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...

8 teams made up of top minor league and pre-arbitration major league talent might be interesting.

Imagine Trout and Harper ripping up those leagues while picking up $10M per for a couple years until they finally become MLB free agents. They both would have shots at 60-60 in a 140 game season. And the leagues could probably field teams for less than $30m per year.

Sure, there are some counterexamples, but it definitely looks like teams are starting to view it as a risky position for superstar hitters.

Both teams also have superior defensive centerfielders. The Nationals didn't acquire Denard Span in order to keep Harper healthier.

I think the players should make it a point when the next CBA is being hammered-out to toss a bone to the MiL'ers if possible. They're the ones, the MLBPA, that can really force concessions from ownership that'd help their lesser-skilled lower-rung bretheren.

The Minor Leaguers aren't in the bargaining unit. Can't do it, other than some provisions covering those with MLB service being sent to the minors.

The Nationals didn't acquire Denard Span in order to keep Harper healthier.

Less wear and tear on Harper was an idea that appealed to the Nationals. Not the whole reason, or even the main one, to get Span, but it was a consideration.

I think giving Trout $1 million would be excessive compared to the norm for players, even very good ones, still in their years of team-determined salary. It is surprising and unusual though that they're essentially giving him the standard raise after such an incredible year, I think teams typically give players some kind of reward for performance like that. Maybe it won't matter in the end but it does seem silly for the Angels to be so stingy like that.

Not really related to the situation here but I'm reminded of another odd story about a player after his first season. Rocco Baldelli had a solid first season for the Rays and finished third in the ROY voting; a nice rookie season but nothing spectacular that would make you expect a bonus from the team. The Rays gave him their standard raise, from $300k to $320k, but in the offer sheet they gave the players in their first three seasons included a small bonus (5k I think) if they actually signed the contract (the team could set the salary at whatever they wanted but the players had the option of not actually signing the offer though it wouldn't change anything). Baldelli refused to sign the offer and the only comment he made to the media was something like "My agent and I disagree with the team's offer". That was back when he was still represented by Boras. That always seemed like a bizarrely pointless thing to do, throwing away even a small amount of money to make an entirely insignificant protest.

Edit: Looked it up on Cots and it was actually a $20k bonus that Baldelli forfeited by refusing to sign the offer. Even more ridiculous.

..

Both teams also have superior defensive centerfielders. The Nationals didn't acquire Denard Span in order to keep Harper healthier.

What Yankee Clapper said in post #54. They knew Harper was a capable CF before they went out and got Span. If they didn't want to move Harper to LF to save his legs, they could have acquired a bigger bat for LF or even stuck with Morse for LF for another year. There's definitely an element of wanting to save Harper for the long term by putting him into LF instead of CF in the Nationals' moves.

And the Angels made the decision to trade Kendrys Morales rather than Bourjos, probably partially to move Trout to LF specifically. Rather than DHing Trumbo and playing Trout in LF with Bourjos in CF, the Angels could easily have traded Bourjos, and gone with Morales at DH and a Trumbo - Trout - Hamilton OF.

Neither team was pushed into this by a rigid roster; each team made specific moves to push these guys into LF.

I think giving Trout $1 million would be excessive compared to the norm for players, even very good ones, still in their years of team-determined salary. It is surprising and unusual though that they're essentially giving him the standard raise after such an incredible year, I think teams typically give players some kind of reward for performance like that. Maybe it won't matter in the end but it does seem silly for the Angels to be so stingy like that.

$1M might be unprecented specficially, but there's a history noted in the article of similarly excellent first year players getting raises to over 2 times the minimum salary in their second seasons. One of the given examples is Pujols getting a raise to $600k when the league minimum was $200k. Pujols was making three times the league minimum, while $1M for Trout today would be just over twice the minimum salary. Jeter got a raise to over four times the minimum in his second year. $1M today is probably less than Pujols or Jeter were making if you adjust for salary inflation in MLB over the past 17 years.

Related to my #55, I just saw that Jeremy Hellickson declined to sign his contract due to him being offered $508k instead of the maximum of $510k that the Rays are giving out this year to pre-arb players. As a result he's forfeiting the $5k bonus for signing the contract and will actually make $503k in 2013. He is also a Boras client.

