Clayton Kershaw signs a 7-year $215 million extension with Dodgers

[RedOctober3829]

@ramonashelburne: The Dodgers and Clayton Kershaw have agreed on a seven year, $215 million contract, sources have told ESPN. Out after five

https://twitter.com/ramonashelburne/status/423562658629963776

 

[Curll]

Worth every penny. Good for Kershaw.

 

[StuckOnYouk]

Massive contract, but the guy is a massive stud and the Dodgers have a boatload of money and can't spend it fast enough.
 
In case there was a 5% chance he was going to hit the market and NY was going to splurge, it looks like those hopes are dashed thankfully.
 
Doubt this affects Tanaka but who knows.

 

[glennhoffmania]

Kershaw's awesome.  But that contract is insane. 

 

[rembrat]

Now can we pay Jon Lester?

 

[Kliq]

If the Dodgers are going to spend a shitload of money, they might as well give it to the best pitcher in baseball. Only Trout would command a bigger long term contract and actually be worth it.

 

[koufax37]

I don't think the contract is insane (bad idea), even though it is clearly insane (crazy to think about).
 
Kershaw is pretty darn different from any of the other $100M+ pitchers, and you are buying his 26-32 seasons.  He has no big injury history, and easy non-violent mechanics that wouldn't indicate probability of them (like Lincecum).
 
He becomes contract-wise the A-Rod of pitchers, with an historically huge contract which lets him be free soon enough that he might eventually sign a bigger one (although I think that contract would be more likely to be the overpay).
 
Injury risk is definitely always there for any pitcher and seven years is a lot, but I wouldn't put it past Kershaw to earn every penny.

 

[glennhoffmania]

For perspective, here are the largest contracts in history:
 
1. Alex Rodriguez, $275,000,000 (2008-17)
2. Alex Rodriguez, $252,000,000 (2001-10)
3. Albert Pujols, $240,000,000 [SIZE=78%](2012-21)[/SIZE] 
. . . Robinson Cano, $240,000,000 [SIZE=78%](2014-23)[/SIZE]
5. Joey Votto, $225,000,000 [SIZE=78%](2014-23) [/SIZE]
6. Prince Fielder, $214,000,000 [SIZE=78%](2012-20) [/SIZE]
7. Derek Jeter, $189,000,000 (2001-10)
8. Joe Mauer, $184,000,000 (2011-18)
9. Mark Teixeira, $180,000,000 (2009-16)
. . . Justin Verlander, $180,000,000 (2013-19)
 
So Kershaw will rank 6th and be the top pitcher, beating out Verlander by $35m.
 
By AAV (pitchers only):
 
1.  Justin Verlander, $25,714,286[SIZE=78%] (2013-19)
2. Felix Hernandez, $25,000,000 (2013-19)
3. Zack Greinke, $24,500,000 (2013-18)[/SIZE]
4. CC Sabathia, $24,400,000 [SIZE=78%](2012-16) [/SIZE]
5. Cole Hamels, $24,000,000 [SIZE=78%](2013-18)[/SIZE]
 
So Kershaw will top Verlander by $5m per year.

 

[bankshot1]

Now can we pay Jon Lester?

I don't know can we?

AAV of ~ $30MM for Kershaw
record-breaker

 

[Eck'sSneakyCheese]

IN-SANE. IMO, this is getting out of hand. Kershaw is a fantastic pitcher but no one is worth $30 mil a year. No one. They need to put a cap on this. Like a max contract in basketball.

 

[soxhop411]

IN-SANE. IMO, this is getting out of hand. Kershaw is a fantastic pitcher but no one is worth $30 mil a year. No one. They need to put a cap on this. Like a max contract in basketball.


You think 30 mil is high. Just wait for the trout contract.

 

[JimD]

Now can we pay Jon Lester?

 
More importantly, does he even want to sign now?  Free agency must be looking pretty tempting to him.

 

[terrisus]

Granted it's a bit shorter length of a contract than some of the other mega-deals, but still...
$30 million+ per year? Wow.

 

[glennhoffmania]

What's interesting is that it's exactly $5m more per year than Verlander's deal and for the same length.

 

[terrisus]

Now can we pay Jon Lester?

 
 

 
More importantly, does he even want to sign now?  Free agency must be looking pretty tempting to him.

