How Mike Trout's Blockbuster Contract Compares to A-Rod's Contracts, Factoring for Inflation

Ryan Glasspiegel

Mike Trout inked a blockbuster extension with the Angels today. ESPN’s Jeff Passan reports it is a 12-year deal worth $430 million, and that it breaks the records of individual MLB player per-year deal (passing Zach Greinke’s $34 million per year with the Diamondbacks), total MLB contract for the duration of the deal (passing Bryce Harper’s $330 million with the Phillies), and biggest contract in all sports (passing Canelo Alvarez’s $365 million with DAZN).

As a fun exercise, let’s see how this compares and contrasts to A-Rod’s contracts that he signed with the Rangers and the Yankees, factoring in inflation. A-Rod signed a 10-year, $252 million contract with the Rangers in 2000; in 2007 he opted out and signed a new 10-year deal with the Yankees worth $275 million.

According to the CPI calculator, $25.2 million in December of 2000 is the equivalent of $36.6 million today. $27.5 million in December of 2007 is the equivalent of $33.1 million today. The average annual value of Mike Trout’s contract is $35.8 million.

So, the first A-Rod deal is actually worth more on a per-year basis than Trout’s if you factor in inflation from the signing of the deal, and the second is worth less. Trout got more years on his deal than A-Rod did on either of them, but his first deal had an opt out that he took full advantage of.

There’s probably not a real moral of the story here other than both players signed phenomenally rich deals, one in which served as a benchmark for future stars and the other of which almost certainly will going forward. It’s hard to conclude that one deal is necessarily better than the other.