Dodgers Trying To Extend Kershaw This Week

2:07pm: Dodgers president Stan Kasten has confirmed that the club is looking to complete a deal with Kershaw in the near term, according to a tweet from Bill Shaikin of the Los Angeles Times. "I am hopeful that, by the [arbitration exchange] deadline Friday morning, we can work something out," Kasten said in reference to Kershaw.

Kasten also left the impression that a Kershaw extension would not preclude the club from pursuing Masahiro Tanaka, Shaikin further tweets. Though he declined to discuss the Japanese hurler, Kasten said that he does not "think any one contract impacts any other."

11:15am: ESPN's Buster Olney says Kershaw and the Dodgers are "at the two- or the one-yard line" in terms of completing a record-setting extension (video link).

8:28am: The Dodgers and Clayton Kershaw are discussing an extension, according to Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports, who reports that the team would like to have an agreement in place by Friday. Los Angeles' preference is to have a deal in place by the time the two sides are set to exchange arbitration figures.

Rosenthal reports that the two sides were close on a seven-year, $210MM extension last season before the Dodgers backed off and adds that early in the negotiation process, a 10-year, $250MM contract and a 12-year, $300MM pact were discussed. Rosenthal also reports that the near-agreement last season contained an opt-out after the fifth year that would've allowed Kershaw to hit the open market again at age 30. The Dodgers gave Zack Greinke an opt-out after three years of his deal, and Kershaw has the same agency — Excel Sports Management.

Kershaw is fresh off his third straight National League ERA title and his second Cy Young in three years, having pitched to a 1.83 ERA in 2013. Over the past five seasons, Kershaw has pitched to an incredible 2.43 ERA with 9.3 K/9 and 2.9 BB/9, and his command has improved in each of those seasons. He averaged nearly five walks per nine innings as a 21-year-old in 2009 but averaged just two per nine innings last season. Kershaw's accomplishments make it seem as though he's older than he actually is, but incredibly, he's still entering just his age-26 season.

As MLBTR's Tim Dierkes noted back in April, CC Sabathia's $161MM guarantee is the largest "new money" extension ever signed by a pitcher, though Justin Verlander and Felix Hernandez have had larger guarantees that included the money from previously existing deals. MLBTR contributor Matt Swartz projected an $18.2MM salary for Kershaw next season if the two sides simply work out a one-year deal via arbitration, but a long-term deal would obviously require a significantly larger annual value.

173 Responses to Dodgers Trying To Extend Kershaw This Week Leave a Reply

  1. Jorden 2 years ago

    Rumored 10 year ~30M per. Wow.

    • Yeah – and why bother with an opt-out at that altitude? Not sure many others would even try to match it.

      • Lionel Bossman Craft 2 years ago

        The way price of pitching has increased so much over the years he might be able to get a bigger payday. Elite pitching is hard to come by in FA, look at this years crop. The Phillies, Angels, Yankees, or the Red Sox could make a play for him.

      • mrcourt123 2 years ago

        Because, due to how young he is, in 5 years Kershaw will likely be able to field 7-8 year offers, giving him guaranteed huge money for 12 or 13 years, rather than 10. Opting out in your prime (it’s scary to think he might not have hit his prime yet) is ideal because he could land another potentially massive payday.

        • Bleed_Orange 2 years ago

          Also he may want to add years to the contract so secure a payday into his 40’s and the opt out would give him the leverage to do that.

    • FS54 2 years ago

      WOW! I am not sure whether he does not deserve it.

      • $3513744 2 years ago

        if someone’s willing to pay him that, why doesn’t he deserve it?

  2. Adrian Garcia 2 years ago

    Would more than likely not be worth a deal like this, but it beats the alternative of him walking
    of course it’s ridiculous, but has to be done

    • Jorden 2 years ago

      8 yr deal would have been perfect. The cost of locking him up now vs fighting for him next season is that extra 2 years.

      • LazerTown 2 years ago

        Why would he want that though?
        It drops him at free agency again at 33-4, not really an ideal time. Unless they willing to give an opt out.

  3. Karkat 2 years ago

    Opt-outs are crazy. You’re basically signing a player to a short contract but telling him that if his skill declines, he can stay around longer and earn more money

    • mrcourt123 2 years ago

      “Crazy” is often necessary when trying to sign elite talent. Kershaw has most of the bargaining power here. There’s only 1 Kershaw, but there are 30 MLB teams. Each of the 30 teams knows that 1 of the others is going to give the player what he wants. So if you want to sign guys like Kershaw (or Pujols or Cano, etc.) you’ve got to be willing to do something crazy like go long-term when you know the last few years will be a sunk cost, or give the player an opt-out and risk those final bad years for the upside of at least several good ones.

    • Comfy_Wastelander 2 years ago

      Yeah, the team is already taking all the risk with a long, guaranteed contract. If the player somehow outperforms his giant salary or salaries overall surprisingly skyrocket, the team still loses out on a chance to make the long term deal look good because the player can just bail. The team will likely always end up extending the player again at the opt-out phase and get stuck guaranteeing huge money even further down the road.
      These deals are always hard for me to rationalize from the teams’ side, but -wow – they are a crazy-good deal for the players.

