Gerrit Cole to Yankees - 9 years / $324 million

[BrewBalls]

Some fun math per this Tweet...

 

Gerrit Cole on average will make:

 

- $36mil per season

- $1.09mil per start

- $170k per inning

- $10.7k per pitch

Knowing me I’d pitch one inning, maybe two and call it a year.

 

In all seriousness, this contract will get ugly quick once he starts regressing.

[BuckyBrewer61]

I never root for injuries but when I see these insane deals that the Brewers just cannot compete with and make it, it's hard not to hope these deals absolutely blow up for whoever makes them.

 

That’s the thing though - when you’re the Yankees, it doesn’t matter if it blows up. Jacoby Ellsbury made $42M the past two seasons to do nothing, and they still turn around and hand out contracts like this, no big deal.

 

The huge advantage of big market money goes well beyond the big headline free agent signings.

[markedman5]

I think I’m cool taking a pass on the 2020 season. We can shop next year when everyone else is out of money.

 

Going to be a while until the Yankees are out of money.......

 

Yanks spent about 5% of 2018 team revenue on Cole..........The Brewers will spend about 6.9% of 2018 revenue on Braun.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/193645/revenue-of-major-league-baseball-teams-in-2010/

[pacopete4]

I never root for injuries but when I see these insane deals that the Brewers just cannot compete with and make it, it's hard not to hope these deals absolutely blow up for whoever makes them.

 

I get what you're saying, but at the same time, Cole has earned this contract with his performance. The players percentage of baseball revenue is shrinking by the year while the owners make a ton of money. If we pay for the product the money is there for these guys to make. I don't begrudge these guys these huge contracts.

 

It sucks that a smaller Market team like the Brewers can't afford a guy like this, but it just kind of is what it is. I certainly don't see wishing injury on a guy just because he's getting paid what the market will pay him. He's got a skill that will let him do something that very few people can do. Good for him.

 

I know it is good for the players because they are earning their chunk. I do hate that the top 1% gets the majority of the money though. I would rather see it balanced a bit more than it currently set up. My post was a frustrated Brewers fan that knows that a Cole contract will and should never happen, even if we need pitching badly.

[stoutdude04]

Ask Bauer about the Houston spin rate spikes. Given that they turned out to be trash can thumpers, I don’t doubt that they sought other advantages as well.

 

I was thinking the exact same thing.

 

There was one game where Bauer came out and struck out the side or something and his spin rate was 250rpm higher or something. After the game during the interview he said something about it being interesting that his spin rate was up and he became unhittable.

 

EDIT: Here is the quote from that game.

 

Bauer's 4-seamer had a spin rate of 2,597 RPM in 1st inning of last start, compared to a 2,294 season average. Had "no comment" on whether he used a substance on the ball, but noted that his research shows a 200-300 RPM jump on higher-velocity pitches when a substance is used.

 

The rest of the game his spin rate dropped to his normal 2,300.

 

I know Bauer does some crappy things, but I think he knows what he is talking about. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that something fishy was going on.

[Bikeage77]

I just love the idea that someone can walk out to the mound and issue a five pitch walk and top my annual salary.

[AKCheesehead]

How about if they have a terrible month and go 0-4 and in doing so top your entire lifetime salary?

[monty57]

Salary/Luxury tax aren't the issue, and aren't the reason the NFL has parity. It's revenue-sharing.

 

The NFL system is set up in a way where each team has $400M in income from revenue-sharing activities, and their player/labor budget (salary cap) is $200M. Half of the revenue goes to players, half goes to the teams to operate. It's socialism. If you can't compete, it's not your market's fault. It's incompetent management.

 

MLB system is set up where the player budget (luxury tax) is $200M, but some teams could never afford that. Some teams make that on their TV contract alone (Dodgers have a 25 year deal worth $7-8B, or an average of around $300M per year). For better or worse, it's capitalism. Each team makes in revenue what their respective market can bear and has very limited revenue-sharing.

 

If you think the system that MLB uses isn't broken then I don't know what to tell you.

 

I agree that equally sharing t.v. revenues would solve the problem. No need to make this political (socialism vs capitalism), as both agencies (NFL& MLB) operate under government-granted monopolies. A small group of owners in each agency (not a market) gets to decide the rules.

