Clayton Kershaw signs a 7-year $215 million extension with Dodgers
- Thread starter RedOctober3829
- Start date
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
1) The "lower-revenue" teams benefit from the league revenue sharing arrangement, whereby licensing and league broadcasting income gets distributed. The new deals with ESPN, FOX and TBS will more than double the average per-team national TV revenue, from about $25.5M each to $56.7M.
2) The "lower-revenue" teams are also the primary beneficiaries of the luxury tax payouts, which totaled nearly $40 million last year (from the Yankees and Dodgers).
3) The "lower-revenue" teams are also basking in newfound local TV revenue. While not nearly on the scale of the Dodgers (7/$3B), Angels (20/$3B), Rangers (20/$3B), or Phillies (25 yrs and at least $2.5B), the Padres are getting $60M to 70M a year in addition to owning 20% of the network. The Indians will get $40M a year from FOX for the next decade while maintaining an equity stake. Meanwhile, the Astros now own 46% of Comcast Sports Houston. Despite being carried in only about 40% of regional households (due to stalled negotiations with DirecTV, Dish, T-W, AT&T and other carriers), their projected local TV revenues are around $80M annually. And the courts recently granted them the right to dissolve that agreement, so look for them to improve on that figure.
For comparison, the Red Sox make an estimated $60M a year from NESN just on broadcasts of their games (yup, less than the Padres), while the Yankees fetch about $90M from games on YES. (This doesn't include revenues from other pro or college sports, or any additional programming).
The only teams that appear to be royally fucked are those like the Royals and Rays, who signed far less lucrative deals 5+ years ago before all the bidding wars erupted, whose deals run for another half decade or more, and who have no out clause. KC's contract pays just $20M a year through 2019, and they're stuck.
But, not really. The massive increase in shared revenue still allows them and others to be players in free agency. Maybe not for the Kershaws and Ellsburys, but they're no longer limited to scraping up the oozing detritus from the bottom of the swamp. KC picked up the $13.5M option on Shields. The Rays were able to extend Evan Longoria last year. The Astros' front office has said they plan to increase payroll by at least $30M over 2013. And as Orel noted above, the Reds handed Votto the keys to Fort Knox. Ditto for the Twins with Mauer.
Virtually every team in MLB -- even the A's and Rays in their decrepit piece-o-shit stadiums -- can afford a $100M payroll if they want to, and that's plenty enough to field a quality team. They're only limited by how much profit they want to keep in their pockets, how much they'd prefer to invest in other areas of operations (stadium improvements, etc.), and how handcuffed they might be by any albatross contracts dished out to busts. And as both those clubs have proven, you can absolutely build annual playoff contenders without breaking the bank. And, as the Yankees, Mets and Cubs have proven, big-city teams breaking the bank on player salaries is no guarantee of perpetual dominance.
Bear in mind that the new draft slotting system provides a far more equitable distribution of amateur talent. Teams that suck will have an easier time of rebuilding strong farm systems, provided they make smart draft choices and have a little luck on their side (avoiding serious injuries and stalled development). None of the 30 teams can seriously claim that they can't afford to pay top draft picks. Sure, there'll be the occasional high school stud who decides he'd rather play in college for 4 years and take his chances on being drafted by a big-market club rather than signing with the Royals who were planning to make him the #1 pick. But those cases will be the exception going forward.
So enough of the Chicken Little bullshit. Every single MLB club has its wallet open.
I appreciate the well thought out and informative post mbd. Even with the chicken little comment. I just wanted to add that there are 21 teams with TV contracts under $50 mil with the Pirates and Marlins being the lowest at $18mil, just to give a broader scope to what you were saying.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/dodgers-could-be-last-team-to-strike-gold-with-local-tv-deal/ This is a great article that sums the whole thing up.
It doesn't change the fact that I think spending $30 mil on one player is crazy.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/dodgers-could-be-last-team-to-strike-gold-with-local-tv-deal/ This is a great article that sums the whole thing up.
It doesn't change the fact that I think spending $30 mil on one player is crazy.
Or that Paul Krugman is right and a 70 percent marginal tax rate wouldn't be the worst thing . . .terrisus said:
Did I just say that?
