Home Sports Talk

Trout 430 million 12 years

softparadesoftparade Posts: 9,276 ✭✭✭✭✭

You can't blame the Angles for paying this ridiculous money to a guy who has brought them championship after championship.

ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240

Comments

  • erikthredderikthredd Posts: 9,011 ✭✭✭✭✭
  • CoinstartledCoinstartled Posts: 10,135 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I will sleep better tonight.

  • perkdogperkdog Posts: 30,653 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Almost half way there to the Billion Dollar contract we will eventually see! I’d love for some of these clubs to go bankrupt

  • keetskeets Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭

    this is the sort of thing that will drive me from the sport.

  • perkdogperkdog Posts: 30,653 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Willie Mays and Hank Aaron just puked all over themselves and are now officially grumpier

  • softparadesoftparade Posts: 9,276 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The Angels are F'ing morons for this contract.

    ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240

  • stevekstevek Posts: 29,026 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Say hello to the $50 hot dog. But it's a bargain because mustard and relish are no extra charge.

  • CoinstartledCoinstartled Posts: 10,135 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 19, 2019 9:12AM

    @stevek said:
    Say hello to the $50 hot dog. But it's a bargain because mustard and relish are no extra charge.

    Hot dog is not the issue as that is voluntary. Problem is taxpayers get hosed for stadium construction and upgrades and in Arizona it is the cactus League tax.

  • stevekstevek Posts: 29,026 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Perhaps it's a new type of March Madness.

  • stevekstevek Posts: 29,026 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Coinstartled said:

    @stevek said:
    Say hello to the $50 hot dog. But it's a bargain because mustard and relish are no extra charge.

    Hot dog is not the issue as that is voluntary. Problem is taxpayers get hosed for stadium construction and upgrades and in Arizona it is the cactus League tax.

    It's not voluntary for me. When i visit the ballpark, i gotta have a hot dog.

  • CoinstartledCoinstartled Posts: 10,135 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Probably easier to get sushi or crepes at the LA venue.

  • stevekstevek Posts: 29,026 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I'm just glad the Phillies don't partake in chit such as this.

  • craig44craig44 Posts: 11,254 ✭✭✭✭✭

    good for trout, get all you can. The contract may hamstring the Angels financially however because of the luxury tax.

    George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.

  • perkdogperkdog Posts: 30,653 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Reason number 430,000,000 why I don’t go to MLB games

  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 11,800 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @perkdog said:
    Reason number 430,000,000 why I don’t go to MLB games

    I do not pay for cable or satellite. I turn down free tickets as well.

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • pitbosspitboss Posts: 8,643 ✭✭✭

    At 79 I enjoy watching a baseball game and do not have anything else to do anyway so the baseball package is well worth it. I would not go to a baseball game because it is just too much hassle, I now live far away from a field anyway.

  • hammer1hammer1 Posts: 3,874 ✭✭✭✭✭

    bargain

  • keetskeets Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭

    good for trout, get all you can.

    the problem arises with his Teammates who now, by the sheer magnitude of that contract, have every expectation of him to walk on water. a saying to remember --- An expectation is a pre-meditated resentment. and yes, Trout's Angel teammates now have every reason to be resentful towards him. he has handicapped their ability to make more money and the Angels ability to add other players who can help the team win a WS. in a word, these large contracts by athletes strike me as an extreme form of selfishness.

    Mike Trout may have helped himself at the bank but he hurt his team, and himself, at the ballpark. if he had shown just a little humility and taken less money he could have helped his team. it is clear to me that he doesn't want to win the World Series, just make a bunch of money.

  • hammer1hammer1 Posts: 3,874 ✭✭✭✭✭

    it's the American way

  • softparadesoftparade Posts: 9,276 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 19, 2019 2:15PM

    It’s one of the dumbest contract in sports history and there have been a ton of them for sure.

    ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240

  • TabeTabe Posts: 6,062 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @keets said:
    good for trout, get all you can.

    the problem arises with his Teammates who now, by the sheer magnitude of that contract, have every expectation of him to walk on water. a saying to remember --- An expectation is a pre-meditated resentment. and yes, Trout's Angel teammates now have every reason to be resentful towards him. he has handicapped their ability to make more money and the Angels ability to add other players who can help the team win a WS. in a word, these large contracts by athletes strike me as an extreme form of selfishness.

    Mike Trout may have helped himself at the bank but he hurt his team, and himself, at the ballpark. if he had shown just a little humility and taken less money he could have helped his team. it is clear to me that he doesn't want to win the World Series, just make a bunch of money.

    He DID "take less money". He gave the Angels a big-time home team discount. He hits the open market, he's getting $500m. Manny Machado & Bryce Harper just got $300m+ each and Trout has produced more than both of them combined. Trout is unquestionably the best player in the majors - and by a long way. And the Angels are paying him less, when adjusted for inflation, than the Bulls paid Michael Jordan 21 years ago.

    In 2019, the luxury tax kicks in at $206m. Trout's salary works out to 17% of that. Whoopee. He's at least 17% of that team, for sure.

  • This content has been removed.
  • grote15grote15 Posts: 29,694 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 19, 2019 4:56PM

    Per Fangraphs, Trout generates an average of 69.87 million in revenue annually, so it's actually a good deal for the club. They got off cheap, imo. Trout is twice as good as Harper or Machado.



    Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
  • perkdogperkdog Posts: 30,653 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @grote15 said:
    Per Fangraphs, Trout generates an average of 69.87 million in revenue annually, so it's actually a good deal for the club. They got off cheap, imo. Trout is twice as good as Harper or Machado.

    serious question as I’ve openly said I’d like to see some of these MLB teams go bankrupt due to the extreme ridiculousness of these out of control contracts, is it possible that it could happen to one of these teams? Ever?

  • grote15grote15 Posts: 29,694 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @perkdog said:

    @grote15 said:
    Per Fangraphs, Trout generates an average of 69.87 million in revenue annually, so it's actually a good deal for the club. They got off cheap, imo. Trout is twice as good as Harper or Machado.

    serious question as I’ve openly said I’d like to see some of these MLB teams go bankrupt due to the extreme ridiculousness of these out of control contracts, is it possible that it could happen to one of these teams? Ever?

    I don't see it ever happening, Paul. Teams continue to rake in record profits, especially larger market teams like the Angels and the smaller market teams have the benefit of the luxury tax being redistributed among them, too. These owners aren't dumb businessmen. They wouldn't be lining up to purchase a club if there weren't large amounts of profit potential involved.



    Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
  • perkdogperkdog Posts: 30,653 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 19, 2019 5:10PM

    @grote15 said:

    @perkdog said:

    @grote15 said:
    Per Fangraphs, Trout generates an average of 69.87 million in revenue annually, so it's actually a good deal for the club. They got off cheap, imo. Trout is twice as good as Harper or Machado.

    serious question as I’ve openly said I’d like to see some of these MLB teams go bankrupt due to the extreme ridiculousness of these out of control contracts, is it possible that it could happen to one of these teams? Ever?

    I don't see it ever happening, Paul. Teams continue to rake in record profits, especially larger market teams like the Angels and the smaller market teams have the benefit of the luxury tax being redistributed among them, too. These owners aren't dumb businessmen. They wouldn't be lining up to purchase a club if there weren't large amounts of profit potential involved.

    I get that, it’s crazy though. Maybe if there is another strike? Either way I don’t even know how much tickets and concessions are these days as I haven’t bought tickets to a Sox Game since 1995, it has got to get to a point where most fans will not be able to afford taking the family to a game. Although I often wonder if that is even the main target for these clubs nowadays, I’m sure lots of big business type people buy most of the Luxury seats ect

  • stevekstevek Posts: 29,026 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I think I've mentioned this before. With sports gambling being legalized in more and more states, all major sports teams are going to get a piece of that pie.