      • BlueSkyLA
        BlueSkyLA 2 years ago

        I’m sure the teams argue for paying less annually in exchange for taking the additional risk of an op-out clause. Nobody gets anything for free.

        • Comfy_Wastelander 2 years ago

          It doesn’t seem like it though. The salaries don’t seem to be below market value in any of the opt-out deals I can think of anyway. I could be wrong.

          • BlueSkyLA
            BlueSkyLA 2 years ago

            I would not say that the teams don’t understand that they are assuming most of the risk by giving players an opportunity to opt out if the market for the services improves. We may not easily see how this is reflected in the salary, but it must be.

          • Comfy_Wastelander 2 years ago

            I never said that teams don’t understand the risk. I just said that it is hard for me to understand it from their side. A-Rod and Sabathia didn’t sign at discounted rates.
            Really, I say good for the players (and their agents) for getting these deals. I like it when players get tons of money. They are a lot more fun to watch than the owners.

          • BlueSkyLA
            BlueSkyLA 2 years ago

            The problem is your assumption that you know what they would have been paid without the opt-out clause. All you can say, all anyone can safely say, is it would have been more. That is unless you seriously believe that teams are totally willing to accept all the risk for nothing whatsoever in return.

          • Comfy_Wastelander 2 years ago

            This might be the dullest conversation I’ve ever been in.
            Either you aren’t reading my posts very well or you just like creating strawmen to argue with. Each of your posts put words in my mouth and you seem to be scolding me for stuff that YOU are saying. I’m not sure who or what you are debating, but I hope it works out for you.
            You can have the last word. This is just way too tedious to keep responding to.

          • BlueSkyLA
            BlueSkyLA 2 years ago

            You are assuming that the teams are giving away these opt-outs for free. I seriously doubt it.

          • TheRealRyan 2 years ago

            I agree with comfy that it doesn’t seem like teams are getting a discount for opt outs. I also agree with you that teams aren’t giving these away just for free. To me, they seem more like sweeteners in getting contracts signed than true discounts. That is a lot of risk that gets put back on the team, rather than being shared by both parties signing long term deals.

          • Comfy_Wastelander 2 years ago

            I think the opt-out is the new no trade clause. It’s a status symbol that gets added to show off true elite status.

          • BlueSkyLA
            BlueSkyLA 2 years ago

            If the team is assuming more risk, and I agree that they are when they give the player an opt-out, then it has to be in exchange for some sort of quid pro quo. Maybe the player agrees to pay for an insurance policy against his ability to preform. I don’t know. I just know the teams aren’t just giving away something that, in the case of Kershaw, could easily cost them $60M for nothing.

    • LazerTown 2 years ago

      But maybe you better in the end.
      If Kershaw is still elite say if his opt out is in 5 years, you got 5 years of him without a decline, and can then cut ties.

      • Karkat 2 years ago

        Yeah, it takes a “crazy” amount of talent to command that sort of compromise

    • dieharddodgerfan 2 years ago

      I think opt outs are fine.

      Lets say Kershaw has an opt out after 5 years and pitches 5 great seasons for the Dodgers.

      If he opts out, then the Dodgers can re-sign him to an extension or let him walk. If he walks, the Dodgers still got 5 great years.

      Let’s say Kershaw’s next 5 years are very good, but not as good as his last 5 years. Then, Kershaw can opt to stick with his contract and the Dodgers still have a very good Kershaw who is only 30 and likely has a few good years left in him.

      Obviously worst case is Kershaw gets injured early into the contract, but that’s worst case for any contract.

  4. MB923 2 years ago

    Over or under $275 million?

    • LazerTown 2 years ago

      Eh, I’m split. Want to say that I don’t expect him to completely blow Verlander and Felix’s contracts out of the water, but on the other hand he will be 26, so it wouldn’t be that hard for a team to sign him for more than 10 years.

      In the end I think I will take the under, with an opt out, that in the end can net him more than the 275, but on another contract.

    • $3513744 2 years ago

      over. $400 :)

  5. LazerTown 2 years ago

    If he can get either of those, he really is nuts to turn them down. He could always get hurt this year and his value would just drop.

  6. brian310 2 years ago

    Please take them out of Tanaka sweepstakes! They still have to lock up Hanley too.

    • Jorden 2 years ago

      Dodgers wanting the Kershaw deal done this week, doesn’t indicate removing themselves from Tanaka sweepstakes.

      If anything it seems like they are positioning themselves for it.

  7. rct 2 years ago

    It sounds like a lot of money and ridiculous, but so do a lot of deals. The thing about the long-term deals is that the game and market changes so much over that time. Sure, a 12 yr, $300MM deal would have Kershaw making $25MM when he’s like 37, but it seems like only yesterday (16 years ago) that people were losing their minds over Kevin Brown’s $105MM contract.

    I don’t have much of a point except to say that things change so much in sports, especially in sports contracts.

