King_of_Kings

Mike Trout 2019 Outlook

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, SpecialFNK said:

even if the top players signed for less they would still be getting paid really well.

certainly Trout deserves to be paid more than any other player, but so much that it handcuffs the Angels? does Trout or any of these top players really "need" 30+ million a season? if Trout signed for 20 he would still be filthy rich for the rest of his life and then the Angels would have 10+ more million to help elsewhere. this could be the case with any team.

I’m always uncomfortable telling someone else what they “need.” There’s literally billions of people around the world wondering why you “need” a second car, or a house with that many rooms. I mean, we all should make what the market dictates our value is.

As to the point about the Angels, this just isn’t true. This isn’t the NFL or NBA, where there’s a hard cap. The Angels can still put together a good team around him. They’re from a huge market. This in no way handicaps the team moving forward. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Backdoor Slider said:

I’m always uncomfortable telling someone else what they “need.” There’s literally billions of people around the world wondering why you “need” a second car, or a house with that many rooms. I mean, we all should make what the market dictates our value is.

As to the point about the Angels, this just isn’t true. This isn’t the NFL or NBA, where there’s a hard cap. The Angels can still put together a good team around him. They’re from a huge market. This in no way handicaps the team moving forward. 

 

there is a salary tax. we already have teams that don't want to make moves because they want to stay under the tax.

teams also have a budget including the Angels or they themselves could have went after players like Harper or Machado.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SpecialFNK said:

 

there is a salary tax. we already have teams that don't want to make moves because they want to stay under the tax.

teams also have a budget including the Angels or they themselves could have went after players like Harper or Machado.

The Angels have a top 8 revenue in all of baseball. They could afford one of those players as well as the luxury tax, if they want to.

I don’t blame Trout for that. I blame the billionaire owner. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SpecialFNK said:

 

there is a salary tax. we already have teams that don't want to make moves because they want to stay under the tax.

teams also have a budget including the Angels or they themselves could have went after players like Harper or Machado.

Angels are about to be in a great salary position.  They have a ton of cost controlled talent on the way.  The upper half of their top prospects mostly have 2019-2020 ETAs, Pujols comes off in 3 years that will free up a ton of coin.  Angels have a lot of good financial flexibility coming up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Angels tried to build around Trout under prior regimes, they just failed miserably with their big time commitments and their short-sided trades. Eppler has only been on the job for a few years but he's been cleaning up the mess of the Dipoto era while rebuilding the farm system up. They are in good shape financially heading into the next decade(with Trout secured) and have a farm system with actual talent and upside. IDK what this season will bring but I fully expect to see them be aggressive in the 2019 offseason with trades or big time signings....similar to what we just saw out of Philly this offseason.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Backdoor Slider said:

The Angels have a top 8 revenue in all of baseball. They could afford one of those players as well as the luxury tax, if they want to.

I don’t blame Trout for that. I blame the billionaire owner. 

 

the same thing can be said about other teams like Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, but they don't want to spend ridiculous money because of the tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SpecialFNK said:

 

the same thing can be said about other teams like Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, but they don't want to spend ridiculous money because of the tax.

Of course it could. And again, blaming the players for getting their cut instead of the owners is crazy. You’re ok with them raking in ridiculous money, but defend them from not wanting to spend ridiculous money?

For some perspective, Trout still makes less per year (2019) than Strasburg and Greinke. Will make slightly more than D.Price. 

This is a bargain for Mike Trout.

Edited by Backdoor Slider
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, SpecialFNK said:

 

the same thing can be said about other teams like Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, but they don't want to spend ridiculous money because of the tax.

What?  Red Sox and Nats were just over luxury tax last year:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/sports/mlb/la-sp-baseball-notes-20180912-story.html%3foutputType=amp

 

also Dodgers have burned money for years:

The Dodgers are next at $194.5 million, up from $182 million on opening day. The Dodgers have had the highest tax bill for the past four seasons and have paid nearly $150 million over the last five years.”