    How big a piece it will be, how big a pie it will be, we shall see. But in any event, there is no doubt these seemingly exorbitant player contracts are being offered based on anticipation of future gambling revenue.

  • pocketpiececommemspocketpiececommems Posts: 5,868 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Bryce Harper does not approve of this contract. :'(

  • grote15grote15 Posts: 29,694 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @perkdog said:

    @grote15 said:

    @perkdog said:

    @grote15 said:
    Per Fangraphs, Trout generates an average of 69.87 million in revenue annually, so it's actually a good deal for the club. They got off cheap, imo. Trout is twice as good as Harper or Machado.

    serious question as I’ve openly said I’d like to see some of these MLB teams go bankrupt due to the extreme ridiculousness of these out of control contracts, is it possible that it could happen to one of these teams? Ever?

    I don't see it ever happening, Paul. Teams continue to rake in record profits, especially larger market teams like the Angels and the smaller market teams have the benefit of the luxury tax being redistributed among them, too. These owners aren't dumb businessmen. They wouldn't be lining up to purchase a club if there weren't large amounts of profit potential involved.

    I get that, it’s crazy though. Maybe if there is another strike? Either way I don’t even know how much tickets and concessions are these days as I haven’t bought tickets to a Sox Game since 1995, it has got to get to a point where most fans will not be able to afford taking the family to a game. Although I often wonder if that is even the main target for these clubs nowadays, I’m sure lots of big business type people buy most of the Luxury seats ect

    Most of the revenue that is generated is not at the ballpark. TV cable and media contracts and as SteveK said, gambling, are going to be the primary sources of revenue now. The contracts may be crazy, but at least the money for those contracts is being generated by the players. Without them, there is no cash cow and no games. The owners make crazy amounts of revenue simply sitting back and raking it all in.



    Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
  • hammer1hammer1 Posts: 3,874 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @grote15 said:

    Most of the revenue that is generated is not at the ballpark. TV cable and media contracts and as SteveK said, gambling, are going to be the primary sources of revenue now. The contracts may be crazy, but at least the money for those contracts is being generated by the players. Without them, there is no cash cow and no games. The owners make crazy amounts of revenue simply sitting back and raking it all in.

    5 years ago Dodgers signed 25-year $8.35 billion TV contract

  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 11,800 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @hammer1 said:

    5 years ago Dodgers signed 25-year $8.35 billion TV contract

    Over the air broadcast or cable/satellite?

    I still watch if it's free! :-)

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • hammer1hammer1 Posts: 3,874 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @JoeBanzai said:

    @hammer1 said:

    5 years ago Dodgers signed 25-year $8.35 billion TV contract

    Over the air broadcast or cable/satellite?

    I still watch if it's free! :-)

    cable/satellite.

    Time Warner Cable paid it thinking they could get Direct TV and our big local (Cox and others) providers to chip in ~$5 per household (all subscribers, not just baseball ones). They said no. So more than half the prospective Dodger watchers in LA and OC have been denied watching the boys in blue for 5 years.

    Bummer...

  • JustacommemanJustacommeman Posts: 22,847 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 19, 2019 7:29PM

    He would have gotten more elsewhere. Now that the Angels have him under contract they can now actually trade him at some point rather then see him walk and get nada. This contract might look cheap in 5 years. He’s the best player in the game and getting paid like a boss is his right. As long as the money is there the stars will get paid. Should the owners get the complete windfall? The Angels are a big market team and can afford to pay a luxury tax so Trout has zero to feel bad about. His contract doesn’t hurt the team one bit.

    mark

    Walker Proof Digital Album
    Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
  • softparadesoftparade Posts: 9,276 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 19, 2019 7:41PM

    @grote15 said:
    Per Fangraphs, Trout generates an average of 69.87 million in revenue annually, so it's actually a good deal for the club. They got off cheap, imo. Trout is twice as good as Harper or Machado.

