That's interesting. It's probably reading too much into it, but it kinda sounds like they are looking for more time to convince him to stay.The Dodgers have extended Clayton Kershaw’s opt out deadline to Friday at 4pm.
Or working out extension details. That’s my prediction.That's interesting. It's probably reading too much into it, but it kinda sounds like they are looking for more time to convince him to stay.
As I understand it they mutually agreed to extend the deadline. That means to me that they recognize that they're making good progress on a deal, but recognize that it might take an extra 24 hours to hammer out the other important details.The Dodgers have extended Clayton Kershaw’s opt out deadline to Friday at 4pm.
Yeah, this is why I don't think he hits the market, he is worth more to LA than he is to anyone else and vice-versa. Since they are already on the hook for 2/70, an extension to 4/110 or 4/120 probably makes sense both ways, Kershaw's number comes down a bit and he gets two more years.One of the things I find very interesting about guys' pages at baseball-reference. com are the salaries. Look up most any player who was good for several or even just a few years in the 1950's or 1960's, for example. You see a whole lot of guys who get paid BIG money for the time, on short term deals well after it's clear they've lost it. Players used to get paid, sort of irrationally, for what they'd done not what they were going to do.
Is that Kershaw now? His fastball dropped a couple mph this past year to probably below average. He still had a good year though with some DL time off. Would you want to put $30 million per year out there on a bet that he won't continue to get hurt and won't lose any more velocity?
Aren't there a lot of parallels to the Cardinals and Albert Pujols situation where the Cards could see that Alberts OPS had gone down something like 4 straight years and now he was a certain age annnnnnd they had to at least look like they were seriously trying to keep him. But did they really want to re-sign him?
He's had a lot of back problems too and missed time each of the last three seasons, averaging around 160 innings.I know his velocity is down but I’m genuinely shocked it’s only an additional year. That’s really weird.
But the Dodgers aren’t risking that. The last two years and $65 MM on the original deal are replaced, so the additional investment in him is $28 MM. From the sounds of this, he wasn’t going anywhere and I can’t say that I blame him. Seems like a win-win.The diminished velo is a red flag to me. Kershaw doesn't look like the same guy. Maybe the cheese comes back, maybe it doesn't. $93 Million is a lot to risk. I'm curious to know what kind of money other clubs would have put up had he opted out. While he's still young, he has thrown 2250 IP regular season and post combined.
I mean, if he wasn't going anywhere, then he had no leverage, and they could have just kept him for the 2 years on his original contract and resigned him for whatever's he's worth then. Which will most likely be less than 28 mil per year. But I've always loved watching him, so hopefully his body holds up and he regains his dominance. But I fear we're looking at mid-2000s Pedro.But the Dodgers aren’t risking that. The last two years and $65 MM on the original deal are replaced, so the additional investment in him is $28 MM. From the sounds of this, he wasn’t going anywhere and I can’t say that I blame him. Seems like a win-win.
http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/25158754/clayton-kershaw-agrees-3-year-93-million-deal-stay-dodgers
No leverage except for that whole opt-out thing that prompted the re-negotiation in the first place. His leverage was that he could walk away and sign somewhere else.I mean, if he wasn't going anywhere, then he had no leverage, and they could have just kept him for the 2 years on his original contract and resigned him for whatever's he's worth then. Which will most likely be less than 28 mil per year. But I've always loved watching him, so hopefully his body holds up and he regains his dominance. But I fear we're looking at mid-2000s Pedro.
walk away to where? Who's paying him anything close to 34 mil?No leverage except for that whole opt-out thing that prompted the re-negotiation in the first place. His leverage was that he could walk away and sign somewhere else.
Unless he expects to retire at 33, it’s total package, not aav, that he’d most likely be concerned about. I’m pretty sure he could have gotten more than $93M. To your direct question I’m also pretty sure the Yankees would have given him close to that. But, as fallback, there’s always one dumb team or GM trying to save his job out there.walk away to where? Who's paying him anything close to 32 mil?
Shouldn't this be reversed? If he's not going to retire at 33, then he can get another contract after this so AAV should be more important.Unless he expects to retire at 33, it’s total package, not aav, that he’d most likely be concerned about.
Not if he burns out or has a career ending injury. Grab the most money you can while you can, when you can. If he left, let’s say, 5/$140 (which is still way low imo) on the table elsewhere and then his back gives out or he goes Lincecum, he’s left a lot of money in the table.Shouldn't this be reversed? If he's not going to retire at 33, then he can get another contract after this so AAV should be more important.
The current system, which took effect after Ohtani signed with the Angels last offseason, is similar in that the player gets 30 days to negotiate with any and all MLB teams. The release fee is now a percentage of his contract, however. Here are the release fee rates:
Ohtani was only able to sign a minor league contract last offseason because his age made him subject to MLB's international spending restrictions. That severely limited his earning potential. (The Angels paid Ohtani a $2.315 million bonus.) That does not apply to Kikuchi. He can sign a guaranteed MLB contract of any size.
