Ray (RDP)...is so naive and silly I don't know what to make of it.

Fixed!

i said 750K - close enough.

Yeah, but the specificity of $810k makes it sound like someone making an exact claim. $750k is a ballpark figure.

So let's say next year the Angels offer Trout a Longoria-type 10 year contract, a contract which Trout agrees is absolutely in his best interests to sign

Trout would be insane to agree to a Longoria contract. The idea that Trout should accept making $20M 8 years from now is ludicrous

If the Angels want him to sign a 10-year deal, the bidding should start closer to $200M than $100M.

Yeah, but the specificity of $810k makes it sound like someone making an exact claim. $750k is a ballpark figure.

I said $1M. I think breaking seven figures is a nice symbol of how special Trout is.

and if he's that irrational you don't want him anyway to be a compelling argument?

I never said the bolded part.

no, you said:

As I said, anyone who would hold a grudge over this, such that it will affect his decision to sign a multi-million-dollar deal to buy out some of his arbitration or FA years in exchange for the certainty that he will earn at least some huge amount of money as a hedge against him getting hurt or sucky is not being rational.

and

If he's offended by this, he's being irrational, so trying to appease someone by predicting the ways in which they will be irrational so that you can respond is a fool's game.

and maybe I read something into it that's not there, but then again you have a history (where A + B =0) of saying "A" and also saying "B" but denying that you agree with "C."

Trout would be insane to agree to a Longoria contract. The idea that Trout should accept making $20M 8 years from now is ludicrous

This may sound heretical, but what if Trout is more Vada Pinson or Cesar Cedeño than Rickey or AROD? I agree with you, but mostly because nobody knows where baseball salaries are going, and they may have absurd heights left to climb that would make a now-big 10-year contract look absurdly undervalued in eight years. But the young man has played 179 major-league games. If he would suddenly accept a truly huge amount of guaranteed money, I wouldn't be shocked.

I'd just guard against the tendency to think we know beyond a doubt how a player's career will trend. Jason Heyward is still trying to get back to where he was in 2010. (And last year, his third year, and quite a good one, he made all of $565K.)

and maybe I read something into it that's not there, but then again you have a history (where A + B =0) of saying "A" and also saying "B" but denying that you agree with "C."

Just agree that I didn't say it, because I didn't. To make up things that I "said" and then when called on it stoop to this ridiculous and dishonest double down is beneath you.

Just agree that I didn't say it, because I didn't. To make up things that I "said" and then when called on it stoop to this ridiculous and dishonest double down is beneath you.

I read it as you wouldn't want to appease the irrational, but you never said you wouldn't want someone on the team because of it.

I read it as 'you can't do anything to predict/appease irrational actors', as opposed to that you wouldn't want to. Mind you, I've got several issues with either intrepretation, as we've collectively beaten to death.

As for a Longoria style deal, we should distinguish between long term deals for guys who are early into their careers and the specific Longoria deal (which was thought to be a bold move, but a very likely team win on day 1 - a point at which Evan hadn't accomplished virtually anything as a big leaguer ... while Trout is already arguably the best player in baseball).

As I said, anyone who would hold a grudge over this, such that it will affect his decision to sign a multi-million-dollar deal to buy out some of his arbitration or FA years in exchange for the certainty that he will earn at least some huge amount of money as a hedge against him getting hurt or sucky is not being rational.


and

If he's offended by this, he's being irrational, so trying to appease someone by predicting the ways in which they will be irrational so that you can respond is a fool's game.

I don't think we can accuse Ray of making the "If he's that irrational then who wants him?" argument based on those quotes. My issue is that even if we take those quotes at face value, what are we to make of it? Ok, the Angels win the rational behavior contest and Mike Trout is acting irrationally. So what? There are no trophies for that. As long as Mike Trout's performance is remotely close to his 2012 season, you want him on your team. You can't necessarily buy a replacement on the FA market; there probably won't be a replacement. And doing anything that's going to lessen your chances of him taking your $300M over the Yankees/Dodgers/BoSox $300M is probably a bad idea.