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
The max contract in basketball is terrible. Awful. It has created a system that perpetually undervalues real stars. In what universe should John Wall, Eric Gordon and Rudy Gay (not to mention Stoudemire or Arenas) make around the same amount as Durant, LeBron, Rose, or Harden?
My reaction to the contract wasn't that Kershaw doesn't deserve it. If anyone does, he's the guy. What floored me was how much more he got than anyone else ever has. He'll be paid 20% more than the next highest paid pitcher in history. I was surprised that it took such a huge relative increase to sign him before he even hit FA. The Dodgers have the cash so they may as well spend it. He just blew the market out of the water though and it's bound to have a trickle down effect.
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
Was it crazy -- or free enterprise -- for the six main cast members of Friends to EACH be paid a million dollars PER EPISODE? And that was a dozen years ago. Was it unfair to the other networks or TV show producers? Or was it a case of the stakes being higher because of the enormous revenues and profits being generated by the show's popularity? Obviously it wasn't a question of them being worth it, because NBC ponied up.
How about Robert Downey Jr. being paid $50 million to star in Iron Man 3? After all, it was just a movie, right? So was it crazy? Or is it a reasonable expenditure by the studio and fair compensation for the actor? I mean, it grossed more than $1.2 billion at the box office, and there's no telling yet how many additional hundreds of millions will be generated by merchandising, licensing, DVD sales, streaming media, etc.
Clayton Kershaw is the very best ON THE PLANET at his chosen profession, That isn't a matter of debate, it's an indisputable fact. And you believe his right to maximize his earnings in an incredibly lucrative and profitable industry should be capped? Why, because it's somehow unfair to the woefully mismanaged Pirates and Marlins and their shitty local TV contracts? Despite the fact that revenue sharing from MLB's national deals will pay each of them well in excess of their team deals?
Please.
All MLB teams shared in the $450 million proceeds from the sale of the Montreal Expos in 2006. It was collectively invested in a hedge fund that's worth more than $1 billion today.
MLB Advanced Media generates $600M in revenue annually, again shared league-wide. It's valued at $6 billion as an entity.
The national TV deals are worth a total of $12.4 billion through 2021.
I'm not sure how I can be any more clear about this, but there are no poor teams in major league baseball. The revenues every team sees, right down to the crappiest of the crappy clubs in the smallest of the small markets, are nothing short of ridiculous. Sure, some teams make more than others, but that's like taking pity on the Saudi oil prince who only drives a $1.3M Maybach Landolet while his Kuwaiti counterpart cruises around in a $4M Lamborghini Veneno.
"Crazy" in the "I think this will hamstring the Dodgers' ability to build a competitive team" sense I understand as analysis, but I think is wrong given the financial situation of the Dodgers. Even if you think the current TV contracts are a bubble, the money seems to be guaranteed from the Dodgers' point of view.
"Crazy" in the "these kinds of contracts will affect small market teams' ability to sign players and therefore build competitive teams" sense is also wrong I think, since baseball despite not having a salary cap has a good amount of parity in outcomes. In the last five years, the following teams have made the playoffs:
Boston, Tampa, Detroit, Oakland, Cleveland, NYY, Baltimore, Texas, Minnesota, LAA
St Louis, LAD, Pittsburgh, Atlanta, Cincinnati, SF, Washington, Milwaukee, Arizona, Philly, Colorado
So 21 out of 30 (70%) franchises have seen postseason games in 5 seasons. (20 if you don't count Wild Card games.) Extend it back to 10 years and it's 25 out of 30 (Houston, CHC, CHW, San Diego). So the only 5 franchises who have been so bad that they didn't even make the playoffs in the last 10 seasons are: Miami (won it all in 2003), Seattle, Kansas City, the Mets, Toronto. Which is to say - the only team which can really play the "we didn't have success because we're a small market team" card is Kansas City.
As a comparison, the NFL has had the following record in the same period:
Denver, Atlanta, New England, San Francisco, Houston, Green Bay, Baltimore, Washington, Indianapolis, Seattle, Cincinnati, Minnesota, New Orleans, NYG, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Chicago, Philly, KC, NYJ, San Diego, Dallas, Arizona, Tennessee, Carolina, Miami.
