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.

No doubt, just as the Angels' GM and other execs are in much better position to know Mike Trout and to anticipate his reaction than a bunch of commenters at BBTF. This has been my point all along.

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.

Rookie ballplayers with no leverage typically feel insulted by having their contracts renewed at whatever the team chooses? Where are people getting this from?

Young players fight over signing bonuses upon being drafted. That's when they have some leverage and at least some options (e.g., go to school instead of signing). They don't fight over being renewed at whatever salary the team decides upon after making the majors. They know that once they've signed with the team, they are in the system and under the team's control and subject to the purview of the CBA. They know they have no leverage. Hell, they don't even hold out. Who was the last baseball player to hold out? Clemens in 1987, a quarter century ago? People are really not seeing this issue clearly.

Trout got a $1.2M signing bonus upon being drafted. He has just been renewed for a guaranteed $510K. He has made over $2 million as a baseball player. Again, the Angels could have left him in the minors to prevent his service time from starting early. They didn't. They called him up, gave him a job, and he became a star. He is earning more than he would have as a minor leaguer, and he will see leverage in salary negotiations and a real payday sooner than he would have had they left him in the minors. Yes, the Angels did this for themselves, not for him. But they did it, they gave him the opportunity, and he likely recognizes that. People aren't dealing with the broad scope of reality here. They are hung up on the $510K for no good reason.

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.

You keep saying this, but "chump change" adds up, and then the player wants the "chump change" the next year, and then other players in the organization want the "chump change." It's typically not a good idea to start handing out free money to people for no good reason. There is no downside here, and thus no good reason. The "downside" being offered up by people here is a fantasy. It is not grounded in the reality of how players make decisions.

It's typically not a good idea to start handing out free money to people for no good reason.

Well, at least Andy's consistent. He rejects this premise in the politics threads, too.

Trouth has not said he's angry:

This was covered upthread, but also Bill James, writing about Doyle Alexander many years ago, pointed out that an agent's role is, at times, to be the bad guy on the player's behalf so the player can shrug, smile and give his Crash Davis answers, as Trout did. And James, back in those days, worked arb cases and knew many, many agents.

One thing that anybody working for or with Trout wants to do right now is keep Trout's image clean and upbeat, not get him tagged as a malcontent, if for no other reason than to keep the endorsement dollars maxed.

Of course, no one here knows how Trout feels about it. But given that he is a young jock coming off one of the greatest rookie years in sports history, there would seem to be a pretty good chance that he is at least a little peeved by this, and there is no percentage for the Angels in peeving him.

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.

I call b###sh## on this. Which players entering their second year have said they are keeping score by salary and thus upset at not being renewed for a higher amount? Please list the many, many players who have done this, or admit that you made it up.

This was covered upthread, but also Bill James, writing about Doyle Alexander many years ago, pointed out that an agent's role is, at times, to be the bad guy on the player's behalf so the player can shrug, smile and give his Crash Davis answers, as Trout did. And James, back in those days, worked arb cases and knew many, many agents.

In other words, you folks don't need any evidence for your mind reading.

One thing that anybody working for or with Trout wants to do right now is keep Trout's image clean and upbeat, not get him tagged as a malcontent, if for no other reason than to keep the endorsement dollars maxed.

But you just said we can conclude that whatever statements his agent makes are Trout's. So Trout's image isn't clean and upbeat any longer, by your own logic.

This was covered upthread, but also Bill James, writing about Doyle Alexander many years ago, pointed out that an agent's role is, at times, to be the bad guy on the player's behalf so the player can shrug, smile and give his Crash Davis answers, as Trout did. And James, back in those days, worked arb cases and knew many, many agents.

No doubt agents are sometimes the bad guy, but what would be the purpose in this particular case? Trout is a pre-arb player and Landis is a veteran agent. They both know the system, and they both know that anything beyond a token raise is essentially a gift from the team.

It sort of reminds me of the Mets and the Bourn compensation issue: The Mets were apparently fine with the system until it affected them, and then all of a sudden we're supposed to believe an injustice had occurred and/or an exception should be made.

