Mike Trout Extension

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

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.

First of all, Upton is hardly an albatross. 3.8 bWAR last year, 5.2 the year before, and he's only 31. He's not a superstar, but he's not a burden right now either. (Like all contracts, he may become a burden by the end, but that doesn't nullify any present-day value he can provide.)

 

Second, you're speaking in some serious absolutes here. Yes, the Angels are no one's World Series favorites right now -- but they're not hopeless. Fangraphs has them with a 20% chance of reaching the postseason in 2019 with neutral luck. You may call that "treading water" but there is value in being in that position. I'd call it "striking distance" instead -- they're only a bit of good luck (or a bit of Astros bad luck) away from meaningfully better outcomes. Trading a projected 9 WAR player (!) would pretty much sink those chances, and would also force them to trade good players like Simmons and Ohtani lest they squander them away.

 

And as you've already pointed out, by ~2022, they will already have "extremely clean books" anyway because Pujols and Upton will be off the MLB payroll. The utility of having an extra $36 mil for 2022 is pretty minimal (especially as you've noted that the utility of $36 mil in any random FA market isn't necessarily all that great).

 

I can't see any prospect package today as remotely being worth the present-day downgrade of trading him, even if they're also getting an extra $36 mil to spend in 2022. They'd probably need pretty good luck with the prospect return, and with reallocating the $36 mil, just to get back to that same "treading water" / "striking distance" position in 2022, let alone meaningfully improve on it.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

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?

 

There are certainly degrees to it, to be sure, but every free agent deal is a "bad deal" in the sense that it is an inefficient allocation of resources.  The Twins signing Dallas Keuchel is a less bad deal than the Indians or Royals, sure, but that doesn't make it good.  For example,saying the 22% interest rate on your credit card is a good deal because the other cards have 30% rates is a silly statement.  The 22% is bad, just not as bad.

 

Luxury tax only makes what is already a bad deal worse, it does not make bad deals that don't have luxury tax better.  Again, it's like if those cards with 30% rates added a $100/month penalty; your 22% rate is not suddenly good, it's just more "less bad" than the alternative

 

I would imagine when it comes to offers for free agents, while it's not transparent to the general public, the player's agents ensure it's quite transparent to the teams involved.  Do you really think every team bidding on a player isn't made acutely aware of the current best offer?  In that system, by definition, the team signing the player has made the best offer, and excluding personal choices like a desire to play in a certain place being primary, the best offer is the one that offers the best ratio of money to years.

 

Finally, the Trout contract is an impediment to winning in the sense that I've laid out.  It requires the Angels to keep, absent minor league graduations, the same team they've had for the past 4 years (which has averaged 80 wins for those 4 years), for the next 3 years.  The cost is that the Angels have essentially decided to rebuild, but are waiting 3 years to hire a contractor, and opting against using their best chip (a trade of Trout) to move the process along.  The Braves have 5 prospects in the top 40, and another 3 in the top 100.  Don't you think they'd be open to giving up 3-5 of them to turn their 90 win team into a 96-100 win team?

[nicksaviking]

 

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.

 

Well I'd think it can go on as long as capitalism is still in tact. I'm guessing my grandfather would have been horrified at the price of a $5 beer in 1990.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

There are certainly degrees to it, to be sure, but every free agent deal is a "bad deal" in the sense that it is an inefficient allocation of resources.

No, it's not, if there isn't a better way to allocate those resources to achieve the same ends. For the Twins and Keuchel right now, you can absolutely make the argument that there's a better allocation, but for the Angels and Trout, it's not even close -- there's no way they can confidently reallocate $36 mil annually and a few extra prospects right now to replace a projected 9 WAR player.

 

Luxury tax only makes what is already a bad deal worse, it does not make bad deals that don't have luxury tax better.

The luxury tax affects the market -- it prevents teams from offering what they would otherwise be willing to spend. Heck, so can time -- player's demands can change (i.e. Marwin Gonzalez). Let me remind you that you made this relative to the market -- you said "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]

 

First of all, Upton is hardly an albatross. 3.8 bWAR last year, 5.2 the year before, and he's only 31. He's not a superstar, but he's not a burden right now either. (Like all contracts, he may become a burden by the end, but that doesn't nullify any present-day value he can provide.)