Which is slightly higher (25 out of 32 or 78%) but on the other hand, NFL playoffs are larger with 12 teams getting in. If you compare rounds of 8 (divisional playoffs), the comparison becomes: 20 out of 30 in 5 years for baseball, or 18 out of 32 (56%) for football (Dallas, Minnesota, Arizona, New Orleans, NYJ, San Diego, Baltimore, Indianapolis, New England, Pittsburgh, Green Bay, Atlanta, Seattle, Chicago, NYG, San Francisco, Denver, Houston).
"Crazy" in the "no player should be paid $30 million because I just don't think people should get that kind of money" sense is just strange. Salary caps in the NFL don't seem to have translated into higher levels of parity, or lower prices for fans.
"Crazy" in the "these kinds of contracts will affect small market teams' ability to sign players and therefore build competitive teams" sense is also wrong I think, since baseball despite not having a salary cap has a good amount of parity in outcomes. In the last five years, the following teams have made the playoffs:
Boston, Tampa, Detroit, Oakland, Cleveland, NYY, Baltimore, Texas, Minnesota, LAA
St Louis, LAD, Pittsburgh, Atlanta, Cincinnati, SF, Washington, Milwaukee, Arizona, Philly, Colorado
So 21 out of 30 (70%) franchises have seen postseason games in 5 seasons. (20 if you don't count Wild Card games.) Extend it back to 10 years and it's 25 out of 30 (Houston, CHC, CHW, San Diego). So the only 5 franchises who have been so bad that they didn't even make the playoffs in the last 10 seasons are: Miami (won it all in 2003), Seattle, Kansas City, the Mets, Toronto. Which is to say - the only team which can really play the "we didn't have success because we're a small market team" card is Kansas City.
As a comparison, the NFL has had the following record in the same period:
Denver, Atlanta, New England, San Francisco, Houston, Green Bay, Baltimore, Washington, Indianapolis, Seattle, Cincinnati, Minnesota, New Orleans, NYG, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Chicago, Philly, KC, NYJ, San Diego, Dallas, Arizona, Tennessee, Carolina, Miami.
Which is slightly higher (25 out of 32 or 78%) but on the other hand, NFL playoffs are larger with 12 teams getting in. If you compare rounds of 8 (divisional playoffs), the comparison becomes: 20 out of 30 in 5 years for baseball, or 18 out of 32 (56%) for football (Dallas, Minnesota, Arizona, New Orleans, NYJ, San Diego, Baltimore, Indianapolis, New England, Pittsburgh, Green Bay, Atlanta, Seattle, Chicago, NYG, San Francisco, Denver, Houston).
"Crazy" in the "no player should be paid $30 million because I just don't think people should get that kind of money" sense is just strange. Salary caps in the NFL don't seem to have translated into higher levels of parity, or lower prices for fans.
1. I think this is an excellent deal for both parties, as has been pointed out above a few times. If any pitcher's worth it, Kershaw is.
2. I don't think a salary cap works unless there is also a salary base - otherwise, there will always be owners paying bargain basement prices and reaping profits without putting a legitimate team out there (see Major Leagues psycho-crazy bitch owner - obviously realistic)
3. Regardless of what I said in number 2 above, I hate (HATE) seeing people post things like "the players should get all the money, screw the owners." The owners are putting up the money and have the risk of dealing with possible lost revenues, while the players have guaranteed contracts. Yes, they're billionaires paying millionaires, but it's not like they should only be breaking even - it's a business. Do away with taxpayer subsidies, though.
4. Holy fuck, $30M per year. Every year as bigger and bigger contracts are signed, I wonder (like many others, I'm sure) what Ted Williams, Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, Walter Johnson, and so many others would command in free agency today.
2. I don't think a salary cap works unless there is also a salary base - otherwise, there will always be owners paying bargain basement prices and reaping profits without putting a legitimate team out there (see Major Leagues psycho-crazy bitch owner - obviously realistic)
3. Regardless of what I said in number 2 above, I hate (HATE) seeing people post things like "the players should get all the money, screw the owners." The owners are putting up the money and have the risk of dealing with possible lost revenues, while the players have guaranteed contracts. Yes, they're billionaires paying millionaires, but it's not like they should only be breaking even - it's a business. Do away with taxpayer subsidies, though.
