Mike Trout Extension

[biggentleben]

 

MLB has them at 14th.  And when you system is ranked 30th in 2016 and 29th in 2017, it's hard not to get better.  Maybe their GM has turned around their drafting, maybe he hasn't--two years seems a bit soon to tell.

 

When you review more than just rankings to understand a farm system, you will know that the Angels have made incredible strides throughout their player acquisitions since Billy came on board. Bringing in three of the ex-Braves prospects last winter seemed to go under the radar because they had signed multiple huge names in the July 2017 class already and also got Ohtani. Add in some of the best drafting the last few years, and the system has moved up significantly.

A Twitter discussion with Jonathan Mayo mentioned that the Pipeline staff viewed 9-15 as very fluid in their rankings. He even mentioned that he had the Angels as #10 on his personal list, but the summation of the staff had them lower.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

1. Significant sources of new income for the team (new local TV deal money kicking in and national money from new deal)

2. Clearing crappy deals from the Dipoto era clearing dead payroll space (2018 was the first year with no money heading to Josh Hamilton, for instance).

3. Moreno has said over and over that the money is there if it makes sense, and he has opened the pocketbook to leap forward in payroll many times when it came to competitiveness.

4. That number is wrong. They have had end-of-season payrolls between $175-190 million the last three seasons.

 

1. The current deal was agreed to in 2011.  There is no new local TV money kicking in.

2. They've cleared some crappy deals, but have not created payroll space.  It's great and all that they're not paying Josh Hamilton anymore, but their payroll isn't significantly lower, and they're not significantly better, so what does that matter?

3.If the money is there, why hasn't he used it yet?  To return to my question, when you have what is near-universally believed to be the best player in baseball, in his prime, for relatively cheap, why wouldn't you go above luxury tax thresholds then?

4. I went off opening day payrolls from spotrac.  If the owner really wanted to compete, and was ok spending money to do it, don't you think he would spend in the offseason, not wait until halfway through the year?

[howieramone2]

 

What do you think Betts is going to be paid, when he re-ups? What do you think any of those guys would be paid if they were free to sign with any team? 

 

The Pujols deal was stupid, and most people said it at the time. He was older, and played 1B/DH. 

 

Let's say they traded Trout before this, what do you realistically think they'd get? Remember, using three or four players to get 7-8 WAR (if they even make the majors) is a lot less valuable than using 1. Because those other 2-3 players not the 1 guy will also be producing positive WAR.

 

Which 2-3 free agents would you use the Trout money for, that would be better than Trout by 3 or more WAR for sure (since you are using more roster spots to get the same WAR, they need to be much more valuable)? 

Actually most free agency deals are stupid. Can't believe how many still confuse free agency with Christmas. When Mauer was signed, BA   said too much of the % of payroll went to him and Morneau. Who would have guessed?

[biggentleben]

 

1. The current deal was agreed to in 2011.  There is no new local TV money kicking in.

2. They've cleared some crappy deals, but have not created payroll space.  It's great and all that they're not paying Josh Hamilton anymore, but their payroll isn't significantly lower, and they're not significantly better, so what does that matter?

3.If the money is there, why hasn't he used it yet?  To return to my question, when you have what is near-universally believed to be the best player in baseball, in his prime, for relatively cheap, why wouldn't you go above luxury tax thresholds then?

4. I went off opening day payrolls from spotrac.  If the owner really wanted to compete, and was ok spending money to do it, don't you think he would spend in the offseason, not wait until halfway through the year?

 

They are spending on the team. With some significant young pitchers either returning from injury or coming up soon from the minors, they chose to spend in short-term deals this offseason on Matt Harvey, Trevor Cahill, and Cody Allen. They flirted with other starters, but the price wasn't right with the options that they have in guys like Andrew Heaney, Jaime Barria, Tyler Skaggs, Felix Pena, Jose Suarez, Griffin Canning, and down the road Luis Madero, Jose Soriano, Oliver Ortega, and Patrick Sandoval.

 

Most every team drops salary in the offseason and adds during the year. The Angels were trading away assets during the year last year and still ended up with more salary by the end of the season. That's the nature of the beast with any team. Here are the Twins OD/EOY payrolls the last 5 seasons:

2014 - OD: $85,465,000; EOY: $91,071,286

2015 - OD: $108,262,500; EOY: $108,275,245

2016 - OD: $105,333,700; EOY: $122,601,625

2017 - OD: $108,102,500; EOY: $123,573,527

2018 - OD: $128,713,226; EOY: $143,820,218

 

Every single year, the payroll was higher at year-end, whether the team was competing or not.

