Mike Trout Extension

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

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

 

Maybe they won't all win 100 games this year, but they all have projections above 95 wins for 2019, but all 3 are all-in on winning this year, next year, and in 2021 as well.  They will all 3 be committed to doing whatever it takes to maintain their standard.  Waiting for any of these teams to seriously falter is the epitome of foolishness.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I don't think getting 3-4 players capable of putting up 2-4 WAR a year is "settling". 

But you're not getting 3-4 players who put up 2-4 WAR every season. You're getting a very slim chance at that outcome. You seem to have no trouble dismissing 20% playoff odds for the Angels, yet you're probably embracing even lower odds with these trade return forecasts.

 

 

I'm not sure why you're struggling to understand why Upton has more value to an NL team than the Angels currently.

I'm struggling with it because you've also said Upton's contract is an "albatross" to the Angels, and that Upton's contract is preventing the Angels from supplementing around Trout, to the point where Trout needs to be traded -- when Upton himself seems to be a fair supplementary player to Trout.

 

If you want to retract all that, and just say that Upton might have a bit more value to some other clubs, sure, I'd agree with that. But it's not a stark difference.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

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.

 

The Trout contract is in a completely different class than Stanton/Machado/Harper.  It is at least $100M more than all 3 of those--Machado is the only one close, and even his AAV is $6M less than Trout.  If Machado wanted 12 years, I'm guess though his AAV would have gone from $30M to $28M to $27M.  They are not comparable contracts.

 

To repeat a point I've made before--if the Angels have the resources and the willpower to spend on Stanton/Machado/Harper players, why aren't they doing it now?  Seriously, the next 3 years will in all likelihood be the best 3 years Trout has left--why aren't they trying to maximize those?  The only explanation is they lack either the resources or the willingness.  And if that's the case, then what is the point of signing Trout so you can finish 83-79 for the foreseeable future?

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

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.

They were examples. Presenting one or two examples does not imply that no other examples might exist.

 

 

I think it's optimism to suggest 85 win projections are the floor.

I don't think anyone has suggested that here. In fact, I've repeatedly referenced their 82 win neutral luck projection.

 

But a team doesn't need a 85 win projection floor to not trade the best player on the planet.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Maybe they won't all win 100 games this year, but they all have projections above 95 wins for 2019, but all 3 are all-in on winning this year, next year, and in 2021 as well.  They will all 3 be committed to doing whatever it takes to maintain their standard.  Waiting for any of these teams to seriously falter is the epitome of foolishness.

You've made it clear that you have a "World Series or bust" attitude.

 

But even if you think the next few years are hopeless, trading Trout now doesn't actually improve your chances of winning a World Series in 2022 all that much, if at all. The prospects would carry a lot of risk, we've established that the extra $36 mil probably can't be re-invested any better than Trout -- and there's simply a ton of uncertainty inherent in looking that far ahead. Injuries, player development paths, other teams -- all kinds of factors which are very hard to predict 3 years in advance.

 

That's not to say you can't try to make moves around the margins, to aim to be better in 3 years -- teams do this all the time. But trading the best player on the planet, on a long-term deal, is not a move around the margins. You need a lot clearer aim for that kind of move than what you are providing in this thread.

 

If the Angels really should be unsatisfied with their present day position, I can think of any number of moves that would be better toward satisfying the armchair GM "World Series or bust" attitude than trading the best player on the planet for an unspecific return and hoping things come together better in 2022. Spending like crazy, luxury tax be damned, would be one of them. Maybe even trading a guy like Jo Adell to try to land another superstar today.

 

Or just do what real GMs do, rather than armchair ones, and accept that there are good outcomes for your team that fall short of the World Series (even if you obviously prefer to win it).

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

The Trout contract is in a completely different class than Stanton/Machado/Harper.  It is at least $100M more than all 3 of those--Machado is the only one close, and even his AAV is $6M less than Trout.  If Machado wanted 12 years, I'm guess though his AAV would have gone from $30M to $28M to $27M.  They are not comparable contracts.

 

To repeat a point I've made before--if the Angels have the resources and the willpower to spend on Stanton/Machado/Harper players, why aren't they doing it now?  Seriously, the next 3 years will in all likelihood be the best 3 years Trout has left--why aren't they trying to maximize those?  The only explanation is they lack either the resources or the willingness.  And if that's the case, then what is the point of signing Trout so you can finish 83-79 for the foreseeable future?

The Trout extension is actually only 10/360. It's on top of the last 2 years of his previous deal, but as far as new commitments, it's in line with the others (when you consider that Trout is clearly better than those other guys).

