RickJay, are you seriously saying “nobody has ever been that good at age 20”? Really?
Oh, and as a Rangers fan, thanks so much to the Angels for taking Hamilton. I wonder how you’ll like him when he folds in the clutch (or his eyes get dry).
I am making a mental note to look for this thread in 2014 so we can all talk about how Mike Trout didn’t pan out. (Maybe 2015.)
I think all anyone is thinking is that the Angels could be in the Mets position, and sign Trout to a medium length, not quite blockbuster contract that sews him up into his initial Free Agency period.
Trout gets his guaranteed money today, the Angels get him for a longer term, but only into his prime, not his old age and don’t pay full FA money. Trout gives a hometown discount, not out of love, but to get security that he otherwise is denied with a year to year contract. He blows out his knee and tears a rotator cuff, his chances at a huge FA deal go bye bye.
And what I’m trying to suggest that Trout is so good so young that that prime may be here right now, for cheap, while the so called “prime years”’ are so far away that there are increased chances for career-ruining injury or decline to step in, so better to sidestep the entire issue and settle for the six good years, one at a time, at a reasonable rate.
RickJay can and will speak for himself. Regardless, while I DON’T believe Trout was quite the best 20 year old player of all-time, that’s a legitimate interpretation, depending on what stats you favor.
I’ve never put much stock in WAR or Win Shars or VORP, because I’m just not convinced they prove what they’re supposed to (they’d be damn useful stats if they did), but if you do have faith in WAR, Trout had the best season any 20 year old has ever had.
Even if you don’t care for WAR, Trout led the American League in OPS+ (on base percentage and slugging). I can’t find another 20 year old who’s ever had an adjusted OPS over 171, so there’s more ammo for his supporters.
On the other hand, there’s nothing magical about the age of 20- quite a few 21 and 22 year olds have put up better numbers than Trout did last year, and I believe others could have put up comparable numbers if their teams had seen fit to bring them up to the big leagues earlier.
Regardless, there are only a few 20 year olds who have ever had seasons worth comparing to Trout’s- Ted Williams, Mel Ott and Alex Rodriguez being among them. That’s pretty elite company, wouldn’t you say?
Just to make it official, I think A-Rod, skunk that he is, was the best 20 year old player in baseball history.
People may forget him in this discussion simply because he wasn’t a rookie that year.
And this is important because while we can all think of lots of players who looked good early in their careers and then tailed off, history says that a guy who has the kind of year Trout just had should continue to be very good.
Well worth investing a few hundred million of someone else’s money!
Without the steroids, are you sure A-Rod would have put the same numbers in his late twenties? How would you have felt if you were the Red Sox and you gave the 21 year old Ted WIlliams a top dollar, multi-year contract, when WWII came long and Williams spent msot of those years flying planes? Or the Reds with a 21 year old Vada Pinson, who spent his first few years establishing himself as a five-tool superstar, and the rest of his career proving he was just a decent player?
I don’t even know what you’re talking about at this point.
That’s the first good news I’ve heard in a while.
I hope you’ve learned a valuable lesson: next time, try to be incomprehensible instead of merely being wrong. Nobody can rebut your arguments if they have no idea what you’re saying, whereas if they can point out failures in logic and facts it’ll make your arguments look bad. I agree the Angels should take every precaution to make sure Trout isn’t drafted into World War II.
I’m making an honest attempt to follow along with you, here. Are you saying that no long-term contract for a young star is worthwhile because, for lack of a better phrase, shit happens?
Why don’t you even try to be a little more specific? Which of the following are you trying to say:
A. Well worth investing $200 million+ on a 15-year (or more!) contract.
B. [with sarcasm] Well worth investing $200 million+ on a 15-year (or more!) contract.
C. Well worth investing $200 million+ on a 10-year contract.
D. [with sarcasm] Well worth investing $200 million+ on a 10-year contract.
E. Well worth investing $200 million+ on a 5-year contract.
F. [with sarcasm] Well worth investing $200 million+ on a 5-year contract.
G. The cat went in the purple starship to yodel with onion rings.
H. Other
I’ll just assume G for now.
Not sure what part of my argument you’re having trouble with. Trout might be so good so young that the Angels might want to invest in the first six years of his career, risking the possibility that by season three or four, he might not want to sign a long-term contract with them. They will unload him to a contender in season 51/2 (or keep him if they’re in the middle of a pennant race themselves, and take the draft pick compensation) let someone else pick up the tab for the rest of his career, which will probably involve outbidding some team that wants to give him a ten-year contract at that point.
I’ve demonstrated with Williams and Pinson that, yes, shit sometimes happens, and that ten year deal is often a mistake. Jesus, look at Texiera just this week. Is he worth the back end of his deal? Or would the Yankees unload him about now, if anyone would take him off their hands?
That would be pretty much the stupidest possible way to handle this. If you want to trade the guy, you’ll get more for him if he’s under team control for three or five or six years at a reasonable (not bargain basement) price than if you trade him when he’s on the last few months of his extremely cheap rookie deal.
Everybody knows this already. The issue is the level of risk, which you won’t look into beyond saying ‘long deals are too risky.’ You did pick the silliest possible example by bringing WWII into it, so there’s that.
Do you think the Red Sox thought that WIlliams would miss three seasons in his mid twenties?
Please use your 20-20 hindsight here. When you see an effect, you can always tell us what the cause is.
Yes, they did. That’s why they didn’t sign him to a $200 million contract.
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.
My actual position, if you give a shit, is that the top dollar rate (“Best player in MLB” rate, if you will) is too high, and the doublewhammy of signing one of the game’s best players at top dollar for a decade is too risky. The Angels are looking forward to the likelihood of Trout being “worth” (according the MLB custom) such a contract in a few years and (I speculate) they’ve decided “Thanks, but no thanks.” It isn’t hard to figure out exactly what I’m speculating, and I’m not saying that I agree with it, only trying to make sense of their position, which you’re content to simply freak out over and conclude that the LA team has gone collectively insane.
I don’t know what Thomas Yawkey thought about international politics, nor do I care. The issue is how much risk a team takes on in a contract, not the final result: for example if you give Trout a long-term deal when he’s 23 or 24, you’re taking on less risk than if you wait until he’s a free agent at 26 because you’ll pay less and get a younger player who is more likely to remain healthy, and for those same reasons he’ll be a more valuable asset if you decide to trade him. The “shit happens” thing is always a factor in contracts. Contracts always involve risk. The question is how well you understand the risk: signing a younger player is less risky than signing an older one. You tend to get better value.
I’m sort of hoping you’re just trying to sandbag Trout’s value so the Mets can sign him for cheap at the end of this decade. I’d hate to see that because he’d probably turn into a fat drug addict with ruined knees by the end of year two.
No, it isn’t.
If they sign him to a new contract in a year or two, they won’t be paying top dollar.
That’s unlikely for a great many reasons. The two biggest ones are that just a year ago, they gave an older player a 10-year deal, and this offseason they gave an older outfielder with a history of mental problems and drug addiction a huge contract. So it’s unlikely they’ve concluded Trout won’t be a worthwhile investment on those criteria.
Your speculation is based on a bunch of errors, though. So it’s not surprising the result doesn’t make any sense.
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.