4. Holy fuck, $30M per year. Every year as bigger and bigger contracts are signed, I wonder (like many others, I'm sure) what Ted Williams, Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, Walter Johnson, and so many others would command in free agency today.
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
That article is from July and is already obsolete, as the Phillies (one of the teams identified as not being able to count on exploiting the boom in local TV deals) just signed a massive new cable deal.
As far as the topic of this thread is concerned, I have no problem with your perspective on Kershaw's contract. But don't try to rationalize your emotional response by saying things that are easily disproved, like the notion that small market teams are fucked in this environment, or that the Dodgers are stupid for believing that the value in rebuilding their brand after Frank McCourt tried to kill it is greater than the savings they would reap from staying under the cap. And don't resort to saying that MLB has to cap individual contracts for the good of the game when you know damn well that it's just not going to happen. It insults us all.
I've been a baseball fan for about 45 years now and there have always been a core of people who believed that the game was on the verge of ruin because player salaries were escalating beyond reason. Back in 1969, it was Bowie Kuhn telling players that if the reserve clause was abolished, "we're all out of business." In 1981, Ruly Carpenter sold the Phillies for $33 million because "you can't make money in baseball anymore." In the mid 90s, Bud Selig tried to contract Minnesota and Montreal because they couldn't compete.
What all these people had in common was a lack of vision. They couldn't envision a future where the popularity of baseball and/or sports programming would create revenue opportunities that would not only justify the seemingly outlandish salaries but make them seem cheap compared to the revenue generated by the sport. This is why free agency didn't ruin the sport - it pushed the owners to innovate and search for new revenue sources to afford the best players. And today's mega-contracts aren't going to ruin the game in an environment where the Astros make more from their local TV contract that the Red Sox.
Most of us here are fans of the Red Sox, and we've been trained to look for value in player contracts. But not every team follows this plan, and while I'm a believer in what the Sox are doing, I can also see that each team's situation is unique and they have to do what they think is best. But let's not kid ourselves - the Sox are eventually going to have to open the vault for one of their players if they want to keep him on the team. It won't be Lester because he doesn't have Kershaw's talent and he's not 25. But if Xander turns out to be the player we hope he is, it might very well be him.
Kershaw's contract is stunning. It's also worth it, IMO.
I would guess that the next CBA --- the push from the owners will be to increase the luxury tax to 100%. It would make sense that the tax is modified not only by the number of years the team is over the cap number, but by the % the team is over. For example: a team 25% over the cap number pays 75% tax, A team 50% over the cap number pays 100% tax, etc. I would think this would be tough for the players to fight against since it would affect only 1-2 teams and the ability to spend a magnitude over other teams threatens baseball's competiveness. If a couple very rich teams don't care and are spending 400 million while the cap is at 189-200 million it could make competitiveness much more of a sham than it is currently.
In my lifetime said:
And I would guess that if that happens, the MLBPA will counter by demanding the luxury tax threshold be increased to over $300 million.
Again, with the amount of money MLB is awash in, there's no way the union is going to accept an even greater limitation on the free market earning power of their members.
Fair enough. I think you're taking it a little too far, but I get where you're coming from. I doubt I'm insulting anyone. We're all big boys here.Average Reds said:
I believe there's a lack of vision now. Cable TV is already beginning to be phased out. Those contracts might not be worth anything in 10 years.
I had the same thought about X. If he lives up to his potential are the Sox actually going to pry open that vault? Seems like they welded that thing shut after Crawford and Sea bass.
When was the last time one of these huge contracts ended up being worth it?
Dehere said:
Well, it's not just a player salary cap alone, which makes the whole discussion wildly unrealistic and irrelevant. I believe there should be a cap not only on team payroll, but on tickets/merchandise/TV/etc. Just as players shouldn't be making 20-30mil a season, owners shouldn't be allowed to choke the team's potential while lining their own pockets, which would happen even more often than it does now if a player cap was thrown into place.
Basically, the game needs to get cheaper for the fans, both live or over television, it just won't happen, and unless it does, the player salaries will continue to rise. The money's got to go somewhere.
