Not surprising but definitely against the "norm" by giving a guy that money that far ahead of his arbitration years

Trout's more or less been against the "norm", right?

I understand that. Still surprised, the CBA for baseball is specifically set up to help out the owners during a young players first 6 years. They didn't fully take advantage

Buying out years of arb and FA isn't a new concept. Trout's just that good.

what would he have made?

what would he have made?

3 years left of arb, I think, so FA would have kicked in at 26. Name his price?

Why not put 7 years $144 mil on the table?

Trout left a TON of money on the table. Baffling to me.

Disagree. He's going to make $150 mill for giving up only 3 FA years. And he'll be 28 when he's up again - in his prime and ready for an absolutely ridiculous deal.

quote:

---

Trout left a TON of money on the table. Baffling to me.

---

How can someone taking a guaranteed $24 million/year be baffling? There's no guarantee if he takes it year to year until FA. With so much money involved, he needed to sign a long term deal, and he had to give up FA years to maximize the guarantee.

quote:

---

Trout left a TON of money on the table assuming near perfect health and performance. Baffling to me.

---

FIFY

He would have been guaranteed about $30 mil in arbitration, even with injury.

I'm willing to bet his agents know just a tad more than you do about the money. This is an amazing deal

Deal was well under-market. General consensus is that he could have got significantly more. Probably just wanted to get the thing done before the season started.

But he'll hit free agency at what, 29? He'll have another big payday coming.

quote:

---

I'm willing to bet his agents know just a tad more than you do about the money. This is an amazing deal

---

No, it wasn't. Well, not for Trout. Amazing for the Angels. And I was wrong, his arbitration number even with injury would be $50-$60 mil. Basically he agreed to 3/$90.

Now it is sick money and he will be happy so all the best to him. I hate having a division rival get a bargain, but at least they have a lot of awful contracts.

There was no market. So it could not have been " under market"

The general consensus of whom? Those that weren't involved with negotiations?

There is no way to know what his arbitration number would be. That's why they took the money now. And wisely.

[This message has been edited by BMX Bandit (edited 3/29/2014 10:08a).]

We have a good idea what he would get in arbitration and it would blow all records away. $50 mil over the three years would be low. More than likely the Angels would negotiate something just to cover the arb years.

If we are talking getting as much as possible it was stupid of Trout. But, we rip players for that and he's set for lied anyway, so good for him.

quote:

---

There was no market. So it could not have been " under market"

The general consensus of whom? Those that weren't involved with negotiations?

There is no way to know what his arbitration number would be. That's why they took the money now. And wisely.

---

Shin-Soo Choo just got 7yrs/$130m.

Mike Trout signed for 6yrs/$144m.


It was an underpay. He had whatever reasons for accepting it, but it was under-market.

When you can't solicit a competitive bid for 3 years, you aren't talking the same market. The dude will make a million bucks this year. It's basically a 3 year $100-110 million deal, and mitigates injury screwing him over.

quote:

---

When you can't solicit a competitive bid for 3 years, you aren't talking the same market. The dude will make a million bucks this year. It's basically a 3 year $100-110 million deal, and mitigates injury screwing him over.

---

Miguel Cabrera says hi.

Correction. 4 years, not 3.

And the Tigers are morons.

The Angels are willing to give a 40 year old Pujols $30 million, and this is the best deal Trout's agent could get? He obviously has his reasons, but I'm in the Trout left a lot on the table camp.

quote:

---

When you can't solicit a competitive bid for 3 years, you aren't talking the same market. The dude will make a million bucks this year. It's basically a 3 year $100-110 million deal, and mitigates injury screwing him over.

---

He's also putting off his free agency for two years, right? That's a huge sacrifice on his part.

quote:

---

quote:

---

When you can't solicit a competitive bid for 3 years, you aren't talking the same market. The dude will make a million bucks this year. It's basically a 3 year $100-110 million deal, and mitigates injury screwing him over.

---

He's also putting off his free agency for two years, right? That's a huge sacrifice on his part.

---

Three years.

I think it was the right move for both sides. Sure Trout could have gone year to year, but now he's guaranteed at 24 per for 6 years, and he'll get to sign a 10 year mega deal at 29/30 assuming he continues to be as good as he has been. If something goes wrong and he flames out or gets injured he'd have left a lot of money on the table playing it the other way.

If it plays out he will go 6/144 and 10/320 or higher for the retirement contract. Can't do much better than that.

Works for the Angels as well. They will pay him less than what he's truly worth for 6 years and they'll get him for 6 no matter what. Then they will have the option of giving him the mega deal or letting him go to Boston, LAD or NY.

[This message has been edited by Bunk Moreland (edited 3/29/2014 8:59p).]

How many 2 year service time MLB players have signed this kind of deal? I'm guessing it's at least 4X what any 2 year player in history has received. Many players have sold out 2-3+ years of FA. They don't sniff this, especially so far from FA that they are still making relative peanuts.

[This message has been edited by DannyDuberstein (edited 3/29/2014 10:17p).]

What other players have done is irrevalent. No one else has come close to the arbitration numbers Trout would have. He basically agreed to a short term extension in his most productive years for what others are getting in their 30+ years. Seems everyone who thinks it was a good seam for Trout is ignoring his arbitration payout.

Has any player been worth the most in trade value, signed a deal and then remained worth more than any player in trade value? No.

Dave Cameron for commish, huh OR?

quote:

---

He would have been guaranteed about $30 mil in arbitration, even with injury.

---

Meh. I'd probably say no, he wouldn't. To get up towards that kind of number, he'd have to settle on a multi-year deal in the vein of Tim Lincecum.





[This message has been edited by TXAggie2011 (edited 3/30/2014 10:13a).]

quote:

---

Shin-Soo Choo just got 7yrs/$130m.

Mike Trout signed for 6yrs/$144m.


It was an underpay. He had whatever reasons for accepting it, but it was under-market.

---

They're hard, maybe downright impossible, to compare because of the system. The 6 year service rule, the arbitration system, its all designed to set a lower market for younger players.

Is he going to be "underpaid"? Eh, maybe. But that's exactly the outcome the system is stacked to produce.

For example, the Pirates were never going to get Andrew McCutchen for 5 years, 51 million like they did if he was a free agent.

quote:

---

How many 2 year service time MLB players have signed this kind of deal? I'm guessing it's at least 4X what any 2 year player in history has received. Many players have sold out 2-3+ years of FA. They don't sniff this, especially so far from FA that they are still making relative peanuts.

---

Buster Posey. 8 years, $159 million.

That was the gold standard. Trout is going to make $4+ million a year more than that and have 2 years on Posey to make up the extra $15 million in total value.

[This message has been edited by TXAggie2011 (edited 3/30/2014 10:28a).]

quote:

---

quote:

---

He would have been guaranteed about $30 mil in arbitration, even with injury.

---

Lol

No, he wouldn't. To get close to that high, he'd have to settle on a multi-year deal in the vein of Tim Lincecum.

---

Look at Ryan Howard. That was years ago and Trout would blow that away. Hell, look at what Stanton got batting below .250 and playing 1/3 a season. No reason to think Trout doesn't double that, then years 2 and 3 go up.

Howard's $10 million?

quote:

---

Howard's $10 million?

---

His first year. Trout would beat that and has three years....

Sure.

But that doesn't mean he'd have been making out with $30 million.

[This message has been edited by TXAggie2011 (edited 3/30/2014 10:42a).]