SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Mike Trout: worth "Opening" the Checkbook for?
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,826
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Feb 20, 2014 7:40:56 GMT -5
We have all applauded the work of Ben Cherington and the ownership for getting our house in order with respect to ridiculous long-term contracts. THE trade with LA was a huge windfall for us in so many ways. Starting last off-season, we showed a lot of restraint with respect to giving out anything that resembled too many years. This winter has been more of the same. With our farm system somewhat bursting at the seams with close to ready talent, we could definitely be patient and watch how simply stupid the Yankees seem to be every year. BUT our policy and restraint may be really tested if a certain player does not get extended in the next couple of years. That player, who many believe including me, is the best player in the world. That player is Mike Trout. That player will break the bank. That player, if the Angels are nuts, will be a free agent during his 25th year on the planet! This article, insider.espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/10470101/los-angeles-angels-pay-more-wait-give-mike-trout-contract-extension-mlb, sums things up rather well. Every year the Angels don't extend him, the more he will be worth if he keeps being Mike Trout. The figures that are thrown around in this article are scary. But for the best player in the world and one hitting free agency this early, they may be right on. Question: would the Red Sox get in on signing Mike Trout? Do you believe this would be the time to break the bank for a player?I do certainly agree with the new policy enacted by the Sox brain trust, but I personally would love to see Trout patrolling Fenway for a decade or more.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Feb 20, 2014 8:22:46 GMT -5
While I would love to see Trout, Stanton, maybe Puig etc. I think that will not happen. He may well be a New Yorker ultimately. The Sox have entered a new era where they have and will maintain financial flex. With a presently good and productive farm system, I suspect that they would rather bask in their present situation. It would be awfully nice to have Bradley in center at 500k than Trout at 30MM.
What concerns me is the ever growing disparity b/t the established star salaries and those prior to arb.. The guys like Roberts & Sizemore get squeezed too by the chase for the top talent....but teams have to economize somewhere.
Again, I'd like to have top established (and young!) players, but I don't want to see us break the bank for anyone.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 20, 2014 9:07:55 GMT -5
Question: would the Red Sox get in on signing Mike Trout? Do you believe this would be the time to break the bank for a player? Would they? I hope so. Would it be the right time to give out a huge contract? Absolutely. Best player in the game at age 25? If you're not willing to spend money then, just pack it in and go home. I'd give him 30/10 in a heartbeat.
|
|
|
Post by sammo420 on Feb 20, 2014 9:08:23 GMT -5
Remember when we ran somebody off this board for suggesting Albert Pujols could be a Red Sox and now it looks like the Angels wish he was? Even the best of the best can hurt you.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Feb 20, 2014 9:13:04 GMT -5
Interesting timing for this thread and this article: www.providencejournal.com/sports/content/20140219-john-henry-confident-about-red-soxs-status-and-direction.eceOne intriguing thing Henry said on Wednesday was that the Red Sox may not be as respectful of the luxury-tax threshold as they have been in recent years. Under the new collective bargaining agreement, surpassing the threshold — $189 million for each of the next three seasons — appeared more punitive than in the past, while staying under it could reap significant rewards.
Henry implied — albeit cryptically — that those perceptions might not be 100 percent accurate.
“There’s some reason to believe that [staying under the threshold] may not be as important as we thought a couple years ago,” Henry said. “There were certain incentives built into the season that at the time I doubted they would really carry the day, and that appears to be the case. They probably won’t.”
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Feb 20, 2014 9:19:04 GMT -5
By the way, somewhat related to Trout and the Angels, the Angels have an opt out of their stadium agreement after 2016 and apparently negotiations for concessions from the city of Anaheim are at a stalemate. The Angels have begun negotiations with the city of Tustin to potentially build a stadium where El Toro Marine Base used to be. (Maybe 8-10 miles between the two sites but both in Orange County not LA County).
ADD: That site would have to be the envy of baseball because it would be in a position to have off ramps from three major highways (5,405,55), is across the street from a train station and within a few miles of the county airport. It would make it much more convenient for millions of potential fans who now have to tread the worst traffic congestion in SoCal to get to a game.
|
|
|
Post by bsout2 on Feb 20, 2014 10:32:27 GMT -5
I want to see what Chris Davis does the next two years. If he continues to slug the way he did last year and then becomes a FA, I would love to slot him in at DH after Ortiz leaves.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Feb 20, 2014 11:06:52 GMT -5
Remember when we ran somebody off this board for suggesting Albert Pujols could be a Red Sox and now it looks like the Angels wish he was? Even the best of the best can hurt you. Trout will be 25, 3-4 years from his peak, and he may have 5 seasons of 9+ WAR under his belt by then. The situations aren't comparable. In fact, there may never have been anything comparable in the history of the game. He was just quoted as saying he'd like to steal more bases this year, more than last year's 33. He's perfectly capable of 50+. The guy is a freak.