Edited by Cmilne23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Backdoor Slider said:

Of course it could. And again, blaming the players for getting their cut instead of the owners is crazy. You’re ok with them raking in ridiculous money, but defend them from not wanting to spend ridiculous money?

For some perspective, Trout still makes less per year (2019) than Strasburg and Greinke. Will make slightly more than D.Price. 

This is a bargain for Mike Trout.

it's not necessarily blaming the players. they have this mentality that their worth comparable to other players is based on how much they are paid. A got $, but B thinks he is better so he wants $$. C thinks he is better so he wants $$$. it never stops.

teams for years have worked on a budget. it would be smarter IMO for players to take a little less. that is why you hear of some players talking team friendly deals.

teams don't really want to spent big money, or the Angels could have signed Machado, and Harper, and Moustakas, and Corbin, and Keuchel, and Kimbrel.. and said lets go!

 

 

1 minute ago, Cmilne23 said:

What?  Red Sox and Nats were just over luxury tax last year:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/sports/mlb/la-sp-baseball-notes-20180912-story.html%3foutputType=amp

 

also Dodgers have burned money for years:

The Dodgers are next at $194.5 million, up from $182 million on opening day. The Dodgers have had the highest tax bill for the past four seasons and have paid nearly $150 million over the last five years.”

 

is the reason the Red Sox don't want to sign Kimbrell is because they want to stay under the tax?

the Dodgers also recently traded Kemp to free up money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a well deserved contract, which goes without saying. I'm surprised that the Angels got ahead of this but at the same time him and Ohtani are the two draws for fans to watch so letting him go would have been a huge mistake. Now they just need to get Pujols contract off the books...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SpecialFNK said:

it's not necessarily blaming the players. they have this mentality that their worth comparable to other players is based on how much they are paid. A got $, but B thinks he is better so he wants $$. C thinks he is better so he wants $$$. it never stops.

teams for years have worked on a budget. it would be smarter IMO for players to take a little less. that is why you hear of some players talking team friendly deals.

teams don't really want to spent big money, or the Angels could have signed Machado, and Harper, and Moustakas, and Corbin, and Keuchel, and Kimbrel.. and said lets go!

 

 

 

is the reason the Red Sox don't want to sign Kimbrell is because they want to stay under the tax?

the Dodgers also recently traded Kemp to free up money.

 

I suggest spending less time counting other people's money. If they weren't worth these contracts, the owners wouldn't be paying them as much. I'm sure your salary looks extremely excessive to someone in a desolate country making $2 per day.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whenever I see a player get these huge numbers that take a good percentage of their clubs total salary I kind of wonder why they don't just ask for the Bonilla treatment. Like couldn't Trout just have asked for like 5 million per year for ten years after the contract? Bringing down that AAV would help you win and still get paid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SpecialFNK said:

 

there is a salary tax. we already have teams that don't want to make moves because they want to stay under the tax.

teams also have a budget including the Angels or they themselves could have went after players like Harper or Machado.

 

Your complaint should be with the franchise that wants to maximize profits, not the player signing the contract. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BleedRedsRed said:

Whenever I see a player get these huge numbers that take a good percentage of their clubs total salary I kind of wonder why they don't just ask for the Bonilla treatment. Like couldn't Trout just have asked for like 5 million per year for ten years after the contract? Bringing down that AAV would help you win and still get paid.

That stuff happens on back end.  Like when he has 2 years left and wants to retire instead of sucking (Pujols take notes) the club and player usually reach a buy out which is deferred over X amount of years of a smaller lump sum to walk off into sunset with the balloon payment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With some of these $40-$45 auction prices for certain players, I am starting to think $55 is a steal for Trout 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you know you're in the mike trout thread when we don't even talk about the tear hes on to start the season - especially the last 3 or so games. he's that dang good 🙄

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is my first year owning him from day one.  I feel like a privileged rich kid,  given all the secrets to the market.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He has more IBB than he does strikeouts on the season. He has as many HBP as he does strikeouts

He gets basically 1 AB per game and is hitting a HR in said AB. This is Bonds level stuff right now lol

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.