[Vanimal46]

 

How much is your time worth? My future goal is for a minute of my time to be worth $70.

[cardsfan]

Can, I first say Trout is a future HOFer. But, when I see 39 HRs and 79 RBIs and 33 HRs and 72 RBIs I'm thinking shouldn't he be driving in more runs? Is he walking instead of driving in runs when no one is behind him? This is the same issue with Joey Votto.

 

The Angels are the only expansion team above .500 by a few games over franchise history.

 

They probably would be better having 2 players that can drive in runs for $43 million.

[Mr. Brooks]

Can, I first say Trout is a future HOFer. But, when I see 39 HRs and 79 RBIs and 33 HRs and 72 RBIs I'm thinking shouldn't he be driving in more runs? Is he walking instead of driving in runs when no one is behind him? This is the same issue with Joey Votto.

 

The Angels are the only expansion team above .500 by a few games over franchise history.

 

They probably would be better having 2 players that can drive in runs for $43 million.

Not sure if serious.

It's somehow Trout's fault that nobody is on base ahead of him?

BTW, his career slugging percentage is 20 points higher with RISP than it is with the bases empty, so is his batting average.

[Han Joelo]

Good for what seems like one of the best guys in sports.  Kind of fun to see an all-timer stick with one team for a career...even more fun not to see this guy in Yankee pinstripes.

 

They might have another Betts-like superstar already in the fold, in Adell.  In a couple of years, with potentially Otani back to elite, Adell on the rise, and Trout being himself still, you've got an incredible nucleus.

 

Anyway, I get how people can argue against this in an analytical vacuum, but I don't see how a team could NOT do everything they can to throw in with a guy like Trout, and let the other chips fall where they may.

 

(O.k--not just let them fall, like Adell did, but also do smart stuff.  Like sign Oteni.)

[cardsfan]

Not sure if serious.

It's somehow Trout's fault that nobody is on base ahead of him?

BTW, his career slugging percentage is 20 points higher with RISP than it is with the bases empty, so is his batting average.

Last year he drove in 40 runs other than himself. He should be driving in more runs. He is getting on base at .460 clip and he is only driving in 40 others. This is Joey Votto country. Wait until his HR total drops to 20 ala Votto.

 

You can see another Angels contract disaster.

[Monkeypaws]

I find it somewhat ironic people are rah-rahing this deal a day or two after lamenting the plight of underpaid minor-leaguers.

 

Given the numbers posted in that thread, Trout makes as much per year as 3181 minor leaguers, so just about all of them

[Mr. Brooks]

Last year he drove in 40 runs other than himself. He should be driving in more runs. He is getting on base at .460 clip and he is only driving in 40 others. This is Joey Votto country. Wait until his HR total drops to 20 ala Votto.

 

You can see another Angels contract disaster.

Again, how can he drive people in, if nobody is on base when he comes to bat?

 

Last year, he had 377 PA's with the bases empty.

He had 163 with men on, but he was intentionally walked in 24 of those, so 139 times he had a chance to drive someone else in.

That means he only had runners on base in 26.9% of his net plate appearances.

Here was Trout's batting line with men on: .325/.504/.632(1.136)

 

Let's compare that with RBI leader JD Martinez.

 

Martinez had 332 PA's with the bases empty.

He had 317 with men on base. He was intentionally walked 11 of those times, for a net of 306.

That means he had runners on base in 48% of his plate appearances. Again, Trout 27%, Martinez 48%.

Martinez hit .352/.438/.670 (1.108).

 

Both players had similar batting lines, one guy had 167 more chances than the other guy.

So how is it Trout's fault that he doesn't get the opportunities that other guys get?

[cardsfan]

The Angels are that bad averaging 4.5 runs a game.

[Vanimal46]

Heard this on MLB Network and it stuck out to me...

 

This news sums up Trout's career and personality so far... Came out of nowhere, no rumors leading up to it, shocking!

[TheLeviathan]

Trout is a good dude and I'm happy for him.

 

But my god...that's a lot of money.

[Mike Sixel]

I find it somewhat ironic people are rah-rahing this deal a day or two after lamenting the plight of underpaid minor-leaguers.