What'll be interesting is if in the coming years the bubble bursts - people can't afford to go to games, cable/satellite TV is phased out, some other kind of fan backlash, whatever. What then?
Great post I mostly agree at least in regards to whether the Dodgers are flush with cash. My minor quibbles include the (small) detail calling the TV industry..free enterprise. Put some quotation marks around free enterprise and Im on board.mabrowndog said:
I think Eck brings up the fair point from a baseball analytics POV -- committing this many greenbacks to one player is a risk that, despite comping out to being a generational talent, may or may not be a sound baseball decision. Bottom line Im okay with my laundry taking that gamble but know it could blow up in Tommy LaSordas great grandkids faces.
Muggzy said:
How much revenue does a concession stand worker directly generate for the Dodgers? Is that concession worker the best on the planet at what he/she does, or are they merely fungible filler for a job anyone with functional arms, legs and voice can adequately perform?
I have no idea what your point is. Are we supposed to be feeling sorry for concession stand workers in this thread?
Expecting the Dodgers to just pay their concession workers $15/hour out of the goodness of their hearts seems a little buhzarre to me. That's a societal issue that goes far beyond baseball contracts.
Also, a major unintended consequence of max contracts and hard caps is that it makes lifestyle and performance issues primary to money, and that is actually a bad thing for small-market teams. Part of the reason Milwaukee and Kansas City are considered small market teams is because they're small, out of the way cultural wastelands. But if their hedge-fund/Walmart shithead owners dipped far enough into their pockets, they might get a guy. With a max contract and a cap, that goes by the wayside. The Winnipeg Jets of the NHL are experiencing this problem at the moment, they are owned by the richest guy in Canada yet they can't sign anybody because nobody (and nobody's wife) wants to freeze their balls off in Winnipeg in the winter.
The only way to circumvent that is to try and take out the big teams at the knees with expansion in their markets, which nobody seems to want to do, or to completely gut free agency and basically reinsert the reserve clause. Neither is happening.
So other markets need to drink a big, piss-filled bowl of get over it, and focus on on and off field development.
Also, a major unintended consequence of max contracts and hard caps is that it makes lifestyle and performance issues primary to money, and that is actually a bad thing for small-market teams. Part of the reason Milwaukee and Kansas City are considered small market teams is because they're small, out of the way cultural wastelands. But if their hedge-fund/Walmart shithead owners dipped far enough into their pockets, they might get a guy. With a max contract and a cap, that goes by the wayside. The Winnipeg Jets of the NHL are experiencing this problem at the moment, they are owned by the richest guy in Canada yet they can't sign anybody because nobody (and nobody's wife) wants to freeze their balls off in Winnipeg in the winter.
The only way to circumvent that is to try and take out the big teams at the knees with expansion in their markets, which nobody seems to want to do, or to completely gut free agency and basically reinsert the reserve clause. Neither is happening.
So other markets need to drink a big, piss-filled bowl of get over it, and focus on on and off field development.
If the Sox agreed to pay the best pitcher in the game $210 mm over 7 years, I'd be worried about dedicating that amount of cash to one player and at a position where arm troubles are common and when they occur, debilitating. Think about the amount of times Sox pitchers have gone on the DL during the course of their contracts. Beckett, Schill, Lester, Lackey, Buck and Pedro all come to mind immediately. Perhaps it's just a cost of doing business, but when you're spending $30 mm per season, it's quite a heavy cost.
I'm not predicting doom for Kershaw. I am saying that it's a very large bet and there's some real volatility.
From a Sox centric perspective, this obviously cannot help in any way re Lester. Contracts were already very large this year, and I never expected much of a home town discount, Pedroia-like contract from Jon. But this Kershaw deal makes it even harder to take a middle of the road contract, methinks.
I'm not predicting doom for Kershaw. I am saying that it's a very large bet and there's some real volatility.
From a Sox centric perspective, this obviously cannot help in any way re Lester. Contracts were already very large this year, and I never expected much of a home town discount, Pedroia-like contract from Jon. But this Kershaw deal makes it even harder to take a middle of the road contract, methinks.