|
|
|
Post by godot on Feb 20, 2014 11:13:27 GMT -5
Two things. One, have the Angles won with him? They also seem well heeded. Why wouldn't they do an extension? Do they have budget limitations?
|
|
|
Post by jchang on Feb 20, 2014 11:26:59 GMT -5
I would have thought that Pujol's record of consistency should have made him about low as risk as possible for a free agent entering the 2012 season. Factoring in age, $30M seemed reasonable for 2012-17, but not to 2021. If Trout is not signed to an extension, wow! he could be worth $40M, with the only issue being duration.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 20, 2014 11:28:30 GMT -5
These hypotheticals are ridiculous but I'll play along.
I'd sign Trout for 10 years, $350 million and then trade him to Minnesota for Buxton and Sano along with $300 million.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Feb 20, 2014 11:33:12 GMT -5
Trout is definitely one player you have to be in on but if he continues his production and reaches free agency I believe we are going to see an unfathomable contract. At this point it appears the Yankees have decided exceeding the luxury tax is not an issue under the right circumstances. The Dodgers will be out from Ethier and could team Trout and Puig with an outrageous player personnel budget. With few top tier young players reaching free agency the bidding war would be outrageous. Easily twice the Tanaka market in my mind.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 20, 2014 11:38:55 GMT -5
If he continues his level of play and hits free agency at 25, with the boost in the luxury tax limit that I'm guessing will be the next CBA, my estimate is 15 years, $700 million. No, I'm not exaggerating.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Feb 20, 2014 11:43:37 GMT -5
I mean think of it this way for the Angels. Trout becomes a free agent in the 2018 season. The Angels are paying Josh Hamilton $32 million in each of 2016 and 2017. If you are wiling to pay that sum for Hamilton you have to imagine Trouts agent will want to exceed those figures. Fortunately for LA Hamilton will be a free agent also which realistically allows the team to sign Trout and not have it increase the 2018 budget much from 2017 and likely saves money as Trout would no doubt be pulling down 15 to 18 million by 17 through arbitration. So replace 50 million in 17 from Hamilton and Trout with 35 to 40 million for Trout and a cost controlled player and you can envision LA getting through the first half of the contract financially as they currently stand.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Feb 20, 2014 11:46:00 GMT -5
Interesting timing for this thread and this article: www.providencejournal.com/sports/content/20140219-john-henry-confident-about-red-soxs-status-and-direction.eceOne intriguing thing Henry said on Wednesday was that the Red Sox may not be as respectful of the luxury-tax threshold as they have been in recent years. Under the new collective bargaining agreement, surpassing the threshold — $189 million for each of the next three seasons — appeared more punitive than in the past, while staying under it could reap significant rewards.
Henry implied — albeit cryptically — that those perceptions might not be 100 percent accurate.
“There’s some reason to believe that [staying under the threshold] may not be as important as we thought a couple years ago,” Henry said. “There were certain incentives built into the season that at the time I doubted they would really carry the day, and that appears to be the case. They probably won’t.”That doesn't mean that the Redsox will exceed the luxury tax limit though right. It means that some teams may well surpass it, which is exactly what is happening. I think by 2016 there will be little incentive for the Redsox to be very concerned about it either.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Feb 20, 2014 11:48:14 GMT -5
If he continues his level of play and hits free agency at 25, with the boost in the luxury tax limit that I'm guessing will be the next CBA, my estimate is 15 years, $700 million. No, I'm not exaggerating. Yet another reason LA needs to get a deal done by next year if they don't want him to reach free agency. Each year his price escalates both based upon performance and the economics of the game.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Feb 20, 2014 11:48:30 GMT -5
If he continues his level of play and hits free agency at 25, with the boost in the luxury tax limit that I'm guessing will be the next CBA, my estimate is 15 years, $700 million. No, I'm not exaggerating. jaw drops all the way to the floor That takes him to age 40. Seems a bit much I'll say 12 years / $500 mill
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Feb 20, 2014 11:52:50 GMT -5
By the way, somewhat related to Trout and the Angels, the Angels have an opt out of their stadium agreement after 2016 and apparently negotiations for concessions from the city of Anaheim are at a stalemate. The Angels have begun negotiations with the city of Tustin to potentially build a stadium where El Toro Marine Base used to be. (Maybe 8-10 miles between the two sites but both in Orange County not LA County). ADD: That site would have to be the envy of baseball because it would be in a position to have off ramps from three major highways (5,405,55), is across the street from a train station and within a few miles of the county airport. It would make it much more convenient for millions of potential fans who now have to tread the worst traffic congestion in SoCal to get to a game. Regarding the Angels situation, they have a decent park but this is about making an even bigger money grab. El Toro is a great location for sure and it could separate them even further from the Dodgers, with potentially a more lucrative park situation. The parking option and development opportunities around the El Toro location are worth a fortune and it is further south from LA, tapping into south Orange County and north San Diego county a little better. The Angels played that game once and made Gene Autry a billionaire mainly from the surrounding real estate value increase. And who wants to compete with the Dodgers strategically?