Just agree that I didn't say it, because I didn't. To make up things that I "said" and then when called on it stoop to this ridiculous and dishonest double down is beneath you.

Fine just to make you happy, you did not say that if Trout is pissed off he's irrational and that you shouldn't
want him if he's irrational and my statement that you said that was wrong.

Feel free to admit that the following statement of yours was also wrong:

If precedent is your answer, then there's plenty of precedent for paying a second year player -- even a good one -- barely the major league minimum. Teams do it all the time. There have been a few mild exceptions -- you have to go back 10 and 15 years to find some of them, to include Jeter and Pujols -- but so what? The precendent is to pay the player the minimum or barely above.

So precedent can't be your answer. There's _more_ precedent for what the Angels did.

Exactly.

So let's say next year the Angels offer Trout a Longoria-type 10 year contract, a contract which Trout agrees is absolutely in his best interests to sign but he's still pissed about the $510K. The idea that Trout would tell them no because of the $510K is so naive and silly I don't know what to make of it.

Or after his free agent year Trout is offered a competitive contract by the Angels. He and his family are happy in LA; he likes the team, the city, the schools. And yet he says "Never! The $510K! The $510K!"

Or the flip side: The Angels give him $810K this year. Five years later, a number of teams make competitive FA offers to Trout, including the Angels. The Dodgers come in $30 million higher and he'd like to sign with them, is okay with leaving the Angels. But he says to himself, "You know, the $810K. I'm going to leave the $30M on the table and go back to the Angels even though I'm fine with leaving."

Okay, whatever.


Exactly this. The "lost" money here is a lintspeck on a rounding error on Trout's next contract. It means literally nothing and will have literally no impact on Trout's future decisions. It's mind-boggling that people think it will.

And he's not "mad" -- the agent is.

And the agent is absolutely already negotiating years down the road.

Trout has every right not to sign that contract and not to play, should he actually feel so strongly about it.

Exactly this. The "lost" money here is a lintspeck on a rounding error on Trout's next contract. It means literally nothing and will have literally no impact on Trout's future decisions. It's mind-boggling that people think it will.

And he's not "mad" -- the agent is.

His agent wouldn't be "mad" if Trout wasn't.

If the money is such a "lintspeck", why not give it to him?

Why might not Trout say, "Arte Moreno lowballed me, I'll take the Dodgers' obscene offer instead"? Once he hits FA, the offers will be so large and numerous, that he can indulge his spite (if he has any) with zero consequences.

Why might not Trout say, "Arte Moreno lowballed me, I'll take the Dodgers' obscene offer instead"?

If the Dodgers' offer is obscene, he's probably taking that regardless.

Why would he let the non-issue of $510K drive important future decisions, not only financial decisions with millions of dollars at stake but also decisions as to where he would want to move with his family, lifestyle decisions, whether he likes the team and is comfortable with the Angels, etc.

Snapper, come on. This is silliness of the highest order.

(And who knows if the same owner/GM/manager will even be in place in 5 years. The people involved in this decision may be long gone.)

If the Dodgers' offer is obscene, he's probably taking that regardless.

Why would he let the non-issue of $510K drive important future decisions, not only financial decisions with millions of dollars at stake but also decisions as to where he would want to move with his family, lifestyle decisions, whether he likes the team and is comfortable with the Angels, etc.

Snapper, come on. This is silliness of the highest order.

If the Dodgers and Angels both have equivalent offers on the table, do you really think how the Angels have treated him won't effect Trout's decision?

If my boss screwed me out of $5000 I thought I had coming, it would absolutely effect my employment decisions going forward, and my likelihood of seeking or accepting other offers.

If your boss arbitrarily reduced your pay, that wouldn't make you more likely to jump to another firm?

In a negotiation involving hundreds of millions of dollars, involving comfort with the organization, with the location, with your family, $510K vs. $1M half a decade earlier has virtually no effect. It is so far down the line as to be meaningless.

Maybe Trout is appreciative of the fact that they aggressively promoted him to the majors to begin with, which allowed him the opportunity to become an instant star, which allowed him to earn more money than he would have had they kept him in the minors longer, which allowed him to start his ML service time clock, which will allow him to reach his maximum earning potential quicker. Yes, the team did this for its own interests, but they still did it; other organizations aren't always so quick.

