Huge AAV Deals, Splitting Cities, Getting Young Players Paid Earlier, and Other Cubs Bullets

Social Navigation

Huge AAV Deals, Splitting Cities, Getting Young Players Paid Earlier, and Other Cubs Bullets

Chicago Cubs

Yup, I missed the overnight madness. Such is life in ET when the meetings are on the West Coast and I had to be up at 6am to be with the kiddos. Glad to see the Winter Meetings doing the huge signings thing again. And now with Gerrit Cole signed, you wonder if the final two days of the Meetings will be even crazier …

  • The annual value in Gerrit Cole’s monster contract with the Yankees is $36 million, tying the mark in Mike Trout’s extension, and enough that it could contain in it the theoretical salaries for a useful center fielder, an upside back-end starting pitcher, and an impact reliever … if you were in the market for that sort of thing.
  • I joke, but it is interesting just how committed the Yankees are to the idea that it’s always better to consolidate the impact within a single player than to spread it out across several lesser players. That is absolutely generally true – there are only so many spots on the field, and there are so many replacement-level players available – but I presume like anything it’s a sliding scale at which, at some point, it’s no longer true that you’d rather spend $80 million annually on a 12-win player rather than $20 million annually on three 4-win players. Not sure we’re approaching that level any time soon, though, and you’ll note that this way of thinking presumes that teams cannot simply keep increasing their spending – something that these contracts increasingly suggest is not going to be the case in the coming CBA (i.e., that luxury tax is going to be changing dramatically in one way or another).
  • I bet Joe was very disappointed:

  • Related to the Cole contract – which is great for him, but not necessarily indicative of money being spread around in the best possible way among the league’s players – I like seeing this in a national write-up of the deal. Get this out there more and more:

  • A more reasonable and fair distribution of WHERE revenues are going (i.e., to younger players as they become increasingly important to the game) is not only going to be good for the players, obviously, but is also going to be good for the long-term health of the sport.
  • Clearly the Cubs have already won the Winter Meetings, making new fans:

  • People in baseball who aren’t in your organization like the idea because it spreads the sport out into another city, dude. It isn’t because they think it’s some brilliant idea for your team.
  • MLB games are coming to Mexico:

  • These are reasonable and fair selections for this inaugural idea (which didn’t really catch on this year, but might in future years when we know it’s coming):

  • Note that there are no Cubs on either team, which is pretty fair when you consider who even had a shot. The Cubs had a lot of players who had very good seasons, but none who had overwhelming seasons.
  • In conclusion:

Latest from Bleacher Nation:

Author: Brett Taylor

Brett Taylor is the Editor and Lead Cubs Writer at Bleacher Nation, and you can find him on Twitter at @BleacherNation and @Brett_A_Taylor.