Trout & Harper take home Rookie of the Year awards


Unsurprisingly, Mike Trout was unanimously named the AL Rookie of the Year tonight. Yoenis Cespedes and Yu Darvish finished a distant second and third, respectively. David Phelps, who was the Yankees only notable rookie this season, didn’t receive any votes. Neither did Jesus Montero. Not much surprise there, it was a very strong class and those two simply weren’t good enough to garner votes.

On the NL side of the things, Bryce Harper narrowed beat out Wade Miley to become the youngest position player Rookie of the Year in baseball history. New Jersey native Todd Frazier finished the distant third. The full voting can be found here (AL and NL). The Manager of the Year awards will be handed out tomorrow night, and we already know that Joe Girardi isn’t one of the three finalists.

Categories : Asides


  1. JGS says:

    Pretty sure Gooden was younger.

    • RetroRob says:

      By one month.

      Harper was the youngest position player. I only know this because I actually watched the hour-long show, which should have been only a half hour. I would say it should have been fifteen minutes, but I understand TV programming doesn’t work in that time increment!

  2. forensic says:

    Harper is not the youngest. Gooden was younger, by a month, as clearly stated in the BBWAA article.

  3. RetroRob says:

    Trout was a slam dunk, although I’m happy to see Harper win. Unless injured, these two players have probably set off on HOF careers and will be dominating the game for two decades. I like that they both won in the same year, different leagues. While the award should go to the best rookie, I’d be flexible if it was close and would vote for the better talent. I would not want to be asked years from now why I voted Todd Frazier when Bryce Harper was one of the choices. Plus, Harper was the better player, substantially better than Frazier or Miley. Don’t know why it was even so close considering Harper is 19-friggen years old. He had a historic season.

    More importantly, Harper will be a free agent after his age 24 season? He will shatter A-Rod’s contracts. He might get a twelve-year contract. Boras represents him. He’s not settling.

  4. Murderers' Row Boat says:

    Since the pick used by the Angels for Trout was the one they got from the Yankees for Tex; is the Tex signing still worth it?

    • Tom Zig says:

      This is a silly exercise. If the Yankees didn’t sign Tex, the pick would have gone to the Brewers for the Yankees signing CC Sabathia. If the Yankees didn’t sign CC or Tex, the Yankees would have signed AJ Burnett or Derek Lowe. The pick would have then gone to the Blue Jays or the Dodgers.

      • Preston says:

        But, but, but, we should have had Trout… this is a false meme that just won’t die. Even if we had not signed anyone, the Angel’s had consecutive picks, and they had Trout as one of the top five players on their board. They took him with the second pick because he was the one they thought would demand more to sign. If they’d just had the one pick, they would have still taken Trout.

      • Murderers' Row Boat says:

        It’s an exercise in the opportunity costs of baseball free agency. What are you giving up for the now chance.

    • Steve (different one) says:

      Yes, this just isn’t true, and I wish this myth would die.

      In addition to the stuff Tom said, the Angels have said that if they didn’t have the Yankees pick, they’d have picked Trout with their first pick.

      And if the Yankees hadn’t signed Teixeira, he’d have likely signed with Boston, which means the Angels still pick twice before the Yanks.

      • RetroRob says:

        I think what’s also being lost here is by the Yankees being better than the Washington Nats, the Yankees did not draft Bryce Harper.

        So the question is all the Yankees winning costing them great players? Should the Yankees do a favor to fans and have the worst team in baseball for several years to get access to better players?

        No, not a serious post, but it makes only al little less sense as the Trout question.

        • Preston says:

          If we just string together five seasons where we lose the most games in baseball we can get five number one picks. We’re bound to get one or two cornerstones and some other nice players out of it. F*ck 189, let’s take it down to 50. Of course the decrease in tickets, tv money and merchandise would probably take a decade to get back to present levels, so after we acquired those cost controlled players we’d really need them because we wouldn’t be able to have even that modest 189 budget anymore. I mean every year the number one pick is a David Price or a Bryce Harper, there is never a Tim Beckham or Luke Hovechar taken. I also kid.

    • RetroRob says:

      The Angels had Trout as the second best player on the board behind Strasburg. They had back-to-back picks, one for Teixeira. If they only had one pick, their normal one, they were going to pick Trout. He was never going to make it to the Yankees. So it’s impossible to answer the question.

  5. Zack says:

    It should be noted that no matter what,due to K-Rod signing with the Mets,the Angels STILL had a pick the Yankees. Tex or no Tex,CC or no CC,the Angels STILL HAD A PICK in front of the Yankees.
    No Tex or CC,no 2009 World Series win. Btw,did I mention the fact the Angels still had a pick in front of the Yankees?

  6. The Moral Majority is Neither says:

    Rather than Trout, I would rather focus on Cespedes and Darvish. If the Yankees had both, even at a 10% premium over the contracts they got, the team would be in much better shape for the 2014 budget.

    The fact that Cashman had to beg Hal for the money to sign Kuroda when they should have been actively positioning themselves for 2014 is still a mystery to me.

    • Ted Nelson says:

      Hindsight is awesome!

      Foresight is infinitely more valuable, though.

      Calling it after a year is also pretty funny. Check out the history of Japanese Ps and let me know how many maintained MLB success for more than a year or two. It’s a small fraction.

      It’s easy to say that they should have made a 9 figure investment in Darvish when it’s not your money.

      • Preston says:

        Spending lots of money on things that might have zero value, as both Darvish and (especially) Cespedes might have, is not the way to lower costs. Not to mention the complications of the blind posting system with Darvish, there is no way to guarantee you get a player with any bid, except to overbid by a lot. Which is from some indications (we’ll never actually know) exactly what Texas did.

        • Herby says:

          Signing Cespedes was a no-brainer as the money involved was not a ridiculous amount in MLB. I was shocked that he ended up going to the A’s and for the amount that they got him for. Hal should’ve had daddy’s balls transplanted…

  7. Drew says:

    I honestly think Harper won NL ROY based on hype rather than actual numbers, though you can argument either way between him and Miley.

Leave a Reply

You may use <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> in your comment.

If this is your first time commenting on River Ave. Blues, please review the RAB Commenter Guidelines. Login for commenting features. Register for RAB.