Mike Trout & Bryce Harper: 500 million dollar men???

[christian1923]

I could see it happening.

15 yrs.. Half a billlly.

Trout Is clearly the best in the league and will probably surpass the likes of willie mays and Mickey mantle when his career is all said and done. Angels are gonna have to write him a blank check. Bryce Harper is finally having his breakout season, but I expect this to be the norm for the next decade. He's the chosen one. 3 all star games and he's not even 23.

I think that's gonna be the asking price... If the Angels and Nats don't pony up... The Yankees and Red Sox will.

[Derka]

Trout will be 30ish when his $145 million extension is up. 10 years for the remaining $355 million? Absolutely. $500 million for 15 years at age 30? Probably not.

[West-Side]

I could see it happening.

15 yrs.. Half a billlly.

Trout Is clearly the best in the league and will probably surpass the likes of willie mays and Mickey mantle when his career is all said and done. Angels are gonna have to write him a blank check. Bryce Harper is finally having his breakout season, but I expect this to be the norm for the next decade. He's the chosen one. 3 all star games and he's not even 23.

I think that's gonna be the asking price... If the Angels and Nats don't pony up... The Yankees and Red Sox will.

Uhm lets not get ahead of ourselves there man.
Griffey Jr. was a better 5-tool player and he was on his way to being the GOAT before injuries.

Trout has to continue to produce AND stay health for at least 12+ years to stack up against someone like Mays.

I actually think Harper will end up the better hitter. Kris Bryant is another stud.

[GIF REACTION]

Barry GOAT Bonds

[DeuceWallaces]

No way. But I can see something around 300 for Trout.

[christian1923]

Uhm lets not get ahead of ourselves there man.
Griffey Jr. was a better 5-tool player and he was on his way to being the GOAT before injuries.

Trout has to continue to produce AND stay health for at least 12+ years to stack up against someone like Mays.

I actually think Harper will end up the better hitter. Kris Bryant is another stud.
He's gonna be better then griff bro. Don't deny the greatness. First four full seasons of both their careers and trout is better at pretty much every offensive stat. I'll give Griffey the defense though. But trout is the more advanced player. Higher OPS. Better power number. More steals.

[christian1923]

Trout will be 30ish when his $145 million extension is up. 10 years for the remaining $355 million? Absolutely. $500 million for 15 years at age 30? Probably not.
That's right. I forgot he was already extended. But they could extend him again before that contract is up. They can't let him let him hit free agency.

[christian1923]

Barry GOAT Bonds
Can't deny that

[West-Side]

He's gonna be better then griff bro. Don't deny the greatness. First four full seasons of both their careers and trout is better at pretty much every offensive stat. I'll give Griffey the defense though. But trout is the more advanced player. Higher OPS. Better power number. More steals.

Griffey's start wasn't as impressive; but after 98', the buzz was there. Almost everyone thought Griffey was going to demolish most records in baseball. Than he got injured.

48 HR, 126 RBI, .301

That's his season average from 93' to 99'.
Wrap your head around those type of power numbers.

I'm not denying that Trout has been phenomenal and I wish him a healthy career; he's a fantastic talent, but he has a long way to go.

Trout has yet to have over 48 home runs or 126 RBI's in a season; Griffey averaged that over a 7 year span. (And lets not forget he only played 111 games in a short season during that time frame)

[christian1923]

Griffey's start wasn't as impressive; but after 98', the buzz was there. Almost everyone thought Griffey was going to demolish most records in baseball. Than he got injured.

48 HR, 126 RBI, .301

That's his season average from 93' to 99'.
Wrap your head around those type of power numbers.

I'm not denying that Trout has been phenomenal and I wish him a healthy career; he's a fantastic talent, but he has a long way to go.

Trout has yet to have over 48 home runs or 126 RBI's in a season; Griffey averaged that over a 7 year span. (And lets not forget he only played 111 games in a short season during that time frame)
Damn those are impressive number. Time will tell but all signs point to trout having similar numbers in his prime when he really focuses on power. But he's gonna have a higher OPS, better average, more steals, and he's gonna walk more. That's what is so amazing about him. He already leads the league in homers and he's not even a true power hitter yet.

His prime is gonna be ridiculous, even with the whole league throwing over 95 MPH

[imdaman99]

I don't think $500 million is a realistic number. $300 million is. No one deserves $500 million.

[West-Side]

I don't think $500 million is a realistic number. $300 million is. No one deserves $500 million.

Didn't Stanton get 300M?
I think Trout will get 350-400M over a similar length.

