****Official 2014 STL Cardinals thread ****

[BigRedChief]

2011 WS Championship
2012 one win from another WS
2013 two wins from another WS title
2014?

• This is a franchise that has made the postseason 10 times in the last 14 seasons.
• Reached three World Series in the last decade, and won as many championships (two) the past eight seasons as it did from 1965 to 2005.
• Our new Manager has more post season experience than any other manager in baseball, except the Giants manager.
• Three million attendance? Take it to the bank.
• 60 post season wins since 2004. 20+ wins more than any other team.
• Only one of the last 14 seasons has been a losing one.

[O.city]

He flubbed the catch, but that ball bourjos got to in center today, is one jay doesn't get within 10 feet of

[KC_Connection]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

They are forfeiting about $50 million of value by signing him to that deal, regardless of whether or not he's a 10 WAR player every year.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/mike-...w-and-forever/

You don’t need another 1,500 word explanation of why this is a hilarious steal for the Angels. Trout would have made something like $50 to $60 million in arbitration had he gone year to year, so the Angels are basically getting three free agent years for $85 to $95 million. This doesn’t come anywhere near Trout’s value, and Trout has left an enormous amount of money on the table. Even if his goal was to reach free agency again and sign a second monstrous contract, he still is worth so far more than the roughly $30 million per year he signed away three free agent years for.

Angels made out great on it as long as Trout remains even close to the player he is right now.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by KC_Connection

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/mike-...w-and-forever/



Angels made out great on it as long as Trout remains even close to the player he is right now.

Trout would not have gotten half of that in arbitration. Pujols got 1/3 of that a year a decade ago despite having far more counting stats (which are more arb friendly) than Trout.

[KC_Connection]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Trout would not have gotten half of that in arbitration. Pujols got 1/3 of that a year a decade ago despite having far more counting stats (which are more arb friendly) than Trout.

Times have changed apparently. He would absolutely have gotten that much if he kept playing at this ridiculous level (at least according to the guys who write about baseball for a living). I still think it made some sense for Trout to sign the contract (he's set for life), but if you assume that Trout continues to be worth between 40-50M a year like he has been for the last two, the Angels got a steal with this deal.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by KC_Connection

Times have changed apparently. He would absolutely have gotten that much if he kept playing at this ridiculous level (at least according to the guys who write about baseball for a living).

If you want to mention guys who write about baseball for a living, don't quote a Fangraphs article. That's a ****ing ridiculous comparison.

[KC_Connection]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

If you want to mention guys who write about baseball for a living, don't quote a Fangraphs article. That's a ****ing ridiculous comparison.

You're suggesting you know more about baseball than Dave Cameron, the founder of FanGraphs, are you?

Just own up to the fact that you were wrong in this instance. I won't hold it against you.

[Pasta Little Brioni]

40 to 50 million in arbitration

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by KC_Connection

You're suggesting you know more about baseball than Dave Cameron, the founder of FanGraphs, are you?

Just own up to the fact that you were wrong in this instance. I won't hold it against you.

He didn't found it, you dumb sonofabitch. He's a contributor.

No player has ever gotten more than $10 million in arb. No player has ever asked for more than $13. Trout is not getting near $20 million in arb.

[KC_Connection]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

He didn't found it, you dumb sonofabitch. He's a contributor.

Nitpicking, but you didn't answer the question.

No player has ever gotten more than $10 million in arb. No player has ever asked for more than $13. Trout is not getting near $20 million in arb.

Trout isn't just any player. He's doing things that nobody in the history of baseball has ever done at a time when there's more money in baseball than ever before. There is no precedent for his level of production at his age.

[KC_Connection]

However, Trout would still likely be in line for record arbitration payouts, especially if his 2014 season results in another +9 to +10 WAR performance as the forecasts project. He might not have the MVP trophy that Ryan Howard possessed when he set the record with a $10 million arbitration award in 2008, but his back to back second place finishes still count in his favor and will carry a lot of weight, and of course, there’s some chance he’d win the MVP if allowed to play out 2014, so the Angels will have to factor that possibility into the price. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that Trout would break every arbitration record if he was allowed to go year to year, and the Angels will likely have to pay prices that reflect that expectation in his extension.

