Mike Trout: 10 years, $360 million

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
38,114
36
deep inside Guido territory
Visit site
Star center fielder Mike Trout and the Los Angeles Angels are finalizing the largest contract in professional sports history, a 12-year deal worth more than $430 million that will smash previous records and could keep the greatest player of his generation with the Angels for the remainder of his career, sources familiar with the deal told ESPN.

The 27-year-old Trout, who has won two American League MVP awards and finished second four times, will receive an average of nearly $36 million a year, topping Zack Greinke's previous record average of $34.4 million with the Arizona Diamondbacks. The $430 million-plus total is more than 30 percent larger than the $330 million deal Bryce Harper signed with the Philadelphia Phillies on March 2 and bests boxer Canelo Alvarez's deal with DAZN by more than $65 million.

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/26306935/sources-angels-trout-reach-430m-extension
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
19,839
Wow. That's quite a contract.

And I guess the Angels will be dropping their tampering charges against Harper and the Phillies.
 

Ale Xander

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
21,371
That better be enough to sign Mookie. I don't think Henry goes that high though.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
15,735
68
where I was last at
Harper's salesmanship apparently isn't all that.

I wonder if there's an opt out or a concern that MLB revs might be peaking/topping out so Trout took the guaranteed dough at a market top?

Mookie 10/350-land?
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
It's nice to see that the player that is pretty much the unanimous choice for "Best Player in his Sport" gets the best contract, both in terms of AAV, and in total value.

Betts should be paid more than Harper or Machado, but less than Trout, so it seems like the boundaries are now pretty well set.

12 years, $420M is my new guess for Mookie.
 

NYCSox

chris hansen of goats
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 19, 2004
8,224
50
Some fancy town in CT
It appears to be a 10 year extension on top of the 2/68 remaining on his current deal. So in terms of fresh money it's really 10/362.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
19,839
He deserves to be the highest paid by far. Now I don’t like our chances of keeping Mookie.
Where would he go? I'm not sure that there are a lot of teams that could afford Mookie. Maybe the Dodgers. Would the Yankees take on another $30M+ contract? The Rangers? I honestly don't know.
 

santadevil

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
3,767
Saskatchestan
He deserves to be the highest paid by far. Now I don’t like our chances of keeping Mookie.
I actually think we'll keep him.
This ownership group hasn't been afraid to spend money in the past on players that haven't been great, even though they've been players brought in from outside the organization. I feel that they are learning and getting better over the years and they'll prove it to us with Mookie
 

adam42381

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Mar 14, 2006
4,882
38
Kernersville, NC
Bah, you win.

This is huge


I actually think we'll keep him.
This ownership group hasn't been afraid to spend money in the past on players that haven't been great, even though they've been players brought in from outside the organization. I feel that they are learning and getting better over the years and they'll prove it to us with Mookie
I really hope you are correct. I can’t bear the thought of Mookie in pinstripes or Dodger blue.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
15,735
68
where I was last at
Has anyone anywhere expressed that concern?

Are there any signs of revenues turning downward?
Just reading some tea leaves and wondering if there are signs on the horizon that leads players to want to lock-up deals today, like softening revs or CBA changes or other uncertainties that might impact the expensive part of the salary spectrum
 

crow216

Dragon Wangler
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,944
Astoria
Back of the envelope-Trout's new money (excluding $68MM due in '19 and '20 from old contract) is 10/364.

So assuming Mookie isn't Trout 10/350 seems a reasonable discussion point.
You’re unintentionally cherry picking the last 10 years of his contract. This is a 12 year deal, regardless of what he has today. If you want to draw apples to apples on a 10 year deal then this would have needed to be an 8 year extension. The Betts comp will be 12yrs
 

santadevil

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
3,767
Saskatchestan
Yes, ESPN article says the old contract will be torn up, this replaces that.

The Angels will nullify that possibility by ripping up the final two seasons of his six-year, $144.5 million deal and replace it with the new 12-year deal through the 2030 season, sources told ESPN.
 

glennhoffmania

but still failing
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,396,458
NY
You’re unintentionally cherry picking the last 10 years of his contract. This is a 12 year deal, regardless of what he has today. If you want to draw apples to apples on a 10 year deal then this would have needed to be an 8 year extension. The Betts comp will be 12yrs
It depends when Betts signs. They would've become FA at the same time and Trout is signing two years early. If Mookie signs today I agree with you.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
15,735
68
where I was last at
You’re unintentionally cherry picking the last 10 years of his contract. This is a 12 year deal, regardless of what he has today. If you want to draw apples to apples on a 10 year deal then this would have needed to be an 8 year extension. The Betts comp will be 12yrs
I'm not cherry picking-intentionally or unintentionall, I labeled the Angels new money comittment to Trout as what it exactly was, a 10/364 deal. They were already contractually bound to '19 and '20 at $68MM.