I personally don't get either side of this; I don't see the need for the Rays, back in 2004 or now, to add a "signing bonus" or whatever you want to call it to the contract when it's entirely up to them what they pay the player. Who really cares if they agree to sign or not? On the player's side, why throw away any amount of money on a useless protest? I get Boras' angle (he prefers that his clients don't have a chummy relationship with team management and possibly be more inclined to accept a little less money in the future) and I doubt it's a coincidence that bother players I know of that did this were clients of his at the time but why do the players go along with the charade?

57 - but we also have to consider how poor trumbo and morse are in the OF. They arent your run of the mill below average corner OFs. If each put up a -20 i wouldnt be the least bit shocked. The nationals and angels arent just putting their stars in "safer" positions, theyre aligning their defenses to save a lot of runs

The guys calling Jerry Dipoto or Angels management "mind numbingly stupid" are ill informed. Thats simply not true. Furthermore, if I were to apply that tag, I'd be more inclined to apply it to Trouts agent, for publicly poisoning the waters.

Who knows what he considered "fair" and where they were in the negotiations ?

Note:

“The $510,000 salary was not the result of a negotiated compromise between Mike and the Angels,” Landis said.

Exactly. What is Landis' version of a compromise ? For all we know he was pushing for a 1.5 or 2.0 Million dollar deal, and as has been pointed out upthread, the accumulative effect of that down the road could be quite a large sum.

Who know what was the tone of the negotiations, and what stance Landis took ? By his tone in the quotes, my guess is he probably took quite a strong, and ultimately beligerant stance. He probably overshot his demands based on Trouts "historic" season, and when the team exercised their leverage to get his ass in line, he spouted off to the press.

Think about it. Arter Moreno isn't cheap. He isn't poor. The Angels have money. So the LOGICAL conlucsion is there is a lot more going on here than is presented in the article. At the end of the day, in business you have to judge people by their actions. This "action" by the Angels indicates clearly there is an issue with the agent, not the player.

My other guess is somewhere down the road, Arter Moreno pony's up and gives his GM the dollars necessary to keep Trout long term.

This "action" by the Angels indicates clearly there is an issue with the agent, not the player.

"We don't like your agent so we're gonna pay you $100,000 less than we would otherwise, sorry about that"? I'm not seeing it.

This will have zero effect on Trouts decision to stay once be hits free agency.

Frankly if I wereTrout I'd be looking for the Longoria deal right now. Because of his youth he can forgo a couple of FA seasons and still hit the market at 28. Sign a deal now and get the security then he still will have his shot at becoming the first 300 million dollar player.

"We don't like your agent so we're gonna pay you $100,000 less than we would otherwise, sorry about that"? I'm not seeing it.

C'mon Walt, you know thats not the way it works nor is that what I'm saying.

It's very simple. They couldn't come to agreement with the agent. Nobody pays an extra 100K , or any amount above the minimum, without the agent and player signing off on it as AGREEING to it. If they don't agree, the club can then exercise their right and just renew the contract.

Sometimes it hurts down the road, (see Prince Fielder), sometimes it doesn't, (See Carlos Gonzalez).

The fact is you and I don't know what Landis was pushing for or demanding, but clearly the Angels gave up the negotiation, and just renewed him knowing full well there would be a negative reaction, both in the press, and between the Team and Agent/Player. I mean really, do you or anyone else think they do not know there will be a negative reaction ? So WHY would they take that route. The answer is self evident. They were too far apart to get in agreement with Landis. So Landis must have been pushing for a very high number.

Again.....judge by the actions, and don't assume that somebody is "stupid".....even if you are not clearly "seeing it".

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!

And Craig Landis and Chris Bourjos (Peter's father) played in the same outfield in 1980 in Phoenix (the Giants' AAA team at that time).

And if my memory serves me right, Craig Landis played right field exclusively, while Chris was moved to left field for the 1980 season.

Imagine Trout and Harper ripping up those leagues while picking up $10M per for a couple years until they finally become MLB free agents.

