Keep former big league shortstop and manager Jim Fregosi in your thoughts and prayers tonight. The six-time All-Star suffered multiple strokes while on a cruise and has been taken off life support in a Miami-area hospital, writes MLB.com's Tracy Ringolsby. As a player, Fregosi played in parts of 18 seasons with the Angels, Rangers, Mets and Pirates, batting a collective .265/.338/.398. He went on to manage the Angels, White Sox, Phillies and Blue Jays over parts of 15 seasons, taking Philadelphia to the World Series in 1993. He is currently the Senior Advisor of Player Personnel for the Braves — a role he has filled for 13 years. Fregosi's larger than life personality has endeared him to teammates, media members and colleagues for decades. We at MLBTR are keeping Fregosi, his family and his many friends in our thoughts tonight and wishing for the best. As you do the same, here are some notes from around the league…
- Dave Cameron of Fangraphs examines what a potential Mike Trout extension could look like, ultimately concluding that while the end result would be a shocking sum, the Angels would be wise to sign him to a nine-year, $260MM or ten-year, $300MM extension if possible. The longer the team waits, says Cameron, the closer it comes to getting into a free agent bidding war over Trout, which could push his price tag up toward $400MM.
- Freddy Garcia did not decide to sign with the Braves until the team offered him a March 25 opt-out clause, writes MLB.com's Mark Bowman, and that clause will create an interesting battle for the team's final two bullpen spots in Spring Training. That Garcia would rather return to his family than pitch at the Triple-A level makes him a favorite to earn a spot on the team if he pitches reasonably well, and he could even temporarily push Alex Wood to the bullpen, writes Bowman.
- "Impatient is an understatement," Mets third baseman David Wright told Tim Rohan of the New York Times in discussing his desire to be a part of a winning club. However, Wright went on to say that he believes in GM Sandy Alderson's plan. Wright says he'd like to win before he feels like he cannot compete at a high level anymore. Rohan also spoke with Alderson and was told that there are no constraints on the club's payroll, and any lack of spending right now is a philosophical choice.
- In addition to the two-year, $14MM offer from that Mariners that he accepted, Fernando Rodney had offers from the Indians, Mets and Orioles, according to MLB.com's Barry M. Bloom (on Twitter).
$400 million? I know Trout is an elite talent, but how many rings has he helped the Angels to? No one player should be valued that high. If that the case, there is something seriously wrong with $100+ tickets to weekday games.
Trout has no control over the fact that the Angels haven’t won a World Series in his two full years with the club. In another four full seasons, with 30 teams bidding on him (and factoring in inflation, increased revenues, etc.), the thought of him signing a $400MM contract isn’t unthinkable at all.
Defining a player’s value by the number of World Series rings he has in an incredibly team-oriented game doesn’t make sense.
I agree on that lack of rings. Just because Ted Williams didn’t win it all doesn’t take away the fact he was a tremendous player.
Exactly. I don’t like the “How many rings does he have?” argument for any sport (Eli Manning is not a better QB than his brother), but it’s particular inapplicable in baseball, in my mind.
I disagree. When you are talking record shattering contracts like the 400 million mentioned I think hardware comes into play. That would be such a huge percentage of the teams payroll that he would have to be the main factor his team making the playoffs each year.
The dude plays phenomenal ball. Just because his team can’t help him out doesn’t mean he doesn’t deserve a big contract.
With that said, no one deserves that much money!
I never said that he wasn’t a great player. I’m saying that no player is worth that much money because they will hurt you in the long run. I bet the Angels are loving that Pujols contract right now. They actually said that they couldn’t get involved in getting the level of players they needed to fill holes because they don’t have the money. They will be lucky to finish 3rd in the AL West race this year because they grossly overpaid for one of the greatest hitters of all time.
Pujols is not a good example since he hurt them in the short run. He is also about 10 years older than Trout (if we are to believe Pujols age is real) when he signed his deal.
