Does Trout Deal Set The Market for Machado? (Update: 6/$144.5M)

[El Gordo]

Losing to a 12 million dollar offer? I think he would lose. And he may not put up 8 WAR and he may not win the MVP and with power on the decline, the shift towards 40 and 50 home run hitters as the most valuable may occur.

Well sure any thing may happen, but the odds are pretty good he will be close to 10 WAR again this year and 15 M is a conservative estimate. You just aren't able to see how unprecedented a player of Trout's performance at his age is. ARoid never had a 10 WAR season in his entire career.

[El Gordo]

I'm not sure that Trout matches in TWTW. He might have lost that arbitration battle. Something no one is willing to consider.

Because the notion is patently absurd. Any thing is possible in baseball. Grady Sizemore could win the MVP this year, but that notion is also patently absurd.

[DrungoHazewood]

Adjust for inflation and increase money in TV deals and his numbers go up.

For example his 1994 salary was $4.8m. Adjusted for inflation his current salary would be $7.4m.

Adjusted for baseball inflation that's more like $20M. Throughout the 80s Rickey was among the top 10 highest paid players in the game.

[BradyBunch]

Adjusted for baseball inflation that's more like $20M. Throughout the 80s Rickey was among the top 10 highest paid players in the game.

I am just speaking of money inflation in that post. I didn't include the inflation due to influx of money into baseball because well it's hard to quantify accurately.

[weams]

Because the notion is patently absurd. Any thing is possible in baseball. Grady Sizemore could win the MVP this year, but that notion is also patently absurd.

If you are trying to say that if Trout went in at 15 million and the club at 12 he would be a certain winner and that he is guaranteed an 8 WAR, healthy season. I am sorry. You are the one being absurd.

[El Gordo]

If you are trying to say that if Trout went in at 15 million and the club at 12 he would be a certain winner and that he is guaranteed an 8 WAR, healthy season. I am sorry. You are the one being absurd.

Here is what I am saying; if Trout has another 10 WAR season, 15 M in arb might be patently absurd. You seem to think that Trout is 3 M better than Howard at the same age. I find that laughable and I am sure any arbitrator would too.

[BradyBunch]

If you are trying to say that if Trout went in at 15 million and the club at 12 he would be a certain winner and that he is guaranteed an 8 WAR, healthy season. I am sorry. You are the one being absurd.

Weams, If Trout put up another 8 WAR this year that would be 26.3 WAR in his full 3 seasons.. roughly just short of 9 WAR per season. A RoY of the year to his name, two 2nd places for MVP, two Silver Sluggers.. then his stats. .320 plus avg, avg of 28.5 HRs, 90 rbis, 40 plus SBs... then throw in his previous pay and you are looking at an Arb hearing that would give him that $15m. He's, and no offense to Jones, the best CF in MLB right now. If he does it again this year.. and didn't do that deal, Trout would have broken Howards record by a couple of million.

[weams]

Here is what I am saying; if Trout has another 10 WAR season, 15 M in arb might be patently absurd. You seem to think that Trout is 3 M better than Howard at the same age. I find that laughable and I am sure any arbitrator would too.

It's not a matter of Trout and Howard. It's a matter of what set of criteria the arbitrator chooses to use. And which number is closer to a reasonable figure. What Howard got was wrong. I think we can all agree. But they sure did not base their ruling on WAR.

[El Gordo]

It's not a matter of Trout and Howard. It's a matter of what set of criteria the arbitrator chooses to use. And which number is closer to a reasonable figure. What Howard got was wrong. I think we can all agree. But they sure did not base their ruling on WAR.

Here: "The most commonly cited model, which dates back to research done a few years ago by Tango is the 40/60/80 rule: first-year arbitration eligibles earn about 40 percent of what a comparable free agent would earn, with second-year eligibles jumping to 60 percent and third-year eligibles to 80 percent. Standard-setting players such as Kershaw and Trout are the ones who tend to break the 40/60/80 rule, but as a framework, it will do here.

That rule doesn’t affect the actual expectations for Trout’s production, but it does affect what he can reasonably be expected to receive for his services before he reaches free agency. If we discount the first three years of Trout’s production at those rates, the estimates become $17.4 million for 2014, $28.7 million for 2015 and $41.9 million for 2016, lowering the total valuation to $265 million, and the cost per win to $4.89 million." You need to read the whole thing if you want any perspective on Trout. http://mlb.si.com/2014/02/24/mike-trout-what-is-he-really-worth/

[weams]

Here: "The most commonly cited model, which dates back to research done a few years ago by Tango is the 40/60/80 rule: first-year arbitration eligibles earn about 40 percent of what a comparable free agent would earn, with second-year eligibles jumping to 60 percent and third-year eligibles to 80 percent. Standard-setting players such as Kershaw and Trout are the ones who tend to break the 40/60/80 rule, but as a framework, it will do here.

That rule doesn’t affect the actual expectations for Trout’s production, but it does affect what he can reasonably be expected to receive for his services before he reaches free agency. If we discount the first three years of Trout’s production at those rates, the estimates become $17.4 million for 2014, $28.7 million for 2015 and $41.9 million for 2016, lowering the total valuation to $265 million, and the cost per win to $4.89 million." You need to read the whole thing if you want any perspective on Trout. http://mlb.si.com/2014/02/24/mike-trout-what-is-he-really-worth/

Thank you.

You think that an arbitrator would give him 40 percent of 30 million in a first year? I'd want to be on the other side of that in the hearing.

[El Gordo]

Thank you.

You think that an arbitrator would give him 40 percent of 30 million in a first year? I'd want to be on the other side of that in the hearing.

No I think Tom Tango thinks that. But what does he know? :rolleyestf:

[weams]

No I think Tom Tango thinks that. But what does he know? :rolleyestf:

Tango knows a lot. Bet he would not take a 17.4 number into that hearing though.

[weams]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1923091-what-will-mike-trout-receive-in-first-year-of-salary-arbitration

Here are the criteria for determining arbitration payouts as laid down by MLB's collective bargaining agreement:

The quality of the player's most recent season

The length and consistency of the player's career contribution

The record of the player's past compensation

Comparative baseball salaries

The existence of any physical or mental defects

The recent performance record of the player's club

The thinking is that Trout, who right now is only entitled to the league minimum of $500,000, is destined to shatter the record payout of $10 million for a first-time arbitration-eligible player set by Ryan Howard in 2008.

Bill Shaikin of the Los Angeles Times spoke to a source who floated $15 million as a possibility. Thinking more conservatively, Ken Rosenthal of FoxSports.com floated $12 million as a possibility.

[weams]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1923091-what-will-mike-trout-receive-in-first-year-of-salary-arbitration

However, arbitration is a unique beast. In such a way that it could be tricky for Trout to top Howard's $10 million payout if his case were to actually go to arbitration.

It's a shame we will never know.

[weams]

It's a shame we will never know.

Because the arbitration process ultimately could be determined by a panel of arbitrators, not of a baseball background but from the American Arbitration Association, no advanced stats are used to compare players. So, no WAR. No wOBA. What you get are the traditional stats, with the likes of OPS and WHIP just now making its way into the arbitration panel vernacular.

A real shame.