Report: Dodgers, Kershaw agree to seven-year, $215M extension


According to Ramona Shelburne, the Dodgers and ace left-hander Clayton Kershaw have agreed to a seven-year contract extension worth $215M. The deal includes an opt-out clause after five years, when Kershaw will still only be 30. It is the richest pitching contract in history, $35M more than Justin Verlander’s deal. The extension could take the Dodgers out of the running for Masahiro Tanaka, but who knows at this point. I have a hard time betting against that team opening its wallet.

Categories : Asides


  1. Anthony says:

    I think it’s pretty evident that money is no object for the Dodgers which, hey, is something we’ve been used to.

    Gut feeling: Tanaka signs a monster deal with LA

    • Paco Dooley says:

      I agree – they will see the Kershaw deal as yet another reason to spend money to win now. They could basically leverage their current roster to make a run at winning it all this year, and possibly a run over the next few years. Might be stupid to spend a heap and them stop investing…

      • King of Fruitless Hypotheticals says:

        I’m not opposed to losing on Tanaka if it means LA gives him 10/250!

        • The Great Gonzo says:

          I’m not opposed to trading them Eduardo Nunez for Zach Greinke to make a spot in their rotation for Tanaka either.


        • JKK says:

          Totally agree. If the LAD gives Tanaka 10/$250MM, Yanks should walk. Stay under $189MM and try to develop better players from the Farm. Hope one day Yanks can win with their own players like the mid-1990′s Yanks.

          • FIPster Doofus says:

            Why would you want the Yankees to stay under $189 million? Hal padding his wallet does nothing for me as a fan. The Dodgers are doing it the way a huge-market team should right now. I mean, yeah, you want to develop talent from within, but if you have the money to spend, spend it.

            • Farewell Mo says:


              There’s no reason the Yankees should have a payroll even $1 less than the Dodgers unless they’re not as committed to winning which is a distinct possibility.

            • King of Fruitless Hypotheticals says:

              Mainly because the luxury tax has caused them to be resistant to writing or taking on certain types of contracts. If we can get below 189 for one year, the tax resets, and a few large contracts in the coming years won’t be as painful to Hal’s wallet, and therefore he may be more likely to open it.

            • jsbrendog says:

              because i am a yankee fan, a fan of the team called the new york yankees, meaning i will still be a fan til i croak.

              personally, not sure about the rest of the rab riff raff, i would be willing to take a year where the yankees struggle in order to build a team set to compete for the long haul (more the rays method but without being so bas as opposed to the phillies method)

              if by gettign under 189 this yr the team will be mroe willing to sign star players going forward while also possibly increasing their farm system then i am all for it even if it does pad his wallet. i am all for it because iw ant my team to win. it won’t happen every year and sometimes you have to crater before you can peak.

              • FIPster Doofus says:

                “because i am a yankee fan, a fan of the team called the new york yankees, meaning i will still be a fan til i croak.”

                Not sure what that has to do with anything. I’m a fan whether they go 0-162 or win the World Series. It doesn’t make me a bad fan that I want them to spend as much as possible in an effort to win. They have the means.

                • jsbrendog says:

                  this is a flawed team and if they throw open the wallet like youre saying that is the phillies method, where you are top heavy and old and unable to compete at a hig level for an extended period of time and maybe you get a few playoff births out of it.

                  it’s about understanding that to move 3 steps forward sometimes you have to take a step back.

                  • Jorge Steinbrenner says:

                    When the team doesn’t meet their expectations following showing restraint, then they need to spend like sailors. When the team doesn’t meet their expectations following spending like drunken sailors, then it’s an outdated approach and they should stop spending.

                    It’s a surefire approach to always sounding smarter than management on the blogs and, in the end, isn’t that what matters?

                  • FIPster Doofus says:

                    My Yankee-related annoyances of this offseason aren’t really about spending big money – they include eschewing decent, reasonably priced 2B options like Infante and Ellis in favor of Roberts, not addressing the bullpen in a meaningful way, and not adding a lefty-mashing 3B (i.e. Jeff Baker) to platoon with Johnson. Is that crazy? I was fine with letting Cano walk for what he got and I know they’re doing what they can to sign Tanaka.

