PDA

View Full Version : Dodgers, Kemp on the verge of 8 year extension



Benihana
11-14-2011, 12:36 PM
http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/story/_/id/7233500/sources-matt-kemp-los-angeles-dodgers-160-million-deal

$160MM over 8 years. Wow. That's a hell of a commitment to make when the team is for sale.

Maybe this is a good time to offer up Alonso and Arroyo for Ethier and Billingsley to give them some salary relief? The Dodgers do have to replace Loney.

They are also looking for a catcher after being spurned by Ryan Doumit...

mdccclxix
11-14-2011, 12:51 PM
That's a steep price, but it's one they need to make room for. I would be a pretty concerned about his 33, 34, 35 year old seasons and would also brace for another stinker like 2010 before even then. He K's quite a bit. He'll also have to move off CF at some point.

I think back to pre 2008, lot's of Reds fans were hoping to land this guy. It was probably going to take a lot to do so. The Dodgers knew what they had in this guy and it worked out. One cool thing to notice is he went from a 5:1 BB:K ratio in the early minors to something closer to 2:1 in AA and AAA. Something to hope for with any slugger. Then he got called up in 2006. He's always K'd a lot, and has brought his mlb ratio from 3:1 to about 2:1.

Benihana
11-14-2011, 01:05 PM
That's a steep price, but it's one they need to make room for. I would be a pretty concerned about his 33, 34, 35 year old seasons and would also brace for another stinker like 2010 before even then. He K's quite a bit. He'll also have to move off CF at some point.

I think back to pre 2008, lot's of Reds fans were hoping to land this guy. It was probably going to take a lot to do so. The Dodgers knew what they had in this guy and it worked out. One cool thing to notice is he went from a 5:1 BB:K ratio in the early minors to something closer to 2:1 in AA and AAA. Something to hope for with any slugger. Then he got called up in 2006. He's always K'd a lot, and has brought his mlb ratio from 3:1 to about 2:1.

Yep. Some on this board even balked at including Jeff Keppinger as part of a package to get Matt Kemp. I'm not making this up.

Don't be surprised if Justin Upton makes a similar move to superstardom next.

RedsManRick
11-14-2011, 03:11 PM
Why do teams keep giving guys massive contracts on the back of career years? With no-trade clauses? Losing good players to free agency doesn't kill teams. Being locked in to fading ones does. Going 8 years with any professional athlete is a big risk.

While Kemp just had an awesome year, he's not an irreplaceable, generational talent. Kemp is a year removed from a season in which he was only marginally better than replacement level. He had a massive .380 BABIP this year. Normalize that even to a very high .340 and you're basically looking at something slightly better than 2009 season when he was a 5 win player.

So why the deal now? Well, buyers like certainty and they like assets. This will likely boost the value of the Dodgers for prospective buyers, especially if Kemp wins the MVP. And while Kemp surely is a very good player, I have no doubt that increasing the franchise's value played a role. For McCourt, this deal is pure upside. Get all the benefits off having him locked in without being around for the possible downside.

Rojo
11-14-2011, 03:52 PM
So why the deal now?

Except for 2010, Kemp's always had a high babip because he can run. He just clubbed 39 hr's, he's hella atheletic, has good instincts and is a fiery guy on a team and in a city that can often be too laid back. He's also entering baseball prime time (age 27 - 33). Vernon Wells he is not.

Ideally I'd want to sign him to a 4-5 year with maybe a club option 5th or 6th but I'm guessing Kemp wanted more.

RedsManRick
11-14-2011, 05:06 PM
Except for 2010, Kemp's always had a high babip because he can run. He just clubbed 39 hr's, he's hella atheletic, has good instincts and is a fiery guy on a team and in a city that can often be too laid back. He's also entering baseball prime time (age 27 - 33). Vernon Wells he is not.

Ideally I'd want to sign him to a 4-5 year with maybe a club option 5th or 6th but I'm guessing Kemp wanted more.

I realize this, hence my regression .340, which would still put him in the elite BABIP guys in baseball, but which is more sustainable.

Brutus
11-14-2011, 05:33 PM
Why do teams keep giving guys massive contracts on the back of career years? With no-trade clauses? Losing good players to free agency doesn't kill teams. Being locked in to fading ones does. Going 8 years with any professional athlete is a big risk.

While Kemp just had an awesome year, he's not an irreplaceable, generational talent. Kemp is a year removed from a season in which he was only marginally better than replacement level. He had a massive .380 BABIP this year. Normalize that even to a very high .340 and you're basically looking at something slightly better than 2009 season when he was a 5 win player.

So why the deal now? Well, buyers like certainty and they like assets. This will likely boost the value of the Dodgers for prospective buyers, especially if Kemp wins the MVP. And while Kemp surely is a very good player, I have no doubt that increasing the franchise's value played a role. For McCourt, this deal is pure upside. Get all the benefits off having him locked in without being around for the possible downside.

Rick, I'm a little confused by something... you say if you regress the BABIP to be .340, you're looking at something like a 5-win player. Well correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't $20 million a year pay him as a 4-5 win player?