 

Given the numbers posted in that thread, Trout makes as much per year as 3181 minor leaguers, so just about all of them

So he should give up money, but not billionaire owners?

 

The players make the game, they should get paid. That seems to obviously be our point.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

They are spending on the team. With some significant young pitchers either returning from injury or coming up soon from the minors, they chose to spend in short-term deals this offseason on Matt Harvey, Trevor Cahill, and Cody Allen. They flirted with other starters, but the price wasn't right with the options that they have in guys like Andrew Heaney, Jaime Barria, Tyler Skaggs, Felix Pena, Jose Suarez, Griffin Canning, and down the road Luis Madero, Jose Soriano, Oliver Ortega, and Patrick Sandoval.

 

Most every team drops salary in the offseason and adds during the year. The Angels were trading away assets during the year last year and still ended up with more salary by the end of the season. That's the nature of the beast with any team. Here are the Twins OD/EOY payrolls the last 5 seasons:

2014 - OD: $85,465,000; EOY: $91,071,286

2015 - OD: $108,262,500; EOY: $108,275,245

2016 - OD: $105,333,700; EOY: $122,601,625

2017 - OD: $108,102,500; EOY: $123,573,527

2018 - OD: $128,713,226; EOY: $143,820,218

 

Every single year, the payroll was higher at year-end, whether the team was competing or not.

 

They're not spending on the team, or in another fashion, they're spending on the team the same way the Twins are, which is to say they're at best treading water.  According to Spotrac, the Angels 2018 payroll was $173M, for 2019 its $168M.  The contracts for Harvey, Cahill, and Allen are only about $4M more this year than they paid in dead money last year to guys such as Kinsler and Valbuena.  The Angels have NOT increased their spending.

 

It seems like your assertion, based on the passel of unestablished players you listed, is that the Angels are not spending because they're going to just let their farm system fill the gaps.  That's a fine enough strategy, but if the assertion is that Trout's mega-deal won't restrict spending, the question remains, why aren't they spending?  Is it really because they're going to put all their eggs into the "let's hope these unproven kids all end up working out" basket?

 

I also have to ask where you're getting the payroll numbers you provided for the Twins.  How exactly did the Twins increase payroll by $15M during the season, especially considering they didn't pay the last 2 months' salaries of Escobar, Dozier, Duke, Pressly, and Rodney?

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

So he should give up money, but not billionaire owners?

The players make the game, they should get paid. That seems to obviously be our point.

 

And the owners pay the players.  If the owners are so unnecessary, why haven't the players broken off and formed their own league, wherein they can keep 100% of the profits for themselves?

[Mr. Brooks]

They're not spending on the team, or in another fashion, they're spending on the team the same way the Twins are, which is to say they're at best treading water. According to Spotrac, the Angels 2018 payroll was $173M, for 2019 its $168M. The contracts for Harvey, Cahill, and Allen are only about $4M more this year than they paid in dead money last year to guys such as Kinsler and Valbuena. The Angels have NOT increased their spending.

 

It seems like your assertion, based on the passel of unestablished players you listed, is that the Angels are not spending because they're going to just let their farm system fill the gaps. That's a fine enough strategy, but if the assertion is that Trout's mega-deal won't restrict spending, the question remains, why aren't they spending? Is it really because they're going to put all their eggs into the "let's hope these unproven kids all end up working out" basket?

 

I also have to ask where you're getting the payroll numbers you provided for the Twins. How exactly did the Twins increase payroll by $15M during the season, especially considering they didn't pay the last 2 months' salaries of Escobar, Dozier, Duke, Pressly, and Rodney?

Ben is using misleading numbers.

Those opening day salaries are for the 25 man roster, while the end of year salaries are for the entire 40 man roster.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

Actually most free agency deals are stupid. Can't believe how many still confuse free agency with Christmas. When Mauer was signed, BA   said too much of the % of payroll went to him and Morneau. Who would have guessed?

 

This.  So much this.  Free Agency is a laughably inefficient way to obtain wins.  If one win above replacement is worth $10M on the open market, and we assume a team comprised of exclusively replacement level players wins 60 games, then to get to .500 you would need to spend $210M on the free agent market.  To even get to 90 wins its $300M.