The difference, of course, is that Pujols was 32 years old at the start of his contract and if you look back at players in the pre-steroids era that’s usually about the time their performance starts to decline. Wouldn’t you rather have paid that kind of money for the first 10 years of Pujols’- or in this case Trout’s- production rather than the last 10 years?
Plus there is some serious TV money coming into the game & even teams like the Brewers & the Rays are increasing their payrolls in anticipation.
I agree with you. It’s not like Trout didn’t play extremely well the last two years. He’s been the best player in MLB in terms of WAR, and it’s not solely his fault his team didn’t make it to postseason.
And if Trout gets to free agency, I can see him signing a $400m contract. I’d imagine it’d be for 12 or more years. Both $400m and 12 years seem absolute absurd, but the top player in the game really has no ceiling. All it takes is two big market teams that both want him bad enough.
The fact that the entire team is incredibly important IS my argument. Any team that signs any player for $35-$40 million a year just hinders the team from being competitive overall. If you look at the top paid baseball players I bet championships don’t always follow. If teams and ownerships are not playing for championships, I firmly believe they are in it for the wrong reasons. As a fan , would you rather win championships, or root for a great player? I’ll take winning as a team over everything else.
It doesn’t, though. The Angels are in trouble because they brought in three aging players at extreme premium rates: Vernon Wells, Albert Pujols and Josh Hamilton. Then, injuries derailed the most talented of that trio (Pujols).
If the Angels have a $200MM+ payroll in 2017 when Trout hits free agent, is $35MM per year a detriment? That’s 17% or so of the payroll. Lots of teams have one player who represents that much of their payroll.
Adam Wainwright’s $19.5MM will be 18 percent of the Cardinals’ payroll this season, but no one treats that like it’s some form of albatross.
You’re looking at the number and getting sticker shock from it, but from a percentage standpoint, even $40MM wouldn’t be crazy if the Angels were to take payroll into the low $200MMs. The key is just having young, controllable talent that’s incredibly cost-effective to supplement the market-value players.
Within the next 2,3 years the angels well be shredding alot of payroll by the time he hits free agency which I doubt he will the organization will have major flexibility to build around him. Weaver,cj, Hamilton, aybar,Kendrick,wells will no longer be there…. Their going to be fine money isn’t a problem arte can run a payroll of 200 million if he wants
As of right now they can reshuffle most of the deck after 2016.
It does look like the Angels are still going in that direction, despite having those enormous contracts.
They acquired Freese, who is controllable for 2 more years, as well as Santiago and Skaggs, giving them more young controllable starting pitching.
I think they should go a step further and trade Kendrick for more young pitching. Grant Green is right there as a replacement. They’re not getting a young ace exactly for Howie, but can at least get some more decent depth for him.
But from what my sources tell me, one of the reasons Kendrick is still an Angel is because Green’s upside happened to be one of the bigger issues between Scioscia and Dipoto.
Having 11 players with OPS+ over 100 in 2013 tells me the Angels can probably trade both Kendrick and Aybar for pitching and still be fine offensively. It backs up statements made lately, that the Angels can probably build around Trout with above average, cost effective players and still be a force on offense.
I agree with those statements, and I think they should allocate more money towards starting pitching. As of right now, it looks like they can easily reshuffle most of the deck after 2016.
The A’s would disagree with you. In fact, if you put Trout, Pujols, and Hamilton on the A’s, with Trout making $40 million a year, mixed with the amount of good young pitching they have, they’d probably be World Series favorites by a landslide. And that would actually bring their payroll to roughly the exact same payroll that the Angels have. Being competitive is much less about money (having it or not), and much more about having good young pitching.
There is no argument that Trout isn’t a tremendous player… but for a 400 million dollar contract he better be able to single handily take the team to the WS every year.
You don’t pay for past performance and baseball is not like basketball where one player can influence his teams overall performance so drastically.
