Now we know the answer to the question "If Machado is worth $300 mm how much is Mike Trout worth?" - that would be $430 mm
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Damn. The best player of his generation may play his entire career without winning a post-season game.
Come on! You’re first reaction was, “Damn, the Phillies can’t get him!”
RJM posted:Come on! You’re first reaction was, “Damn, the Phillies can’t get him!”
You are correct. And no more footballs for Trout at Eagles games! (@JimmyKempski)
A few initial thoughts. He's my favorite player of All Time:
Wonder if he'll finally get booed in Philly now
He's entering his age 27 season with 240 career HR's, averaging 37 HR's per 162 games. That pace might have got a big bump if he went to a launching pad like Philly.
it is good for Baseball when an iconic player stays with one team (i.e. Jeter with the Yankees)
That's a steal at $430M.
12 years though.
MidAtlanticDad posted:RJM posted:Come on! You’re first reaction was, “Damn, the Phillies can’t get him!”
You are correct. And no more footballs for Trout at Eagles games! (@JimmyKempski)
The Baseball Nazi said to Philadelphia, “No Mike Trout for you! Next!”
Now wondering what those teams who were holding back on bidding for Machado and Harper hoping for Trout are thinking. Everybody assumed he was going back East to the Yankees or Phillies, but he and his wife enjoy their beach house and weather in Orange County, and he is just a plane flight from visiting family and friends during the offseason.
12 years is a long time and the Angels will be free of the Pujols mistake contract in a few years so maybe they can field a team around Trout who can compete for a championship. And they are in the midst of deciding what to do about their stadium situation in Anaheim, so having Trout signed to play in a new stadium is bound to help their cause.
I love the player... who doesn't? Can't argue that he may be the best player currently. I just think that the way he plays and the way he is built lends itself to a likely steeper-than-average decline and would guess that more years on the back end will be a strain than the organization is hoping. I wonder what kind of insurance the organization might take out on him and what the structure of that might look like.
MidAtlanticDad posted:RJM posted:Come on! You’re first reaction was, “Damn, the Phillies can’t get him!”
You are correct. And no more footballs for Trout at Eagles games! (@JimmyKempski)
tears flowing all around the tri-state area as we type. My kid called me from college just to discuss it. Said his phone blew up in the middle of class from the team group text discussing it. The team is about 50/50 Phillies and Yankee fans...none of them are happy.
3and2Fastball posted:A few initial thoughts. He's my favorite player of All Time:
Wonder if he'll finally get booed in Philly now
He's entering his age 27 season with 240 career HR's, averaging 37 HR's per 162 games. That pace might have got a big bump if he went to a launching pad like Philly.
it is good for Baseball when an iconic player stays with one team (i.e. Chipper with the Braves)
Corrected that for you...
cabbagedad posted:I love the player... who doesn't? Can't argue that he may be the best player currently. I just think that the way he plays and the way he is built lends itself to a likely steeper-than-average decline and would guess that more years on the back end will be a strain than the organization is hoping. I wonder what kind of insurance the organization might take out on him and what the structure of that might look like.
"may be" the best player currently.......? Surely you jest, he's played to a 9.2 WAR average over the span of his 7 full seasons, and that includes the outlier year of 2017, when he only compiled 500 PA because of injury - thus slumming to a 6.9 that season.
Well, that was unexpected....it's finally sunny and feeling like Spring around here. I opened this thread thinking it would be about fishing 
Kind of puts a snag into the time table of Jo Adell (MLB # 14 Prospect, CF) unless one of them moves to a corner OF. Then again, Angels might assemble a contending team trading Adell for needed help.
The second happiest guy in baseball today is Mookie Betts. Now Betts and the Red Sox don’t have to drag it out. The market has been established.
The big winners in this deal are the Angels.
They have the best available "face of the franchise" for the next 12 years. They will probably reach break even on the cash outlay within 4 years. The last 8 years just represent financing of the purchase. Meaning, any production he gives them in his 31-38 years is gravy money for the franchise. And I disagree with any thought of him being vulnerable. Sure, he may lose a step as the years pile up, but he has the most compact swing of any power hitter I can remember. I could foresee Harper declining steeply from age 34 on, but Trout will probably still be .280 or better with 30+ dingers in his late 30's.
Right now, he's MLB's most highly paid player. And that is appropriate.
But the pay of the top players in MLB has roughly doubled over the past 10 years. So if that happens in the next 10 years (and all trend lines indicate it will), then whoever the big time free agent is come 2029 might get over $70 million per year. And if that's the market standard, then for the Angels to have Mike Trout at half that price will seem like a steal by then.