 

By definition, any deal signed in free agency is a bad deal, as you are paying more than anyone else is willing to spend.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

Good for what seems like one of the best guys in sports.  Kind of fun to see an all-timer stick with one team for a career...even more fun not to see this guy in Yankee pinstripes.

 

They might have another Betts-like superstar already in the fold, in Adell.  In a couple of years, with potentially Otani back to elite, Adell on the rise, and Trout being himself still, you've got an incredible nucleus.

 

Anyway, I get how people can argue against this in an analytical vacuum, but I don't see how a team could NOT do everything they can to throw in with a guy like Trout, and let the other chips fall where they may.

 

(O.k--not just let them fall, like Adell did, but also do smart stuff.  Like sign Oteni.)

 

In 2006, the Twins had an incredible nucleus; the best pitcher of his generation, a catcher who seemed destined for Coopertown, and an MVP-caliber masher.  Two years later, the pitcher was gone, two years after that an injury derailed the masher's career, and the next year after that, injuries turned the catcher into a shadow of himself.  Those 3 players together made one postseason, and won zero games.

[Vanimal46]

Some might think this is crazy, but Mike Trout's salary IMO goes beyond just standard baseball money. He's the best player on the planet... Broke all custom projection systems, and more valuable through age 26 then anyone in history.

 

His presence on the Angels is more than just $36 million a year. He's on pace to be the all time leader in HRs, hits, WAR, etc. He'll have multiple generations of people buying his jerseys and wanting to be him. He could have made even more money and who would think otherwise?

[Mike Sixel]

And the owners pay the players. If the owners are so unnecessary, why haven't the players broken off and formed their own league, wherein they can keep 100% of the profits for themselves?

Great rhetoric, terrible logic. You literally cannot get from my stance to this at all.

[cardsfan]

I find interesting is attendance is down, television viewership for post-season is 40% or less what it was in the 70's and 80's so why is it assumed that tv contracts and salaries will keep rising. Baseball salaries going up means higher ticket prices, $9 beers, and paying higher cable bills. This can't go on forever.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

Great rhetoric, terrible logic. You literally cannot get from my stance to this at all.

 

I disagree with this assessment.  If indeed, the players are getting such a raw deal, why do they continue to participate?  Why not go find 30 other billionaires who will agree to finance them, and in return for getting to acquire an entity worth at worst hundreds of millions of dollars for nothing, agree to a 60/40 split in revenue in the players favor?  Seriously, why wouldn't that happen if the current system is so unabashedly unfair to the players?

 

Your take that its awful for the owners to reap enormous benefits while the players get left out in the cold ignores the fact that the owners assume 100% of the risk in the operation of the business.  The players do not contribute any money towards the financing of coaches, facilities, marketing, travel, or anything else required to operate a 21st century Major League Baseball Franchise.  No risk, no reward.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I disagree with this assessment.  If indeed, the players are getting such a raw deal, why do they continue to participate?  Why not go find 30 other billionaires who will agree to finance them, and in return for getting to acquire an entity worth at worst hundreds of millions of dollars for nothing, agree to a 60/40 split in revenue in the players favor?  Seriously, why wouldn't that happen if the current system is so unabashedly unfair to the players?

 

Your take that its awful for the owners to reap enormous benefits while the players get left out in the cold ignores the fact that the owners assume 100% of the risk in the operation of the business.  The players do not contribute any money towards the financing of coaches, facilities, marketing, travel, or anything else required to operate a 21st century Major League Baseball Franchise.  No risk, no reward.

 

What risk is the legally protected monopoly, none of whom have EVER lost money in a sale, taking? And, players take plenty of risk. A tiny portion actually ever make the majors, yet the vast majority dedicate their entire teenage and young 20s years to it, not to mention paying for coaching and equipment and other investments. 

 

And, I never said it was awful they made money. I said players should get more of it. I'm out with you on this topic. It's clear we will never agree.

[TFRazor]

Thank the lord he's still a resident of New Jersey apparently. If he lived in California, that income tax would take a significant portion.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

If the Angel's goal is to employ perhaps the greatest player of all time when its said and done, this was a good deal.  If their goal is to win a world series, this deal is a massive impediment.

To call this deal a "massive impediment" to winning a world series would mean that, all else being equal, the Angels would have better odds of winning a world series by trading Trout (or letting him leave as a FA, I guess). I don't see how that could possibly be true.