                    • jsbrendog says:

                      right, that’s fair. we can nitpick offseason moves every off season (and we all do, it’s mostly why we come here) but at the same time I can understand the sentiment of not paying 4+ year contracts for guys in their 30s who are mostly stopgaps or only above average in an attempt to load up to hopefully sign the stars in the oncoming year or two.

                      will it work? most likely not but i get it. Spend big, but not overboard, on top shelf talent, and dont waste resources on middling players. its frustrating as hell but i get it.

                • Jimmy McNulty says:

                  I am a Yankee fan regardless too, but my interest in the Yankees (and the sport of baseball) is much greater when the team struggling for the second wild card spot and addled with a shitty farm system. My interest particularly declines when they refuse to make the necessary changes to win. Especially when the issues are just money and a team that’s valued as highly as the Yankees are unwilling to spend the money, yet expect me to still treat the team like a premium product. When they do some 2009 shit, or do something like trade for the best player in baseball, or acquire a bunch of awesome players on trades (like they did in 2010) my interest in the team is pretty damn high.

            • JKK says:

              Understand your point. However, Yanks must build a new core group of players from their own system. LAD have a much better core group of players than the Yanks. Yanks did not develop an Ace in Clayton. All the teams are locking up their prime age stars. The old way of signing FA will not translate into winning because FA, other than Cano, are not prime time super talent like Clayton, Felix, Justin, more like the Garza, Santana and Jimenez. Signing Jacoby, Brian and Carlos to me are mistakes by lossing Yanks’s own #1 pick and two Supp-1st round picks and paying for players for their past performance. Not a great way to build a long-term winning team.

            • RetroRob says:

              The Yankees were trying to get under 189 to reset the luxury tax. Right now they are paying 50% on every dollar spent above that threshold, and since they’ve been above that threshold for years, any free agent signed is at a 50% premium. The Dodgers, however, are not at that point yet.

              As a one-time reset I didn’t have an issue with Plan 189. Yet in order for it to work other things (i.e. the farm system) needed to add a few players here and there. The failure of that means Plan 189 should be abandoned.

              • I'm One says:

                As a one-time reset I didn’t have an issue with Plan 189. Yet in order for it to work other things (i.e. the farm system) needed to add a few players here and there.

                If by “”work” you mean they field a playoff-caliber team, then I can agree with that. But if the plan is simply to get under $189M, then they don’t have to field a playoff-caliber team. They just need to get under $189M.

          • Jorge Steinbrenner says:

            Which were full of vets as well.

          • Havok9120 says:

            Yeah, because those teams didn’t have any free agents or older vets.

            No, siree.

      • qwerty says:

        Tanaka would be more of an investment because you don’t know what you’re going to get with him. If a team is expecting someone like Tanaka to win them a WS for them they’re not a very well run organization. Tanaka is nothing more than a top prospect at this point.

    • Marty l says:

      NUTS! But then I grew up when 100,000 a year was the big deal. Think Sandy Koufax is wishing his “timing” ( or his parents) :) timing was better. As in being born in the 90′s, not the 30′s. Timing is still everything boys and girls.

  2. Anthony says:

    I have an even harder time believing that the Yankees can’t open their wallet even wider…. Has it really come to this?

  3. TheRealGreg says:

    If they complete the Casey Close sweep, we will have officially passed the torch on to the Dodgers as the Scrooge McDuck of Major League Baseball

  4. phil says:

    No way they go after Tanaka ..they are paying Kershaw and Greinke $54 million a year…

    • TheRealGreg says:

      It’s less likely now, but the Dodgers have made it clear that they are willing to spend ungodly amounts of money

      • Bullwinkles says:

        Remember they still have Hanleys free agency looming next year.

      • stuckey says:

        I think we’ve reached a point that unarguably the #1 topic among Yankees fans, and one of the biggest topics in the game period is how much money teams spend in the off-season.

        I honestly think some fans would be more satisfied “winning” the offseason than winning the season.

        The Yankees (who SPENT A LOT) this offseason MAY (or may not, Tanaka would put them over the top) get outspent by one other team – and fans are apocalyptic about it.

        Baseball’s real season is becoming the offseason, and it’s becoming a financial-based competition, rather than one of the field.

        MLB should genuinely start handing out trophies to team that spends the most money, and then the Yankees can hold a parade in February down Wall Street if they ever win it.

