Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Baseball Nation)   Mike Trout to earn same annual pay as Albert Pujols and Josh Hamilton...assuming those guys actually show up for four games   (baseballnation.com ) divider line
    More: Asinine, Mike Trout, Josh Hamilton, Jeremy Hellickson, Craig Kimbrel, Geovany Soto, Huston Street, Buster Posey, salary  
•       •       •

1217 clicks; posted to Sports » on 05 Mar 2013 at 8:25 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



71 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-05 08:31:57 AM  
So? Should salary be based on WAR you're saying? or do we give massive contraxts to one-year wonders (so far) whos only hardware is a ROY and never been to the playoffs? He received the contract he could based on the rules, didn't complain about it and the LAA did nothing funny. When he's eligible in a few years for FA, he'll get his payday anyway and probably has 15 good years left in him. With endorsements and appearances as well, I'm sure he'll be fine in the top 1% for hitting a baseball.
 
2013-03-05 08:33:18 AM  
This is one of the biggest non-stories in history.
 
2013-03-05 08:39:23 AM  
My percentage raise after my first year was higher than Trout's. Ergo I'm the ROTY of my job.
w00t


MichiganFTL: LAA did nothing funny


Well comparably yeah.  The Marlins were the only ones who gave less than they did.  It's a no story (as they mentioned right away), but do something to show good faith.  If this kid gets a career altering injury then he's screwed, and he continues to play harder than 90% of the league.
 
2013-03-05 08:48:12 AM  
It's Spring Training, so journalists only have a few stories to recycle...how about someone outperforming their rookie contract by far to the surprise of everyone last year, and why it's CRIMINAL to do so this year.  Dust it off, provide fresh information, presto, ready-to-be-printed story is there.  It only matters somewhat because of Trout's insane year WAR-wise.

When someone outperforms their rookie contract and there's still obligation left to be paid, stories like this happen all the time (see Pujols, Albert circa 2003).  It would only be news if a team offered a mega-deal in someone's second year of playing.
 
2013-03-05 08:53:58 AM  

SnatchMcGillicudy: It would only be news if a team offered a mega-deal in someone's second year of playing.


So if Trout was on the Rays and was willing to sign a large but potentially below market value extension.
 
2013-03-05 09:09:03 AM  
So...his salary is in line with other top rookies?

Writer is really fishing for a story here.  It's spring training; I didn't think he'd have to cast such a wide net.  You'd think there would be something on a bigger scale for him to carp about.

/I'm so sorry.
 
2013-03-05 09:10:33 AM  
Fangraphs says he's worth $45 million dollars a year.  Trout should ask for that much just so he can pay off all the stat nerds who sucked his cock during the MVP race.
 
2013-03-05 09:23:28 AM  
The Angels did nothing wrong; perhaps not the smartest thing, but certainly not wrong. The main problem is the draft and a team's subsequent control over players for years (and this is true across sporting leagues). It's not right that players have no real say over where they will play or how long they will be stuck with an organization. Given how much can be made through endorsements, I'm quite surprised that more stars (once they are such, and have the marketing power) don't sign for only one-year deals, while looking for the best club to win with every year.
 
2013-03-05 09:28:12 AM  
CBA giveth.
CBA taketh away.
 
2013-03-05 09:28:25 AM  
FFS.  STFU and play Trout.  IF you're any good, you'll get the big bucks after you actually *gasp*, earn it.
 
2013-03-05 09:28:41 AM  
Well, They had to give Hamilton $26.6 million so that he can get injured, fall off the wagon, and disappear around August.
 
2013-03-05 09:36:39 AM  

BunkyBrewman: FFS.  STFU and play Trout.  IF you're any good, you'll get the big bucks after you actually *gasp*, earn it.


I consider 139 games, 129 runs, 30 HR, 49 stolen bases, and one hell of a fielding ability to be WELL beyond "earning it". I'm not saying let's give him $7 million, but an extra $20,000 from L.A.?? That's just cheap.
 
2013-03-05 09:50:58 AM  
This is how baseball contracts work.  The NBA and NFL are heading that way too.  The vets who vote on the bargaining agreements have no incentive to increase rookie salaries - they're all already past their rookie deals.  The teams of course want to pay as little as possible.  Why's it a big deal this time?
 
2013-03-05 10:01:20 AM  
I wonder if Trout will remember this treatment when it comes time to re-sign?  If not, it's a non-issue.
 
2013-03-05 10:02:49 AM  

Nefarious: SnatchMcGillicudy: It would only be news if a team offered a mega-deal in someone's second year of playing.

