knows he could hit free agency anyway. They have a bit more leverage with trading him at this point and more time to figure something out. And given that his contract isn't bad and he won't be hitting free agency, it might not necessarily hurt his value.

I don't think this contract is a super bargain or anything, just not the standard free agency albatross. Of course it's going to be much better up front.

I also think there are other factors that could be at play here that would never hit the media. For example, how much of a selling point was Trout when it came to Ohtani making his decision. Granted, Ohtani is stuck with the Angels now, but they probably want to keep him happy as well. It isn't so much the Trout's contract for me with the Angels as it is the everything else (non-Ohtani stuff, anyway). Pujols was a disaster. Trout's contract isn't a miracle or anything but it's way different from the standard Pujols conract. Really, it's the other stuff they need to get in order, with or without Trout.
Bucket! Bucket!
GoRapstheoriginal
Veteran
Posts: 2,811
And1: 550
Joined: Oct 26, 2006
       

Re: OT: Trout and Angels finalizing 12-year contract worth more than $430 million 

Post#11 » by GoRapstheoriginal » Wed Mar 20, 2019 7:24 pm

/tongue in cheek: And I'm just over here ========> just trying to make a buck! ;)! :D! :P! Lolz!

I'll be here all week folks!

Good for him his great great grandchildren will be taken care of for life! ;)
VanWest82
General Manager
Posts: 7,891
And1: 8,464
Joined: Dec 05, 2008

Re: OT: Trout and Angels finalizing 12-year contract worth more than $430 million 

Post#12 » by VanWest82 » Wed Mar 20, 2019 9:31 pm

I_Like_Dirt wrote:Trout had an NTC. Granted, he still has one, but two years to make a trade and convince him to be traded to the team making the offer is tricky when he knows he could hit free agency anyway. They have a bit more leverage with trading him at this point and more time to figure something out. And given that his contract isn't bad and he won't be hitting free agency, it might not necessarily hurt his value.

I don't think this contract is a super bargain or anything, just not the standard free agency albatross. Of course it's going to be much better up front.

I also think there are other factors that could be at play here that would never hit the media. For example, how much of a selling point was Trout when it came to Ohtani making his decision. Granted, Ohtani is stuck with the Angels now, but they probably want to keep him happy as well. It isn't so much the Trout's contract for me with the Angels as it is the everything else (non-Ohtani stuff, anyway). Pujols was a disaster. Trout's contract isn't a miracle or anything but it's way different from the standard Pujols conract. Really, it's the other stuff they need to get in order, with or without Trout.


Missed the part about the no trade. I suppose that changes things some. I would have still preferred to at least try and get Trout on board with a trade to a place of his choosing. If he didn't want to entertain that I would have let him walk in FA like Nationals did with Harper. Take the comp pick over a 430M commitment.

I don't really get the logic of giving someone a bad contract so you can also have the privilege of giving his teammates bad contracts. If Ohtani wants a crazy long-term deal let someone else give it to him. Baseball's system is broken. Show me the big money, long-term deal that's worked out. I suppose you could argue David Price's crappy deal because he at least helped the Red Sox win the title.
I_Like_Dirt
RealGM
Posts: 27,315
And1: 4,971
Joined: Jul 12, 2003
Location: Boardman gets paid!

Re: OT: Trout and Angels finalizing 12-year contract worth more than $430 million 

Post#13 » by I_Like_Dirt » Wed Mar 20, 2019 11:10 pm

My point is that it isn't actually a bad contract. It doesn't fit with the Angels current position but not much does at this stage. I'm not sure what they should or shouldn't do at this stage but I'm not going to criticize a reasonable deal for Trout when they have so many other issues worth criticizing.
Bucket! Bucket!
User avatar
Schad
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 49,871
And1: 10,987
Joined: Feb 08, 2006
Location: The Goat Rodeo
     

Re: OT: Trout and Angels finalizing 12-year contract worth more than $430 million 

Post#14 » by Schad » Wed Mar 20, 2019 11:11 pm

VanWest82 wrote:We're not dealing in a market with unlimited resources. If we were Angels would carry a 700M payroll so they could win 100 games each year, cause 7M per win is a good deal right? Player resources aren't unlimited either, and that drives up the price but just because the market tells you this is what a player is worth, that doesn't mean it's equal to his intrinsic value to your franchise.


Point of order: it's $Xm per win above replacement. A team of replacement-level players making $500k/apiece still wins, like, 50-odd games or something; extraordinarily good teams clock in around 50-55 fWAR, a solid playoff contender is in the high 30s/low 40s.


Thus, Trout covers nearly 20% of the distance between a replacement-level team and one that is extraordinarily good, or more than a quarter of the ground for a playoff contender. At $35m, that's more than reasonable; four Trouts and a bunch of scrubs compete for the playoffs on a mid-tier budget.

Certainly, no free agent has more surplus value than a star in their pre-arb years. Unfortunately, the paradox is that money doesn't buy those players, either, because no one's selling them.
**** your asterisk.
VanWest82
General Manager
Posts: 7,891
And1: 8,464
Joined: Dec 05, 2008

Re: OT: Trout and Angels finalizing 12-year contract worth more than $430 million 

Post#15 » by VanWest82 » Sun Mar 24, 2019 8:04 pm

Schad wrote:
VanWest82 wrote:We're not dealing in a market with unlimited resources. If we were Angels would carry a 700M payroll so they could win 100 games each year, cause 7M per win is a good deal right? Player resources aren't unlimited either, and that drives up the price but just because the market tells you this is what a player is worth, that doesn't mean it's equal to his intrinsic value to your franchise.


Point of order: it's $Xm per win above replacement. A team of replacement-level players making $500k/apiece still wins, like, 50-odd games or something; extraordinarily good teams clock in around 50-55 fWAR, a solid playoff contender is in the high 30s/low 40s.


Thus, Trout covers nearly 20% of the distance between a replacement-level team and one that is extraordinarily good, or more than a quarter of the ground for a playoff contender. At $35m, that's more than reasonable; four Trouts and a bunch of scrubs compete for the playoffs on a mid-tier budget.

Certainly, no free agent has more surplus value than a star in their pre-arb years. Unfortunately, the paradox is that money doesn't buy those players, either, because no one's selling them.


Silly mistake re WAR. My bad. I don't disagree that Trout @ 36M AAV is a good deal. If the contract was 6/216M it would have been quite reasonable. My issue is that extra 6/216M on top of the first one. I just think that's crazy and isn't going to age as well as people think. Actually, I think it's going to age horribly.
User avatar
Skin Blues
Veteran
Posts: 2,568
And1: 832
Joined: Nov 24, 2010

Re: OT: Trout and Angels finalizing 12-year contract worth more than $430 million 

Post#16 » by Skin Blues » Tue Mar 26, 2019 7:20 pm

I didn't look too close at the details, but I believe based on his projections, they're only paying $4.5M per WAR (projected). So its a big number, but its still relatively cheap compared to what else they could've bought with that money.

Return to Toronto Blue Jays