 

Second, you're speaking in some serious absolutes here. Yes, the Angels are no one's World Series favorites right now -- but they're not hopeless. Fangraphs has them with a 20% chance of reaching the postseason in 2019 with neutral luck. You may call that "treading water" but there is value in being in that position. I'd call it "striking distance" instead -- they're only a bit of good luck (or a bit of Astros bad luck) away from meaningfully better outcomes. Trading a projected 9 WAR player (!) would pretty much sink those chances, and would also force them to trade good players like Simmons and Ohtani lest they squander them away.

 

And as you've already pointed out, by ~2022, they will already have "extremely clean books" anyway because Pujols and Upton will be off the MLB payroll. The utility of having an extra $36 mil for 2022 is pretty minimal (especially as you've noted that the utility of $36 mil in any random FA market isn't necessarily all that great).

 

I can't see any prospect package today as remotely being worth the present-day downgrade of trading him, even if they're also getting an extra $36 mil to spend in 2022. They'd probably need pretty good luck with the prospect return, and with reallocating the $36 mil, just to get back to that same "treading water" / "striking distance" position in 2022, let alone meaningfully improve on it.

 

I didn't say Upton was an albatross, I said his contract was.  Although that being said, his 5.2 2 years ago was far and away his best year since 2011, and indeed, 3 of 4 fangraphs projection peg him at no better than 2.5 WAR this year.  That does make him a burden at the price you have to pay for him.

 

What you call absolutes, I call reality.  A 1 in 5 chance is hardly something to be excited about when it comes to just making the postseason, particularly when 80% of that comes from winning a wild card.  If we re-define making the playoffs as getting to play in a series, the Angels odds are actually more like 12%.  Their odds to win the World Series are 0.6%.  And in terms of winning a wild card, they are actually 5th in the AL pecking order, behind the Red Sox, Rays, A's, and Twins.  They'd have to pass 3 of those teams, and their likely reward is one game on the east coast against Severino or Sale.

 

And sure, the Astros could have bad luck, and the Angels could have good luck.  But it's just as possible Cody Allen's 2018 is his new normal, Matt Harvey cannot return to 2015 form, Justin Upton drops to 1.5 WAR, and Mike Trout tears an ACL in May.  Any team whose strategy is "hopefully the declining cast-offs and unproven rookies are enough to complement Mike Trout, fingers crossed" is not seriously ready to compete.  The Angels could outperform their expectation by 5 games, have the Astros underperform theirs by 5 games, and they would still finish 5 games back.

 

Again, this isn't about Mike Trout being worth his contract, it's about the utility of that contract in the Angels' current situation, and if a team can't win, then what is the point in keeping that team together.  The Angels are betting everything on their farm system making up 8-10 wins, and then in 2022, being able to replace Pujols and Upton.  But by the way, both Simmons and Ohtani will need new contracts by then, so even in 2022, they might not have quite as much ammo available as it would seem.

 

By definition, no prospect package is worth the present-day value of a player, otherwise the prospects would never be traded.  It's simply my opinion that the Angels' house is built on a severely cracked foundation, which is unlikely to be repairable until 2022, if it even is then.  So perhaps the better course of action is to do everything you can to just tear down now, and see if you can build it back better.

[cardsfan]

Well I'd think it can go on as long as capitalism is still in tact. I'm guessing my grandfather would have been horrified at the price of a $5 beer in 1990.

Salaries can't go higher than the cost of living forever if demand for product is shrinking. Hard to believe advertisers want to pay more for shrinking viewership. My $9 beer shows how ridiculous prices are getting. Look at attendance drop off after new stadium wore off.

 

Trout's contract will look horrible when he has injuries and off-season.

[Rosterman]

The thing is with better drafting and a well-rounded team, can you better spend any (or all) that money more wisely year in and year out. At what point do $5-10 million dollar outfielders give you the same play>

 

Is he the brand you need to sell your franchise?

 

 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I would imagine when it comes to offers for free agents, while it's not transparent to the general public, the player's agents ensure it's quite transparent to the teams involved.  Do you really think every team bidding on a player isn't made acutely aware of the current best offer?  In that system, by definition, the team signing the player has made the best offer, and excluding personal choices like a desire to play in a certain place being primary, the best offer is the one that offers the best ratio of money to years.

