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?
|
Post by jmei on Feb 21, 2014 18:24:42 GMT -5
No one said they didn't have any money to spend, but he took a huge potion on their payroll which makes things more difficult no matter how you care to slice it. Even if not, it shows that one player doesn't make that much of a difference on a baseball team. As noted in the link I posted above, the Rangers still had $66m of non-Rodriguez payroll, which on its own would have ranked 13th in terms of biggest payrolls in baseball that year. Again, the problem was not the size of the non-Rodriguez payroll, the problem was how the Rangers deployed it. Fair point that any one player in baseball doesn't move the needle much, though. But we're talking about the potential to add the best player to baseball to an organization with deep pockets, an excellent farm system, and one of the better front offices in the league... you see why the idea is tantalizing, even if it's almost certainly not going for happen for the various reasons discussed above.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 21, 2014 18:26:42 GMT -5
Uh, there aren't exactly a lot of players reaching free agency who "consistently produced 5.0+ WAR" as you define it above. There are exactly 6 position players who have produced 5+ fWAR in each of the last three years: Cabrera, Votto, Beltre, McCutchen, Cano, and Zobrist. Very few of these guys reach free agency for obvious reasons. There certainly aren't any in the FA class of 2015, for instance. Even if you got lucky and there was a run of true superstar free agents, good luck trying to sign three of them for less than what you'd give Trout. Oh, did I mention that you'd be getting four prime Trout years if you signed him in free agency, while you'd likely only get the decline years of most other free agents? Why is it so hard to understand? This entire thread is hypothetical. Thus my scenarios are hypothetical. Not realistic at all. I stated that numerous times in my posts in this thread. Even with hypotheticals, there are various levels of plausibility, and I just wanted to point out that yours was in the lower realms of plausibility.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 21, 2014 18:48:09 GMT -5
Uh, there aren't exactly a lot of players reaching free agency who "consistently produced 5.0+ WAR" as you define it above. There are exactly 6 position players who have produced 5+ fWAR in each of the last three years: Cabrera, Votto, Beltre, McCutchen, Cano, and Zobrist. Very few of these guys reach free agency for obvious reasons. There certainly aren't any in the FA class of 2015, for instance. Even if you got lucky and there was a run of true superstar free agents, good luck trying to sign three of them for less than what you'd give Trout. Oh, did I mention that you'd be getting four prime Trout years if you signed him in free agency, while you'd likely only get the decline years of most other free agents? Why is it so hard to understand? This entire thread is hypothetical. Thus my scenarios are hypothetical. Not realistic at all. I stated that numerous times in my posts in this thread. Mike Trout isn't a hypothetical. He really exists, as hard as that may be to believe at times. All these other 5 and 7 WAR players you're talking about, though?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 21, 2014 20:09:04 GMT -5
No one said they didn't have any money to spend, but he took a huge potion on their payroll which makes things more difficult no matter how you care to slice it. Even if not, it shows that one player doesn't make that much of a difference on a baseball team. How does it "show" anything? They could have been even worse if he wasn't on the team. We have no idea how good or bad they'd have been without him.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Feb 21, 2014 22:01:25 GMT -5
We do have a bunch of estimates that he was probably worth as much as 9 wins over the average stiff in left field. Even if you assume they could have replaced him with someone capable of say 4 wins - a very generous assumption given the lack of talent on the market and the Angels depleted farm system - that still means that Trout may have helped them throw a halo around an extra five wins. That doesn't sound unreasonable does it? The guy is at least that good. They sure weren't going to get those wins from Hamilton. And this year, he moves back to centerfield where his fantastic speed serves him very well. There may be another of those 10 win seasons cranking up and he's all of 22 years old. Think about that.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Feb 21, 2014 23:13:09 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. +++ Absolutely not interested.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 21, 2014 23:36:12 GMT -5
Why is it so hard to understand? This entire thread is hypothetical. Thus my scenarios are hypothetical. Not realistic at all. I stated that numerous times in my posts in this thread. Mike Trout isn't a hypothetical. He really exists, as hard as that may be to believe at times. All these other 5 and 7 WAR players you're talking about, though? If what I said about Pujols and Hamilton isn't true about their budget being stretched whatsoever, there's no chance he hits free agency. Therefore, the discussion about Trout the free agent is fantasy.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Feb 22, 2014 0:31:38 GMT -5
Mike Trout isn't a hypothetical. He really exists, as hard as that may be to believe at times. All these other 5 and 7 WAR players you're talking about, though? If what I said about Pujols and Hamilton isn't true about their budget being stretched whatsoever, there's no chance he hits free agency. Therefore, the discussion about Trout the free agent is fantasy. The Angels could have the money to make him whatever offer they choose but he still needs to accept it. If Trout trusts his ability to stay healthy and productive the obvious move is playing out his deal and hitting free agency as early as possible. At that point the Angels could have payroll flexibility and he could simply prefer to sign a similar deal with another team.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Feb 22, 2014 12:45:27 GMT -5
You guys might wanna hold off on this thread until he goes out and puts up his 15 WAR season this year.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Feb 22, 2014 16:21:59 GMT -5
