Kemp extends w/LA 8/$160m

Guess we can scratch him off our "wait 'till next off-season" wish-list.

7 months ago cpins 20 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

How is it a broke team can afford to give out this kind of extension?

There is no hope.... there is no future....there is only GRISSIONZ

The 2011 Mets- Rock bottom: We haven't reached it yet

by Syler on Nov 14, 2011 2:56 PM EST reply actions 6 recs

Because the team is up for sale

and re-signing Kemp keeps the value of the team higher. Anyway, the contract is paid over eight years starting next year.

__________________________________________________
"He who gets the best players usually wins" - Bobby Bowden

by Russ on Nov 14, 2011 3:07 PM EST up reply actions

And if they can

why can’t the Mets?

A deadline has a wonderful way of concentrating the mind.-Professor James Moriarty
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.- Former Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan

by Blame-everyone-else on Nov 14, 2011 3:32 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

The Mets have to live with their budget

The Dodgers will just hand their assets and liabilities over to the new owners.

__________________________________________________
"He who gets the best players usually wins" - Bobby Bowden

by Russ on Nov 14, 2011 3:37 PM EST up reply actions

Would rather have Bourn

Defense is the new market inefficiency.

What Would Matt Szczur Do?
Fact on Villanova Sports

by Hoyadestroya85 on Nov 14, 2011 7:53 PM EST up reply actions

People keep saying that, but I don't know that it's true anymore

Defense definitely gets paid when it hits the free agent market, and there have been just as many flops with those types of deals lately as there have with sluggers.

by Stephen Schmidt on Nov 15, 2011 7:36 PM EST up reply actions

This makes Cespedes an even more attractive free agent

Sandy, make it so! (after you ink Reyes)

__________________________________________________
"He who gets the best players usually wins" - Bobby Bowden

by Russ on Nov 14, 2011 3:08 PM EST reply actions

Are new owners of a team legally bound to contracts made before they purchased the team?

A deadline has a wonderful way of concentrating the mind.-Professor James Moriarty
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.- Former Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan

by Blame-everyone-else on Nov 14, 2011 3:12 PM EST reply actions

The Dodgers currently have a GM in Ned Colletti who presumably has a budget for next season. The club would be worth less to potential buyers if Colletti was “frozen” from building a roster for 2012. It’s possible/likely that new owners won’t be in place by Opening Day.

If an owner gets an agreement in principle to purchase then they may be given some type of input to financial decisions during the interim period.

by cpins on Nov 14, 2011 3:26 PM EST up reply actions

Yes

The contract is between the player and the corporate entity, not between the player and the owners. The Mets, for example, are the “The New York Metropolitan Baseball Club Inc.”, a private corporation. A change of owners does not (absent a clause in the contract to the contrary) void a contract.

I’m guessing there are some lawyers out there, but the ability of a corporation to form a form a binding contract, without regard or recourse to the owners, is is pretty much corporate law 101. (The ability to sign Jason Bay to 4/66 plus 5th year vest is a more advanced course, “Theories of Comparative You Know What I’m Saying.”

by Ownbey4Mex on Nov 14, 2011 3:33 PM EST up reply actions

erm.

I don’t know I would do this. Obviously it increases the team’s worth from a buyer’s prospective, but Kemp did just have a 0.4 WAR season and eventually Jason Pridie’s girlfriend/wife will stop being so kind to Mr. Kemp and he’ll put up worse (not bad) numbers. Plus his strikeout percentage was 23.1%, a slight drop from 2010. His walks were up dramatically, which could be an anomaly and there isn’t exactly a lot of protection in the Dodger’s lineup.

I would’ve waited a year to see if he could repeat this year’s performance.

Rey-sign Rey-ass
Logic Your Sense Makes None.

by JoeBighead on Nov 14, 2011 3:47 PM EST reply actions

You wouldn't do this

because you are not Ned Colletti.