        • FIPster Doofus says:

          “The Yankees (who SPENT A LOT) this offseason MAY (or may not, Tanaka would put them over the top) get outspent by one other team – and fans are apocalyptic about it.”

          I think fans are apocalyptic because of the bad infield, crappy-looking rotation and underwhelming bullpen.

          • Farewell Mo says:

            Exactly this.

            I don’t care if they spend $189 or $250 million as long as they win however I don’t see how they can improve their talent level unless the spend big since they have been incapable of developing young talent

            • stuckey says:

              Here’s the issue for me… sports is by rule cyclical. Building a championship level team is almost always done in cycles, with peaks and valleys.

              To a degree the NY Yankees have defied this rule for longer than any other contemporary sports franchise ever has. But the logic I see applied here is there is never any bill to pay when you build through spending.

              Once you sign multiple guys to long-term $20m-plus deals, that players are ALL going to age, injuries will begin to occur and things like year-long suspensions occur. Jeter is a whole other, extremely rare circumstance.

              There IS logic behind arguing the Yankees need to spend because they don’t develop, I GET that.

              But it isn’t realistic to think any team can just spend on a never-ending upward curve.

              If Sabathia, Jeter and Texeira bounce back and have representative years, the Yankees will likely be more competitive than some will give them credit for.

              But it seems reasonable there should be SOME expectation/resignation that their deals (and in Jeter’s case, his HoF career) ARE going to be significant impediments until those deals cycle through.

              • Jorge Steinbrenner says:

                “Building a championship level team is almost always done in cycles, with peaks and valleys.”

                My God, someone gets it.

                • LK says:

                  Except from 1993-2012, the Yankees’ *lowest* winning percentage was .540, and they even won the World Series that year. During that 20 year period, the entire team was turned over, as not a single player from the 1993 team played in 2012. It’s popular to say that the farm system powered the Yanks’ return to prominence, but they actually were already good before Jeter/Pettitte/Posada/Mo arrived.

                  The point is, it doesn’t have to be cyclical if you’re willing and able to spend what it takes to win and you make smart decisions. The Yankees are certainly able to spend what it takes; I don’t think it’s crazy for fans to be upset that we have to question whether they’re willing for the the first time in decades.

              • Farewell Mo says:

                I agree with your point however if they are willing to spend upwards of $215-230 million in payroll each year, all they have to do is be modestly efficient drafting and developing young prospects and they should have a playoff caliber team almost every year.

                If they wanna say they’re going for $189, don’t expect much this year and we’ll blow out the budget next year with the money saved, I’d be fine with that too but I’d like to see a logical plan one way or another.

          • stuckey says:

            I know what I’m referring to, and that’s specifically the comments lamenting that Yankees are “cheap”, and that other teams are now willing to outspend them.

          • Jorge Steinbrenner says:

            As opposed to the reasons they’ve been apocalyptic every other off-season?

    • FIPster Doofus says:

      Why not? Money is no object to the Dodgers.

      • Havok9120 says:

        Says who? The rumors have gone both ways on this.

        • FIPster Doofus says:

          How about everything new ownership has done since it took the reins, starting with handing Boston a get-out-of-jail-free card?

          • Havok9120 says:

            Which doesn’t mean they have an unlimited budget. It simply means we don’t know the limit yet.

            • FIPster Doofus says:

              I’d say you took my comment a bit too literally. Of course money is an object – of course there’s some kind of limit – but it’s seemingly far less of an object to them than everyone else. I should’ve written it that way.

              • Havok9120 says:

                I’ll readily admit that I’m reacting less to what you said and more to the sentiment, widely expressed on teh interwebz, that the Dodgers are just going to blow every team out of the water on any player they want and that they’re making the Yankees look like penny-pinchers.

                Not really fair for me to do that to you, but there it is.

        • FIPster Doofus says:

          Also, they handed Brian Wilson $10 million after he threw 13 innings last season. That’s despite having an already loaded bullpen. The Dodgers didn’t need to keep Wilson, but they gave him big money anyway. If they were bent on saving cash, would they have done that?

          • Havok9120 says:

            I honestly don’t know enough about their bullpen to comment on that part. If they truly didn’t need the guy over the next two years, then yeah, that’d be a feather in your argument’s cap.