I call b###sh## on this. Which players entering their second year have said they are keeping score by salary and thus upset at not being renewed for a higher amount? Please list the many, many players who have done this, or admit that you made it up.

Show me where I limited my comments to how second-year players keep score by salary or admit you only half-read anyone's posts for that little snippet that supports your half-baked opinions.

In other words, you folks don't need any evidence for your mind reading.

Seriously, you, BTF's resident psychic, are going to lecture someone on mindreading. Are you really that ####### unaware to want to head in that direction? Because I may not be able to point to any second-year players specifically comparing themselves by salary (a claim I didn't make), but it won't take long to find dozens of posts where you perform your special extra-sensory skills on the posts of me or other Primates. Good lord Ray, that may be the single-most asinine sentence you've ever written at BTF, and Ray Diperna's Asinine Sentences is one of the most overflowing categories known to man.

No doubt agents are sometimes the bad guy, but what would be the purpose in this particular case? Trout is a pre-arb player and Landis is a veteran agent. They both know the system, and they both know that anything beyond a token raise is essentially a gift from the team.

What's the purpose of Landis spouting off his displeasure about the Angels' renewal price if Trout really had no problem with it? It doesn't serve Landis's interests. It could, however, lose the potential goldmine that is Mike Trout as a client.

But you just said we can conclude that whatever statements his agent makes are Trout's. So Trout's image isn't clean and upbeat any longer, by your own logic.

Heh. Guys like you and Joe Sheehan and BTF geeks like me make up a very small part of the MLB fanbase, and most of those other people, like kids, and guys who buy Trout jerseys and drink a lot of beer at the ballpark but don't give a #### about $/WAR and SuperTwo rules, and advertisers, care about what Trout says and the attitude he projects, not about what his agent says and the attitude that he projects. But since Trout's agent works for Trout, it seems reasonable to assume that what Landis says in some ways is being said with Trout's approval.

In other words, you folks don't need any evidence for your mind reading.

Nah. The point is simple: James, in those days, worked a lot with agents, and knew many of them. In a lot of ways they do they do the same things now that they did in Doyle Alexander's time. So, I think it is more likely that James has insight into this dynamic than you do.

Show me where I limited my comments to how second-year players keep score by salary or admit you only half-read anyone's posts for that little snippet that supports your half-baked opinions.

What was your point, then? We are discussing Mike Trout, a second year player with no leverage.

What was your point, then? We are discussing Mike Trout, a second year player with no leverage.

Mike Trout can look at that list* of rookies who got bigger salary bumps than him, (despite having much, much less impressive seasons), some on renewals, and think the Angels "dissed" him. It's not really a difficult concept, if you actually think about it.

He doesn't have to give voice to his displeasure for it to exist. Now in the specific case of Trout, it may not**, but there's no reason to think certain attitudes common to ballplayers are limited to those who have leverage. But I'm sure you can provide quotes that directly contradict that, can't you?

* Remember that list back on Page 2 that JSLF provided that you did your damndest to downplay. That list.

** Unlike you, I don't pretend to read minds. Those of us on this side of the argument are merely arguing on possibilities and risk, not certainties. The ones arguing for certainty are you and your pal Joey.

what would be the purpose in this particular case?

I would guess that the purpose is to let the Angels know that Trout is not happy with being renewed at 510K, to get the Angels a little negative coverage from people who would see this as a negative, and to do it in such a way that it doesn't hit Trout's image and is out there without being overblown or dragged out. Trout says no biggie; agent registers his displeasure, then shuts down the conversation and goes back to handling his other clients, Trout's endorsements, etc. And, perhaps, to remind Landis' other clients that Landis will say something if one of his guys is getting shafted.

When Trout is asked about it over the next few weeks by ESPN/MLBN/LAT et al, my guess is that Trout will smile politely and say that he is not talking about contract stuff until the next offseason.

They both know the system, and they both know that anything beyond a token raise is essentially a gift from the team.