You can't acquire MLB service time by playing in another league.

Frankly if I wereTrout I'd be looking for the Longoria deal right now.

The Longoria contract was the biggest heist in the history of major league baseball. Why would a player want to emulate that?

Also, it was signed like a week into Longoria's major league career, not after just putting up an all-time great season. If Trout's agent can't get a contract that is orders of magnitude higher than that, Trout really should fire him. Out of a cannon. Into the sun.

Longoria also plays for the small market Rays, not a team that signed Pujols to a 10 year $240M contract and then turned around and paid Josh Hamilton $125M. He just put up a season that was better than anything Hamilton ever did. If I'm Trout or his agent, I'm looking to go year to year through arbitration and looking for the kind of money Ryan Howard got in his arb years ($10M, $15M, $19M). In comparison, Longorias arb year salaries are $2M, $4M, $6M.

Shoulldn't Trout and his agent be mad at the union? They obviously negotiated this deal. It's pretty rare for a player to do anything above their CBA obligation, hence why the Gil Meche retirement was unusual. I don't see why we should hold teams to a higher standard.

The best place to keep a hitter healthy is right field. Most hitters are right handed and most pull the ball, so can take naps out there.

Milton Bradley used to do it all the time.

http://m.ocregister.com/sports/trout-497608-year-angels.html

SECOND-YEAR PAY

Although there is precedent for former Rookies of the Year such as Albert Pujols and Derek Jeter to make multiples of the minimum in Year 2, over the past five seasons the reigning rookies of the year have averaged just 21 percent over the minimum.

Player (Year 1-2) Year 1 Year 2 Pct. raise Pct. over min.
Derek Jeter ('96-'97) $130,000 $550,000 (renewed) 323% 405%
Kerry Wood ('98-'99) $170,000 $690,000 (signed) 306% 533%
Albert Pujols ('01-'02)       $300,000 $600,000 (signed) 100% 100%
Ryan Braun ('07-'08)     $380,000 $455,000 (renewed) 20% 17%
Dustin Pedroia ('07-'08) $380,000 $457,000 (signed)          20%               17%
Geovany Soto ('08-'09) $401,000 $575,000 (signed) 43% 44%
Evan Longoria ('08-'09)*    $500,000 $550,000 (signed)108%
Chris Coghlan ('09-'10) $400,000 $475,000 (signed) 19% 19%
Andrew Bailey ('09-'10) $400,000 $435,000 (signed) 9% 9%
Buster Posey ('10-'11) $400,000 $575,000 (signed)        44%               39%
Neftali Feliz ('10-'11) $402,000 $457,150 (signed) 14% 10%
Craig Kimbrel ('11-'12) $419,000 $590,000 (signed) 41% 23%
Jeremy Hellickson ('11-'12) $418,400 $489,500 (renewed) 17% 2%

http://m.ocregister.com/sports/trout-498013-percent-year.html

As expected, the Angels could not reach an agreement on a 2013 one-year contract with Mike Trout, so they renewed his contract for $510,000, which is just 4 percent over the major league minimum of $490,000.

Over the past five seasons, the reigning Rookie of the Year was paid an average of 21 percent over the minimum for his second year. Trout made $482,500 last season, although he didn’t earn that much because he spent a month in the minors. His new salary represents a 6 percent raise.

Trout was “disappointed,” according to agent Craig Landis, who released a statement on behalf of his client.

"In my opinion, this contract falls well short of a 'fair' contract and I have voiced this to the Angels throughout the process," Landis said.

Angels general manager Jerry Dipoto said Trout’s salary was based on an objective scale the club uses to pay players with less than three years of service time. That scale is weighted heavily on service time, rather than performance.

“Craig and Mike have a right to their opinion and we don’t begrudge them their feelings,” Dipoto said. “We love Mike. Mike’s a big part of what we’re doing here, obviously, now and hopefully for many years to come. But we’re operating within the parameters of the (Collective Bargaining Agreement) as it’s been set up. It’s a system that rewards service time in the 0 to 3 years class, and we’ve opted to operate within those parameters.”