__________________________________________________
"He who gets the best players usually wins" - Bobby Bowden

by Russ on Nov 14, 2011 3:50 PM EST up reply actions

The same

"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!" Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.

AA Gamethread Embiggening Record Holder- 458 posts (08/24/11)
3rd Place- 2011 AAOP Contest

by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Nov 14, 2011 3:51 PM EST via mobile up reply actions

How much does it really increase the team's worth?

I’m not saying you are wrong, I am curious. Is Kemp’s value to the Dodgers as a business greater than the $160 debt? I find it hard to believe that a single baseball player (as opposed to a basketball player where there are less players overall and thus each play a larger role competitively/financially) paid at reasonable value dramatically improves the worth of the franchise. Anyone able to prove or disprove? I’m curious.

by True Blue4 on Nov 14, 2011 4:07 PM EST up reply actions

He's essentially a franchise player.

If you have something to build around, its an easier job to do than starting from scratch.

Rey-sign Rey-ass
Logic Your Sense Makes None.

by JoeBighead on Nov 14, 2011 4:20 PM EST up reply actions

Many ways of looking at it

If the prospective new owner is a rich guy who wants to hang out w/Kemp then Kemp adds tons of value.

The Dodgers won 82 games last season so most folks would say they’re a couple tweaks away from playoff contention. With Kemp they’re a lot more likely to find 8 more wins and the huge revenue windfall that goes with the playoffs.

Or you could assume a “Day at Dodger Stadium” runs $100 (ticket, parking, hot dogs, souveniers) then if Kemp sells 2,500 tickets a game he generates $20.25m. He’s their superstar so I’d think that’s not unlikely. Plus add revenue from higher TV/radio deals.

But it all boils down to winning. The Mets w/Jose Reyes in 2011 drew 180k fewer fans than in 2010. If they miraculously contend for the wildcard in 2012 without Reyes they’ll draw more. If they lose 95 games w/Jose they’ll draw less. But an incoming owner is going to believe the Dodgers are more likely to contend w/Kemp than without him. Who wants to buy a club that’s 3-4 years away from contending?

by cpins on Nov 14, 2011 4:32 PM EST reply actions

Am I the only one who feels this is a terrible deal for the Dodgers, and probably baseball overall?

He is not a CFer, and defensive stats do not like him overall as an OFer. He stole 40 bases (and I imagine the allure of a 40-40 season played a big part in the deal), but has only been successful 74% for his career; and, like all guys whose HR total start surpassing 30, those SBs totals will decrease, and probably fast. He hit 39 HRs, and had an overall awesome season, but that could hardly have been predicted coming off his worst season as a pro. Despite this awesome season SLG .586, he is under .500 for his career because he had only previously passed that number in about half a season back in 2007.

Basically, he is not assured to be a CF for long, as he would be hurting teams there, and it is a stretch to say he is one of the top 5 hitters in the game today, so why give him one of the biggest contracts ever?

2012 New York Mets, World Series Champions!

by astromets on Nov 14, 2011 4:45 PM EST reply actions

The Dodgers just had an off season to forget

This contract may be an overpay, but they are probably doing it to win back the fans.

A deadline has a wonderful way of concentrating the mind.-Professor James Moriarty
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.- Former Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan

by Blame-everyone-else on Nov 14, 2011 5:02 PM EST up reply actions

if you believe fangraphs

(article)

they are doing it because Ned Colletti believes Kemps true talent is around a 5.5 (closer to 5.25 if you do the math) WAR player right now; because that is all he needs to be in order to merit that dollar range in DC’s model, assuming the linear decline in WAR of 0.5 per year and inflation of 5% each year. The problem with using this model, is that the longer a contract goes, the more a team has to overpay per WAR.

Basically, I am just shocked because he is not that established, and 8 years/160 million is scary big for an unproven star, and possibly crippling for many franchises. It is just silly money

2012 New York Mets, World Series Champions!

by astromets on Nov 14, 2011 8:52 PM EST up reply actions