Skip to content

Angels, Mike Trout discussing six-year, $150M extension

Feb 23, 2014, 2:20 PM EDT

mike trout getty Getty Images

From our friend Jeff Passan at Yahoo! Sports

The Los Angeles Angels and star center fielder Mike Trout are discussing a six-year contract extension that would pay him in the range of $150 million, a source close to the negotiations told Yahoo Sports.

Passan says “the gap between the sides is in the low eight figures” and there is optimism that it will soon be bridged. Perhaps by the end of this month.

Trout is among the best players in baseball and doesn’t turn 23 years old until this August, but he’s not even arbitration-eligible yet and a $25-plus million average annual value on a six-year deal that will only cover two seasons of free agency seems ridiculous. Passan estimates that Trout’s salary in 2018 — the final year of this proposed six-year deal — could be as high as $38 million. We’ve reached new territory, people.

Trout, 22, owns a .314/.404/.544 career batting line through his first two major league seasons.

If the six-year deal is completed, Trout will be eligible to hit the open market at the ripe age of 28.

  1. elwaysagenius - Feb 23, 2014 at 2:22 PM


  2. scottychicago - Feb 23, 2014 at 2:25 PM

    he might be looking at 50 million a year by then

  3. Jeremiah Graves - Feb 23, 2014 at 2:30 PM

    Needs more years to be worthwhile. Overpaying like crazy for the arbitration years and not locking him up super-long term seems like an odd move. If an AAV of $25M is doable, push for at least 10 years on this thing. Otherwise your overpaying and not getting nearly enough extra years.

    • pappageorgio - Feb 23, 2014 at 4:06 PM

      Yeah…I don’t get those numbers. Why pay the high end of arbitration numbers and not get additional years out of the deal? Makes great sense for Trout but what’s in it for the angels?

    • bfunk1978 - Feb 24, 2014 at 11:01 AM

      100% agreed. This is one of the few cases where I think taking a gamble on health is worth the Cano or Pujols-sized 10 year contract, with maybe an opt-out after 8 or 9 years. Give him 250 over 10 or even 275 over 10, and be thankful you get to keep Mike Trout for a very long time.

  4. isaiah007 - Feb 23, 2014 at 2:32 PM

    The Angles are crazy if they don’t get at least one more year of his free agency. Plus Hanilton will be long gone and Pujols will only have one year left so they would be in good shape to battle all comers in free agency. They need to go 7 or 8 years if they have to give more per year.

  5. bendover09 - Feb 23, 2014 at 2:35 PM

    Angels better do something bc Rangers TV money will be kicking in by the time he is a free agent and that just adds to an already wealthy team. Not to mention other teams with big pockets will come to play.

    Would it be better if the Angels just traded Trout and start looking long term? Bc they’re going to be hampered with major contracts long term to older veteran players & does not help you’re ranked almost dead last in minors if not last

    • echech88 - Feb 23, 2014 at 3:45 PM

      Angels larger TV contract will also have already kicked in FYI

    • 1943mrmojorisin1971 - Feb 23, 2014 at 4:23 PM

      Look long-term by trading the future of your franchise? Not sure what to say about that one…

    • brianc6234 - Feb 26, 2014 at 4:14 PM

      Trout would never want to be a Ranger.

  6. cohnjusack - Feb 23, 2014 at 2:35 PM

    I’m going to make a not-so-great Mike Trout comparison only because I’ve grown of talking about how awesome he is. So please enjoy this intellectually dishonest warning about the future of Mike Trout.

    Mike Trout, average age 20 and 21 seasons:
    148 Games, 119 Runs, 186 Hits, 33 2B, 8 3B, 28 HR, 90 RBI, .324/.416/.560, 41 SB

    Mystery Player, average age 21-22 seasons. I’m using neutralized numbers as this player play in a very, very bad offensive environment. I assure you, his non-neutralized stats were still very great
    142 games, 108 Runs, 190 Hits, 40 2B, 6 3B, 26 HR, 87 RBI, .335/.397/.561, 61 SB

    Incredibly similar number at a very, very young age! Sure, Trout was 1 year younger, but that’s not much (well, it is when comparing players this young, but remember: intellectual dishonesty here). This guy was also a center fielder. Numbers are very similar, though Trout got on base more, but the mystery player swiped more bags.

