The problem with criticizing the Angels’ approach (asuming they don’t mind risking alienating him, and are focused only on Trout’s production in his first six MLB years) is that it is far from guaranteed after one spectacular season that Trout will have a long and productive MLB career. Look at Vada Pinson. Look at Tony Conigliaro. Look at Lyman Bostock. Carlos Baerga. Jason Bay. Hanley Ramirez. Ruben Sierra. Cesar Cedeno. I could go on and on, listing guys who got off to excellent starts to their MLB careers, sustaining excellent play for 3,4,5, 6 years and then–flatlined, or stopped producing altogether well before reaching their early thirties. Any one of these guys would have been offered killer megabux contracts if they’d been available in their day, and the team would have eaten the back end of that contract. So please don’t talk about the longterm bigbux deals as no-brainers. Often it’s smarter to take the early (and cheap) production, and let someone else pay a few gazillion for a mostly unproductive long-term term career.
The thing is that even teams with small budgets are realizing it’s a good idea to lock up their young starts early. Last year the Pirates signed Andrew McCutchen (26) a six-year contract for $51.5 million and the Royals signed Alcides Escobar (25) for up to six years and $21.75 million. Of course they didn’t do that right after their rookie years, but it’s the kind of thing you would think the Angels will eventually want to do with Trout.
Treating him badly for personal reasons would be really stupid.
You are not listening. Worry about overpaying him millions when the time comes. To invest a few hundred extra thousand right now ,when they don’t legally have to, before he’s FA-eligible, as a sign of good faith, is like taking a penny from Scrooge McDucks coin vault on the good chance that it’ll be worth a fortune later.
I’m sure a lot of people who watched Mike Trout last year said to themselves, “You know who he reminds me of? Jason Bay.”
You’re not listening. I’m speculating that this may be the Angels’ strategy: to pay him as little as possible for his first six seasons, and deal him off when the time seems ripest for getting a good return on him. Why pay him an extra nickel now, if you intend to go to arbitration with him through season 6, and let his long-term contract be someone else’s problem?
Left unanswered is the question of why that would be their strategy when they’ve broken the bank on free agents the last two seasons.
Is that their M.O. now, saving a nickel?
Edit : What Marley said.
How do I know what they’re thinking? I can only see what they’re doing, and speculate on the possible reasons.
You talk as if Jason Bay was a terrible player. In fact, he like Trout had a mid-.900s OSP through his twenties, won an ROY, was an MVP candidate, an All-Star, played both CF and LF well, got an 18 mil contract that he totally failed to live up to due to fading out and getting injured throughout his thirties. A pretty good model for the dangers of committing a lot of money to such a player before you’re forced to, and even then.
And we can talk about whether or not those proposed reasons make sense. In this case they don’t. What you are proposing would probably be a bad strategy for a small-market team - you can tell because they’re not doing this kind of thing with their best players - and for a big market team it’s ridiculous.
I’m talking as if he never approached the level Trout played at last year, which he didn’t.
The Mets signed him when he was 31 and it turned out the way these kinds of things always turn out for the Mets. On the other hand the Pirates signed him to a four-year $18 million extension when he was 27 and that seems to have worked out well for them
Well, in the sense that the Pirates had the good sense to get rid of Bay after he played the last few seasons for them for an average of about 3 million per season, and let the Red Sox pick up the heavier end of the backloaded contract, yes, they got a good deal out of it. The Red Sox also got a good deal, though they were paying him a lot of money, it was only for two seasons, after which they could dump him, and they were wise enough to do that. But the Mets signed him to a MUCH more lucrative longterm contract, and please don’t tell me that you knew it was going to blow up in their faces. Everyone and his sister thought that signing Bay at age 31 was colossally safe, only it turned out, not so much. If you have a post from 2010, of course, assuring me that the Bay signing was a huge mistake, I’ll be interested in seeing it, but until you produce it, I’ll just conclude that you possess 20-20 hindsight.
It’s not just that they traded him, although that was a good move. He also played up to the value of the contract. And again, this is sort of similar to what we’re talking about for Trout: a deal for a guy in his 20s who hasn’t hit the open market yet.
It’s the same kind of contract you’ve been decrying. You think the Angels should be careful about giving Mike Trout a big contract at 23 or 25 or 26, but nobody could’ve predicted that the Mets were making a mistake giving a $66 million contract to a lesser player at 31?
It’s a little late to complain about hindsight. You’ve spent much of this thread looking back at Alex Rodriguez’s contracts in hindsight- except of course you’ve gotten a bunch of the details wrong and drawn the wrong conclusion.
Still waiting to see those posts where you criticized the Mets for signing Bay to a longterm contract.
Your silence in this thread, following this post announcing the Met’s acquisition of Bay is deafening.
If you want to have any bonafides as an astute prognosticator of the future, it’s always best to have a record of accurately predicting future events, especially when you’re claiming it’s so obvious years afterward. Where are the posts warning that the Mets have just made a huge mistake? Where are the posts arguing that although Bay just had an MVP-type year for the Red Sox, he’s due for a big fall and will suck, suck, suck from here on out for the Mets? Show me the posts.
