Dodgers Lock Up Andre Ethier, Jonathan Broxton

FRIDAY, 1:38pm: We now have the details of Ethier's contract, courtesy of Dylan Hernandez of the Los Angeles Times.  The 27-year-old's deal includes incentives and escalator clauses that could boost the total value of the pact to $15.625MM. 

Ethier is guaranteed $6MM this year, including a $500K signing bonus.  The escalators are tied to plate appearances, with the benchmarks at 600, 650, and 675.  Last season, the outfielder made 685 plate appearances.

THURSDAY, 12:36pm: The Dodgers avoided arbitration with two of their core young players, officially signing outfielder Andre Ethier and closer Jonathan Broxton to two-year deals. Broxton will hit free agency once his $11MM deal expires at the end of the 2011 season. Ethier is under team control through 2012, so the Dodgers will be able to retain him after his $15.25MM deal expires. Ethier's deal pays him $6MM next season and $9.25MM in 2011, with more money attainable through incentives. Broxton gets $4MM in 2010 and $7MM in 2011, plus escalators.

In his first full season as closer, Broxton saved 36 games and stuck out a ridiculous 13.5 batters per nine innings. He earned $1.825MM in 2009, and was eligible for arbitration for the second time this offseason. Huston Street, who just signed a long-term deal of his own, will earn about $12MM for those two same seasons of his career, so his deal may have been a point of reference for Broxton's deal.

Ethier, a Super Two, earned $3.1MM last season. He hit .272/.361/.508 with a career high 31 homers last season, finishing sixth in the NL MVP voting. Los Angeles locked Matt Kemp up to a two-year deal just last week, so the Dodgers have established some security in their outfield for the next two seasons.'s Ken Gurnick tweeted the news of Either's deal and Dylan Hernandez of the LA Times followed up with the news of Broxton's agreement. GurnickHernandez, Jon Heyman of and KCAL 9 added details, all via Twitter.

Ben Nicholson-Smith contributed to this post.

36 Responses to Dodgers Lock Up Andre Ethier, Jonathan Broxton Leave a Reply

  1. Muggi 6 years ago

    Good for the Dodgers, getting these young guys for multiple years…but just like the Kemp deal, I don’t get the length at all.

    Is this divorce-stuff? Only giving two years, when you know after two you’re going to pay significantly more for the player, just seems odd to me. I though LA would go for 4-5yrs on BOTH these guys.

    • I think this really does have to do with the divorce and so they are limited to covering a few arbitration years. I would definitely expect the Dodgers to talk much longer contracts with these players once ownership is transferred to someone else. Someone with REAL money – not the monopoly money that McCourt seems to have “had”.

  2. dodgersfan1 6 years ago

    I don’t understand the length of time either. Not only does locking them up for a longer period of time ensures you keep them but also would probably benefit the team as trade bait (if needed) if they were under contract for a reasonable amount. Offering Kemp a 4-6 year deal would have made sense. Ethier on the other hand I think max a 4 yr.

    • bleedindodgerblue 6 years ago

      kemp didn’t want to sign long term. he wanted to go year to year. i think we’re pretty lucky we got him for two.

      • vtadave 6 years ago

        Not sure about “lucky” considering Kemp is under team control anyway through 2012. All this provides is some element of cost certainty through the 2011 season.

  3. Don’t rule out contract extensions next off-season if both Ethier and Kemp keep putting up the numbers. I’d imagine that is the Dodgers plan. The front office is probably operating under the assumption that the divorce/ownership issue will be settled by then, and it gives them another year to see what they really have in Ethier, Kemp, Broxton.

    I’d expect Billingsley to get a few years next off-season if he can reproduce is 1st half ’09 numbers over the course of a full season.

  4. Pat_M 6 years ago

    hmmmm. at least the Dodgers are doing something resembling smart baseball moves in light of the McCourts divorce. While these deals aren’t long term and don’t buy up any free agent years, they give the club good cost-certainty. I think this is the biggest part of these deals, because if these guys took it to the next level this year they could very well price themselves out of the Dodgers level. At least this gives the Dodgers the opportunity to add some pieces for the next 2 years to hopefully take this team to the next level

  5. WagsFromLB 6 years ago

    Agreed that I would like to see Kemp and Ethier signed to longer term deals. However Dave Stewart, Kemp’s agent, seemed reluctant to let Kemp sign a long term deal because they generally give the team a discount. I think Ethier is more loyal than Kemp but who knows. I agree that it seems as though they want some cost certainty heading into next offseason when the ownership situation will be settled. I too think Kemp and Ethier will get long-term deals after this year assuming they continue to produce

    • Really? My perception has been the opposite. I feel Kemp is more loyal to the team, having been drafted by and brought up through the system, having played with many of his teammates from the low minors. He seems to have a closer relationship with his teammates. I’ve always felt Andre was unattached. Maybe it is just because he is a more private person, who knows. Hopefully they’re both loyal.

