the short-term high AAV contract

the logic is simple - in any long term contract, age-related decline means production will be higher in the front half of the contract than the back half, and so the front half is worth more AAV than the back half.

players want long term guaranteed money but clubs don't want to be stuck paying high AAV for a player's twilight years. yet these tucker and bichette signings feel like this kind of concept is gaining more acceptance among players.

what are the consequences?

one take i'm seeing is that 60M AAV for tucker and 42M AAV for bichette is too high. probably because we're used to seeing high AAVs from long term megadeals like soto's 50M AAV over 15 years

Max out the damage before the new CBA?

i think a big part of this is that teams like the dodgers, mets etc are owned by megarich guys who have the liquidity to fund these kind of short term high AAV deals. that kind of money being in the sport is still fairly recent. instead of engaging in the scheme where you're (theoretically) getting value in the front end and then giving it up on the back end, they're essentially just paying for the wins at cost up front. if you have the money to do it, why not

i also think that part of the reason these contracts have moved away from depressed AAVs spread out over a long period is that the sticker shock over these kinds of deals has pretty much worn off w/ the public. i think the "traditional" lower AAV long term contracts also somewhat protected the player from a certain level of public backlash —- hey, $350 million isn't so crazy when it's spread out over 10 years! but nowadays for many various reasons you can pretty safely make $60 million a year as an athlete and nobody bats an eye

who is making $60M annually without it causing a stir? Soto is landed $51M and many eyes were batted! or are we including thing like sponsorships etc?

i mean, is the contract controversial for kyle tucker? it is for the dodgers and for the sport, but nobody is looking at kyle tucker as being somehow immoral for making $60 million a year. that was not the case i.e. when a rod signed w/ the rangers or whatever. over time the sports watching public has come to accept that players deserve to be making a lot of money. the same middle american who might have been outraged by a rod's contract now watches rory mcilroy make $40m a year off the PGA, or the LIV golf guys get crazy rich, or sees patrick mahomes signing a $450m deal etc. that stuff no longer really negatively reflects onto the players in the same way