Doesn't seem too far off to me if Trout continues his pace (which would make him one of the greatest players of all-time at the age of 26). As good of a pure baseball player as Trout is, I don't see him being the iconic marketing superstar and revenue magnet that someone is going to pay half a billion dollars for. Nice kid, but not exactly dripping with charisma and personality. If you sign him through his age 41/42 season and he continues on his relative path you presumably have him while he's chasing 500-600+ career HR's, 3,000+ hits, and becoming one of the all time WAR leaders (which should be a bigger/more known and widely accepted metric by then). There's plenty of marketing potential in there. Not to mention you have one of the best players of all time during most or all of his prime, I'd hope/think there are a few winning seasons/deep playoff runs in there that obviously increases revenue. If you have one of the best players in your sport you are going to get endorsements even if they aren't overly charismatic, look at Rose. Of course you're going to get at least some endorsements if you're good enough, the question is if you get enough to recoup a half a billion dollar contract. No player alone is going to provide a half a billion dollars worth of baseball production. Mike Trout's teams have stunk the last two years. If you're paying a half a billion dollars for a player, you're going to expect to get an iconic personality that people personally pay to come to the ballpark to watch and who TV broadcasters are going to want to pay a lot to money for the rights to broadcast. Right now, Puig is more of that guy in the LA area than Trout is, even if Trout is the vastly superior player. Dude, you are just really wrong on this one, like REALLY wrong. Why don't we have a bet on who will get paid more between Trout and Puig, lol, because your logic suggests Puig will.