We all know about the monster rookie year Mike Trout had in 2012 for the Angels. Recently there’s been some hubbub about how the Angels only gave him a slight raise from last year. Apparently he will only make $20K more than the league minimum.
At first I heard some guy going nuts about this on WIP the other day and I thought he was out of line. I mean, he had an insane year, but it’s only his second season and the Angels, to quote The Natural, are under no legal obligation to pay him one penny more. That’s the system that the players agreed to. If it wasn’t like this, then there would be less money to pay the players when they do reach arbitration and free agency. Plus, the Angels have a big payroll and I’m sure they are looking to save money any way they can. What if they do give Trout a few million and then are unable to get some guy before the trade deadline that could put them over the top?
But then I read that Bryce Harper, the more-hyped, but less-successful rookie on the Nats who was plunked by Hamels last year, has a contract that is a good amount more. Then I thought, maybe Trout should be paid more.
You may remember the Phillies had a situation like this when Hamels was good at a young age and he wasn’t happy with the contract he got from the Phillies and then said he would “remember” that when it came time to be a free agent. He later backtracked on the comments, and it looks like he didn’t remember as he signed with the team last year.
To Trout’s credit, he let his agent do the whining. If Trout continues he will be like the other guys, making more money than they know what to do with, making more money now than they did when they were better five years ago. You can read about it here.