Sure, but at the same time, this is Mike F'n Trout. Seems to me that the percentage move in terms of goodwill/looking ahead/recognizing the work of an exceptionally gifted employee is to go outside the system a little and give the guy a reward, the amount of which would be tempered by his service time and the way the system works. As Landis said: “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,"

Emphasis mine.

As Landis said: “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,"

Emphasis mine.

Notably absent from Landis' quote is what he thought was fair compensation for Trout, "given his service time" — which is a red herring anyway, given the terms of the CBA.

But again, we have no idea what the Angels offered. For all we know, they offered $750,000, the Trout camp demanded $1.5M, and the impasse led to the renewal.

my time will come," Trout said before a team meeting. "I just have to keep putting out numbers

That's pretty much how I'd see it, too.

Everybody in the world, no matter what their tax bracket, cares about a couple hundred thousand dollars.

So I assume that this also applies to Moreno? Most of the others in this thread seem to think that a couple of hundred thousand dollars doesn't matter to Moreno.

Everybody in the world, no matter what their tax bracket, cares about a couple hundred thousand dollars.


So I assume that this also applies to Moreno? Most of the others in this thread seem to think that a couple of hundred thousand dollars doesn't matter to Moreno.

Of course it matters, but the argument is that Moreno is buying something of value here with that money; Mike Trout's goodwill, or at least insurance against his bad will. Not sure I buy it, but it's not a crazy argument.

Of course it matters, but the argument is that Moreno is buying something of value here with that money; Mike Trout's goodwill, or at least insurance against his bad will. Not sure I buy it, but it's not a crazy argument.

The argument is also that - to quote Andy - this is "chump change" and therefore Moreno shouldn't really care about it. That's what "chump change" is.

This $510K will be about 20th or 50th on the list of things Mike Trout will consider when he hits free agency -- presuming he hasn't forgotten about it and presuming he was even upset to begin with.

If it's the 1st or 2nd thing he is worrying about, then it's highly unlikely giving him $750K would have amounted to a damn's worth of difference anyway.

Most of the others in this thread seem to think that a couple of hundred thousand dollars doesn't matter to Moreno.

I assume the precise opposite, and that's the "upside" to the Angels -- the owner gets to save a few hundred thousand dollars. Not just on Trout, but on all the other renewals.

No one can really point to a single instance in which a player's decisions were impacted by the amount of money his team paid him during his short pre-arb window and there are in fact few, if any (likely no) such instances. If the money and other organizational/personal intangibles are in place for Trout to sign long term, he'll sign long term.(*) If they aren't, he won't. (Joe K. mentioned it above, but the move to LF is, by orders of magnitude, the thing the Angels should be more concerned about pissing Trout off over.)

(*) Just as, to take the most extreme example in modern baseball history, Reggie Jackson, Sal Bando, Joe Rudi, and the rest of the mid-70s A's would have quite likely reupped with Charlie Finley if he'd paid them in the winter of 1976-77.

The 20th or 50th thing on a list simply is not a significant factor in any decision.

This $510K will be about 20th or 50th on the list of things Mike Trout will consider when he hits free agency -- presuming he hasn't forgotten about it and presuming he was even upset to begin with.

If it's the 1st or 2nd thing he is worrying about, then it's highly unlikely giving him $750K would have amounted to a damn's worth of difference anyway.

Tough to say. Some people can really hang onto a grudge, and will happily pay a small premium if it allows them to act on it. Assuming 2012 is anywhere close to Trout's true talent level, he'll get paid a boatload of money no matter who he eventually signs with. If he feels disrespected and unappreciated, he might be willing to leave some money on the table to stick it to the Angels. But we don't have any evidence that Trout is that kind of person. The most likely scenario is that he forgets all about this within a week if he hasn't already and then signs with the highest bidder when/if he reaches FA.

This $510K will be about 20th or 50th on the list of things Mike Trout will consider when he hits free agency -- presuming he hasn't forgotten about it and presuming he was even upset to begin with.