And I've no idea what Betts may or may not do. I just set a 10/364 new money contract as a realistic comp, and not a dream.
 

santadevil

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
3,767
Saskatchestan
I'm not cherry picking-intentionally or unintentionall, I labeled the Angels new money comittment to Trout as what it exactly was, a 10/364 deal. They were already contractually bound to '19 and '20 at $68MM.

And I've no idea what Betts may or may not do. I just set a 10/364 new money contract as a realistic comp, and not a dream.
But now they will contractually bound to pay him an AAV of $35.83 each year in 18 and 19, not the $33.25 he was set to actually be paid.
His AAV from his last extension was $24.08, but he was due $66.50 for 19 and 20. Now he will be paid more
 

Average Reds

Dope
Staff member
Dope
V&N Mod
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
24,795
57
Southwestern CT
If Mookie has another year like last year, 10/350 is a dream.
Trout has had 5 years that are similar to what Mookie put up last year. And he just accepted a 10/364 extension.*

Your assertions is ridiculous.

*And yes, I'm counting the incremental gain as the value of what he just accepted rather than the total contract, because math is a thing.
 

glennhoffmania

but still failing
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,396,458
NY
But now they will contractually bound to pay him an AAV of $35.83 each year in 18 and 19, not the $33.25 he was set to actually be paid.
His AAV from his last extension was $24.08, but he was due $66.50 for 19 and 20. Now he will be paid more
These issues are factored into Bankshot's point. All he's saying is that they were only obligated to pay him another 68m. Now they owe him the 68m plus an additional 364. In exchange for that 364m they get him for another 10 years. So for all intents and purposes they just extended him by 10/364. The timing of what they owe him when doesn't matter unless you're worried about time value of money.
 

glennhoffmania

but still failing
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,396,458
NY
Trout has had 5 years that are similar to what Mookie put up last year. And he just accepted a 10/364 extension.*

Your assertions is ridiculous.

*And yes, I'm counting the incremental gain as the value of what he just accepted rather than the total contract, because math is a thing.
I agree. Except we have to take timing into account. If Mookie becomes a FA and hits the open market everything changes. If we're talking about something happening during the 2019 season then 10/350 seems a tad high.
 

Average Reds

Dope
Staff member
Dope
V&N Mod
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
24,795
57
Southwestern CT
But now they will contractually bound to pay him an AAV of $35.83 each year in 18 and 19, not the $33.25 he was set to actually be paid.
His AAV from his last extension was $24.08, but he was due $66.50 for 19 and 20. Now he will be paid more
The AAV went up significantly. The actual money he was being paid in '19 and '20 went up only slightly.
 

Average Reds

Dope
Staff member
Dope
V&N Mod
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
24,795
57
Southwestern CT
I agree. Except we have to take timing into account. If Mookie becomes a FA and hits the open market everything changes. If we're talking about something happening during the 2019 season then 10/350 seems a tad high.
Sure, timing matters a lot. 10/350 is a ballpark and it could be higher or lower based on when he signs. I'd be shocked if he got more than Trout just signed for.
 

santadevil

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
3,767
Saskatchestan
These issues are factored into Bankshot's point. All he's saying is that they were only obligated to pay him another 68m. Now they owe him the 68m plus an additional 364. In exchange for that 364m they get him for another 10 years. So for all intents and purposes they just extended him by 10/364. The timing of what they owe him when doesn't matter unless you're worried about time value of money.
Oh...right, math. Makes sense to me now

Either way, as others have said. Happy for the #1 player to be getting #1 dollars and contract.

Has Mookie stated he only wants the biggest/longest contract though?
Or do we think he might be more like Harper and want the stability of a long-term.
Harper does seem like an anomaly, but I don't think it's the wrong choice
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
9,269
Miami (oh, Miami!)
These issues are factored into Bankshot's point. All he's saying is that they were only obligated to pay him another 68m. Now they owe him the 68m plus an additional 364. In exchange for that 364m they get him for another 10 years. So for all intents and purposes they just extended him by 10/364. The timing of what they owe him when doesn't matter unless you're worried about time value of money.
Which makes it an extension for his age 29-39 seasons.

