Mike Trout is having a season for the ages. That shouldn't be news to you. But let's forget about the present for a second and think about what could be an even more promising future, as terrifying as that sounds. By common thought in the analytical community, Trout is still six to eight years away from his peak, and if you’re the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, you want that peak. That means an extension for the most valuable young asset in the game. If you are the Angels, how do you even approach this? To find out, I talked to a number of scouts and executives to get their take.
Theory No. 1: The Cautious Route
For many I polled, now is simply not the time to discuss a Trout extension. “I'll go low because I can just pay him $1-1.5 million for the next two years and then try to do an eight-year deal going into his age 23 season,” said a National League executive. “You're going to be paying him either way,” said another NL official. “So I would probably wait another year or two since you still get him relatively cheap.”
An American League assistant GM noted that Trout's remarkable performance over his three-plus months in the big leagues means you are paying at his absolute peak. “I think they've missed the window to lock him up,” he said. “I know he's not going to suck at any point, but he may at least cool off sometime in the next two years and give you a chance to actually compare him to someone else.” All deals out there are baselines for future deals, and Trout's lack of comparable performances has the potential to create a real problem for the Angels. “Right now, there are no comps and you open the door to any contract number the agent wants to throw out there,” the exec continued. “$100 million isn't crazy right now, but that's kind of the problem.”
Theory No. 2: Fair Market Value
For many officials, this is really just a math question and it falls into three parts. The easy part is the known quantity of Trout's 2013 and 2014 seasons, or, to stick to the industry jargon, the pre-arb years. Those are simple enough to calculate, and even with the Angels giving Trout considerable raises simply as a nice gesture, both seasons should come in at well under $2 million.
Things get complicated from 2015-17, and Trout's three years of arbitration. For one NL executive, the best comparable for these years might be Phillies slugger Ryan Howard. “Howard went Rookie of the Year, MVP, and then back-to-back top five MVP years and his arbitration numbers were $10 and then $15 million,” he explained. “I know Trout could go higher, but a reasonable guess can't be much more than this.”
But others think it could creep a bit higher, according to one AL official. “He has a chance to set arbitration records since he dominated in the statistical categories arbitrators look at, and he has a chance at some hardware.”
Ranges for Trout's three years of arbitration were from $52-$55 million, But there was a remarkable universality in the value of Trout's free agency at this time. “My approximate math has him at $25 million for free agency,” said an NL executive, while another responded, “let's say he gets $25 million per as a free agent.” One AL official wrote “so we'll assume $25 million on the free agent years.”
Add up the $1.5 million for 2013-2014, and average estimate of $53.5 million for the arbitration years and $75 million for the three free agent years, and you have a total of $130 million for the next eight seasons, covering 2013-2020. Eight years seemed to be a magic number for those that responded as it buys out three years of free agency, while still allowing Trout to hit the open market at 28.
So the question becomes, what's the discount for providing Trout with immense security, and how does one structure the deal?
For many, options could provide additional opportunities for both sides of the table. “I'd be aiming at eight years at $85 million with two option years at $20 million and each with a $5 million buyout,” explained an NL exec. “That guarantees $95 million for eight years with the potential for $115 million over ten.”
That was the general range of logic, but that's also considerably more than previous similar deals done with young stars like Carlos Gonzalez (7 years, $80 million), Evan Longoria (6 years, $17.5 million with the potential for 9 years, $33.5 million), and ranks with Ryan Braun's two contracts that add up to 13 years and $150 million, though five of those years represent free agent time.
“I'm not even sure a $100 million dollar offer would start the conversation at this time,” said an AL official. “That first Pujols deal with the Cardinals (7 years, $100 million) might be the barometer, and in retrospect, that ended up looking like a very club-friendly deal.”
Theory No. 3: The All-In
And that's the problem. In the midst of a historic season, and clearly a remarkable talent, and obviously so incredibly young, would Trout even entertain anything but an equally historic offer at this point? “You might need a 12-15 year contract for it to make sense from Trout's side,” explained an AL executive. “Otherwise, why not dominate your arbitration years and test free agency at 26?”
Even with those parameters, many team officials were interested. When one NL scout was asked how much he'd offer Trout, he simply responded “whatever he wants.”
“I don't think anything is too much for Trout,” said another NL official. “It's just such a different situation given the leverage. If I'm the Angels, I'm looking to do something historic, and we're talking those 12-15 years, to make sure he is the man for our franchise for as long as possible.”
One thing was certainly clear with competing executives: they'd all love to have Trout on their roster, but they did not want to be in their shoes when it came to trying to keep Trout around long term. “I do not envy the Angels. They are in a very precarious situation with this kid,” said an AL front office official. “That being said, I'd certainly try to sign him.”
A version of this story originally appeared on ESPN Insider 
.
Thank you for reading
This is a free article. If you enjoyed it, consider subscribing to Baseball Prospectus. Subscriptions support ongoing public baseball research and analysis in an increasingly proprietary environment.
Subscribe now
Should have taken a page out of Friedman's book and offered him an extension right away. Now they're going to pay through the teeth.
At this point I'd say there is no rush to extend him.
Possibly a more interesting signing will be Trumbo. What will the Angels do about him?
What about someone who is performing at the league average like Matt Moore?
I'd also have a hard time believing his power has peaked at 20.
But ARod's 2nd best year was at 20. That doesn't mean the rest of those year's were bad.
And no, I'm not saying that the rest of A-Rod's years will be bad or that Trout will pull a Corey Patterson... a .300/.350/.550 CF is still very valuable. I'm saying the Angels, if they sign him to a contract, should pay him like a .300/.350/.550 and not at his current rate of .346/.410/.598.
