PDA

View Full Version : Mike Trout is Insanely Good



RedsManRick
08-23-2012, 05:56 PM
Mike Trout is currently hitting .343/.407/.603.

That's obviously great, but not all that uncommon. In the history of baseball, there have been 224 player seasons in which a player hit at least .300/.400/.600 while qualifying for the batting title, if we include Trout.

But how many of those guys played CF? Just 28 of those seasons were put up by guys who played 50% of their games in CF. Those 28 seasons were put up by just 14 players.

Trout
Edmonds
Giles
Griffey
Lynn
Mantle
Snider
Mays
DiMaggio
Averill
Wilson
Simmons
Speaker
Cobb

Wow, what a list. But, oh yeah, Trout is also leading the league in SB with 39. Including Trout, in just 4 of those seasons did the guy steal at least 20 bases and 40 just twice -- Trout will soon make it 3.

Those seasons were Willie Mays in 1957 at age 26 and Ty Cobb in 1911 at age 24. Mike Trout is 20.

I'm not saying this is one of the greatest seasons ever (though I certainly could), but at minimum this is one of the most well-rounded seasons in the history of baseball. And it's being done by a 20 year old rookie.

I know Trout is getting hype. But however much he's getting, it's not enough.

Johnny Footstool
08-23-2012, 05:59 PM
I don't think you need to hedge it. He is having one of the greatest seasons ever.

Tom Servo
08-23-2012, 06:08 PM
AL MVP

fearofpopvol1
08-23-2012, 06:09 PM
Don't forget about the very good defense too (and some of the awesome catches he's made).

Despite what some have claimed, I don't see Harper ever being as good as Trout.

Wonderful Monds
08-23-2012, 06:16 PM
Is this the surest a rookie has looked like a HOF candidate, provided he doesn't get injured or abducted by aliens or something?

Degenerate39
08-23-2012, 06:25 PM
Is this the surest a rookie has looked like a HOF candidate, provided he doesn't get injured or abducted by aliens or something?

Ichiro

Wonderful Monds
08-23-2012, 06:27 PM
Ichiro

Special case for him, IMO. Trout is different.

jojo
08-23-2012, 06:28 PM
Ichiro

But Ichiro is an alien.

Wonderful Monds
08-23-2012, 06:30 PM
But Ichiro is an alien.

He also appears to have the ability to clone himself, which is weird and bad.

http://l.yimg.com/a/p/sp/editorial_image/20/206d28e30ead032f70f6baf196697fef/imposter_ichiro_goes_overboard_pursuing_ackleys_fo ul_ball.jpg

RedsManRick
08-23-2012, 06:31 PM
I don't think you need to hedge it. He is having one of the greatest seasons ever.

I only hesitated to make the claim because I hadn't looked at the data that way. However, I went to B-R and took the top 200 rWAR seasons of all-time (by position players). Using that, Trout comes in at #139 as of today. Projected to the end of the season, he's in the 15-20 range with a WAR around 11.0.

Of course, he missed the first month of the season. If you standardized performances to WAR per 600 plate appearances, here's your top 10.




Rk Player Age Year Tm rWAR/600
1 Babe Ruth 28 1923 NYY 11.8
2 Barry Bonds 37 2002 SFG 11.4
3 Babe Ruth 25 1920 NYY 11.3
4 Rogers Hornsby 28 1924 STL 11.2
5 Mike Trout 20 2012 LAA 11.1
6 Babe Ruth 26 1921 NYY 10.9
7 George Brett 27 1980 KCR 10.8
8 Babe Ruth 24 1919 BOS 10.7
9 Mickey Mantle 25 1957 NYY 10.7
10 Carl Yastrzemski 27 1967 BOS 10.6


Note, this doesn't give The Babe credit for pitching, so he's probably missing a few years on this list. But yeah, by the end of the year, if he keeps it up, Trout will have had one of the greatest seasons of all time. Notice that this list has 8 guys between the ages of 24-28, one guy who was roided out of his mind at age 37 and Mike Trout, who is 20.

Trout is probably having a a "lucky" year -- e.g. putting up results that are higher than his "true talent". But the same can be said of everybody on that list. If there's a guy who looked like a HOFer, it's him.

MrCinatit
08-23-2012, 06:40 PM
Is this the surest a rookie has looked like a HOF candidate, provided he doesn't get injured or abducted by aliens or something?


Junior.
Don't get me wrong, Junior's 1989 season was no where near Trout's season this year, but the kid did generate a lot of excitement upon his arrival. His lineage did help.

dougdirt
08-23-2012, 08:19 PM
I am not even sure this is the best age 20 season in baseball history, or even my lifetime. Different environment of course, but Arod did hit .358/.414/.631 with a league leading 141 runs scored, 123 RBI, 54 doubles, a triple and 36 home runs while playing shortstop.