    • LazerTown 2 years ago

      Yes, but the very elite contracts haven’t yet been increasing at the same level as the good but not elite. 5 years or so ago Ellsbury would probably get 15M, now he getting 22M. But Elite Arod got 25M back in 2000, and 10 years later an elite Pujols only got 24M. I think we need the next batch of Trout/Harper to become free agents before we see the next record breaking contracts.

      • rct 2 years ago

        I agree with you. But also, Arod sort of broke things wide open and destroyed the previous high (which I think was like around $17MM, which $25MM is like a 47% increase on).

        Now that many players are reaching Arod money, it’ll be interesting in the next few years (especially with the influx of new TV money) to see how far player salaries skyrocket.

  8. nepp 2 years ago

    Kershaw for $30 M AAV, Tanaka for another $20 M AAV and resign Hanley for another $20 M AAV…that’d be a payroll around $265 M roughly (obviously the AAV calculation would be a bit different)
    Add in the luxury tax penalty and that’s around $300 million probably. Sadly they could probably still turn a nice profit even at that level.

    • grabarkewitz 2 years ago

      Even with those contracts, none will be signed past their age 36 season. No paying some guy who is 43 $20+ million dollars. The scary thing is with that TV contract, they can still add a big contract at the deadline if they need a quick fix. If they do ink Tanaka and the more I read the more likely it looks like it will happen, they have some movable pieces if they are willing to eat substantial salary. Sure, it won’t affect the payroll much, but trading a Beckett or Ethier will add what Kasten wants, more young affordable prospects for the farm.

      • nepp 2 years ago

        It’s pure insanity…but not really bad business on their part as they’re still turning a profit.

      • DieHardMsFan 2 years ago

        Sorry to break it to you but no team will give up a good prospect for Beckett even if the Dodgers pay most of his salary. Likewise for Ethier as he is now a platoon player…. No way teams will give up cost controlled young talent for those two….

  9. MadmanTX 2 years ago

    Kershaw will say no because he wants to go back to Texas and be a Ranger.

    • Fallo 2 years ago

      Nope. What he wants is a shorter contract. 165/5 is my guess

      • Jorden 2 years ago

        Close. He wants the long contract, but able to opt out after 4-5 years.

        • Anthony Hughes 2 years ago

          Totally agree. He wants the opt out. That’s what this negotiation is about. Dodgers are more than willing to give him the AAV he wants. If it’s an 8-10 year deal for a crazy-high AAV, he’s set no matter what. He wants the ability, though, to become a free agent again at around 30-31, so that if the industry’s salaries continue to go way up, he can renegotiate again, a la Sabathia with the Yankees.

    • LazerTown 2 years ago

      $200M+ to live in Los Angeles, why would he want to go to Texas??

  10. NC 2 years ago

    Cap Time?

  11. Vmmercan 2 years ago

    My guess is they want it done by Friday so they know they don’t have to offer a contract on Tanaka. Thus making Tanaka a Yankee.

    • MB923 2 years ago

      Don’t be surprised to see the Angels make a huge offer to Tanaka as well.

      • Vmmercan 2 years ago

        I never bought into Mariner or D back rumors and I think the Yankees have a leg up on the Cubs.

        It really only leaves Angels, Dodgers and Yankees (I had a dark horse of the Giants but they don’t seem involved). If this theory is right, it leaves Angels and Yankees, which I’ve been going back and forth in a previous thread about. If he chooses the Angels it will be purely based on location to me and I still maintain, if the Yankees want to, they will outbid the Angels enough where it won’t matter. But that’s IF they want to.

        • MB923 2 years ago

          Don’t leave out the famous Mystery Team too

          • Vmmercan 2 years ago

            If the Phillies sign him, I may jump off a roof somewhere.

          • Karkat 2 years ago

            MYS always seems to make a splash, but when’s the last time they won a title?

          • Spencer James 2 years ago

            They’re always the favorites to sign someone. I mean who wouldn’t want to join the MYS, they have yet to lose a ballgame!

        • LazerTown 2 years ago

          Especially if his Celebrity wife wants to try to bring her career to the states. She is best off in LA or NY.

        • Trock 2 years ago

          I think it’s the Dodgers, Yankees or Cubs. Do not count the Cubs out. It really all depends on what Tanaka wants. If he isn’t really concerned about ‘contending’ right away, I expect the Cubs to outbid the Yankees if given the opportunity. If its about purely money, its either the Dodgers or Cubs.

    • vtadave 2 years ago

      They probably more want to avoid going to arbitration with a guy who should arguably have won the last three NL Cy Youngs. Can you imagine trying to defend a lower salary for a guy like Kershaw?

      • Vmmercan 2 years ago

        Lol, you can’t, I agree. But something tells me giving a guy around $300 million compared to maybe 20-25 million means a little more than trying to avoid arb.

  12. Kendrick Melo 2 years ago

    You could be god, but at this time I do not give a 10 year contract.

  13. Marktown 2 years ago

    Wait to hit free agency then come be a Ranger! Come home, Clayton. Come home!