 
Lester is also nearly 6 years older than Kershaw.
And, as good as Lester has been, it definitely doesn't compare to Kershaw.
 
Not to say he isn't going to get a fortune as well, but not sure how much the Kershaw contract matters for that.

 

[dbn]

Back in 2011, a friend of mine was given a pair of tickets to sit in the Dugout Club at Dodgers Stadium. (It was freakin' awesome, btw.) It was the game in which Kershaw beat Lincecum 2-1 to become the Dodgers first 20-game winner in 21 years. At game's end, we discovered that the group sitting in the row in front of us, with whom we'd been chatting, was the Kershaw family. They seemed really nice. Good for Clayton.

 

[Average Reds]

IN-SANE. IMO, this is getting out of hand. Kershaw is a fantastic pitcher but no one is worth $30 mil a year. No one. They need to put a cap on this. Like a max contract in basketball.

 
With the local broadcast deals that teams are signing, many franchises are awash in cash.  Which would seem to indicate that not only are these contracts not insane, but that they are logical.
 
More to the point, let me ask you a practical questions:  Why would the MLBPA agree to limits on what teams can pay players when there are no limits on how much a franchise can earn through broadcast rights? 

 

[mt8thsw9th]

Lester is also nearly 6 years older than Kershaw.

They should use this deal as a starting point and subtract a year off for each year of age difference between the two.

Get it done, Ben!

 

[mabrowndog]

Dave Cameron had the deal projected at 7/$230M. He now figures the lower AAV was a trade-off for adding an opt-out after year 5 when Kershaw is 30 years old.

 

[mabrowndog]

Also, today marks 933 days since the Dodgers filed for bankruptcy. (h/t to Ben Lindbergh)

 

[mabrowndog]

Andrew Hirsh ‏@andrewhirsh
The #Dodgers are going to pay Clayton Kershaw more money in 2014 than the Astros paid their entire MLB roster last year.

 

[Dehere]

So, about a million per start. Not too shabby.

 
Came here to post the same thing.
 
Objectively, I get it. If any team is awash in RSN money it's the Dodgers and they must compete for a championship every year if their new RSN is going to be successful.
 
But on some level....god damn. It's hard to process. Dude is going to make more for every out recorded that most Americans make in a year.

 

[Average Reds]

Also, today marks 933 days since the Dodgers filed for bankruptcy. (h/t to Ben Lindbergh)

 
Of course, that was really just a ploy by Frank McCourt who filed for bankruptcy after MLB placed the franchise in receivership because he was running it into the ground. 

 

[dbn]

What's the Dodgers' payroll going to be for 2014? BP has them at $212M for 19 players before the Kershaw deal. The first Google result I found was this, which has them at $260M before the Kershaw deal, which shocked me into looking for another source...
 
(edit about that site: their figure includes $28M of arg estimates with C. K. at $18M, which accounts for some of the difference.)

 

[Dan to Theo to Ben]

If there's any pitcher that should get that high a contract, it's Kershaw. Best (minimum top 2) relatively young pitcher in the game, probably best pitcher. Huge market, huge stadium (both in terms of capacity (potential of ticket sale revenue) and pitcher's advantage, competition a few miles to the south. It makes perfect sense for the beneficiary of this contract to be CK.
 
Overpaying for top talent won't hurt you, it is overpaying for mediocre talent that will.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Ben Lindbergh was on Clubhouse Confidential today talking Kershaw and had a stat which showed that the only two pitchers who have had an ERA+ higher than Kershaw's through age 25 (min. 1000 IP) were Walter Johnson and Smoky Joe Wood.  Based on that stat, he's arguably the best young pitcher of the live ball era.  Two Cy Young awards already on the mantle as well.  Hard to argue he isn't the best pitcher in the game right now, and no one this side of Mike Trout is worth that kind of investment.

 

[Lowrielicious]

 
With the local broadcast deals that teams are signing, many franchises are awash in cash.  Which would seem to indicate that not only are these contracts not insane, but that they are logical.
 
More to the point, let me ask you a practical questions:  Why would the MLBPA agree to limits on what teams can pay players when there are no limits on how much a franchise can earn through broadcast rights? 

Agreed on this. I'd rather the supremely talented guys that I actually pay to see play are getting their fair slice of the pie rather than owners pocketing the majority.