Wonderful Monds
08-23-2012, 08:29 PM
I am not even sure this is the best age 20 season in baseball history, or even my lifetime. Different environment of course, but Arod did hit .358/.414/.631 with a league leading 141 runs scored, 123 RBI, 54 doubles, a triple and 36 home runs while playing shortstop.

Missed that. I would be inclined to agree, but I would like to see those numbers in a more neutral run scoring environment.

Also, gotta question if A-Rod ever did any of it clean.

mth123
08-23-2012, 08:32 PM
Is this the surest a rookie has looked like a HOF candidate, provided he doesn't get injured or abducted by aliens or something?

"Johnny Bench. A Hall of Famer for sure." Ted Williams.

RedsManRick
08-23-2012, 08:33 PM
Missed that. I would be inclined to agree, but I would like to see those numbers in a more neutral run scoring environment.

Also, gotta question if A-Rod ever did any of it clean.

Even assuming he was completely clean, the run environment was a huge deal. Just looking at a quick proxy, ARod's OPS+ was 161. Trout is at 182.

From an overall "runs produced" standpoint, ARod likely had the better season. But if you care about production above replacement, it wasn't.

RANDY IN INDY
08-23-2012, 09:21 PM
"Johnny Bench. A Hall of Famer for sure." Ted Williams.

:beerme:

fearofpopvol1
08-23-2012, 09:21 PM
I am not even sure this is the best age 20 season in baseball history, or even my lifetime. Different environment of course, but Arod did hit .358/.414/.631 with a league leading 141 runs scored, 123 RBI, 54 doubles, a triple and 36 home runs while playing shortstop.

In reading your posts about Trout, it sure seems like you're trying to downplay the season he's having. But I'm not sure if it's because you think Harper will be the better player or you think he's overhyped or what.

dougdirt
08-23-2012, 10:00 PM
In reading your posts about Trout, it sure seems like you're trying to downplay the season he's having. But I'm not sure if it's because you think Harper will be the better player or you think he's overhyped or what.

Wow, you really tried hard to read into that didn't you?

My post about Trout was simply saying that Alex Rodriguez was also a flat out incredible 20 year old and he did it in nearly 700 plate appearances. Nothing more, nothing less.

dougdirt
08-23-2012, 10:03 PM
Missed that. I would be inclined to agree, but I would like to see those numbers in a more neutral run scoring environment.

Also, gotta question if A-Rod ever did any of it clean.

That is a valid question. Another thing I wonder about is what would the season compare like had UZR been available when Arod was a rookie. I put no value in the defensive values supplied by BRef. I don't have a clue what Trout's UZR is, but BRef says he is only a slightly above average defender and watching him, I just don't believe that. He seems much better than that.

Spitball
08-23-2012, 10:13 PM
Is this the surest a rookie has looked like a HOF candidate, provided he doesn't get injured or abducted by aliens or something?

Red Sox centerfielder Fred Lynn in 1975 was a true rookie who was Rookie of the Year and MVP. He hit .331 with 21 homers, 105 RBI and had a slashline of .401/.566/.967. He lead the AL in slugging and OPS.

He was also a Gold Glove centerfielder. He was a sure fire Hall of Famer based on his early years. Unfortunately, he wore down and became injury prone. I blame all the diving and wall crashing catches in centerfield.

I also think Mike Trout is special. I was fortunate to watch him several times here in Arkansas play double A ball. He reminds me a lot of Fred Lynn.

fearofpopvol1
08-23-2012, 11:39 PM
Wow, you really tried hard to read into that didn't you?

My post about Trout was simply saying that Alex Rodriguez was also a flat out incredible 20 year old and he did it in nearly 700 plate appearances. Nothing more, nothing less.

Not really, I've observed your comments in other threads with discussion about Trout and/or Harper too and it seems, IMO, that you've been downplaying Trout's season. You disagree?

kaldaniels
08-24-2012, 12:17 AM
This Trout vs Harper is a fascinating debate and will be fun to watch. Unfortunately we live in a "pick a side" world that sucks people into defending positions they would otherwise not take. It's not just here, I see it on fangraphs and the like also. People staking their positions now so in 15 years they can say "I told you so".

Not singling anybody out either.

VR
08-24-2012, 01:00 AM
Harper has a lot more holes in his swing and overall game than Trout, who truly does seem to be a 'natural'.....a bit of what was expected out of Josh Hamilton.

AtomicDumpling
08-24-2012, 02:14 AM
Hard to believe how much better Trout has gotten since last year when he did not play well at all for the Angels. He is simply phenomenal this year. If Trout can continue to play at this level then Bryce Harper won't catch him. Harper is likely to be extremely good, but the bar set by Trout is awfully high.

dougdirt
08-24-2012, 06:41 AM
Not really, I've observed your comments in other threads with discussion about Trout and/or Harper too and it seems, IMO, that you've been downplaying Trout's season. You disagree?

Yes, I disagree. You are looking for something that isn't there.

