OT - Mike Trout finalizing $430M+ contract for 12 years with LA Angels

Trout's deal makes Harper look like a piker

The Angels should theoretically have a window of World Series contention in the 2021-2024 time frame.  Pujols contract gets off the books, their farm system is good, and they can buy some players to compliment Trout, Ohanti and Simmons, who will be in their late 20s-early 30s and the core of the team.

Of course, by the late 2020s Trout's contract may become Pujols' contract, version 2.0.  But that's a problem that's a long-ways out.  Try to win now.  

Mike Trout getting paid a lot of money is not the reason why it is expensive to go to the game. 

The payroll is not impacted whatsoever by ticket prices. Correlation is not causation, and almost every economic study has proven this. They're almost two entirely separate events. If the payroll had any impact on ticket pricing, you would expect Michigan Football to have incredibly cheap tickets, since they don't have a yearly payroll. The only impact it has, is the team deciding that by having a big name, big money star like Mike Trout or Bryce Harper will lead them to be more successful, and having a better product on the field allows for a higher ticket price. But that's a variable that would almost definitely be the same whether they signed Mike Trout for this contract, or his rookie contract. The money is going to go to the millionaire players, or the billionaire owners. There is no savings for the fan, and that's a sad reality of American Sports. 

To me it's not so much the ticket prices that get ya. It's the parking, concessions, souvenirs, etc. $8 for a beer? No thanks.

How have these teams not learned that players decline drastically in their 30s. Paying top dollar for half the player.

Pretty much anybody can be a teacher. There's only one Mike Trout

Hundreds of thousands of people can teach.

Only Mike Trout can Mike Trout.

EDIT:  Well said, footballguy.

$430 Million>>>>>>A better Chance at winning a championship 

Make what people will pay you. I might not get upset at the salaries of athletes, film stars, pop stars... but I do think that it's indicative of a culture that's obsessed with being entertained and amused. 

Not the healthiest thing.

Says the guy amusing himself at a website devoted to college athletic amusements...

We're all messed up. $36M/yr to play a game is one of myriad symptoms of that. Certainly not something to blame him for (or even the Angels).

People naively think that if the players take less, they'll save more. Which is incorrect. If the players take less, the fans are still just as fucked, but the owners make more. I'd much rather the players get market value than the owners milk the costs of the team to make more money. 

What's that saying? Don't hate the player, hate the game? 

Either way, doesn't bother me. Is Mike Trout's annual inherent value to society worth ~ $35 million a year? Maybe. Maybe not. He plays a game. He's not saving lives. But that's what the market says he's worth, and he's in an industry where if you break through to the top 1% of it, as he's done, the market says you are worth $430 million. The man is at the absolute top of his profession and he deserves to be paid as such. 

Two last things to remember here:

1) For every Mike Trout out there, there are probably 2,000 "nobody" athletes down in the minors making $25,000 a year, and who's idea of a nice night out is the 2 for $20 menu at Applebee's. No sneaker deals, private planes, 25,000 square foot mansions. They're riding dirty buses cross-country and living out of motels for a good chunk of the year. Mike Trout is the exception in his profession, not the rule. 

2) If you're pissed about how much more money someone makes than you, remember there's only one person who gets to be the richest person in the world. Everyone else is looking up at them, so if you compare yourself to others based on the amount of money you make, you're in for a lifetime of disappointment. 

People should make whatever they can make. The market is willing to pay Trout this amount, he should take it. If he thinks it's morally wrong, it's his money to decide what is morally right. So I have no issue with Trout making this money, or other people in entertainment making their money.

And make no mistake, entertainment has a lot of value to society, just because it's not curing cancer, doesn't mean it doesn't help. And as noted elsewhere in this thread, there are lots of people that can do almost anyone's job in this thread, there are very, very few, that even if they trained passionately, could do what most of these entertainers can. That said, it says something about society (not the person making the money) that this extreme amount of money is considered at all appropriate, given what it could be spent doing. I think that's where the misgivings come from. There is a difference between a lot of money and just how much money this is.