If I'm Trout or his agent, I'm looking to go year to year through arbitration and looking for the kind of money Ryan Howard got in his arb years ($10M, $15M, $19M). In comparison, Longorias arb year salaries are $2M, $4M, $6M.

Howard was a Super 2, so his arb years were 10, 15, 19, and 20. For these purposes he's not a bad comp for Trout because he was an immediate star, winning ROY and then MVP the following year. The Phillies renewed him for 900K after his MVP year (up from 355K). Whether that bought them any good will is questionable - they went to a hearing the following year for Howard's Super 2, and lost. Howard of course signed multi-year deals with the team afterwards, so the relationship was never irreparably fractured (though he obviously didn't give them much of a hometown discount).

The best place to keep a hitter healthy is right field. Most hitters are right handed and most pull the ball, so can take naps out there.

Milton Bradley used to do it all the time.

True, but merely anecdotal. For every Milton Bradley, Magglio Ordonez, Larry Walker, J.D. Drew that has a long, healthy career by virtue of playing RF you've got guys like Bobby Abreu, Sammy Sosa, Tony Gwynn and Gary Sheffield who just don't have much of a career after 5-6 years of playing RF.

What is this, 1960? Random 4th line plugs in the NHL make more than Mike Trout.

Ooooh, boo-f*ckin hoo. He got paid a signing bonus of over 1.2 million dollars before he took his first professional swing, and by the way, he was seventeen years old at the time.

This is how the system works in the game, by agreement of the players and the owners: a kid has to put in his dues for a few years and prove himself before he gets paid the permanent life-changing CEO compensation money. Just get over it.

Who was the last pre-arb player to hold out? I remember Fernando Valenzuela doing it (and he eventually got a pretty big deal, $300,000+ when the minimum salary was more like $40,000).

The guys calling Jerry Dipoto or Angels management "mind numbingly stupid" are ill informed. Thats simply not true. Furthermore, if I were to apply that tag, I'd be more inclined to apply it to Trouts agent, for publicly poisoning the waters.

I'll say it again. The Angels are being mind-numbingly stupid.

They have a 20 y.o. who is the best player in MLB, and they just pissed him off to save a few hundred grand. It's pure stupidity.

Why would Trout care about "poisoning the waters" with the Angels? He can go to arb, and probably beat them every time. He can then sign with 29 other teams when the time comes. There won't be any other players like Trout for the Angels to sign.

There are very, very few career ending injuries for position players.


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.

In case you weren't just looking for an opportunity to make a Joe Charboneau reference, the fact you had to go back 30 years to find someone is strong support for his statement.

I don't see the need for the Rays, back in 2004 or now, to add a "signing bonus" or whatever you want to call it to the contract when it's entirely up to them what they pay the player.

Really? You reward employees for doing a good job. I know that baseball has weird unique economics, but still.

What player, in the last 15 years or so, has been most exploited by the salary system? Somebody like Brandon Webb would seem to come closest. He earned $12.5M over three years in the 2000s when he was a great pitcher; he was greatly underpaid for a few years before and greatly overpaid for a few years later, but overall he earned (coincidentally) $31.5M for 31.5 WAR, which seems like a bargain for Arizona, although $31.5 million is hardly the poorhouse for Webb.

More common are pitchers like Ubaldo Jimenez or Scott Kazmir, who were woefully underpaid with their first team and have since been cashing big checks for being terrible with their second.

You'd figure the phenomenon of being totally ripped off would be less common among position players, who are less likely to blow a gasket after 2 or 3 great early years. Grady Sizemore might be the "most exploited" position player. He got paid peanuts for being an outstanding all-round player early on with Cleveland, and then earned only modestly well as he fell off the map: $28M overall for 26.5 WAR. And that, too, is over $27M more than most people earn in a lifetime.

I don't have a strong opinion about how much Trout should get, but I doubt that many players are severely screwed by the current deal. Examples like Sizemore and Webb, who failed to cash in at the ultra-mega level, are relatively too bad, but then neither one of them could play baseball well after a very young age. There's a reason non-great lesser stars like Johnny Damon make over $100M in their careers; they're employable for a long, long time.