So it would seem to me they probably took those things into account when giving him this contract offer. This contract pays market value for WAR based on your regressed estimate. Seems it's intuitive, by that standard.

dougdirt
11-14-2011, 06:08 PM
Rick, I'm a little confused by something... you say if you regress the BABIP to be .340, you're looking at something like a 5-win player. Well correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't $20 million a year pay him as a 4-5 win player?

So it would seem to me they probably took those things into account when giving him this contract offer. This contract pays market value for WAR based on your regressed estimate. Seems it's intuitive, by that standard.

Yes, but he is also 27 years old now, so is he going to continue to be worth that moving forward?

RedsManRick
11-14-2011, 08:10 PM
Rick, I'm a little confused by something... you say if you regress the BABIP to be .340, you're looking at something like a 5-win player. Well correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't $20 million a year pay him as a 4-5 win player?

So it would seem to me they probably took those things into account when giving him this contract offer. This contract pays market value for WAR based on your regressed estimate. Seems it's intuitive, by that standard.

It does; 5 wins is worth $25MM on the open market.

But once a guy is past his prime you can count on him regressing by something like .5 wins per year. So how much longer do we expect him to be a 5 win player?

But more to the point, over the course of 8 years, how many full seasons will you get? And let's say he suffers a serious injury, not you're on the hook for the remainder. Or let's just say his performance falls off a cliff. Ask Vernon Wells or Adam Dunn how lucky they feel to have a long term contract. Ask the Red Sox how they're feeling about Carl Crawford.

Bottom line, when you lock a guy in at his peak value for a long time there's a strong possibility that you're not going to get your money's worth.

Brutus
11-14-2011, 09:24 PM
It does; 5 wins is worth $25MM on the open market.

But once a guy is past his prime you can count on him regressing by something like .5 wins per year. So how much longer do we expect him to be a 5 win player?

But more to the point, over the course of 8 years, how many full seasons will you get? And let's say he suffers a serious injury, not you're on the hook for the remainder. Or let's just say his performance falls off a cliff. Ask Vernon Wells or Adam Dunn how lucky they feel to have a long term contract. Ask the Red Sox how they're feeling about Carl Crawford.

Bottom line, when you lock a guy in at his peak value for a long time there's a strong possibility that you're not going to get your money's worth.

I don't disagree with any of that, but if we assume he has 4 years left of his "prime" in the tank, if we regress him half a win for the last 4 years, you're still looking at an accumulated $175 million based on $5 million per WAR (5+5+5+5+4.5+4+3.5+3=35*$5=$175). So again... if we're using your assumptions, the Dodgers still come out on top.

I'm not crazy about any long-term deal, but to be perfectly honest, even using your standards... the math seems to come out pretty well for the Dodgers. Even if they value him at 4 wins for the next four seasons instead of 5 wins, they still nearly break even if we expect him to keep his peak until about 32.

RedsManRick
11-14-2011, 09:46 PM
I don't disagree with any of that, but if we assume he has 4 years left of his "prime" in the tank, if we regress him half a win for the last 4 years, you're still looking at an accumulated $175 million based on $5 million per WAR (5+5+5+5+4.5+4+3.5+3=35*$5=$175). So again... if we're using your assumptions, the Dodgers still come out on top.

I'm not crazy about any long-term deal, but to be perfectly honest, even using your standards... the math seems to come out pretty well for the Dodgers. Even if they value him at 4 wins for the next four seasons instead of 5 wins, they still nearly break even if we expect him to keep his peak until about 32.

That's assuming 600 PA for every season. I agree with you that it's not a horrible deal. And when you consider that the Dodgers should be the Yankees of the west and haven't really had an identity in the form of a home grown star since Piazza (Karros?), I can absolutely buy in to why they did it. And as you point out, he doesn't have to be an absolute stud for it to come out in their favor. It's just a big commitment.

Brutus
11-14-2011, 10:22 PM
That's assuming 600 PA for every season. I agree with you that it's not a horrible deal. And when you consider that the Dodgers should be the Yankees of the west and haven't really had an identity in the form of a home grown star since Piazza (Karros?), I can absolutely buy in to why they did it. And as you point out, he doesn't have to be an absolute stud for it to come out in their favor. It's just a big commitment.

Generally speaking, I'm also not in favor of those large commitments. But I guess if teams are going to do it, I think it's a lot more sensible to give a 27-year old than a guy that's coming into free agency at 31 or 32 lol

In this case, it seems they've given themselves enough buffer zone that they have a decent shot of breaking even on the deal, or at least will get most of the value they're paying for.

kaldaniels
11-14-2011, 10:27 PM
Stuff like this makes me further realize the Jay Bruce contract sets the bar for the type of long term deals the Reds need to make.

Ron Madden
11-15-2011, 03:01 AM
Stuff like this makes me further realize the Jay Bruce contract sets the bar for the type of long term deals the Reds need to make.


Yep, I agree.

757690
11-15-2011, 09:15 AM
One advantage of long term contracts is that you lock players into eight year old salary rates.

While Kemp probably won't be a 5 win player 8 years from now, a win will also probably be worth more than it is right now.

I also would be hard pressed to find an MLB player who deserves an 8 year $160M contract more than Kemp, not that that justifies it.

HeatherC1212
11-15-2011, 10:01 AM
Wow, great for Kemp but is Alyssa Milano footing the bill for that deal?! :eek: :laugh: