Would you rather have Mike Trout with current contract or the first overall pick in next 5 drafts?

[Omar 382]

Basically,

Trout
2016: $15.2M, 2017: $19.2M, 2018: $33.2M, 2019:$33.2M, 2020: $33.2M

Or

First overall pick in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 drafts?

WAR's of last five overall draft picks:
Dansby Swanson: 0 (has not appeared in MLB)
Brady Aiken: 0 (did not sign; has not appeared in MLB)
Mark Appel: 0 (has not appeared in MLB)
Carlos Correa: 3.3
Gerrit Cole: 10.2

I ran the data, and since the first overall pick back in 1965, the average WAR is 21.4. This, however, is obviously impacted by all the players who never reached the majors and thus posted WAR's of 0, so let's look at the median, which turns out to be 17.2. Only 25% of the players had career WARs of 28.9 or higher. In only four full seasons, Trout has posted a WAR that is nearly 10 wins better than 75% of first round picks over their full careers. So it would appear Trout is clearly the right choice.

But we're not comparing five years of Trout to one draft pick; we're comparing him to five first overall draft picks. So let's look at the average career WAR of the five best draft picks. That comes out to a WAR of 75.4. And that's their whole careers, and a best-case scenario. Trout could get 45 wins over the next five years alone. I don't think it's close, I'd take Trout's contract.

 

[broncosmitty]

Gimme the picks.

 

[Omar 382]

Gimme the picks.

Even with their unpredictability and uncertainty? You are a betting man

 

[broncosmitty]

Even with their unpredictability and uncertainty? You are a betting man

Trout without the base stealing aspect of his game isn't the same. (Yeah, I'm saying I prefer a 23 year old earlier in his career. Lol)Even if his power numbers are able to increase somewhat over the remainder of his contract.

Id take the risk. Then Id push for International players to be involved in the draft.

 

[Omar 382]

Trout without the base stealing aspect of his game isn't the same. (Yeah, I'm saying I prefer a 23 year old earlier in his career. Lol)Even if his power numbers are able to increase somewhat over the remainder of his contract.

Id take the risk. Then Id push for International players to be involved in the draft.

I don't view the decline in SB as that big of a problem. Certainly not enough to offset all his other amazingness.

That's like someone doubting Ruth after his 1920 season because his K% increased from 1919

 

[Cedrique]

Basically,

Trout
2016: $15.2M, 2017: $19.2M, 2018: $33.2M, 2019:$33.2M, 2020: $33.2M

Or

First overall pick in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 drafts?

WAR's of last five overall draft picks:
Dansby Swanson: 0 (has not appeared in MLB)
Brady Aiken: 0 (did not sign; has not appeared in MLB)
Mark Appel: 0 (has not appeared in MLB)
Carlos Correa: 3.3
Gerrit Cole: 10.2

I ran the data, and since the first overall pick back in 1965, the average WAR is 21.4. This, however, is obviously impacted by all the players who never reached the majors and thus posted WAR's of 0, so let's look at the median, which turns out to be 17.2. Only 25% of the players had career WARs of 28.9 or higher. In only four full seasons, Trout has posted a WAR that is nearly 10 wins better than 75% of first round picks over their full careers. So it would appear Trout is clearly the right choice.

But we're not comparing five years of Trout to one draft pick; we're comparing him to five first overall draft picks. So let's look at the average career WAR of the five best draft picks. That comes out to a WAR of 75.4. And that's their whole careers, and a best-case scenario. Trout could get 45 wins over the next five years alone. I don't think it's close, I'd take Trout's contract.

I'd take Trout but it is close. Those 5 guys you listed could easily be better overall than Trout. Cole and Correa have a very bright future. And I'm banking on Appel to win the rookie of the year in Phillies pinstripes this year.....

 

[Omar 382]

I'd take Trout but it is close. Those 5 guys you listed could easily be better overall than Trout. Cole and Correa have a very bright future. And I'm banking on Appel to win the rookie of the year in Phillies pinstripes this year.....

Yeah, he'll definitely get his chances. If you haven't already checked out my post on our board, I've discovered what Klentak is really up to, and there's no way "Apple" (the fruit that fucked humanity over) won't be toeing the rubber every 5th day, if not more IMO

 

[Arizona_Sting]

I'll take Trout.

 

[DirtDirtDirt]

Id need a bigger sampling of #1 picks, dating back a little further

Out of the ones provided, Correa and Cole may be studs for years to come, and reports on Swanson are pretty positive

Judging by that, Id take the picks

 

[Omar 382]

Id need a bigger sampling of #1 picks, dating back a little further

Out of the ones provided, Correa and Cole may be studs for years to come, and reports on Swanson are pretty positive

Judging by that, Id take the picks

I literally said:

I ran the data, and since the first overall pick back in 1965, the average WAR is 21.4. This, however, is obviously impacted by all the players who never reached the majors and thus posted WAR's of 0, so let's look at the median, which turns out to be 17.2. Only 25% of the players had career WARs of 28.9 or higher. In only four full seasons, Trout has posted a WAR that is nearly 10 wins better than 75% of first round picks over their full careers. So it would appear Trout is clearly the right choice.