    A fella can dream can’t he?

    • NoAZPhilsPhan 2 years ago

      In that case…Come home Mike Trout…come home…LOL

  14. Brien Alley 2 years ago

    So if they sign Kershaw for $300 million and end up signing Tanaka the Dodgers could end up spending half a billion dollars on two guys this week.

    • vtadave 2 years ago

      Don’t see Tanaka getting $200 million.

    • Vmmercan 2 years ago

      $400 million is way more realistic.

      • Brien Alley 2 years ago

        I’ve read that Tanaka bids are up to $140 million plus the posting fee of $20 million. $200 million is not out of the question of what the ending cost might be when you include incentives.

        • Vmmercan 2 years ago

          Source? I would be shocked if he got even within 25 million of 200 million with or without incentives.

        • dieharddodgerfan 2 years ago

          $200 million?! To Tanaka?!

          Lol, if it even gets to $140 mill. then I really hope the Dodgers are not in the conversation.

          IMO, that’s at least $40 mill more than what I think is a worthwhile risk, for any team.

        • Vmmercan 2 years ago

          Nice, now that Kershaw was signed for $215 million, you can feel free to explain to me how both of them comes anywhere near $500 million:)

          • Brien Alley 2 years ago

            Wow, you’ve really been thinking about me all day haven’t you?

          • Vmmercan 2 years ago

            Exactly one time. When Kershaw was extended.

          • Brien Alley 2 years ago

            Right. But if you read above our debate was on Tanaka not Kershaw. Had Kershaw gotten the $300 that was earlier reported and that you had no debate of… call me when Tanaka is signed.

          • Vmmercan 2 years ago

            Well no, if you read further above you’ll see our debate was you said it would take 500 million to get Tanaka and Kershaw and I said more like $400 million. Whether Kershaw got his $300 million or not doesn’t matter a lot because you were automatically assuming that was your starting point. If Tanaka goes for $185 million or less, I’m going to be quite accurate and unless he makes more than Kershaw, I’m afraid you won’t be.

      • Lionel Bossman Craft 2 years ago

        If the Dodgers say they will not be outbid by anyone (including the Yankees) for Tanaka, they will be spending in the neighborhood of $140 million for him not including the posting fee.

        • BlueSkyLA
          BlueSkyLA 2 years ago

          The quotes from people who are actually associated with the Dodgers have not said that, but in fact just the opposite.

  15. steve2345 2 years ago

    i can’t think of a $200+ million contract that has ever worked out in favor of a team. even the most recent ones are already not looking good. i know this is Kershaw, but the fact that $300 was/is being discussed is a bit ludicrous.

    • vtadave 2 years ago

      There have only been six – Arod 2X, Pujols, Cano, Fielder, and Votto. Yeah it’s ludicrous, but so is the thought of a rich franchise letting their marquee player walk.

    • Erik Trenouth 2 years ago

      A-Rod the first time worked production wise, especially for the Rangers, although they spent too much on him and not enough on the rest of the team. Votto and Cano haven’t had a chance to play for their new contracts yet, while Fielder and Pujols haven’t lived up to their contracts in either year. But for all big contracts, they are getting paid for what they have done before as well as a hope for the future.

    • DieHardMsFan 2 years ago

      To be honest A-Rods first contract was actually worth is the second 275 million dollar contract that the Yankees are now regretting ever giving ARod

  16. brian310 2 years ago

    They’ve got to start caring about money at some point right?

    • BlueSkyLA
      BlueSkyLA 2 years ago

      I’m sure they care about it right now. If they didn’t care about it, they’d have extended Kershaw and Hanley and signed Tanaka already.

  17. Comfy_Wastelander 2 years ago

    I really can’t wait to see the numbers on this. This situation is the perfect storm for a record-shattering contract: dominant, young starting pitcher on a team that has all the money in the world. Throw in Kershaw’s extensive charity work and easy Koufax comparisions and he looks like the perfect guy for the Dodgers to throw all their money at.
    I hope he gets a billion dollars.

  18. Ron Loreski 2 years ago

    I don’t care how young he is, its stupid to sign any pitcher beyond 7 years.

  19. MB923 2 years ago

    “ESPN’s Buster Olney says Kershaw and the Dodgers are “at the two- or the
    one-yard line” in terms of completing a record-setting extension”

    Give it 24 hours, otherwise it’s a delay of game and a 5 yard penalty and back to the 6 or 7 yard line

    • Commander_Nate 2 years ago

      You know the news is legit once references to other sports start popping up.

    • lefty177 2 years ago

      I was wondering if they were on their own 1-yard line or the other team’s?

  20. MB923 2 years ago

    A-Rod’s first contract actually ended up very well and in terms of WAR/$ he was underpaid 2001-2010, $250 mil, 69.6 WAR in that span and if they did $5 mil/1.0 WAR, that’s $348 mil.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if Kershaw got at or near the amount he get (let’s assume it’s $30 mil a year)

  21. UltimateYankeeFan 2 years ago

    The Dodgers aren’t going to allow Kershaw to move on as a FA. Whether they sign him to an extension now or sometime in the future is a forgone conclusion. Allowing Kershaw to get away over a few million dollars or an extra year or 2 would be a public relations nightmare for the Dodgers.

