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

[Can_of_corn]

Grady Sizemore.

Grady might make the Red Sox.

[weams]

Grady might make the Red Sox.

After missing five years. Conor Jackson almost made the Orioles last year.

[Frobby]

6 years/ 140

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2014/02/26/nightengale-mike-trout-angels-contract-extension-six-years-140-million/5850991/

That deal would cover 2015-20, which are his 3 arbitration years and 3 FA years. It would probably look something like this:

2015: $12 mm

2016: $18 mm

2017: $24 mm

2018: $28 mm

2019: $29 mm

2020: $29 mm

Pretty fair for both sides IMO, given Trout's youth and value and the risk of long-term contracts. He'd undoubtedly top $29 mm/yr if he waited until the 2017-18 offseason and became a free agent, but he could get injured or have a decline in performance before then.

[UpstateNYfan]

The $30m wall still exists. I'm sure at some point it's broken, but AROD still lingers in owners minds.

[Stotle]

That deal would cover 2015-20, which are his 3 arbitration years and 3 FA years. It would probably look something like this:

2015: $12 mm

2016: $18 mm

2017: $24 mm

2018: $28 mm

2019: $29 mm

2020: $29 mm

Pretty fair for both sides IMO, given Trout's youth and value and the risk of long-term contracts. He'd undoubtedly top $29 mm/yr if he waited until the 2017-18 offseason and became a free agent, but he could get injured or have a decline in performance before then.

I think the deal is great for Trout. Gives up enough FA to get that guaranteed payday now, but is set for one more big K. If he is "the same Trout" after 2017, they probably tear up this contract and give him an 8 to 10 year deal at market rate (unless he really wants to head back to NJ).

Also, by that time he'll probably be making an insane amount in endorsement deals. Will be curious to see what Harper does...

[SrMeowMeow]

I can't prove that the more balanced team would be better, but I know it with every bone in my body. And I'd bet that a good sabermetrician could prove it. And this is why Trout is never going to earn what WAR says he is worth. If you have $62 mm to spend, Trout and four replacement level players isn't the way to spend it.

Why do you think it's true? I don't see a clear common sense answer. It could go either way. But I'm sure it will be very close, since that's kind of implicit in the definition of replacement level.

Wording on my part was horrible.

But my point is Team A has Trout. 10 WAR plus 4 replacement players. The assumption that those 4 are O WAR is false. You can have 1 player that is -1 WAR but 3 players who are .5 WAR (which is less then 1 WAR so considered Replacement). But that would give you 10.5 WAR.

Same could apply to Team B. WAR in itself is not a great analytical tool to see how much an improvement a team made or how many wins they can expect. Rather it's a good measure of someone's production ability.

This is very silly. We're taking their WAR production as the basis for the question. That's like saying one plus one might not be two because sometimes one of the ones might be a different number.

[scOtt]

1/$1 mill works for me.

[Frobby]

Dave Cameron has a pretty interesting non-WAR analysis of Trout's value here: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/another-way-of-explaining-mike-trouts-50-million-valuation/. He concludes that based on current production, Jacoby Ellsbury and Shin-Soo Choo (making $40 mm combined) provide about as much value as Trout and Eric Young (who he values at $3 mm) combined. Therefore, if all you considered was current production, Trout would be worth about $37 mm. But when you factor in that the Yankees and Rangers are knowingly paying for years in which Ellsbury and Choo will decline, that makes Trout worth considerably more.

[UpstateNYfan]

Dave Cameron has a pretty interesting non-WAR analysis of Trout's value here: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/another-way-of-explaining-mike-trouts-50-million-valuation/. He concludes that based on current production, Jacoby Ellsbury and Shin-Soo Choo (making $40 mm combined) provide about as much value as Trout and Eric Young (who he values at $3 mm) combined. Therefore, if all you considered was current production, Trout would be worth about $37 mm. But when you factor in that the Yankees and Rangers are knowingly paying for years in which Ellsbury and Choo will decline, that makes Trout worth considerably more.

To compare total value of multiple players to one player is absurd IMO. He does not cover the entire outfield, he only gets up to bat 1 out of every 9 times. He is a good (great) player, but just one of 25 and yet worth at $37 million he would be given at minimum 20% and in most cases 33% of a budget. Way too much IMO.

[DrungoHazewood]

To compare total value of multiple players to one player is absurd IMO. He does not cover the entire outfield, he only gets up to bat 1 out of every 9 times. He is a good (great) player, but just one of 25 and yet worth at $37 million he would be given at minimum 20% and in most cases 33% of a budget. Way too much IMO.

If the Angels are a 90-win team, Trout makes up about 20% of the team's value over 40 wins. The Angels have a payroll of about $180M, so Trout is about 22% (@ $40M per year).

If Trout at $40M is way too much, then Choo at $20M or Ellsbury at $20M is way too much. But that's where the market has set their values.

[weams]

If the Angels are a 90-win team, Trout makes up about 20% of the team's value over 40 wins. The Angels have a payroll of about $180M, so Trout is about 22% (@ $40M per year).

If Trout at $40M is way too much, then Choo at $20M or Ellsbury at $20M is way too much. But that's where the market has set their values.

Ah. But even though Choo and Elsbury are both overpaid, their risk is spread. It's not 40 in one basket.

[waroriole]

I think the deal is great for Trout. Gives up enough FA to get that guaranteed payday now, but is set for one more big K. If he is "the same Trout" after 2017, they probably tear up this contract and give him an 8 to 10 year deal at market rate (unless he really wants to head back to NJ).

Also, by that time he'll probably be making an insane amount in endorsement deals. Will be curious to see what Harper does...

Ha. I haven't used K for contract in quite a while. It took me a second to figure out what you were saying.

[DrungoHazewood]

Ah. But even though Choo and Elsbury are both overpaid, their risk is spread. It's not 40 in one basket.

True, but there are advantages to concentrating talent, too. If Trout stays healthy it's easier to upgrade a replacement-level position and get 12, 15 wins, than it is to find a 6-8 win player to upgrade a 4-win position. It's also more likely one of Choo or Ellsbury gets hurt than Trout.

[LookinUp]

Isn't the cost of a win very low for cheap players, and supposed to be high for the best players?

Trout may be eclipsing that. The cost/win curve might have a downward slope on the far right made possible by baseball's reluctance to pay so much for one player (at least in this case).

[DrungoHazewood]

Isn't the cost of a win very low for cheap players, and supposed to be high for the best players?

Trout may be eclipsing that. The cost/win curve might have a downward slope on the far right made possible by baseball's reluctance to pay so much for one player (at least in this case).

No, a win is a win. For all intents and purposes the cost is linear. Although I suppose there's little data for the extreme outliers. Maybe at some point teams are simply not willing to pay what a player is really worth. But I kind of doubt it. If there was a new, better Ruth, someone truly ground-breaking and worth 20 wins, I bet the Yanks would pay $100M for them, make them the biggest sports star in the world, and never look back.