Matt Kemp Officially Agrees to New Contract
November 18, 2011 at 11:03 am | Posted in Matt Kemp | 34 Comments
Right about now at Dodger Stadium, the team is preparing to make the announcement we’ve been waiting for all week – confirmation of Matt Kemp‘s new eight-year, $160m contract. Dylan Hernandez has the yearly breakdown:
2012: $10m (includes $2m signing bonus + $2m deferred to 2013)
2013: $20m
2014: $21m
2015: $21m
2016: $21.5m
2017: $21.5m
2018: $21.5m
2019: $21.5m
Signing bonus: $2m
Kemp reportedly does not have a no-trade clause included, though that’s largely irrelevant; either he’ll play well enough that the Dodgers won’t want to move him or the dollar figure will make him impossible to move anyway. (Unless Tony Reagins gets another GM gig, I suppose.)
The big item there is that Kemp will count as only $8m against this year’s budget, a big deal since he might have otherwise made in the $14m-16m range through arbitration. With the concerns about what’s left to fit under the 2012 payroll ceiling, taking back a few extra million might just be the difference between Hiroki Kuroda or pretending I like Chris Capuano, Aaron Harang or Jeff Francis. As for the deal itself, having had a few days to digest this, my feelings haven’t really changed. This is an enormous amount of money, by far the biggest in both team & league history, and there’s inherent risk that goes along with that. But if you’re going to make that gamble, making it on an athletic outfielder that you know well and who is just entering his prime is a much smarter choise than doing it on a player already into his 30s who is an uncertain commodity. (Yes, I’m talking about Jayson Werth‘s seven-year deal, though others apply as well.) As risks go, this is among the safer ones, though it’d be nice if the contract also contained language restricting Davey Lopes from ever wandering more than 50 feet from Dodger Stadium for the rest of his life.
Besides, though there’s no arguing the shocking dollar amounts here, this isn’t likely to be the biggest or even the second-biggest contract signing of the offseason. Albert Pujols could get north of $200m, and Prince Fielder is still targeting Ryan Howard‘s $25m/year as his baseline. Once we see where those land, ~$20m/year for a player who is neither over 30 (like Pujols), terrifyingly built (like Fielder), or tethered to first base (like both) could seem almost like a bargain. Even if Kemp doesn’t exactly repeat his fantastic 2011 every season, he’s still likely to be the 4-5 win player that it’d take to make this contract worthwhile.
Taking a larger view, this signing was more important than just baseball, anyway. Sure, locking up your MVP candidate center fielder is fantastic, but as I hardly need to remind you, the last two years have been nightmarish for the Dodgers and their fans. Letting their most marketable homegrown star walk for nothing – or even having to deal with an entire 2012 of “is this Kemp’s last season?” - would have been yet another massive PR disaster after dozens upon dozens of them.
If that required paying a premium, well, so be it. It’s a good day to be Matt Kemp, I’m guessing; it’s definitely a good day to be a Dodger fan.
34 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a Reply
How Many McCourt Sins?
MSTI on the web
MSTI Library
Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
Nice contract, Ned. I’ll avoid adding any snarky comments to that.
Comment by Brandon— November 18, 2011 #
Im lovin the red X over McCourt’s face
Comment by format— November 18, 2011 #
I didn’t even add that, the camera just refused to photograph his lying face.
Comment by Mike— November 18, 2011 #
Ha! Ha! I hear that
Comment by format— November 18, 2011 #
Just made my day!!
Comment by Danny Barbettini— November 18, 2011 #
Could you just rotate it counter clockwise a quarter turn and then place a circle around it.
Comment by west coast ram— November 18, 2011 #
This is fantastic.
My only concern is that Matt regresses because of the problems with the Dodgers. He’s an emotional guy and if he gets depressed or irritated, he doesn’t perform as well (see 2009). (Though, Matt not performing well is still one of the best players in the league.)
He’s the best position player in the NL and probably MLB and it’s great that the Dodgers have locked him up. Now, they need to build on it, not sign has-beens and never-will-bes. Ethier is good but we need better.
Comment by Brian Stuart— November 18, 2011 #
Can I assume you mean 2010? He was great in 2009.
I’m also not sure what you mean about “regressing because of the problems with the Dodgers”. 2011 was the worst year any franchise has had in a long, long time, and he was great during it.
Comment by Mike— November 18, 2011 #
You’re correct about the years.
And I’ll concede that 2011 was about the worst year in franchise history (as far as management is concerned) and Matt still had an MVP caliber year. But that 2010 still sticks out in my mind.
It’s kind a the opposite of the Beltre situation. Beltre had several “meh” years then in his contract year, he had a MVP caliber year and the Dodgers let him go.