  22. The hating of the Dodgers for spending is a little old. Yes, they have more money than most teams. But they’re also spending to try to create a dynasty, which will lead to more money.

    Many teams have owners that can afford to raise payroll, which in theory raises the value of the brand if the team wins unless you’re Tampa Bay.

    It’s certainly a risk, but it’s hard to fault the Dodgers for trying. The new owners want to win now. Other teams can go all in if they want, but most would rather swim in their money bank of gold like Angelos does.

    • Teufelshunde4 2 years ago

      Dodgers didnt do themselves any favors by claiming they were going to win 15 division titles in a row before last season. If the Dodgers want to be a dynasty they need to take a page from Yanks and do it with class.

  23. slashieboy . 2 years ago

    No way he pitches close to those stats or gets close to that money if he was a pitcher in the American League. If you are a pitcher you better pray an NL-team draftes you because it will impact your career stats/earnings.

    • WhoKilledTheRallyMonkey 2 years ago

      Kershaw has benefited from being in the NL no doubt but the stats he is putting up are far better than other pitchers in the NL and AL. Kershaw is in NO WAY just a product of pitching in the NL!

    • What? You do realize what his stat line looks like in Inter-league play for his career right? I’m no Dodger fan, but that line of thinking is not accurate at all.

    • vtadave 2 years ago

      Last 3 years splits:
      NL: 2.22 ERA, 9.1 K/9, 2.3 BB/9
      AL: 2.10 ERA, 9.9 K/9, 1.2 BB/9
      I think he’d be okay in any league.

    • Puig Power 2 years ago

      LOL come on. Hes the consensus best pitcher in baseball. And that comes from the players mouths.

      • PoseyTheGreat 2 years ago

        … until the NLCS happens.

        • Puig Power 2 years ago

          In another thread I said that Kershaw was the closest thing to a perfect professional athlete. Sadly, there is no such thing as a perfect player. I am wise enough to understand this.

          • PoseyTheGreat 2 years ago

            Here’s proof of that: Kershaw’s career NLCS numbers: 0-3 7.23 ERA 18.2 IP. Matt Cain’s career NLCS numbers: 2-1 1.40 ERA 19.1 IP. Matt Cain’s career World Series numbers: 1-0 1.83 ERA 14.2 IP. Madison Bumgarners career World Series stats: 2-0 0.00 ERA 15 IP. Tim Lincecum’s career World Series numbers: 2-0 2.45 ERA 18.1 IP. Then we have Kershaw’s career World Series Stats: – — — —

          • Puig Power 2 years ago

            And I think a lot of that has to do with the Dodgers usage of the player. They need to keep him under 200 IP.

          • PoseyTheGreat 2 years ago

            Agreed. You can’t throw 230 innings in the regular season year after year. 30 of those should be saved for playoffs. because to get into the World Series, You’re asking Kershaw to approach over 260 IP. This is probably the biggest factor in dominant pitchers losing their edge. Simply too much mileage. I think mileage caught up with some of the Giants pitchers last season.

          • PoseyTheGreat 2 years ago

            I agree, You can’t expect someone to throw 230IP before playoffs start. It’s not reasonable to expect them to be as effective.

  24. monkeydung 2 years ago

    which one or two yard line?

  25. Jose Villasano 2 years ago

    its about time thats all i got to say

  26. dieharddodgerfan 2 years ago

    Knowing Kershaw’s agent, Casey Close, my guess is Kershaw gets 8 yrs/$240 mill with an opt out after 5 yrs.

    Then, Dodgers and Close will move on to Tanaka negotiations and Tanaka will get like 5 yrs/$90 mill.

    Dodgers rotation will be Kershaw, Greinke, Ryu, Tanaka and Haren for 2014.

    • Why would Tanaka sign for any less than $100MM? And I’m going to go with 10 years for Kershaw. Opt out might be closer to year 3 or 4.

      • dieharddodgerfan 2 years ago

        I don’t think it will get to 10 yrs, but it might. I think an opt out at the age of 30 makes a lot of sense. Gives Kershaw a chance for another big contract.

        I dunno that anyone is going to give Tanaka $100 mill.

        I mean if the Yankees bid 6 yrs/$120 mill, then I don’t think he’ll be a Dodger, but not sure the Yankees would go that high for a prospect who has never pitched in the majors.

        • Mark Tabello 2 years ago

          Tanaka will get upwards of $120-$150 million over 6/7 years. Not sure why you would think he gets so little when LA and NY are drooling over him

          Plus I think there are at least 12 teams that would hand over $100 million right now if that’s all it was going to take

          • dieharddodgerfan 2 years ago

            Because he hasn’t pitched in the U.S. yet.

            We’ll see if the Yankees go as big as the media suggests. I know the media WANTS them to, but when push comes to shove, not sure any team makes that type of commitment to Tanaka.