If the Angels are content with Trout slipping to free agency without signing him long-term it may well be reasonable. But shouldn't they already be hard at work locking him up? I think this is a bad move (but not huge by any means) by the Angels because it is unnecessarily throwing gravel into a signing process they would want to be as smooth as possible. If they don't intend to sign him long-term in the 2013-2014 timeframe they're all kinds of stupid and a little faux-pas like this would pale beside that.

Some people can really hang onto a grudge, and will happily pay a small premium if it allows them to act on it.

Especially if they are looking for that hook that makes them feel more comfortable doing what they want to do anyway.

(*) Just as, to take the most extreme example in modern baseball history, Reggie Jackson, Sal Bando, Joe Rudi, and the rest of the mid-70s A's would have quite likely reupped with Charlie Finley if he'd paid them in the winter of 1976-77.

From what I've read, this is quite likely not true, Finley would have had to had paid far more than anyone else to get these guys to consider staying- but Finley is as you note, an extreme case, he was a man who didn't just burn bridges, after burning them he'd dynamite the pilings and excavate the foundations for the footings.

Why are people talking even at the late stage of this page as though only a 'few hundred thousand dollars' are at stake?

Isn't it the case that giving Trout a million in 2013 will also boost his salary for every year the team controls him?

The most likely scenario is that he forgets all about this within a week if he hasn't already and then signs with the highest bidder when/if he reaches FA.

Hey we live in the internet age, who knows maybe a member of his posse/family whatever is gonna keep harping on how Jeter got X, Pujols Y and even Kimbrel got Z...

To me this was a no-brainer and I had no idea what Moreno was thinking, now I have an idea, he was thinking what SBB and Ray and Joe K. are thinking - that whatever he renewed Trout at was wholly irrelevant and would have no effect on future dealings with Trout- so there was absolutely nor reason to pay Trout anymore.

Having negotiated with people as part of my job I'm actually kind of amazed that Arte would think so, but he's obviously negotiated these issues before, and so what do I know? What I know is that when it comes to the really elite rookies/sophs, is that the Angels are (despite what Ray claims) the outlier, other teams would have tossed Trout a couple hundred more- are they right and Arte wrong? Is Arte right and all his peers wrong?

I do know that the Yankees under Steinbrenner used to take a very hard line on renewing pre-Arb players- that changed with Jeter- did it save them long term with Jeter? Did playing hardball a few years earlier with Bernie Williams cost them when they eventually extended him? The New York Press said yes, I'm not so sure, but what I keep coming back to is this-
even if getting stiffed on renewal is just the 20th thing on Trout's mind when negotiating a longer deal- why risk it?

Is this thread still about whether goodwill has value? I kind of assumed it would have died right around post #20 when some master of the obvious posted something to the effect of "Goodwill does have value, but it might not be much, and it's kind of hard to measure in this context" and everybody else nodded their head in agreement. I had just figured the thread must have morphed into a steroids conversation by now.

Isn't it the case that giving Trout a million in 2013 will also boost his salary for every year the team controls him?

Well that is the question-
what if a million now
means 1.25 in 2014
and a 5 year 120 million extension after that
(7 years 122.25 million)

whereas 510K now and 525K next year
means 2 years going to arb where Trout sets arb records followed by free agency, followed by Trout breaking AROD's contract record when he signs for the Dodgers?

and everybody else nodded their head in agreement.

nope, that didn't happen, if it had this thread would have died out- or morphed into an asteroid discussion

nope, that didn't happen, if it had this thread would have died out- or morphed into asteroid discussion

Pedro Gomez thinks Ray is an asteroid.

I'm gonna own that typo

Not just on Trout, but on all the other renewals.

Maybe, but I don't think giving Trout a nice raise establishes any kind of precedent for how they deal with other renewals.

But again, we have no idea what the Angels offered. For all we know, they offered $750,000, the Trout camp demanded $1.5M, and the impasse led to the renewal.

Not seeing it. The Angels had all the leverage and power; if there was an "impasse" over those or similar figures, they could have renewed at 750K. If the scenario that you describe happened, taking 240K away from Trout because his agent pissed them off does not seem like a smart move to me.

