Written by RJ Anderson at CBS Sports.com
The Los Angeles Angels are no stranger to super-long-term deals. After all, they were the ones who gave manager Mike Scioscia a 10-year contract in 2009, and who later handed Albert Pujols a 10-year agreement of his own, albeit for substantially more money. As such, it probably shouldn’t be too surprising that the Angels at least thought about a “lifetime” deal with the best player in the world, Mike Trout.
What might surprise is that Trout was the one who proposed the potential 14- or 15-year contract before signing his six-year extension in 2014, according to Jon Heyman of FanRag Sports:
[He] broached an extreme mega deal in talks (14 or 15 years, according to people familiar with those talks) before word came back that Angels owner Arte Moreno decided not to go for the lifetime deal for the two-year superstar, but hardly anyone’s repeating that strategy. It’s no certainty they would have been able to work it out the super mega deal, anyway, as Trout seemed pleased at the middle ground of six. But it was quite an interesting thought put forth by Trout’s side.
As Heyman notes, there’s no telling what kind of financial commitment would’ve been necessary on the Angels side. As a result, it’s hard to analyze the pros and cons of the Angels’ decision to play it safe.
That said, signing any player to a 14- or 15-year deal is risky business. Even Trout, for as great as he is, has the potential to get hurt (as we’ve since learned firsthand). He’s probably the safest quantity in the league, but that within itself doesn’t ensure anything.
Of course, the flip side is that the Angels are running a different kind of risk now, since Trout could very well opt to test free agency rather than sign another extension once his contract expires after the 2020 season — especially if the Angels haven’t shown that they can surround him with a winning team.
To continue reading this article, click here.
