Possible Kershaw Contract

[yadontSabo]

Not sure if it's been posted yet but rumored to be in the $300M range. Wowza!
http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/story/_/id/9849972/clayton-kershaw-offered-deal-300m-range-los-angeles-dodgers-source-says?src=mobile

[RedlegJ]

I can't bring myself to believe they offered him a 300 million dollar contract and he didn't accept. What would he be waiting on?

[BungleBengals]

I can't bring myself to believe they offered him a 300 million dollar contract and he didn't accept. What would he be waiting on?

If he waits and plays out his contract with similar numbers and no injuries next season, then I think he becomes an even bigger FA than Cano is expected to this year.

A 26 year old, lefty, starting pitcher, with 1 and possibly 2 Cy Young Awards? Dude would command biggest contract in history of the sport.

[50YrRedsFan]

Why does anyone need that kind of money. These mega contracts are ruining baseball.

[MusicTNRED]

If he waits and plays out his contract with similar numbers and no injuries next season, then I think he becomes an even bigger FA than Cano is expected to this year.

A 26 year old, lefty, starting pitcher, with 1 and possibly 2 Cy Young Awards? Dude would command biggest contract in history of the sport.

Cano is a hyped up player who does not deserve the mega contract he seeks.

[RedlegJ]

No one is worth this much money. Its getting out of hand.

[BungleBengals]

No one is worth this much money. Its getting out of hand.

Yep. I am no expert by any means, but I think Kershaw might be the first to top $300M. I wonder with the Dodgers current spending spree the last 2 seasons if they can afford that. I also read they still have to get Hanley an extension too.

[JaxRed]

A contract that big simply ensures it will bite you in the butt

[uteroasis]

That's a lot of money to invest in one arm.

[uteroasis]

A contract that big simply ensures it will bite you in the butt

Seems to be the case. The jury is still out on a few of the mega-contracts, but many of the current largest aren't looking so good: A-Rod for $252m, Pujols for $240m, Mauer for $184m. Obviously Pujols and Mauer can still turn it around, but you get the point.

The number of years on these contracts is even more disconcerting.

[Joseph]

Why does anyone need that kind of money. These mega contracts are ruining baseball.

I said the same thing about Ryne Sandberg 20 years ago.

[SporkLover]

Why does anyone need that kind of money. These mega contracts are ruining baseball.

I'd rather a player get that money than see an owner pocket it all.

[Rimshot]

I have been trying to make this pencil out in my head. Trying, mind you.

I guess if you have the money, go for it. The main reason I don't think it bothers me as much is that at least it's an offer from the team he currently plays for, and he seems like an upstanding young man. Hard to see them recouping that value on the diamond, though.

[RedlegJake]

I'd rather a player get that money than see an owner pocket it all.

I'd rather see it spread it among all players than concentrated in the hands of a few players and hanging like a millstone around franchises, though. Stars should get a disproportionate share, sure - but such an outlandishly large amount? I think it ultimately hurts.

[joshua]

I'd rather a player get that money than see an owner pocket it all.

If it were the Reds, I'd rather see them invest $300 million in scouting and coaching up and down the entire system. I think you get a much bigger bang for your buck that way than putting all your eggs in a basket that can tear a rotator cuff and suddenly be worthless.

[SporkLover]

I'd rather see it spread it among all players than concentrated in the hands of a few players and hanging like a millstone around franchises, though. Stars should get a disproportionate share, sure - but such an outlandishly large amount? I think it ultimately hurts.

I don't think the Free Agency market should be tinkered with. Players should be able to get any salary that a team would be willing to pay them.

The real travesty in baseball contracts are how young players are paid in the early years of their contract, when they are arguably making the most value for their teams. Mike Trout... making barely over league minimum. Giancarlo Stanton same boat. Clayton Kershaw his breakout year of 2011? 500K. Thats 500K for a Cy Young Award winner, All-Star, Gold Glover. His 2012 Post Arbitration salary was 7.5 Mil... much cheaper than Bronson who by many milestones was less talented.

