|
|
|
|
Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Saturday, March 02, 2013
... when Trout was assigned a salary of $510,000 on Saturday, a mere $20,000 above the major league minimum, after winning American League rookie of the year honors and finishing second in voting for most valuable player last season, Craig Landis was stunned.
“During the process, on behalf of Mike, I asked only that the Angels compensate Mike fairly for his historic 2012 season, given his service time,” Landis, who represents Trout, said in an email. “In my opinion, this contract falls well short of a ‘fair’ contract, and I have voiced this to the Angels throughout the process.”
|
Support BBTF
Thanks to
aleskel
for his generous support.
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: HHS: Autin: Miguel Cabrera to the max (32 - 8:17pm, May 24)Last: DavidFossNewsblog: OMNICHATTER for May 24, 2013 (17 - 8:17pm, May 24)Last: Joey B. has ignited his October #NatitudeNewsblog: OT: The Soccer Thread, May 2013 (1159 - 8:17pm, May 24)Last: Arnett Mead (Arjun)Newsblog: Paul Daugherty: Old-v-New schools of thought (25 - 8:15pm, May 24)Last: Ok, Griffey's Dunn (Nothing Iffey About Griffey)Newsblog: Tangotiger Blog: Ensberg and Tango speak on being locked-in (69 - 8:15pm, May 24)Last: GuyMNewsblog: [OTP-May] Politico: Congressional baseball game, May 1, 1926 (4408 - 8:12pm, May 24)Last: YR Misses Reggie BarsNewsblog: OT: NBA Monthly Thread - May 2013 (1232 - 7:50pm, May 24)Last: BooeyNewsblog: Fox Sports: McLouth catch earns thrown beverage (9 - 7:28pm, May 24)Last: Joe Bivens, Minor GeniusNewsblog: Primer Dugout (and link of the day) 5-24-2013 (19 - 7:28pm, May 24)Last: bobmNewsblog: MLB: Don Sutton never shy about voicing his opinion (11 - 7:24pm, May 24)Last: Howie MenckelNewsblog: LATimes: Microsoft unveils new Xbox One console (38 - 5:57pm, May 24)Last: CrosbyBirdNewsblog: OT: NHL is finally back thread (376 - 5:47pm, May 24)Last: Random Transaction GeneratorNewsblog: ESPN: Forging bond with Pete Rose has helped fuel Joey Votto's desire to be great (174 - 5:11pm, May 24)Last: The Id of SugarBear BlanksNewsblog: Fay Vincent: THE UMPIRE FIX (9 - 5:00pm, May 24)Last: Johnny Sycophant-Laden ForaNewsblog: FanGraphs: Cameron: The 2013 Cubs: Better Than We Think (41 - 4:47pm, May 24)Last: The District Attorney
|
|
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Fixed!
Yeah, but the specificity of $810k makes it sound like someone making an exact claim. $750k is a ballpark figure.
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.
I said $1M. I think breaking seven figures is a nice symbol of how special Trout is.
no, you said:
and
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."
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.)
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.
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).
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.
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:
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.
Trout has every right not to sign that contract and not to play, should he actually feel so strongly about it.
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.
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.)
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?
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
Sure - that doesn't seem outlandish either. But if that does happen, do you renew at 510?
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.
You really think Trout is going to upbraid his agent in public? And the Angels have nothing to gain by commenting on this.
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.
***
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.
***
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.)
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.
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.
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?"
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.
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.
***
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ron, you're comparing a rookie ballplayer with no leverage to Bill Russell in his prime. I am not seeing the logic there.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Trouth has not said he's angry:
http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/story/_/id/9009963/2013-spring-training-mike-trout-los-angeles-angels-takes-high-road-salary-switch-lf
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.
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.
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.
Well, at least Andy's consistent. He rejects this premise in the politics threads, too.
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.
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.
In other words, you folks don't need any evidence for your mind reading.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That's pretty much how I'd see it, too.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Especially if they are looking for that hook that makes them feel more comfortable doing what they want to do anyway.
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.
Isn't it the case that giving Trout a million in 2013 will also boost his salary for every year the team controls him?
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?
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?
nope, that didn't happen, if it had this thread would have died out- or morphed into an asteroid discussion
Pedro Gomez thinks Ray is an asteroid.
Maybe, but I don't think giving Trout a nice raise establishes any kind of precedent for how they deal with other renewals.
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.
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.
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.
Pssst. There's a reason it's getting ignored. It's 19 pounds of ridiculous.
And? We've seen contending teams do this before.
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.
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.
If it's a byproduct, it's not them doing him a favor.
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.
But what is this relevant to? If they gave him another $200-$300K the benefits would be 97.5% to 2.5%. So?
---
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.
It is against the rules; it's just impossible to prove.
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.
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.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main