 

As for not spending on other FA -- I don't think the Angels view this as some limited window with Trout. He may not put up video game numbers forever, but there's no reason why he couldn't be a part of winning Angels teams after age 30. So they're looking to sustain some level of competitiveness for the long haul, rather than going all in for a limited window, or punting the current window and hoping for better down the line.

 

Also, FWIW, you keep referring to the next 3 years, but Trout was only signed for 2. So if you think Trout could be valuable in 2021, and you think the Angels have any chance of improving the rest of their club by then, that's another point in favor of signing this contract. If things don't work out as expected, they can always work with Trout to try to trade him somewhere else in the future. But it's not a bad idea for them to want to keep his prime ages for themselves, especially if they think the trade market wouldn't adequately compensate them for those years (and I don't think there's much evidence suggesting it would).

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

But you're not getting 3-4 players who put up 2-4 WAR every season. You're getting a very slim chance at that outcome. You seem to have no trouble dismissing 20% playoff odds for the Angels, yet you're probably embracing even lower odds with these trade return forecasts.

 

 

I'm struggling with it because you've also said Upton's contract is an "albatross" to the Angels, and that Upton's contract is preventing the Angels from supplementing around Trout, to the point where Trout needs to be traded -- when Upton himself seems to be a fair supplementary player to Trout.

 

If you want to retract all that, and just say that Upton might have a bit more value to some other clubs, sure, I'd agree with that. But it's not a stark difference.

 

I've always said if, when it comes to whether they would be able to get 3-4 players.  Every trade has risks.  I dismiss the 20% playoff odds because they're in reality 12% (4% chance to win the division, 15.5% chance to get a wild card, and therefore about an 8% chance to win the wild card game).  I don't count losing in the wild card game as making the playoffs, anymore than losing in an NCAA tournament First Four game counts as making the NCAA tournament.  Even if the odds were 20%, that's nothing to get excited about, so reducing my chances to 10%, or even 5% means nothing to me, so long as 2-4 years from now I can have 50% or better chances to actually make the playoffs.

 

For the last time, Upton's contract is an albatross to the Angels because it prevents them from obtaining additional pieces that they need to get above a 20% chance to make the playoffs.  He is a fine complimentary player, but the Angels need multiple more fine complimentary players in order to truly compete.  Upton keeps them from doing that, UNLESS the Angels are willing to spend $200M, $225M, or more to get even better.  The fact that they haven't in the past, and didn't this offseason suggests they are not willing to do that.

 

With that, I'm going to move on from this thread.  It seems we have very different concepts of value and what a team's purpose should be.  I've had a great time debating you, and I completely respect your ideas, I just don't think either of us will convince the other.  I'm sure I'll see you in other threads, and I look forward to continuing to interact with you.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Even if the odds were 20%, that's nothing to get excited about, so reducing my chances to 10%, or even 5% means nothing to me, so long as 2-4 years from now I can have 50% or better chances to actually make the playoffs.

 

I respect your decision to bow out, but I just want to point out these numbers are probably the source of our disagreement. Trout is a projected 9 WAR player -- trading him doesn't merely drop their playoff odds a few percent, like the Twins dealing Escobar. They essentially drop to zero, for this and at least next year too.

 

Likewise, dealing Trout now instead of extending him doesn't give you appreciably better odds of hitting 50% postseason probability in 3 years either -- in fact, by subtracting a projected 9 WAR guy who only turns 27 this year, those odds are probably appreciably worse. You'd probably need to get at least 3 of the top prospects in MLB, and not just 3-5 of the top Braves prospects, in return to make up the projected performance loss on the field. And they have so little salary committed beyond 3 years that there is no real added benefit in saving Trout's future $36 mil salary either.

 

I have no problem with an aggressive move in pursuit of a championship. But that's not what I'm seeing from you here -- especially with Trout willing to extend at 10/360, your suggestion of trading him instead is more like baseball nihilism.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Holy ****ing balls. That's absurd. Probably also market value but still absurd.

[Vanimal46]

Holy ****ing balls. That's absurd. Probably also market value but still absurd.

We'll never know unfortunately if that is market value... Would anyone be surprised if another team offers $40+ million AAV on the open market? I wouldn't for the best player on the planet, maybe ever.

[Otto von Ballpark]

It's a lot of money.

 

But compared to revenue in the sport, and Trout's position among players in the sport, and the relative stability of position players (as compared to pitchers, or, say, football players), it doesn't seem outlandish.

 

Would anyone have predicted Trout would get less than 10/360 in free agency in 2 years?

[TheLeviathan]

No, but 360 million is pretty absurd too.  I don't think the adjectives people are using are meant to describe the decision to do this, only to describe the actual pile of money changing hands.