Just For Fun: What Price Would You Pay for Clayton Kershaw?

[koufax32]

Thought about this last night while watching him dominate without his A game. Here are the rules:

This isn't"what would LA accept." It's what is the highest price you would be willing to pay?

Teams budgetary limits are real including present salary obligations.

This is nor an actual proposal thread. We're simply talking about quantifying the greatness of this generation's best pitcher.


I'd have to start with Price since we couldn't afford both. From there I'd be willing to include Devers and another prospect not named Moncada, Espinoza, or Benintendi.

Remember how great it was to have the best pitcher in the game and the feeling of invincibility that came with it? I'd pay for that.

 

[Apisith]

I don't think I would hesitate with giving Price, Moncada, Espinoza, Benintendi and Devers. I don't think that'd get it done, however.

 

[finnVT]

The analogy to Pedro is kind of fascinating in this context. By comparison, the Sox acquired him prior to his age 26 season, with 2 arb years left. Kershaw is now entering his age 28 season and is making 32mil. They had both won Cy Youngs, but Kershaw has a more well defined history of dominance than Pedro did at the time, though that's partly because he's 2 years older.

The Sox gave up Pavano and Armas Jr for Pedro. Pavano was a top 10/20 prospect, Armas would later end up at #27, but at the time was not in the top 100 (he hit #90 the following year). So that's basically a top 10 prospect and one towards the bottom of the top 100. The modern equivalent would seem to be something like: one of Moncada/Benintendi/Devers/Espinoza (all top-19), and Kopech (#89, pre-stupidity).

I think we'd all of course jump at that, and LA would laugh. So what's the difference? Are aces just way more valuable than they were in 1998? Are prospects less valuable? Did the Expos not realize what they had?


FWIW, and to stay a little more on topic, I think I'd do Price (for salary reasons), 2 from that group of top-4 guys, plus one from the next tier (Kopech/Travis/etc), but that's about the most pain I'd be able to deal with. And I don't think LA would do it (although I don't really think they'd trade him regardless of the package, so that's probably not a useful caveat).

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

The analogy to Pedro is kind of fascinating in this context. By comparison, the Sox acquired him prior to his age 26 season, with 2 arb years left. Kershaw is now entering his age 28 season and is making 32mil. They had both won Cy Youngs, but Kershaw has a more well defined history of dominance than Pedro did at the time, though that's partly because he's 2 years older.

The Sox gave up Pavano and Armas Jr for Pedro. Pavano was a top 10/20 prospect, Armas would later end up at #27, but at the time was not in the top 100 (he hit #90 the following year). So that's basically a top 10 prospect and one towards the bottom of the top 100. The modern equivalent would seem to be something like: one of Moncada/Benintendi/Devers/Espinoza (all top-19), and Kopech (#89, pre-stupidity).

I think we'd all of course jump at that, and LA would laugh. So what's the difference? Are aces just way more valuable than they were in 1998? Are prospects less valuable? Did the Expos not realize what they had?

I think the difference is the situations of the two teams. The Expos were motivated sellers who knew they couldn't afford Pedro as his salary started to escalate. The Dodgers have deep pockets and are already paying Kershaw top dollar without blinking an eye. They have no reason or incentive to trade Kershaw unless they are blown out of the water with a Godfather type offer.

The Expos probably could have demanded more for Pedro in 1997. The problem was that doing so would require them to be comfortable with keeping him and, more importantly, paying him an increased salary. Other teams, Sox included, knew the Expos weren't going to do that. So at that point, it's a bidding war in which the Expos more or less had to take the best offer and live with it.

 

[smastroyin]

The difference is that:

- Montreal could not afford to sign him and didn't want to lose him for nothing, whether by risking an injury in 98, his performance declining in 98, or simply not finding a good trade offer before he walked.
- Pedro required the highest pitching contract in history to extend.
- Pedro had only the one excellent season (97) at the time. He was very very good beforehand, but also there was some persistence to the idea that he wasn't built for the long haul as a starting pitcher.

Comparing that to a guy as established as Kershaw is already and is under control (though probably close to market rate) for the next 5 seasons seems a bit of a stretch.

 

[Saints Rest]

The analogy to Pedro is kind of fascinating in this context. By comparison, the Sox acquired him prior to his age 26 season, with 2 arb years left. Kershaw is now entering his age 28 season and is making 32mil. They had both won Cy Youngs, but Kershaw has a more well defined history of dominance than Pedro did at the time, though that's partly because he's 2 years older.

The Sox gave up Pavano and Armas Jr for Pedro. Pavano was a top 10/20 prospect, Armas would later end up at #27, but at the time was not in the top 100 (he hit #90 the following year). So that's basically a top 10 prospect and one towards the bottom of the top 100. The modern equivalent would seem to be something like: one of Moncada/Benintendi/Devers/Espinoza (all top-19), and Kopech (#89, pre-stupidity).

I think we'd all of course jump at that, and LA would laugh. So what's the difference? Are aces just way more valuable than they were in 1998? Are prospects less valuable? Did the Expos not realize what they had?


FWIW, and to stay a little more on topic, I think I'd do Price (for salary reasons), 2 from that group of top-4 guys, plus one from the next tier (Kopech/Travis/etc), but that's about the most pain I'd be able to deal with. And I don't think LA would do it (although I don't really think they'd trade him regardless of the package, so that's probably not a useful caveat).

I think the better comparison is to ask what the Sox would have required to trade Pedro away at the beginning of the 2000 season. Both pitchers were in their age 28 seasons, both had 3 Cy's plus an additional 2nd place finish (CK has another 3rd under his belt that Pedro did not). Both were in the early stages of being the highest paid pitcher in the majors.

In that context, what would it have taken to get Pedro traded away? I can't even imagine it.

 

[snowmanny]

The difference is that:

- Montreal could not afford to sign him and didn't want to lose him for nothing, whether by risking an injury in 98, his performance declining in 98, or simply not finding a good trade offer before he walked.
- Pedro required the highest pitching contract in history to extend.
- Pedro had only the one excellent season (97) at the time. He was very very good beforehand, but also there was some persistence to the idea that he wasn't built for the long haul as a starting pitcher.

And nobody was willing to beat Boston's offer. And by nobody I mean Cleveland /Jaret Wright.