One less bit of drama for the Dodgers over the next two seasons. That's something, at least.

I wish that deal were longer.

You won't when his arm falls off in the second year of some 8 year mega deal.

According to BBTF, there has never been an appropriate-length contract in the history of professional baseball.

I found this deal to be rather odd, actually. Seems short both short AND cheap.

Seems very team friendly to me, even if its not locking him up for any of his FA years.

From Kershaw's point of view it's probably fine to have a shorter contract. Watching Dodger ownership that last couple of years could lead to thoughts of pay me a couple years then walk to the highest bidder.

According to BBTF, there has never been an appropriate-length contract in the history of professional baseball.

This is exaggerated for comic effect, yet truthy in its way. I'd estimate that 95% of contracts get heaped with snark here (including the occasional criticism from the player's POV, as in "Longoria should definitely fire his agent!").

However, in this offseason I don't recall much snark directed at the Angels' CJ Wilson deal or the Yankees' Kuroda deal (if you include the innately-hard-to-criticize 1-year deals, a category that would be understandable to exclude). Were there other contracts this offseason that were met with a relative lack of outrage?

I'd estimate that 95% of contracts get heaped with snark here

Yeah, but given that 97% of all comments at BBTF are snark*, contracts are actually fairly treated.



* Including this one.

This is exaggerated for comic effect, yet truthy in its way. I'd estimate that 95% of contracts get heaped with snark here (including the occasional criticism from the player's POV, as in "Longoria should definitely fire his agent!").

However, in this offseason I don't recall much snark directed at the Angels' CJ Wilson deal or the Yankees' Kuroda deal (if you include the innately-hard-to-criticize 1-year deals, a category that would be understandable to exclude). Were there other contracts this offseason that were met with a relative lack of outrage?

Well, if you include snark in either direction (too expensive and too cheap) that makes sense. Most contracts will favor one side or the other. Very few will be exactly fair.

I think the Beltran and Madson deals were viewed as team friendly. Reyes basically met expectations. Pena, Willingham and Furcal were generally viewed as good signs by the teams.

However, in this offseason I don't recall much snark directed at the Angels' CJ Wilson deal or the Yankees' Kuroda deal (if you include the innately-hard-to-criticize 1-year deals, a category that would be understandable to exclude). Were there other contracts this offseason that were met with a relative lack of outrage?


I think the Beltran and Madson deals were viewed as team friendly. Reyes basically met expectations. Pena, Willingham and Furcal were generally viewed as good signs by the teams.

Agree, pretty much, though the Reyes deal outraged me, in an 'it's only baseball' way, which is to say not really.

The Rollins' deal wasn't bad, either, for the Phillies. The Oswalt deal will probably be fine for whomever gets him. I hope the silly meme, 'we'd never sign anyone good, ever ever' dies it's overdue death. It's edging into Ackbar territory.

Plus, we're always operating in a vacuum, never from a situation like that of an 86 win team that has one gaping hole in the roster and a 4 win FA at that position ready to sign somewhere. In a vacuum that player might be a decent 5/100 signing. A team in the situation I described might easily decide that player is worth 6/130 to them.

We'd be critical from our abstract pov, yet both sides are probably right, or right enough, but HERE COMES THAT MEME AGAIN!

Heck, the Fielder deal isn't nearly as horrible once you realize Illitch is 82 years old and has 2b dollars. Given that, how can you NOT sign Prince?