 

T.V. money is really the deciding factor, and the NFL for whatever reason has decided to sign the deal as a league with each team getting an equal share, while MLB has decided to let each team negotiate their own t.v. deals, or even own their own network. I'm sure there is a historical reason for this, and it's not because the NFL is run by socialists while the MLB is run by capitalists.

 

As a fan of a small-market team, I much prefer the league-wide t.v. deal, but I can't say baseball is wrong. If New York, Chicago, L.A., etc are on t.v. more people probably tune in than when a small market team is on. If the Brewers sign Cole, it makes some people are happy and thousands of jerseys are sold. If NY signs Cole, a lot more people are happy and hundreds of thousands of jerseys are sold. MLB has decided that is best for their league.

 

Big market fans aren't upset that they have an unfair advantage. They don't really think about it, and if they do, they think they deserve it and say the small market fans are whiners. Really, that's probably true as a nation. Badger fans probably don't feel they have an unfair advantage when they take on a small, private school, and many probably feel they deserve the advantage.

 

If the fans were to revolt and stop watching, things might change, but I doubt Yankee or Cub fans are ever going to stop watching their team because the Brewers and Blue Jays are at a financial disadvantage.

[monty57]

I just love the idea that someone can walk out to the mound and issue a five pitch walk and top my annual salary.

 

I stopped worrying about this. People like baseball, so they spend their money on it. Therefore, players and owners make a lot of money.

 

People like movies, so actors and production companies make a lot of money.

 

People like iPhones, so Apple makes a lot of money. The list goes on and on.

 

The money is being made by baseball, so I don't care that the players and owners make a lot. I just wish that every team had the same chance to sign big-named players, but as I said in my previous post, MLB has decided they want big markets to have an advantage, so it's not going to change.

[MrTPlush]

This contract may not end terrible. Take him through, what? 38? What if he stays elite for 4-5 years, still pretty good for another 2, and then tails off? Probably not that bad, especially by the time the inflation in baseball catches up a near decade later. Zack Greinke is going on 36 still elite and Verlander is going on 37 fresh off a Cy Young. Scherzer is going on 35 still elite.

 

Who knows where this deal ends up, but it may not be a bad deal at all. There are a number of elite pitchers who keep it together to 34-35 or even beyond. Of course he may tail off 3 years from now.

[SeaBass]

This contract may not end terrible. Take him through, what? 38? What if he stays elite for 4-5 years, still pretty good for another 2, and then tails off? Probably not that bad, especially by the time the inflation in baseball catches up a near decade later. Zack Greinke is going on 36 still elite and Verlander is going on 37 fresh off a Cy Young. Scherzer is going on 35 still elite.

 

Who knows where this deal ends up, but it may not be a bad deal at all. There are a number of elite pitchers who keep it together to 34-35 or even beyond. Of course he may tail off 3 years from now.

Not sure if it's been mentioned in the thread but I'm fairly certain I saw either a tweet or report that he can opt out after year 5. So if he's elite for 5 years he's definitely going to opt out and make even more money.

[mattyo]

Salary/Luxury tax aren't the issue, and aren't the reason the NFL has parity. It's revenue-sharing.

 

The NFL system is set up in a way where each team has $400M in income from revenue-sharing activities, and their player/labor budget (salary cap) is $200M. Half of the revenue goes to players, half goes to the teams to operate. It's socialism. If you can't compete, it's not your market's fault. It's incompetent management.

 

MLB system is set up where the player budget (luxury tax) is $200M, but some teams could never afford that. Some teams make that on their TV contract alone (Dodgers have a 25 year deal worth $7-8B, or an average of around $300M per year). For better or worse, it's capitalism. Each team makes in revenue what their respective market can bear and has very limited revenue-sharing.

 

If you think the system that MLB uses isn't broken then I don't know what to tell you.

 

I agree that equally sharing t.v. revenues would solve the problem. No need to make this political (socialism vs capitalism), as both agencies (NFL& MLB) operate under government-granted monopolies. A small group of owners in each agency (not a market) gets to decide the rules.

 

T.V. money is really the deciding factor, and the NFL for whatever reason has decided to sign the deal as a league with each team getting an equal share, while MLB has decided to let each team negotiate their own t.v. deals, or even own their own network. I'm sure there is a historical reason for this, and it's not because the NFL is run by socialists while the MLB is run by capitalists.