            I just don’t see any reason to assume one thing or another yet. If they just blow everyone away on Tanaka, then I’ll probly sign right onto this theory. But they’ve been awfully quiet on the market this offseason for a team that had a weakness or two that could use some help.

            • Chris H says:

              Kenley Jensen, Brian Wilson, Chris Perez, Brandon League, JP Howell, Paco Rodriguez, Jamey Wright, Chris Withrow. They could easily be the best pen in baseball with those arms, take Wilson out and it looks less attractive but clearly they are win this year mode across the board.

              • Havok9120 says:

                So why did they stand pat at catcher? Why hasn’t Tanaka already signed? Why don’t they have Cano?

                If there were no long term concerns and budgetary constraints at play here, we wouldn’t need to be having his conversation. They’d have taken virtually every player on the board that fit their immediate needs.

                I’m not saying that they aren’t willing to spend big money. They already are. I’m just saying that maybe people shouldn’t be assuming the Dodgers are just going to blow everyone else away everytime they could use a player.

                • Chris H says:

                  A. They already have a 2-4 win player so they weren’t really in need of an upgrade. Sure they could’ve upgraded with McCann but he’d be the only catcher on the market worth replacing Ellis for and considering what he’s making he’s worth keeping. B. Tanaka has nothing to gain by signing a contract any sooner than he has too, the Yankees are desperate and the Dodgers have a want, why wouldn’t you keep bidding the 1 and 2 highest payroll teams against each other down to the deadline? C. They already sign Alexander Guerrero to a 30 million dollar deal, you don’t sign that contract if you think he isn’t your starting 2B in 2014. Now he may be a huge bust, other teams may not have done it, but clearly they did so they do. None of these indicate anything close to a budget the Dodgers have to keep in mind, I’m sure they have one but these are really poor arguments to that point.

                  • Chris H says:

                    Just to be clear I hate the whole “A. B. C.” thing but I can’t press enter on this keyboard so I couldn’t separate into paragraphs.

  5. Coolerking101 says:

    Great news for the Bombers. Find it hard to believe LA is still in the game. They already have Kershaw, Greinke, Ryu and Haren penciled in for 2014 (not to mention Beckett and Billingsly). Can’t see them adding another 20+ million per year starter to that staff.

    Only real question is, will some other team swoop in with a ridiculous offer a la the Mariners and Cano?

  6. King of Fruitless Hypotheticals says:

    The biggest shock of all this is remembering that some teams have entire payrolls less than the Dodgers rotation…

  7. Leg-End says:

    Richest pitching contract in history and you know what, I thought it would be higher.

    • FIPster Doofus says:

      Me too, because I didn’t expect seven years. I thought Kershaw would sign for 10. Seems like the Dodgers got a good deal here.

      • Havok9120 says:

        For both sides, I think. Dude can make 150 million in the five years before the opt-out, then be a 30 year old FA and cash in again.

      • FIPster Doofus says:

        Also, they handed Brian Wilson $10 million after he threw 13 innings last season. That’s despite having an already loaded bullpen. The Dodgers didn’t need to keep Wilson, but they gave him big money anyway. If they were bent on saving cash, would they have done that?

  8. JGYank says:

    So let’s see… with Kershaw locked up the Dodgers have Kershaw, Kemp, Greinke, Gonzalez, and Crawford locked up with huge contracts. Plus they have Ryu, their new 2B (forget his name), Eithier and some others signed for multiple years. They probably are looking to lock up Hanley and will have to pay Puig at some point down the road. But with Kershaw, Greinke, and Ryu their rotation looks solid and is already expensive. So Tanaka really isn’t a need and will really limit their financial flexibility further.

    But it’s hard to believe a pitcher just got over $30M AAV (about $1M a start) and didn’t even have to hit the FA market. The scary thing is he could have gotten more if he asked for more years since he only got 7. $300M wouldn’t of surprised me even if he’s a starter.

    • jsbrendog says:

      they dont have to pay puig til 2019


      • JGYank says:

        Didn’t realize his contract was so long. But still they have a ton money locked up into a few players. Unless they trade Kemp, it will be tough to continue to sign big name FAs without having their payroll go into the 250M+ range.