 

Yes, having a rookie Mookie Betts circa 2014 would be more efficient than having Trout right now on this deal -- but trading Trout doesn't guarantee you get a rookie Mookie Betts in return. In fact, the odds of that are quite low -- not only are Mookie Betts type rookies pretty rare, but judging by the history of MLB trades, teams generally don't trade Mookie Betts type rookies even if they have them.

 

No one doubts that there may very well be some years in this deal, likely toward the end, where having a diminished Trout at this salary might reduce his team's odds of winning. But you also have to balance that with a bunch of years, starting right now, where Trout, even at this salary, greatly improves your odds of winning.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

To call this deal a "massive impediment" to winning a world series would mean that, all else being equal, the Angels would have better odds of winning a world series by trading Trout (or letting him leave as a FA, I guess). I don't see how that could possibly be true.

 

Yes, having a rookie Mookie Betts circa 2014 would be more efficient than having Trout right now on this deal -- but trading Trout doesn't guarantee you get a rookie Mookie Betts in return. In fact, the odds of that are quite low -- not only are Mookie Betts type rookies pretty rare, but judging by the history of MLB trades, teams generally don't trade Mookie Betts type rookies even if they have them.

 

No one doubts that there may very well be some years in this deal, likely toward the end, where having a diminished Trout at this salary might reduce his team's odds of winning. But you also have to balance that with a bunch of years, starting right now, where Trout, even at this salary, greatly improves your odds of winning.

 

I am in agreement that rostering Mike Trout is among the 2-3 best things you can do to increase your team's chances of winning right now...in a vacuum.  The Angels are not in a vacuum.  They are an entire standard deviation in quality below the Yankees, the Red Sox, and the Astros.  And that's with Mike Trout already on their roster.  The past 4 years have seen them win 85, 74, 80, and 80 games.  In order to actually win, the Angels need a 10 to 15 win surge.  They can't get this from their current farm system in all likelihood, and they can't obtain it from the FA market, due mostly to the Pujols/Upton twin albatross contracts.

 

So, if you can't get better through free agency for the next 3 years, and your farm system isn't yet ready to provide multiple cheap, all-star caliber players over the next 3 years, what you're essentially doing is tap-dancing for the next 3 years, until the 2022 season.  Trout turns 31 that season, which is likely the end of his prime.  So in my mind, the Angels have decided to tread water for 3 years, and then start competing as Trout begins his decline.

 

The alternative to that is to get a King's ransom for Trout, and hopefully have a passel of young, cheap talented players in 2022 that you can supplement as needed in free agency with your extremely clean books.  Unless the Angels are going to break the bank for more help for Trout now, I just don't see the point of following the path they've chosen.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

This.  So much this.  Free Agency is a laughably inefficient way to obtain wins.  If one win above replacement is worth $10M on the open market, and we assume a team comprised of exclusively replacement level players wins 60 games, then to get to .500 you would need to spend $210M on the free agent market.  To even get to 90 wins its $300M.

 

By definition, any deal signed in free agency is a bad deal, as you are paying more than anyone else is willing to spend.

A few things wrong with that "definition":

 

1. Not every team gets the same benefit from signing a particular free agent -- the Twins would get more benefit from signing Keuchel now than, say, Cleveland would, because of Cleveland's current rotation. The Twins would also get more benefit from that signing than teams like KC, Detroit, etc., who are further away from contention -- a marginal win isn't worth the same to those clubs as it is to the Twins. It's not a sign of a "bad deal" if the Twins are willing to pay more than those teams.

 

2. Because of the luxury tax and its penalties, the same salary will effectively cost more for some teams than others, sometimes even prohibitively so.

 

3. Some economist could probably use the right technical terms, but MLB FA isn't a transparent market with perfect information and opportunity provided to every team. It's quite possible that multiple teams would like to sign a player for the same price, but only one can.

 

Lastly, I'm sensing a contradiction here -- I'm not sure how you reconcile calling Trout's salary a "massive impediment" to winning, yet at the same time you say that spending money is a "laughably inefficient" way to win. If the latter is true, it severely diminishes the utility of the Angels freeing up that $36 mil, no?

[Vanimal46]

Baseball salaries going up means higher ticket prices, $9 beers, and paying higher cable bills. This can't go on forever.

Hmm, I wonder why I had to pay to attend a college football game, and pay $9 for a beer? The NCAA doesn't pay those athletes...