Obsessing over the $510K... it's a too-narrow reading of many different factors. And concluding that it will drive his decisionmaking down the line amidst a sea of other factors is the conclusion of someone who isn't thinking this through.

If the Dodgers and Angels both have equivalent offers on the table, do you really think how the Angels have treated him won't effect Trout's decision?

Even if it does have an impact on Trout's decision, couldn't the Angels just offer more money to offset whatever bad will Trout might have? How much extra do you think the Angels would have to offer to counter the ill-will of not giving him an extra 100K?

If the Dodgers and Angels both have equivalent offers on the table, do you really think how the Angels have treated him won't effect Trout's decision?

If my boss screwed me out of $5000 I thought I had coming, it would absolutely effect my employment decisions going forward, and my likelihood of seeking or accepting other offers.

If your boss arbitrarily reduced your pay, that wouldn't make you more likely to jump to another firm?

snapper, you have to realize that Ray thinks that human beings are robots, and that they either must follow the same "logical" thought pattern that he does, or else they've been "irrationally" programmed.

As everyone else has noted, it's not that we can "know" that Trout will remember this petty bit of cheapness half a decade from now---chances are that either he won't or that it'll be overridden by other considerations---it's that for the piddling amount of a few hundred thousand dollars, the Angels were willing to take the small risk that he might, with no upside and a calamitous if unlikely downside. But then Ray's 100% inability ever to think outside his own self-defined box has been his most consistent trait ever since he first began posting here, and shouldn't surprise anyone.

His agent wouldn't be "mad" if Trout wasn't.

There seems to be a widespread assumption in this thread that Mike Trout is likely to be angry, if not furious, with the Angels, but is there any evidence of that being true? If there is, I haven't seen it. (Admittedly, I haven't gone looking; I've just seen the agent quoted in a few stories.)

My initial impression of this story is that it was mostly performance art on the part of the agent, who undoubtedly (1) knows the Angels were unlikely to give more than a token increase above the renewal number; (2) wants, if not feels great pressure, to get an excellent long-term deal done ASAP; and (3) knows that one Scott Boras has a luxury box roughly 30 feet from the Angels' on-deck circle.

Mike Trout's been a millionaire since age 18 and he'll make over $500,000 this year at age 21. This whole thing is probably far more important to the agent than it is to Trout, whose life is essentially one big carnival right now.

There seems to be a widespread assumption in this thread that Mike Trout is likely to be angry, if not furious, with the Angels, but is there any evidence of that being true? If there is, I haven't seen it. (Admittedly, I haven't gone looking; I've just seen the agent quoted in a few stories.)

That's not the assumption at all. The assumption held by nearly everyone except Ray is that while we have no way of knowing Trout's actual reaction, it was penny wise and possibly guinea foolish for the Angels to assume that he was fine with the bare minimum that they're paying him.

Obsessing over the $510K... it's a too-narrow reading of many different factors. And concluding that it will drive his decisionmaking down the line amidst a sea of other factors is the conclusion of someone who isn't thinking this through.

I doubt anyone has said that (though whether anyone begs you to take it back is another matter). Folks have said that it could play a role in future decision making by Trout, so being cheap now could hurt the Angels down the road. Thus, a bad risk to take.

And, as I noted earlier, if you truly believe that this paltry sum now will make no difference in Trout's thinking, then the Angels giving him anything above the minimum was, to quote a friend, irrational. But you haven't made that argument.

There seems to be a widespread assumption in this thread that Mike Trout is likely to be angry, if not furious, with the Angels

That's not it, really. It's that he could be made at the Angels. Like TGF repeatedly noted, we don't know how Trout actually feels about this stuff, but the Angels are treating him differently than other top rookies normally get treated in order to save a small amount of money. IMO, it isn't worth the risk.

That's not the assumption at all. The assumption held by nearly everyone except Ray is that while we have no way of knowing Trout's actual reaction, it was penny wise and possibly guinea foolish for the Angels to assume that he was fine with the bare minimum that they're paying him.