But I still think a .900 OPS plus defensive CF with plus speed is worth more than $25 mill/yr on the open market. Well above that.
In some ways, this reminds me of the Joe Mauer hype over his power surge a few years ago and everyone saying he was going to remain a better player than Pujols. Turns out, that wasn't the case.
It's great what Trout has done so far and he is very damn promising, but he needs at least another season to "prove" what his level of production is.
Why do I think he might settle in in that .900 range? Ok, call me very silly, but his minor league OPS is .941. Granted, players mature and get better as they age, but the major leagues is supposed to be more difficult than the minor leagues. I can't fathom that turning a year older offsets the additional difficulty of hitting major league pitching.
In the history of baseball, there have been many many hyped prospects who flamed out before reaching the majors. There've also been many prospects who had a good rookie year and a bad second year and similarly, a lot of good propsects who had a bad first year and a good second year. You have hyped players who are good like Joe Mauer who had a .936 OPS at 23, had a home run surge 3 years later in 2006 for a 1.031 OPS but, while remaining above average, hasn't broken that .900 OPS barrier otherwise. You have people like Ben Grieve who had a .840ish OPS in his age 22-24 seasons and never broke .800 again in his career. Basically, there are a whole range of career paths. Trout may be a once-in-a-blue-moon-OMG-never-seen-before-talent but there have been similarly anointed players and not all of them have panned out.
Please keep in mind, my argument isn't really whether Trout is talented or not. The argument is a .900 OPS is damn hard for any player to do once but it does, on occasion, happen. However, as hard as that is to do, it's much much harder to sustain that level of production. If we're talking in terms of a Trout extension, there's little justifiable reason, at this point, to pay assuming Trout will continue to produce at even a .950 OPS level.
Just think about what we're saying... There was already a discussion earlier in the year that Trout already is the most valuable Angels player this year based on 150 plate appearances, and will remain for this year, more valuable than Pujols. Also, that Trout will always produce more than Pujols does for the rest of their careers though Pujols had established a 1.000+ OPS talent level. Now, are we hyping him up even more and suggesting that Trout is the next Barry Bonds? Based on 400 plate appearances? Heck, even Alex Rodriguez didn't end up being the next Barry Bonds.
Sit and wait another year or 18 months before making any decisions...
I agree, Trout's 9% walk rate isn't close to Henderson's, but as you point out, he's making up for it in his Avg at the moment. I wouldn't be surprised, however, to see his walk rate improve if pitchers start to pitch around him more.
I read an article on line this morning (USA Today?) saying that others have also comped him to Mickey Mantle. I mean jeez. No pressure.
I don't at all buy the assumption that Trout will just continue putting up numbers like this, so I wouldn't be handing out any 12-year deals. Wait a year or two and see where his level sits. My guess is he'll drop off a bit and then slowly improve until he's doing this kind of stuff annually. But I don't think that will start for another couple of years, and it's over that period that I would look into signing him long term.
Man, Longoria's agent should be exiled- what a terrible job he did.
With the increase in TV deals and the values of these franchises way up, would anyone be surprised if Trout signed a 10 year $400 million dollar deal in 2017 when he's a free agent at 26? Mauer just got $23 mill a year with way less leverage.
Now, if you accept that, with a possible $300-$400 mill deal looming, is there any way he accepts below $200 mill to buy out the next 5 years?
The situations aren't terribly comparable, but replace Angels with Twins and Trout with Mauer and I think you have similar lines of thought. Mauer has been pretty good, but nowhere near worth what they're paying him.
For Trout, it gives him a record contract in length and dollars, instant life-long security, and still a chance for him to secure another contract at age 33 in which he might still secure another $200-250 million for 7-10 years.
Second, in terms of free agency, there are very few teams that can compete in terms of dollars with the Angels, in addition to the advantage of the club being in Southern California. The Angels should take advantage of what they have to offer and wait.
This was a really, really well-written article. I know you don't think of yourself as a good writer, but you really maximized this piece given the word count limitation.
I do think there is one important factor that went unconsidered: inflation in player salaries. Salary inflation is the single biggest reason that Pujols' contract ended up providing such value to the Cardinals, and given the general expectation (gleaned through comments here and there) of real increases in cable TV revenue in coming years, I think we could see significant salary inflation. If this happens, even a $130M contract for Trout could end up being a bargain.
All of whom are probably at or past their prime btw.... but that's an another topic.
To receive the money and security early, Trout would need to willingly trade off some of that total contract value. But with vulture agents, especially Boras, the ability to strike this balance isn't very likely. For this reason, and because of probable regression or injury, I would seek a solution two years down the road. Might as well keep some of that money in my pocket for a little while longer if I'm the Angels.
If Trout finishes the year at .340/.420/.580 and goes .325/.400/.575 in his first 200 ABs to start 2013, I still don't think he's driven his price up all that much.
So $55mil for the next 5 years, then somewhere between $25-$30mil/year for as many years as it takes to convince Trout to sign on the dotted line.
Getting it done before 2013 starts does allow them to pay him $5mil or so instead of $1mil, and spread out the cash a little more if they're worried about the luxury tax, but that's about it. So instead of going:
2013 - 0.5
2014 - 1.0
2015 - 15
2016 - 20
2017 - 20
2018+ at 27mil/yr
They could go something like this:
2013 - 5
2014 - 5
2015 - 20
2016 - 20
2017 - 20
2018+ at 24mil/yr
Call it a performance bonus. It's not like he's not earning it.