I know you can justify Trout at $400M based on current value, but I’m not sure if owners are willing to go to that level yet. Let’s first have someone break $300M.
I doubt anyone lefts him take 35-40M a year when you can give Miggy in years for probably 25-28M. Honestly almost every time in baseball with any sense wouldn’t break the bank at 40M for anyone. People get hurt, if he was to break his leg, or need Tommy John, thats 40M wasted. The fact that he would make 250K a game if he was earning 40M AAV is just crazy. 40M is out of the question for 9 out of every 10 teams. The 3 that isn’t out? Phillies, Dodgers, Yankees. Deep pockets get you nice things. But like the Yankees and Phillies, sometimes nice things break, then you got expensive platoons at 1B and DH.(Howard/Ruf… Ichiro/Soriano.)
Who can predict inflation? By the time Trout hits free agency maybe 400MM would seem reachable for a guy of his talent. Notice how Cameron said he’d hit 400 in a free agent contract not a contract extension this year. Heck when his prospective first contract is over and he signs his next one he could very well go down as the highest paid athlete in history.
Trout is definitely worth 300 million, but 400 MILLION! 250k a game, will never happen
Maybe not now but there’s no telling 5 years from now. Nobody thought someone could get over 250 million until it happened to A-Rod.
That being said, I would imagine that 400 million isn’t quite there yet. Like someone else said earlier, let’s see someone break 300 million first.
One thing that sucks for Trout is the risk he is taking no matter what ends up happening. On one end, he can take a below market value extension (below his market value) and get the guaranteed money, but then he is missing out on the potential mad money pay day (we’re talking 300+ million).
On the other hand, he could decline the extension, play out his arb years, and hit the open market…if he stays healthy. If he gets hurt…bam down goes his value.
If I’m Trout, I take the extension. He’s young enough that he could snag another 7-10 year contract at age 32-33 (provided he stays healthy and keeps up this level of production).
$300M on the open market? Probably, especially if he hits free agency in 2017. But $300M while four years from free agency? Absolutely not
Baseball contracts are getting ridiculous. There’s no way Trout is worth $400M. Hell, he’s probably not even worth $300M either. Baseball isn’t basketball where you simply just overpay the best player in the world and win. You have to build a team too.
If he keeps playing like the way he has the past two seasons, he’s definitely worth $300M. That seems unlikely, but who knows?
While they would seem to be getting ridiculous, no one has eclipsed the contract that A-Rod signed with the Rangers 14 years ago. It’s been more of a matter of the bulk of free agents between A-Rod’s contract and arbitration level that has been inflating.
Even Dave Cameron is suggesting a contract around $300M for Trout? That’s pretty ridiculous
Let’s wait and see what Keith Law says. He hates everyone and everything. If he goes that high, then we’re on to something.
Luckily Kevin Goldstein is out of the internet writing.
He and Keith Law fought a serious fight of who was the coolest guy in the industry.
Sadly, the Astros are getting a break from journalists for their tear down because KG was an icon to many of the internet crowd.
that dollar amount is just staggering. No regular person can truly conceive of just how much dough that is. Let me attempt to do so: If I made $50K per year at my job, it would take me 6000 years to make 300 million.
But look at all the interest you would get over 6000 years, especially after your first 100 million was made after 2000 yrs. Over the next 4000 years that 100 million will have earned over 10 billion!!! Of course, a Big Mac might cost 1 billion then, and you probably would not have any teeth left in which to eat it.
I’d pay $500 mil for him. Fan favorite and a class act (I shook his hand once!)