        • jsbrendog says:

          personally i feel a big bounceback year for kemp, which is scary. ethier though is a disaster contractwise and on field wise

          • JGYank says:

            I can see Kemp rebound especially if he’s healthy and he’s capable of going 40/40. He deserved the MVP IMO in 2011, not Braun PEDS or not. Eithier isn’t there for much longer but still is way overpaid and will be hard to move. Crawford isn’t what he used to be and is also overpaid. They’ve got a really expensive outfield even with Puig. I would try to move Eithier and get whatever they can.

        • Chris H says:

          Personally I don’t think they care about a 250+ payroll, the TV contract they have is almost a license to print money and they seem to give no shoots about luxury tax.

  9. Dicka24 says:

    I’d be stunned if Tanaka signed with Chicago. Either Chicago team for that matter. From what we’ve learned recently, Tanaka wants the big stage, a pressure situation, and a team that competes. That to me says Yankees, Dodgers, Angels more so than the Cubs. It would seem at least.

    I think this takes the Dodgers out of it. They seem to be sorta nuts, so maybe not. I’d say the favorites are the Angels and Yankees. If Tanaka wants to be on a franchise that contends, then those two make the most sense.

  10. Mike says:

    With the Dodgers out of it we should be the favorites. If we offer 160/8 we should win the bidding.

    • We Need Tanaka says:

      No way i would go 8 years on Tanaka. 5 years 110m

    • Havok9120 says:

      No reason to think that they’re out. Not much reason, yet, to even think that this will have an effect on their thinking about Tanaka.

      Everyone needs to breathe here.

      • Mykey says:

        Yeah, there’s honestly no reason to interpret this contract one way or the other in regards to the Dodgers’ chances with Tanaka.

        We can infer that after spending this much money on Kershaw they may now be reluctant to spend the money necessary to get Tanaka. Or we can conclude that money is clearly not an issue to them and they’ll spare no expense going after Tanaka. Either way it’s just conjecture with not much to back up either interpretation. Until we hear otherwise, we should think of Kershaw’s extension as just that, a contract for Clayton Kershaw with no definitive implications concerning Tanaka.

        • Havok9120 says:

          OR spending this much for Kershaw is actually incentive because they feel they might as well go whole-hog.

          It’s just a rabbit hole.

    • Chris H says:

      Ownership already stated neither contract has anything to do with the other, Dodgers are still very in play on Tanaka.

      That said I wouldn’t go 8/160 for Tanaka for any reason, I’d much rather see Jimenez at 4 or 5 years at 13-14M per and then get in on Balfour and/or Drew depending on his market.

  11. ClayDavis says:

    The Dodgers are bad for baseball. How dare they spend money! OUTRAGE

  12. TWTR says:

    The Yankees will never be mistaken for the Little Sisters of the Poor.

    This should alert Hal to the necessity of using his more than ample spending wherewithal in order to maintain the brand that he inherited.

    • Havok9120 says:

      He spent a mountain of money this offseason. And they are apparently being quite competitive in attempts to sign a play most agree will require a nine figure contract.

      • TWTR says:

        The rotation is still a mess, and the ability to close a deal (if it is in fact close-able) matters.

        • Havok9120 says:

          So until they’ve spent enough to build the team you want to see on the field, they won’t have spent enough. They are trying to address the rotation. They haven’t missed on any of the big FA pitchers. There really weren’t any fielders available to them that I can really blame them for passing on given the prices and contexts attached to those players.

          Did you just complain about how they’ve handled a completely behind the scenes negotiation? C’mon man, even for you…

      • Chris H says:

        They have spent a lot of money but they also had quite a bit coming off the books with Mo, Pettitte, Cano, and Arod all off the payroll for this season, so as of this moment they are spending less than last seasons team and aren’t projected as a playoff team by most projections.

        • Havok9120 says:

          So what would you like it to spend it on? This conversation isn’t happening in a vacuum. We know who is available, and we know what the players the Yankees missed on signed for.

          Furthermore, I really can’t bring myself to expect the ownership of any business to continuously increase expenses in perpetuity. Last year’s team was the most expensive in baseball history and they got very little for it. I’d be stunned if there wasn’t at attempt made to spend money more wisely, even if that means NOT spending it when the FA market doesn’t warrant it.

          • Chris H says:

            I wasn’t really commenting on what they should or shouldn’t do, I was simply pointing out that yes they’ve spent a lot but that also isn’t in a vacuum they’ve knocked a ton off the books as well.