Not as transparent as you might think. Players and agents generally don't tell teams exactly what the other offers are -- it's often better for them if teams are bidding blind. And a blind bid doesn't necessarily mean some team wouldn't have been willing to match or beat a higher bid, if they had the chance.

 

And as I mentioned in my last post, simple time is a factor too -- the Astros may have been willing to sign Marwin for 2/21, or perhaps even more, but earlier in the offseason, he was asking for $60 mil. So they acquired a different player. I suppose you could say they weren't willing to wait and sign him for that much, but it would be incorrect to simply say they weren't willing to pay what the Twins ultimately paid.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

No, it's not, if there isn't a better way to allocate those resources to achieve the same ends. For the Twins and Keuchel right now, you can absolutely make the argument that there's a better allocation, but for the Angels and Trout, it's not even close -- there's no way they can confidently reallocate $36 mil annually and a few extra prospects right now to replace a projected 9 WAR player.

 

The luxury tax affects the market -- it prevents teams from offering what they would otherwise be willing to spend. Heck, so can time -- player's demands can change (i.e. Marwin Gonzalez). Let me remind you that you made this relative to the market -- you said "By definition, any deal signed in free agency is a bad deal, as you are paying more than anyone else is willing to spend."

 

But if the wins don't make any difference, than why allocate any resources on them at all?  The Sox, Royals and Tigers aren't spending because going from 70 to 75 wins is meaningless.  The Angels are in the same boat, they just don't realize it.  What does it matter if they win 80 games or 71 games?  That's the whole damn point I've been trying to make.  The Angels, as currently constructed, cannot realistically compete.  The Angels, barring phenomenal luck with minor leaguers, cannot meaningfully alter their current construction.  They are wasting what are probable the three best years Mike Trout has left, and there's not a whole lot they can do about it, UNLESS they are willing to blow past established payroll thresholds in a major way.  And if they were willing to do that, why weren't they trying to sign Machado or Harper?  Everything indicates the Angels plan is to hope their farm system provides 15 WAR a year for the next 3 years, otherwise they will be an also-ran.  Therefore, isn't it logical to consider the possibility that it might be better to give up 9 WAR that likely does you no good now, in order to hopefully get 8-16 WAR 3 years from now, when it might do you good?  After all, if the new regime is so good at evaluating prospects, surely they'll be able to identify the right ones in a return.

 

I also never said the luxury tax, or time, or any of a million other things can't affect the market.  But that doesn't change the fact that when a player signs in free agency, he is taking the best offer, and most times, the best offer is the one that pays him either the most money per year, or the most money overall.  I'm not sure what is so confusing about this, unless you somehow think that Marwin had an offer for more AAV or more total that he turned down to sign for 2/21.  Just because a player's demands come down, doesn't mean you're no longer not paying more than everyone else, it simply means the player overvalued himself, and was forced to change.  If he has to come down too far, like if Marwin signed for 2 years and 2 million, then it could be a good deal, but players that would sign that deal are nowhere near the level of Marwin Gonzalez; if they were, they wouldn't sign that deal.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Finally, the Trout contract is an impediment to winning in the sense that I've laid out.  It requires the Angels to keep, absent minor league graduations, the same team they've had for the past 4 years (which has averaged 80 wins for those 4 years), for the next 3 years.  The cost is that the Angels have essentially decided to rebuild, but are waiting 3 years to hire a contractor, and opting against using their best chip (a trade of Trout) to move the process along.  The Braves have 5 prospects in the top 40, and another 3 in the top 100.  Don't you think they'd be open to giving up 3-5 of them to turn their 90 win team into a 96-100 win team?

Just because the Angels have finished the last 4 years averaging 80 wins, doesn't mean they are doomed to the same result the next 3. They've got the same ~20% chance at the postseason, with neutral luck, this year, regardless of their finish the last 4 years (which may have been in part due to bad luck? they've been terrible with pitching injuries).

 

As for what could be an acceptable prospect return for Mike Trout, you'd have to look beyond rankings -- not all prospects are equal. Ceiling, floor, reliability. The Braves, for their general prospect riches, their top prospect at MLB.com is only ranked #24, and he's a pitcher who missed most of 2018 with shoulder issues. Their next top prospect is a college pitcher. I'm having a hard time seeing an appropriate package led by those two, much less a mix of lesser ranked prospects.