 

[Hoplite]

Worth every penny. Good for Kershaw.

 
Is he worth every penny? I imagine Scherzer will get considerably less despite the fact that his park adjusted/league adjusted statistics are nearly identical.
 
2013
Kershaw - 6.5 WAR, 68 FIP-, 76 xFIP-
Scherzer - 6.4 WAR, 66 FIP-, 80 xFIP-
 
2012-2013
Kershaw - 11.9 WAR, 72 FIP-, 80 xFIP-
Scherzer - 11.0 WAR, 72 FIP-, 79 xFIP-

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

 
Is he worth every penny? I imagine Scherzer will get considerably less despite the fact that his park adjusted/league adjusted statistics are nearly identical.
 
2013
Kershaw - 6.5 WAR, 68 FIP-, 76 xFIP-
Scherzer - 6.4 WAR, 66 FIP-, 80 xFIP-
 
2012-2013
Kershaw - 11.9 WAR, 72 FIP-, 80 xFIP-
Scherzer - 11.0 WAR, 72 FIP-, 79 xFIP-

 
Scherzer is also four years older and is only just showing that level of productivity in the two years you cite.  Kershaw's last four years have each been on par with or better than Scherzer's 2013, which was easily his best.

 

[Spacemans Bong]

I think Scherzer's delivery makes him a more questionable long term bet, plus he's four years older and has a shorter record of elite performance.


Also, Kershaw has 14 rWAR over the last two seasons to Scherzer's 7.1. I don't think I'd have Scherzer that low, but I prefer reference's reading of Kershaw's ability.

 

[Hoplite]

Scherzer is also four years older and is only just showing that level of productivity in the two years you cite.  Kershaw's last four years have each been on par with or better than Scherzer's 2013, which was easily his best.

 
I think you're exaggerating the difference a little bit. In 2010, Kershaw had a 91 xFIP- and a WAR of 4.5. Kershaw really came in to his own in 2011, and Scherzer came in to his own in 2012.

 

[Eck'sSneakyCheese]

 
With the local broadcast deals that teams are signing, many franchises are awash in cash.  Which would seem to indicate that not only are these contracts not insane, but that they are logical.
 
More to the point, let me ask you a practical questions:  Why would the MLBPA agree to limits on what teams can pay players when there are no limits on how much a franchise can earn through broadcast rights? 

I understand that the teams are getting more money from the broadcasting rights but there's still the 189 million dollar cap before the luxury tax. To spend roughly one-sixth of that on one player doesn't seem very logical.
 
I suppose in the Dodgers case they're making so much money in broadcasting they can say "screw it" to the tax, which they obviously are, but it still doesn't seem like good business practice or something that's going to be good for baseball in the long run. Having that much money wrapped up in one player just doesn't seem very smart. What happens if he gets hurt?
 
To answer your question, the players association would never agree to put a cap on contracts. It's to no benefit for them. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be done though.

 

[Hoplite]

I think Scherzer's delivery makes him a more questionable long term bet, plus he's four years older and has a shorter record of elite performance.


Also, Kershaw has 14 rWAR over the last two seasons to Scherzer's 7.1. I don't think I'd have Scherzer that low, but I prefer reference's reading of Kershaw's ability.

 
I strongly prefer fWAR to rWAR when trying to judge which pitcher had the more repeatable performance. rWAR uses raw runs allowed and then tries to adjust for it with Total Zone, which is a bit antiquated.

 

[Average Reds]

I understand that the teams are getting more money from the broadcasting rights but there's still the 189 million dollar cap before the luxury tax. To spend roughly one-sixth of that on one player doesn't seem very logical.
 
I suppose in the Dodgers case they're making so much money in broadcasting they can say "screw it" to the tax, which they obviously are, but it still doesn't seem like good business practice or something that's going to be good for baseball in the long run. Having that much money wrapped up in one player just doesn't seem very smart. What happens if he gets hurt?
 
To answer your question, the players association would never agree to put a cap on contracts. It's to no benefit for them. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be done though.

 
Yeah, actually it does.

 

[Adrian's Dome]

I understand that the teams are getting more money from the broadcasting rights but there's still the 189 million dollar cap before the luxury tax. To spend roughly one-sixth of that on one player doesn't seem very logical.
 