 

As a fan of a small-market team, I much prefer the league-wide t.v. deal, but I can't say baseball is wrong. If New York, Chicago, L.A., etc are on t.v. more people probably tune in than when a small market team is on. If the Brewers sign Cole, it makes some people are happy and thousands of jerseys are sold. If NY signs Cole, a lot more people are happy and hundreds of thousands of jerseys are sold. MLB has decided that is best for their league.

 

Big market fans aren't upset that they have an unfair advantage. They don't really think about it, and if they do, they think they deserve it and say the small market fans are whiners. Really, that's probably true as a nation. Badger fans probably don't feel they have an unfair advantage when they take on a small, private school, and many probably feel they deserve the advantage.

 

If the fans were to revolt and stop watching, things might change, but I doubt Yankee or Cub fans are ever going to stop watching their team because the Brewers and Blue Jays are at a financial disadvantage.

 

Good post, just thought using Toronto as an example of a team at a financial disadvantage was weird.

[MrTPlush]

This contract may not end terrible. Take him through, what? 38? What if he stays elite for 4-5 years, still pretty good for another 2, and then tails off? Probably not that bad, especially by the time the inflation in baseball catches up a near decade later. Zack Greinke is going on 36 still elite and Verlander is going on 37 fresh off a Cy Young. Scherzer is going on 35 still elite.

 

Who knows where this deal ends up, but it may not be a bad deal at all. There are a number of elite pitchers who keep it together to 34-35 or even beyond. Of course he may tail off 3 years from now.

Not sure if it's been mentioned in the thread but I'm fairly certain I saw either a tweet or report that he can opt out after year 5. So if he's elite for 5 years he's definitely going to opt out and make even more money.

 

In which case it would definitely be great for the Yankees.

[TURBO]

This contract may not end terrible. Take him through, what? 38? What if he stays elite for 4-5 years, still pretty good for another 2, and then tails off? Probably not that bad, especially by the time the inflation in baseball catches up a near decade later. Zack Greinke is going on 36 still elite and Verlander is going on 37 fresh off a Cy Young. Scherzer is going on 35 still elite.

 

Who knows where this deal ends up, but it may not be a bad deal at all. There are a number of elite pitchers who keep it together to 34-35 or even beyond. Of course he may tail off 3 years from now.

Not sure if it's been mentioned in the thread but I'm fairly certain I saw either a tweet or report that he can opt out after year 5. So if he's elite for 5 years he's definitely going to opt out and make even more money.

 

So you think that after 5 years, he will still be good enough to get a new contract worth more than 36 million per season?

[Fear The Chorizo]

This contract may not end terrible. Take him through, what? 38? What if he stays elite for 4-5 years, still pretty good for another 2, and then tails off? Probably not that bad, especially by the time the inflation in baseball catches up a near decade later. Zack Greinke is going on 36 still elite and Verlander is going on 37 fresh off a Cy Young. Scherzer is going on 35 still elite.

 

Who knows where this deal ends up, but it may not be a bad deal at all. There are a number of elite pitchers who keep it together to 34-35 or even beyond. Of course he may tail off 3 years from now.

Not sure if it's been mentioned in the thread but I'm fairly certain I saw either a tweet or report that he can opt out after year 5. So if he's elite for 5 years he's definitely going to opt out and make even more money.

 

The only way that happens is if he wins 2-3 more Cy Youngs over the next 5 seasons...and even then I'd be surprised to see a mid 30's starter decide to opt out looking for greener pastures.

95% probability he's riding this contract all 9 years all the way to the bank.

 

I think there's a much more likely scenario that injury or simply age limits him from being the best starter on the planet, and five offseasons from now brewerfan.net is having multiple threads wondering how much $ the Yankees would need to throw in to get the Brewers to trade for him in the hopes he regains his 2018-2021 form.

[MrTPlush]

This contract may not end terrible. Take him through, what? 38? What if he stays elite for 4-5 years, still pretty good for another 2, and then tails off? Probably not that bad, especially by the time the inflation in baseball catches up a near decade later. Zack Greinke is going on 36 still elite and Verlander is going on 37 fresh off a Cy Young. Scherzer is going on 35 still elite.

 

Who knows where this deal ends up, but it may not be a bad deal at all. There are a number of elite pitchers who keep it together to 34-35 or even beyond. Of course he may tail off 3 years from now.