What I have said in the past (and even Rick said as much) is that he might be getting a bit lucky (very high BABIP this season) and that Arod had an incredible season at age 20, that on a pure numbers basis is stronger than what Trout is having. Bryce Harper has absolutely nothing at all to do with any of that. You are reading way to far into it, and I really don't know why.

Jamz
08-24-2012, 08:29 AM
Trout is arguably having the best 20 year old season of all time. Earlier in the yaer it looked like Harper was going to have the best 19 year old season of all time. We've got people breaking records in the minors, we have pitchers throwing perfect games left and right. We've got guys like Strasburg, Bundy, Kershaw, Verlander...I mean -- right now we're seeing an incredible surge of skill and talent in the league that makes this a very good time to be a baseball fan, IMO.

As far as Trout vs. other rookies goes? If he can improve in a linear fashion, or if he can get even better than he is right now in any capacity he might go down as the best player of all time. It sounds crazy to say right now -- but assuming he doesn't get injured (and the guy is built like a truck) he could end his career with probably 200+ fWAR.


Hard to believe how much better Trout has gotten since last year when he did not play well at all for the Angels. He is simply phenomenal this year. If Trout can continue to play at this level then Bryce Harper won't catch him. Harper is likely to be extremely good, but the bar set by Trout is awfully high.

The biggest difference is that Pujols is on his team now...he's got the good stuff. :laugh:

kaldaniels
08-24-2012, 08:49 AM
It sounds crazy to say right now -- but assuming he doesn't get injured (and the guy is built like a truck) he could end his career with probably 200+ fWAR.

Now that I just don't see happening.

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=y&type=8&season=2012&month=0&season1=1871&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&players=0

Jamz
08-24-2012, 09:19 AM
Now that I just don't see happening.

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=y&type=8&season=2012&month=0&season1=1871&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&players=0

Ruth didn't have close to a 10 WAR season until he was 24 years old. Bonds didn't have close to a 10 WAR season until he was 26 years old. Trout doesn't even have to improve to be almost 30 WAR ahead of Ruth and 37 WAR ahead of Bonds at the same respective ages. Think about that.

Although that's also why I said if he improves -- if he improves and isn't injury prone he'll be the best player of all time.

kaldaniels
08-24-2012, 09:28 AM
Ruth didn't have close to a 10 WAR season until he was 24 years old. Bonds didn't have close to a 10 WAR season until he was 26 years old. Trout doesn't even have to improve to be almost 30 WAR ahead of Ruth and 37 WAR ahead of Bonds at the same respective ages. Think about that.

Although that's also why I said if he improves -- if he improves and isn't injury prone he'll be the best player of all time.

Fangraphs (Dave Cameron) has repeatedly made the case that there is not much room to improve for Trout.

What you are saying is that Trout could be 15 percent more productive than any player who has walked on this planet. That is bold. Very bold.

Now, of course the caveat to my case is that anything is possible...so I have to acknowledge that. But, what odds do you give Trout of being a 200+ WAR guy for his career?

jojo
08-24-2012, 09:46 AM
Hard to believe how much better Trout has gotten since last year when he did not play well at all for the Angels. He is simply phenomenal this year. If Trout can continue to play at this level then Bryce Harper won't catch him. Harper is likely to be extremely good, but the bar set by Trout is awfully high.

Just for context, this is Harper's "Trout's last" year.

I'm not really that interested in debating who will be better after 15 years but at 19, a year in the bigs makes a big difference...

I would be ecstatic if either player became a Red this evening.

dougdirt
08-24-2012, 09:54 AM
I would be ecstatic if either player became a Red this evening.

I would be out front leading the parade downtown for the rest of the winter.

Jamz
08-24-2012, 10:37 AM
Fangraphs (Dave Cameron) has repeatedly made the case that there is not much room to improve for Trout.

What you are saying is that Trout could be 15 percent more productive than any player who has walked on this planet. That is bold. Very bold.

Now, of course the caveat to my case is that anything is possible...so I have to acknowledge that. But, what odds do you give Trout of being a 200+ WAR guy for his career?

I don't give him great odds, but if he can even continue his level of production he has right now for say 15 years and then starts to tail off, chances are he ends up with more career WAR than either Ruth or Bonds. 200 might be stretching it, but it's not unattainable.

Let's assume that this is his true talent level and he's an 11 WAR player (some years a bit more, some years a bit less) that's 165 WAR over 15 years, and if he plays into his late 30s, early 40s like most elite players he could probably rack up between 4 - 6 WAR a season there, too. 5x5 is 25 so I could realistically see him ending with about 190 career fWAR with potential for more, and obviously a chance at less.

JaxRed
08-24-2012, 10:39 AM
And Trout was available to us when we drafted in 2009 !!

dougdirt
08-24-2012, 10:44 AM
And Trout was available to us when we drafted in 2009 !!

