Others make case for bigger raise as Angels' Mike Trout soldiers on

  • Pin It

But so far Trout has remained cool, while baseball writers make the case for him that he deserves better.

They do so in WAR terms, and actually use those letters to spell out why a baseball player has gotten a raw deal.

WAR, or wins above replacement, is some fancy stat that determines how many more wins a player might give a team than someone else.

We're told Trout excelled at WAR, and I wonder if that's the same as congratulating a serviceman upon the successful completion of a tour of duty in Afghanistan.

Why the hubbub? Trout is probably going to make more than $100 million in a few years, and we're supposed to be upset because he's being shortchanged with $510,000.

Perspective is long gone.

To make a mockery of Trout's $510,000 annual salary, SI.com calculated it will take teammate Vernon Wells 3.4 games to match Trout's salary.

CBS.com's Gregg Doyel wrote the Angels were "sticking it" to Trout.

Trout could not have paid a publicist to drum up better goodwill. As good as he is, he's now an underdog again, everyone pulling for him to show how he's been mistreated.

"Mike Trout spent the summer of 2012 looking like the next Mickey Mantle," wrote Jeff Miller in the Orange County Register.

"When it came time to recognize the cornerstone of their franchise, to reward the player who chased history his entire rookie season — and usually caught it — the Angels treated him like the next Mickey Mouse."

Finally someone who gets it, and it would figure to be someone working so close to Disneyland.

If Trout goes on to become the next Mickey Mouse, as Miller suggests and the Angels have planned, and Trout becomes just as beloved while making as much money as the Mouse, who cares what the upstart makes now?

t.j.simers@latimes.com

twitter.com/LATimesTJSimers

  • Pin It

Local & National Video