Saturday, March 02, 2013
Angels renew Mike Trout’s contract for $510,000; agent stunned
(www.latimes.com)
posted on March 02, 2013 at 04:30 PM by Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim to angels, mike trout, shocked, shocked
|
297 comment(s)
... when Trout was assigned a salary of $510,000 on Saturday, a mere $20,000 above the major league minimum, after winning American League rookie of the year honors and finishing second in voting for most valuable player last season, Craig Landis was stunned.
“During the process, on behalf of Mike, I asked only that the Angels compensate Mike fairly for his historic 2012 season, given his service time,” Landis, who represents Trout, said in an email. “In my opinion, this contract falls well short of a ‘fair’ contract, and I have voiced this to the Angels throughout the process.”
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 1 of 6 pages
1 2 3 4 5 6 >As for Landis' quotes, they were measured compared to what he could have said. But Craig (# 1 draft pick by the Giants in 1977 with a $ 100,000 bonus) is the son of outfielder Jim Landis and knows how the process works. When Craig and Trout get the power (partially via arbitration and fully via free agency), the Angels' GM at that time will be reminded.
Throw the kid $1 million.
And he would be reminded of that even if gave Trout $20 million this year.
But now, Trout will take glee in using his power.
"Mr. Moreno, you and I are gonna be partners."
Exactly, I know it's best to imagine that it would be nice if teams would do what's "right" but it's not like players have a history of rewarding teams who treat them well.
All the Angels did is make it easier for Trout to leave the team in 6 years, and for the fans to say "I understand why he left them".
For that matter, he should be the CF "just because". Keep your best player happy.
Play without him. Does he have another source of employment that will pay him half a million a year? I'm not saying I agree with the Angels. They should've paid him a good sum for a second year man - one million, maybe a little more - but they can't negotiate with a gun to their heads.
But it's more than that. Give him a million now, and you can't pay him less than that next year. Then his next year salary will be based off of that, and so on until free agency (assuming it gets that far. Point is, an extra half mil now may end up costing them many millions more over the next 5 years. Still, relative chump change in the overall scheme of things, but considerably more than a mere half mil.
They'd never go.
Is the 500k going to save you that much later on? You could probably convince me that's the case as he goes through his arb years, that he'll be more likely to settle or agree to arb year buyouts, instead of taking you to the mat every time you go in front of an arbiter. But when it comes time for him to test FA, I'm not seeing how he'll take anything but the biggest deal out there, making any goodwill you attempt to purchase worth nothing.
If there's a 1% chance it puts the Angels in a worse position to sign him, one way to think about it is that the Angels need only pay Trout less than $50 million extra when it's time to sign him to make not tossing him an extra 500k the right move.
And what Misirlou wrote in post 17. If this ends up costing the Angels $5m, what leverage does that give them? Is Trout really not going to the highest bidder?
The USFL threw enough cash at Herschel Walker, Reggie White, Doug Flutie, Jim Kelly and Steve Young. This alternate baseball league will get players, especially if MLB owners are dumb enough to keep thinking they can pay so little. Whether the league would last is a completely different story.
They'd never go.
Harper's already signed through 2015. He made $500,000 last year, and will make $2,000,000, $2,150,000 and $2,250,000 for the next three years. He's also said that he wants to finish his career as a Nat, and given all factors I wouldn't bet against it.
Well sure, already signed guys wouldn't go, but the next 19 year old good enough for the majors could make a lot more than that if there was a second league. And I'll take that bet as soon as the Dodgers let his agent know what they'd be willing to pay for his services.
I do think this was a little pennywise, pound foolish myself.
These aren't really "rewards." The team is getting the player for millions less than his market value. Which is certainly their right under the CBA, but let's not pretend these teams went above and beyond here, to any meaningful degree.
But everyone should remember, the next time the media gripes about "greedy ballplayers," that these players often make far less than their market value for several years. If Trout gets hurt next year, he is effectively screwed, even if the Angels were to give him $1 mil now.
Tough noogies Mr. Trout? And I'm not saying what Moreno's doing here isn't shortsighted, penny-wise, etc.
You mean he'd have to finish college and get a shi**y job like us? :-(
Sure, but if I'm Trout, I don't sign away a single FA year.
There are very, very few career ending injuries for position players.
Do away with the minimum salary while you're at it.
It would probably be meaningful to the player. $300k is not chump change.
That's a thought, too.
Good point.
Trout only go a $1.2M bonus. An extra few hundred grand might well be meaningful to him right now.
What the hell were they thinking?
It'd be a helluva PR move. Get my attention at least.
The minimum salary is not the issue, #29 has it. Do away with the player's union altogether if you're going to strip MLB down to a pure market.
Well, the system was set up nearly 40 years ago before all but a few of the current players were born. True, most of the current vets have been around for 1-2 renegotiations and could have pushed for changing it but it's not like they set out to create this system. And of course with every CBA, the min salary goes up.
It would probably be meaningful to the player. $300k is not chump change.
This is presumably one of the main attractions to the player of the early buyout. Salvador Perez made $750 last year and will make $1 M this year. But that is one very team-friendly contract.
Sure, but if I'm Trout, I don't sign away a single FA year
If the price is right, there's no harm in doing this. As is, he'll hit FA at 26, no major harm in that being pushed back to 27-28.
$30M per year? That's what you'd have to offer for him to think it was a good deal for his first FA year, I'd think,
Which is funny, because Peter Bourjos is a dead ringer for Jim Landis, and Craig Landis is also complaining about Trout moving to LF to make way for Bourjos!
I prefer to keep your best player healthy, and your best team on the field. Both of which goals are better served by putting Trout in LF & Bourjos in center.
Since when is CF a risky position to play? Given that he's a natural CF, I'd say he's more at risk in LF.
I think it's very interesting that the Angels and Nationals are both doing the same thing here. Each has a very young superstar capable of playing a good CF, and both teams are choosing to move the player to LF to keep him healthier. Maybe CF is being viewed as a risky position, at least in the long term. And when you think of guys who played CF in the majors from 19 or 20 or 21 onward, it does seem to have some truth to it. Griffey's legs fell apart. Andruw's knees went bad (partially due to the extra weight he started carrying, but how much due to all those innings in CF too?). Carlos Beltran also starting having significant knee issues in his 30s. Sure, there are some counterexamples, but it definitely looks like teams are starting to view it as a risky position for superstar hitters.
If Super Joe Charboneau knew how to use a computer and wasn't too drunk to type, he'd have something to say to you right now.
No one is crying for Mike Trout, they are just astounded at how dumb the Angels are.
We're at a different stage for salaries, though. To be competitive a new league might need 8 teams, and to field major league caliber competition with a few stars, payroll for the league would have to top half a billion a year. Would existing stadiums, the second tier of them that aren't beholden to ML teams, then seat enough people to make the new league profitable? I suppose a lot of it comes down to the tv contract. I'm also sure someone's done the math on this in great and elaborate detail...
Page 1 of 6 pages
1 2 3 4 5 6 >You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.