Think we can get the Angels to trade him to us for Mike Leake? ;)

RANDY IN INDY
08-24-2012, 11:11 AM
Think the Reds would have taken Joe Saunders for Joey Votto?;)

RANDY IN INDY
08-24-2012, 11:12 AM
.

RedsBaron
08-24-2012, 12:15 PM
And Trout was available to us when we drafted in 2009 !!

Sports Illustrated has noted that the Nationals could have drafted Trout in 2009 as well. Imagine having Trout and Bryce Harper in the same outfield.

Spitball
08-24-2012, 12:38 PM
Trout is arguably having the best 20 year old season of all time.

I agree. To date, I believe Al Kaline and his .421/.546/.967 in 1955 would be the best 20-year-old season. He also lead the AL in hitting with a .340 average.

Tony Conigliaro lead the AL in homers at that age in 1965.

Jamz
08-24-2012, 01:06 PM
I agree. To date, I believe Al Kaline and his .421/.546/.967 in 1955 would be the best 20-year-old season. He also lead the AL in hitting with a .340 average.

Tony Conigliaro lead the AL in homers at that age in 1965.

Well the way things are going all you really have to do is add about 40 - 50 steals to Kaline's statline and you've got Trout.

kaldaniels
03-03-2013, 11:35 PM
So I guess the Troutster is moving to LF. What impact will this have on his WAR?

gilpdawg
03-04-2013, 06:44 AM
I'd imagine without looking it up that replacement level for left is higher, but he's so good I don't think it really matters much if he plays like he did last year. A 10 win season was going to be hard to repeat anyway even staying in center.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

jojo
03-04-2013, 06:54 AM
So I guess the Troutster is moving to LF. What impact will this have on his WAR?

It all depends...

In a system like WAR, his bat is compared to a league average player regardless of position, so the perception of it's value is largely unaffected.

However, he'll lose about 1 WAR due to the position shift from CF to left (+2.5 to -7.5). That said, it's likely he'll be a plus defender in LF and he'll have significant defensive worth relative to his peers in LF. Really, what might ding him the most is having fewer chances which will tend to depress the gap between an elite defender and an average one.

I'd, thumb-in-the-air-guess, that it might hurt him overall somewhere in the range of about 5 runs or .5 WAR to not at all (assuming nothing in his performance changes)? Its very possible that any decrease in worth is swallowed up by noise (i.e. he could easily have a bat that is worth .5 less this season just because his bat was sooooo good last season.

kaldaniels
02-12-2014, 04:49 PM
Theoretical question here.

Tomorrow Mike Trout looks into the cameras and says "I'm the best baseball player on the planet. I'm only getting paid ~600k this season. I want a 10 Million dollar one-year deal this season to secure me financially for life. Otherwise, I'm not reporting to the team."

Now, I know baseball contracts are guaranteed, and the labor contract is rock solid, but I also believe everything is negotiable.

Is there one clause somewhere that would absolutely punish Trout if he did such a thing?

I can't see it succeeding due to the can of worms it would open. I imagine he might be kicked out of the union for such a stunt.

Without getting into the is his salary fair or not part of the equation, I'm just curious...what would actually happen if he did such a thing?

RedlegJake
02-12-2014, 07:24 PM
Interesting ... the whole FA thing started by a couple player sitting out a year and getting arbitrated as free agents but now they have a contract with the union - does that still apply to a player with less than the years for FA eligibility?

ac084c
02-12-2014, 07:33 PM
Theoretical question here.

Tomorrow Mike Trout looks into the cameras and says "I'm the best baseball player on the planet. I'm only getting paid ~600k this season. I want a 10 Million dollar one-year deal this season to secure me financially for life. Otherwise, I'm not reporting to the team."

Now, I know baseball contracts are guaranteed, and the labor contract is rock solid, but I also believe everything is negotiable.

Is there one clause somewhere that would absolutely punish Trout if he did such a thing?

I can't see it succeeding due to the can of worms it would open. I imagine he might be kicked out of the union for such a stunt.

Without getting into the is his salary fair or not part of the equation, I'm just curious...what would actually happen if he did such a thing?

From a quick read of the MLBPA agreement, the club would have the right to file a grievance against Mr. Trout which would be heard by an arbitrator. The club would most definitely win the hearing.

If Mr. Trout still refused to report, he could be designated for assignment or released, and as I understand it, no other club would be able to sign him (because he hadn't completed 3 years of major league service).

What you're describing, is essentially what happened with Curt Flood - and what ultimately led to today's process of salary arbitration and Free Agency.

AmarilloRed
02-12-2014, 07:33 PM
The Angels would say, "That's very impressive. Now report to LF"

Mike has no options unless he wants to take it to court or quit playing baseball. It's not like arbitration is really that far away.

kaldaniels
02-12-2014, 07:40 PM
The Angels would say, "That's very impressive. Now report to LF"

Mike has no options unless he wants to take it to court or quit playing baseball. It's not like arbitration is really that far away.

