Mike Trout

Alden Gonzalez explains why no Mike Trout extension is forthcoming

29 Comments

Many have assumed that the Angels will try to work out a long-term deal with Mike Trout this winter before the price tag becomes even more overwhelming, but there’s a very good reason that won’t be happening. And it has a lot to do with that hideous Vernon Wells deal still taking a toll. The Angels are just too close to the luxury-tax threshold to commit big bucks to Trout at the moment.

MLB.com’s Alden Gonzalez lays it all out in his blog entry:

Well, let’s say the Angels sign him to a 10-year, $300 million deal (that’s just a number I’m throwing out, basically because it’s easy to divide — and perhaps because I’m thinking of Robinson Cano). Even if in that contract, Trout is making only $1 million in 2014, the figure for the CBT [Competitive Balance Tax] payroll would be the AAV [Average Annual Value] of that: $30 million.

It matters nothing what Trout makes next year if he signs a long-term deal; it’s his average salary that counts. And since the Angels already have Albert Pujols, Josh Hamilton, Wells, Jered Weaver and C.J. Wilson combining for annual salaries of $100 million, with many more mid-range players also under contract, they can’t give Trout the kind of contract he deserves and stay under the luxury tax at $189 million.

(Yes, Wells still factors in to the tune of $18 million next year. Under the deal the Angels worked out with the Yankees this spring, the Halos got some relief from his 2013 salary, but they’re taking on nearly all of that responsibility for 2014, largely because the Yankees wanted to get under the luxury tax next year.)

The Red Sox used to run into this same problem, and the Yankees, too, have typically been shy about signing younger players to multiyear deals. It’s the hidden cost of operating in the vicinity of the luxury tax; whereas small-market teams can give their young players long-term deals and save a lot of money in the long run, it costs the large-market teams extra to do so.

In this case, Trout is so incredibly valuable that one could argue the Angels should ignore the consequences and try to get something done anyway. It’ll cost them extra now, but it might yet save them some money down the line. After all, that annual salary he’ll command in a long-term deal figures to be significantly smaller now than it will be once he hits arbitration.

Rob Manfred on robot umps: “In general, I would be a keep-the-human-element-in-the-game guy.”

KANSAS CITY, MO - APRIL 5:  Major League Baseball commissioner Rob Manfred talks with media prior to a game between the New York Mets and Kansas City Royals at Kauffman Stadium on April 5, 2016 in Kansas City, Missouri. (Photo by Ed Zurga/Getty Images)
Ed Zurga/Getty Images
15 Comments

Craig covered the bulk of Rob Manfred’s quotes from earlier. The commissioner was asked about robot umpires and he’s not a fan. Via Jeff Passan of Yahoo Sports:

Manfred was wrong to blame the player’s union’s “lack of cooperation” on proposed rule changes, but he’s right about robot umps and the strike zone. The obvious point is that robot umps cannot yet call balls and strikes with greater accuracy than umpires. Those strike zone Twitter accounts, such as this, are sometimes hilariously wrong. Even the strike zone graphics used on television are incorrect and unfortunate percentage of the time.

The first issue to consider about robot umps is taking jobs away from people. There are 99 umps and more in the minors. If robot umpiring was adopted in collegiate baseball, as well as the independent leagues, that’s even more umpires out of work. Is it worth it for an extra one or two percent improvement in accuracy?

Personally, the fallibility of the umpires adds more intrigue to baseball games. There’s strategy involved, as each umpire has tendencies which teams can strategize against. For instance, an umpire with a more generous-than-average strike zone on the outer portion of the plate might entice a pitcher to pepper that area with more sliders than he would otherwise throw. Hitters, knowing an umpire with a smaller strike zone is behind the dish, may take more pitches in an attempt to draw a walk. Or, knowing that information, a hitter may swing for the fences on a 3-0 pitch knowing the pitcher has to throw in a very specific area to guarantee a strike call or else give up a walk.

The umpires make their mistakes in random fashion, so it adds a chaotic, unpredictable element to the game as well. It feels bad when one of those calls goes against your team, but fans often forget the myriad calls that previously went in their teams’ favor. The mistakes will mostly even out in the end.

I haven’t had the opportunity to say this often, but Rob Manfred is right in this instance.

Report: MLB approves new rule allowing a dugout signal for an intentional walk

CHICAGO, IL - OCTOBER 29:  MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred laughs during a ceremony naming the 2016 winners of the Mariano Rivera American League Reliever of the Year Award and the Trevor Hoffman National League Reliever of the Year Award before Game Four of the 2016 World Series between the Chicago Cubs and the Cleveland Indians at Wrigley Field on October 29, 2016 in Chicago, Illinois.  (Photo by Elsa/Getty Images)
Elsa/Getty Images
25 Comments

ESPN’s Howard Bryant is reporting that Major League Baseball has approved a rule allowing for a dugout signal for an intentional walk. In other words, baseball is allowing automatic intentional walks. Bryant adds that this rule will be effective for the 2017 season.

MLB has been trying, particularly this month, to improve the pace of play. Getting rid of the formality of throwing four pitches wide of the strike zone will save a minute or two for each intentional walk. There were 932 of them across 2,428 games last season, an average of one intentional walk every 2.6 games. It’s not the biggest improvement, but it’s something at least.

Earlier, Commissioner Rob Manfred was upset with the players’ union’s “lack of cooperation.” Perhaps his public criticism was the catalyst for getting this rule passed.

Unfortunately, getting rid of the intentional walk formality will eradicate the chance of seeing any more moments like this: