RealGM

http://baseball.realgm.com/src_wiretap_ ... 300m_deal/

wtf.
<3 the bro like nobody else.

but Im sure 8/200-210 can settle this all.

nobody is worth 300 million, but hell, this isn't Peter O'Malley's dodgers and sure ain't no parking lot Frankie's dodgers. just hope clayton has better career outlook than mike hampton or carlos santana in terms of injuries and decline.

Quake Griffin wrote:http://baseball.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/37675/20131019/source_dodgers_offered_kershaw_$300m_deal/

wtf.
<3 the bro like nobody else.

but Im sure 8/200-210 can settle this all.

No. If it's a "lifetime" contract as reported, who is to say he's going to last 10-12 more years at the level he's at? Hell, who's to say the kid lasts 5 more years? Look at Roy Halladay, one of the best pitchers of all time, who over his career, was very durable. The last 2 or 3 years, he's been breaking down and it appears he's never going to get back to ace form. Halladay was 25 in 2002, He had 9 great years with relatively good health after that, which to me, is extremely fortunate. If Kershaw is lucky enough to pitch that well for 9 years, we are talking what? 300 million for 8-10 years of top of ace/Cy Young stuff, IF HE'S LUCKY!

To me, 8 years for 200-210 as you say is still somewhat insane. I suppose if you're the Dodgers, you have the money and the best pitcher in baseball, you want to take care of him. But investing that kind of money in a pitcher is a huge risk.

If I'm the Dodgers, I go less years, more money, and just keep extending him based on performance. That of course is if Kershaw will even listen.

If the Dodgers offer him less years, he can say no and get the years elsewhere.

He's worth the 200 Ms at age 26...no dip in velocity and no real sign of burn out.
In the Dodger forum I have suggested an innings limit if and when we invest the money into him.

I don't want to see him throw over 175-180 innings next year.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums mobile app

No he's not. No Pitcher is. Just too high of an injury risk.

But it's not like the Dodgers can't afford it...

since he's not worth how much his market is obviously set for.

you guys care to set a figure for me?

$260 MM

TyCobb wrote:$260 MM

I can see it over 10 years. They'd be screwed if he suffered a bad injury however.

Quake Griffin wrote:since he's not worth how much his market is obviously set for.

you guys care to set a figure for me?

It's all about health, which is why I would never go more than 5 years on any pitcher. But since it's Kershaw, and I believe he is that great.

6/180

Given the fact that a pitcher only helps you every 5th day, no pitcher, ever in history is worth that type of money. Look no further than the St Louis Cardinals on how to build a pitching staff.

Starkiller wrote:Given the fact that a pitcher only helps you every 5th day, no pitcher, ever in history is worth that type of money. Look no further than the St Louis Cardinals on how to build a pitching staff.

The Dodgers don't really have to take any tips from any franchise on how to develop pitching.

where we are in the ebb and flow of it all, St. Louis is ahead in that regard....but we've never had a problem drafting arms, developing them and being somewhere in the top of the NL's pitching stats.

Kershaw is no different than Wainwright...other than the Dodgers drafted Kershaw directly and the Braves drafted Wainwright....oh and he's never had TJS.
they've both been developed in the farm and both will be extended with 9 figure deals by their team.

Quake Griffin wrote:

Starkiller wrote:Given the fact that a pitcher only helps you every 5th day, no pitcher, ever in history is worth that type of money. Look no further than the St Louis Cardinals on how to build a pitching staff.

The Dodgers don't really have to take any tips from any franchise on how to develop pitching.

where we are in the ebb and flow of it all, St. Louis is ahead in that regard....but we've never had a problem drafting arms, developing them and being somewhere in the top of the NL's pitching stats.

Kershaw is no different than Wainwright...other than the Dodgers drafted Kershaw directly and the Braves drafted Wainwright....oh and he's never had TJS.
they've both been developed in the farm and both will be extended with 9 figure deals by their team.

I was speaking in general. If I am running a team, I don't give a starting pitcher a huge deal like that. I develop and utilize guys on early contracts, mix in some vets for cheaper deals. Deals like Carl Pavano, Johan Santana, CC Sabathia will kill a franchise.

well...if everybody could draft and develop that well...but it usually doesn't work that way.
even the 90s Braves had to sign Maddux away from the Cubbies.

Giants developed from within
Cards developed from within.

they had the young guys with the years and cheap deals extended through their arbitration years....but they also have their best pitcher locked down to a 9 figure deal. It's the cost of doing business.

no fan base wants to see Cain, Prime Lincecum, Wainwright or Kershaw walk.
it's PR suicide to let him walk and spend years 26-32 in New York or somewhere racking up Cy Youngs.

Usually the kids have their best years during this time in Kershaw's career, then get signed to an extention or something similar like Verlander. Most cases where a pitcher took big free agent money, they ended up not living up to it. Like the examples I listed earlier, plus AJ Burnett and countless others. I don't believe you can build a whole staff out of drafting and scouting and developing well, but I think that's where you start, and fill in through trades or FA but not break the bank for a guy that at most will only add 20 wins to your team.

He's worth whatever the market will bear at this time, but in year 6 will he still be worth it?

Don't know. Any long term contract is a huge risk, with pitchers even being more so.

craig01 wrote:He's worth whatever the market will bear at this time, but in year 6 will he still be worth it?

Don't know. Any long term contract is a huge risk, with pitchers even being more so.

he'll be 31/32 in 6 years.

i'm willing to risk that he'll be ok in that time...for our fan base.

Quake Griffin wrote:

craig01 wrote:He's worth whatever the market will bear at this time, but in year 6 will he still be worth it?

Don't know. Any long term contract is a huge risk, with pitchers even being more so.

he'll be 31/32 in 6 years.

i'm willing to risk that he'll be ok in that time...for our fan base.

And he might be OK

And the Dodgers can afford it

And most teams cannot and would not take that risk

The Dodgers will probably sign him, and time will tell if it will have been worth it.