      • WagsFromLB 6 years ago

        haha i knew that would get taken the wrong way. I dont mean it negatively to Kemp whatsoever. I agree that Kemp is the more logical fit because of the history he has with the other young core players. I just have a feeling that, while LA would presumably be his first choice, he will go to the highest bidder. Just a feeling I got based on reading comments made by Stewart.

        • Nah, I get what you’re saying. Just a matter of perception, I guess, assuming neither of us know either of them personally. But I’ve felt Kemp was more attached to L.A. and would be more determined to stick around, while Andre seemed to me more likely to go to the highest bidder. First, Andre played for a community college, ASU, and was in the A’s organization until he reached the Dodgers. Matt Kemp was basically drafted by the Dodgers out of high school. Secondly the Dodgers will probably be more determined to hold on to Kemp since he plays a position where offense is at its premium, while RFers with Ethier’s skills aren’t quite as difficult to come across (and Ethier’s future may be in LF).

    • austinhb 6 years ago

      idk but ethier reminds me of vince chase off of entourage lol irrelavent i know

  6. dodgersfan1 6 years ago

    How much more will the extensions cost? I think They should have broken down the contracts like this.
    Kemp – 5yr plus option
    Eithier – 3yr. plus option
    Broxton – 2yr. plus option
    Loney – 2yr. (keep him affordable. If he never gains the power stroke that is desired, his defense may intrigue somone else and he can be trade bait…?)

    But then again I am not a GM and don’t know all the workings of a FO…lol

  7. Guest 6 years ago

    The point of these deals is to have a set number for salary in 2011. Really smart, Ethier and Broxton could make a lot of money going year to year, same with Kemp. I wish it was longer too but now the Dodgers know they wont have to hand out crazy deals in 2011.

  8. jayson1121 6 years ago

    I can’t help but think of the short contracts to be directly related to the divorce situation. Should they sell the team, buyers will be reluctant to take on a lot of long term contracts.

    Also, in Ethier’s case, I think a short term contract is a good move. Without Manny in the lineup last year, he struggled (w/ Manny – .285, 22 hr, 52 BB and 75 K – w/o Manny – .226 9 hr 20 BB, and 41 K… my own rough numbers). The power was there but obviously the benefit of having Manny gave him better looks. I want to see him post solid numbers consistantly and without Manny before they fork over a large long term deal, or at least do an incentive type deal.

    • Guest 6 years ago

      If someone was looking to buy the Dodgers and Kemp, Bills, Broxton, Ethier and Loney were under long term contracts that should only make the buy easier. Those guys are exactly what you want when buying a franchise, one of the best young cores in the game under contract.

  9. jayson1121 6 years ago

    In my opinion the short term deals have to be directly related to the possible sale of the team. No potential buyer is going to want to come in and pick up long term contracts.

    In the case of Ethier, I’m glad that they gave him a short term contract. He performed a lot better with Manny in the lineup than without (.226, 9 HR, 41 K, 20 BB – .285, 22 HR, 75 K, 52 BB… my own rough numbers. if anyone has a better line i’d like to check it out.). The power was still there but he obviously benefited from Manny being in the line up and got better looks because of it. I would only hand him a long term deal if he shows he can consistently put up his numbers without Manny or it’s an incentive type deal.

  10. jayson1121 6 years ago

    comp wigged out and i didnt see the first post. sorry for the double.

  11. TommyL 6 years ago

    I think you have to consider baseball economics as well. Who knows where revenues and player salaries will be by the 2012 season. You can’t assume they’ll keep rising — except for the salaries of a few mega-stars. Two years give these players financial security in the event of injury while providing the team short-term cost certainty and long-term flexibility.

  12. yoshshmenge 6 years ago

    The above story is incorrect when it states that Ethier’s contract buys out the remaining years under team control. Ethier is under team control through 2012; this would have been his second year for arbitration because he was a super two.

    • vtadave 6 years ago

      You are correct Yosh. I’d think this would have been known by the poster, but then again, few people follow the Dodgers closer than I.