Mike Trout has a lot going for him. He is the best all around player in the game, has been the MVP runner-up the last two seasons, and he’s only 22 years old! Amazingly he will be just 26 years old when he hits free agency. Alex Rodriguez hit free agency when he was 25 years old and earned 22 million per year in the 2000 off season. Freddie Freeman’s extension will pay him $22 million per season before he hits free agency at age 31. $22 million is also the current salary of Miguel Cabrera who also signed his extension at age 25 and that was in 2008. I’m not a economist so I have no idea how to calculate inflation but given that and his talent, age, and the comparable contracts I would think he is worth a whole lot more then $22 million per year. The next thing to factor in is the competition the Angels will face to resign him if he reaches free agency in 2018. In 2018 there is no doubt in my mind he will sign with the Yankees for somewhere close to $35 million per year. If the Angels want to prevent his free agency, they are going to have to outbid the Yankees now to prevent this future from happening.
That’s a good point about Arod. That 10/252 million deal then was equal to 10/500 today since salaries have doubled
Except that’s not true. Since 2008 how many players have landed a contract north of Rodriguez?
You can’t just take a salary and then say everything has doubled. The inflation in the game isn’t linear. It doesn’t apply to all players equally.
If Trout has a career ending injury, he doesn’t get much money. The figures in the article sound high. The Angels could buy out arbitration years and free agent years. If you want the security, you don’t make as much.
And if Trout doesn’t have an injury and doesn’t buy out his arb years he’s a FA at age 27 with a ton of suitors and a bad taste in his mouth about how the Angels dealt with him.
Poor baby.
“Pour baby?” You want him to be a bartender?
Nice edit there. Fortunately the email notifications don’t lie.
“Pour baby.
11:46 a.m., Friday Feb. 14”
I’ve been hearing about more and more injury clauses. But from a more superstitious standpoint, if Trout suffers a career ending injury then there must be some Biblical cloud hanging over us. Because I think at this point, Mike Trout is already a part of baseball history and players like him just don’t go away. He’s a special player and I can’t see him being anything less than a Hall of Famer and an all-time great icon in the realm of Ruth, Aaron, Cobb, Gehrig, Mays, Williams, etc.
I, for one, welcome our new trout-ian overlord
Jim Fregosi and the 93 Phils were the defining sports moment of my youth. I’m definitely keeping Jim in my thoughts today.
Sadly, Jim left us, but hopefully you will always treasure those memories.
May he rest in peace.
That is sad news indeed. He always seemed like a great player’s manager and an all-around good guy. He leaves behind a memorable MLB legacy, both as a player and manager. RIP Mr. Fregosi.
Looks like baseball lost another good guy…RIP Jim
I am speculating, but I think a 10 year deal for 250 mil and a player opt out option after 7 or 8 is somewhere where they will land if a deal is made.
RIP Jim Fregosi. Fregosi was a guy never forgot what a priviledge it was to play in the majors. Great guy.
10 year deal with an opt-out after 8 years (allowing trout to be a FA at age 30) seems fair.
“Rohan also spoke with Alderson and was told that there are no
constraints on the club’s payroll, and any lack of spending right now is
a philosophical choice.”
Yes, a philosophy of CHEAPNESS.
No player is worth $400m. If I were the Angels I would spend the ~50m it will take to keep him during arbitration while he is seemingly at his peak, then let him walk and spend the $30m+ AAV to sign 2-3 very good players. I wouldn’t want to be the GM who gives a player $30-$40m a year in his mid-late thirties.
A player is worth what a team (any team) is willing to pay for him. If there is a player today that might play up to a $400mm contract, it’s Trout.
A player’s paycheck value is what a team is willing to pay, but a player’s worth is determined by his ability and results. For example, Josh Hamilton’s paycheck value is $25m, but he is not worth $25m because he hit .250 with 21 HRs and 79 RBI, which Kendrys Morales bested and I doubt anyone would argue Morales is *worth* the same as Hamilton. Maybe I’m arguing semantics, but for me there is no way Trout can play at a level that would justify a $400m paycheck.
At the time of his signing, Josh Hamilton was worth $25 M a year, because that’s what Artie Moreno paid to get him. Yes, we might be arguing semantics here.
As for Trout, currently a WAR share is worth about $5 M, so Trout would need to produce 80 WAR over his career to be worth his contract. So far he has produced just shy of 21 WAR in a little over two seasons. Going forward, 80 WAR in 10 seasons is definitely attainable.
