Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.

Subscribe to Twins Daily Email

Photo

Clayton Kershaw

  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 kydoty

kydoty

    First of His Name, King of the Andals and the First Men

  • Members
  • 349 posts

Posted 15 January 2014 - 04:23 PM

7 years, $215 million.

That's right, over $30 million per season.

http://espn.go.com/l...rth-215-million

"Mediocre breaking balls are a gift from God." - Kirby Puckett


#2 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 10,821 posts

Posted 15 January 2014 - 05:00 PM

Yeesh. I knew there was no way he was leaving the Dodgers but I didn't expect his yearly salary to surpass $30m.

#3 Guest_USAFChief_*

Guest_USAFChief_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 January 2014 - 06:08 PM

Observations:

- salaries generally go up, not down.

- desirable free agents don't often make it to free agency

Lesson: Putting off signing needed free agents because there'll be better options next year has its own set of risks.

#4 biggentleben

biggentleben

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,650 posts

Posted 15 January 2014 - 07:05 PM

Kershaw wanted 10 years at $30M per. To go under 10, he got a hefty raise in the per. Incredible deal, but if there's one pitcher in all of baseball that would get this contract, he'd be the guy.
Staff Writer for Tomahawktake.com, come check it out!

#5 Seth Stohs

Seth Stohs

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 9,638 posts

Posted 15 January 2014 - 07:25 PM

Strange, but I thought this was significantly less than I thought he would get. I thought he'd get another 3-4 years, meaning another $90-120 million.

#6 TwinsTerritory

TwinsTerritory

    Member

  • Members
  • 70 posts

Posted 15 January 2014 - 08:00 PM

Surprised me a little too, I thought he'd get closer to 10 years, $300 million. Barring injury, I would guess there is a really good chance that he becomes a free agent or gets an extension in 5 years.

#7 Monkeypaws

Monkeypaws

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 944 posts

Posted 15 January 2014 - 08:12 PM

I remember the shock and outrage when Puck pioneered the 3 million per season contract.

Tickets were a lot cheaper back then too, less than $10 to get in.

Coincidence?

#8 Thrylos

Thrylos

    Yes

  • Members
  • 5,129 posts
  • LocationLehigh Valley, PA, USA
  • Twitter: thrylos98

Posted 15 January 2014 - 08:46 PM

This extension is akin to the Mauer one for the Twins and at a similar $ level and it does not include any old age years for the Dodgers. 25-32 age seasons. Slam dung for them methinks...
-----
Blogging Twins since 2007 at The Tenth Inning Stretch
http://tenthinningst...h.blogspot.com/
twitter: @thrylos98

#9 Monkeypaws

Monkeypaws

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 944 posts

Posted 15 January 2014 - 08:55 PM

Slam dung for Kershaw - not for fans wanting to watch the game. The owners pass 100% of that mad money on the backs of the fans.

/end old fogie rant/

#10 jm3319

jm3319

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 140 posts

Posted 15 January 2014 - 10:05 PM

Slam dung for Kershaw - not for fans wanting to watch the game. The owners pass 100% of that mad money on the backs of the fans.

/end old fogie rant/


The Dodgers have TV money coming out of their ears. This contract could be paid for 100% multiple times over even if the Dodgers decided to LOWER ticket prices. Yes ticket prices have gone up, but salary inflation is much more due to other sources of income for teams other than tickets.

#11 jm3319

jm3319

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 140 posts

Posted 15 January 2014 - 10:08 PM

Kershaw wanted 10 years at $30M per. To go under 10, he got a hefty raise in the per. Incredible deal, but if there's one pitcher in all of baseball that would get this contract, he'd be the guy.


He got an additional $714K per year, not exactly a hefty raise (in ridiculous baseball money terms). It's basically an extra $5 million thrown in from the Dodgers for not having to risk 10 years on the guy. Great deal for both sides.

Fun Fact: This works out to about 75 cents per heartbeat for Kershaw for the next 7 years. (according to Twitter)

Edited by jm3319, 15 January 2014 - 10:13 PM.


#12 drock2190

drock2190

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 378 posts

Posted 15 January 2014 - 11:13 PM

Well I guess the Twins have to rewrite their plans for next year's free agents now...


Maybe they will make a push for Garza.

#13 thetank

thetank

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 204 posts

Posted 16 January 2014 - 06:25 AM

The Dodgets didn't learn from signing other bad long term contracts such as Park and Brown and Jason Schmitt.

#14 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 10,821 posts

Posted 16 January 2014 - 07:41 AM

The Dodgets didn't learn from signing other bad long term contracts such as Park and Brown and Jason Schmitt.


Kevin Brown was 34 years old when he was signed by the Dodgers.

Chan Ho Park didn't sign a big contract with the Dodgers. He came through their system.

Jason Schmidt was also in his mid 30s when he signed.

Darren Dreifort, on the other hand... That contract was inexplicable. Nothing like Kershaw, though.

#15 twinsfan34

twinsfan34

    Paul DeVos

  • Members
  • 741 posts

Posted 16 January 2014 - 09:25 AM

It's a retarded amount of money.

It's not due to ticket prices, directly. I forget who wrote a great article on why ticket prices have gone up. Maybe it was Nate Silver or Jonah Keri.

If anyone has some articles, research, insight on that...I'd love a gander.

But yea, this is a retarded lump of money, but I think the Dodgers got the better deal. A long term contract at 25. Compare that to what these other jokers at 29/30 are getting. Look at Verlander even, his contract, very similar, was at age 30, not 25.

Also, what does Tanaka get now, who also happens to be at age 25. (?)

#16 thetank

thetank

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 204 posts

Posted 16 January 2014 - 10:10 AM

Kevin Brown was 34 years old when he was signed by the Dodgers.

Chan Ho Park didn't sign a big contract with the Dodgers. He came through their system.

Jason Schmidt was also in his mid 30s when he signed.

Darren Dreifort, on the other hand... That contract was inexplicable. Nothing like Kershaw, though.


Dodgers have bad contracts in Matt Kemp, Crawford and likely Ethier. Adrian Gonzales wasn't that great last year as well. They could get burned here.

#17 Dman

Dman

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 603 posts

Posted 16 January 2014 - 10:10 AM

The thing that scares me about this is that if Sano, Buxton and some pitcher of ours become all stars then how are we going to keep these guys around at 30 Mill per year? Just those three would be 90 Mil at those prices. If that ends up the going rate 6 years from now.

#18 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 10,821 posts

Posted 16 January 2014 - 10:13 AM

Dodgers have bad contracts in Matt Kemp, Crawford and likely Ethier. Adrian Gonzales wasn't that great last year as well. They could get burned here.


Sure, any premium contract has the risk of going disastrously wrong for the signing team.

But a 25 year old Kershaw on a seven year deal is near the top of "risky" contracts that I'd snatch up in a heartbeat. It's less risk and higher potential performance than, say, Justin Verlander's contract.

#19 Oldgoat_MN

Oldgoat_MN

    Afraid my optimism will damage me somehow

  • Members
  • 722 posts

Posted 16 January 2014 - 12:00 PM

Kershaw signs a contract that sets him up for life at age 25. He HAD to jump at it.

2 years from now they probably couldn't touch him for $30M per year if he keeps pitching like he's been pitching. And it's not a 10 or 12 year contract. I suspect Boras would have been looking at 10 years as a minimum.

While this amount of money is well beyond any reality in my world, I think it was a good signing by the Dodgers.

I'm on a whiskey diet. I've lost 3 days already.


#20 nicksaviking

nicksaviking

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 5,254 posts

Posted 16 January 2014 - 12:13 PM

Dodgers have bad contracts in Matt Kemp, Crawford and likely Ethier. Adrian Gonzales wasn't that great last year as well. They could get burned here.


They can afford to get burned. For the Dodgers, only having 25 roster spots is more of a hinderance than the payroll. I'm sure they have taken into consideration the possibilities that these guys could go bust, the reward clearly outweighs the risk in thier mind.