# Did the Angels just screw up their future with Mike Trout? **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [March 3, 2013, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-angels-just-screw-up-their-future-with-mike-trout/651922 "2013-03-03T16:46:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2013, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-angels-just-screw-up-their-future-with-mike-trout/651922/101 "2013-03-08T00:09:46Z")
> [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](#): > > Please do not put words in quotation marks that are your interpretation of what I wrote, rather than what I actually wrote. This is a violation of SDMB rules, and one that we take very seriously around here sometimes. [Moderating] If you have an issue with another poster or believe rules are being broken please report the relevant post. To clarify, your interpretation of the rule is incorrect. The SDMB’s very hard and fast rule is that you cannot use \*the quote function \*to alter something a person writes, even in jest; you may shorten a poster’s post to focus on a particular part of it, and use commonly accepted editorial techniques like ellipses and parenthetical clarifications to keep the quote to a manageable length and maintain understanding, but only in a way that does not in any way change the poster’s meaning. Using quotation marks to summarize a person’s position, as Marley did, is perfectly acceptable. Thanks, RickJay Moderator ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2013, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-angels-just-screw-up-their-future-with-mike-trout/651922/102 "2013-03-08T05:49:09Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > To clarify, I was talking about outfielders. And yes, I’m saying he is the best 20-year-old outfielder in the history of the major leagues. Name a 20-year-old outfielder who’s had a demonstrably better season. Al Kaline? Maybe, but it’s a hard case to prove. > > I would argue that Dwight Gooden in 1985, when he was 20, was more valuable, but he was a pitcher, and there might be other examples. If we stick just to outfielders… Mel Ott, as I mentioned earlier, had some awesome stats as a 20 year old, in 1929. He was a right fielder, not a center fielder, and I’m not sure how good he was. He also benefitted from a stadium that was almost tailor made for him (he hit 2/3 of his career homers at the Polo Grounds). ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2013, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-angels-just-screw-up-their-future-with-mike-trout/651922/103 "2013-03-08T17:39:19Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > If we stick just to outfielders… Mel Ott, as I mentioned earlier, had some awesome stats as a 20 year old, in 1929. He was a right fielder, not a center fielder, and I’m not sure how good he was. He also benefitted from a stadium that was almost tailor made for him (he hit 2/3 of his career homers at the Polo Grounds). I’d out Ott behind Trout and Kaline, though not because he was so uniquely suited to the Polo Grounds. As awesome as he was in 1929, I’d rank him behind them a little because A) He wasn’t the fielder Trout and Kaline were, and B) The NL in 1929 was an astoundingly high-scoring league. Teams scored a run more per game than they did when Kaline and Trout had their huge seasons. You have to consider that. Everyone’s numbers are inflated. Three NL teams hit more than .300 _as a team_, and no team batted below .280; in the 1955 and 2012 AL, no team hit .280. That said, I wouldn’t discount Ott for the weird home/road home run split. Nobody else did that. It was an ability unique to Ott’s particular style, so it was of legitimate value to his team. ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2013, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-angels-just-screw-up-their-future-with-mike-trout/651922/104 "2013-03-08T18:57:33Z")
Here’s an [article](http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/fantasy/2013/03/07/ron-shandler-12-reasons-not-to-draft-mike-trout/1970631/), written in a Rotisserie context, stating some good reasons to think that Trout’s future may not be as bright as it might seem off of last season, and why the Angels might not want to overpay him. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2013, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-angels-just-screw-up-their-future-with-mike-trout/651922/105 "2013-03-08T19:04:29Z")