Not sure if it's been mentioned in the thread but I'm fairly certain I saw either a tweet or report that he can opt out after year 5. So if he's elite for 5 years he's definitely going to opt out and make even more money.

 

The only way that happens is if he wins 2-3 more Cy Youngs over the next 5 seasons...and even then I'd be surprised to see a mid 30's starter decide to opt out looking for greener pastures.

95% probability he's riding this contract all 9 years all the way to the bank.

 

I think there's a much more likely scenario that injury or simply age limits him from being the best starter on the planet, and five offseasons from now brewerfan.net is having multiple threads wondering how much $ the Yankees would need to throw in to get the Brewers to trade for him in the hopes he regains his 2018-2021 form.

 

Yah, probably unlikely he is going to try and beat 4/$144mil. Never known where salaries will be at in 5 years though. I have a sense they might plateau for awhile (or not grow at such huge rates). A lot of the new money is due to all the local TV and national ones. Those won't be changing for awhile.

[Thurston Fluff]

This contract may not end terrible. Take him through, what? 38? What if he stays elite for 4-5 years, still pretty good for another 2, and then tails off? Probably not that bad, especially by the time the inflation in baseball catches up a near decade later. Zack Greinke is going on 36 still elite and Verlander is going on 37 fresh off a Cy Young. Scherzer is going on 35 still elite.

 

Who knows where this deal ends up, but it may not be a bad deal at all. There are a number of elite pitchers who keep it together to 34-35 or even beyond. Of course he may tail off 3 years from now.

 

He has a opt out after 2024. If he stays elite he opts out and makes more. If he doesn't the Yankees will be on the hook for all of it. Best case scenario for the Yankees is he does well then opts out. They get the best of him and have the choice to risk going further. Worst case scenario he stays because he knows he's way overpaid.

[tmwiese55]

Well, for a comp and in a virtual best case scenario he would pitch like Scherzer leading up to this opt out at 35ish. Do we think Scherzer would beat 4/144 if he was a FA right now? Three months ago I would've said No, now I'm not so sure after these two deals hit the market.

[SeaBass]

This contract may not end terrible. Take him through, what? 38? What if he stays elite for 4-5 years, still pretty good for another 2, and then tails off? Probably not that bad, especially by the time the inflation in baseball catches up a near decade later. Zack Greinke is going on 36 still elite and Verlander is going on 37 fresh off a Cy Young. Scherzer is going on 35 still elite.

 

Who knows where this deal ends up, but it may not be a bad deal at all. There are a number of elite pitchers who keep it together to 34-35 or even beyond. Of course he may tail off 3 years from now.

Not sure if it's been mentioned in the thread but I'm fairly certain I saw either a tweet or report that he can opt out after year 5. So if he's elite for 5 years he's definitely going to opt out and make even more money.

 

So you think that after 5 years, he will still be good enough to get a new contract worth more than 36 million per season?

I was responding to MrTPlush speculating that Cole could possibly stay elite for 4-5 years (see bolded). All I was saying is if that scenario came to fruition he would absolutely opt out because, in this scenario, he would still be elite. So in that case, yes, he would theoretically be able to command a contract that would exceed 4 years at $36 million AAV.

 

I wasn't predicting what I think his actual performance will be and I don't think MrTPlush was either.

[Point Beer Is Best]

No need to make this political (socialism vs capitalism), as both agencies (NFL& MLB) operate under government-granted monopolies. A small group of owners in each agency (not a market) gets to decide the rules.

 

Just to clarify, those terms (socialism & capitalism) are economic ideologies in the way that I used them. Nothing political or government-related was intended.

[MrTPlush]

Just saw this:

 

This deal is more than the Pirates have handed out in the last 25 years in free agency (touch under $300mil).

[brooks_quichenick]

Just saw this:

 

This deal is more than the Pirates have handed out in the last 25 years in free agency (touch under $300mil).

 

Gotta feel for Pirates fans. Bob Nutting is one of the worst owners in pro sports.

[RollieTime]

An unreported detail of the signing came out today that the Yankees can void Cole’s opt-out if they wish after the 5th season even if Cole wants to opt out. If they exercise that decision, the Yankees tack on one additional year for $36 million. This brings the possible total contract to 10 years and $360 million.

 

If Cole does opt out, the Yankees can also just let him go though. Kind of an interesting tidbit on the deal.