No one said they didn't have any money to spend, but he took a huge potion on their payroll which makes things more difficult no matter how you care to slice it. Even if not, it shows that one player doesn't make that much of a difference on a baseball team. How does it "show" anything? They could have been even worse if he wasn't on the team. We have no idea how good or bad they'd have been without him. You know what? You're probably right, maybe it doesn't "show" anything, but one player on a baseball team doesn't make that great of a difference. Especially as your team gets better and wins are harder to come by. Committing 30% of your payroll to one player is just dumb.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 22, 2014 18:19:25 GMT -5
How does it "show" anything? They could have been even worse if he wasn't on the team. We have no idea how good or bad they'd have been without him. You know what? You're probably right, maybe it doesn't "show" anything, but one player on a baseball team doesn't make that great of a difference. Especially as your team gets better and wins are harder to come by. Committing 30% of your payroll to one player is just dumb. That's completely backwards. The value of a Mike Trout/prime A-Rod type player increases as your team gets better, because good teams tend to have fewer holes to fill. Part of the reason that signings like Napoli and Victorino made sense for the Red Sox is that they were replacing bad players or no players at their positions. But if you look at the Red Sox roster right now, there's not a lot of positions where bringing in a 2-3 win player is going to make much of a difference. It's not true in every case, but in general, an 80 win team is probably better off signing three mid-tier guys to get to 90 wins, but if a 90 win team wants to get to 100 wins, they're going to need to bring in a superstar. And as far as committing 30% of your payroll to one player, 30% of the Red Sox payroll is likely to be in excess of 60 million dollars a year by the time Trout hits the market, and he's not getting that. In 2004, Manny Ramirez accounted for about 15% of the Red Sox payroll. Assuming a $200m payroll when Trout goes FA, 15% works out to... $30m a year.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Feb 22, 2014 21:30:39 GMT -5
I'm not sure how many times I need to agree with you on $30m for Trout. The discussion surrounding Arod has to do with the percentage of payroll he took up. People are using that as a way to extrapolate Trout getting $500m plus.
I'm pretty sure you and I are in agreement on acceptable numbers for Trout at 10/300.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 23, 2014 0:17:49 GMT -5
I'm not sure how many times I need to agree with you on $30m for Trout. The discussion surrounding Arod has to do with the percentage of payroll he took up. People are using that as a way to extrapolate Trout getting $500m plus. I'm pretty sure you and I are in agreement on acceptable numbers for Trout at 10/300.I'd be willing to go over that, though. 400/12 would be fine by me.
|
|
|
Post by ikonos on Feb 23, 2014 14:23:24 GMT -5
Reports are that Trout and Angels are discussing a 6yr/150m deal. If that is true then folks who are recommending restraint on AAV as well as those who are recommending for 40m+ contract get what they want as his FA years will have close to 40m salary while the AAV is at 25m.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Feb 24, 2014 9:22:00 GMT -5
So if true, Trout would be signed for his ages 22-27 seasons and hit FA at 28 vs 26. Doesn't seem like much, but it's a pretty big difference in terms of contract length. ARod hit Free agency at 25, three years younger then Trout would be. Not to mention it opens more windows for regression and injury. And when I talk regression, I just mean to normal superstar levels of 7WAR seasons.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Feb 24, 2014 11:00:37 GMT -5
Reports are that Trout and Angels are discussing a 6yr/150m deal. If that is true then folks who are recommending restraint on AAV as well as those who are recommending for 40m+ contract get what they want as his FA years will have close to 40m salary while the AAV is at 25m. If I was Trout I would take that deal the second they offered it and never look back. Once he signs that he is guaranteed to make more money than most baseball players do in their whole careers, and he is still set up for a monster contract at the end of it. At this point, nothing is guaranteed for Trout, he could blow out his knee or get in a car accident and lose everything. 150M over the next 6 years, considering 4 years are team control, is still a great contract. Makes sense for the Angels also to get two "cheap" 25M years of post arbitration control of Trout.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Feb 24, 2014 11:34:46 GMT -5
Hopefully we can soon move this argument into a multi-year epic sign/extend Bogaerts thread.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 24, 2014 11:40:03 GMT -5
This is so much of a fantasy, it is better suited for the trade proposal subforum even though it's not discussing a trade.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 24, 2014 12:03:46 GMT -5
Reports are that Trout and Angels are discussing a 6yr/150m deal. If that is true then folks who are recommending restraint on AAV as well as those who are recommending for 40m+ contract get what they want as his FA years will have close to 40m salary while the AAV is at 25m. If I was Trout I would take that deal the second they offered it and never look back. Once he signs that he is guaranteed to make more money than most baseball players do in their whole careers, and he is still set up for a monster contract at the end of it. At this point, nothing is guaranteed for Trout, he could blow out his knee or get in a car accident and lose everything. 150M over the next 6 years, considering 4 years are team control, is still a great contract. Makes sense for the Angels also to get two "cheap" 25M years of post arbitration control of Trout. What if I'm Mike Trout, and I don't particularly like being on the west coast or playing for the Angels? Seeing as I'm the best player alive, I probably have the leverage to get the Angels to buy out my arb years at a relative discount without giving up any FA years. That way I get tens of millions in guaranteed money, and I'm two years closer to signing a record-breaking contract with the team of my choice.