            I personally don’t care how the team gets good I just want them to win, unfirtunately I think they would have to commit to missing the playoffs and not signing big time contracts for the next 3-5 years to get to the point where they could contend without a ridiculous payroll. With limits on how you can draft, limits on IFA spending, and the cost of losing poo money by signing top free agents there are simply no quick fixes for the farm system and the fan base won’t tolerate re-building, even if it might be the best long term strategy.

    • stuckey says:

      When I think of the Dynasty, I don’t think of the brand as “biggest spenders.”

      I don’t necessarily disagree that they aren’t maintaining the brand. But I think already started to get away from what made the Dynasty special (Randy Johnson, anyone?) while dad was still alive.

      • TWTR says:

        They didn’t need to be the biggest spenders during the formative years of the dynasty because they had several important cost-controlled players who they developed, which limited the necessity of overspending. Obviously, that doesn’t exist at present.

        It may well be that Tanaka’s stuff doesn’t translate here, but if your baseball people are reasonably confident that it does, in light of their present needs and goals, spending big is still their strength.

        • stuckey says:

          You aren’t arguing for spending big. They’ve already done that and I think we both can agree they’ll spend big on Tanaka if given the opportunity.

          Your argument seem to be their brand is “will outspend anyone no matter what” (what including what they perceive is value).

          The Yankees “brand” since 2002 has been “a team whose payroll hasn’t met expectations and more often than not hasn’t meant anything in the first round” (Murder’s Row and Cano, anyone)?

          • TWTR says:

            My argument is that given the current state of their major and minor league rosters, and the apparent necessity to put a more compelling product on the field in order to stem, if not reverse, declining attendance and viewership, as well as the available options to have a chance at adding a top of the rotation starter, they have little choice but to close the Tanaka deal, assuming as I said, that it is close-able (i.e., he wants to play here).

            Absent the addition of that kind of starting pitcher, what they have already spent this offseason will not likely be able to not offer as much value, unless for example, Pineda and/or Banuelos becomes near-instant top of the rotation starters, or they take a flier on say Jimenez or Garza (which I hope they don’t do), and they have an almost out of context season.

  13. Dalek Jeter says:

    “I have a hard time betting against that team opening its wallet.” I wonder if thats how writers talk about us.

    • Havok9120 says:

      You don’t have to wonder. Go read Tanaka articles on other blogs. Or the comments section on MLBTR.

      • Jim Is A (Bored) Peckerhead says:

        Very few commenters hear are aware of what goes on at other blogs.

        It’d help them sound less ridiculous though.

        • Havok9120 says:

          And be amusing for them if they read an opposing team’s blog while they lose to the Yankees.

          That’s a darn good time.

  14. Jared says:

    Counting out the dodgers is stupid the team isn’t afraid to open that wallet but i wonder if they sign tanaka does that mean they don’t resign hanley next season if he’s healthy. I think dodgers sign tanaka cause doesn’t Greinke have an opt out? Maybe he’s insurance incase he leaves. Who knows this is all very interesting. Well just have to wait an see what happens

  15. Darren says:

    It’s nice to see a big market team spend what it takes to keep a homegrown superstar. Cano would be on the Yankees right now if they showed him the same kind of respect that the Dodgers showed Kershaw.

    • Mykey says:

      If Cano was 25 like Kershaw and not 31, he’d still be a Yankee.

    • Havok9120 says:

      And what respect, pray tell, would you have had them show that you know for a fact they didn’t? Please enlighten me.

      Unless you’re just using “respect” as a stand-in for “money.” At which point you should consider the relative ages of the two players, maybe the age concerns on the Yankees roster, and the fact that Seattle blew every other offer (the only other offer) out of the water.

      • Darren says:

        I wouldn’t have made any comments about Cano other than totally complimentary comments.

        I wouldn’t have made a lowball offer to start.

        I wouldn’t have a set a “ceiling” under $200mm.

        I would have gone above $200mm (even without going to $250mm).

        I would have very publicly said we think Cano is one of the best players of his generation, a true team player that makes everyone around him better, and that we want to do everything within our power to keep him.

        I would have wined him and dined him as if he was another team’s free agent. Gifts, trips, broadway shows, everything.

        • Jorge Steinbrenner says:

          You would have fucked him. Repeatedly.

