Dodgers Offered Kershaw $300M

[eaterfan]

Clayton Kershaw won 14 games this year and lost 9. The year before he won 16 games and lost 9. His ERA was .7 runs better this year.

[tdawg87]

He was basically a .500 pitcher with an unremarkable ERA until 2011. I want to see more than three years of top level production before I anoint him one of the all time greats.

 

This can't be a serious post.

[YouthofToday]

Until Kershaw wins 20 games I question his will to win, want and grit.

[James]

Until Kershaw wins 20 games I question his will to win, want and grit.

Absurd comment. 

[AngelsAndRamsFan]

Absurd comment. 

You really thought he was being serious?

[Troll Daddy]

YOT is just stating the obvious. Although wins should never be disregarded.

Shameless

Edited October 21, 2013 by Troll Daddy

[Brent Maguire]

As has been stated even the best pitchers pitch only every 5th day and only 7 innings at that. Not worth more than $10 million.

I agree with the basis that position players should be valued more than pitchers but 10 million a year for a guy like Kershaw is a joke. He's on his own level of dominance right now. 

[Vegas Halo Fan]

I agree with the basis that position players should be valued more than pitchers but 10 million a year for a guy like Kershaw is a joke. He's on his own level of dominance right now. 

 

Not saying he's not worth a lot or he's a scrub, but $30M per?

[Brent Maguire]

Not saying he's not worth a lot or he's a scrub, but $30M per?

For a team with resources like the Dodgers have, it's a move that makes sense for them. Keeping a homegrown, elite talent around for 10+ years is a good move for them. 

[mp170.6]

I'm not sure I would sign a $300 million deal over 12 years either. 

 

Frank McCourt might be gone but the new Dodgers ownership is just as reckless with their money.  Nobody will want Kershaw's contract via trade.  That likely means (1) Kershaw is stuck with the Dodgers for the duration, (2) the team might be headed for years of failure, much like the Angels, and (3) the team could be headed for bankruptcy if they keep spending money at this rate.

 

Before anybody says that bankruptcy is unlikely this time around, don't forget the Dodgers are counting on $6 billion in revenue from Time Warner over 25 years.  If that company is operated anything like their cable TV business, then it's pretty much a sinking ship.

[mancini79]

Zero chance Dodgers would ever go bankrupt under Guggenheim. The Guggenheim Group is worth a ridiculous amount of money. This is why they overpaid for the franchise and brought on a huge payroll. These owners want to win at all costs because they can. Even if Guggenheim miraculously were to run out of money, MLB will back the club.

 

Who cares if Kershaw gets $300m. If the Dodgers feel he is worth it on and off the field, then go for it. By signing star players they aren't only playing for their talents on the field, but also what they bring to strengthen the franchise's brand.

[YouthofToday]

I'm not really worried about the Dodgers. They aren't going to go bankrupt. Their TV deal will deliver baring a complete catastrophe in fan interest, an economic collapse or an act of Congress allowing folks to pay for their cable bill a la carte.

[mp170.6]

Zero chance Dodgers would ever go bankrupt under Guggenheim. The Guggenheim Group is worth a ridiculous amount of money. This is why they overpaid for the franchise and brought on a huge payroll. These owners want to win at all costs because they can. Even if Guggenheim miraculously were to run out of money, MLB will back the club.

 

Doesn't matter how much money "Guggenheim" is worth.  They don't have pooled assets like a regular corporation does, and the partnership is a subsidiary organized as Guggenheim Baseball Management.  So if the Dodgers need cash, they can't automatically tap into Guggenheim's other business ventures. 

[Hoops McCann]

Great pitcher but a lot of miles on his young arm.  Giving long deals like this to any player, but especially a pitcher is usually not a good idea; however, if there is one pitcher in the game that is likely worth it, he would seem to be it.

[mp170.6]

I'm not really worried about the Dodgers. They aren't going to go bankrupt. Their TV deal will deliver baring a complete catastrophe in fan interest, an economic collapse or an act of Congress allowing folks to pay for their cable bill a la carte.

 

There's reason to be concerned for all teams' TV deals.  Look how much television has changed in recent times.  DirecTV has only been operational since 1994. The "normal" means of transmission and advertising are going to change dramatically in the next 25 years. 

 

The legacy cable and satellite providers are going to get their asses kicked by Google, Apple, and Amazon when it comes to advertising and subscription revenue. 

[Splint7438]

Thanks Eric. Some of that has to do with dodgers fans being so close to Vegas. I stand corrected even so.

[ten ocho recon scout]

Doesn't matter how much money "Guggenheim" is worth. They don't have pooled assets like a regular corporation does, and the partnership is a subsidiary organized as Guggenheim Baseball Management. So if the Dodgers need cash, they can't automatically tap into Guggenheim's other business ventures.

Good point.

I think the dodgers are fine on money (right now). But theplayers they have locked up will need to be replaced before their contracts are up.

The main point I think people keep missing is that the partnership that bought the team isn't a bunch of guys from dodgerswin.com that won the lotto and are all about glory. Its a bunch of rich people that purchased an asset to becoming more rich...

Its like target saying 'screw it, lets lower profit to totally dominate other stores'. Its not going to happen. The ownership wants to win, yes, but more importantly they want to make money.

I have no idea what their profit margin is. But I think its safe to assume after locking up kershaw, they won't be in on huge deals for another two years or so (when their big contracts are coming to an end). Supposedly they want to extend hanley. Sure, I can see thst too.

After doing so (hanley and kershaw), they're payroll is going to be suject to huge taxes. Maybe they're fine with that, but if its true the media deal gives them 250 a year, and payroll+tax are something like 330 a year.....yeah, they'll still make money on merchandise, but enough to make the shareholders happy? We shall see.

[eaterfan]

Good point.

I think the dodgers are fine on money (right now). But theplayers they have locked up will need to be replaced before their contracts are up.

The main point I think people keep missing is that the partnership that bought the team isn't a bunch of guys from dodgerswin.com that won the lotto and are all about glory. Its a bunch of rich people that purchased an asset to becoming more rich...

Its like target saying 'screw it, lets lower profit to totally dominate other stores'. Its not going to happen. The ownership wants to win, yes, but more importantly they want to make money.

I have no idea what their profit margin is. But I think its safe to assume after locking up kershaw, they won't be in on huge deals for another two years or so (when their big contracts are coming to an end). Supposedly they want to extend hanley. Sure, I can see thst too.

After doing so (hanley and kershaw), they're payroll is going to be suject to huge taxes. Maybe they're fine with that, but if its true the media deal gives them 250 a year, and payroll+tax are something like 330 a year.....yeah, they'll still make money on merchandise, but enough to make the shareholders happy? We shall see.

 

Most owners don't own teams to make money. If they wanted to make money there are far better investments than sports franchises. A lot of these guys are smart and have better things to do to make more money. The ones that do make money are obvious and run things on the cheap, Loria, Sarver, etc.

 

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/6874079/

Edited October 22, 2013 by eaterfan

[ten ocho recon scout]

Disagree eater. NOBODY invests that kind of coin not wanting to make something from it. Nintendo didn't buy the mariners to help sell video games. Disney didn't purchase us and the ducks to not make money off the brand.

That said, it also helps tax wise reporting a loss to offset other income. So thsts something the dogs owners might view as a reason to spend big and not profit.