My scenario is dependent on him being willing to quit, or at least sit out for a significant amount of time. In reality my scenario doesn't have to be Trout per se, just a youngster with the gravitas to make things compelling.

ac084c
02-12-2014, 07:45 PM
My scenario is dependent on him being willing to quit, or at least sit out for a significant amount of time. In reality my scenario doesn't have to be Trout per se, just a youngster with the gravitas to make things compelling.

As I mentioned. The club would file a grievance, an arbitrator would rule in favor of the club. If the player still refused to report, the club could designate him or release him and the player wouldn't be able to play for another club (given his less than 3 years of service).

kaldaniels
02-12-2014, 07:52 PM
As I mentioned. The club would file a grievance, an arbitrator would rule in favor of the club. If the player still refused to report, the club could designate him or release him and the player wouldn't be able to play for another club (given his less than 3 years of service).

So the Angels release him from their organization. If he wants to play baseball later on he must go back to the Angels still?

That's pretty cut and dry.

ac084c
02-12-2014, 08:01 PM
So the Angels release him from their organization. If he wants to play baseball later on he must go back to the Angels still?

That's pretty cut and dry.

I'd assume the MLBPA would also file suit against him for breach of contract.

I mean what you're describing is essentially what Curt Flood did in 1969.

Chip R
02-12-2014, 08:27 PM
The Angels could also suspend him, or put him on the restricted or disqualified list(s) or they could suspend him.

jojo
02-13-2014, 02:04 AM
My scenario is dependent on him being willing to quit, or at least sit out for a significant amount of time. In reality my scenario doesn't have to be Trout per se, just a youngster with the gravitas to make things compelling.

A much more likely scenario would be Trout approaching the Angels about an extension and the Angels pouncing on the opportunity to buy out his control years in exchange for buying a couple of his free agent years.

I bet the Angels would be eager to accommodate Trout as the modest bump in salary was a big hit to his agent's head by a leverage stick.

Really Landis' vetching was an attempt to set parameters for the discussion. But the Angels hold the cards and it doesn't look like Trout/Landis necessarily want to sell control at the prices the Angels might dictate. But Trout could be set for life anytime he approached the Angels about an extension IMHO.

BluegrassRedleg
02-13-2014, 03:28 AM
I think his succcess this soon may have even surprised him. I'd try to cash in as soon as possible, even if it meant giving up some control. It's a pretty solid organization and a good place for him to settle down.

ac084c
02-13-2014, 08:34 AM
Well there you go:

http://www.sbnation.com/mlb/2014/2/13/5407434/mike-trout-contract-negotiation-angels


There's a good chance the Angels will renew Trout's contract again in March, but it won't have the sting of last spring's renewal because it will be done amid negotiations for a multiple-year extension that is expected to make Trout one of baseball's highest-paid players.

The sides hope to reach a deal after the season starts.


The record salary for a first-time arbitration-eligible player is $10 million, earned by Ryan Howard of the Phillies in 2008 after winning the NL MVP award in 2006. Howard through 2007 hit .291/.397/.610, a 155 OPS+, with 129 home runs in 353 RBI in 410 games.

With a year to go before he is eligible for arbitration, Trout has hit .314/.404/.554, a 166 OPS+, with 62 home runs and 196 RBI in 336 games. But factoring in Trout's outfield defense and base running (86 steals in 98 career attempts), he already leads Howard in Wins Above Replacement (per Baseball-Reference.com), 20.8 to 11.5.

Chip R
02-13-2014, 10:54 AM
Hypothetical worst case scenario is the Angels renew Trout's deal - and if they really want to be dicks about it - they can cut his salary 20%. If he still doesn't report then they could suspend him.

bucksfan2
02-13-2014, 11:19 AM
Hypothetical worst case scenario is the Angels renew Trout's deal - and if they really want to be dicks about it - they can cut his salary 20%. If he still doesn't report then they could suspend him.

Coming off a World Series title the Marlins decided to cut the pay to Josh Beckett, the 23 year old World Series MVP.

WildcatFan
02-13-2014, 03:07 PM
Fangraphs takes its shot at what a Trout extension will look like:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/so-what-does-a-mike-trout-extension-look-like-now/


Well, that presents a little bit of a dilemma with Trout, because $6 million per win for a +9 WAR player leads to a $54 million per year salary. As good as Trout is, he’s not getting $50+ million per year four years from free agency. Kershaw’s just-signed $215 million extension guaranteed him an average of roughly $32.5 million per year the six free agent years he sold, and while I believe that Trout will beat that AAV, we’re not going to see a leap from $33M to $50M, especially considering their relative proximity to free agency.


Pricing those free agent years at $40 million apiece, in addition to the $60 million he’d be getting for his remaining years of team control, would bring the total deal to $260 million over nine years. The deal would fall short of being the largest contract in baseball history, but would easily be the largest deal for any player still under team control. If Trout was particularly interested in breaking A-Rod’s record, adding a 10th year to push the deal to $300 million in total wouldn’t be that difficult, and should still be something the Angels are interested in doing.

