The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

The Yankees have signed Gerrit Cole to a 49 year, $832 billion dollar contract.  This averages to 1.23346 million every time Gerrit blinks, for the rest of his life.

Thoughts?

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/28271369/sources-yankees-gerrit-cole-agree-record-9-year-324m-deal (https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/28271369/sources-yankees-gerrit-cole-agree-record-9-year-324m-deal)

The Nationals gave Cole's contract to Strasburg and that just screwed everything up. Cole wasn't getting this money until that deal happened.

As far as the rest of it goes, the Yankees charge $45 for parking, have the most expensive seats in MLB and also make the most revenue by a large margin. In fact, their profit to margin to payroll ratio is the lowest in MLB so they friggin better have signed Cole. They lost last year because they lowballed Patrick Corbin, signed JA Happ who was garbage and then had to watch Corbin win the World Series while they got eliminated when they started a RELIEVER in Game 6.

I don't believe that sports should be a business first and winning championships second. If you aren't going into debt and signing a player dramatically makes you better, then do it. I don't buy the jerseys of accountants and shareholders.

You guys want David Price and Chris Sale to round out your rotation?  ;)

Sale is a great bounce back candidate but risky at that price. I'm actually offended that the Red Sox are trying to cut payroll without caring if it makes the team worse. Am I missing something? Did they go into debt somehow?

Meanwhile the Rays are letting go of their high priced talent and still winning. 

Well there goes The jays very slim chance of winning the East.

Maine, Just figured I would ask you about your opinion on long term deals for pitchers, maybe because I'm a jays fan and been trained to think that over 5 year deals for pitchers is bad, that i might view this deal as a bad one in terms of years of the deal.

I prefer the business model of football where each team has the same amount of money to spend on payroll and it becomes a matter of who manages that payroll and coaches the best rather than who spends the most.

I'm not against something like that, I just think they should raise the salary caps higher in every league.

Of course, the MLB Player's Union is by far the most powerful union in sports so you'll never get a cap.

I saw a stat this morning that says the Yankees owe him more money than the Braves do their whole roster. That's just crazy to me.

Professional athletes make plenty without raising the caps.  Actually what would benefit the players would be to reduce salaries and transfer funds to post-career annuities.

Also I would like to see baseball pay MiLB players more.  Reducing the MLB contracts by just 1 or 2% would free up enough cash to provide MiLB players enough money to live a decent life. 

Arbitration comes for everyone so the Braves will either have a higher payroll or trade some of their guys within the next 2 years.

The Yankees didn't destroy the free agent market, the Nationals did. The market doesn't blow up when the elite players get paid, it blows up when the second tier gets paid like they are the elite. Strasburg is awesome, but not the best. He was the 2nd or 3rd best on his own team. He has a lengthy injury history and a track record of being very good but never the best. He only had one season with an ERA under 3 and that is in the NL with a pitcher's park. Only topped 200 innings twice in his career.

Cole was going to get the deal that Strasburg signed for, absolutely no one was talking about 9 years and $300 Million for Cole until the Nationals insanely overpaid. Now, the market shifts.

I'm not saying that MLB players are on welfare, but in comparison to what ownership takes in, I would rather see the players get more than the owners sacrifice on field performance for profits.

Minor Leaguers should absolutely get paid more, it's a joke that they even have to worry about bills while on the road. All food should be provided for them every day as it is an investment in the team's future.

Don't count any team out just because of a bloated payroll.  I thought last year the Jays under performed and the Rays over-performed. I expect to see Toronto in the solid 85 win area.  A few things go their way and that could easily increase.  I think the Jays are moving in the right direction.

You have a good question with the large contracts and pitching.  Ultimately what a team is paying for is the first three to four years of the contract (maybe five).  Winning in this league is ridiculously hard as every fan of every team understands.  The Yankees, with all of their bloated means and payroll, have not sniffed the World Series in a long time.  But between getting their ace back, signing Cole, I'm hearing they are in on Hader; it would be awfully silly to bet against them.

If any team signs a player to a huge contract and gets one, or two, titles out of it - was it worth it?  Cole will be 38 and the Yankees on the hook for A LOT of money when this is all said and done.  But it won't limit them, they have the resources to do it.  There are actual organizational detriments to hitting the tax thresholds (which is why Boston and LA both want to re-set theirs), the Yankees do not care.

Me?  As much as I love a guy like Cole anyone who has been around these parts long enough know I'm a farm guy.  Give me the best, smartest, most talented scouts in the game.  Grow me a rotation, let me build a Cole from the ground up.  Let me build supplemental talent, I will surround him with a Rich Hill.  And when he hits this stage, let the Yankees Gobble him up. 

I *understand* what the Yankees do / are doing, no hate on them for it.  As a baseball guy I like what the Rays do more.  Frankly they don't have the resources to supplement what they GROW.  If they did, they would have title on top of that.  The Rays are a machine.

I don't mind this.  It doesn't work in baseball as much because of the farm systems, but a FORM of it could work.  A hybrid of this and what the NBA does.  Stroke and I have talked about this for years.  There also needs to be a floor.

Farm system would not prevent it from working. 

Either included the farm in the cap number

Or have  a system where just the 25 highest paid players count towards the cap.  If you have a couple of AAA players who count towards the 25 and a couple of guys in the big league still on rookie deal that aren’t in the top 25 that is fine just count top 25.

Farm system completely keeps this from being a reality.  This is one of the advantages the NFL has on MLB. College Football is their "farm system," they don't need to put a nickle into it. 

I bet Cole makes more than then every player in the Yankees farm system combined. 

But regardless of how much the farm system costs, its existence doesn’t prevent a salary cap.  Hockey has a farm system and a cap.

I think the Yankees were smart with this move. They have a very good young core of players but despite back to back 100+ win seasons, they were missing that one piece to get them over the top. Like I said before, they were eliminated in Game 6 because they started a damn reliever due to not having an actual starter to go for them. So, they spent their money and are overwhelming favorites to win it all. No guarantee of course, but they did what they had to do.

Same as Boston in 2018. No one wanted JD Martinez for some reason so Boston swooped in, put up the cash and had themselves a World Series title.

Building a team through free agents can't really work in MLB these days, as the Angels keep showing us. You need a young core through the farm and smart trades, but when push comes to shove, go get that superstar if you can.

for extremely modest values of "winning"

TB made the playoffs for the first time in 6 years as the second Wild Card team.  They won that game and then lost in the division series.  That kind of outcome is a miracle season for the Rays, but a dismal failure for the Yankees.

Or: the players could receive 1-2% more of baseball-related revenue, then give that money to MiLB.

If one side has to take less money to increase MiLB salaries, I'm not sure why it should be the players.

I would not oppose this.