Trout, 12/430

[jabba72]

Griffey, Pujols and Arod are the most recent examples on that list that I see. None of them getting a 5 win season after the age of 32. Which kind of shows you the risk you are taking in paying a player $36M per year until he is 38. I guess thats the price you pay for greatness. 

[Frobby]

So, from Drungo’s list the average and median looks to be 33-34.    7 or 8 seasons before Trout hits that point.    Then consider that Trout’s numbers to date are actually higher than almost anyone on the list.    There’s certainly plenty of risk, but the more likely scenario is that Trout outperforms this deal.   

[Just Regular]

From what I've heard of him I don't think Trout really cares about marginal millions 431-700.  Overall I feel like the Angels have had the windfall of buying Trout FA years at something like Arb2/Arb3 prices on the $$$/WAR scale.

[Frobby]

3 minutes ago, OrioleDog said:

From what I've heard of him I don't think Trout really cares about marginal millions 431-700.  Overall I feel like the Angels have had the windfall of buying Trout FA years at something like Arb2/Arb3 prices on the $$$/WAR scale.

In a way it serves Trout’s interests, if he wants to play on a winning team.    He’s the highest paid player in MLB, his family is financially secure for several generations to come, and he’s left some money on the table that the Angels can use to get him some help.    Win-win.   

[OFFNY]

20 hours ago, OFFNY said:

o

 

I think that it's safe to say that Trout will be inducted into the Angels Hall-of-Fame someday.

By the way, Bobby Grich and Don Baylor are both members of that group.

 

http://losangeles.angels.mlb.com/ana/history/angels_hall_of_famers.jsp

 

o

 

 

7 hours ago, Luke-OH said:

 

I think that it's safe to say that Trout will be inducted into the Hall-of-Fame someday.

 

o

 

I think so, too.

The Angels Hall-of-Fame is/was a bit more obvious in terms of deadpan humor.

 

o

[LookinUp]

20 hours ago, ORIOLE33 said:

I don’t care what he was on, 2002 Barry Bonds was incredible. Big moment in the game, I’m walking Bonds to get to Trout. 

So you have to go to the best season ever in the history of the sport to find a guy that you're walking to get to Trout. I think you just made the case for his contract. 

I wonder if the statistics would say you're right. Is it better to pitch to 2002 Bonds with nobody on base or 2019 Trout with Bonds on first? I don't know how to do that math, but I'd be interested in the answer!

[Frobby]

17 hours ago, LookinUp said:

I wonder if the statistics would say you're right. Is it better to pitch to 2002 Bonds with nobody on base or 2019 Trout with Bonds on first? I don't know how to do that math, but I'd be interested in the answer!

How many outs are there and what’s the score?    And can you pinch run for Bonds?  What inning is it?   All that would matter.   It would still be complicated to figure out the answer.     Are we assuming if we pitch to Bonds and Trout, they’re not walking?    Or are we assuming they’d walk at their usual non-intentional walk rates?

My head hurts now.

 

[LookinUp]

It really could be a fascinating article for someone like a baseball prospectus to walk through all of the probabilities. The answers would depend on outs, others on base, opposing pitchers, maybe whomever would be hitting behind Trout, etc. I'd love to see that article though just to see the basic answer (in the aggregate, given all other scenarios, should you walk Bonds to get to Trout) and then see how the runs created changes based on the different scenarios. I bet it would really illuminate the decision making factors that managers should be aware of.

[Uli2001]

This is a lose-lose situation from a Sporting perspective. It's all about the money for both sides, which is a shame. Trout all but relinquishes the chance he will win something other than individual accolades in his career by staying with a bad Angels franchise. And the Angels avoid the massive PR hit in the turnstiles if Trout left but also freeze most of their resources in one player, who can't possibly be worth this contract at the backend of the deal.

[DrungoHazewood]

22 hours ago, LookinUp said:

So you have to go to the best season ever in the history of the sport to find a guy that you're walking to get to Trout. I think you just made the case for his contract. 

I wonder if the statistics would say you're right. Is it better to pitch to 2002 Bonds with nobody on base or 2019 Trout with Bonds on first? I don't know how to do that math, but I'd be interested in the answer!

The quick answer is that an intentional walk almost always results in higher run expectations for the inning.  So just don't do it.  Even when the batter has a 1.400 OPS.

[DrungoHazewood]

39 minutes ago, Uli2001 said:

Trout all but relinquishes the chance he will win something other than individual accolades in his career by staying with a bad Angels franchise. 

I guess you have Biff Tannen's sporting guide from the future.

[LookinUp]

Just now, DrungoHazewood said:

The quick answer is that an intentional walk almost always results in higher run expectations for the inning.  So just don't do it.  Even when the batter has a 1.400 OPS.

And while we're talking about walking a guy with a 1.400 OPS, we're also talking about doing so to get to a guy with a 1.100 OPS. 

[Frobby]

37 minutes ago, Uli2001 said:

This is a lose-lose situation from a Sporting perspective. It's all about the money for both sides, which is a shame. Trout all but relinquishes the chance he will win something other than individual accolades in his career by staying with a bad Angels franchise. And the Angels avoid the massive PR hit in the turnstiles if Trout left but also freeze most of their resources in one player, who can't possibly be worth this contract at the backend of the deal.

What reason do you have to think the Angels will always be bad?   They have a wealthy owner, they play in a big market, they have a huge TV contract.   They finished 80-82 the last two years, so it’s not like they’re awful.   It will be a long time before Trout declines enough not to be worth his annual salary, and meanwhile, he’s worth way more than that.     It should not be that hard to build a winning team around him.    

[LookinUp]

4 minutes ago, Frobby said:

What reason do you have to think the Angels will always be bad?   They have a wealthy owner, they play in a big market, they have a huge TV contract.   They finished 80-82 the last two years, so it’s not like they’re awful.   It will be a long time before Trout declines enough not to be worth his annual salary, and meanwhile, he’s worth way more than that.     It should not be that hard to build a winning team around him.    

And their minor league system has apparently made great strides over the last couple of years. Maybe they have smart people running things there now.

[Just Regular]

21 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

The quick answer is that an intentional walk almost always results in higher run expectations for the inning.  So just don't do it.  Even when the batter has a 1.400 OPS.

Ahem