This is how the system works in the game, by agreement of the players and the owners: a kid has to put in his dues for a few years and prove himself before he gets paid the permanent life-changing CEO compensation money. Just get over it.

It works that way through the agreement of "players", but not players like Trout, who didn't have any say in the rules on pre-arb compensation until he actually made it onto a ML roster.

The Cardinals gave Pujols a big raise after his first year and he left the first time he was a free agent. Giving Trout a big raise now is unlikely to make a difference when the time comes, he'll go to the highest bidder in all likelihood.

The Cardinals gave Pujols a big raise after his first year and he left the first time he was a free agent. Giving Trout a big raise now is unlikely to make a difference when the time comes, he'll go to the highest bidder in all likelihood.

But he did sign a very team-friendly extension with them earlier, giving up many of his free agent years. The Cardinals made out like absolute bandits on Pujols - the Angels would love for Trout to do what Pujols did.

Furthermore, if I were to apply that tag, I'd be more inclined to apply it to Trouts agent, for publicly poisoning the waters.

Just again since we go through this every time there's an agent comment, these agents aren't saying anything without the approval of the client, tacit approval at least.

It works that way through the agreement of "players", but not players like Trout, who didn't have any say in the rules on pre-arb compensation until he actually made it onto a ML roster.

True, but irrelevant. Every union works this way; the new members have to abide by whatever agreement is in place at the time. He can almost certainly have a voice in the next CBA if he wants it.

If Trout continues to perform at anywhere remotely close to last year's level, he's going to become one of the highest paid players in history, if not the highest, so the whining is absurd. In the meantime, he's just going to have to find a way to eke out a hardscrabble living on his paltry $510,000 salary this year. Maybe he can apply for food stamps or something.

The Cardinals gave Pujols a big raise after his first year and he left the first time he was a free agent.

He left because they lowballed him after previously signing a long extension on very team-favorable terms.

What player, in the last 15 years or so, has been most exploited by the salary system?

A little further back, buut I recall reading that Jack McDowell lost tens of millions due to Reinsdorf's finessing of the salary structure. Something along the lines of unexpectedly sending him to the minors at an opportune moment.

McDowell on Reinsdorf:

Fans don't know this, but not only was I never offered a multi year contract, I was never even offered a one year deal! The Sox just automatically took me right to arbitration three years in a row (Author's Note: McDowell won one of those salary hearings) They just didn't negotiate with me. Did that piss me off? Yes.

McDowell possibly was underpaid (though he too earned more than $28M for 25.6 WAR, in the 1990s, and he was a good but overrated pitcher). He probably had grievances relative to the rest of the league. And he was a bit ill-starred. Had the Sox kept him in the majors all along, he would have been a FA in the strike winter of 1994-95, not the best of times. His highest-earning years (quite good ones for the era) were the strike years, which cost him still more; and then, after signing a decent but unlavish 2-year deal with Cleveland, he stopped being a good player at the age of 30. Everything went wrong that could have, and he still earned $28 million.

I personally don't get either side of this; I don't see the need for the Rays, back in 2004 or now, to add a "signing bonus" or whatever you want to call it to the contract when it's entirely up to them what they pay the player. Who really cares if they agree to sign or not? On the player's side, why throw away any amount of money on a useless protest?

On the contrary, the protest is stronger if you give up some money in order to make it. Anybody can mutter darkly when it doesn't cost them anything to do it; passing up a little money sends the signal that you're actually pissed off.

I think you might be underestimating the psychological effect of actually having a handshake and a little signing ceremony. It represents an end to the bargaining process and gives both sides the chance to chill out. If you never sign a contract, when do you abandon the feeling that you really ought to be getting a million bucks (for example) and anything less is unacceptable?

More common are pitchers like Ubaldo Jimenez or Scott Kazmir, who were woefully underpaid with their first team and have since been cashing big checks for being terrible with their second.

In Ubaldo's case, it's the same contract. (Though the Indians picked up the $5.75M option for 2013.) He was upset the Rockies did not extend the deal like they did with Tulo, then it ended up he was hurt in some way--he had lost velocity which has not returned with Indians.