 

To use the phrase that most prospects are question marks, you could say that Trout is basically three exclamation points by himself. Even 5 question marks probably don't represent equal value. Maybe if you could build a trade return around a position player prospect who's almost one exclamation point already himself, like Vlad Jr. -- but teams understandably don't want to trade those guys if they have them, much less gut their system in addition to that guy.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

Not as transparent as you might think. Players and agents generally don't tell teams exactly what the other offers are -- it's often better for them if teams are bidding blind. And a blind bid doesn't necessarily mean some team wouldn't have been willing to match or beat a higher bid, if they had the chance.

 

And as I mentioned in my last post, simple time is a factor too -- the Astros may have been willing to sign Marwin for 2/21, or perhaps even more, but earlier in the offseason, he was asking for $60 mil. So they acquired a different player. I suppose you could say they weren't willing to wait and sign him for that much, but it would be incorrect to simply say they weren't willing to pay what the Twins ultimately paid.

 

So what you're saying here is that when all the offers are in, an agent won't go back to every team who submitted a bid that isn't the best one, and inform of that fact?  If I as a player learned that was true, I would fire my agent on the spot.

 

Most teams have at least a couple of players that they would be happy to cut/leave in AAA to start a season if they truly wanted a player back.  For example, the Astros have AJ Reed on their roster.  He has 131 career AB's which have produced a .498 OPS, and still has an option.  Do you really think in a year where the Astros are all in to win the World Series, they're keeping Reed rostered because they didn't want to match 2/21?

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I didn't say Upton was an albatross, I said his contract was.  Although that being said, his 5.2 2 years ago was far and away his best year since 2011, and indeed, 3 of 4 fangraphs projection peg him at no better than 2.5 WAR this year.  That does make him a burden at the price you have to pay for him.

Every contract could be "albatross" in the last few years, but that doesn't make it bad. A projected 2.5 WAR player at $21 mil AAV isn't necessarily a burden either -- for a team with a win projection in the 80's, those 2.5 wins could prove vital, and $21 mil for them could be a perfectly reasonable cost.

 

That said, if you think the Angels need to aim for 2022 anyway, the Upton contract will be pretty much done by then, so who cares? I'd still rather start 2022 with the special player that is Mike Trout, even at age 30, than start it with an additional $36 mil and whatever prospects I can acquire for him right now -- not to mention the benefits of having Trout in 2019-2021 too.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

Just because the Angels have finished the last 4 years averaging 80 wins, doesn't mean they are doomed to the same result the next 3. They've got the same ~20% chance at the postseason, with neutral luck, this year, regardless of their finish the last 4 years (which may have been in part due to bad luck? they've been terrible with pitching injuries).

 

As for what could be an acceptable prospect return for Mike Trout, you'd have to look beyond rankings -- not all prospects are equal. Ceiling, floor, reliability. The Braves, for their general prospect riches, their top prospect at MLB.com is only ranked #24, and he's a pitcher who missed most of 2018 with shoulder issues. Their next top prospect is a college pitcher. I'm having a hard time seeing an appropriate package led by those two, much less a mix of lesser ranked prospects.

 

To use the phrase that most prospects are question marks, you could say that Trout is basically three exclamation points by himself. Even 5 question marks probably don't represent equal value. Maybe if you could build a trade return around a position player prospect who's almost one exclamation point already himself, like Vlad Jr. -- but teams understandably don't want to trade those guys if they have them, much less gut their system in addition to that guy.

 

I agree that past results aren't a guarantee of future ones, but in this case, what exactly have the Angels done to make themselves better?  They took flyers on declining players hoping for bouncebacks, and are crossing their fingers that an average to slightly above-average farm system can provide immediate and spectacular results.  Their win projection is 82 on fangraphs--seems like expecting them to, once again, be right around .500 is a quite reasonable position.

 

In terms of prospect return, while I'm sure getting a frontline player is an objective for many teams, getting a trio or quartet of above average regulars might actually be better, particularly if it allows you to trade away a Simmons or even an Upton for additional prospects.  Trout is absolutely three exclamation points, but for the next three years, those exclamation points are probably going to be at the end of a sentence like "the Angels are aggressively mediocre".  Is "the Angels are aggressively mediocre!!!" really any different?

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

So what you're saying here is that when all the offers are in, an agent won't go back to every team who submitted a bid that isn't the best one, and inform of that fact?  If I as a player learned that was true, I would fire my agent on the spot.