The only way this was "penny wise and guinea foolish" is if Trout was likely to be angry with the renewal to the point of it poisoning the well for the long term, which is an assumption currently unsupported by evidence.

I'm guessing the agent is far more worried about losing Trout than Trout is worried about the $100,000 or $200,000 he might have lost by being renewed rather than agreeing to terms. (I wouldn't be surprised if the Angels offered a 1997 Jeter-type deal, the agent wanted more, and the Angels renewed at the lower amount, which is S.O.P. when it comes to renewals. If so, the agent could be more to blame than the Angels.)

I wouldn't be surprised if the Angels offered a 1997 Jeter-type deal, the agent wanted more, and the Angels renewed at the lower amount, which is S.O.P. when it comes to renewals. If so, the agent could be more to blame than the Angels.

1997 Jeter was a 1-year deal, wasn't it? If the team gets to pick the number, why does the agent's desires even factor into it? If you're willing to pay him, e.g., $1M and the agent objects, why not just pay him the $1M you're willing to pay him anyway?

Again, it seems foolish to spite someone for $500k.

...If so, the agent could be more to blame than the Angels.

Sure - that doesn't seem outlandish either. But if that does happen, do you renew at 510?

That's not the assumption at all. The assumption held by nearly everyone except Ray is that while we have no way of knowing Trout's actual reaction, it was penny wise and possibly guinea foolish for the Angels to assume that he was fine with the bare minimum that they're paying him.

The only way this was "penny wise and guinea foolish" is if Trout was likely to be angry with the renewal to the point of it poisoning the well for the long term, which is an assumption currently unsupported by evidence.

Joe, if it turns out that Trout doesn't care, or won't ever let it affect his decision down the line when it really matters, then the Angels have saved a few hundred thousand bucks. Big Whoops.

But if that's not the case---and at this point there's no evidence either for or against it---the Angels could well be out a lot more than a few hundred thousand dollars. It's just a totally unnecessary gamble.

Now if Good Face's thoughts about this are correct, and the Angels already know that Trout doesn't care, then it's a bit surprising that nobody---either the Angels or Trout himself---has come forward to puncture this balloon. But as of now the agent's statement is just sitting there, and causing many people to wonder what's going on. I certainly can't see any upside to that.

Now if Good Face's thoughts about this are correct, and the Angels already know that Trout doesn't care, then it's a bit surprising that nobody---either the Angels or Trout himself---has come forward to puncture this balloon. But as of now the agent's statement is just sitting there, and causing many people to wonder what's going on. I certainly can't see any upside to that.

You really think Trout is going to upbraid his agent in public? And the Angels have nothing to gain by commenting on this.

1997 Jeter was a 1-year deal, wasn't it? If the team gets to pick the number, why does the agent's desires even factor into it? If you're willing to pay him, e.g., $1M and the agent objects, why not just pay him the $1M you're willing to pay him anyway?

Because the Angels were under no obligation to pay him $1M. If the Angels offered more than a normal renewal but the agent said no, then that's on the agent. It would be foolish for the Angels to give the higher amount anyway. All that would have done is make the Angels look spineless.

***

Sure - that doesn't seem outlandish either. But if that does happen, do you renew at 510?

Maybe; it depends on what was being discussed. If the Angels offered $750,000 or $1M and the agent said no, then what? Whether the Angels renewed at $510,000 or $550,000 or $600,000, it was still going to be a story.

***

Joe, if it turns out that Trout doesn't care, or won't ever let it affect his decision down the line when it really matters, then the Angels have saved a few hundred thousand bucks. Big Whoops.

But if that's not the case---and at this point there's no evidence either for or against it---the Angels could well be out a lot more than a few hundred thousand dollars.

Andy, that last sentence is precisely my point. The Angels know Mike Trout a lot better than a bunch of commenters on the internet. It seems absurd to assume the Angels would be so cavalier as to possibly anger their best player. It's also absurd to assume the agent is telling the whole story. For all we know, the Angels offered $750,000 but the agent played "chicken," and now, after the Angels played hardball, he's protesting loudly to cover for the money he might have cost Trout.