But we're not comparing five years of Trout to one draft pick; we're comparing him to five first overall draft picks. So let's look at the average career WAR of the five best draft picks. That comes out to a WAR of 75.4. And that's their whole careers, and a best-case scenario. Trout could get 45 wins over the next five years alone. I don't think it's close, I'd take Trout's contract.

 

[DirtDirtDirt]

I literally said:

Fair enough

I will tell you this tho...If Gerritt Cole and Carlos Correa were both teammates, and said team offered them both today for Mike Trout, the Angels would have to think long and hard on that one

Thats why Id take the picks, ill take my chances of hitting the lottery on multiple players

 

[Omar 382]

Fair enough

I will tell you this tho...If Gerritt Cole and Carlos Correa were both teammates, and said team offered them both today for Mike Trout, the Angels would have to think long and hard on that one

Thats why Id take the picks, ill take my chances of hitting the lottery on multiple players

Yeah, I guess it comes out to how much of a gambler you are. Even those two players together, using Steamer's projections, are expected to have a lower WAR than Trout in 2016. It really just is a testament to how amazing Trout truly is

 

[DirtDirtDirt]

Yeah, I guess it comes out to how much of a gambler you are. Even those two players together, using Steamer's projections, are expected to have a lower WAR than Trout in 2016. It really just is a testament to how amazing Trout truly is

Oh yeah, no arguing he is amazing

 

[StanMarsh51]

In recent years, the amount of success from #1 picks has been very solid...

I'll exclude the last 3 picks (all of which haven't made the majors yet), but before that:

Carlos Correa
Gerrit Cole
Harper
Strasburg
Tim Beckham
Price
Luke Hochevar
Justin Upton

5 all stars and another potential one in Correa.

 

[Omar 382]

In recent years, the amount of success from #1 picks has been very solid...

I'll exclude the last 3 picks (all of which haven't made the majors yet), but before that:

Carlos Correa
Gerrit Cole
Harper
Strasburg
Tim Beckham
Price
Luke Hochevar
Justin Upton

5 all stars and another potential one in Correa.

So, which option would you choose?

 

[calsnowskier]

I think it depends on the organization making the decision. If we are talking about the Padres who are well known to fuck themselves with their draft picks, I think you take Trout. If you are talking Houston, St Louis or San Fran, who have decent scouting departments, I think you go for the picks.

If you go back just a few additional years, you detailed list changes quite dramatically...

2010: Bryce Harper
2009: Stephen Strasburg
2008: Tim Beckham (Posey was picked #5 because of contract demands)
2007: David Price

There has not been a #1 overall legitimate not make the majors since 2004 (Matt Bush, who was called AT THE TIME one of the dumbest picks ever).

Basically, you only need to hit a HR with one of the picks, assuming you get solid players with 3 of the other 4 picks to make it a no brainer.

 

[molsaniceman]

Id need a bigger sampling of #1 picks, dating back a little further

Out of the ones provided, Correa and Cole may be studs for years to come, and reports on Swanson are pretty positive

Judging by that, Id take the picks

last 5 active #1s Correa--Cole-Harper-Strasburg-Beckham

Not a bad group except beckham 6th on the list is Price

last 3 #1s swanson-Aiken- Appel are still in minors

Id take my chances on the picks Dont forget they will be cheap for 6-7 years


lol i agree with Stan

 

[DirtDirtDirt]

Damn...Tim Beckam was a #1 pick?

 

[Omar 382]

I think it depends on the organization making the decision. If we are talking about the Padres who are well known to fuck themselves with their draft picks, I think you take Trout. If you are talking Houston, St Louis or San Fran, who have decent scouting departments, I think you go for the picks.

If you go back just a few additional years, you detailed list changes quite dramatically...

2010: Bryce Harper
2009: Stephen Strasburg
2008: Tim Beckham (Posey was picked #5 because of contract demands)
2007: David Price

There has not been a #1 overall legitimate not make the minors since 2004 (Matt Bush, who was called AT THE TIME on of the dumbest picks ever).

Basically, you only need to hit a HR with one of the picks, assuming you get solid players with 3 of the other 4 picks to make it a no brainer.

But, in this scenario, you're not getting all five players at once. Of course it would take time to develop them all. By the time 2020 pick comes around, the 2016 and 2017 picks could have left for free agency or have to be signed to huge contracts. Trout's contract, which is ridiculously cheap for his production, makes him the clear winner to me. But if you wanted a continuous stream of (potentially) very good players over a 10 year span, I could see going with the picks.

 

[StanMarsh51]

So, which option would you choose?

Presuming I had confidence in my scouts, I'll take the draft picks.