I suppose in the Dodgers case they're making so much money in broadcasting they can say "screw it" to the tax, which they obviously are, but it still doesn't seem like good business practice or something that's going to be good for baseball in the long run. Having that much money wrapped up in one player just doesn't seem very smart. What happens if he gets hurt?
 
To answer your question, the players association would never agree to put a cap on contracts. It's to no benefit for them. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be done though.

 
It can and should be done. Unfortunately, the result of that would be the rich getting even richer, as the owners would never hand some of that money back to us (the fans) in the form of lesser TV contracts, cheaper merchandise, or cheaper tickets. It'd just line their pockets more.

Who would you rather get the money, the owners or players? It sure won't be us.

 

[mabrowndog]

I understand that the teams are getting more money from the broadcasting rights but there's still the 189 million dollar cap before the luxury tax. To spend roughly one-sixth of that on one player doesn't seem very logical.
 
I suppose in the Dodgers case they're making so much money in broadcasting they can say "screw it" to the tax, which they obviously are, but it still doesn't seem like good business practice or something that's going to be good for baseball in the long run. Having that much money wrapped up in one player just doesn't seem very smart. What happens if he gets hurt?
 
To answer your question, the players association would never agree to put a cap on contracts. It's to no benefit for them. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be done though.

 
Their deal with Time-Warner Sports is for 25 years and $7 billion. That's BILLION with a B. The Dodgers' annual net take is $280,000,000 on the team's local broadcasting rights alone, revenue that isn't shared with anyone else in the league. That's before we get to ticketing, merchandising, stadium advertising, concessions, parking, and shared revenues from MLB licensing and the league's TV contracts (ESPN, FOX, TBS).
 
LAD's committed payroll for 2014 is now $238,189,205 in salary and prorated bonuses. They still have arb cases pending for Kenley Jansen and A.J. Ellis, which MLBTR projects at $4.8M and $3.2M respectively. They've also got a net positive cash influx of $5.864M ($6.864M from the Punto trade, while paying $1M in deferred salary to Juan Uribe under his previous contract).
 
If the arb figures prove correct, their 2014 AAV's will total $249.033M for the 25-man roster. Subtract the $5.864M cash, then add $11.8M for benefits, ~$4M for in-season call-ups from the 40-man at the MLB minimum salary ($500k), and $1.8M for minor leaguers, and their salary cap figure comes to $259,169,000. As this will be their second straight year exceeding the threshold, they'd be taxed at the 30% rate on the $70M overage for a bill of $21M, or about 4 months' worth of Kershaw.
 
That's a relative drop in the bucket. The Dodgers don't give a flying rat's fuck about the luxury tax, nor should they. It's merely part of the cost of doing business, just another line item on the ledger. If they fail to get back below the threshold for 2015 and 2016 (the final two years of this system under the current CBA), which appears highly likely, they'd be taxed at 40% and 50% respectively. And they STILL won't give a flying rat's fuck.
 

 
Of course, that was really just a ploy by Frank McCourt who filed for bankruptcy after MLB placed the franchise in receivership because he was running it into the ground. 

 
Oh, I know. But I still love the situational juxtaposition.

 

[Eck'sSneakyCheese]

 
It can and should be done. Unfortunately, the result of that would be the rich getting even richer, as the owners would never hand some of that money back to us (the fans) in the form of lesser TV contracts, cheaper merchandise, or cheaper tickets. It'd just line their pockets more.

Who would you rather get the money, the owners or players? It sure won't be us.

 
Well, there would have to be some financial restraints put on the teams and ownership as well. Just capping the players isn't going to make a bit of difference if there isn't some sort of revenue sharing. As it stands now the small market teams are getting royally fucked. Kershaw alone makes more money than the entire Astros team and only about 6 mil less than the Marlins.
 
 

 
Their deal with Time-Warner Sports is for 25 years and $7 billion. That's BILLION with a B. The Dodgers' annual net take is $280,000,000 on the team's local broadcasting rights alone, revenue that isn't shared with anyone else in the league. That's before we get to ticketing, merchandising, stadium advertising, concessions, parking, and shared revenues from MLB licensing and the league's TV contracts (ESPN, FOX, TBS).
 