Until we get the slightest hint that Trout himself is angry, this seems like a non-story.

Now if Good Face's thoughts about this are correct, and the Angels already know that Trout doesn't care, then it's a bit surprising that nobody---either the Angels or Trout himself---has come forward to puncture this balloon. But as of now the agent's statement is just sitting there, and causing many people to wonder what's going on. I certainly can't see any upside to that.

And of course, there is zero chance that Trout doesn't care right now. A few hundred thousand would make a difference in his lifestyle right now, if he so chose. He might not care in 5 years is the point. Ray and the Angels are wagering that there won't be a situation where a little bit of good will would make a difference in what Trout does. And that's the most likely case. But there are cases where players hold slights for years and sign elsewhere because of them. And there are cases where players have good feelings towards a team, and end up signing for less than they could get elsewhere. Paying Trout what a mediocre 2nd year player would get, has a small chance of making him feel slighted in years to come. And it stands a small chance of making him unlikely to give a home team discount in the future. As others have pointed out, both those things are real phenomenons, even if not incredibly frequent. But the Angels actions are not going to make the first less likely, or the second more likely. The best that can be hoped is that it would have no effect on something that we KNOW happens occasionally. So why would the Angels do it, to save way under 1% of their payroll?

But the Angels actions are not going to make the first less likely, or the second more likely. The best that can be hoped is that it would have no effect on something that we KNOW happens occasionally. So why would the Angels do it, to save way under 1% of their payroll?

This is speculation. As you said in the beginning of your comment, "A few hundred thousand would make a difference in his lifestyle right now, if he so chose." That extra money, potentially compounded over several pre-arb years, could just as easily make him more willing and able to go year to year with his contract rather than sign a long-term deal in 2013 or '14.

Andy, that last sentence is precisely my point. The Angels know Mike Trout a lot better than a bunch of commenters on the internet. It seems absurd to assume the Angels would be so cavalier as to possibly anger their best player. It's also absurd to assume the agent is telling the whole story. For all we know, the Angels offered $750,000 but the agent played "chicken," and now, after the Angels played hardball, he's protesting loudly to cover for the money he might have cost Trout.

Until we get the slightest hint that Trout himself is angry, this seems like a non-story.

But then why hasn't either Trout or the Angels come forward to correct the agent's misinterpretation, which right now is the only version of the story out there?

But then why hasn't either Trout or the Angels come forward to correct the agent's misinterpretation, which right now is the only version of the story out there?

Why would either Trout or the Angels want to do so? If the Angels offered Trout more than the number at which they renewed him, then Trout would look dumb and/or greedy by publicly confirming that, and the Angels would gain nothing from making the player and agent look bad. (Per the linked article, the agent complained about the renewal, but he didn't say that the $510,000 was the Angels' best offer, so there's really no "misinterpretation" that needs correcting.)

That extra money, potentially compounded over several pre-arb years, could just as easily make him more willing and able to go year to year with his contract rather than sign a long-term deal in 2013 or '14.

So your speculation is that behaving in such a manner that someone who is highly competitive (like virtually all pro athletes) might find insulting is likely to lead to a team favorable result?

Let me ask which is more likely, if you had to choose one or the other. You pay your star as you would a mediocre second year player, and in fact less than other teams would pay him. Realistically, is the player more likely to commit to the team long term, or less?

Personally, I see no plausible scenario where that makes the player more likely to commit long term. It's not the case that he's going to be paid low wages regardless. Nor is it the case that the difference between say $750k and $510k is enough to make him feel more secure for his future if he gets injured badly enough to not make it to a big payout. Assuming that Trout acts like a significant number of pro athletes do, he will however feel insulted by being paid barely above the minimum, when he just had a fantastic season. Maybe Trout is the rare pro athlete who doesn't have pride tied up into things like that - but you have no reason to believe that - and in fact the Angels have no reason to believe that either. It's much better to assume that Trout has a normal ego, and not needlessly bruise it when you have all the power - because later on he will have the power and might remember it.