Perhaps they do that, but they probably don't give teams a number to match or beat either. "Last best offers" are still pretty much made blind.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

Every contract could be "albatross" in the last few years, but that doesn't make it bad. A projected 2.5 WAR player at $21 mil AAV isn't necessarily a burden either -- for a team with a win projection in the 80's, those 2.5 wins could prove vital, and $21 mil for them could be a perfectly reasonable cost.

 

That said, if you think the Angels need to aim for 2022 anyway, the Upton contract will be pretty much done by then, so who cares? I'd still rather start 2022 with the special player that is Mike Trout, even at age 30, than start it with an additional $36 mil and whatever prospects I can acquire for him right now -- not to mention the benefits of having Trout in 2019-2021 too.

 

By definition, and albatross contract is a bad contract.  If it's not a bad contract, it's not an albatross.  After all, Trout's previous contract was much bigger than Upton's but he performed up to it, therefore making it not an albatross.  And Upton's 2.5 WAR is not incremental--if the 82 projection came before he was added, than it is valuable, but when your projection is 82 with the 2.5 WAR, what good is it?  Again, is there really a difference between 82 and 80 wins?

 

I can certainly respect your belief that Trout in 2022 is better than prospects +$36M--baseball has many ways to build a roster, which is part of why it's interesting.  I simply happen to think $108M and 3 years stuck in neutral for what will likely be a declining player is not worth the unique opportunity the Angels have to leverage the best player in baseball who can't help them win in the playoffs (through no fault of his own) now for a better future.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

Perhaps they do that, but they probably don't give teams a number to match or beat either. "Last best offers" are still pretty much made blind.

 

I'm not saying this isn't the practice, it just seems counter-intuitive to me.  It's hard to start a bidding war, which should be every seller's goal, if no one knows they're fighting one.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

In terms of prospect return, while I'm sure getting a frontline player is an objective for many teams, getting a trio or quartet of above average regulars might actually be better, particularly if it allows you to trade away a Simmons or even an Upton for additional prospects.

The odds of getting 3-4 above average regulars from one team's 5 top 100 prospects is probably lower than getting frontline performance from an elite prospect.

 

And you just said Upton's contract was an albatross -- now you're suggesting it has trade value? While they could certainly trade other players for prospects too, they'd be in a substantially weaker bargaining position once they trade Trout -- they'd pretty much have to trade Simmons and Ohtani (and Upton) for whatever they could get in the very near future. If they were too selective, they'd risk wasting those remaining assets altogether.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

The Sox, Royals and Tigers aren't spending because going from 70 to 75 wins is meaningless.  The Angels are in the same boat, they just don't realize it

I disagree. An 80-something win projection is substantially different and better than a 70 win projection. Dealing a projected 9 WAR player (!) from that team invites so much more risk, you need a far more compelling reason to do it than mere pessimism.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

The odds of getting 3-4 above average regulars from one team's 5 top 100 prospects is probably lower than getting frontline performance from an elite prospect.

 

And you just said Upton's contract was an albatross -- now you're suggesting it has trade value? While they could certainly trade other players for prospects too, they'd be in a substantially weaker bargaining position once they trade Trout -- they'd pretty much have to trade Simmons and Ohtani (and Upton) for whatever they could get in the very near future. If they were too selective, they'd risk wasting those remaining assets altogether.

 

That's fair, but as you said, it's hard to get elite prospects.  So the question really is, is it more likely to be able to pry away an elite prospect, or get 3-4 guys who end up being above average?

 

Upton's contract is an albatross--to the Angels.  My entire point in something like 20 posts has been contextual; insofar as albatross contracts to Pujols and Upton are restricting the Angels from surrounding Mike Trout with competent supporting players, signing Mike Trout now is, to me, a questionable decision--in essence, what's the point of renewing the lease on your lamborghini if you struggle to afford gas?  Upton's 2.5 WAR would have great value to 3-5 NL teams who have win projections ranging from 81 to 85 and playoff odds from 14% to 48%.  If the Angels cover a large remainder of his salary (which if they're rebuilding they certainly could), they might be able to net a nice return.