For comparison, Howard’s four arbitration years went $10M/$15M/$19M/$20M, though the last three were bought out by an extension prior to the 2009 season. In total, though, Howard made $64 million before reaching free agency, and this was before the television rights explosion. Of course, he also had the benefit of going to arbitration four times, which Trout will not have, so he’ll have to make do with three record payouts instead of four. If we give him $15M/$20M/$25M, Trout would get $60 million over his final three arbitration years. The Angels might want to negotiate those down a bit in a long term deal, but that’s probably the expectation of what he’s likely to get if they go year to year, so we can speculate that an extension for Trout would have to be backed onto the $60 million he’s likely to get over the next four years.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/so-wh...look-like-now/

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by KC_Connection

Nitpicking, but you didn't answer the question.


Trout isn't just any player. He's doing things that nobody in the history of baseball has ever done at a time when there's more money in baseball than ever before. There is no precedent for his level of production at his age.

The **** there isn't. Alex Rodriguez put up 9.2 WAR as a 20 year old. Pujols put up 9.6 and 184 wRC as a 23 year old.

If you want to say he's in really rare air, I'll agree, but there are players who have done this before.

[KC_Connection]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

The **** there isn't. Alex Rodriguez put up 9.2 WAR as a 20 year old. Pujols put up 9.6 and 184 wRC as a 23 year old.

If you want to say he's in really rare air, I'll agree, but there are players who have done this before.

No, they haven't. He just had the greatest age 20 and age 21 seasons of all time. We're talking about somebody without precedent here.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/mike-...n-of-all-time/

Last year, Mike Trout was 20-years-old, and he did things that no other 20-year-old in history had ever accomplished. He’s the only 20-year-old in baseball history to post a +10 WAR season, and it wasn’t just driven by his positive fielding numbers, as his 166 wRC+ was the best hitting performance any 20-year-old has ever posted. It was an historic season in many ways, but it was also the kind of season that didn’t look repeatable.

Last year, Trout was the best 20-year-old in baseball history. This year, his performance is going to give him a shot at being the best 21-year-old in baseball history.

I’ll always remember how amazing Albert Pujols’ 2001 debut was. Really, it was just a stunning season from a guy who spent the previous year in low-A ball. To just show up as a 21-year-old rookie and post a 159 wRC+ was incredible. Mike Trout, right now, is basically having Albert Pujols’ rookie season if Albert Pujols was also a great baserunner.

I think I’m going to stop putting a ceiling on what Mike Trout can do. The best 20-year-old ever might end the year as the best 21-year-old ever. We should appreciate what we’re seeing. No one has ever seen this before.

Greatest age 20 seasons: http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.asp...ter=&players=0

Greatest age 21 seasons: http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.asp...rs=0&sort=22,d

['Hamas' Jenkins]

The only arbitration salary Howard was ever granted was $10 million. Furthermore, and what you again don't respond to, is that arbitrators look at counting stats. That's why Howard got a record. It's why he surpassed Pujols's arb # even though he was coming off a year with 6 fewer WAR than Pujols.

[KC_Connection]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

The only arbitration salary Howard was ever granted was $10 million. Furthermore, and what you again don't respond to, is that arbitrators look at counting stats. That's why Howard got a record. It's why he surpassed Pujols's arb # even though he was coming off a year with 6 fewer WAR than Pujols.

Even if you assume Trout would have gotten something like $45M in arbitration instead of $60M (which I and others don't think would have been the case at all based on his unprecedented track record), the huge bargain they are getting on his FA years is enough of a reason to make the deal here. He's that good a player.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by KC_Connection

No, they haven't. He just had the greatest age 20 and age 21 seasons of all time. We're talking about somebody without precedent here.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/mike-...n-of-all-time/








Greatest age 20 seasons: http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.asp...ter=&players=0

Greatest age 21 seasons: http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.asp...rs=0&sort=22,d

You continue to make the same mistakes over and over, regardless of debate or sport. You look at the numbers, but you are completely unable to contextualize them. Like a freshman writer who can only formulate an argument from aping a single source, you look at one data set and assume that it's infallible.

WAR is incredibly useful, but it's also not sacrosanct, and it isn't laser like in its accuracy. bWAR, for example, pins Trout at 8.9 rather than 10.4 for last year. That's 16% in variance across two websites. It's not enough to completely discount WAR as a metric, because it still has incredible value, but your assumption that 10.0 is definitive just shows how little you understand the nuance and error within the formulae themselves.

The difference between Trout at 10.0 and Rodriguez at 9.2 isn't all that statistically significant, especially when you factor in the 20 year difference in the two computed years.