RedsManRick
02-13-2014, 03:27 PM
What's insane is that Trout could play out a $300M contract and still have 8-10 years of a career ahead of him.

edabbs44
02-15-2014, 08:34 PM
Have there been any PED clawback provisions in contracts that are publicly known as of yet?

ac084c
02-27-2014, 08:36 AM
Angels sign Mike Trout to a record-setting One-Year, $1MM Deal. Rumored 6year, $150MM extension in work.


While the rumored long-term deal has yet to come to fruition, the Angels and Mike Trout agreed to a record-setting one-year deal, according to Bill Shaikin of the L.A. Times. Trout will earn $1MM in 2014, marking the largest payday in Major League history for a pre-arbitration player. Trout's deal surpasses the $900K guarantee achieved by Ryan Howard in 2007 and Albert Pujols in 2003

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2014/02/angels-sign-trout-to-one-year-1mm-deal.html

RedlegJake
02-27-2014, 10:15 AM
That means three years of Mike Trout's production for less than 2 million total - the greatest bargain years in modern baseball history...

dougdirt
02-27-2014, 10:40 AM
That means three years of Mike Trout's production for less than 2 million total - the greatest bargain years in modern baseball history...

Which is exactly why teams pay guys in their 30's a ton of money for their decline.... because the players know how much they are getting screwed in their 20's.

membengal
02-27-2014, 10:40 AM
They would never do this, of course, but anyone want to guess what kind of trade value Trout would have if the Angels played this season out with him and then put him on the trade block? Can you even reasonably quantify the kind of haul he would command?

dougdirt
02-27-2014, 10:46 AM
They would never do this, of course, but anyone want to guess what kind of trade value Trout would have if the Angels played this season out with him and then put him on the trade block? Can you even reasonably quantify the kind of haul he would command?

Sure, I will play that game.

They would require a young, locked up #1 quality pitcher who is at least performing like a good #2. Several top prospects (and from a good system, not just top prospects in a system like the Brewers who don't have anyone in the top 100) and another all-star caliber MLBer with several years of control left.

RadfordVA
02-27-2014, 10:46 AM
They would never do this, of course, but anyone want to guess what kind of trade value Trout would have if the Angels played this season out with him and then put him on the trade block? Can you even reasonably quantify the kind of haul he would command?

4 or 5 really good prospects. I think that is about the limit for any player. At a certain point you reach a limit on what you can get back for one guy. Think about the team that would trade for him. If someone is rebuilding like the Twins do they wanna give up all their top guys for one person. They would still be stuck in the same situation for the next few years. If you are a team in contention like say the Cardinals. It does not make sense to trade multiple guys from your MLB team to get stronger at one position when you are already a contender. So the best I could see them getting 4 or 5 good prospects from a team that is already a contender and has a deep farm.

membengal
02-27-2014, 10:50 AM
Sure, I will play that game.

They would require a young, locked up #1 quality pitcher who is at least performing like a good #2. Several top prospects (and from a good system, not just top prospects in a system like the Brewers who don't have anyone in the top 100) and another all-star caliber MLBer with several years of control left.

I tend to agree. Let's use the Cardinals as a baseline: Wainwright/three prospects/Craig?

Dan
02-27-2014, 10:51 AM
Which is exactly why teams pay guys in their 30's a ton of money for their decline.... because the players know how much they are getting screwed in their 20's.

And I still don't get why teams do this. The star power, sure, but production creates stars and more importantly wins, not the other way around.

ac084c
02-27-2014, 11:37 AM
I tend to agree. Let's use the Cardinals as a baseline: Wainwright/three prospects/Craig?

Wainwright doesn't meet the "young" definition.

The Cardinals don't really have someone meeting that description just yet, unless you're ready to say that about Michael Wacha or Shelby Miller.

I, as a Cardinals fan, am not ready to say that about either of those guys.

dougdirt
02-27-2014, 11:38 AM
And I still don't get why teams do this. The star power, sure, but production creates stars and more importantly wins, not the other way around.

Because the veterans set the payscale in the CBA's and they want their money.

BRM13
02-27-2014, 04:26 PM
Which is exactly why teams pay guys in their 30's a ton of money for their decline.... because the players know how much they are getting screwed in their 20's.

Not quite. Teams pay players a ton of money for their decline to (hopefully) get the last couple years before the decline. They hope the surplus they get in the early years offsets the overpayment during the decline.

It generally doesn't have anything to do with compensating them for having been underpaid early in their careers except in rare cases where teams reward a guy who has been with team a long time (e.g., Larkin's last big contract).

dougdirt
02-27-2014, 04:44 PM
Not quite. Teams pay players a ton of money for their decline to (hopefully) get the last couple years before the decline. They hope the surplus they get in the early years offsets the overpayment during the decline.