LAD's committed payroll for 2014 is now $238,189,205 in salary and prorated bonuses. They still have arb cases pending for Kenley Jansen and A.J. Ellis, which MLBTR projects at $4.8M and $3.2M respectively. They've also got a net positive cash influx of $5.864M ($6.864M from the Punto trade, while paying $1M in deferred salary to Juan Uribe under his previous contract).
 
If the arb figures prove correct, their 2014 AAV's will total $249.033M for the 25-man roster. Subtract the $5.864M cash, then add $11.8M for benefits, ~$4M for in-season call-ups from the 40-man at the MLB minimum salary ($500k), and $1.8M for minor leaguers, and their salary cap figure comes to $259,169,000. As this will be their second straight year exceeding the threshold, they'd be taxed at the 30% rate on the $70M overage for a bill of $21M, or about 4 months' worth of Kershaw.

 
So if they were under the tax limit they'd be saving themselves around $90 mil this year? I understand that they don't give a shit. But it's pretty stupid.

 

[Dehere]

It can and should be done.



I'm partly just playing devils advocate, and we can take this to a different thread if that's appropriate, but why do you think a cap on player salaries should be done?

 

[zeraza]

I think it's worth it. 
 
The Dodgers can afford it.
 
Kershaw is 25. 25!
 
They get the 26-32 years of Kershaw, the peak years.
 
People may not realize it, but he's the best pitcher in baseball right now. Kershaw has the lowest ERA of any starter through age 25 with min. 1000IP not named Walter Johnson and Smoky Joe Wood. In other words, in all of the modern era. (He's also only second to Mariano Rivera)
 
He's already won 2 Cy Youngs, arguably should've won a third.
 
And he can opt out for another payday at age 30 (if he's worth it) or the Dodgers are only on the hook for 2 more years. It's a win-win

 

[Average Reds]

 
Well, there would have to be some financial restraints put on the teams and ownership as well. Just capping the players isn't going to make a bit of difference if there isn't some sort of revenue sharing. As it stands now the small market teams are getting royally fucked. Kershaw alone makes more money than the entire Astros team and only about 6 mil less than the Marlins.
 

 
How exactly are the Marlins and Astros getting fucked?  Both teams are rolling in cash.  They just refuse to spend it.
 
 

 
So if they were under the tax limit they'd be saving themselves around $90 mil this year? I understand that they don't give a shit. But it's pretty stupid.

 
So what you are saying is that without looking at the Dodgers balance sheet you know what is smart and stupid for their business? 
 
Everything you are saying in this thread is incoherent.

 

[MentalDisabldLst]

What would the balance sheet have to do with anything?  You could get a pretty good sense for why the Dodgers will make more (net) money paying Kershaw $30M than they would by going cheap and staying under the tax limit, just by looking at their P&L.  As in, the incremental revenues from all the national and regional attention from their winning and being relevant in the championship race in the next 5 years.
 
The fact that Adrian Gonzalez and Carl Crawford may make significant contributions to this pending run of contention by the Dodgers is a little surreal, but those contracts are far more likely to weigh down the franchise than this new one for Kershaw.

 

[Orel Miraculous]

Eck, your stance is ridiculous.  It's not like these teams are going into debt to sign these guys, so what problem are you trying to solve, exactly? The money is there, so it might as well go to the players instead of the owners.
 
Oh, and  

 
 
Well, there would have to be some financial restraints put on the teams and ownership as well. Just capping the players isn't going to make a bit of difference if there isn't some sort of revenue sharing. As it stands now the small market teams are getting royally fucked. Kershaw alone makes more money than the entire Astros team and only about 6 mil less than the Marlins.
 
 
 
So if they were under the tax limit they'd be saving themselves around $90 mil this year? I understand that they don't give a shit. But it's pretty stupid.
 

 
Neither the Astros nor the Marlins is a small market team.  And even the teams that are truly in small markets (Cincinnati, Milwaukee, etc.) are making plenty of money.  Your argument sounds like nothing more than "argghhh, these guys get paid millions to play a damn game!!" but that ship sailed decades ago.

 

[Eck'sSneakyCheese]

 
Neither the Astros nor the Marlins is a small market team. 
 
Your stance is confusing. It's not like teams are going into debt to sign these guys, so what problem are you trying to solve, exactly?  The money is there, it's better that the players get it than the owners.

 
Didn't mean for it to imply that they were small market teams. They just had the lowest payrolls for 2013.
 