But then why hasn't either Trout or the Angels come forward to correct the agent's misinterpretation, which right now is the only version of the story out there?

Why would either Trout or the Angels want to do so? If the Angels offered Trout more than the number at which they renewed him, then Trout would look dumb and/or greedy by publicly confirming that,

I fail to see how a player coming off Trout's 2012 season asking for more than $510,000 would make him look either dumb or greedy. And as it stands, the Angels are looking like a bunch of nits who may be risking alienating their best player, with no upside beyond saving what amounts to chump change.

Andy, that last sentence is precisely my point. The Angels know Mike Trout a lot better than a bunch of commenters on the internet. It seems absurd to assume the Angels would be so cavalier as to possibly anger their best player. It's also absurd to assume the agent is telling the whole story. For all we know, the Angels offered $750,000 but the agent played "chicken," and now, after the Angels played hardball, he's protesting loudly to cover for the money he might have cost Trout.

Yeah, I can't see how Trout wouldn't hold that against the Angels. "Sure, Mike we were willing to pay you $750,000, but your agent pissed us off, so instead we're only giving you a few bucks more than the minimum. Isn't he a dick?"

So your speculation is that behaving in such a manner that someone who is highly competitive (like virtually all pro athletes) might find insulting is likely to lead to a team favorable result?

Did you read Trout's quotes in the linked article? He doesn't sound the least bit perturbed by this.

The idea that the Angels might have poisoned the well is pure speculation. Frankly, such speculation would be better saved for the CF vs. LF issue, which potentially could affect Trout's wallet far more than his 2013 renewal.

Let me ask which is more likely, if you had to choose one or the other. You pay your star as you would a mediocre second year player, and in fact less than other teams would pay him. Realistically, is the player more likely to commit to the team long term, or less?

The Angels aren't paying Trout like a "mediocre second-year player"; they're paying him like a second-year player. And, again, as far as any of us know, the Angels offered a much better contract than the $510,000 renewal.

***

I fail to see how a player coming off Trout's 2012 season asking for more than $510,000 would make him look either dumb or greedy. And as it stands, the Angels are looking like a bunch of nits who may be risking alienating their best player, with no upside beyond saving what amounts to chump change.

Yes, according to a bunch of internet commenters who have zero personal knowledge of, or experience with, Mike Trout.

The assumption that the Angels handled this in the most stupid manner possible shows an incredible amount of bad faith, even by BBTF standards.

Yeah, I can't see how Trout wouldn't hold that against the Angels. "Sure, Mike we were willing to pay you $750,000, but your agent pissed us off, so instead we're only giving you a few bucks more than the minimum. Isn't he a dick?"

The renewal process isn't like arbitration, where players know they win even when they lose. If Trout wanted the (hypothetical) $750,000, he would have agreed to it before he was renewed.

The renewal process isn't like arbitration, where players know they win even when they lose. If Trout wanted the (hypothetical) $750,000, he would have agreed to it before he was renewed.

I'm pretty damn sure he would have preferred it to the $510,000 they stuck him with.

They could renew him at any figure. He has no leverage. They chose to renew him at a rate barely above the minimum, which, as JSLF demonstrated, is completely inconsistent with the way teams pay guys coming off great rookie years (and none of those guys were close to having the rookie season Trout just had). Unless Mike Trout's agent was simply going rogue here, asking for Trout to be compensated at a level the player himself didn't care about, then it's pretty damn reasonable to think that Trout wanted a little more financial recognition for the season he had. It's not a great leap from there to think that the Angels failure to follow through could, repeat could, sour Trout's impression of the organization.

But if the agent wasn't really representing Mike's interests, then or now, then Mr. Trout should be finding himself another agent. Until then, I'm going to assume that Mike Trout's employee is not just spouting off to protect his own interests.

The assumption that the Angels handled this in the most stupid manner possible shows an incredible amount of bad faith, even by BBTF standards.

That is utter bs. There is a long history of how competitive athletes are about salary. It is not bad faith to believe it likely (not certain, but but likely) that Trout has at least some of that competitiveness. It is ridiculous to assume (as you are doing) that he has none. Very few athletes make it to the top levels without possessing a large degree of competitiveness, which is NOT normally limited to just their particular sport.