I know they're different players, but there's no guarantee Trout will not have the same early to mid career dominance arc as another soon-to-be 39 year old Angel: https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/p/pujolal01.shtml
 

crow216

Dragon Wangler
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,944
Astoria
Trout has had 5 years that are similar to what Mookie put up last year. And he just accepted a 10/364 extension.*

Your assertions is ridiculous.

*And yes, I'm counting the incremental gain as the value of what he just accepted rather than the total contract, because math is a thing.
If you're the team, I agree with you. If you're the agent, I agree with me. Trout is signed through 39 years old and signed that deal around the same time Mookie will be looking for his extension or new deal. I don't think it's crazy to say that Mookie is going to be viewing 12/400+ as his comp in negotiations and not 10/350.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Leaves after the 8th inning
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Just reading some tea leaves and wondering if there are signs on the horizon that leads players to want to lock-up deals today, like softening revs or CBA changes or other uncertainties that might impact the expensive part of the salary spectrum
Since nothing like this has ever happened in the history of sports in capitalist locations, I would say your tea leaves are reading collusion at best (which will go away) or nothing at least.

If we were discussing the NFL, where there are real reasons to expect a reduction in interest, then I could see this type of scenario arising.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
15,735
68
where I was last at
Since nothing like this has ever happened in the history of sports in capitalist locations, I would say your tea leaves are reading collusion at best (which will go away) or nothing at least.

If we were discussing the NFL, where there are real reasons to expect a reduction in interest, then I could see this type of scenario arising.
Its not like MLB owners have never colluded before, but my tea leaves were more stirred by thoughts of stagnant attendence, weaker TV ratings, MLB not capturing younger viewers, the game has been called too long/boring and wondered to what extent some of the economic issues might get revisited in CBAS to the detriment of the players. Just a thought.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
27,269
The Trout deal no doubt makes Mookie more expensive — but not Trout expensive, and if I’m mistaken about that, I let Mookie walk.

Sparky Anderson long ago (in)famously said, “don’t ever embarrass another catcher by comparing him to Johnny Bench.” Swap out catcher for player, Bench for Mike Trout.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
20,972
Hingham, MA
Fun with numbers:
Trout will make nearly $25K per inning
He’ll make around $12K for every pitch he faces
He’ll make around $750 for every pitch thrown in every game
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
11,652
Fun with numbers:
Trout will make nearly $25K per inning
He’ll make around $12K for every pitch he faces
He’ll make around $750 for every pitch thrown in every game
You should tweet that at AOC, it might make you famous for 15 minutes.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
11,652
The socialist congresswoman who’s all over twitter everyday promoting a 70% marginal tax rate.

Hard to imagine a better argument in favor of that idea than a baseball player getting $12,000 per pitch.

They were talking about the Blue Jays minor league salary bump on MLB Radio this morning. Apparently, that will bring their minor leaguers up to $12,000 per YEAR.

I’ve never seen or thought about these $30+ million a year deals in terms of per at bat or per pitch. That was quite shocking.
 
Last edited:

TheYaz67

Member
SoSH Member
May 21, 2004
4,712
49
Justia Omnibus
I don't think I have seen anyone else say it, so I will - I am quite surprised Trout decided to sign a further extension with LAAA at all. I mean, this is the same team that has leveraged Trout's awesome 64.3 WAR assembled over 7+ seasons into exactly 15 post season plate appearances for poor Mike Trout.

If I were him, I might like to both get paid alot AND play for a front office that seems to have its stuff together/gets to the postseason on a somewhat consistent basis (like more than once every 8 years). I guess he has faith in them to figure it out, that I do not! Seems like his prime is being "wasted" on a team that isn't giving him a chance to shine in the postseason, which is a shame for him and us baseball fans, IMO...
 

bosockboy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,221
49
St. Louis, MO
I don't think I have seen anyone else say it, so I will - I am quite surprised Trout decided to sign a further extension with LAAA at all. I mean, this is the same team that has leveraged Trout's awesome 64.3 WAR assembled over 7+ seasons into exactly 15 post season plate appearances for poor Mike Trout.

If I were him, I might like to both get paid alot AND play for a front office that seems to have its stuff together/gets to the postseason on a somewhat consistent basis (like more than once every 8 years). I guess he has faith in them to figure it out, that I do not! Seems like his prime is being "wasted" on a team that isn't giving him a chance to shine in the postseason, which is a shame for him and us baseball fans, IMO...
Getting rid of Scioscia might have helped.