|
|
|
Post by nexus on Feb 24, 2014 12:36:17 GMT -5
Reports are that Trout and Angels are discussing a 6yr/150m deal. If that is true then folks who are recommending restraint on AAV as well as those who are recommending for 40m+ contract get what they want as his FA years will have close to 40m salary while the AAV is at 25m. If I was Trout I would take that deal the second they offered it and never look back. Once he signs that he is guaranteed to make more money than most baseball players do in their whole careers, and he is still set up for a monster contract at the end of it. At this point, nothing is guaranteed for Trout, he could blow out his knee or get in a car accident and lose everything. 150M over the next 6 years, considering 4 years are team control, is still a great contract. Makes sense for the Angels also to get two "cheap" 25M years of post arbitration control of Trout.It only makes sense when understanding possible luxury tax implications in 2018 & 2019. They would still have to pay him his estimated $45M each of those two seasons.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Feb 24, 2014 14:34:23 GMT -5
If I was Trout I would take that deal the second they offered it and never look back. Once he signs that he is guaranteed to make more money than most baseball players do in their whole careers, and he is still set up for a monster contract at the end of it. At this point, nothing is guaranteed for Trout, he could blow out his knee or get in a car accident and lose everything. 150M over the next 6 years, considering 4 years are team control, is still a great contract. Makes sense for the Angels also to get two "cheap" 25M years of post arbitration control of Trout. What if I'm Mike Trout, and I don't particularly like being on the west coast or playing for the Angels? Seeing as I'm the best player alive, I probably have the leverage to get the Angels to buy out my arb years at a relative discount without giving up any FA years. That way I get tens of millions in guaranteed money, and I'm two years closer to signing a record-breaking contract with the team of my choice. I was more speaking to about risk vs reward instead of personal choice. I was pointing out the fact that he could get hurt or under perform and make next to nothing in this sport. I don't know that Trout has any leverage to sell out just his arb years without add team control, at least not more leverage than any other arbitration player. Why would the Angels do that? They would be better off just taking him to arbitration or settling year after year, to protect themselves from any risk. I guess if he was willing to devalue his later years, but that is what the Angels are asking for in a 6 year extension. As for the record breaking contract, if all goes according to plan he would still sign one at age 27 instead of 25, and depending on the length of the contract or opt out clauses, and the inflation of salary YTY, it could be more beneficial for Trout to hit the market a little later in his career. As for his arbitration years and contract, I can only speculate, but here are my assumptions. If he was not extended and faced arbitration/settlement in each of his 3 years, I would assume he makes less than 20M in his first year, and never making more than 30M in an arbitration year. I think that is a very aggressive assumption also. So if we say he makes 15M Y1, 25M Y2, and 30M Y3 he would have made 70M to this point. He would then need 40M a year the first two years of his megacontract to make up to the 150M he would have gotten with a 6 year extension. Now the megacontract I am speculating would be at least 10 years, which offers security (the 150M 6 year extension now is true security), but at the age of 27, I don't see any reason why he would not be able to get another 10+ year offer. I know the board is not interested in what it's posters would do in various athletes positions. I was only trying to look at a transaction I don't have a stake in (I don't like the Angels, and Trout probably won't be a Red Sox) objectively. I thought it was a very fair and strategically sound deal for both sides.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Feb 24, 2014 16:01:30 GMT -5
Hopefully we can soon move this argument into a multi-year epic sign/extend Bogaerts thread. No hopefully Xander gets signed to an extension prior to this point in mike Trouts career. Just wait for the agent switch to Jair.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Feb 24, 2014 17:02:57 GMT -5
Hopefully we can soon move this argument into a multi-year epic sign/extend Bogaerts thread. No hopefully Xander gets signed to an extension prior to this point in mike Trouts career. Just wait for the agent switch to Jair. We are already at this point in Mike Trout's career. Sorry, you're right, we passed that point while I was typing a response...
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Feb 24, 2014 17:52:04 GMT -5
This seems like entirely too much money. The only reason for LAA to take on all the risk right now is if they feel like they're getting a discount. min/18/22/30/40/40 just doesn't seem like enough of one off of min/arb1/arb2/arb3/FA/FA.
I'm not saying Trout won't hit those numbers over the next 6 years, but he has to exceed them (and by quite a bit) to make the accepted risk worthwhile. They're taking on injury risk, performance risk and risk that inflation really will be strong (at least in the baseball FA market).
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 24, 2014 18:04:40 GMT -5
They also might be buying the age 26 and 27 seasons of someone whose upside is the best baseball player ever. They also get to spread out that average annual value for luxury tax/spending cap purposes.
Also, how are the Angels taking on the inflation risk? Suppose the 2017 CBA ends up with something like a 35% raise in the spending cap? That will result in a huge influx of cash to spend on free agents, the bulk of which will be realized by high-end free agents.
|
|
|