Bear in mind, even if his productivity declines, he's still a guy who exudes joy for the game. He sells tickets to stadiums, he sells ads for the TV companies who buy the rights to Angels games, he sells Angels jerseys that say "Trout 27" on the back for $200+ each. And when he's 40, dads will take their sons to games the way they did when Willie Mays was 40. Sure, not the same player then, but dad will still say, "Son, that right there might be the greatest player that ever lived." Meaning, even if he drops off to .260, his presence in the lineup will raise attendance by 10,000 per game, home or away.
Also, who wouldn't want to play alongside Trout? This helps the Angels build a team. And frankly, proportionately it's not as rough as what the Rangers did with A-Rod. The Angels, with today's revenue streams, still have plenty of cash available to fill out their roster.
Who knows what salaries will be in ten years? The people who can best project will be those who recognize and can project the effects of cord cutting (baseball is mostly on cable) and kids who didn’t grow up playing baseball (which is fairly new).
What the last 20 years have shown is that the more people watch baseball, the more people want to watch baseball. Streaming may replace cable, but they can only do so if the streaming services outbid cable for the rights. In the meantime, check the upward path of average ticket prices and concessions. Baseball is awash in money and there is no sign on the horizon of any retrenchment.
A national economic crash might affect everyone, but the typical recession is a 2-year phenomenon. 7 years if Obama is president, but happily he's no longer eligible.
CTbballDad posted:3and2Fastball posted:A few initial thoughts. He's my favorite player of All Time:
Wonder if he'll finally get booed in Philly now
He's entering his age 27 season with 240 career HR's, averaging 37 HR's per 162 games. That pace might have got a big bump if he went to a launching pad like Philly.
it is good for Baseball when an iconic player stays with one team (i.e. Jeff Bagwell and Craig Biggio for the Astros)
Corrected that for you...
Fixed it.
Trust In Him posted:Kind of puts a snag into the time table of Jo Adell (MLB # 14 Prospect, CF) unless one of them moves to a corner OF. Then again, Angels might assemble a contending team trading Adell for needed help.
Adell can fly. If he proves to be able to hit MLB pitching, it will likely coincide with Trout losing a step (maybe) and moving to LF and DHing more. Adell is likely still 2-3 years away (currently out for 10-12 weeks with an injury)
Midlo Dad posted:A national economic crash might affect everyone, but the typical recession is a 2-year phenomenon. 7 years if Obama is president, but happily he's no longer eligible.
You might want to check your facts. The recession was over six months into his term.
Matt13 posted:Midlo Dad posted:A national economic crash might affect everyone, but the typical recession is a 2-year phenomenon. 7 years if Obama is president, but happily he's no longer eligible.
You might want to check your facts. The recession was over six months into his term.
Good Morning, Matt.
It's almost midnight here, but ok...
Matt13 posted:Midlo Dad posted:A national economic crash might affect everyone, but the typical recession is a 2-year phenomenon. 7 years if Obama is president, but happily he's no longer eligible.
You might want to check your facts. The recession was over six months into his term.
Then he must have started another one in month 7.
DesertDuck posted:Matt13 posted:Midlo Dad posted:A national economic crash might affect everyone, but the typical recession is a 2-year phenomenon. 7 years if Obama is president, but happily he's no longer eligible.
You might want to check your facts. The recession was over six months into his term.
Then he must have started another one in month 7.
Nope.
But then again, you're the one that derided someone that had been internationally recognized in physics as a teenager and has a degree in economics as being poor at math.
Great deal for the Angels. It seems like a ton of money (it is) and I'm sure it won't be a great contract when he is at the end of his career, but is was necessary and the first 5 years of that contract might be worth more than half of the monetary value anyway.
Will it burn them in 10 years? Possibly. But the next generation of guys that will be signing when his time is up are 13-15 years old now. So you can't worry that far into the future. Plus you can't put a price tag on having the best player in baseball on your team for the next 12 years.
I really hope they can put together pitching. #7 farm system in baseball, some of those guys are going to have to go for arms. Trout is Trout, Simmons is good, Upton, even Pujols isn't as bad as he is made out to be (because of his contract). They need arms and they need them badly. More than any other team in baseball probably.
PABaseball posted:Great deal for the Angels.
And other teams. This keeps upward pressure out of the FA market and might entice other upper-tier candidates to stay put instead of shopping around.
Matt13 posted:DesertDuck posted:Matt13 posted:Midlo Dad posted:A national economic crash might affect everyone, but the typical recession is a 2-year phenomenon. 7 years if Obama is president, but happily he's no longer eligible.