And he's worth it.
I'm not saying he won't be better than Griffey; his first 4 years are easily better than Griffey's first 4 years. Problem is, Ken exploded after that. He put up arguably the best 7 year span in league history, in terms of power hitting.

Trout is your prototypical 5-tool player just like Griffey was; I just hope he keeps his legacy clean. He's also a pretty good defensive CF; even though Griffey was better, Trout is a gold glove talent too.

[West-Side]

Damn those are impressive number. Time will tell but all signs point to trout having similar numbers in his prime when he really focuses on power. But he's gonna have a higher OPS, better average, more steals, and he's gonna walk more. That's what is so amazing about him. He already leads the league in homers and he's not even a true power hitter yet.

His prime is gonna be ridiculous, even with the whole league throwing over 95 MPH

Oh, and Griffey was 10 for 10.
From 90' to 99', he won 10 gold gloves in 10 years; he also had one of the strongest arms of the decade.

Trout does get on base more and is slightly faster (you got to remember, Griffey also had speed) while Griffey was the superior fielder. What Griffey did in terms of power hitting; no other player has done. He was on pace to shatter records; first man to 800 home runs and was on pace to be the first to 2500 RBI's until the injuries.

Barry Bonds from 98' to 04' - 47 homeruns, 107 RBI's.
That's including his 73 home run season.

Just shows how great Ken's 7 year span was. :bowdown:

[highwhey]

I have no idea who these players are...but Jesus Christ, is baseball the highest paying sport?

[Carbine]

Ken Griffey JR best four year stretch:

413 wOBA, 146 wRC and 30 WAR

Mike Trout four year:

415 wOBA, 174 wRC and 35 WAR


Mike has been better. No debate.

[christian1923]

I have no idea who these players are...but Jesus Christ, is baseball the highest paying sport?
Yeah all guaranteed too, there is no salary cap so teams get into huge bidding wars and above average players are getting 100 million. Good players are getting 150 million. And the great players are getting 150-325 million depending on what position you play.

But getting to the big leagues is a long process and it takes a long time to see some real money. NFL and NBA is a quicker way to get paid. Exceptions with Harper and Trout though who are 22&23. Trout is already paid, Harper will probably sign an extension this winter. But Some guys don't get to the show till they're 25,26,27. So they have a really long wait to get that big contract.

[DeuceWallaces]

Ken Griffey JR best four year stretch:

413 wOBA, 146 wRC and 30 WAR

Mike Trout four year:

415 wOBA, 174 wRC and 35 WAR


Mike has been better. No debate.

There's quite a bit of debate. Not only did Griffey hit for a ton of power that Trout simply does not have, but his best 4 year stretch was interrupted by the strike and a 60+ game injury.

[West-Side]

Ken Griffey JR best four year stretch:

413 wOBA, 146 wRC and 30 WAR

Mike Trout four year:

415 wOBA, 174 wRC and 35 WAR


Mike has been better. No debate.

:oldlol:

4 All-Stars, 1 MVP, 4 Silver Slugger & 4 Gold Gloves
.298, 209 HR, 567 RBI, 75 SB, 493 Runs, 703 Hits, .389 OBP, .625 SLG, 1.001 OPS in 2392 At Bats

4 All-Stars, 1 MVP, 4 Silver Slugger & 0 Gold Gloves
.309, 124 HR, 355 RBI, 108 SB, 428 Runs, 658 Hits, .406 OBP, .588 SLG, .982 OPS in 2109 At Bats

Trout gets on base more, is a better hitter and has more speed.
Griffey is the far better fielder (even though Trout is good as well), stronger arm and is a better power hitter.

But please bud, as good as Trout has been so far he would not be the best player in baseball playing in the same league as a 93'-98' Ken Griffey Jr.

You also need to remember, Griffey could have stolen WAY more bases if he didn't have so many great hitters on the team (Edgar, Buhner, Alex Rodriguez, Wilson, Olerud).

[GIF REACTION]

This is a tier 2 debate

Barry GOAT Bonds is on tier 1

[Lakers Legend#32]

As an Angels fan, give Trouty all the money in the world. :bowdown:

[Carbine]

There's quite a bit of debate. Not only did Griffey hit for a ton of power that Trout simply does not have, but his best 4 year stretch was interrupted by the strike and a 60+ game injury.


Griffey played 618 games to Trouts 550 in the span I used. So Trout having five more WAR is even more impressive and conclusive.

Those stats I used are really the only stats that should be used when examining how good of a batter (wOBA) and overall offensive player (wRC+) you are.

Griffey hit more home runs whipdy ****in do. What's that have to do with who was better? Nothing.

The three stats I used all favor Trout, two out of the three heavily favor him.

