Mike Trout Contract Debate

[ucahogfan]

Mike Trout is by far the best player in the game right now and is only 22.  With all of these players getting mega contracts at the end of their prime, what kind of contract would you sign Mike Trout to today?  I think he will only get better over the next decade so I would be willing to sign him to a 12 year/400 million contract today.  It would probably be the best bet for a huge contract to actually be worth what you are paying to the player.

[clutch]

If anyone is worth a mega deal it's Trout. I'd sign him to the 12 year deal right now while he is still young. More than likely he will be highly productive for the next 12 seasons. Much better to lock him down now and pay him big than to wait and run the risk of losing the best player in baseball. Plus, when you wait to sign these guys to mega deals once they are close to 30 you always get screwed on the back end. 12 years now, and he's going to be at his peak throughout the contract. Then you sign him to a lesser shorter term deal to end his career.

[ErieHog]

I hate deals longer than 6 years in general;  going beyond 10 just seems to be madness, without some heavy team protection.   As he's 22,  if you sign him for 8, and spin it as an opportunity for him to play for a second enormous contract, you can protect yourself a bit, but still be in it to resign him when he turns 30, to re-evaluate how you project him to age into his 30s.

[clutch]

I hate deals longer than 6 years in general;  going beyond 10 just seems to be madness, without some heavy team protection.   As he's 22,  if you sign him for 8, and spin it as an opportunity for him to play for a second enormous contract, you can protect yourself a bit, but still be in it to resign him when he turns 30, to re-evaluate how you project him to age into his 30s.

I hate long contracts too, but the way things are now, you have to give them to the superstars. If you don't somebody else will. If I were going to do it, it would be on a 22 year old phenom and not a 30 year old.

[ucahogfan]

I hate long contracts too, but the way things are now, you have to give them to the superstars. If you don't somebody else will. If I were going to do it, it would be on a 22 year old phenom and not a 30 year old.

Plus, the advantage of taking him on a 12 year/400 contract over an 8 year contract probably close to 300 is Trout's age.  Trout could get another mega contract of 8-10 years at 30 while he would probably get 3-4 years at 34 if he signed the 12 year deal.

It is a huge, huge risk to sign him to a 12 year deal and like Erie, I think anything over 6-7 is crazy, but Trout is the one player in baseball right now that I would give this type of crazy megadeal to.

He might actually be worth it.  Currently, 1 WAR is worth about 4 million on the free agent market.  Trout's last two seasons going by WAR has only been bettered like twice in the last 50 years or so.  He has been worth about 20 WAR to the Angels since he was called up for good last April which means he would get about 40 million a year on the free agent market.  So if you sign him to the 12/400 deal, you are hoping for his total WAR in that period to be at least 100 which is about 8.3 per year which he has been above each of his first 2 seasons.  I don't think it is crazy for me to say that he will be worth about 12-13 WAR per season in his mid to late 20s.

[userpick]

Plus, the advantage of taking him on a 12 year/400 contract over an 8 year contract probably close to 300 is Trout's age.  Trout could get another mega contract of 8-10 years at 30 while he would probably get 3-4 years at 34 if he signed the 12 year deal.

It is a huge, huge risk to sign him to a 12 year deal and like Erie, I think anything over 6-7 is crazy, but Trout is the one player in baseball right now that I would give this type of crazy megadeal to.

He might actually be worth it.  Currently, 1 WAR is worth about 4 million on the free agent market.  Trout's last two seasons going by WAR has only been bettered like twice in the last 50 years or so.  He has been worth about 20 WAR to the Angels since he was called up for good last April which means he would get about 40 million a year on the free agent market.  So if you sign him to the 12/400 deal, you are hoping for his total WAR in that period to be at least 100 which is about 8.3 per year which he has been above each of his first 2 seasons.  I don't think it is crazy for me to say that he will be worth about 12-13 WAR per season in his mid to late 20s.

Good sabermetric analysis. I'm like you guys...I just can't give a guy a 12 year contract. If trout signed a 10 year deal today, he would still be in line to receive another 10 year deal when he turns 32. The 12 year deal would be difficult because Trout will most likely want another 10 year mega deal after his first mega contract expires. 10 year deals at the age of 34 just won't happen, regardless of who the player is. You are also running a huge risk to give him the initial contract extension of 10 years. I don't think to extend a contract right now that Trout would accept anything less than $400 and that could be low. He knows when he hits free agency (in 2017 I believe) that big market clubs are going to pay him whatever he wants. He could be losing out on money by agreeing to a deal with the angels. The other side of this is he understands that a career ending injury could cost him $300-500 million.

Ironically, last year my school competed in a Diamond Dollars Economics competition where you get a MLB issue and come up with a solution and present it to judges. Jerry DiPoto, Angels GM, was a judge. Our case study was "The Mike Trout Dilemma." Exactly the same thing as this thread. DiPoto knew the problems he would have extending Trout. He said there has been talk within the organization to trade him in a couple of years. The Angels farm system is the worst in baseball and by dealing Trout you could pretty much wipe out a teams minor league system and get major league talent in return. I know he's been great so far, but it's hard to give someone $400,000,000 based off 2 years of work. I look forward to seeing how they handle it. As a Rangers fan, I hope they trade him tomorrow to the National League.