          • Mark Tabello 2 years ago

            I respectfully disagree. I would be really shocked at anything less than $120 million not counting the posting fee of an additional $20 million

          • dieharddodgerfan 2 years ago

            It could happen, but I think all these big dollar figures being thrown around are a little exaggerated. Not by a ton, but by still exaggerated.

          • UltimateYankeeFan 2 years ago

            It’s not just the Yankees and Dodgers that want him. It’s the Cubs and the Mariners just to name 2 others. Both of them have money to spend and both could use him. I know his stated preference to to play for either the Yankees or Dodgers according to reports but MONEY talks.

        • TheRealRyan 2 years ago

          I think there was a report yesterday that said the Cubs were prepared to offer a 9 figure contract. That already puts him at $100+ million.

          • dieharddodgerfan 2 years ago

            That may be true. Until we see actual figures, this is all media conjecture. And MLB reporters have not shown themselves to always be very accurate.

          • TheRealRyan 2 years ago

            Sure, unless we are in the negotiations ourselves, we can’t be sure what numbers are actually being thrown around. However, I would be very surprised if he doesn’t sign for at least $100 million.

            Tanaka currently has teams from the three largest media markets actively interested and pursuing him, not to mention another team, Seattle, who has one of the largest local TV deals also very interested. His contemporary, Darvish, cost a total of $112 million when he signed a few years ago. That was before the new national TV money came into the market and without him being a free agent, which Tanaka basically is.

            Tanaka currently is viewed as the best FA pitcher and has youth on his side. He also has the richest teams in MLB wanting him in a year where every team has had a large influx of new money. All of these factors make me think he will blow past $100 million and will probably sign for somewhere in the $120-140 million range.

    • UltimateYankeeFan 2 years ago

      With any sort of bidding competition Tanaka is looking at at least 6 years possibly 7 and $18 to 20MM per. Anything less then that and the agent (Close) hasn’t done his job.

      • Anthony Hughes 2 years ago

        This is just my opinion, but I’ve believed from the beginning that Tanaka is not going to just take the highest bid. This isn’t a usual MLB free agent. He’s leaving his entire country and culture behind. Comfort level is going to be hugely important in his decision. Now, I’m not saying he’s going to leave A TON of money on the table. Nobody is going to do that. But, let’s say the Yankees offered 6/$120, and the Dodgers offered 6/$110. If he truly feels more comfortable with the Dodgers, I believe he would sign there. And I also believe the opposite is true. If the Dodgers offered a little more money but he simply preferred the Yankees, I think he would go there.

        • UltimateYankeeFan 2 years ago

          I guess I would have to differ with you about what qualifies as a lot of money. I think $10MM over just 6 years is a lot of money. I think both the Yankees and Dodgers offer him the things he would look for: A large Asia Community, a chance to win and historic franchises although I think the Yankees have a slight advantage there. I think if it comes down to a choice between the 2 money will be the determining factor.

          • Anthony Hughes 2 years ago

            We simply have no way of knowing what would make him the most comfortable. Maybe the fishbowl NY media doesn’t appeal to him, but maybe he doesn’t care. Maybe the laidback LA media appeals to him, but then again maybe he wants the tenacity of the NY fans. I don’t view $10MM over 6 years as a big difference in money, not when there’s already $110MM on the table in this scenario.

    • WhoKilledTheRallyMonkey 2 years ago

      Why would Tanaka sign for 5/90? NYY will surely blow that offer out of the water.

      • dieharddodgerfan 2 years ago

        We’ll see. Maybe you’re right.

        Lol, if the Yanks blow 5yrs and $90 mill out of the water, then they can have Tanaka.

        Dodgers aren’t going to go crazy, IMO.

        • PoseyTheGreat 2 years ago

          Dodgers aren’t going to go crazy? Have you seen their recent spending habits?

  27. Mark Tabello 2 years ago

    Amazing how a lot of the people saying the Dodgers couldn’t get Kershaw extended now resort to complaining and whining. Go complain to your owners to put the money on the field and not in their pockets. Plain and simple , put up or shut up!

  28. Fleer Carll 2 years ago

    Great for Kershaw, but this sounds like a terrible idea for the Dodgers. If he ever does something like tear his rotator cuff, his career could be over, and the Dodgers are on the hook for his entire salary.

    • Mark Tabello 2 years ago

      That’s why teams insure contracts

    • UltimateYankeeFan 2 years ago

      Not entirely, I’m sure the Dodgers would get insurance on him which would probably allow the Dodgers to recover 80 to 90% of any salary due to loss of playing time due to that type of injury.

      • Fleer Carll 2 years ago

        That makes it a lot more palatable, then. I’m sure that he would be worth at least $30m/year through the first five years.

      • Fleer Carll 2 years ago

        You obviously know more about this than me. What if he goes all ‘Tommy Hanson’ and is still able to pitch after an injury, but he isn’t the same pitcher after the injury. Would insurance cover that?

