You know it’s hard to focus on the traditional National Pastime when it’s out of season, unless the New York Yankees buy the remainder of the players in Major League Baseball or something similar. Nevertheless, a column Friday by The Orange County Register’s excellent business columnist Jonathan Lansner brought my attention back to matters of the diamond, horsehide and lack of revenue sharing.
Namely, the Anaheim Angels.
(I realize that the official MLB name is the long, ugly and misrepresented Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. Henceforth, however, for readers of this column, the team will be known as the Anaheim Angels. I fail to see where a geographic fairy tale by Angels’ management changes the fact that the team plays in Orange County, not Los Angeles County, and never the twain shall meet as far as most Southern Californians are concerned).
I don’t think in recent history had a team come into a season with higher hopes and ended up in a full-scale pratfall. These Angels didn’t come close to earning their $127 million payroll, finishing a woeful 78-84, third in the AL West behind Oakland and Texas.
But there was, and is, a bright spot.
Mike Trout.
Second year in the majors. .323 BA, 27 HRs, 97 RBIs. Second Silver Slugger already awarded; AL Rookie of the Year in 2012: and arguably, save for the brilliance of Detroit’s Miguel Cabrera, the MVP of the American League for the last two years. Trout’s a defensive genius in the outfield, and was the main reason to attend Angel games in 2012-13.
He’s also the most egregiously underpaid player in baseball. Trout made $510,000 a year, $20,000 over the league minimum; that works out to $3,148.15 per game, not bad for a 22 year-old. But when compared to Albert Pujols at $16,000,000 per year ($98,765 per game) and Josh Hamilton at $17,400,000 annually ($107,407 per game), Trout is the 99¢ Store to Pujols’ Saks Fifth Avenue and Hamilton’s Neiman-Marcus. Great value for the dollar with no frills.
Trout should be compensated like Nordstrom, at least. Higher prices, but great quality and outstanding personal service. Would it bother the Angels to at least pay him a measly $2,000,000 a year until his free agent year in 2017? It’s not like they’re destitute. Are they?
Given the current drama being played out in the Anaheim City Council over the future of Angel Stadium, you’d think the Angels had a cup out on the curb, asking for donations.
Wherein lies my fascination in the Jonathan Lansner column. Lansner correctly notes the game of chicken going on in Anaheim. The stadium lease on Angel Stadium, which is owned by the city and was rehabbed by Anaheim taxpayers as recently as 1996, expires after the 2016 season, and the city and the team are in negotiations to extend the lease. The Angels are demanding development rights on the 150 acres surrounding the stadium as a term of the lease, and only wanting to extend the lease from 2016 to 2019; Anaheim wants the lease to run to 2057. The Angels would pay $1 per year for the stadium land, and take over the stadium maintenance from the city, saving the city only around $300,000 per year. Oh, and the “of Anaheim” would be dropped from the team name, leaving the Ducks as the only local franchise with a local identity.
It’s apparent Angels owner Arte Moreno believes that that city will cave, as cities always do when faced with the possible loss of the team, and give him everything he wants. There’s a land war in Orange County, as Lansner notes however, and the land surrounding the stadium should be worth a lot to another developer and certainly more than the token dollar the Angels want to pay.
On possibility for another developer could be the former owner of the Angels and the proprietor of that small amusement park down Katella Avenue from the stadium. Ever heard of Disneyland? You don’t think that Mickey Mouse’s boss, the Disney Corporation, could find a better use for the land than Moreno and the Angels, at a greater profit for the city than watching Moreno’s pockets expand at city expense? I like their odds. Lansner agrees.
That’s the rub with Moreno since he waltzed into Orange County years ago. He wants it all, including the obliteration of Anaheim’s good name. He’s the MLB version of the NFL’s Washington owner Daniel Snyder, spending freely on players without foresight on the future; the Angels’ farm system is widely reported to the be the worst in the majors. And it’s very apparent what he really wants – a stadium in the city where he thinks he is now – to become truly the Los Angeles Angels. Anaheim, to quote Lansner, should focus on “what’s the best use of the land for the city’s needs” – and that may not include MLB in the OC.
Which brings me back to Mike Trout. The Angel star deserves a raise; he’s saying the right things, not wanting to renegotiate before the expiration of the contract, and proclaiming his devotion to the franchise. But, as ESPN reported last month, he also said that he was open to relocation after his contract with the Angels expired; in a statement to the Los Angeles Times, Trout noted “It’s about time to start looking for a house . . .I’m trying to see what direction my career takes me. Do I want to buy a house out here or some other place?”
Just like the franchise he plays for, Mike Trout is considering the ramifications of going somewhere else for more money. It’s time for the Anaheim Angels to do two things; 1) quit playing games with the stadium issue in Anaheim; and 2) pay Mike Trout what he deserves.
Remember, in the iconic movie Clarence didn’t get his wings until George Bailey did the right thing and focused on what was truly important. Arte Moreno and the Angels won’t get their wings until he follows George’s path, stops the charade with Anaheim, and compensates Mike Trout.
It’s not a wonderful life for Angels’ fans this upcoming holiday season.
Thanks for reading. You can follow me @lwosjbjatty on twitter. While you’re at it, give the site a follow too – @lastwordonsport and like our Facebook Page.
Interested in writing for LastWordOnSports? If so, check out our “Join Our Team” page to find out how.