What most of us are arguing is that there's a real, non-zero chance that he possesses such competitiveness, and as such might be insulted by being renewed at a tiny raise, despite his very significant on the field accomplishments.

The Angels aren't paying Trout like a "mediocre second-year player"; they're paying him like a second-year player.

Well,no they aren't. Or are you saying that most teams give just a few percentage point raise to second year players who were stars their rookie seasons? Because people have posted evidence otherwise. Add in that the Angels are not a small budget team, and the difference is even more glaring.

They chose to renew him at a rate barely above the minimum, which, as JSLF demonstrated, is completely inconsistent with the way teams pay guys coming off great rookie years (and none of those guys were close to having the rookie season Trout just had).

The more important list is the one of players who were so angered by being renewed that it soured the player on the team. That one's very short, if non-existent.

That is utter bs. There is a long history of how competitive athletes are about salary. It is not bad faith to believe it likely (not certain, but but likely) that Trout has at least some of that competitiveness. It is ridiculous to assume (as you are doing) that he has none. Very few athletes make it to the top levels without possessing a large degree of competitiveness, which is NOT normally limited to just their particular sport.

Your various arguments seem to be at cross purposes. If Trout is ultra-competitive about his salary, then the Angels giving him an extra $100,000 in 2013 isn't going to stop him from trying to take his place at the top of the MLB salary heap when he's eligible for free agency.

Well,no they aren't. Or are you saying that most teams give just a few percentage point raise to second year players who were stars their rookie seasons? Because people have posted evidence otherwise. Add in that the Angels are not a small budget team, and the difference is even more glaring.

The list of such second-year players didn't even reach double digits, did it? And again, for about the tenth time, no one here knows what the Angels offered.

The more important list is the one of players who were so angered by being renewed that it soured the player on the team. That one's very short, if non-existent.

And you would know this how? You would know that the perception of an early salary slight never once factored into how the player handled future negotiations with the team? Oh, that's right, that truth exists only in your fevered mind.

We do know, as akrasian notes, that players frequently keep score by salary. That how they're compensated can be seen as a sign of respect. We know this becuase THEY say it, which is just a teensy bit more important than what YOU say.

Mike Trout's been a millionaire since age 18

I doubt it. He got a 1.2 million dollar signing bonus, which he had to pay taxes on. New Jersey has fairly high tax rates, so all told he probably paid 40-45% of that bonus. Then you have to assume he's spending some of that money, while making very little in the minors for the 2009-2011 seasons. He probably passed the million mark of net worth sometime last year, not necessarily through baseball salary, but when the endorsements came in.

Did you read Trout's quotes in the linked article? He doesn't sound the least bit perturbed by this.

This matters 0%. That's why you have an agent - to let him be the bad cop while you play the aw-shucks-I-just-want-to-help-the-team guy. Believe it or not, the agent is very most likely telling Trout to say just that, while letting him (the agent) be the #######. That's the way it works - that way you get your message out there (I'm ticked about my salary) while still maintaining your good guy image with the fans and advertisers.

This notion that Trout doesn't care about a few hundred thousand dollars is completely cuckoo bird. Everybody in the world, no matter what their tax bracket, cares about a couple hundred thousand dollars. They care about numbers significantly lower than that. I've seen multi-multi-multi millionaires go crazy over 5k. Bill Gates would go to war over $300k if he felt he deserved it. And Mike Trout is hardly Bill Gates.

And you would know this how? You would know that the perception of an early salary slight never once factored into how the player handled future negotiations with the team? Oh, that's right, that truth exists only in your fevered mind.

This is funny, coming from someone who seems convinced that Trout is angry about the renewal, despite little or no evidence in support of such a belief. Even more oddly, it appears you also believe there are players who were so angry about being renewed that they made a point to leave their teams because of it, but then kept totally quiet about it. Very strange set of beliefs.

We do know, as akrasian notes, that players frequently keep score by salary. That how they're compensated can be seen as a sign of respect. We know this becuase THEY say it, which is just a teensy bit more important than what YOU say.