[ErieHog]

Good sabermetric analysis. I'm like you guys...I just can't give a guy a 12 year contract. If trout signed a 10 year deal today, he would still be in line to receive another 10 year deal when he turns 32. The 12 year deal would be difficult because Trout will most likely want another 10 year mega deal after his first mega contract expires. 10 year deals at the age of 34 just won't happen, regardless of who the player is. You are also running a huge risk to give him the initial contract extension of 10 years. I don't think to extend a contract right now that Trout would accept anything less than $400 and that could be low. He knows when he hits free agency (in 2017 I believe) that big market clubs are going to pay him whatever he wants. He could be losing out on money by agreeing to a deal with the angels. The other side of this is he understands that a career ending injury could cost him $300-500 million.

Ironically, last year my school competed in a Diamond Dollars Economics competition where you get a MLB issue and come up with a solution and present it to judges. Jerry DiPoto, Angels GM, was a judge. Our case study was "The Mike Trout Dilemma." Exactly the same thing as this thread. DiPoto knew the problems he would have extending Trout. He said there has been talk within the organization to trade him in a couple of years. The Angels farm system is the worst in baseball and by dealing Trout you could pretty much wipe out a teams minor league system and get major league talent in return. I know he's been great so far, but it's hard to give someone $400,000,000 based off 2 years of work. I look forward to seeing how they handle it. As a Rangers fan, I hope they trade him tomorrow to the National League.

This is why I think the best solution is to split the difference between a 6 year deal, and a 10 year deal that takes Trout into his 30s-- say 8 years at $290 mil.  He immediately gets paid something close to his market value, gets long term security, and you aren't tied down to him forever.

You sell it to him as 'this deal ends soon enough for you, that you can get a second megacontract out of your career's projected prime/plateau,  while still being paid as the best player in the game'-- and hope like heck it works.

[userpick]

I like that strategy, Erie. If anyone would like for me to attach the case study we worked on during the Diamond Dollars Competition, I will be glad to. You can see the actual thoughts that go on in a GM's head and see how you would handle them.

[clutch]

This is why I think the best solution is to split the difference between a 6 year deal, and a 10 year deal that takes Trout into his 30s-- say 8 years at $290 mil.  He immediately gets paid something close to his market value, gets long term security, and you aren't tied down to him forever.

You sell it to him as 'this deal ends soon enough for you, that you can get a second megacontract out of your career's projected prime/plateau,  while still being paid as the best player in the game'-- and hope like heck it works.

The problem you run into though is getting any of these guys to sing any contract under 10 years. Most of them just won't settle for anything shorter.

[ErieHog]

The problem you run into though is getting any of these guys to sing any contract under 10 years. Most of them just won't settle for anything shorter.

That's the thing about Trout's age, though-- you work hard to turn it from a breaking point to a selling point, because he is so likely to still be able to command another huge deal before he turns 30, with these terms.  He gets both pretty long term security *and*  a boatload of money *and* the shot to have another massive payday.

[ucahogfan]

That's the thing about Trout's age, though-- you work hard to turn it from a breaking point to a selling point, because he is so likely to still be able to command another huge deal before he turns 30, with these terms.  He gets both pretty long term security *and*  a boatload of money *and* the shot to have another massive payday.

Yeah, selling 8 years to Trout now and saying that he can get a decade long at 30 could be a strong selling point, but the money would probably have to be in the 40 million annually range.  A lot of players will take less money per year for a longer deal because it is fully guaranteed.

[ErieHog]

Yeah, selling 8 years to Trout now and saying that he can get a decade long at 30 could be a strong selling point, but the money would probably have to be in the 40 million annually range.  A lot of players will take less money per year for a longer deal because it is fully guaranteed.

Which is why I was talking about 8 years, 290 mil-- that works out to about 36.5 million per-- and it might be worthwhile to show him the history of salary escalation, to point out that a 10 year $400 million dollar deal might be underpaying him the last two years, just by the trajectory of player salaries.

I think it's easier to say  'Look, we can give you a decade at what you want, or 8 years at nearly what you want, while positioning you to have a 2nd long term deal, at the future market rates for a player in their prime'; to me, that's the best argument they can put forward for keeping his contract from becoming the sort of sink/swim proposition that can bury a franchise if it goes horribly awry.

[ucahogfan]

ESPN's Sweetspot weighs in on the Mike Trout contract by using the best players in history and what they would have been worth.

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/43039/what-if-willie-mays-were-a-free-agent

[userpick]

Thanks for that link. Have you read the book "Understanding Sabermetrics?" It dives into the same hypothetical scenarios. I recommend it.

[ucahogfan]

Thanks for that link. Have you read the book "Understanding Sabermetrics?" It dives into the same hypothetical scenarios. I recommend it.

I have not.  Sounds like an interesting book.  Will look into it.  Is Bill James the author?

[userpick]

I have not.  Sounds like an interesting book.  Will look into it.  Is Bill James the author?

No, this was written by a guy named Gabriel Costa. There are some formulas, but nothing too complex.