You might want to check your facts. The recession was over six months into his term.
Then he must have started another one in month 7.
Nope.
But then again, you're the one that derided someone that had been internationally recognized in physics as a teenager and has a degree in economics as being poor at math.
Who knew AOC was internationally recognized in physics as a teenager? What did she win, the Bill Nye science guy award?
DesertDuck posted:Matt13 posted:DesertDuck posted:Matt13 posted:Midlo Dad posted:A national economic crash might affect everyone, but the typical recession is a 2-year phenomenon. 7 years if Obama is president, but happily he's no longer eligible.
You might want to check your facts. The recession was over six months into his term.
Then he must have started another one in month 7.
Nope.
But then again, you're the one that derided someone that had been internationally recognized in physics as a teenager and has a degree in economics as being poor at math.
Who knew AOC was internationally recognized in physics as a teenager? What did she win, the Bill Nye science guy award?
I was slightly wrong; it was microbiology where she won her ISEF award. Physics is where MIT chose to have an asteroid named after her.
Matt13 posted:DesertDuck posted:Matt13 posted:DesertDuck posted:Matt13 posted:Midlo Dad posted:A national economic crash might affect everyone, but the typical recession is a 2-year phenomenon. 7 years if Obama is president, but happily he's no longer eligible.
You might want to check your facts. The recession was over six months into his term.
Then he must have started another one in month 7.
Nope.
But then again, you're the one that derided someone that had been internationally recognized in physics as a teenager and has a degree in economics as being poor at math.
Who knew AOC was internationally recognized in physics as a teenager? What did she win, the Bill Nye science guy award?
I was slightly wrong; it was microbiology where she won her ISEF award. Physics is where MIT chose to have an asteroid named after her.
Well then...I suppose the irony is certainly not lost on those MIT folks! 
Trout is undoubtedly the best player I have seen in my lifetime and I've currently entered the AARP stage of my life.
It's my opinion that the Angels are the ones that made out on this contract as I think Trout would have landed more on the open market. But good for him for wanting to play his entire career in one place where he's happy rather than testing the market. After all, whatever he's making it's ridiculous money.
Or maybe it isn't. California has a huge cost of living and big taxes that will only get bigger with all that they are proposing. And with the mass exodus of tax payers over the past few years you have to think that alone will increase the tax burden of residents.
With all that being said, I sure would have loved to see him in Yankee pinstripes in a few years.
3and2Fastball posted:........................................
He's entering his age 27 season with 240 career HR's, averaging 37 HR's per 162 games. That pace might have got a big bump if he went to a launching pad like Philly.
it is good for Baseball when an iconic player stays with one team (i.e. Jeter with the Yankees)
It is good for MLB. Trout will be Mr Angel if he isn't all ready. Mike Trout is an incredible talent. But I have to ask the question have you all lost your minds with these 10+ year contracts? Really? Do you really think these Machado, Harper, Trout contracts are good for the team, make them more competitive and bring their city a World Series championship? I really don't. I think these GMs are hitting the easy button, as the pendulum has swung back the other way by offering ridiculous money over long periods of time. Very, very few of those long term contracts has paid off to date. I would say none (instead of very few because I'm only on my first cup of coffee this AM), but Pujols, ARod twice, Cabrera, Votto, Kershaw, Cano, Price, Arenando, Stanton are all very good players. Some will make it to the HOF. I'll be the first to admit the Red Sox overpaid for Price, but he is not a superstar worthy of this money. I love Nolan Arenando, but his career is just getting started...he got overpaid. Kershaw is a heck of talent, and he will overcome his post season yips, but he is overpaid as well. I take a contrarian view on all of this, and really believe today's GMs haven't learned how to say "no" enough to the long term deals that overcommit the teams they represent. The upcoming MLB labor talks will be interesting, because labor is going to bitch and moan. That is what they do. But the reality is MLB labor has never had it better including these long term deals.
As always, JMO.
Coach Koz posted:Trout is undoubtedly the best player I have seen in my lifetime and I've currently entered the AARP stage of my life.
It's my opinion that the Angels are the ones that made out on this contract as I think Trout would have landed more on the open market. But good for him for wanting to play his entire career in one place where he's happy rather than testing the market. After all, whatever he's making it's ridiculous money.
Or maybe it isn't. California has a huge cost of living and big taxes that will only get bigger with all that they are proposing. And with the mass exodus of tax payers over the past few years you have to think that alone will increase the tax burden of residents.
With all that being said, I sure would have loved to see him in Yankee pinstripes in a few years.