        • Havok9120 says:

          So you wouldn’t have made a real effort to negotiate with him or wait to see what his market was and how his demands fit the market.

          I’ve no clue what comments you are referring to. Unless you’re just saying they didn’t shower him with enough praise and do everything they could to undermine their own leverage.

          You have no way, no way at all, to know how the team treated him during the negotiating period or what was said about/to him behind closed doors. Stop pretending as if you do.

          I have no idea why you, and so many others, are so desperate to blame the team for Cano leaving. The most simple explanation is that he followed the money and the years, and we’ve really seen no evidence to indicate that that was not the case. If you want to say that the Yankees should have matched or beaten Seattle’s offer, then I think you’re wrong but at least that’s a position that can be defended. You’re just kind of pointing fingers and shouting “AT ALL COSTS!”

          For instance, what evidence do you have that he would have accepted 9/225 from the Yankees when Seattle’s offer was on the table. None. And yet you still insert your second and third points in there as if going over 200 million but not topping Seattle would have done the trick.

    • Jorge Steinbrenner says:

      Don’t make me walk over there and smack you, Darren.

  16. Jorge Steinbrenner says:

    30 million a year on a starting pitcher. Unreal. Even more unreal is that he’ll hit free agency again when he’s 30.

    No clue what this means for the Yankees. I lean towards it being good news, but who knows. We also forget that, for all the HE WANTS TO PLAY IN TEH COASTS narrative, there’s still other teams other than these two out there.

    • Farewell Mo says:


      There has to be some payroll limit the Dodgers won’t go past so now they’re $31 million closer to it.

      • Jorge Steinbrenner says:

        Olney was on the Kay show, and I agree with his assessment that, at the very least, there’s less of a sense of urgency for them around him.

  17. Anthony says:

    Ken_Rosenthal: Sources tell me and @jonmorosi that #Dodgers still want another SP. Tanaka an ownership call. Arroyo on short list of possible alternatives.


  18. TheRealGreg says:

    Ken Rosenthal ?@Ken_Rosenthal 1m

    Sources tell me and @jonmorosi that #Dodgers still want another SP. Tanaka an ownership call. Arroyo on short list of possible alternatives.

  19. Tom says:

    Folks – the Dodgers TV deal alone pays them ~280mil/yr (this is average over 25 years (not sure how it is exactly structure year to year)

    And thanks to MLB’s desire to get rid of McCourt, only 84 mil of that 280mil is subject to the 34% local revenue sharing. So out of the TV Money, the Dodgers kick in just under 30mil of the 84mil figure, leaving behind ~250mil/yr (the 84mil # goes up year to year, but the TV money is still massively protected.)

    Throw in gate/radio/misc local and ad money/their cut of the national revenue and the Dodgers could probably float a 350-400mil payroll and still turn an easy profit.

    The only thing that will limit their spending is the ownership group deciding how much of a profit they want to run. It won’t be revenue limitations or fear of running negative income in a year.

    • Jorge Steinbrenner says:

      And so many championships on the mantle since they started spending.

    • Havok9120 says:

      To be fair, that’s the only thing stopping every team in the league from increasing their payroll dramatically right now. The MLB-wide TV deal just started paying them 20-30 million a year in “new” revenue, not to mention that there are a lot of teams that just signed new, and incredibly lucrative, TV deals.

      That “only thing” is a pretty big one.

  20. Cool Lester Smooth says:

    Jesus Christ. We have our first $30M/Year player, ladies and gentlemen!

  21. OldYanksFan says:

    The Dodgers now have about $150m committed to NINE players for 2017! 5 of those players making over $21m.

  22. King of Fruitless Hypotheticals says:

    The new CBA needs a spending floor.

    • jsbrendog says:

      im actually not opposed to this.

      • Havok9120 says:

        I’m approaching the point where I would be on board if it were handled properly. When the amount of money your team is basically guaranteed from revenue sharing and various split-profit MLB-wide arrangements is lower than a team’s payroll….blech.

        It’s not good for the sport, and it just plain annoys me.

  23. Dicka24 says:

    I think that starter will be of the bargain basement, or short term contract variety. Everyone has limits, and I think the Dodgers are probably done with $100 million deals for the time being.

    Arroyo, yuck!

    Is there a plan B for the Yankees should they lose out on Tanaka, or is it Operation Salvage $189?