 

And while trading Trout puts the Angels at a weaker position initially, that disappears immediately as soon as multiple teams get involved on Simmons or Ohtani (although why trade Ohtani?  He's young and cheap for the next 4-6 years).  If the Angels can find a home for Upton's 2.5 WAR, they could certainly do so for Simmons' 4 WAR, probably to any/all of the teams who didn't get Upton.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

I disagree. An 80-something win projection is substantially different and better than a 70 win projection. Dealing a projected 9 WAR player (!) from that team invites so much more risk, you need a far more compelling reason to do it than mere pessimism.

 

Those are much different, but only if the 80 win projection isn't your ceiling for the next 3 years.  As I think the Angels likely best-case scenario over the next 3 years is 85 wins (balanced by a likely worst-case scenario of 75 wins).  Keeping the guy who keeps you mediocre instead of bad serves little purpose.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Those are much different, but only if the 80 win projection isn't your ceiling for the next 3 years.  As I think the Angels likely best-case scenario over the next 3 years is 85 wins (balanced by a likely worst-case scenario of 75 wins).  Keeping the guy who keeps you mediocre instead of bad serves little purpose.

The Angels median, neutral luck projection for 2019 is 82 wins at Fangraphs right now. And next year, they get Ohtani back as a pitcher, and Jo Adell probably arrives too. It's just pessimism to suggest that their ceiling / best-case scenario with Trout is capped at only 85 wins over the next 3 years.

 

And for that matter, 85 wins isn't even that bad. An 85 win pace likely means you're in the race and can make decisions accordingly at the trade deadline and perhaps improve that total by season's end. And 2018 was the first time in 5 years when it took 90 wins to make the postseason in MLB -- I wouldn't bet on the bar for AL postseason qualification to remain at 97 wins the next 3 years.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

The Angels median, neutral luck projection for 2019 is 82 wins at Fangraphs right now. And next year, they get Ohtani back as a pitcher, and Jo Adell probably arrives too. It's just pessimism to suggest that their ceiling / best-case scenario with Trout is capped at only 85 wins over the next 3 years.

 

And for that matter, 85 wins isn't even that bad. An 85 win pace likely means you're in the race and can make decisions accordingly at the trade deadline and perhaps improve that total by season's end. And 2018 was the first time in 5 years when it took 90 wins to make the postseason in MLB -- I wouldn't bet on the bar for AL postseason qualification to remain at 97 wins the next 3 years.

 

They get Ohtani back as a pitcher next year--assuming he doesn't aggravate his injury, and also assuming that he recovers fully from his injury.  Jo Adell could be great, or he could be Byron Buxton 2.0, but not as good defensively.  It's just optimism to suggest that those 2 players alone will move the needle--maybe they will, but it's quite plausible they won't.

 

When it comes to the postseason, I tend to take the view that if you're not at least close to the Red Sox, Yankees, and Astros, what's the point.  If the Angels are behind the Astros but make the playoffs, they play in the play-in game against probably the Red Sox or Yankees, then have to play either the Astros or the other East team, and then probably the third one in the ALCS.  Until the Angels can win their division, its exceedingly likely their path to the World Series requires beating all three of the Astros, Red Sox, and Yankees.  What are the odds of doing that, even if you're a 90 win team?  That's why I think an 85 win projection is of no value--it clearly speaks to a chasm between you and the top teams, and mid-season improvement would probably require surrendering the farm assets the Angels have to rely on to improve anyways.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

That's fair, but as you said, it's hard to get elite prospects.  So the question really is, is it more likely to be able to pry away an elite prospect, or get 3-4 guys who end up being above average?

Sure, but at the point, you're settling. A team in the Angels position shouldn't be settling when discussing trade returns for an incredible asset like Trout.

 

 

Upton's 2.5 WAR would have great value to 3-5 NL teams who have win projections ranging from 81 to 85 and playoff odds from 14% to 48%.If the Angels cover a large remainder of his salary (which if they're rebuilding they certainly could), they might be able to net a nice return.

You realize the Angels project in that range too, correct? How can his contract be great value to these other teams but an albatross to the Angels? He's a similar value proposition to Keuchel or Kimbrel, either of whom could be good additions for the Angels.

 

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but the trend in baseball has been distinctly toward putting greater value on prospects. There's big risk in a even a decent team trading multi-year assets for prospects under these conditions. Eating salary will provide only marginally better return.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

They get Ohtani back as a pitcher next year--assuming he doesn't aggravate his injury, and also assuming that he recovers fully from his injury.  Jo Adell could be great, or he could be Byron Buxton 2.0, but not as good defensively.  It's just optimism to suggest that those 2 players alone will move the needle--maybe they will, but it's quite plausible they won't.