It generally doesn't have anything to do with compensating them for having been underpaid early in their careers except in rare cases where teams reward a guy who has been with team a long time (e.g., Larkin's last big contract).

I don't agree. There is a reason that Jack Hannahan has a $2M buyout after 2014 and Mike Trout won't have made $2M for his first three full seasons in the Majors.

The veterans set the prices for things and they want the money for themselves because well, they are the ones who get to decide the payscale. It isn't just the superstars getting paid. If you have been around for a little bit, whether or not you aren't any good, you get paid. If you have been around for 3 years or less, it doesn't matter if you are Mike Trout or Zack Cozart, you get paid exactly the same chump change because the veterans long before you decided that is what you get.

That leaves extra money for the veterans to "get theirs" because the guys before them also decided the vets should be paid, so now it is their turn to get the money.

BRM13
02-27-2014, 06:03 PM
I don't agree. There is a reason that Jack Hannahan has a $2M buyout after 2014 and Mike Trout won't have made $2M for his first three full seasons in the Majors.

The veterans set the prices for things and they want the money for themselves because well, they are the ones who get to decide the payscale. It isn't just the superstars getting paid. If you have been around for a little bit, whether or not you aren't any good, you get paid. If you have been around for 3 years or less, it doesn't matter if you are Mike Trout or Zack Cozart, you get paid exactly the same chump change because the veterans long before you decided that is what you get.

That leaves extra money for the veterans to "get theirs" because the guys before them also decided the vets should be paid, so now it is their turn to get the money.


I see your point. There is definitely a tradeoff of the sort you describe; the players union (in pretty much every sport) agrees to wage scales that redistributes money towards veterans and away from younger guys. Hence Trout vs. Hannahan. The recent NFL collective bargaining agreement really moved in this direction, too.

My point was in reference to paying guys tons as they decline in their 30s. This is mostly a phenomenon of longer term contracts that involve an early year/late year tradeoff over the life of the contract. For guys who can't command a big, long term deal, they either have to be able to produce value close to what the veteran wage scale is, or they get replaced by some young guy who is cheaper. So, for the guys living on one and two year deals, they won't really be overpaid too much.

A little bit of this depends on what we think of as 'tons' vs. 'chump change'. In my life, the 'chump change' Zach Cozart or Mike Trout gets paid IS tons. But, in the context of the money generated by MLB it is chump change. So, when thinking about getting paid tons in decline I am thinking of overpaid versus underpaid relative to something like the marginal value of WAR.

REDblooded
02-27-2014, 10:14 PM
I assisted a good friend of mine doing photography for 4 team photo days over the past week. We did Dodgers, A's, Rangers, and Angels… Mike Trout is the only player that walked up to me said, "good morning, how's it going?" and shook my hand… Just seems to be an all-around great kid. Really hoping for the best with him.

dougdirt
02-27-2014, 10:58 PM
I assisted a good friend of mine doing photography for 4 team photo days over the past week. We did Dodgers, A's, Rangers, and Angels… Mike Trout is the only player that walked up to me said, "good morning, how's it going?" and shook my hand… Just seems to be an all-around great kid. Really hoping for the best with him.

Two things.... first, I am extremely jealous. Second, and this one is important, Canon or Nikon. Choose wisely. :lol:

kaldaniels
02-27-2014, 11:10 PM
Just because.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/~/media/AE431FFE43574DDC80EFA012B7B3A66C.ashx?w=251

REDblooded
03-02-2014, 12:37 AM
Two things.... first, I am extremely jealous. Second, and this one is important, Canon or Nikon. Choose wisely. :lol:

I already know your answer.

We're on opposite sides on this one.

My buddy is shooting Canon though. He was the one who got me started on Nikon, but has had too many customer service issues, and Canon is probably going to sponsor him, so it's a no-brainer….

His opinion. Both are great on the upper ends. Nikon has faster/better auto-focus at high speeds. Canon has far superior customer service, and quicker turn-around when problems arise. Canon is also more durable.

RedEye
03-02-2014, 08:38 AM
Sure, I will play that game.

They would require a young, locked up #1 quality pitcher who is at least performing like a good #2. Several top prospects (and from a good system, not just top prospects in a system like the Brewers who don't have anyone in the top 100) and another all-star caliber MLBer with several years of control left.

So... Homer Bailey, Billy Hamilton, Michael Lorenzen and Brandon Phillips. Done and done!

dougdirt
03-02-2014, 02:03 PM
I already know your answer.

We're on opposite sides on this one.

My buddy is shooting Canon though. He was the one who got me started on Nikon, but has had too many customer service issues, and Canon is probably going to sponsor him, so it's a no-brainer….

His opinion. Both are great on the upper ends. Nikon has faster/better auto-focus at high speeds. Canon has far superior customer service, and quicker turn-around when problems arise. Canon is also more durable.