      • lakersdodgersyankees4life 6 years ago

        exactly what vta said.. in fact, most of these deals are made so that the guys have one more arbitration year… which, in my mind, feeds the idea that McCourt thinks he wont own the team in 2011 or beyond… for a new owner to be able to negotiate their own long term deals could be a huge plus..

  13. Sign Werth for LF next year!
    He signed for 1MIL to PHI after his injury!
    Boneheaded for the Blue to let him go!

    • vtadave 6 years ago

      Cheap shoot Nookster. Find me one baseball executive, scout, or analyst who thought Werth would have a 36/20 season.

      • dire straits 6 years ago

        I’m not a scout, but when I first saw him play with the Dodgers I saw a lot of promise. Where do I sign up to be a scout? haha

        • ThinkBlue10 6 years ago

          Hemmy, he may have showed some promise but not enough to think he would hit 30 HR’s because he always injured. So i dont think you can really blame the dodgers.

      • markjsunz 6 years ago

        Every team has let go of young talent only to see the player develop into a star with another team, teams have to make decisions and mistakes are part of the game. Billy Beane is considered one of the best general managers in the business and he gave the dodgers Andre Eithier for Milton Bradley, but thru the years the Dodgers have given up on some good young talent.

  14. ThinkBlue10 6 years ago

    i like these signings but they should be for longer. i hope we extend them towards the end of them. its funny how mccourt comes out with this BS that the divorce isnt affecting the team but we are limited to doing things such as signing our young studs for longer. I hate you mccourt.

  15. lakersdodgersyankees4life 6 years ago

    This is my guess about the length… McCourt realizes there is a chance that he will have to sell the team. Having a player’s salary set makes it more attractable for buyers, instead of having to go to arbitration after buying the team. However, if the deal is a 6/66(lets just say Kemp), it is a very large commitment that the new owner had no say in. Now, not saying that Kemp at 6/66 wouldnt be a bad deal(I wanted that deal personally), but just an example…

  16. thetruelateam 6 years ago

    thank god. now that this is locked up and we have cost certainty and no arb meetings we can actually spend money. my hope is that the dodgers sign joel piniero and ron belliard or felipe lopez. let the young guys (McDonald, Haegar, Lindbolm, etc.) battle for the 5th starting job. my prediction: dodgers rotation looks like this.

    1) Clayton Kershaw
    2) Joel Piniero or Chad Billingsley
    3) Joel Piniero or Chad Billingsley
    4) Hiroki Kuroda
    5) Charlie Haegar
    sounds pretty good to me.

    • lakersdodgersyankees4life 6 years ago

      I think the Dodgers have finally figured out how to control the pitching market. They have accepted they are signing the CCs or Lackeys, but we dont need to. We have a solid 1-2 with a healthy Billz and Kershaw, and a very good #3 in Kuroda, when healthy(last year was the year of crappy, non arm related injuries for the starters it seems).

      I do think we have a couple of options for the rotation. If we can get Pinerio at 2 yrs or less, then get him. I swear to God, if they go to 3 yrs or 10M/yr, I will kill someone.

      If Pinerio doesn’t sign with us, our next option is Sheets. We were one of the many teams to watch him pitch and he apparently looked great. Sheets should want to go to the NL in a pitchers park, with most of his competition having a weak offense. That discription fits no better than the NL West. The division is pitching first, and except for the Dodgers, offense a distant 2nd.

      If we don’t sign Sheets or Pinerio, we got to Wang. He was an ace for 2 years for the Yankees and loved pitching for Torre. He has shown interest in the Dodgers and, like Sheets, should be interested in coming to a weak-offense division.

      Finally, if we can’t sign any of the 3, we need to stand pat. We have multiple prospects that can fill the 4th and 5th spots. Haegar should be the 4th in this situation, simply because he is able to give us innings with a good ERA… Our 5th should be Elbert. The FO came out at the start of the offseason and said they would give Elbert the shot to win the 5th spot, and going into ST, he is the leader for the 5th spot.

      If we sign any of the FAs, I would guess that Elbert is the 5th starter. Haegar goes to AAA and McDonald in the pen. The only way Lindblom makes the team is if he has an amazing ST. If not, the FO came out a couple of weeks ago and said he would probably start in AAA.

      *If Elbert isnt the 5th starter, I think he will go to AAA to start. To waste him as the 6th option in one of the best pens in the majors makes no sense. If we dont feel he is MLB ready, he should get a shot at starting because his future is as a starter..