So if Trout was on the Rays and was willing to sign a large but potentially below market value extension.


Let me rephrase...it would only be news if a team offered a mega-deal after ONLY seeing a player's rookie season.  I don't even think the Rays have done this, but I may be corrected with this being the internet and all.
 
2013-03-05 10:11:41 AM  

SnatchMcGillicudy: Let me rephrase...it would only be news if a team offered a mega-deal after ONLY seeing a player's rookie season.  I don't even think the Rays have done this, but I may be corrected with this being the internet and all.


well no, but how they've handled Longoria is similar methinks.  Could be wrong.
 
2013-03-05 10:13:12 AM  
And the problem is?  Trout is a member of the player's union who bargained for this system.

Deal with it for two years, keep producing, and you'll get paid in arbitration.  The return for Trout is, if he don't get seriously injured, he will get at least a 10 year $300m  guaranteed contract from somebody after his age 25 season.
 
2013-03-05 10:34:16 AM  
I wish I got a 4% raise this year. Farking 1%ers.
 
2013-03-05 10:43:41 AM  

thecpt: SnatchMcGillicudy: Let me rephrase...it would only be news if a team offered a mega-deal after ONLY seeing a player's rookie season.  I don't even think the Rays have done this, but I may be corrected with this being the internet and all.

well no, but how they've handled Longoria is similar methinks.  Could be wrong.


That's similar, but without seeing the sophomore slump, it still seems foolish.  Credit the Rays for making that work though, it keeps them in contention without really breaking the bank seeing as how they've done that with a lot of young stars in the organization.  Trout (and Harper) will get theirs if they can keep production up.  Again, look at Pujols.  This has played out before.
 
2013-03-05 10:45:17 AM  
Ah the Angels. I look forward to watching them fall on their face again this year.  I really don't get their thinking. Hamilton has tons of talent for sure but he's starting to show his age already and he's injury prone and a  head-case. 2010 and April/May last year are the only times we've seen what he could really do (and even in 2010 he missed something like 45 games).

Pujols is going to continue to decline as well. He'll still be a force but homeruns are his game and pitching in the AL west is much better than it used to be. He just can't run like he used to.

/ Rangers' fan
// of course I think OAK is going to take it again this year
 
2013-03-05 10:53:35 AM  
The fact that ballplayers aren't free to sell their services to the highest bidder (you know, like every other employee in America) is ridiculous. The guy selling peanuts can quit his gig at Angel Stadium if the Dodgers offer him a better deal, but Mike Trout can't until he's put in six years on the job?
 
2013-03-05 10:57:26 AM  

jalora: The fact that ballplayers aren't free to sell their services to the highest bidder (you know, like every other employee in America) is ridiculous. The guy selling peanuts can quit his gig at Angel Stadium if the Dodgers offer him a better deal, but Mike Trout can't until he's put in six years on the job?


So Steinbrenner baseball is the answer huh?
 
2013-03-05 10:57:59 AM  
Angels are being cheap (within the rules they could have given him a bigger raise, even up to a salary of $1 mil a year) but those are the rules that the MLBPA have agreed on in the CBA. The young players make less money so the veterans can make more. Just like the NFL did last year and NHL tried to do this year, leagues are trying to control young players longer and cheaper because they know that no matter what they will pay for top free agents with max deals. GMs can't help themselves.
 
2013-03-05 11:14:36 AM  

jalora: The fact that ballplayers aren't free to sell their services to the highest bidder (you know, like every other employee in America) is ridiculous. The guy selling peanuts can quit his gig at Angel Stadium if the Dodgers offer him a better deal, but Mike Trout can't until he's put in six years on the job?


He was drafted, but certainly not forced to sign the contract offered. He's free to sell peanuts if he wants to switch careers.
 
2013-03-05 11:21:38 AM  

SkylineRecords: BunkyBrewman: FFS.  STFU and play Trout.  IF you're any good, you'll get the big bucks after you actually *gasp*, earn it.

I consider 139 games, 129 runs, 30 HR, 49 stolen bases, and one hell of a fielding ability to be WELL beyond "earning it". I'm not saying let's give him $7 million, but an extra $20,000 from L.A.?? That's just cheap.


I consider that a pretty small sample size to determine anything. Wait until this season is on and he hits at least ten less homers because pitchers "figure out" his hitting.
 
2013-03-05 11:37:47 AM  

AngryPanda: SkylineRecords: BunkyBrewman: FFS.  STFU and play Trout.  IF you're any good, you'll get the big bucks after you actually *gasp*, earn it.