Also, while I have no idea what Trout's net worth is, it seems likely that given his service time that he is at a point where 200-300K matters on a very substantive level; there is more than just a gesture involved here.

Also, while I have no idea what Trout's net worth is, it seems likely that given his service time that he is at a point where 200-300K matters on a very substantive level; there is more than just a gesture involved here.

Feel free to keep ignoring my point that the Angels organization by promoting him to the majors last year both increased his current salary and sped up the point at which he will have increasing leverage going forward.

Focusing on the $510K is childlike in its inability to see the big picture.

Feel free to keep ignoring my point that the Angels organization by promoting him to the majors last year both increased his current salary and sped up the point at which he will have increasing leverage going forward.

Trout was in the majors for two and a half months in 2011. They would have had to keep him down until around the All Star break to keep him under a year's service time.

Feel free to keep ignoring my point that the Angels organization by promoting him to the majors last year both increased his current salary and sped up the point at which he will have increasing leverage going forward.

Wait? Ray, are you actually saying, that by having Trout put up an 8-10 WAR season for them at the minimum salary, the Angels were doing Trout a favor?

That's unbelievably insane. So far, the benefits to the Trout-Angels relationship have accrued about 98% to the Angels and 2% to Trout.

Feel free to keep ignoring my point that the Angels organization by promoting him to the majors last year both increased his current salary and sped up the point at which he will have increasing leverage going forward.

Pssst. There's a reason it's getting ignored. It's 19 pounds of ridiculous.

Trout was in the majors for two and a half months in 2011. They would have had to keep him down until around the All Star break to keep him under a year's service time.

And? We've seen contending teams do this before.

Wait? Ray, are you actually saying, that by having Trout put up an 8-10 WAR season for them at the minimum salary, the Angels were doing Trout a favor?

The Angels' intent was to help the Angels. The byproduct of that was that it did Trout a favor, yes, in that it gave him the opportunity to play in the majors sooner, which carried with it all sorts of benefits, most of which are being ignored here so that simpleton reasons can be put forth.

So far, the benefits to the Trout-Angels relationship have accrued about 98% to the Angels and 2% to Trout.

But that's irrelevant to the compensation structure of major league baseball players, which is dependent entirely on ex ante negotiation and leverage. Other team-player relationships involve the team paying tens of millions of dollars for little to no production -- see, e.g., American Idle Carl Pavano.

The Angels' intent was to help the Angels. The byproduct of that was that it did Trout a favor...

If it's a byproduct, it's not them doing him a favor.

The byproduct of that was that it did Trout a favor, in that it gave him the opportunity to play in the majors sooner

That would only be a favor if he didn't earn it. That they didn't conspire to artificially deflate his service time is not much of a favor.

So far, the benefits to the Trout-Angels relationship have accrued about 98% to the Angels and 2% to Trout.

But what is this relevant to? If they gave him another $200-$300K the benefits would be 97.5% to 2.5%. So?

---

That would only be a favor if he didn't earn it. That they didn't conspire to artificially deflate his service time is not much of a favor.

Delaying a player's service clock is a legitimate business function which teams have done before. It is completely legal and permissible. It is not a "conspiracy."

They showed confidence in him and brought him up. That they did it solely for their own interests and not his in no way negates the confidence they showed in him and the opportunity they provided him, and he damned well knows that, even if you folks don't.

...

Delaying a player's service clock is a legitimate business function which teams have done before. It is completely legal and permissible. It is not a "conspiracy."

It is against the rules; it's just impossible to prove.

Maybe, but I don't think giving Trout a nice raise establishes any kind of precedent for how they deal with other renewals.

The Angels having to pay another $500k to the next Mike Trout when he comes along two years from now is a problem every team would love to have.

Isn't it the case that giving Trout a million in 2013 will also boost his salary for every year the team controls him?

Does it? Just this year and next year. When he's arbitration-eligible, that artifical cap goes away. I can't see what they paid him as a second-year player having that much of an influence in arbitration.