If he signed one and he was smart with his money, by the end of a $400MM contract, Trout could essentially buy a 50% stake in any of almost half the teams in baseball. Or he could outright buy any of a bunch of NHL teams. That is nuts to me.
Assuming the current cost of a team stayed the same. At the end of his contract, the 400MM wouldn’t remain the same either. But seriously though, 400MM to one person for playing a kids game well, insane.
Is it possible to split up posts on someone’s death and new contract details? I’ve noticed this happen a couple times recently. It just seems a little crass to pivot from one man’s death to discussing the materialistic minutiae of a Mike Trout contract?
400 million is absurd and making an argument for it present day is just silly. Even factoring in inflation (which may be dramatic halfway through a 10 year deal but not the extent of it), he’s still not gonna sniff 400 million just like Cano didn’t sniff 300 million.
Even if he went above the coveted 10 year deal and signed for something like 12 or 13, he’s not getting more than 30 million on average, so the max I can see, in an absolute best case scenario (silly considering he wouldn’t be facing free agency in this hypothetical) Trout could get 13/390 million, but that won’t happen.
It’s more realistic he signs 10/300 as a ceiling and then gets one more big contract in his early to mid 30’s if he becomes a first ballot HOFer.
I love Trout. The guy is the anchor on my team. However, if Cameron is right (which I don’t think he is) the Angels would be far better served trading him for a massive haul. You could empty the entire farm systems of some teams (like the Yankees). The Yankees would then have 3 years to exclusively negotiate an extension.
I’d much rather take on a bunch of high ceiling young players AND save $40M/year than risk it on Trout.
One could argue that one of the main reasons they’ve missed the playoffs the last 4 years is because they didn’t trade Mike Trout. They would’ve gotten enough talent back to fill several holes that have kept them in 2nd and 3rd place, especially on the pitching end.
Fans can go all day about the Greinke trade, the Wells trade, blah blah blah, but one has to consider how much those moves would’ve been off set by trading Trout. Or if those moves would’ve actually happened.
However, I’m 100% satisfied with keeping Trout. He’s the best player in the game, and if the baseball gods gave me the choice of the Angels missing the playoffs the last few years for the chance to watch Mike Trout, or trading him to help get the big prize, I would still choose keeping Trout. Watching the games best player is a treat no matter how the Angels are doing.
I think it’s worth the risk. In the end, with a $150 million dollar payroll, even $40 million shouldn’t be that big of a dent. Just ask the A’s. Add a $40 million dollar a year Mike Trout to that lineup and they barely eclipse $100 million, and are probably World Series favorites.
Here’s a more cost effective Angels team, with some players replaced with good/great talent, but are controlled and cost effective. But factor in Trout at $40 million. And notice Pujols and Hamilton are still there. Also subtract Wells’ salary from the equation as well. When adding up all the salaries of this much more well-balanced team (with some more dominance in the rotation), the payroll comes out to roughly the same as the Angels’ projected payroll for 2014. This is just an example of how you can have a $40 million dollar player, and still put a talented, competitive team out there without breaking the luxury tax.
C: Chris Iannetta
1B: Albert Pujols
2B: Grant Green
3B: David Freese
SS: Manny Machado
LF: Josh Hamilton
CF: Mike Trout
RF: Kole Calhoun
DH: Raul Ibanez
C: Hank Conger
IF/DH: Carlos Pena
IF: James McDonald
IF/OF: Chad Tracy
OF: JB Shuck
SP: Jered Weaver
SP: Jose Fernandez
SP: CJ Wilson
SP: Garrett Richards
SP: Tyler Skaggs
RP: Hector Santiago
RP: Chad Gaudin
RP: Brandon Lyon
RP: Sean Burnett
RP: Joe Smith
RP: Ernesto Frieri
Will miss him Fregosi.