7 yr 215 million

http://m.espn.go.com/mlb/story?storyId=10298436

$30.7 mil for 7 years...He will be 33(?) when his contract his up...still a chance to get one more major contract if his health holds up. WOW.

Already Dodger legend, time to get some rings!

If they ever get one it'll be the best team money could buy

[This message has been edited by Mr.Bond (edited 1/15/2014 5:21p).]

Kershaw is an 'old' 25. Lots of mileage on his arm already. Great career numbers but would like to see him win more games.

77 wins in 182 starts (42%) is a little underwhelming

for comparison purposes...is his first 6 seasons, Roy Oswalt won 98 of his 177 starts (55%)

Lol at wins even being brought up.

He can also opt out after 5 years.

Lol at using wins

at 25 kershaw has already accomplished more than oswalt has for a career. you houston guys just cant take off the blinders can you?

Wins

he's an incredible talent

but holy cow, 31M a year for a pitcher. This is what King Felix should've held out for.

And he'll opt out when he's 30 and sign a 2nd monster contract.

Maybe in Arlington...

quote:

---

The Dodgers now have five players with an average annual value of $20 million or more. Among active contracts (or contracts signed that have not yet started), the Dodgers now have five of the 22 largest average yearly salaries in the sport on the roster -- Kershaw, Zack Greinke, Adrian Gonzalez, Carl Crawford and Matt Kemp.

---

This is insane

Roughly 30 starts a year x 7yrs = $1 million a start



[This message has been edited by AnyOtherName (edited 1/15/2014 10:41p).]

At least they're paying him the big money when he's supposed to be in his prime (25-30) instead of a super long contract that still pays the big bucks when a player is 35-40 years old. Smart move by the dodgers IMO. Salaries are rising, the sport is doing well.

And lol to the person looking at wins..,

Insane money.

I wonder... I think Arb starts Friday, so they were looking to get this done before then.

However, how does Tanaka get affected?

Was there more urgency on the Dodgers part to get Kershaw signed long-term, before Tanaka gets signed?

Does this send a signal to other teams that they will spend big on Tanaka?

Does this imply they may not be as strong on Tanaka (reports are no)?

Does this inflate Tanaka's signing?

It is going to be interesting how the SPs proceed from here... Garza, Santana, Jiminez, et al...

Or is Kershaw that much better than everyone else that this has no impact.

I think the Dodgers are $236M (depending on structure of Kershaw contract) for 2014, with Tanaka still in play. They will be at $174M for 2015 for 12 players, and an option for Billingsley.

AND... they are going to be very, very good for a very, very long time.

I also don't think this has any bearing on the OF situation - Kemp, Puig, Ethier and Crawford... one may go, but they still may pick up a chunk of the contract.

My nephew is friends with one of the owners... I may have to go spend more time with my family.

Last question on this topic (for now).

Is Kershaw worth the $30M/yr? As mentioned, essentially $1M/start.

As quickly as the market is growing with all of the new tv deals and inflating contracts across the board, I'd say he's pretty close to worth it.

Long deals for pitchers always make me a little queasy, but if you're going to give one, it might as well be a guy whose track record so far is one of being durable, who has been consistently dominant, and the contract will cover what should be his prime years.

I don't think the Tanaka situation is affected at all. LAD has known all along that they'd be giving Kershaw a ginormous deal.

#'s show in the current market Kershaw is worth $35-$40m/year.

Those same numbers show Trout to be worth about 60-70M / year

[This message has been edited by K. (edited 1/16/2014 12:35p).]

If any pitcher deserves that kind of money it's him. However I find it hard to believe any pitcher is worth $1 million a start. But if you got the money then why not?

1 million a start? $10,000 per pitch based on an average of 100 pitches per outing.

Seems crazy, but it's just about mindset. $1MM per year seemed crazy at one point, then $10MM, then $25MM. The revenue is streaming in, especially tv-wise.

This is exactly why the M's locked up King Felix when they did.

quote:

---

especially tv-wise.

---

that bubble's gotta burst, right?

I think it will be an ebb and flow, as many of these deals are fairly long-term. But we definitely seem like we're in a flow run right now. And by "ebb" I mean just leveling out vs. retreating. I don't see it bursting and backing up.

[This message has been edited by DannyDuberstein (edited 1/16/2014 2:55p).]

The Dodgers are going to be crazy good for the next 5+ years... which you can do when you have no budget ceiling. If they sign Tanaka (25-RHP), they'll have most of their pitching coming into their prime:

Kershaw (25-LHP) - THE #1 SP.
Greinke (30-RHP) - 2.63\1.11
Ryu (26-LHP) - 3.00\1.20
Haren (33-RHP) - 2 years


Beckett (33-RHP) - 1 year. Had thoracic whatever where they remove a rib (like Matt Harrison), and expected to be ready for ST.

Billingsley (29-RHP) - 2 years left. Had TJ surgery in April 2013.

If they sign Tanaka, it is time to trade some pieces... Beckett and Billingsley...

And then they have Stripling (23-A&M), Zach Lee (22-L$U QB) et al, SP coming in 2014.

Then, you have the OF... Joc Pederson (21) could make it to the Bigs, after they dump Kemp or Puig.

They could literally combine the Yankees' strategy with the Rays' strategy.

Yankees: money whip anyone you can, and improve it (mostly 20-Somethings going into their prime, as opposed to 30-Somethings at the back of their prime).

Rays: Trade talent for a premium to stock your minors. They could trade either Puig or Kemp or Ethier... pick up the $$$ and get big talent. If Billingsley and\or Beckett and show healthy... they can get something for them, and then they have more talent on the way, already.

When you hit with talent and can keep it... it helps.

[This message has been edited by DallasAg 94 (edited 1/16/2014 3:10p).]

quote:

---

that bubble's gotta burst, right?

---

I would sure think so. Who the heck is watching all these baseball games to drive all this revenue? No one in my age group is. Maybe there's more 60-year olds who watch 4 hour games on weeknights for 6 entire months than I realize.

I was thinking the same thing. The World Series doesn't even register on most people's radar anymore.

[This message has been edited by Frok (edited 1/16/2014 3:26p).]

quote:

---

Who the heck is watching all these baseball games to drive all this revenue?

---

isn't it all part of the carriage fees scam?

that and live sporting events being the only broadcasts that are still mostly DVR resistant

something's got to give on the cable TV front

[This message has been edited by SuperDave03 (edited 1/16/2014 3:28p).]

It's about volume and cable.

The regional networks pay a ton to get them because locals want to watch the games, even if they don't watch all the games.

The RSN then has negotiating power with the cable companies to add that on.

Completely different than something like the NFL with almost all games on network television (and way fewer games).

Also, many of the RSN contracts are for 15+ years so the money will be fairly static over that period of time.

what's stopping ESPN from eventually going to an a la carte streaming bundle like what HBOGO was able to get with Comcast?

they could ask for double or triple what they charge for the umbrella of networks in the normal cable package and it would still be attractive.

and if you've got ESPN a la carte, the spread of cord cutting is going to slaughter these regional sports networks that are living off the carriage fee scam. access to live sports is the last barrier IMO.

[This message has been edited by SuperDave03 (edited 1/16/2014 3:38p).]

A la carte will suck for a majority of Americans. I hope it never happens.

But, something will likely change in a big way, especially before many of these RSN contracts are up.

quote:

---

A la carte will suck for a majority of Americans.

---

why?

it's not like cable TV would go away.