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Feb 20, 2014 11:54:13 GMT -5
I can't picture those numbers. They're too large. He's legitimately going to average 35-38 million a year on his next contract, even if it starts at more like 32. I think it'll take a 12+ year contract with a player opt-out after 5 years.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 20, 2014 11:55:39 GMT -5
Yet another reason LA needs to get a deal done by next year if they don't want him to reach free agency. Each year his price escalates both based upon performance and the economics of the game. I'm sure they'd love to sign him to an extension, and I'm sure they know the costs involved in not doing so. The reserve clause doesn't exist anymore though - Trout has to be amenable to an extension. Who knows? Maybe he wants to make as much money as humanly possible. Maybe he wants to play close to home.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Feb 20, 2014 12:00:35 GMT -5
Well if Trout becomes a free agent every team will be in it so the Red Sox will be there but you know it's not gonna happen. I actually think Heyward and Stanton are more likely.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 20, 2014 12:27:12 GMT -5
A few notes: -Trout is four years away from free agency. This thread is ridiculously premature even by internet wishcasting standards. I clicked thinking we were going to discuss Heyward versus Stanton versus Price or something. -There's a semi-rational reason the Angels haven't seriously talked extension with Trout yet. They think, perhaps correctly, that there's no way Trout gets any better than this-- he's literally played about as well as any player in baseball history the last two years. There's really nowhere to go but down, and any minor performance decline or injury means his price probably goes down. Of course, that's balanced by the fact that the closer he gets to free agency, the higher his asking price will be (because he'd bear less risk going year-to-year). -If Trout reaches free agency still putting up video game numbers with elite defense and little injury history, he's going to shatter salary numbers like the first Alex Rodriguez deal did. Hell, he could ask for an ownership stake and a team would probably give it to him. But that's a long ways away. -Earlier in the offseason, I toyed with the idea of whether it might be feasible to trade for Trout if you also took on Pujols' and Hamilton's contracts. After having thought about it some more, I think I was pretty off with that initial post-- the Angels aren't doing a package deal even with the other team eating two big contracts without getting significant prospects in return. But I think it might be possible to swing such a deal without giving up Bogaerts in return. Still, incredibly speculative, and further discussion should go in the above thread on the Trade Proposal subforum. -Otherwise, the only way Trout gets traded is if he gets disgruntled and wants out, and even then, it'd require another cost-controlled proven superstar in return. Say, McCutchen/Cole from the Pirates or Goldschmidt/Bradley from the Diamondbacks or Darvish/Profar from the Rangers or Machado/Bundy/more from the Orioles.
|
|
|
Post by semperfisox on Feb 20, 2014 12:56:26 GMT -5
I'd want the Sox to be the top spender for Trout. Kid is just unreal.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Feb 20, 2014 13:24:41 GMT -5
ADD: That site would have to be the envy of baseball because it would be in a position to have off ramps from three major highways (5,405,55), is across the street from a train station and within a few miles of the county airport. It would make it much more convenient for millions of potential fans who now have to tread the worst traffic congestion in SoCal to get to a game. El Toro is a great location for sure and it could separate them even further from the Dodgers, with potentially a more lucrative park situation. The parking option and development opportunities around the El Toro location are worth a fortune and it is further south from LA, tapping into south Orange County and north San Diego county a little better. Getting to the current stadium by train is pretty easy from DTLA (I've done it 5 or 6 times). The real problem isn't the train station near the stadium, but that no one lives or works near an origination station. being further South might help a little, especially if they could do a Patriots Place type thing with the area, and turn it into a full-time destination. Also, Angels stadium is so borrrrrrring and cheesy. This is sad from an environmental perspective though, as a lot of money and energy has gone into the current stadium and parking lot. Maybe it could become a football field...
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Feb 20, 2014 14:11:42 GMT -5
Before you advocate spending hundreds of millions on a tremendously talented young player, remember Grady Sizemore.
|
|
|