The contract probably worked out fairly well for both sides (well, for the Rockies, not the Indians) despite Ubaldo being upset. He had security in the event of an injury. While he has not had an injury-ender, he's not looking too good.

If Trout continues to perform at anywhere remotely close to last year's level, he's going to become one of the highest paid players in history, if not the highest, so the whining is absurd.

The whining is a shot across the bow that the Angels have to take seriously just because Trout is so great, two-bit players don't complain, they have nothing to gain from it. But the Angels can't just ignore Trout.

But he [Pujols] did sign a very team-friendly extension with them earlier, giving up many of his free agent years.

It's a bit more complicated than that. Pujols signed a long-term deal during the mini-collusion period. His pay during the would-be FA years of that contract was comparable to what the Yankees agreed to pay A-Rod net of the Rangers' contribution, so his contract was supposed to have been at the ceiling for what players would get under the "new normal." Obviously baseball's austerity period didn't last that long though.

He can go to arb, and probably beat them every time.

This is pure nonsense. You have no idea who would win an arbitration hearing without comparing the salaries that were filed.

His Agent, meanwhile, needs to get as much as he can before he gets replaced by Scott Boras, so I can see why he'd be annoyed.

It's a bit more complicated than that. Pujols signed a long-term deal during the mini-collusion period. His pay during the would-be FA years of that contract was comparable to what the Yankees agreed to pay A-Rod net of the Rangers' contribution, so his contract was supposed to have been at the ceiling for what players would get under the "new normal."

Is that true? The problem with that scenario is that it assumes a lot of perfect information on all sides. Pujols wasn't on the market - he had no idea what other teams might offer him, and the Cardinals probably weren't whispering to him there was collusion going on so he might as well take this as he wasn't getting any more. It's probably inevitable that collusion may have had some effect in there, but that extension was predominantly about him wanting to be a Cardinal/La Russa player regardless and being willing to forgo some money to make it so.

This is pure nonsense. You have no idea who would win an arbitration hearing without comparing the salaries that were filed.

If the team is forced to file a salary in line with what the player wants, he wins no matter who "wins" the hearing.

Think about it. Arter Moreno isn't cheap. He isn't poor. The Angels have money. So the LOGICAL conlucsion is there is a lot more going on here than is presented in the article. At the end of the day, in business you have to judge people by their actions. This "action" by the Angels indicates clearly there is an issue with the agent, not the player.

Might be even simpler than that. The Angels might be working on a long term deal for Trout right now, and they don't want to make it easier for him to say no. An extra half million "bonus" now might make it incrementally harder to get him signed to a team friendly deal this summer.

This is pure nonsense. You have no idea who would win an arbitration hearing without comparing the salaries that were filed.

If the team is forced to file a salary in line with what the player wants, he wins no matter who "wins" the hearing.

The Chef provides the answer. If Trout goes to arb, the team offers are going to smash the Howard/Lincecum awards.

Might be even simpler than that. The Angels might be working on a long term deal for Trout right now, and they don't want to make it easier for him to say no. An extra half million "bonus" now might make it incrementally harder to get him signed to a team friendly deal this summer.

Then they miscalculated, b/c Trout and his agent are obviously pissed off.

True, but irrelevant. Every union works this way; the new members have to abide by whatever agreement is in place at the time.

He isn't allowed to join the union before he reaches the majors, but is nonetheless subject to terms negotiated by that organization for several years of his professional career, until he reaches that level. That is unfair, and atypical of the way unions normally operate. If players were allowed to join the MLBPA as soon as they turned pro, the MLBPA membership would probably do a better job of serving the interest of younger players.

If Trout continues to perform at anywhere remotely close to last year's level, he's going to become one of the highest paid players in history, if not the highest, so the whining is absurd.

Donald Trump has plenty of money, but that doesn't mean I'm allowed to stick my hand in his pocket and steal his wallet. Fair is fair, even for the rich.

Donald Trump has plenty of money, but that doesn't mean I'm allowed to stick my hand in his pocket and steal his wallet. Fair is fair, even for the rich.

I have no idea what the hell you're talking about; you're spouting a bunch of meaningless nonsense.