  24. RetroRob says:

    Maybe this is good news for the Yankees in that the Dodgers maybe less likely to then spend another huge amount of money on another starting pitcher.

    Then again, maybe the Dodgers are now free to focus on signing Tanaka and would love to make another huge splash and build a killer rotation.

    If he now ends up on the Yankees it will have seemed obvious that’s where he was going.

    If he now ends up on the Dodgers it will have seemed obvious that’s where he was going.

  25. mustang says:

    This is good news and Tanaka will a Yankee with the next 24 hrs.

    Can’t believe anyone would compare the contracts of Kershaw at 25 to Cano at 31!!

    Those people need to be voted off Yankees island!

  26. mike says:

    when my friends of other teams used to get that feeling about their team’s inability to compete with the Yanks on a financial basis, i never cared.
    Now that there is another drunk at the bar, its kinda scary that they will use their $ to be a bully….it scares me but i kinda like it!

    • RetroRob says:

      The real thing that should scare fans of other teams is that there is a now another team willing to spend like the Yankees. The two of them battling for the same player(s) could cause salaries to skyrocket, and I mean more than what we’re seeing right now. The two teams have not really gone head-to-head yet. We’ll have to see if Tanaka is the first time they will.

      • Chris H says:

        Don’t forget the Red Sox… They’ve been quiet this offseason but they clearly have the ability to enter and maintain a 200M dollar payroll, if a free agent can get those three bidding against one another things could get crazy in the near future.

        • Mike says:

          We can outbid the Red Sox. We stole Ellsbury from them easily.

          • Chris H says:

            Because they had clearly placed a very finite value on Ellsbury, they have Jackie Bradley Jr. just waiting to start in CF. My point was if there is a player who can get the Yankees, Dodgers, and Sox all involved in a bidding war that’s when sparks fly. Jacoby doesn’t fit that mold since the Sox clearly had a below market value on him and the Yankees reeked of desperation.

      • Kenny says:

        Some web-site, maybe MLBTR, claims that if they do go head-to-head and the Yankees lose, it would mark a change in the balance of power in MLB. As metaphors go this is melodramatic, but not so far from the truth as one might wish, especially in a year in which the Yankees lose a potential HoF guy to mere Seattle.

        If they do go head to head, I wish that George was still in charge and active. It’s the kind of wine-and-dine situation that he was good at. Like barbarian kings visiting Constantinople, the visiting free agents could be feted and awed.

        Well, he ain’t around. Cashman is a good GM but doesn’t seem to be a feast-and-awe Byzantine emperor, and Hal seems busy with his spreadsheets.

        LA will probably show Tanaka around Hollywood, introduce him to Brad and Angelina, et al.

        • RetroRob says:

          I can see the media going with that story, and it could even be true, or it might just be a snapshot in time that will have no bearing on where we’ll be in a couple years.

          The Dodgers will eventually have the same issue as the Yankees, which is in a few years they’ll be paying 50% on every dollar above the tax threshold. They’ll also have aging, declining players, blocking positions. How they act then could be quite different than today, and how the Yankees have acted recently with Plan 189 may have nothing to do with a couple years down the road.

          What is clear is the something has changed. At the minimum, it can’t be assumed the Yankees can outspend any team if there is another team that also believes it can outspend any other team.

          Perhaps knowing that, a bit of a U.S./Soviet Union situation will develop, with neither team wanting to directly battle the other. Cano? We’ll step aside Yankees. Kershaw? We’ll step aside Dodgers. I don’t really believe that will happen, especially if a Trout came on the market. Maybe Tanaka will be that first battle.

    • Mike says:

      I agree. Seattle is a bully.

  27. pc says:

    dodgers signed an 8 billion dollar tv deal money is no object if they want someone.

  28. Adam says:

    Now we know the ceiling. The Dodgers certainly wouldn’t ever give Tanaka a bigger contract than Kershaw, so at most he would get 7 years and say 180 million if they wanted a blow him away offer. I would hope at that point that the Yankees would go 8 years and 200 million. We shall see. But we know for sure it will take less than 215 million to get him. At least, the Dodgers won’t go above that much.

Leave a Reply

You may use <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> in your comment.

If this is your first time commenting on River Ave. Blues, please review the RAB Commenter Guidelines. Login for commenting features. Register for RAB.