What are you guys shooting with? I would peg him with a 1DX. D4 on your end?

The reason I went with Canon when I upgraded to more of a true prosumer body was the lenses.

I remember you were shooting Nikon last year, I was hoping you had been converted lol

dougdirt
03-02-2014, 02:04 PM
So... Homer Bailey, Billy Hamilton, Michael Lorenzen and Brandon Phillips. Done and done!

I don't think Lorenzen is a good enough prospect. I don't think Phillips works either because of his contract.

Chip R
03-02-2014, 03:35 PM
Here's one reason young players don't get paid as much as veterans: Past performance. A guy like Mike Trout comes up and has a fabulous season. First of all his team doesn't have to pay him $10M a year. Secondly, it could be a fluke. Anyone who has followed baseball for a significant amount of time has seen flash in the pan rookies come up and put up great numbers and then for whatever reason, their performance goes in the toilet and they are never the same again. You could sign a player like that to a big money, long term deal but the contract is guaranteed. It isn't the NFL where you can sign a guy and cut him or restructure his salary after a few years. I think GMs are reluctant to give very young players a lot of money. Liquor, pills, drugs, fast cars, fast women, bad business decisions, etc. Then there is the theory that a long term contract makes a player less hungry.

Veteran players are more reliable. Past performance predicts future results. They are closer in age to the managers, coaches and front office personnel. The drawbacks about veteran players is that you may be paying for what they did in the past. They are more prone to injury and even if they aren't injured, you don't know when their skills will go south. It may be a gradual decline or they may fall off a cliff.

dougdirt
03-02-2014, 03:58 PM
Here's one reason young players don't get paid as much as veterans: Past performance. A guy like Mike Trout comes up and has a fabulous season. First of all his team doesn't have to pay him $10M a year. Secondly, it could be a fluke. Anyone who has followed baseball for a significant amount of time has seen flash in the pan rookies come up and put up great numbers and then for whatever reason, their performance goes in the toilet and they are never the same again. You could sign a player like that to a big money, long term deal but the contract is guaranteed. It isn't the NFL where you can sign a guy and cut him or restructure his salary after a few years. I think GMs are reluctant to give very young players a lot of money. Liquor, pills, drugs, fast cars, fast women, bad business decisions, etc. Then there is the theory that a long term contract makes a player less hungry.

Veteran players are more reliable. Past performance predicts future results. They are closer in age to the managers, coaches and front office personnel. The drawbacks about veteran players is that you may be paying for what they did in the past. They are more prone to injury and even if they aren't injured, you don't know when their skills will go south. It may be a gradual decline or they may fall off a cliff.

I understand the flash in the pan rookies.... but there is a difference between paying them $100M at age 22 for the next 8 years and paying them more than $500,000 each year for their first three years no matter how good or bad they are, which is what happens.

RedEye
03-03-2014, 12:27 AM
I don't think Lorenzen is a good enough prospect. I don't think Phillips works either because of his contract.

Homer Bailey, Billy Hamilton, Robert Stephenson and Todd Frazier.

RedsManRick
03-03-2014, 12:49 AM
Veteran players are more reliable. Past performance predicts future results. They are closer in age to the managers, coaches and front office personnel. The drawbacks about veteran players is that you may be paying for what they did in the past. They are more prone to injury and even if they aren't injured, you don't know when their skills will go south. It may be a gradual decline or they may fall off a cliff.

I wonder just how true this is. I imagine you hit the ceiling about skill-level certainty pretty quickly in to a guy's career. How much more certain are you about his next 600 PA because he's got 4 seasons of track record instead of 3?

And as a guy gets more of a performance track record, he's also adding wear and tear.

Once you account for the increasing likelihood of injury over time and the always present uncertainty about natural skill grown & decline over time, that veteran certainty you describe may be more psychological than actual.

I'd be really curious to see if PECOTA's percentile projections show a pattern in the spread of likely outcomes. I wouldn't be surprised to see that, generally speaking, it narrows for the first 3 seasons or so, plateaus for a few years and then progressively widens throughout the reaminder of the guy's career.

kaldaniels
03-03-2014, 12:53 AM
Homer Bailey, Billy Hamilton, Robert Stephenson and Todd Frazier.

If I'm the Angels, and I'm not too concerned about payroll....

Bailey, Bruce, and Stephenson might motivate me enough to crunch some numbers and come up with a counter-offer.

(Fun hypothetical I must say)

REDblooded
03-03-2014, 01:29 AM
What are you guys shooting with? I would peg him with a 1DX. D4 on your end?

The reason I went with Canon when I upgraded to more of a true prosumer body was the lenses.

I remember you were shooting Nikon last year, I was hoping you had been converted lol

He's using a 1DX… I'm using a D600, but borrow his D800 from time to time. Don't have the extra $$$ to upgrade to the D4 at this time. The D600 has been a very solid full-frame camera for me though.