[Carbine]

:oldlol:

4 All-Stars, 1 MVP, 4 Silver Slugger & 4 Gold Gloves
.298, 209 HR, 567 RBI, 75 SB, 493 Runs, 703 Hits, .389 OBP, .625 SLG, 1.001 OPS in 2392 At Bats

4 All-Stars, 1 MVP, 4 Silver Slugger & 0 Gold Gloves
.309, 124 HR, 355 RBI, 108 SB, 428 Runs, 658 Hits, .406 OBP, .588 SLG, .982 OPS in 2109 At Bats

Trout gets on base more, is a better hitter and has more speed.
Griffey is the far better fielder (even though Trout is good as well), stronger arm and is a better power hitter.

But please bud, as good as Trout has been so far he would not be the best player in baseball playing in the same league as a 93'-98' Ken Griffey Jr.

You also need to remember, Griffey could have stolen WAY more bases if he didn't have so many great hitters on the team (Edgar, Buhner, Alex Rodriguez, Wilson, Olerud).

WAR accounts for all of their abilities. Trout has significantly more WAR in 69 less games than Griffey.

Trout could steal way more bases too, so that point is itrelivent.

HR, RBI, batting average are behind the times.

wOBA, wRC+ are so much more accurate in depicting a players value at the plate and overall offense.

[West-Side]

WAR accounts for all of their abilities. Trout has significantly more WAR in 69 less games than Griffey.

Trout could steal way more bases too, so that point is itrelivent.

HR, RBI, batting average are behind the times.

wOBA, wRC+ are so much more accurate in depicting a players value at the plate and overall offense.

You really need to learn the game and stop reading some advanced stats created by geeks. Use your eyes, but I bet you don't even remember shit about Griffey.

Your dumb ass comment about stealing bases concludes every-thing.
Griffey didn't attempt to steal nearly as many bases and the last two years; Trout was no where near his 49 SB from 2011 season.

Griffey ran a 6.6 60 yard dash while Trout is slightly better at 6.5; hardly a difference in speed.

Griffey however had a much stronger arm (go check out some highlights) and was a far better fielder; that doesn't matter to you? :rolleyes:

In Griffey's 4 best years; he drove in 200+ more runs and hit over 70 more home runs. That's PRODUCING runs for your team; not to mention he score more runs than Trout as well. So clearly him stealing bases wasn't a problem or he didn't need to because he had strong hitters behind him, so why take the chance when you got Johnny Olerud and Edgar Martinez behind you?

Like I said, you can't just compare raw numbers and not looking at the context.

[Carbine]

You really need to learn the game and stop reading some advanced stats created by geeks. Use your eyes, but I bet you don't even remember shit about Griffey.

Your dumb ass comment about stealing bases concludes every-thing.
Griffey didn't attempt to steal nearly as many bases and the last two years; Trout was no where near his 49 SB from 2011 season.

Griffey ran a 6.6 60 yard dash while Trout is slightly better at 6.5; hardly a difference in speed.

Griffey however had a much stronger arm (go check out some highlights) and was a far better fielder; that doesn't matter to you? :rolleyes:

In Griffey's 4 best years; he drove in 200+ more runs and hit over 70 more home runs. That's PRODUCING runs for your team; not to mention he score more runs than Trout as well. So clearly him stealing bases wasn't a problem or he didn't need to because he had strong hitters behind him, so why take the chance when you got Johnny Olerud and Edgar Martinez behind you?

Like I said, you can't just compare raw numbers and not looking at the context.

Using your eyes is actually not needed in baseball. I don't need to watch players to know who the best are. Those stats I quoted are all that you need to evaluate who the best is.

I was once you, a guy who looked at HR RBI and BA but I have seen the light.

You mention context, THESE STATS ARE ALL ABOUT PUTTING CONTEXT IN NUMBERS. You compares Barry to Griff earlier.

That comparison is a complete and utter joke. Barry was so far ahead of Griffey it literally wasn't close. Even with Barry's poor fielding he still compiled 47 WAR and he missed 75 games over that four year stretch. His wRC+ was like 230 and his wOBA was 530ish. Puts trout and especially Griffey to shame.

[West-Side]

Using your eyes is actually not needed in baseball. I don't need to watch players to know who the best are. Those stats I quoted are all that you need to evaluate who the best is.

I was once you, a guy who looked at HR RBI and BA but I have seen the light.

You mention context, THESE STATS ARE ALL ABOUT PUTTING CONTEXT IN NUMBERS. You compares Barry to Griff earlier.

That comparison is a complete and utter joke. Barry was so far ahead of Griffey it literally wasn't close. Even with Barry's poor fielding he still compiled 47 WAR and he missed 75 games over that four year stretch. His wRC+ was like 230 and his wOBA was 530ish. Puts trout and especially Griffey to shame.