I consider 139 games, 129 runs, 30 HR, 49 stolen bases, and one hell of a fielding ability to be WELL beyond "earning it". I'm not saying let's give him $7 million, but an extra $20,000 from L.A.?? That's just cheap.

I consider that a pretty small sample size to determine anything. Wait until this season is on and he hits at least ten less homers because pitchers "figure out" his hitting.


A 2013 Mike Trout with 10 less HR would still be the best player in baseball.  He's a top-tier defensive player at a key position, and guys stay in the majors just for that.  He was one of the three best baserunners in baseball.  And, oh, by the way, he can hit.  He was head and shoulders above everyone else last year.

The free market just gave Michael Bourn $48M for 4 years.  Michael Bourn is a 30-year-old guy who runs like Trout, defends like Trout, and hits like a small girl.  Trout is 21 and may well get better every year for the next 5-6 years.  $7M/yr would be a ridiculous bargain for him.
 
2013-03-05 11:38:20 AM  

SnatchMcGillicudy: Nefarious: SnatchMcGillicudy: It would only be news if a team offered a mega-deal in someone's second year of playing.

So if Trout was on the Rays and was willing to sign a large but potentially below market value extension.

Let me rephrase...it would only be news if a team offered a mega-deal after ONLY seeing a player's rookie season.  I don't even think the Rays have done this, but I may be corrected with this being the internet and all.


Longoria's deal was signed 6 days after his debut. Matt Moore's deal was signed in December 2011....his debut was in Sept of that year.

Wade Davis is a bit more like Trout. He played a little in 2009, a full season in 2010, and signed a potential 7-year deal in spring training 2011.

To move away from the Rays, Ryan Braun signed his 8 year deal almost exactly a year to the day after his debut.

So I guess it depends on the definition of "mega-deal."
 
2013-03-05 11:42:57 AM  

ddam: Angels are being cheap (within the rules they could have given him a bigger raise, even up to a salary of $1 mil a year) but those are the rules that the MLBPA have agreed on in the CBA. The young players make less money so the veterans can make more.


The Angels were dumb not to just hand him the maximum salary of $1M/year.  That's well worth the good will it will leave behind for Trout's eventual contract negotiations, and it sends the right message to the Angels' fanbase.  The guy just had arguably the greatest rookie season in history.  Invest in him.

Now, Future Trout isn't going to play for the Angels for peanuts, when other offers come in.  But players take something other than the highest dollar value often enough, as long as it's close.
 
2013-03-05 11:59:58 AM  
Legally right, but boy are they gonna pay for it in arbitration. Trout will look good in Pinstripes.
 
2013-03-05 12:04:23 PM  

jalora: The fact that ballplayers aren't free to sell their services to the highest bidder (you know, like every other employee in America) is ridiculous. The guy selling peanuts can quit his gig at Angel Stadium if the Dodgers offer him a better deal, but Mike Trout can't until he's put in six years on the job?


As mandated by the collective bargaining agreement between MLB and the MLBPA, that is correct.
 
2013-03-05 12:11:26 PM  

Trocadero: Legally right, but boy are they gonna pay for it in arbitration. Trout will look good in Pinstripes.


Hal Steinbrenner's Yankees aren't George Steinbrenner's Yankees.
 
2013-03-05 12:16:11 PM  

Trocadero: Legally right, but boy are they gonna pay for it in arbitration. Trout will look good in Pinstripes.


a 27-year old Mike Trout in a White Sox uniform?? Yes please.
 
2013-03-05 12:37:45 PM  
As an A's fan, this makes me happy. As soon as he's eligible for free-agency, he's gonna be wearing Dodger blue, or Yankee pinstripes. Maybe he'll go to the Red Sox. I'll just be happy he's not in my division anymore. Stupid Angels.
 
2013-03-05 12:39:53 PM  

chimp_ninja: The Angels were dumb not to just hand him the maximum salary of $1M/year. That's well worth the good will it will leave behind for Trout's eventual contract negotiations, and it sends the right message to the Angels' fanbase.


The Phillies learned this the hard way with Ryan Howard. After his 2006 MVP season, they offered him $900K. He wanted the $1M. At that time, he would have been worth it; however, they refused to go above some imaginary "pay scale" that was in place, even for the player that was causing people to actually get interested in the Phillies again. It created some bad feelings between him and the club, and caused the fans to roll their eyes and go "Here we go again with the cheapskate stuff". The next year, he asked for $10M in arbitration, the Phils wanted to give him only $7M... and Howard won the arbitration case, setting a precedent that, eventually, ended up in the "You Paid Him *HOW MUCH*" contract a couple of years later.
 