> [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](#): > > Here’s an [article](http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/fantasy/2013/03/07/ron-shandler-12-reasons-not-to-draft-mike-trout/1970631/), written in a Rotisserie context, stating some good reasons to think that Trout’s future may not be as bright as it might seem off of last season, and why the Angels might not want to overpay him. These are all valid points. The point about BABIP is basically what I was saying when I mentioned his strikeout rate; Trout cannot keep batting .329 if he strikes out that much. It’s never been done before, and it can’t BE done. But again, Trout doesn’t have to have a 10-WAR season to be insanely valuable. Assuming he will always be as great as he was in 2012 is not reasonable. But that’s not necessary to project him as immensely valuable. If he’s **half** that good for the next ten years, he’s a Hall of Famer. ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2013, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-angels-just-screw-up-their-future-with-mike-trout/651922/106 "2013-03-08T19:29:28Z")
I’m not arguing that point, **RickJay**. I’m arguing that the Angels might feel, for various reasons, that Trout will be in a position to ask for (and probably get, from someone) a contract that is worth much more (in dollars) than his actual HoF-level ability on the field is worth, that those are millions that can usefully be spent elsewhere. If they’re content to get merely six good years from him, at reasonably affordably rates and little risk, and then let him go and take the prospects or the draft picks that his leaving will yield, then that’s a possible explanation for their behavior regarding his contract this off-season. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2013, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-angels-just-screw-up-their-future-with-mike-trout/651922/107 "2013-03-08T23:56:59Z")
> [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](#): > > I’m not arguing that point, **RickJay**. I’m arguing that the Angels might feel, for various reasons, that Trout will be in a position to ask for (and probably get, from someone) a contract that is worth much more (in dollars) than his actual HoF-level ability on the field is worth, that those are millions that can usefully be spent elsewhere. Then an obvious solution is to not wait until Trout is in such a position, but to sign him earlier, as the Rays did Longoria. Ascribing this to fiscal prudence is extremely difficult to do when this is, again, THE SAME TEAM that just gave Josh Hamilton $125 million. That is a mind bogglingly stupid move. They made Hamilton the highest paid player in baseball (more or less; I think A-Rod’s a tiny bit ahead) despite the fact that he quite obviously isn’t one of the best players in baseball even when healthy and is insanely risky. I would much rather have let Josh Hamilton go play somewhere else and offer Trout $125 million over ten years, a deal he might well have accepted and which, the history of baseball salaries being what it is, might have ended up being a pretty good bargain. Might’ve blown up, too, but I know I’d rather give Trout the money for 10 years than Hamilton for five. Unless they fired their GM between the Hamilton and Trout moves, I am really struggling to give them credit for being smart with money. ETA: Of course Albert Pujols is higher paid still, and was an equally poor decision. ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2013, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-angels-just-screw-up-their-future-with-mike-trout/651922/108 "2013-03-09T00:14:21Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Then an obvious solution is to not wait until Trout is in such a position, but to sign him earlier, as the Rays did Longoria. > > Ascribing this to fiscal prudence is extremely difficult to do when this is, again, THE SAME TEAM that just gave Josh Hamilton $125 million. That is a mind bogglingly stupid move. They made Hamilton the highest paid player in baseball (more or less; I think A-Rod’s a tiny bit ahead) despite the fact that he quite obviously isn’t one of the best players in baseball even when healthy and is insanely risky. I would much rather have let Josh Hamilton go play somewhere else and offer Trout $125 million over ten years, a deal he might well have accepted and which, the history of baseball salaries being what it is, might have ended up being a pretty good bargain. Might’ve blown up, too, but I know I’d rather give Trout the money for 10 years than Hamilton for five. > > Unless they fired their GM between the Hamilton and Trout moves, I am really struggling to give them credit for being smart with money. > > ETA: Of course Albert Pujols is higher paid still, and was an equally poor decision. If you grant me my assumption that the Angels don’t want to project Trout’s future beyond six years, they shouldn’t want to sign up him for six years right now, should they? They control him for the next five seasons at reasonable prices, never on the hook for more than one more season. What if they’ve just decided not to get greedy, to settle for that. Hell, if the Yankees sign him up to a ten year deal when he’s eligible for Free Agency, the Angels may be able to reacquire him a few years in for 20 cents on the dollar. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-angels-just-screw-up-their-future-with-mike-trout/651922.md?page=5)