The Angels might do that, but at least a few of us feel Trout shouldn't be signed to such a long extension until he's played for another year or two in order to prove that he's really as good as he appears.
Others want to sign him for a long term right now. In other words, "snap him up."
Posey's had a few more years under his belt to prove that he's the real thing.
This has obviously been a repeating point of discussion around here, as CJ's post indicates. I don't thinking anyone expects we won't try - the question (other than length and dollars) is "timing". Waiting ensures he's not a flash in the pan, but waiting also reduces the club's negotiating leverage. If he continues to perform, I'd guess we'll see an extension by the end of this season.
There may be one other factor at play, and that's the budget, or more specifically, the end of Vernon Wells' contract - when that $21m debacle is removed from our payroll, that should offer some additional flexibility to work with.
I felt they should have signed him to a long term contract last May.
Everyday they wait, it will be more expensive, and every day they wait, it will become less likely.
>>But, I understand the delay in signing him long term and that is worrying about a career ending or altering injury. But, like I said his worth the risk.<<
There's one of the possible concerns, if the Angels are positive that Trout is for real and will continue to be an outstanding player and their ONLY concern is a major injury.
I guess I'm just skeptical that anyone can keep up the pace he's set and there might be a handful of others who feel the same way, I just don't know.
For me it's just personal opinion, and I don't know how the Angels feel about it, of course.
That's what I actually think, that the Angels may want to give him one more full season to see how it plays out, and THEN sign him long-term even though he might be more expensive by then.
This is just a guess on my part, though.
You were, in fact, exactly the person I was thinking of when I said earlier that some fans wanted Trout locked up long-term already. :)
I'm just more of a skeptic than you are, and don't trust any exceptional player after just one full season and a partial season.
That's fine, but so far I'm right. It's getting more expensive and there is less of a chance of it happening.
Can you imagine how expensive he'll be when he hits the Market at 26? The only real discount you are going to get if he gets hurt in year 25 or suffers a Bobby Valentine, Dickie Thon type injury.
I can't even imagine this kid not signing a 200 million dollar contract if he makes it to the market. And that's light.
The Angels should have done it last year.
I would agree with you but as I said, I'm skeptical that he's going to be that good for the next ten years. And if he isn't, then what?
That's quite a long contract extension, undoubtedly for a heck of a lot of money.
We'll see what the Angels end up doing, though. It's up to them.
If you were going to extend him last year, then you would have been out Vernon Wells money. It's a big deal, but it's not a death sentence.
Regardless, now if the Angels sign him, and he gets hurt, it's now going to cost them double Vernon Wells money.
When he hits the free agent Market, he will be more than triple Vernon Wells money. I actually think a lot more. Once teams realize the large TV contracts are here, 250 million bucks will not be crazy. And I doubt he'll be an Angel.
Vernon Wells money is 80 million bucks.
It's getting more and more expensive and the risk will always be there. Thus the risk is getting bigger. A lot bigger.
Days after he was brought up, Longoria signed a 44 million dollar guaranteed contract which guaranteed he'd be with TB for nine years. Even at double that, that opportunity is long gone.
< To buy out his arbitration years and the first few years of FA, do you think it would be unreasonable to offer him a 10 year deal @ 90 million ? >
If I was Trout I would accept that kind of a deal. Yes, it gives security, but it also buys out almost all the free agent years that could command a huge salary at a discount. Trout isn't even arbitration eligible until 2015 and a free agent in 2018. What you are suggesting is that in order to get 2018-2023 at a huge discount (using current projections Trout should get $25-30M per year during that time) you give him $10M per year for this year and next. I'm figuring he will make $10M his 2nd arbitration year (if not his first).
While you offer is a great deal for the Angels it isn't for Trout... a 6 year deal for around the same money ($90 million) is probably what Trout and his agent are looking for. That would buy out 1 free agency year, and probably 2 arbitration years below value, while giving him $10M AAV for 2 pre-arbitration years.
If you wanted to sign him for 10 years, it is probably going to cost around $20 million per year minimum.
probably right. Or worst, he'll fire his agent and hire Boras. If that happens, Moreno is not to be a happy camper
If Trout puts up the numbers this year , that I think he will. 10 years @110 is not unreasonable.
< Or worst, he'll fire his agent and hire Boras. >
That would be dumb, in a lot of respects Boras is out of touch with what is going on in baseball. More and more of his clients are losing money by following his advice.
This isn't last June when many wanted him extended, it's a season later. Trout is going to make 10 million in arbitration in 2014. The opportunity to spend 100 million bucks has passed.
My guess, right now we are at 150 million bucks for ten years. Last year in late May 80 would like have gotten it done.
We might be able to go 8 years at 100 and two options at 20 million a year... or something like that. But I don't know why he would do it. Lincecum in making 20 million a year in arbitration.
Once he has ten million dollars in his pocket, he has all the security in the world.