2013-03-05 12:46:31 PM  

chimp_ninja: ddam: Angels are being cheap (within the rules they could have given him a bigger raise, even up to a salary of $1 mil a year) but those are the rules that the MLBPA have agreed on in the CBA. The young players make less money so the veterans can make more.

The Angels were dumb not to just hand him the maximum salary of $1M/year.  That's well worth the good will it will leave behind for Trout's eventual contract negotiations, and it sends the right message to the Angels' fanbase.  The guy just had arguably the greatest rookie season in history.  Invest in him.

Now, Future Trout isn't going to play for the Angels for peanuts, when other offers come in.  But players take something other than the highest dollar value often enough, as long as it's close.


Because messages to the fan base wins games...

Wouldn't be shocked if they lock him up sooner than later and this was just a stopgap.
 
2013-03-05 01:05:21 PM  
Because messages to the fan base wins games...

Messages to the fans keep the fans coming to games, and buying your merch so that you can put Josh Hamilton and Albert Pujols on the same team. The strike of '94-'95 were a valuable lesson in just how much the fans matter.
 
2013-03-05 01:13:45 PM  
Rookie of the Year? Give him $20 million a year. What could possibly go wrong?

www.baseball-almanac.com
 
2013-03-05 01:21:58 PM  

SkylineRecords: Because messages to the fan base wins games...

Messages to the fans keep the fans coming to games, and buying your merch so that you can put Josh Hamilton and Albert Pujols on the same team. The strike of '94-'95 were a valuable lesson in just how much the fans matter.


Over the past 8 years, the Angels have beaten the league average total attendance by about a million fans per season (~3.3m to ~2.3m).  There are like 40 trillion people in the area.  They're not going to stop selling tickets because people are upset that Mike Trout isn't making enough money.
 
2013-03-05 01:24:45 PM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: As an A's fan, this makes me happy. As soon as he's eligible for free-agency, he's gonna be wearing Dodger blue, or Yankee pinstripes. Maybe he'll go to the Red Sox. I'll just be happy he's not in my division anymore. Stupid Angels.


I dunno how much this stuff actually matters. He won't be negotiating a contract for years, and when that happens he'll be gauging offers by differentials of tens of millions of dollars. I think stuff like management personnel and his treatment by the media will determine more whether he wants to keep hanging around Anaheim, all things being equal financially.

What I'm more interested in this spring is the fact that he came into camp 15-20 lbs heavier. I saw a picture of him, and maybe it was a bad angle, but he looked like Private Pyle from Full Metal Jacket. How's that going to affect a center fielder?
 
2013-03-05 01:26:22 PM  
The point isn't that second-year players are underpaid.

The point is that most second-year players get a chunk more than the minimum salary when they do well. The salary is at the team's discretion, and most teams give something of a bonus to these players.

The Angels didn't, giving Trout the lowest raise for a Rookie of the Year since Chris Coghlan and the Marlins.

There is no good reason for this.
 
2013-03-05 01:39:29 PM  

Hoopy Frood: Rookie of the Year? Give him $20 million a year. What could possibly go wrong?

[www.baseball-almanac.com image 223x310]


That was Joe Charboneau. Mike Trout had arguably THE greatest rookie MLB season of all time. They could have shaken down one of the couches in their luxury suites and paid him the $1 million that he deserves. Instead, he gets to sit in the 4-5-6 spot with 2 guys making 50 times his salary who will disappear throughout April and maybe May (Pujols), or get injured for the 22nd time and still bottom out in September (Hamilton). If you want to go the "strictly business" route over $500k, don't be too surprised when that comes back to bite you in the ass when the 6-year grace period is up. Mark my words, Mike Trout IS something special, not just a flash in the pan.
 
2013-03-05 01:44:01 PM  

Dafatone: SkylineRecords: Because messages to the fan base wins games...

Messages to the fans keep the fans coming to games, and buying your merch so that you can put Josh Hamilton and Albert Pujols on the same team. The strike of '94-'95 were a valuable lesson in just how much the fans matter.

Over the past 8 years, the Angels have beaten the league average total attendance by about a million fans per season (~3.3m to ~2.3m).  There are like 40 trillion people in the area.  They're not going to stop selling tickets because people are upset that Mike Trout isn't making enough money.


I'm sure Mike Trout isn't too happy about it. He claims to be taking the high road, but I highly doubt that for someone of his caliber. If attendance really is that high at a constant rate, why stiff a phenom out of a relatively measly $500,000? The press they got alone from Mike Trout was worth that.
 