I never said that those two alone would move the needle.

 

It's not optimism to note that a 82 win neutral luck team has decent odds of exceeding 85 wins (while also having odds of falling short of 79 wins).

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

When it comes to the postseason, I tend to take the view that if you're not at least close to the Red Sox, Yankees, and Astros, what's the point.

Those are 3 good teams, but I don't think you can act like they're going to maintain their 2018 paces.

[Otto von Ballpark]

You know, this "trade Trout" argument would have made more sense a couple days ago. In fact, it's been argued here before -- the Angels aren't that bad, but they're not that good either, and with only 2 years of control left, they really had to consider trading Trout before he could leave as a free agent.

 

But once the 2 years control is no longer a concern, and Trout is willing to commit to the Angels for what is essentially Stanton/Machado/Harper money, it would seem nuts to turn that down and trade him instead. A team with the Angels resources should always at least consider buying Stanton/Machado/Harper type players as they become available -- and so it doesn't make much sense for them to turn away an even better player at that price level.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

insofar as albatross contracts to Pujols and Upton are restricting the Angels from surrounding Mike Trout with competent supporting players, signing Mike Trout now is, to me, a questionable decision

But this doesn't even make sense when you also note that FA spending is inefficient.

 

Sure, the Angels would rather have $24-30 mil the next 3 years to invest on players other than Pujols -- but is that sunk $24-30 mil each year really enough to mean they should trade arguably the best player of all time, even with an 80-something team win projection and ~20% odds of reaching the postseason? A lot of teams have $24-30 mil of "dead money", it's an obstacle but not really one that requires drastic measures. At most, that $24-30 mil means you can sign one less Upton.

 

(I'm not even going to lump in Upton anymore, as you've obviously demonstrated his present usefulness and value -- he's not dead money. At worst, he's simply taking a spot that would go to a similar value player in Keuchel, Kimbrel, etc.)

[Mr. Brooks]

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.

Income tax is paid in the state where the work is performed, not where the worker lives.

He pays the same income tax whether he lives in California, New Jersey, or Mars.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

Sure, but at the point, you're settling. A team in the Angels position shouldn't be settling when discussing trade returns for an incredible asset like Trout.

 

 

You realize the Angels project in that range too, correct? How can his contract be great value to these other teams but an albatross to the Angels? He's a similar value proposition to Keuchel or Kimbrel, either of whom could be good additions for the Angels.

 

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but the trend in baseball has been distinctly toward putting greater value on prospects. There's big risk in a even a decent team trading multi-year assets for prospects under these conditions. Eating salary will provide only marginally better return.

 

I don't think getting 3-4 players capable of putting up 2-4 WAR a year is "settling".  It's hard to win with quite possibly the best player ever if he doesn't have support, as the Angels have been proving for half a decade now.

 

I'm not sure why you're struggling to understand why Upton has more value to an NL team than the Angels currently.  The Angels have an 82 win projection WITH Upton.  The NL teams have an 82 win projection WITHOUT Upton, making Upton incremental, and driving them to the 85 win range.  NL Central and East teams are also chasing projected division winners with projections of 87.3 and 90.5, as opposed to the Astros with a projection of 97.7.  The Angels need to add 15 WAR despite already having Upton to match the Astros projection.  An NL Central/East team needs to add at most 7 wins to match their projected division winner.  Upton is more than a third of that.

 

Perhaps the Angels won't be able to swing a deal for prospects.  If that's the case, I have to believe that the Angels are in a pretty tough position.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

I never said that those two alone would move the needle.

 

It's not optimism to note that a 82 win neutral luck team has decent odds of exceeding 85 wins (while also having odds of falling short of 79 wins).

 

They were the only two you mentioned; while you didn't explicitly state those two are the only options to move the needle, nor did you so much as allude to any other options to move the needle.  It's not ridiculous to infer that those two options are the only ones you're referencing.

 

Except you were saying it's pessimism to suggest 85 wins is the ceiling.  I don't think its optimism to suggest 85 win projections are possible, I think it's optimism to suggest 85 win projections are the floor.