You're starting to sound hysterical.

If Mike Trout is inclined to "keep score by salary," then anything the Angels did this year would be irrelevant by the time he's a free agent.

#132 First thing to note about all of this is that "respect" is huge in the world of athletics. It may not seem rational to you, but in this area athletes are predictably irrational. (It's the reason for instance that Bill Russel insisted on Wilt + $1. He didn't care about the amount). Renewing for the minimum is absolutely going to be parsed as an insult (it's the reason very few teams will renew a young star for the minimum even though they have the absolute right to)

There is a number out there and I don't pretend to know what it is. But there's no goodwill to be gained from exceeding it. If I were working for the Angels I'd look for the "standard" raise for guys who were legitimate stars in their first year and add $1 to it. (see the Bill Russel example for the logic)

Ron, you're comparing a rookie ballplayer with no leverage to Bill Russell in his prime. I am not seeing the logic there.

This matters 0%. That's why you have an agent - to let him be the bad cop while you play the aw-shucks-I-just-want-to-help-the-team guy. Believe it or not, the agent is very most likely telling Trout to say just that, while letting him (the agent) be the #######. That's the way it works - that way you get your message out there (I'm ticked about my salary) while still maintaining your good guy image with the fans and advertisers.

But what's the point of getting that message out? Trout is a pre-arb player and neither he nor Landis are apparently talking about this anymore. It looks like Landis blew off a little steam and now it's a non-story.

This notion that Trout doesn't care about a few hundred thousand dollars is completely cuckoo bird. Everybody in the world, no matter what their tax bracket, cares about a couple hundred thousand dollars. They care about numbers significantly lower than that. I've seen multi-multi-multi millionaires go crazy over 5k. Bill Gates would go to war over $300k if he felt he deserved it. And Mike Trout is hardly Bill Gates.

OK, then what are you arguing? If the above is even remotely true about Mike Trout, then he'd have no reason to do anything other than go year to year with the Angels and then take full advantage of free agency. Doing anything other than that would likely cost him so much money that this year's renewal would seem like chump change.

This is funny, coming from someone who seems convinced that Trout is angry about the renewal, despite little or no evidence in support of such a belief. Even more oddly, it appears you also believe there are players who were so angry about being renewed that they made a point to leave their teams because of it, but then kept totally quiet about it. Very strange set of beliefs.

I don't know for certain how Mike Trout feels about it, though I tend to believe that the guy who works for him is a better source than you.

And no one is saying that this one incident is going to be the one and only thing that keeps Mike Trout from signing with the Angels down the road. Just that it could be the kind of thing that causes him to change his perception of the club and how he approaches future negotiations with them. The idea that it can't is beyond ridiculous.

If Mike Trout is inclined to "keep score by salary," then anything the Angels did this year would be irrelevant by the time he's a free agent.

Yes, because everything in Joe and Ray world is either/or. Either Mike Trout is a stone-cold mercenary or a simple guy who just wants to play for the love of the game and doesn't care at all about the dough. He couldn't possibly be found in the middle.

And, of course, if none of this matters at all, why not just renew him at the minimum? Why throw away the $20K?

Until we get the slightest hint that Trout himself is angry, this seems like a non-story.

But then why hasn't either Trout or the Angels come forward to correct the agent's misinterpretation, which right now is the only version of the story out there?

Trouth has not said he's angry:

While Craig Landis said the renewal "falls well short of a 'fair' contract," Trout took the high road before a morning workout at the Angels' spring training complex on Sunday, repeatedly insisting that "I'm just happy to be in the lineup."

"I mean, my time will come," Trout said before a team meeting. "I just have to keep putting out numbers and concentrating on one thing, and that's getting to the postseason."

...

"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 said in a statement. "This contract falls well short of a 'fair' contract and I have voiced this to the Angels throughout the process. Nonetheless, the renewal of Mike's contract will put an end (to) this discussion."

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/story/_/id/9009963/2013-spring-training-mike-trout-los-angeles-angels-takes-high-road-salary-switch-lf