- Contract worth $25 million or less: 20 percent of total guarantee
- Contract worth $25 million and $50 million: $5 million plus 17.5 percent of amount over $25 million
- Contract worth $50 million: $9.375 million plus 15 percent of amount over $50 million
Also, under the current system players can only be posted between November 1 and December 5, with the full 30-day negotiating window to follow. That ensures the entire process will not drag out until later in the offseason and hold up the rest of free agency. Tanaka, for example, was not posted until January.
Haniger, Segura, Cano (if they're willing to eat a ton of salary). Gonzalez, Diaz, and Leake should draw some interest on the pitching side.is there anyone besides Paxton that would fetch any real value?
To get around the fancy titles which have caused confusion around here before, Zaidi has essentially left a glorified assistant GM job for a GM job. (Officially, he left his job as the Dodgers' general manager under their President of Baseball Operations Andrew Friedman to become the Giants' President of Baseball Operations.)Farhan Zaidi leaves the Dodgers front office to take the Giants GM job, that seems like a really big deal with him going to their main rivals.
Boras signaled a switch to first base in a radio interview with mlb radio. No surprise. His outfield defense has deteriorated markedly, his legs are not what they were.Harper rejected an “aggressive” offer from the Nats late in the season that included no opt-outs but was less than $400 million.
Is anyone actually going to pay $400 million for a decade of a first baseman whose offense has been boom and bust? Especially when it's an admission of physical decline at just 26 years old? When the final contract is signed, I think he's going to regret turning down the $300 million guarantee from Washington unless he has no intention of staying there.Boras signaled a switch to first base in a radio interview with mlb radio. No surprise. His outfield defense has deteriorated markedly, his legs are not what they were.
I think it was maybe a PR move that they knew he wouldn't accept, I bet if he circles back to them they will offer less. They have Soto, Robles and Eaton in the OF, Ryan Zimmerman at 1B for $18M for one more year, and no DH in the NL.I wouldn’t, but all it takes is one, recognizing that teams seem to be getting smarter.
Effectively, I think the Nats have made their first, best and last offer. They are not going to wait around and play the Boras game of pushing this well into the offseason.
Impossible to prove, but I think they want him. He’s a foundational player for this franchise. Assuming he doesn’t transition to 1B next year, it would free them to trade Robles for other needs, esp SP.I think it was maybe a PR move that they knew he wouldn't accept, I bet if he circles back to them they will offer less. They have Soto, Robles and Eaton in the OF, Ryan Zimmerman at 1B for $18M for one more year, and no DH in the NL.
Is there a GM that is more in Boras’ pocket than Rizzo? I think he’s a very good GM but there a pretty long track record there.Impossible to prove, but I think they want him. He’s a foundational player for this franchise. Assuming he doesn’t transition to 1B next year, it would free them to trade Robles for other needs, esp SP.
But Rizzo is not going to play the Boras game. So unless he is undercut by ownership, we’re probably done.
I do think they leaked the offer, a quite respectable offer, for PR purposes.
I am happy the Red Sox have neither the need nor the resources to fish in these waters.
Any chance Cashman would try to spin off Stanton and go after Harper?
I mean, it's possible, the Dodgers have a ton of catching depth and NY could really use one or two of those guys, but Stanton is signed with an $22M/year AAV and is a better defensive OF than Harper by all accounts. NY could certainly use a big lefty bat in the middle of all of those righties but that seems like a risky upgrade for a lot more money (let's assume it is 10/$350 for the sake of this discussion and that might be low).Any chance Cashman would try to spin off Stanton and go after Harper?
Is the bolded true? I thought Stanton was generally considered to be a butcher in the field. I’m terrible at looking up advanced defensive stats/ratings, so I may be way off base here.I mean, it's possible, the Dodgers have a ton of catching depth and NY could really use one or two of those guys, but Stanton is signed with an $22M/year AAV and is a better defensive OF than Harper by all accounts. NY could certainly use a big lefty bat in the middle of all of those righties but that seems like a risky upgrade for a lot more money (let's assume it is 10/$350 for the sake of this discussion and that might be low).
No, he's always been solid to good and had surprisingly good UZR numbers last year, look at the UZR and UZR/150 numbers here:Is the bolded true? I thought Stanton was generally considered to be a butcher in the field. I’m terrible at looking up advanced defensive stats/ratings, so I may be way off base here.
This is true.It isnt Rizzo that is in Boras' "pocket" but the ownership team. I would not be surprised to see him going straight to the LErners to keep the Nats in it all offseason
Thanks for the info. I had no idea.No, he's always been solid to good and had surprisingly good UZR numbers last year, look at the UZR and UZR/150 numbers here:
https://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=4949&position=OF#fieldingadvanced
This is why Cashman chose him over going after JD Martinez last year, he thought they were comparable offensively and Stanton was a much better OF option.
Also Harper was horrendous this past season by defensive metrics, maybe a bit of a fluke but pretty scary if you are the team signing the $300-$400M deal.
CBS thinks it was more like $350m.Harper rejected an “aggressive” offer from the Nats late in the season that included no opt-outs but was less than $400 million.
It's not a surprise that the Nationals would try to make sure Harper didn't hit free agency, but this is still pretty interesting. An aggressive offer here likely tops Giancarlo Stanton's record $325 million contract, so the hunch is the Nats went with something like 10 years and $350 million.