Clayton Kershaw Extension - 7 Years $215 Million

[Warning Track Power]

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/story/_/id/10298436/clayton-kershaw-los-angeles-dodgers-agree-seven-year-deal-worth-215-million

 

If any pitcher is worth this insane amount of money, I would say Kershaw is. Wow though...$30 million per year for a guy who plays only 30-ish of 162. Crazy amount of money in the big markets of baseball these days.

[Invader3K]

He deserves it, but that's still crazy money.

 

Edit: Apparently the Brewers just countered this move by signing Zach Duke to a MiLB deal.

[PrinceEatMeat]

To put things into perspective, Mark Attanasio bought the entire Brewers franchise for $223 million back in 2005. Nice market difference there.

[Invader3K]

To put things into perspective, Mark Attanasio bought the entire Brewers franchise for $223 million back in 2005. Nice market difference there.

 

This is yet another sign that the Brewers are once again a small market team. We can't possibly hope to rely on veterans and free agent signings if Milwaukee is going to compete.

[BuckyBrewer61]

Every year since 2011 it is more and more apparent that the Brewers are just playing in a totally different league compared to many teams in baseball. With deals like this it is abundantly clear that the only chance teams like the Brewers have to compete is to draft and develop young players. And not just some, an entire team of them. And with the draft being such a crapshoot, for everyone, small market teams are just rolling the dice and hoping, over and over, while big market teams get to divvy up the riches amongst themselves. Maybe you get lucky and trade for a star for half a year, but that's all you can afford. And the only free agents you can get are minor leaguers, role players, and former stars looking for someone to take a flier on them after their prime is past. The stars have aligned once in my 30 year lifetime to have a team with a legitimate chance at a championship...and it didn't come. I guess I can only hope it might happen again, but it's hard to be optimistic when you're hoping on luck while competing against teams that simply don't have to do so.

 

It's very disheartening as a baseball fan that MLB allows such an uneven playing field to exist. Sigh.

[DHonks]

invader, not to be picky but the Brewers have always been a small market team. I would assume that we're a low-revenue team, thanks to the big deals for media rights that others are negotiating. MLB needs to include that in revenue sharing

[brewmann04]

Need to have some major impact drafts.

[SRB]

Another horrible, bloated contract. You never know when even the best pitcher in baseball is going to fall apart (see recently: Tim Linecum, Roy Halladay). Just is never a good idea to commit that much money to one player. You'd think they would learn when the success-rate of these contracts is empirically like 5% (if that -- does A-Rod's first deal count?), but guess not.

[owbc]

$30 million per year isn't really that much money. The Dodgers will at least triple the Brewers' payroll this year, so it would be the equivalent of the Brewers signing someone to a 7 year/$70 million deal or so. When you think about it, it isn't even that much of a risk. The Dodgers have so much money that the price doesn't matter, especially for the best young pitcher in the game. Even if Kershaw doesn't opt for free agency he will be just 32 at the end of this deal.

 

The Brewers have nothing to worry about, they were always priced out of these types of deals. Teams like the Giants should be very concerned, since they used to have a payroll similar to the Dodgers but are now suddenly being outspent by $100 million per year.

[GAME05]

can we finally just split the League so just the rich teams play against each other so that the rest of us finally have a chance to compete?

[umphrey]

There are plenty of MLB teams that win with less payroll than us, we are just bad at it because we make short sighted moves and draft based on need.

[H4P]

Assuming he matches his numbers from last year for all 7 years, he gets:

 

Around $930k/start

$130k/inning

$43k/out

 

This of course doesn't take playoffs into account and are rough numbers but WOW! (My math might not be good. Going to Mexico today and got up at 0100 for flight...) I know it's a big market and all of that but how in the world can this keep up? Feels like baseball is "on the bubble" like the economy was in 2000s. What I wouldn't give to pitch one inning a year with that contract...