    I love ya buddy but LOL
    To say they got off cheap in paying 36 million per year for 12 (TWELVE) years doesn’t make much sense to me. There is a better chance of Trout being out of the game before this deal ends then there is the Angels winning a WS during the contract.

    ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240

  • stevekstevek Posts: 29,026 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Justacommeman said:
    He would have gotten more elsewhere. Now that the Angels have him under contract they can now actually trade him at some point rather then see him walk and get nada. This contract might look cheap in 5 years. He’s the best player in the game and getting paid like a boss is his right. As long as the money is there the stars will get paid. Should the owners get the complete windfall? The Angels are a big market team and can afford to pay a luxury tax so Trout has zero to feel bad about. His contract doesn’t hurt the team one bit.

    mark

    <<< This contract might look cheap in 5 years. >>>

    Excellent point.

    And watch years from now when some of these wealthy multi-millionaires signing now, will then turn into crybabies and say they were suckered into signing these long term contracts, that they didn't fully realize what they were doing. That they now want to be compensated for what the going market rate is now for their talent. 😒

  • grote15grote15 Posts: 29,694 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 19, 2019 8:07PM

    @softparade said:

    @grote15 said:
    Per Fangraphs, Trout generates an average of 69.87 million in revenue annually, so it's actually a good deal for the club. They got off cheap, imo. Trout is twice as good as Harper or Machado.

    I love ya buddy but LOL
    To say they got off cheap in paying 36 million per year for 12 (TWELVE) years doesn’t make much sense to me. There is a better chance of Trout being out of the game before this deal ends then there is the Angels winning a WS during the contract.

    There is no question Trout would have made more than that on the open market. That's not even debatable, imo, as he is far better than either Harper or Machado. He gave the Angels a hometown discount and in this day and age of free agency, that is something you want to see with a homegrown superstar like Trout. And if someone is generating on average nearly 70 million a year in revenue for you, how else would you classify a salary of 36 million? If you don't agree, can I get two tens for a ten, please? ;)



    Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
  • grote15grote15 Posts: 29,694 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Justacommeman said:
    He would have gotten more elsewhere. Now that the Angels have him under contract they can now actually trade him at some point rather then see him walk and get nada. This contract might look cheap in 5 years. He’s the best player in the game and getting paid like a boss is his right. As long as the money is there the stars will get paid. Should the owners get the complete windfall? The Angels are a big market team and can afford to pay a luxury tax so Trout has zero to feel bad about. His contract doesn’t hurt the team one bit.

    mark

    100% agree



    Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
  • perkdogperkdog Posts: 30,653 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 20, 2019 1:16AM

    TV revenue. Didn’t even think of that, still don’t think gambling will ever be allowed at ball parks but the more I think about you guys are probably right I guess

  • softparadesoftparade Posts: 9,276 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @grote15 said:

    @softparade said:

    @grote15 said:
    Per Fangraphs, Trout generates an average of 69.87 million in revenue annually, so it's actually a good deal for the club. They got off cheap, imo. Trout is twice as good as Harper or Machado.

    I love ya buddy but LOL
    To say they got off cheap in paying 36 million per year for 12 (TWELVE) years doesn’t make much sense to me. There is a better chance of Trout being out of the game before this deal ends then there is the Angels winning a WS during the contract.

    There is no question Trout would have made more than that on the open market. That's not even debatable, imo, as he is far better than either Harper or Machado. He gave the Angels a hometown discount and in this day and age of free agency, that is something you want to see with a homegrown superstar like Trout. And if someone is generating on average nearly 70 million a year in revenue for you, how else would you classify a salary of 36 million? If you don't agree, can I get two tens for a ten, please? ;)

    I really don't care, hell the team I watch pays Jacoby Ellsbury 21 million to watch soap operas lol. In the end though this contract will be a anchor around the Angels necks. Just wait till he gets hurt and he will, misses large swaths of time, his production drops, etc. That's all coming. It's the length of the deal that is moronic more than it is the money per year. I stand by my premise. DUMB DEAL.

    ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240

  • keetskeets Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭

    if the Angels actually had sound management they would have considered allowing Trout to sign somewhere else while they strengthened their Starting Pitching and Bullpen. as softparade said, wait till Trout gets hurt. that is a foregone conclusion, not IF he gets hurt but WHEN it happens and he's out for 2-5 weeks, probably before the All-Star break.

    weren't we just discussing his injury history in another thread??

  • softparadesoftparade Posts: 9,276 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @keets said:
    if the Angels actually had sound management they would have considered allowing Trout to sign somewhere else while they strengthened their Starting Pitching and Bullpen. as softparade said, wait till Trout gets hurt. that is a foregone conclusion, not IF he gets hurt but WHEN it happens and he's out for 2-5 weeks, probably before the All-Star break.

    weren't we just discussing his injury history in another thread??

    I wasn't even speaking in the context of this year. Nothing I have said about this deal changes if he plays 162 this year AND next year. The length of this deal is dumb and dumber type stuff.

    ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240

  • craig44craig44 Posts: 11,254 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @keets said:
    good for trout, get all you can.

    the problem arises with his Teammates who now, by the sheer magnitude of that contract, have every expectation of him to walk on water. a saying to remember --- An expectation is a pre-meditated resentment. and yes, Trout's Angel teammates now have every reason to be resentful towards him. he has handicapped their ability to make more money and the Angels ability to add other players who can help the team win a WS. in a word, these large contracts by athletes strike me as an extreme form of selfishness.

    Mike Trout may have helped himself at the bank but he hurt his team, and himself, at the ballpark. if he had shown just a little humility and taken less money he could have helped his team. it is clear to me that he doesn't want to win the World Series, just make a bunch of money.

    I agree, Trouts first priority here is earning the most money possible and not winning a world series. this is pro sports, not little league. there are already a host of athletes who go for the paycheck, not the rings. is there anything wrong with that? they can still compete against other players for HR, WAR, BA, ERA titles etc. they are still working toward awards and possbily the HOF. there is lots of competing they can do without winning a title.

    I think a large amount of people, if given the choice, would prefer a Charles Barkley, Dan Marino, Karl Malone type of career rather than a Robert Horry or scott brosius type of career. I know they mostly say the right things when in front of the camera, but do you really think someone like Ernie Banks would have given up the fame and fortune of being a HOF level player if he could have exchanged it for being a utility man on the 1950ś Yankees who got a few rings and no one now remembers? I doubt it.

    as far as resentment, good grief, they are grown men playing professional sports. they need to put their big boy pants on and get over it. 99.9% of us here in the world have someone making more money than us. If they want to earn more, spend more time getting better rather than being bitter and complaining. the guy has a gift and has worked hard to maximize it. he has earned every single penny of that 430 Mil.

    If someone was offering you a payday at that level, would you turn it down and say ¨I really think I should take less, you know, for the good of the team¨ most, if being honest with themselves would say no way. think of the good he could do with that money. he and his family are financially set, and imagine the charity work he can do. he could effect so many lives with this payday.

    George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.

  • craig44craig44 Posts: 11,254 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @softparade said:

    @grote15 said:
    Per Fangraphs, Trout generates an average of 69.87 million in revenue annually, so it's actually a good deal for the club. They got off cheap, imo. Trout is twice as good as Harper or Machado.

    I love ya buddy but LOL
    To say they got off cheap in paying 36 million per year for 12 (TWELVE) years doesn’t make much sense to me. There is a better chance of Trout being out of the game before this deal ends then there is the Angels winning a WS during the contract.

    are the angels, or many pro teams more interested in winning championships or turning profits? the two do not always go hand in hand. look at the two marlins WS titles. they will make a good profit from the Trout contract.

    George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.

  • softparadesoftparade Posts: 9,276 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 20, 2019 5:57AM

    @craig44 said:

    @softparade said:

    @grote15 said:
    Per Fangraphs, Trout generates an average of 69.87 million in revenue annually, so it's actually a good deal for the club. They got off cheap, imo. Trout is twice as good as Harper or Machado.