        • vtadave 2 years ago

          Nope, but teams like the Dodgers can afford to have a #4 starter making $30 million while other teams (Rays) trade these types of guys away in order to minimize that sort of risk.

        • UltimateYankeeFan 2 years ago

          If he’s able to pitch just not the same pitcher after recovering from an injury the Dodgers are stuck unless he decides to retire.

  29. blaiseda 2 years ago

    i dont understand why a team would extend out 10 to 12 years without requesting a per year discount from the player. i know the thinking is in 6-10 years out a top flight starter is going to go for more than the current annual rate, so the player is in theory “discounting” his services in years 6-10. But that’s not nearly enough of a discount for the value of guarenteed money the player gets. No way kershaw continues to pitch as well as he has the past three years, for the next 10. No modern pitcher has ever put up those numbers for that long, including PED users. Koufax who probably had the longest continuos dominent pitching streak was only that good for five straight years. And then his elbow blew out.
    Good luck with this Dodgers. Please sign all of your stars to long termn oer the top deals. I Think Puig deserves $18M/yr for the next 12 years. Yeah that works fo rme.

    • TheRealRyan 2 years ago

      Pedro Martinez had a seven year run 1997-2003, his age 25-31 seasons, that were much more dominating than Kershaw’s last three. Kershaw is only going into his age 26 season, so there is a possibility that we still haven’t seen his best yet. He could have a Pedro-esque run in him.

      In the 12 years covering Pedro’s age 26-37 seasons, he was worth about 63.5 WAR. If Kershaw can match that type of production, even using a conservative 5.5 million/WAR puts his value at about a 12/350 contract. I know his extension is going to be insane, but if there is any pitcher out there to give it to, it’s Kershaw.

  30. LooksEasyOnTV 2 years ago

    I’m not sure what Buster means by being on the one or two yard line. Does he mean that they are on third with nobody out?

  31. PoseyTheGreat 2 years ago

    If you can’t win a title by outspending the league. Spend more. I get the strategy here.

    • Cam Hodgson-Dwyer 2 years ago

      What’s the alternative here? Let Kershaw walk into Free Agency?

      • PoseyTheGreat 2 years ago

        I’m referring to the pursuit of adding another $100M player by getting Tanaka when their rotation is already solid.

        • Cam Hodgson-Dwyer 2 years ago

          Tanaka threads are over that way ———->

          • PoseyTheGreat 2 years ago

            $300 Million for Kershaw is not that much less ridiculous.

  32. Sean Taylor 2 years ago

    Why is Sabathia’s original Yankee deal + extension never mentioned as the largest guarantee? It’s $191m in total.. Or more if the option year kicks in.

    • WhoKilledTheRallyMonkey 2 years ago

      Because it is two separate contracts not 1 contract for 191 Mil. Felix received one contract for 175 Mil and Verlander received 1 contract for 180 Mil.

  33. IseeyouHanley 2 years ago

    It’s an awesome time to be a Dodgers fan.

    • Kev D7 2 years ago

      Words seldom spoken by dodgers fans in late October.

      • IseeyouHanley 2 years ago

        Really? Do you live in L.A. and go to a lot of Dodgers games?

        • jsprague 2 years ago

          When was the last time you watched a Dodgers game in late October? 1988? I think that’s his point.

  34. Seth 2 years ago

    I am pretty certain Hank Steinbrenner is running the Dodgers from his grave. Let’s offer everyone a long term deal.I can’t think of anyone who has remained healthy after signing a long term deal.

    • start_wearing_purple
      start_wearing_purple 2 years ago

      I think you mean George. Hank’s alive and currently running the yanks.

  35. Douglas Bath 2 years ago

    so probably 1 million per game he plays in. or $25 per ticket in games he plays in.

  36. dieharddodgerfan 2 years ago

    If Stan Kasten is saying he’s hopeful an extension is getting done by Friday to the media, then I would say the likelihood of an extension happening soon is very likely.

    Kasten usually does not comment on negotiations so his comments now speak volumes, IMO.

  37. MadmanTX 2 years ago

    $300 mil for Kershaw and then at least $125 mil (if 7 years at $15mil per & $20 posting fee)…don’t tell me that doesn’t impact your budget, especially when you pass the luxury tax line.

    • John Cate 2 years ago

      Oh, it will. In five years, the Dodgers will be a 90-loss team with a $200 million payroll and no way to get out of the mess until those bad contracts expire.

      • IseeyouHanley 2 years ago

        What bad contracts? Greinke and Ryu are bad contracts? Adrian Gonzalez and Carl Crawford did a great job for the dodgers last season. Matt Kemp was hurt for one year ( dodgers made the playoffs without him) Puig’s $42mm is a bad contract? Extending Clayton Kershaw is a bad idea?

        The only bad contract they have is for Brandon League, is that the bad contract that will make the dodgers a 90- loss team in five years?

      • GameMusic3 2 years ago

        Actually the contracts expire in those 5 years, except a few.