I don't see how this is different from when the Red Sox gave out the largest pitcher's contract in history, $75M over 6 years to a 26 year old Pedro Martinez. It worked out pretty well.TheoShmeo said:
Well the price of poker just went up.
First let me say Hurray for capitalism and the free-market system! I wish I had the market power to get $215 million contract.
I assume that the Sox and a few other teams, have the stack to compete for Kershaw-quality FAs, but like others I wonder from a risk management perspective, team construction, as well as a budgetary one, does it make sense for most teams to devote that much of their resources to one player. In the Dodgers case, I think it clear, they've said, luxury-tax be damned, full-speed ahead, in pursuit of rebuilding the brand, and winning a World Series.
First let me say Hurray for capitalism and the free-market system! I wish I had the market power to get $215 million contract.
I assume that the Sox and a few other teams, have the stack to compete for Kershaw-quality FAs, but like others I wonder from a risk management perspective, team construction, as well as a budgetary one, does it make sense for most teams to devote that much of their resources to one player. In the Dodgers case, I think it clear, they've said, luxury-tax be damned, full-speed ahead, in pursuit of rebuilding the brand, and winning a World Series.
singaporesoxfan said:
And they didn't have success because they are run by shitheads, not because they have a disadvantage in funding.
Yaz4Ever said:
Is the bolded really true? When is the last time an MLB franchise lost money? I think your point rings true in general, but owning an MLB or an NFL franchise seems like one of the least risky investments going for those who can afford it.
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
Average Reds said:
Yeah, I assumed that's what you meant and just wanted to clarify for you. The difference in the Dodgers' revenues between "Kershaw for next 5 years" vs "no Kershaw" - net of any luxury tax, even - is way more than $30M/year.
edit: preserving this post for posterity:
Plympton91 said:
Whoever hacked P91's SoSH account, kudos.
The thing is, for the Dodgers really is no risk at all. With the way they are throwing money around, if he lost a season or more to injury it would be a minor blip on the radar. It's not they wouldn't go out and spend how much ever they need to get a top gun to replace him. They have no monetary conscience at this point. Even the MFY are at least putting some thought into what their ceiling is.
The key is that Kershaw is 25. The Dodgers have him for his 26-32 years, which are historically the peak for Kershaw (scary to think about him actually getting better). Is there a risk? Always. But the biggest risk for the Dodgers is in the # of years and not in the actual $ amount, and this contract is quite reasonable given the upside
Pretty sure the Mets made it in 2006. And the funny thing is, if Toronto played in any other division, they'd have probably gone a few times as well.
singaporesoxfan said:
Pretty sure the Mets made it in 2006. And the funny thing is, if Toronto played in any other division, they'd have probably gone a few times as well.
shlincoln said:
So let us conservatively say that the front office, manager, coaching staff, and all other employees make up another 10% of that pie. How many successful companies are able to stay in the black with SG&A and R&D (essentially scouting in baseball) being 60% of revenue? Even 49% sounds high.
What's the correlation between this salaries-as-a-percentage-of-revenues and the seeming increase in parity over the last decade, and is there any?
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
mt8thsw9th said:
I can't help you on your 2nd paragraph, but for this, it's important to keep in mind that basically all of their gross revenues become net revenues - there's no COGS that keeps their operating margins low. I mean, on things like concessions and merchandise, sure, but TV revenue and ticket sales are near-100% gross margin products. So if those are flowing through at (say) 90% margin, and personnel are taking another 60%, you've still got 30% left to cover things like the amortized cost of the ballpark and other real estate. Maybe 30% is an upper bound on their profitability, but they're definitely not close to a breakeven point if player costs are <50% of revenue.
So the answer to your question would be "any company that relies primarily on ad sales and 100%-gross-margin products like tickets. I'd look at Yahoo, Ticketmaster, theater companies, even theme park companies as decent comps. Being high-gross-margin is awesome, from a corporate-strategy perspective - because your operating leverage is so low, you have a ton of flexibility to respond to changes in the structure of your industry (which we're seeing here with steadily increasing costs of ballplayers).
That's good to know; I couldn't really think of a 1:1 industry/company, but that makes sense.MentalDisabldLst said:
mabrowndog said:
I was looking at that, and considered the fact that the Dodgers could quite probably literally let people in for free and still make money, which made me wonder if Tampa could sell the cheap seats for like a buck to get more people to the ballpark and have it actually pay off in the long run.