Crickets chirp. You had no clue, admit it, that the Bay signing was a financial disaster, and you have no clue what Trout will do starting in the year 2018.
Please put down the goalposts and keep track of what is actually being said. I never claimed I predicted the Bay signing would be a bad one. I don’t care about the Mets and I assume their free agent signings are going to go wrong because that’s what usually happens. I said a couple of things: that your comparison of Trout to Bay is absurd because even at his best Bay was never on Trout’s level; I am saying you’re wrong about the arc of Bay’s career because he played well throughout his 20s, including through the contract extension he signed with the Pirates and didn’t start to decline until he signed a big contract with the Mets in his early 30s. And I said several times that that isn’t comparable to what’s being proposed with Trout, which is a long-term contract starting in his early or mid-20s. So far your position seems to be “long contracts are bad!!!” which is wrong. They aren’t. When you sign guys in their 30s to long contracts, you can end up regretting it. If you sign younger players, you can get very good value. That’s why small market teams are doing it. You also got almost everything wrong about Alex Rodriguez’s original giant contract and why the Rangers were bad during those years and what happened to Seattle after he left, and the suggestion that the Angels are going to make a killing by trading the end of Trout’s contract for prospects while they are paying Albert Pujols (and maybe some other guys) $20-somethng million doesn’t make any sense either. I never predicted Trout will be great in 2018, but based on his rookie year, he should be if he stays healthy. And if they gave him a new contract in the next couple of seasons, they could keep him for his prime at a better price than if they sign him as a big money free agent later on. Although even if they wait until he’s 26 and a free agent, he’s still a safer bet than a guy in his 30s.
But as long as you’re going to complain about hindsight:
Way to go out on a limb!
How do you know this, all-wise foreseer of the future?
No shit, Sherlock. it was a dumb contract, and so may the Angels’ offering Trout a huge contract when they own the rights to him for the next five years.
And you can call my views on A-Rod’s contract(s) as wrong as you like, but without specifics, I’m going to view it as so much whining. If I’ve said anything that’s substantially wrong about his contract, tell me exactly what I wrote (quote me please, don’t paraphrase me) and I’ll be happy to show why what I wrote is factually correct.
BZZZZT Wrong!!! The Mets made a huge error giving Bay a big contract. My point was that you didn’t say so at the time, only now that it blew up in their faces you’re all superior to the dumb old Mets. Show you an effect, and you can always state the cause, right? It’s a little tougher foretelling things that haven’t happened yet.
A few non-hindsight columns regarding the Jason Bay signing (the Mets contract):
“Hot Stove Report: Cards won’t regret Holliday spending; Mets will”
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/tim_marchman/01/08/hot.stove/index.html
Conversely, all of the experts at the NYTimesthought it was a safe signing, if not the best use of money.
Here is another writeup from SI, which ended up pretty accurate (Bay was worth 1.6 wins in 2010):
I guess I have a similar question - have any of the “buy out a superstar through arbitration plus a year or two” contracts been busts? I can’t think of one off the top of my head?
Adam Lind is one, but yeah it is pretty rare. Teams have so much leverage that they get great bargains.
It is of course silly to think that a team that just gave out 4 gazillion dollars worth of long term contracts somehow plans on dumping Trout in his prime. They gave him near minimum because they can and it doesn’t matter. (And maybe it will keep the arbitration prices down a little as salary percent increase can be a consideration) What Trout made five years ago isn’t remotely going to affect where he signs as a free agent.
Well he has to be willing to sign it. For a guy like Trout there isn’t much risk of him not becoming obscenely wealthy so he may not take much of a discount.
I find that presumption faulty. I think it pretty clear that owners will pay the least they have to pay. They aren’t giving veterans extra money because they happen to have some laying around.
I find your claim here baffling, because you clearly have no idea what I’m “assuming.” I can’t even follow what contract you’re talking about anymore; the one the Rangers signed Rodriguez to, the same contract when the Yankees picked it up, or the net one he got from New York? And you’re comparing Trout, who is 21, to players at age 29, 31, 32… are you sure you know what my position here is?
And can you explain why the Rangers were deprived of the ability to pay for a decent team by A-Rod’s contract in light of my citing the facts that seem to contradict your claim?
Never in a million years would I suggest signing a 29-year-old player to a top dollar contract for ten years. Hell, I thought the Tigers were nuts to give Prince Fielder the contract they did, and I think he was only 27.
If you want to compare Mantle to Trout, then logically you must compare them at the same age; I’ve no idea why you’re just randomly plunking Mantle down at his age 29 year. Mantle’s age 21 season - his equivalent year to Trout’s 2012 - was 1952. Had the Yankees sewn him up for ten years (let’s pretend they had free agency and arbitration and stuff then) it would have covered 1953 to 1962. Would they have regretted that? I doubt it.