Was trying to make the point that if salaries continue to increase then the teams with less revenue or less to spend are never going to be able to keep their talent or compete for big name free agents. It's not a new problem. It happens now. I think the money being given out/spent is ridiculous regardless of who's getting it.
 
 

 
So what you are saying is that without looking at the Dodgers balance sheet you know what is smart and stupid for their business? 
 
Everything you are saying in this thread is incoherent.

 
What? 

 

[sfip]

The amount of this contract is no surprise. Kershaw's agent is Casey Close, the same guy who convinced the Phillies to sign Ryan Howard's extension.

 

[Average Reds]

What would the balance sheet have to do with anything?  You could get a pretty good sense for why the Dodgers will make more (net) money paying Kershaw $30M than they would by going cheap and staying under the tax limit, just by looking at their P&L.  As in, the incremental revenues from all the national and regional attention from their winning and being relevant in the championship race in the next 5 years.
 
The fact that Adrian Gonzalez and Carl Crawford may make significant contributions to this pending run of contention by the Dodgers is a little surreal, but those contracts are far more likely to weigh down the franchise than this new one for Kershaw.

 
I rushed and said "balance sheet" but yeah, I meant income statement.
 
The point is that to say that it's "pretty stupid" to sign Kershaw without any sense of the revenue (and profits) he will help them generate is ridiculous.

 

[HurstSoGood]

If I had to invest huge bucks in a player, Clayton Kershaw is as good a bet as any.  In lieu of this being another "LA" story, I found it interesting to compare Clayton's record deal with his entertainment cousins in Hollywood. I could never get my head around some of these insane MLB contracts (over the last 10-20 years), considering we "Average Joe's" deal with raises in increments of cents/hour. I couldn't understand why the highest MLB player contracts were being jacked up by hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars (over the comparative next-best player, etc.) I realize the introduction of lucrative tv/media deals have had a role, but some of the ownership decisions are still just asinine.
 
Kershaw's deal would place him just outside of the Hollywood Top 10 (Top paid actors: June 2012-2013).
Robert Downey Jr. $75M
Channing Tatum $60M
Hugh Jackman $55M
Mark Wahlberg $52M
Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson $46M
Leo DiCaprio $39M
Adam Sandler $37M
Tom Cruise $35M
Denzel $33M
Liam Neeson $32M

 

[Gagliano]

And even the teams that are truly in small markets (Cincinnati, Milwaukee, etc.) are making plenty of money. .


I was always curious about this- what defines a small market? Cincinnati whines about it constantly, but 1) the surrounding population that feeds the park is 4 million, 2) their park was taxpayer financed, and 3) their closest competition is Cleveland, Detroit and Pittsburgh.

 

[PrometheusWakefield]

IN-SANE. IMO, this is getting out of hand. Kershaw is a fantastic pitcher but no one is worth $30 mil a year. No one. They need to put a cap on this. Like a max contract in basketball.

Why?

You prefer executives to get rich at the expense of players?

 

[Orel Miraculous]

I was always curious about this- what defines a small market? Cincinnati whines about it constantly, but 1) the surrounding population that feeds the park is 4 million, 2) their park was taxpayer financed, and 3) their closest competition is Cleveland, Detroit and Pittsburgh.

 
There are lots of different ways one could define a team's market.  With the importance of TV contracts in baseball these days, the best measure might be Designated Market Area, which measures the amount of people in a given area who receive the same television programming.  By that metric, Milwaukee and Cincinnati--the 34h and 35th biggest DMAs in America, respectively--are the two smallest markets in MLB.  And given that both of those clubs have put together playoff teams in recent years and Cincinnati just gave Votto more total money than the Dodgers just gave Kershaw, it's absurd for anyone to suggest that the small market teams are "getting royally fucked."  

 

[Eck'sSneakyCheese]

 
I rushed and said "balance sheet" but yeah, I meant income statement.
 
The point is that to say that it's "pretty stupid" to sign Kershaw without any sense of the revenue (and profits) he will help them generate is ridiculous.

 
Not what I said. It's pretty stupid to not give a shit about the tax. The amount Kershaw is getting is insane.
 
In what world are the Yankees and the Red Sox trying to get under the "cap" and the Dodgers are being logical by being $70 mil over it? 
 
 

Why?

You prefer executives to get rich at the expense of players?

 
Seriously...