    Sadly, Cesar Cedeno had only 1 more 20+ home run season, only 1 more .300 seasons and received just two votes for the hall of fame. So, beware to all those who wish to extend Mike Trout!

    ….of course, this ignores the fact that I didn’t neutralize Mike Trout’s stats as well, that Trout was still worth about six more wins those two years and that Cedeno almost certainly would have been a HOFer had his career not become an injury plagued mess at age 26.

    • paperlions - Feb 23, 2014 at 2:43 PM

      Cedeno signed as a 16 yr old in 1967 out of the DR. What are the odds that he was really 16? His aging curve looks like it is shifted a couple of years from the average, which, of course, happens all the time, but still….

      • cohnjusack - Feb 23, 2014 at 3:51 PM

        I just learned that Cedeno killed his girlfriend in 1973 and was fined $100.

        In 1973, Cedeño was involved in an incident in the Dominican Republic in which his gun discharged in a motel room, killing his girlfriend.[3] He was initially charged with voluntary manslaughter[4] and held in prison without bail, while his lawyers negotiated for a reduction of the charge to involuntary manslaughter.[5] He was held for three weeks before he was released on bail.[6] He was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter and fined $100.[7]

    • Mark - Feb 23, 2014 at 3:03 PM

      Cesar Cedeno had an OPS+ of 162 and 152 respectively. Mike Trout is at 168 and 179. While the raw OPS numbers are similar, Trout still blows Cedeno out of the water.

      If you prefer wRC+:

      Cedeno – 163 & 155
      Trout – 166 & 176.

      • cohnjusack - Feb 23, 2014 at 3:37 PM

        Or, if I HAD neutralized Trout’s numbers

        Cedeno: .335/.397/.561
        Trout: .341/.435/.589

    • Jeremiah Graves - Feb 23, 2014 at 3:08 PM

      …and let’s not forget, that’s the risk part that the Angels are taking on and Trout is getting the security blanket of guaranteed money. If he falls off a cliff or gets a major injury, he’s locked into superstar money. An AAV of $25M seems like an underpay five or six years down the road if he continues at this pace, if he regresses or is injured…he’s got a steady income. If he continues at his pace, he’s still a mega-millionaire and the Angels — who took all the risk of guaranteeing him that money — reap the benefits.

      The Rays took the plunge with the original Longoria contract, I like the Angels plan, but only if they gobble up some more of his FA in the process otherwise it just seems like a tremendously unnecessary overpay for his arbitration years.

      • Francisco (FC) - Feb 24, 2014 at 11:49 AM

        The Rays took the plunge with the original Longoria contract

        Ah Longoria, that’s another great one… wait we’re talking about Eva right?

    • scatterbrian - Feb 23, 2014 at 4:14 PM

      Why are you comparing different age ranges? Trout’s 20-21 vs. Cedeno’s 21-22?

      Through age-21 season:
      Trout: 166 OPS+ (1490 PAs)
      Cedeno: 125 OPS+ (1651 PAs)

      Trout’s also been a more efficient base stealer (88% vs. 73%) and appears to be a better center fielder.

      Then there’s the other stuff that affects how much a player can command: Rookie of the Year, 2 All-Star games, finished 2nd in MVP in first two seasons.

      • cohnjusack - Feb 23, 2014 at 10:44 PM

        Here is where reading comprehension plays a big role. Allow me to pull some of the relevant quotes your feeble brain was apparently unable to comprehend.

        1. I’m going to make a not-so-great Mike Trout comparison only because I’ve grown of talking about how awesome he is. So please enjoy this intellectually dishonest warning about the future of Mike Trout.

        2. Sure, Trout was 1 year younger, but that’s not much (well, it is when comparing players this young, but remember: intellectual dishonesty here

        3. of course, this ignores the fact that I didn’t neutralize Mike Trout’s stats as well, that Trout was still worth about six more wins those two years and that Cedeno almost certainly would have been a HOFer had his career not become an injury plagued mess at age 26.

        Amazing what perspective does, yes?

      • scatterbrian - Feb 24, 2014 at 3:37 AM

        Age is huge, and the accomplishments at such a young age are important. Cedeno was both (at least) one year older and the lesser player in your little exercise. When you hedge those two points, they are something less than “incredibly similar” players.

