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

[weams]

Don't let the internet catch you even implying something negative about Trout. Just a friendly suggestion...

We will talk about him in five years. Maybe Manny will be better.

[weams]

Don't let the internet catch you even implying something negative about Trout. Just a friendly suggestion...

Just because Cameron thinks that he is a 500 million dollar player does not me I have to. Rickey Henderson was a very valuable player as well.

[weams]

Just because Cameron thinks that he is a 500 million dollar player does not me I have to. Rickey Henderson was a very valuable player as well.

Rickey made 46 million dollars in his career.

[weams]

Don't let the internet catch you even implying something negative about Trout. Just a friendly suggestion...

Trout has been the perfect player these last two seasons. I can remember other players who had big years. And then, not so much.

[El Gordo]

If Trout continues as he has, he would produce at a 180M rate for his arb. years. They are getting him for 50 M for those three years. He would at least make that without the extension. If he averages 9 WAR over his 6 years that would be worth 324M. Good deal for LAA.

[DrungoHazewood]

If he is like he has been, I consider the deal to be an overpay of 10 million for the Arb years and around value for the first three FA years. If he is ANYTHING less, it's a huge overpay.

How is it a huge overpay if he's not quite an 8-10 win player? For his arb years at 40/60/80% of market, if he's an 8-win player that's 16/24/32. For free agent years they're still paying about 75% of market value at 8-wins per year. He'd have to drop off to 5-6 wins a year to make this even.

If he's a 4-win player he's worth $36M through arb years and 60M through three free agent years, so that's $96M... so that would be a big overpay. If your definition of "ANYTHING less" is 40-50% of current value I'll agree.

But... if he continues to be a 9-win player he's worth over $200M and this is a huge discount.

All numbers using a very conservative $5M/win. If inflation takes off the deal becomes more and more of a bargain.

[weams]

If Trout continues as he has, he would produce at a 180M rate for his arb. years. They are getting him for 50 M for those three years. He would at least make that without the extension. If he averages 9 WAR over his 6 years that would be worth 324M. Good deal for LAA.

But if he went to arbitration, those years would be valued at ~50 million. They would not have paid 180 million for that. They would have paid ~50 million.

[Stotle]

I am not sure a buy huge overpay or huge discount. It's just a solid deal for both sides.

[DrungoHazewood]

Trout has been the perfect player these last two seasons. I can remember other players who had big years. And then, not so much.

Mike Trout has three more rWAR through age 21 than any other player in the 140+ year history of Major League Baseball. The next ten guys on that list were all no-doubt HOFers. The worst career in the top 20 was probably Andruw Jones. Worst.

(And, by the way, Manny is 26th on the all-time list of rWAR through age 21, and he hasn't even played his age 21 season yet. He needs about 5 wins this year to reach the "everyone here is a HOFer" threshold.)

[sneaky flute]

Dave Cameron is an idiot. Why do people insist on using theoretical WAR values to assess contracts?

I think Trout's career will wax and wane much like Alex Rodriguez's and he'll end up getting a similar contract, adjusted for inflation of course. I'd be surprised if his AAV ever exceeds 35 million.

[DrungoHazewood]

Dave Cameron is an idiot. Why do people insist on using theoretical WAR values to assess contracts?

Oh, I don't know... maybe because WAR-like valuations and models are driving what GMs, owners and agents do nowadays? And, possibly, because it's a logical, consistent, and fact-based construct?

[MurphDogg]

But if he went to arbitration, those years would be valued at ~50 million. They would not have paid 180 million for that. They would have paid ~50 million.

Right. So he is essentially signing a 3 year 94 million dollar contract. That puts him at the highest AAV of any player which makes sense because he is the best player. Where the value comes in for the Angels is that unlike any other contract in baseball with a high AAV, Trout's contract doesn't include any years where he is expected to decline based on age. Will he improve on the last two years? Probably not, but with this contract he doesn't have to.

[sneaky flute]

Those evaluations lead people to write articles that suggest Trout will make 50 million a year in free agency.

[atomic]

I have to admit that I don't spend a ton of time looking at baseball team finances, but I did see two days ago that 14 teams are still under 100 million in total payroll, so these two contracts signed in the last few days would mean that Trout and Cabrera would both be singlehandedly earning more than 25 percent of the total payroll of nearly half the teams in the game. Those of you who study this carefully...how alarmed should O's fans be about retaining our own...?

Sorry to copy the questions of Weams and others...I am slow tonight...

Teams are overpaying players. The Angels will have all their money tied up in a handful of players and likely most of those won't return much. You have to think their future is bleak.

[joedogg9999]

If cabrera got 10 years $30mil per, then the angels just got an absolute steal with only giving Trout $24mil. But to answer your question, this has no bearing on machado. I love manny but right now trout is in another stratosphere. When manny can realistically hit .320 35 hrs and steal 40 bases, then we can talk