    I love ya buddy but LOL
    To say they got off cheap in paying 36 million per year for 12 (TWELVE) years doesn’t make much sense to me. There is a better chance of Trout being out of the game before this deal ends then there is the Angels winning a WS during the contract.

    are the angels, or many pro teams more interested in winning championships or turning profits? the two do not always go hand in hand. look at the two marlins WS titles. they will make a good profit from the Trout contract.

    Well I guess if a team or teams #1 priority isn't winning it all my argument makes no sense. Of course not having winning it all at # 1 makes no sense to me. I couldn't be a fan of a team like that.

    ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240

  • craig44craig44 Posts: 11,254 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @softparade said:

    @craig44 said:

    @softparade said:

    @grote15 said:
    Per Fangraphs, Trout generates an average of 69.87 million in revenue annually, so it's actually a good deal for the club. They got off cheap, imo. Trout is twice as good as Harper or Machado.

    I love ya buddy but LOL
    To say they got off cheap in paying 36 million per year for 12 (TWELVE) years doesn’t make much sense to me. There is a better chance of Trout being out of the game before this deal ends then there is the Angels winning a WS during the contract.

    are the angels, or many pro teams more interested in winning championships or turning profits? the two do not always go hand in hand. look at the two marlins WS titles. they will make a good profit from the Trout contract.

    Well I guess if a team or teams # priority isn't winning it all my argument makes no sense. Of course not having winning it all at # 1 makes no sense to me. I couldn't be a fan of a team like that.

    I think it is because you are viewing it as a fan. I have a hard time differentiating it as well. most owners are first and foremost business men. that is how they acquired the funds and leverage to purchase a team. they know their business well and apply it to their purchases. I would imagine, turning a profit is paramount to most owners. why else, they would think, would they purchase a team?

    George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.

  • craig44craig44 Posts: 11,254 ✭✭✭✭✭

    check out the SI article about trout being underpaid in relation to the WAR he provides. interesting

    George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.

  • TabeTabe Posts: 6,062 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @perkdog said:

    @grote15 said:
    Per Fangraphs, Trout generates an average of 69.87 million in revenue annually, so it's actually a good deal for the club. They got off cheap, imo. Trout is twice as good as Harper or Machado.

    serious question as I’ve openly said I’d like to see some of these MLB teams go bankrupt due to the extreme ridiculousness of these out of control contracts, is it possible that it could happen to one of these teams? Ever?

    No. Every franchise makes enough money to more than cover their payroll and have money left over. If a franchise ever appeared headed toward bankruptcy, MLB would just force the owner to sell and get somebody else to pay the bills.

  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 11,800 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @softparade said:

    @craig44 said:

    @softparade said:

    @grote15 said:
    Per Fangraphs, Trout generates an average of 69.87 million in revenue annually, so it's actually a good deal for the club. They got off cheap, imo. Trout is twice as good as Harper or Machado.

    I love ya buddy but LOL
    To say they got off cheap in paying 36 million per year for 12 (TWELVE) years doesn’t make much sense to me. There is a better chance of Trout being out of the game before this deal ends then there is the Angels winning a WS during the contract.

    are the angels, or many pro teams more interested in winning championships or turning profits? the two do not always go hand in hand. look at the two marlins WS titles. they will make a good profit from the Trout contract.

    Well I guess if a team or teams #1 priority isn't winning it all my argument makes no sense. Of course not having winning it all at # 1 makes no sense to me. I couldn't be a fan of a team like that.

    Just look at the Minnesota Twins. Brand new stadium (9 years old now) $350 million out of the 555 million paid for by taxpayers, Pohlads are rumored to be the richest owners in MLB and the team limps along year after year with one of the lowest payrolls in Baseball.

    Do you consider that "trying to win"?

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Sign In or Register to comment.