[monty57]

Every year since 2011 it is more and more apparent that the Brewers are just playing in a totally different league compared to many teams in baseball. With deals like this it is abundantly clear that the only chance teams like the Brewers have to compete is to draft and develop young players. And not just some, an entire team of them. And with the draft being such a crapshoot, for everyone, small market teams are just rolling the dice and hoping, over and over, while big market teams get to divvy up the riches amongst themselves. Maybe you get lucky and trade for a star for half a year, but that's all you can afford.

 

They certainly play with a disadvantage, but what it really means is that they can't compete using the same management style as the big market teams. In other words, they can't compete by trying to build through free agency and by trading their prospects for veterans with limited team control remaining. Rarely should anyone be allowed to walk in free agency, especially players who could bring back significant value in trade.

 

When Attanasio bought the team, there was a low payroll with a strong farm system and room to add revenue streams to the stadium. This led to a period where we had very good, cheap talent and a rapidly expanding payroll. This was nice, but unsustainable, which is why I've been lobbying for a more sustainable path to success, including, but not limited to always looking at whether there is anyone on the MLB roster that may make sense to trade for younger, cheaper players.

 

It's hard for any team to maintain success in professional sports. It is made harder for a small market/small revenue team like the Brewers, but it can be done. You just have to make decisions based on your situation and not try to manage like a big market team. The big question is whether, after being weaned to expect the Brewers to always "go for it" with big moves, the fans will accept managing the team the way a small-market team needs to be managed. We've lost over 500,000 tickets sold from 2011 to 2013, and if that trend continues, things could really blow up.

[logan82]

invader, not to be picky but the Brewers have always been a small market team. I would assume that we're a low-revenue team, thanks to the big deals for media rights that others are negotiating. MLB needs to include that in revenue sharing

Payroll did seem a little more even a couple years back. Things have just exploded over the last couple offseasons. Just after we signed a new TV deal that looked like we were heading in the right direction.

[Invader3K]

invader, not to be picky but the Brewers have always been a small market team. I would assume that we're a low-revenue team, thanks to the big deals for media rights that others are negotiating. MLB needs to include that in revenue sharing

Payroll did seem a little more even a couple years back. Things have just exploded over the last couple offseasons. Just after we signed a new TV deal that looked like we were heading in the right direction.

 

That was the point I was making. I think we were at least a mid market team the past few season, but that isn't the case anymore.

 

The team's ownership and management need to adapt, and quick, or we are going to be in for an extended run of disappointing baseball seasons.

[owbc]

I still don't think the Brewers will be significantly affected by this latest salary expansion. Almost none of the success from 2007-2011 was a result of free agent signings. They had no chance then at the big free agents like Sabathia and Fielder and they still do not have a chance at similar free agents now.

 

The Brewers may not have a favorable local TV deal, but they have tens of millions of extra revenue coming in starting in 2014. They will be highly profitable in 2014 if they keep the payroll at the current level. They are getting a huge extra sum from the national TV deal and teams also share 1/3 of local TV revenue, so they bring in a few million per year from the Dodgers' TV deal as well. This money will eventually be spent on mid-range free agents or arbitration buyouts, just like it has been for the past 5-10 years. They will still be around 20th in payroll--somewhere on the border between small and mid market.

 

Meanwhile, the grass isn't greener on the other side. The "sustained success" small market teams are repeatedly getting booted out of the playoffs in the division series. The Brewers are the only small to small/mid market team to make the LCS (in either league) in the last 5 years. So while I would like to adapt some of the strategy from the A's/Rays, I do not want to see the Brewers being a real "small market" that trades away all overvalued talent to save money and perpetually plan for the future. The Rays had a serious shot at the World Series last year, but they sure could have used an extra starting pitcher with extensive postseason experience--but they traded him away in December 2012!!!!

[rondoman]

The Rays had a serious shot at the World Series last year, but they sure could have used an extra starting pitcher with extensive postseason experience--but they traded him away in December 2012!!!!

 

Wasn't that deal they made pretty much praised by everyone as a steal?

[owbc]

Wasn't that deal they made pretty much praised by everyone as a steal?