      • Mostly agree with your assessment, but I’d still go with Garland, Padilla or Washburn if we can’t get Pineiro or Sheets. I’m not sure about Wang, mostly because I’ve heard he won’t be ready to until May, and who knows how he’ll pitch then. Bedard is a similar risk. Davis, Smoltz and Pedro Martinez are other options, I suppose, but I’m less enthusiastic about them.But I really believe we need to sign at least one of those guys. I’m not liking the idea of Haeger/McDonald/Elbert/Stults/Monasterios taking the #4 AND #5 spots in the rotation, simply because I don’t have much faith in Kuroda staying healthy and returning to form, and Billingsley and Kershaw both having completely effective, injury-free seasons. That’s a lot to expect.I mean, you’re talking about a combination of Haeger/McDonald/Elbert/Stults/Monasterios starting 35% to potentially 50% games depending on injuries. While there is some good upside in that bunch, I don’t think a contending team should take that kind of risk.Really, Elbert should be starting in AAA. He needs to work on his control, we can’t have another guy that averages 5 2/3rds innings per game. And you’re right, he’s not going to be so helpful out of the bullpen when we have Broxton, Sherrill, Kuo, Belisario (all four have good enough stuff to be closers) plus Troncoso, McDonald, potentially Wade, Leach, Zerpa, Monasterios…McDonald has been excellent out of the bullpen. I’d be fine giving him a start here and there, but to hand him a spot in the rotation would be a mistake, IMO.Haeger I love, because he could easily throw 200 innings over the course of the season, and he’s just fun to watch. Innings are important with how Torre overuses the bullpen.Stults should probably be in Japan, since he is out of options. He’s served us well as a spot starter, but I don’t see how he’ll be useful if he has to remain on the major league roster all year.Monasterios… we’ll see in Spring Training, I suppose.KershawBillingsleyKurodaPineiro/Sheets/Washburn/Garland/PadillaHaegerBroxton/Sherrill/Belisario/Kuo/Troncoso/McDonald and then some combination of Wade/Leach/Schlichting/Zerpa/Monasterios would be great.

        • lakersdodgersyankees4life 6 years ago

          I think that giving Wang 3-5M with a lot of incentives isn’t a bad deal. If he is healthy, he is easily a #3 starter. If not, it was 3M that didn’t work out… It wouldn’t be a Andruw Jones like fiasco(where we have to pay him to leave). I wouldnt mind Wang, but I think that Sheets and Pinerio are ahead of him… in no order. In fact, it could be said that Sheets would be a better deal because Pinerio is expected to decline, he is going to get multiple years and isnt an ace when healthy. Sheets has a lot of talent and the fact he’d make a similar amount to Brad Penny, he could be a steal. Especially if he will be ready in ST…

          I dont really want to see Padilla or Washburn in LA simply because they arent good pitchers. Honestly, I think Elbert would do better than either of them, along with Haegar. If Garland gets 5M, then sure. But I think he wants 7M, and he doesnt have enough talent for me… when Sheets and Pinerio would have the same yearly salary. Garland will give you 200 innings, but not a strong ERA or anything better than what Haegar will give you for the league minimum… as I believe you feel the same way.

          I dont think anyone wants Elbert and Haegar to be forced to take 40% of the starts, but it isnt a horrible thing. They both have talent and Elbert could pitch in the majors every 5 days. I agree that Elbert is young enough that another year in AAA is not a bad idea, but if we need him to be the 5th starter, he is ready.

          As I said above, the FO has stated that they believe Elbert is MLB ready to be a starter. They seem to want him to be the 5th starter, which is why I put him first…

          I really like McDonald in the pen. Given the options we have for the rotation, having a similar role as last year could be good for him. He will compete for the 5th spot in the rotation, but I think he ends up in the pen.

  17. thetruelateam 6 years ago

    I agree, but if we can not sign Piniero, Sheets, or Wang, we should go after some of the low-risk bargain free agents. Rich Hill was mentioned as a possibility on MLB rumors, and that the Dodgers are pursuing him aggressively. Jarrod Washborn, Erik Bedard, as well are possibilities. Elbert will not be the 5th starter, I think. he has little experience as a Major league starter unlike Haegar who has shown signs of excellence as a starter. Eric Stults is also a possibility but I doubt it. My prediction: Dodgers offer Piniero 2 years 16.5 mil today or tomorrow

  18. TommyL 6 years ago

    Piniero has signed with Angels and Dodgers will be outbid for Sheets. My bet is Padilla and an internal candidate as 4 and 5 starters.

  19. ivdown 6 years ago

    There would be nothing wrong at all with Elbert and Mcdonald as the 4 and 5 starters. I would actually be very happy if we did that.

Leave a Reply