Unfortunately fixing that means that you upset the competitive balance between the haves and have nots. Think the Reds would have been able to pick up Choo, lock up Votto/Philips to their contracts if they had to pay Bailey, Leake, and Chapman closer to what their actual value is? In the end you'd still end up with the same problem, but exacerbated. In the end Everyone that is not Boston, New York Yankees, Chicago, an LA Team, or San Francisco would have less money to lock up top free agency talent, because they would have to pay their younger and value building players more. Upset that balance and Oakland has a much harder time fielding a competitive team. As awful as the situation sounds... that's the trade off Major League baseball has made. Just one last example to illustrate that point... Albert Pujols, arguably the best hitter of the last decade was ROY, MVP top contender, GG, etc in 2001 when he made 200K. His company on that MVP list salaries were in the $10 Mil neighborhood.

That leads to the question of Salary Caps. Again, me personally I'm against Salary Caps because players in their younger years are sometimes held to a lower salary than the actual value they yield their respective teams. Let the free market support what it will.

I'm more in favor of the soft caps that MLB already has in place... but with some tweaks. The first soft cap is Revenue sharing. I believe competitive balance between the haves and have nots can be increased by tweaking the revenue sharing a bit more... the top ten teams can stand to lose a bit more to revenue sharing to pad the bottom ten. The other is the Salary Luxury tax, which in it's current format is totally ineffective. In it's current state it only targets the top two payroll teams. The Luxury tax thresh hold needs to be dropped to at least affect the top 5 teams, if not the top 10. Any proceeds in that pot goes back to revenue sharing.

Of course the MLBPA and their agents would wholly fight against such moves, and Selig hasn't really been one to bring a whole lot of reform on this front. I believe if you put these things into play you'd see top salaries decline, and a more competitive free agent market.

[villain612]

I'm more in favor of the soft caps that MLB already has in place... but with some tweaks. The first soft cap is Revenue sharing. I believe competitive balance between the haves and have nots can be increased by tweaking the revenue sharing a bit more... the top ten teams can stand to lose a bit more to revenue sharing to pad the bottom ten. The other is the Salary Luxury tax, which in it's current format is totally ineffective. In it's current state it only targets the top two payroll teams. The Luxury tax thresh hold needs to be dropped to at least affect the top 5 teams, if not the top 10. Any proceeds in that pot goes back to revenue sharing.



I agree with this completely. I think the revenue sharing amongst NFL teams is partially responsible for the popularity of the league. Having more balanced competition is in the best interest of a vast majority of the league. I think the lack of revenue sharing is responsible for lack of attendance and fan interest.

Back to Clayton Kershaw......the number of $300 million sounds ridiculous on its face. But hey, if one person in major league baseball was gonna get that contract, it should be him.

[REDREAD]

I can't bring myself to believe they offered him a 300 million dollar contract and he didn't accept. What would he be waiting on?

I understand, the guy has a family to support. 300 million doesn't go as far as it used to. :laugh:

I agree with you, if I was Kershaw, I would've jumped on that. Every start is a risk your career might end. 300 million in the hand is worth it :)

[SporkLover]

Back to Clayton Kershaw......the number of $300 million sounds ridiculous on its face. But hey, if one person in major league baseball was gonna get that contract, it should be him.

I think the most shocking bit is the fact that kind of money is being considered for a pitcher. The common school of thought is that a pitcher's arm ages faster than a position player, and it's typically not wise to commit long term to those guys. If the Dodgers are willing to do it at an outrageous price, I will certainly not hate on Kershaw.

As said earlier, too much can go wrong with a pitchers arm, and that kind of a big contract is begging to be labeled albatross. I mean look at the New York Mets. Their highest paid player, Johan Santana, hasn't had a full season since they first signed him in 2008 and he makes more than twice the $$$ their highest paid position player makes. He made $25 mil this year, which is pretty close to that Kershaw money. Johan Santana in healthy form was a stud too, almost as good as Kershaw is now, if you weigh their bodies of work, not just a particular season.