 

Now that I look it up, Wil Myers did end up winning rookie of the year. So it's fair to say it was a great deal, one that they should unquestionably have taken. But I do think it hurt their chances in 2013, the deal was for 2014 and beyond. But now they are talking about trading David Price. So if they trade him, they will really be playing for 2015 and beyond. And so on..

 

So all I'm saying is that there are disadvantages to the full out small market approach, and I'd rather see the Brewers hang onto certain players for longer if they can.

[TheCrew07]

I think when if you are severely disadvantaged team from a revenue perspective you play to remain competitive. The Rays have been to 1 more WS than we've been to in the last 10 years and they have maintained success unlike the Brewers.

 

Every year isn't going to be your year, I think the idea should be to assemble as much impact talent as possible and let the chips fall where they may. Paying players in their late 20s and early 30s market multi year deals is the worst possible way for that sort of team to operate... Brewers, Rays, whomever. If you aren't able to consistently draft and develop players then you'd better find a different way to cycle talent or the organization ends up exactly where the Brewers are.

 

Plenty of posters called their shot on this slow but steady decline as players continued to age, become greater risks for injury, and ultimately become more expensive. The Brewers shouldn't be chasing payroll flexibility but rather talent flexibility, having legitimate depth and options beyond the starting player on the 25 man roster.

 

I agree with TLB, we don't have many 1st division players at MLB or in the minors which is a serious problem.

[Fear The Chorizo]

I think the 2016 negotiations over the next CBA are going to be alot more dicey than what is currently assumed. Even with the existing revenue sharing setup, MLB's quickly becoming about the haves and have-nots when it comes to TV revenue, and even Scott Boras has been insinuating that big market clubs are getting creative hiding their TV revenues to reduce the revenue sharing fee they need to pay the league. Roughly 1/2 the league that doesn't have these outrageous TV deals due to their market sizes is going to demand the playing field to even out from a TV revenue standpoint. Small market teams can still compete by drafting well, but it gets very difficult if they have sustained MLB success to hit HR's on draft picks at the bottom of each round. There will be growing pushback from the little guys to avoid becoming 2nd division teams.

 

I can't say that I have a solution, but I think something along the lines of a 60/40 revenue split for all games televised on teams' networks. For example, say the dodgers get 324 million in revenue from their TV network for televising 162 games. Divy that up to 2 million per game. Then, for each game the dodgers would get 1.2 million and whoever their opponent is gets 0.8 million. Say their opponent has a network that pays them 1 million per game. Their opponent gets 0.6 million and the dodgers get 0.4 million. For that particular game the Dodgers bring in 1.6 million, and their opponent makes 1.4 million. Spread that out league-wide for all 162 games and revenues might even out alot more.

[owbc]

The TV revenue issue is very interesting. I hope the small market owners put up a fight. Things will be much different with Selig not around, it's tough to predict how that will play out.

 

As we have discussed in a previous thread, there is also the possibility of the cable-sports bubble bursting. The bulk of the Dodgers' TV deal (and hence player salaries) will be paid via subscriber fees by people who never watch baseball. That's not sustainable--and people are already showing their displeasure by dropping cable in record numbers. If people keep dropping, the remaining subscribers have to pay more. I don't even know anyone my age (late 20s) who has cable--everyone watches Netflix or finds stuff for free online.

 

Furthermore, there have been rumors that Congress could step in and end blackout rules which would open up the possibility of MLB.tv being available in local markets. Many have also floated a-la-carte TV which would also destroy the big TV revenue deals since only a small fraction of subscribers would pay for baseball.

[chickinbrickin]

Assuming he matches his numbers from last year for all 7 years, he gets:

 

Around $930k/start

$130k/inning

$43k/out

 

This of course doesn't take playoffs into account and are rough numbers but WOW! (My math might not be good. Going to Mexico today and got up at 0100 for flight...) I know it's a big market and all of that but how in the world can this keep up? Feels like baseball is "on the bubble" like the economy was in 2000s. What I wouldn't give to pitch one inning a year with that contract...

 

Even crazier stat I heard on Rome the other day is he will get paid $9000 per pitch. Per pitch! That is insane!