Rasputin said:
I thought I read somewhere about teams adopting the airline ticket/hotel model where prices fluctuate depending on demand etc. and having a computer figure it out game by game. After all, seats that aren't sold is just money that isn't being made.
And the Dodgers have drawn 3 million+ nearly every year AND were one of the teams leading road attendance last year. In fact, they've only drawn less than 3 million in 4 of the last 20 years - and that's a LOT of losing seasons. They're very much a big ticket draw
Great job in this thread. When are we are we hanging out again? It's been way too long.mabrowndog said:
Rudy Pemberton said:
Two guesses:
1) They were (irrationally?) afraid other teams (Cubs?) would shoot their wad on Tanaka, in effect setting the market for Kershaw even higher than what they wound up paying him.
Or, more likely...
2) They don't give a rat's flying ass about the marginal difference between the new & old high water marks, and just wanted to be sure they followed Alex Baldwin's credo from Glengarry Glen Ross: "Get him to sign on the line that is dotted!!"
Rudy Pemberton said:
The MFY are going to reset their luxury cap number this year and will be absolutely desperate for pitching next year. Is there any amount they wouldn't have paid Kershaw?
Not to mention that the Dodgers' ownership is trying to return their brand to prominence, and losing the best pitcher in the game would have damaged them quite a bit.
mabrowndog said:
I think the latest numbers are closer to 250 million average over 25 yrs after revenue sharing.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/dodgersnow/la-sp-dn-dodgers-time-warner-cable-mlb-tv-deal-20140115,0,5374663.story#axzz2qdGTvlIT
However, its a 25 year deal and its likely the payments at the front end are much lower than at the back end and escalate at something like 4% per year. I doubt they are getting anywhere close to 250 million in 2014 and early years of the deal, but can't find any details on how the payments are structured.
If I had to guess, rough calculations here, 150 million in year 1 at 4% increase per year would have them close to 350 million in yr 25 and around an average of 250 million for the entire length.
Somewhat interesting:
through age 26:
Pedro....: 1146.0 IP, 7.0 H/9, 2.9 BB/9, 9.6 K/9, 1.10 WHIP, 3.19 FIP, 145 ERA+
Kershaw: 1292.3 IP, 6.8 H/9, 2.8 BB/9, 9.4 K/9, 1.07 WHIP, 2.78 FIP, 150 ERA+
Pedro put up a 228 ERA+ over 1999-2003 (933 innings, and a year younger than Kershaw will be at the end of his current extension), which would be like Kershaw repeating his current season each year over 2015-2019 (adjusting a bit for Pedro's inning count and the big assumption Kershaw doesn't miss as many starts).He probably isn't likely to peak like Pedro, but he could very well unseat Koufax as the greatest LHP in Dodgers history by the end of his deal.
Kershaw isn't in the top 30 in Pitcher Abuse Points this season, and hasn't cracked the top 10 in his career, and he was essentially handled with kid gloves by the Dodgers prior to his MLB debut (122 innings over 25 starts in 2007).
through age 26:
Pedro....: 1146.0 IP, 7.0 H/9, 2.9 BB/9, 9.6 K/9, 1.10 WHIP, 3.19 FIP, 145 ERA+
Kershaw: 1292.3 IP, 6.8 H/9, 2.8 BB/9, 9.4 K/9, 1.07 WHIP, 2.78 FIP, 150 ERA+
Pedro put up a 228 ERA+ over 1999-2003 (933 innings, and a year younger than Kershaw will be at the end of his current extension), which would be like Kershaw repeating his current season each year over 2015-2019 (adjusting a bit for Pedro's inning count and the big assumption Kershaw doesn't miss as many starts).He probably isn't likely to peak like Pedro, but he could very well unseat Koufax as the greatest LHP in Dodgers history by the end of his deal.
Kershaw isn't in the top 30 in Pitcher Abuse Points this season, and hasn't cracked the top 10 in his career, and he was essentially handled with kid gloves by the Dodgers prior to his MLB debut (122 innings over 25 starts in 2007).