I've already mentioned why homerun's and RBI's matter; Griffey in the 90's was more productive for his team than Barry Bonds. Despite Bonds having a higher OBP and batting average.

When I evaluated the total runs their respective teams scored and how many runs and RBI's Griffey and Bonds, each, contributed to their teams; Griffey actually had a slightly higher percentage. This also includes the years where "magically" Bonds increased his power prowess.

Regarding Trout Vs. Griffey:

In those 4 years; Griffey had contributed 300 more runs, if you simply look at their RBI and run totals. Trout got on base more (so did Bonds) but isn't the point of a batter to score runs?

Someone told me; Griffey scored more runs because he had a better team and I already did the research to prove that statement wrong. Even though Seattle slightly scored more runs than SF & Pittsburgh (Bonds teams from 90' to 99'); when you adjusted those runs for when Bonds & Griffey actually played, Griffey had a higher production rate. Yet to you, he was "so much better". :rolleyes:

Lazy people will look at these simply advanced statistics and make false conclusions. Griffey didn't attempt to steal nearly as many bases because he had great hitters behind him; otherwise he could have easily stolen 30+ bases every year.

Trout is without a doubt (so far) has been the better overall hitter (in terms of getting on base); Bonds was clearly better too.

I believe Griffey had superior power prowess; better fielder and better arm than both of them. And if you don't think those things matter than you need to educate yourself about players like Vlad Guerreo. Those types of arms like Griffey & Vlad prevented players from getting extra base hits; prevented players from scoring on sacrifice flies etc. Their arm was well known to players and a lot of the time they simply didn't attempt to test their arms.

You say home runs don't matter; I think that's a ridiculous statement.
Being a power hitter impacts the scoreline and the way pitchers pitch to you.

[Carbine]

You win. I'm not arguing about RBI and HR's.

I'm not a 100 percent advocate for all advanced stats in baseball, but those ones I specified are legit. This isn't basketball where advanced stats really do have major flaws because the game of basketball is a free flowing game where lots of things happen.

Baseball is different. It's an OUTCOME BASED SPORT.

My advice. Go educate yourself on those stats I specified. It's ridiculous using HR and RBI and runs scored in this day and age to judge players.

Just to address your last statement. HR do matter, obviously. I'm not an idiot...... but wOBA and wRC+ factor in HR.

Your rebuttle to Bonds vs Griffey is so misguided. It's really not even a debate worth having. Go post that on an MLB forum and see the type of hate you would receive. You'd be treated like a troll.

[raiderfan19]

There's quite a bit of debate. Not only did Griffey hit for a ton of power that Trout simply does not have, but his best 4 year stretch was interrupted by the strike and a 60+ game injury.
Griffeys best 4 year stretch was 96-99. The thing you have to remember in this comparison is that context matters. Griffey played in a much better offensive environment which make his offensive numbers while impressive, slightly less impressive than they appear on the surface.(same as Pedro's peak being the goat pitching peak but in reverse)

An interesting nugget is how similar their age 23 seasons are(trout is currently in his age 23 season. That was the first year Griffey really showed his 80 power in games. Trouts current triple slash line is 315/405/632. Griffeys age 23 season was 309/408/617. Again trouts is more impressive due to the context but those lines are incredibly similar. The counting numbers should be equivalent too(trout is on pace for 47ish homers, Griffey hit 45)

[raiderfan19]

:oldlol:

4 All-Stars, 1 MVP, 4 Silver Slugger & 4 Gold Gloves
.298, 209 HR, 567 RBI, 75 SB, 493 Runs, 703 Hits, .389 OBP, .625 SLG, 1.001 OPS in 2392 At Bats

4 All-Stars, 1 MVP, 4 Silver Slugger & 0 Gold Gloves
.309, 124 HR, 355 RBI, 108 SB, 428 Runs, 658 Hits, .406 OBP, .588 SLG, .982 OPS in 2109 At Bats

Trout gets on base more, is a better hitter and has more speed.
Griffey is the far better fielder (even though Trout is good as well), stronger arm and is a better power hitter.

But please bud, as good as Trout has been so far he would not be the best player in baseball playing in the same league as a 93'-98' Ken Griffey Jr.

You also need to remember, Griffey could have stolen WAY more bases if he didn't have so many great hitters on the team (Edgar, Buhner, Alex Rodriguez, Wilson, Olerud).
What 4 year stretch are you using? Or are you picking 4 years even if they aren't consecutive? Because if so, that isn't s 4 year stretch.