        I understand your overall point — no player is guaranteed, no matter how great they are when they are young — but making a long-winded and forced Trout/Cedeno comp isn’t the best way to go about it.

  7. chris3141084 - Feb 23, 2014 at 2:42 PM

    This is why you should always steer your children towards baseball, guaranteed contracts and insane contract numbers.

    • 18thstreet - Feb 23, 2014 at 3:30 PM

      “A man who has never gone to school may steal from a freight car; but if he has a university education, he may steal the whole railroad.” – Theodore Roosevelt

      Really, you should steer yourself into being very rich, so that your children can inherit your wealth. That’s where the real money is.

      • paperlions - Feb 23, 2014 at 4:25 PM

        In addition, the guy that steals the freight car goes to jail, the guy that steals the railroad is called a CEO on Wall Street.

      • mrwillie - Feb 23, 2014 at 7:01 PM

        Steal a little and they will throw you in jail. Steal a lot and they make you king. ~Bob Dylan

      • chris3141084 - Feb 25, 2014 at 8:18 PM

        It was more of a reference to those choosing between baseball and football. Jameis Winston is the most recent high-profile person that comes up. I agree with your line of reasoning though.

  8. sfm073 - Feb 23, 2014 at 2:54 PM

    Maybe the angles are trying to establish good faith with him with the hopes he won’t ream them later on. Of course the cardinals thought that with Pujols and we all saw how that ended.

    • Kevin S. - Feb 23, 2014 at 2:59 PM

      Phillies also tried this with Ryan Howard. Of course, they never really attempted to cash in on the good faith.

  9. sdelmonte - Feb 23, 2014 at 3:00 PM

    He is probably worth the money in the “who is earning what” sense, but unless Moreno is out to pay a ton of luxury tax, there just won’t be money for pitching, will there?

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Feb 23, 2014 at 3:11 PM

      As Jeremiah mentions above, this deal doesn’t make sense. Moreno is buying out arb years at FA prices, and isn’t even getting a long term investment out of it. Trout would never go for it, but 10/$150 makes way more sense than 6/$150.

      • Kevin S. - Feb 23, 2014 at 3:14 PM

        You mean 10/$250MM? Arte’s chance at 10/$150MM was last offseason.

    • Kevin S. - Feb 23, 2014 at 3:13 PM

      If they develop their pitching, it won’t be an issue. For 2015, the Angels would have $134 million committed to nine players against their LT number (assuming Trout signs at 6/$150MM). They’d have eight more guys in arbitration. If, for a rough estimate, we gave $1.5MM to all the Arb1 guys and 50% raises to the later guys, that takes the Angels to a little over $150MM. It’d be tight, but even factoring in benefits, minimum salaries for everybody on the back end of the 40 and in-season additions, the Angels would probably have room to fit one more quality FA in while staying under the tax.

  10. 06cedmuho - Feb 23, 2014 at 3:06 PM

    Reblogged this on 06cedmuho.

    • kindasporty - Feb 23, 2014 at 4:22 PM

      When these things are “reblogged”, does it automatically leave a comment? Or do people leave a comment themselves?

      • doctornature - Feb 23, 2014 at 6:40 PM

        Automatically leaves a comment

      • 06cedmuho - Feb 24, 2014 at 12:07 PM

        You do not have reblogged write reviews, but when you want to say about that happening if you have been able to transfer the

  11. markofapro - Feb 23, 2014 at 3:31 PM

    I believe Mike Trout is the best baseball player right now (and I’m a huge Ranger fan) , but why the rush to pay him so much money and only buy two years of his free agency? The way he plays with reckless abandon there’s no guarantees that he will be healthy. I am glad it is not my money.

    • arizonagrit - Feb 23, 2014 at 5:22 PM

      Reckless abandon? I think you’re confusing Trout with Bryce Harper, or someone else who isn’t Mike Trout.

  12. djpostl - Feb 23, 2014 at 3:39 PM

    The six years part makes no sense.

    Even under the best circumstances and setting records he’ll make around 50M in those first last year under team minimum & all3 years via arbitration.

    Meaning pay 50M per season his first 2 years as a FA and then have to rengotiate with him?

    Am I missing somehting here or does that seem all kinds of fcuktarded?