2013-03-05 01:51:01 PM  

Cagey B: UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: As an A's fan, this makes me happy. As soon as he's eligible for free-agency, he's gonna be wearing Dodger blue, or Yankee pinstripes. Maybe he'll go to the Red Sox. I'll just be happy he's not in my division anymore. Stupid Angels.

I dunno how much this stuff actually matters. He won't be negotiating a contract for years, and when that happens he'll be gauging offers by differentials of tens of millions of dollars. I think stuff like management personnel and his treatment by the media will determine more whether he wants to keep hanging around Anaheim, all things being equal financially.

What I'm more interested in this spring is the fact that he came into camp 15-20 lbs heavier. I saw a picture of him, and maybe it was a bad angle, but he looked like Private Pyle from Full Metal Jacket. How's that going to affect a center fielder?


I read somewhere that they're moving him to left field. The Angels seem to be doing everything they can to move him out of his comfort zone. What's next, batting him ninth, and platooning him? Make him the bullpen catcher? I think we're gonna see an epic sophomore slump. It's what the Angels deserve. If they want a minimum salary player, that's what they'll get.
 
2013-03-05 01:53:32 PM  

SkylineRecords: Well, They had to give Hamilton $26.6 million so that he can get injured, fall off the wagon, and disappear around August.


I love you.
 
2013-03-05 02:03:53 PM  

Hoopy Frood: Rookie of the Year? Give him $20 million a year. What could possibly go wrong?


Joe Charboneau Rookie Season:
131 games, 76 runs, 23 HR, 2 stolen bases, .289

Mike Trout rookie Season:
139 games, 129 runs, 30 HR, 49 stolen bases, .326

Totally fair comparison there.
 
2013-03-05 02:05:49 PM  

jalora: The fact that ballplayers aren't free to sell their services to the highest bidder (you know, like every other employee in America) is ridiculous. The guy selling peanuts can quit his gig at Angel Stadium if the Dodgers offer him a better deal, but Mike Trout can't until he's put in six years on the job?


So if the peanut vendor stepped on his dick walking up the stairs at the stadium and is now out for the season, the team will still pay him, right?

/It's also a reward for the team that took a chance on someone. They spend a lot of money developing young players
//for every kid that makes it to the majors, there's probably 100 that don't

JC
 
2013-03-05 02:11:47 PM  

Uncle Pooky: SkylineRecords: Well, They had to give Hamilton $26.6 million so that he can get injured, fall off the wagon, and disappear around August.

I love you.


Somebody fancies them self a Rangers fan. You know...one of the "real" ones.
 
2013-03-05 02:21:05 PM  

DeWayne Mann: SnatchMcGillicudy: Nefarious: SnatchMcGillicudy: It would only be news if a team offered a mega-deal in someone's second year of playing.

So if Trout was on the Rays and was willing to sign a large but potentially below market value extension.

Let me rephrase...it would only be news if a team offered a mega-deal after ONLY seeing a player's rookie season.  I don't even think the Rays have done this, but I may be corrected with this being the internet and all.

Longoria's deal was signed 6 days after his debut. Matt Moore's deal was signed in December 2011....his debut was in Sept of that year.

Wade Davis is a bit more like Trout. He played a little in 2009, a full season in 2010, and signed a potential 7-year deal in spring training 2011.

To move away from the Rays, Ryan Braun signed his 8 year deal almost exactly a year to the day after his debut.

So I guess it depends on the definition of "mega-deal."


I asked, you answered.  I have you favorited as "baseball guru"; you are living up to the name.

Did not realize that Braun's current deal came so soon after his debut.  Wade Davis, however...yeah, no clue on that one at all.
 
2013-03-05 02:56:28 PM  

feanorn: The Angels did nothing wrong; perhaps not the smartest thing, but certainly not wrong. The main problem is the draft and a team's subsequent control over players for years (and this is true across sporting leagues). It's not right that players have no real say over where they will play or how long they will be stuck with an organization.


If it's so morally wrong, they should go after their union who agreed to those rules.
 
2013-03-05 02:59:02 PM  

jalora: The fact that ballplayers aren't free to sell their services to the highest bidder (you know, like every other employee in America) is ridiculous. The guy selling peanuts can quit his gig at Angel Stadium if the Dodgers offer him a better deal, but Mike Trout can't until he's put in six years on the job?


They agreed to it.  It's ridiculous for us to complain about something they collectively bargained over.
 
Displayed 50 of 71 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report