1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

$$ Mike Trout $$

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by JackReacher, Dec 17, 2013.

  1. JackReacher

    JackReacher Well-Known Member

    Interesting column by Olney about Mike Trout's future paychecks.

    http://insider.espn.go.com/blog/buster-olney/post/_/id/4107

    One agent suggested a 12-year, $400M contract. Trout also stands to make between $15-30M during his arbitration years, if he's not locked up long-term before then.

    Seems a lock that he obliterates A-Rod's deal.

    What would you do if you were the Angels?
     
  2. Steak Snabler

    Steak Snabler Well-Known Member

    Unlike the last two big contracts the Angels have given out, paying Trout $33 million a year would probably be a GOOD investment.
     
  3. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    If they're smart, they should try to lock him up now rather than let the Red Sox, Yankees or whoever bid up his price even more...
     
  4. JackReacher

    JackReacher Well-Known Member

    Having those other big contracts might push the Angels toward letting him go through arbitration the next couple years. To save a few bucks anyway. Until those big contracts can get paid off a little more.
     
  5. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    Imagine what Mickey Mantle would have gotten on the open market.
     
  6. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    I have long maintained that if there had been free agency, Ted Williams would've played for at least three different teams. His ego would've required always being the highest-paid player.
     
  7. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    Even more than Dimaggio? Didn't he require that he always be introduced as baseball's greatest living player?
     
  8. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    One thing about Mantle and DiMaggio, the economics of baseball in their day were even more distorted in favor of the Yankees (and the other NYC franchises) than they are today. About one-fourth of the teams were damn near broke on a yearly basis, which accounts for their 51-103 records year in and out. The 1930s were OOP's real baseball nightmare era. The Cardinals made money, the NYC teams did, and some years the Cubs did. Yawkey self-financed the Red Sox. Otherwise, baseball teams were very hand-to-mouth.
     
  9. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    Because they've turned into such a clown show, it would be great if Arte Moreno decided he had been so burned by Wells/Pujols/Hamilton/etc. that he wasn't going to give big long-term contracts anymore, and he held firm with Trout on this.
     
  10. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    No question things have gotten better and they continue to improve. The change in the posting rules is an example of that improvement.

    The playing field still isn't close to level, but some rule changes have helped and the overall financial health of the game makes it moreso.
     
  11. Steak Snabler

    Steak Snabler Well-Known Member

    Mike Trout is every bit the player at this stage of his career as Mantle was at the same age.
     
  12. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    By my count, the Dodgers, Reds, Phillies, A's, Braves, and Browns all had major financial problems at one point in the '30s, in which they could have easily gone bankrupt.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page