        • John Cate 2 years ago

          At the rate they’re going, they’ll have several more by the time that A-Gon, Hanley, Ethier, and Kemp are off the books. They’re going right down the same path that the Yankees went, and the new rules are going to do the same thing to them. They might get a championship or two along the way, but at a very high price.

    • IseeyouHanley 2 years ago

      Don’t worry, Kershaw will still visit Texas.

  38. koufaxblue 2 years ago

    We’re getting ready for a touch down with Kershaw.

  39. TheNextEpstein 2 years ago

    Not sure how small market teams are going to be able to compete when this much money is thrown around. Twins, Royals, Indians, Rays, Orioles, Jays, A’s, D’Backs, Pirates, Brewers, Reds and Padres must be cringing at these dollar figures. Basically these teams have to Ace every draft to field a competitive team.

    • dieharddodgerfan 2 years ago

      If small market teams draft and develop well, then they can compete with big market teams. The Rays and A’s are prime examples of that.

      That said, a rotation of Kershaw, Greinke, Ryu, Tanaka and Haren would be tough for any team to match up against.

      Then again, look at the St. Louis Cardinals’ home grown pitching depth. It may be just as good, or better.

      I think we will see less and less ace type of starters hitting the free agent market as teams look to lock up their stars so I don’t think big market teams will be to just buy talent like it has been.

      • TheNextEpstein 2 years ago

        I do agree the Rays and A’s are prime examples of development. But when those high profile players on the smaller market teams leave for more money to bigger clubs theres no guarantee that talent is going to be back in the farm system to replace those players.

        Development gets teams to competitive but rarely does it lead to a championship. Its a competitive advantage that the smaller market teams cannot match. That’s all I was stating. The playing field is not level as is the case in the NFL or NBA.

        Smaller market teams can’t afford to pay Kershaw the money to stay, so the rich overpay for the player because they can and the smaller market team is left to restock the roster from the minors. The dodgers are genious because they not only utilize free agency but they also have a deep farm system for restocking. A strategy the Yankees should apply more.

        • BlueSkyLA
          BlueSkyLA 2 years ago

          The small-market teams are also forced to trade many of their top players during their arbitration years.

    • John Cate 2 years ago

      The same way they can compete now. If the Dodgers give Kershaw this deal, what’s he going to be like in five years? In eight years? At the end of the contract? The answer is that he’s going to have declined considerably and he will be an albatross on their payroll, like the Yankees’ contracts with people like A-Rod, Sabathia and Teixeira, and the luxury tax will keep the Dodgers from buying their way out of the hole just like it has for the Yankees.

      You don’t need to ace every draft. You just need to come up with a quality MLB player or two every year, and if you have a decent scouting department, you can do that. The Rays have been sucking the prime years out of young players for years and then flipping them so someone else can pay for their decline years.

  40. MB923 2 years ago

    7 year/$215 million

    • dieharddodgerfan 2 years ago

      Great news for all Dodgers fans!

      Reportedly, Kershaw has an opt out after 5 years. Makes sense.

      Now, we just need to reel in Tanaka!

    • BlueSkyLA
      BlueSkyLA 2 years ago

      Including a buyout for this year, or beyond?

      • Visionsofsilver 2 years ago

        The ESPN article I read doesn’t say. Just says 7/125 with an opt out after year 5.

  41. JCurrie39 2 years ago

    I just read 7/215

    • Matt Mccarron 2 years ago

      I can’t see him signing for between 2-8 years without a opt out. 7 years would put him at age 32, leaving him to young a incentive based deal, and too old for a big contract. I predict he gets 9/261M AAV 29M

  42. Phillyfan425 2 years ago

    At the point where they can create a salary cap, without creating a salary floor. Which will (should) never happen. If you’re going to penalize people for spending “too much”, you should also penalize the people who spend “too little” yet still reap the benefits of those who spend too much (revenue sharing, getting an extra pick in competitive balance draft rounds).

    You will most likely have a much easier time getting the high payroll GM/owners (Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox, Phillies) agreeing to a cap than you would getting the low payroll GM/owners (Rays, A’s, Marlins, Pirates) agreeing to a floor.

  43. BlueSkyLA
    BlueSkyLA 2 years ago

    I agree with everything you said, except for the solution. What is needed isn’t a salary cap or changes to the awkward luxury tax, but a more equitable revenue sharing model, particularly for media contracts.

  44. Ji Qi 2 years ago

    In fact, the draft pick will be 1s, usually between 25-40.

  45. dieharddodgerfan 2 years ago

    I personally would not be against a hard cap, but I think the ONLY way you get the players’ association to agree to that is to institute a HARD FLOOR for all teams as well. Meaning teams have to spend at least X amount of dollars.

    Bottom line is the players want their money. Instituting only a hard cap reduces the money they can get. Instituting a floor can help to guarantee the players more money.

  46. NoAZPhilsPhan 2 years ago

    Salary cap caused the 93 strike…I doubt we will see one in our (well my) lifetime.

  47. dieharddodgerfan 2 years ago

    I agree. Players’ union will likely never agree to a salary cap.

Leave a Reply