That "mass exodus" is at a rate of less than half it was from the 15 years before. The tide seems to be turning.
fenwaysouth posted:3and2Fastball posted:........................................
He's entering his age 27 season with 240 career HR's, averaging 37 HR's per 162 games. That pace might have got a big bump if he went to a launching pad like Philly.
it is good for Baseball when an iconic player stays with one team (i.e. Jeter with the Yankees)
It is good for MLB. Trout will be Mr Angel if he isn't all ready. Mike Trout is an incredible talent. But I have to ask the question have you all lost your minds with these 10+ year contracts? Really? Do you really think these Machado, Harper, Trout contracts are good for the team, make them more competitive and bring their city a World Series championship? I really don't. I think these GMs are hitting the easy button, as the pendulum has swung back the other way by offering ridiculous money over long periods of time. Very, very few of those long term contracts has paid off to date. I would say none (instead of very few because I'm only on my first cup of coffee this AM), but Pujols, ARod twice, Cabrera, Votto, Kershaw, Cano, Price, Arenando, Stanton are all very good players. Some will make it to the HOF. I'll be the first to admit the Red Sox overpaid for Price, but he is not a superstar worthy of this money. I love Nolan Arenando, but his career is just getting started...he got overpaid. Kershaw is a heck of talent, and he will overcome his post season yips, but he is overpaid as well. I take a contrarian view on all of this, and really believe today's GMs haven't learned how to say "no" enough to the long term deals that overcommit the teams they represent. The upcoming MLB labor talks will be interesting, because labor is going to bitch and moan. That is what they do. But the reality is MLB labor has never had it better including these long term deals.
As always, JMO.
I have a different view on these long term contracts. Would it help to think of Trouts contract eight years at $54M, just that you spread out the payments over 12 years, and if Trout happens to be healthy, you get him free for ages 35-39?
On of these 10+ year contracts will go bust, we can all jump on the idiocy of that signing. The rest will be good deals for the team.
Go44Dad,
So, I'm looking at this from the perspective of the GM/Owner where my job is to put together a team that is capable of winning a World Series. Everybody's goal is to win a World Series. Historically, these long term/big $$ have not succeeded (yet) in accomplishing this goal, not one of them. I don't see the Angels, Phillies or Padres changing that with their recent big name marquee signings. You could argue David Price played a quasi-important role with last years Red Sox team, but overall it has not worked out for would be World Series championship teams. Please convince me otherwise.
Matt13 posted:Midlo Dad posted:A national economic crash might affect everyone, but the typical recession is a 2-year phenomenon. 7 years if Obama is president, but happily he's no longer eligible.
You might want to check your facts. The recession was over six months into his term.
Some things became so clear just now when I read this. Isn't life interesting.
PitchingFan posted:Matt13 posted:Midlo Dad posted:A national economic crash might affect everyone, but the typical recession is a 2-year phenomenon. 7 years if Obama is president, but happily he's no longer eligible.
You might want to check your facts. The recession was over six months into his term.
Some things became so clear just now when I read this. Isn't life interesting.
It's called a fact.
Go on, tell me I don't have a degree in the subject, too. You seem to like to create alternative realities for my life.
fenwaysouth posted:Go44Dad,
So, I'm looking at this from the perspective of the GM/Owner where my job is to put together a team that is capable of winning a World Series. Everybody's goal is to win a World Series. Historically, these long term/big $$ have not succeeded (yet) in accomplishing this goal, not one of them. I don't see the Angels, Phillies or Padres changing that with their recent big name marquee signings. You could argue David Price played a quasi-important role with last years Red Sox team, but overall it has not worked out for would be World Series championship teams. Please convince me otherwise.
Depends on how you look at it. The Rangers A-Rod contract comes to mind. The Yankees traded for that contract & player and won a World Series, and a few years later the Rangers were a Nelson Cruz dodging hand grenades in RF away from winning it all themselves.
fenwaysouth posted:Go44Dad,
So, I'm looking at this from the perspective of the GM/Owner where my job is to put together a team that is capable of winning a World Series. Everybody's goal is to win a World Series. Historically, these long term/big $$ have not succeeded (yet) in accomplishing this goal, not one of them. I don't see the Angels, Phillies or Padres changing that with their recent big name marquee signings. You could argue David Price played a quasi-important role with last years Red Sox team, but overall it has not worked out for would be World Series championship teams. Please convince me otherwise.
I'm going fishing today. Trout deal was a steal for the Angels. RJM is in charge of any David Price / Red Sox inquiries, I defer to him.