    • Kevin S. - Feb 23, 2014 at 3:43 PM

      I think you’re underestimating what he could make during his arb years. Ryan Howard got $54 million five years ago. I think Trout’s arbitration baseline is somewhat higher than that.

      • djpostl - Feb 23, 2014 at 4:28 PM

        May be the case but even if we say he gets 75M that still leaves 75M (more if his agent wins the stand-off) for 2 years THEN you’re renegotiating with a 28 year old stud who can say “you just paid me 37.5M per season so that’s out starting point”.

        The entire point of these extensions is you pay more than you normally would in the arb years so you get a break on the free agency part of the deal.

        This whole 6 years thing is counter-intuitive.

      • djpostl - Feb 23, 2014 at 4:35 PM

        Plus, how much higer can it really be?

        Base salaries are higher but Howard at that point was a lock for 45-50 HRs and 140+ RBIs.

        I know current evaluators favor other metrics (unlike BBWAA clowns) but back then those kind of numbers made Howard the Mike Trout of the day, young and a beast.

        I think basic economics means Trout will make more but how much more is debatable.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Feb 23, 2014 at 5:14 PM

        I know current evaluators favor other metrics (unlike BBWAA clowns) but back then those kind of numbers made Howard the Mike Trout of the day, young and a beast.

        Agreed, it entirely depends on how well Trout’s agent can argue his case. Considering in the last two years Trout has more rWAR (20.1) to Howard’s entire career (18.8, over 1178 games and 5018 PA).

    • doctornature - Feb 23, 2014 at 6:56 PM

      You need to understand one thing. The Angels have Zero leverage here. The best player in baseball holds the cards. He can so NO to any Angels offer and hit Fa at 25, with the Dodgers, Yanks, Red Sox, Rangers, Phillies…Bidding against each other for maybe the best player in history at 25 according to war. 10/400 million is not out of the question then. Trout can make enough in Arbitration to avoid starving to death…and then pick his team. Renewing him last year for minimum guaranteed it won’ be the Angels, so 2 years of his FA years is all they can hope for.

  13. normcash - Feb 23, 2014 at 4:29 PM

    Take the money and run kid!

  14. tanzkommandant - Feb 23, 2014 at 4:35 PM

    What happens if he suffers a career ending injury? This will seem like a total waste.

  15. bostonboresme - Feb 23, 2014 at 4:35 PM

    What a bahhhhgain.

  16. yahmule - Feb 23, 2014 at 6:07 PM

    I was expecting something like seven years and $200 million. Shattering salary records isn’t what’s important to him.

  17. markofapro - Feb 23, 2014 at 8:39 PM

    No, Arozonagirl, I’m not – or it’s somebody else for the Angels scaling fences, diving for foul balls, and sliding head first into 2nd.

  18. brianjoates - Feb 23, 2014 at 9:37 PM

    Trout, machado and Bryce will be in the ballpark of 10 years $400-500 million. The owners are going to have to put in a real salary cap just so they don’t have to pay these huge contracts coming up. Once someone gets half a billion, a billion is not many years away after that.

    • Kevin S. - Feb 24, 2014 at 7:39 AM

      If the revenues are there to support the salaries, why not?

  19. uyf1950 - Feb 24, 2014 at 6:34 AM

    WOW a 6 year deal that will only cover 2 of his FA years and still be in excess of $150MM plus. If everything goes well Trout will still be able to get a huge contract again at 29 when he would become a FA. Probably looking at at least a 7 year deal in the range of $275MM plus considering baseballs inflation rate. Imagine that, he has the potential to have what would amount to a 13 year ML baseball career in excess of $425MM plus and that might be conservative.

  20. chargrz - Feb 26, 2014 at 12:25 AM

    Why should Trout sign for any less than A-Fraud, Cano, and Pujols are making? His agent needs to ask for more per year and at least 6 years.Otherwise he is working for less than he should. Just a fact and i am sure they are aware of it.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. C. Correa (2571)
  2. G. Stanton (2564)
  3. H. Ramirez (2536)
  4. G. Springer (2515)
  5. B. Crawford (2328)
  1. M. Teixeira (2317)
  2. H. Pence (2241)
  3. J. Baez (2226)
  4. J. Hamilton (2185)
  5. Y. Puig (2133)