Kansas Crimson

Moose to Reds on a 4 year deal. Good for him to get that long term deal, finally.

Would have liked to see him at The K at 3rd base but alas, he's going to get paid well and has that security now instead of those 1 year deals.

Kudos to Moose.

4/$64M

Awesome for him. Remaining in division. He's raked the last few years. Will be their starting 2nd baseman.

Can't ever blame the guy for taking the money, particularly when (a) he's already won, and (b) he's never had that fuck-you contract.

But gosh, from the Reds' angle this just isn't any good. Age-33 and -34 seasons for a bad body, average-approach guy, at $16mm per? Yikes.

Meanwhile, the Yankees are poised to become the Yankees of old with fuckyou money.
Cole is gonna make 35 million a year.

RIP

https://www.npr.org/2019/12/09/78642384 ... dies-at-34

I can't fault the Yankees for wanting the guy who was probably the best/most valuable free agent available but.....
Signing a 29 year old (will turn 30 during the 2020 season) pitcher to a 9 year 324 million dollar contract is insanity. I don't care if it's the "market rate" and what you have to do to acquire the guy, it's insane.
I hope they get the 2016 (injured) and/or the 2017 (mediocre) Gerrit Cole for all 9 years.
I am going to predict at times the guy will be both the most loved and the most hated Yankee during his NY tenure.
Stay tuned.

It's the main reason why the MLB sucks.

Grandma wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 6:19 am I can't fault the Yankees for wanting the guy who was probably the best/most valuable free agent available but.....
Signing a 29 year old (will turn 30 during the 2020 season) pitcher to a 9 year 324 million dollar contract is insanity. I don't care if it's the "market rate" and what you have to do to acquire the guy, it's insane.
I hope they get the 2016 (injured) and/or the 2017 (mediocre) Gerrit Cole for all 9 years.
I am going to predict at times the guy will be both the most loved and the most hated Yankee during his NY tenure.
Stay tuned.

Pitchers age quite a bit differently. But, if it turns out to be a bad signing, then all the more reason to laugh at the evil empire. If you're jealous your favorite team missed out on signing him, then direct your anger at your favorite team's owner for not ponying up the market rate.

pdub wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 9:26 am It's the main reason why the MLB sucks.

What is?

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 9:44 am

Grandma wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 6:19 am I can't fault the Yankees for wanting the guy who was probably the best/most valuable free agent available but.....
Signing a 29 year old (will turn 30 during the 2020 season) pitcher to a 9 year 324 million dollar contract is insanity. I don't care if it's the "market rate" and what you have to do to acquire the guy, it's insane.
I hope they get the 2016 (injured) and/or the 2017 (mediocre) Gerrit Cole for all 9 years.
I am going to predict at times the guy will be both the most loved and the most hated Yankee during his NY tenure.
Stay tuned.

Pitchers age quite a bit differently. But, if it turns out to be a bad signing, then all the more reason to laugh at the evil empire. If you're jealous your favorite team missed out on signing him, then direct your anger at your favorite team's owner for not ponying up the market rate.

I saw a list (which is now led, by a long way, by Cole) of the ten richest free agent signings where a player changed hands. In hindsight, not one of the contracts turned out to be any good.

But of course the Yankees didn't sign that contract with the expectation that Cole will be X.XX good for nine years, evenly divided into X.XX/9 increments. The hope is that he's a little better than X.XX/9 for a few years, and that during those years, he contributes to team success that has follow-on economic effects that make the out years of the contract palatable.

If you're a Yankees fan trying not to go too nuts over how inefficient the out years will be, (1) dude, it's not your money and there's no cap, and (2) consider the deal instead as a 9/$224 contract, with a $100mm signing bonus.

The unbalanced payroll.
The Royals aren't paying a pitcher 324 million dollars.

pdub wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 10:10 am The unbalanced payroll.
The Royals aren't paying a pitcher 324 million dollars.

That is by choice. All a cap does is put a hard limit on what goes to the talent, so that the owners...

...ah. Nevermind.

So that teams can better buy championships.

pdub wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 10:17 am So that teams can better buy championships.

...which is exactly what happens in the sport that is the primary subject matter of this website. It's just that "buying" comes in forms other than cash. Also, for what it's worth, from 2001 to now, the Yankees and Royals have exactly as many championships.

That is not exactly what happens.
Stretcharmstrong right there.

pdub wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 11:01 am That is not exactly what happens.
Stretcharmstrong right there.

Of course it is. The schools that spend the most money get the best coaches and facilities. The schools with the best coaches and facilities get the best players.

It's the exact same thing - spend the most money, get the best championship odds.

You can point out exceptions - but they're just that: exceptions that prove the rule.

It's not.
If it is the exact same thing, then I could argue everything is about spending the most money, which you might agree with, and that may be a large differentiator between you and me.

pdub wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 12:21 pm It's not.
If it is the exact same thing, then I could argue everything is about spending the most money, which you might agree with, and that may be a large differentiator between you and me.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

Capped sports are fundamentally different from uncapped sports. The NBA and NFL are the former. MLB and college football/basketball are the latter.

College basketball is not a capped sport.
I know you want it to be.
It's not there - and I want it to move further away from that.