Matt Kemp had several good to great years, but had one “meh” year (for him) and the Dodgers signed him to a large, long-term deal. So, it’s a good deal, but that 2010 sticks in my mind.
Comment by Brian Stuart— November 18, 2011 #
Pure lies, i don’t buy any of this mumbo jumbo about “head cases” be it Kemp or Ethier, where are we getting this from exactly? The Media? Guys like Larry Bowa? I have no reason to believe that my players are any different than any other big leaguers. Performance simply goes up and down and i think people create these narratives because they can’t accept randomness, there has to be some sort of physical or emotional reason for them to exist. I’m not even going to go down the road of Mr. Dingers blog and bring up race………”If you don’t have an All-Star year there is something wrong with you”
Comment by DodgersKings323— November 18, 2011 #
Kemp rocking the bowtie today: http://twitter.com/?photo_id=1#!/SMPLonnie/status/137605224738209792/photo/1
Comment by Mike— November 18, 2011 #
Where do signing bonuses come from, budget-wise? Would that mean $10mil allotted for Kemp this year, or would that $2mil come from another budget?
Comment by Josh S.— November 18, 2011 #
Good question. They’re usually payable by a certain date, sometimes a year or two in the future. Not sure what the specifics would be for Kemp.
Comment by Mike— November 18, 2011 #
Here you go:
But the contract also has a $2-million signing bonus that will be paid to Kemp next April, so Kemp’s income next season effectively will be $10 million, Stewart said. Kemp will receive the deferred $2 million in 2013, Stewart said.
Comment by Mike— November 18, 2011 #
Is there a no-Rihanna clause?
Comment by David Milstead— November 18, 2011 #
Kemp has been around for about 5 years, so after year 5 of the contract his 10 and 5 rights will kick in and he will have trade veto rights. Which works out for him because the most likely time he would be traded would be sometime in the last 3 years of his contract.
Comment by Danny H— November 18, 2011 #
Good point. I should have thought to mention that.
Comment by Mike— November 18, 2011 #
I like the breakdown of this a lot. I was so worried there would be $8 million, $8 million, $8 million, etc then $40 million per season the last two seasons. If Kemp can be even close to 2011 Kemp he will be a bargain the last few years of this deal.
Comment by The Hatch— November 18, 2011 #
Me too. It really helps out for 2012 and doesn’t totally destroy things later on.
Comment by Mike— November 18, 2011 #
I totally agree with your analysis, Mike. Even if he doesn’t live up to his billing at the tail end of the contract, if he produces 4-5 WAR each year, he pretty much earns it.
BTW, your announcement came 37 minutes faster than the Dodgers’ email hit my inbox. Keep up the great work!
Comment by Chris Grizzell (@BBQWino)— November 18, 2011 #
Hmm. Given inflation between now and 2019, a 4-5 annual WAR would make this contract a steal for the Dodgers. 3.5 might be the break-even point.
Comment by Michael Kaplan— November 19, 2011 #
While there is always risk when signing a player to a long term contract, I couldn’t be any happier about locking up Matt Kemp for the next eight years. With that said, how do you think that this will affect Andre Ethier’s status with the Dodgers? Do you think he will become more of an emotional liability after seeing Kemp get a big payday?
Comment by Noel De La Torre— November 18, 2011 #
I’m also really glad we won’t be paying him after the years of the contract have run out. I can’t help but worry about a contract like this, but if anyone can make it worth it, it’s Kemp.
Comment by Bip— November 18, 2011 #
1. Finally, after seven years, the Dodgers make up for the Beltre anti-signing disaster. Only took about seventy years off my life.
2. Gotta love that some things never change (i.e., the completely random deferrment of $2 million. Why? Who knows. But EVERY Dodger contract needs to have deferred money, so why the hell not?).
Comment by SamL— November 18, 2011 #
still bothers me that they couldn’t hang on to beltre. they let him go and sign JD drew for $55 mil, and beltre ended up signing for 60 something mil. still baffles me how the front office thought one of the best 3rd base offensive seasons ever wasn’t worth what seattle eventually paid.
Comment by sumdumfu— November 18, 2011 #
Thank you Matt Kemp for loaning $10 mil to Frank so that Dana Eveland will not be a starting pitcher in 2012. Thank you Matt.
Comment by Ken— November 18, 2011 #
Dave Stewart said today that Matt wanted to get the contract done early in the off season so that “it would open up some flexibility for going after [Prince] Fielder.” I also assume that’s why he’s taking significantly less money for 2012 than the rest of the contract. He’s gotta be at least a little pissed that payroll is gonna be lower next season, right? And that that news came out AFTER he signed the contract, even though Ned said right at the end of the season he was going to try to improve the offense in the “biggest way possible”
Comment by Dave Pomerantz— November 18, 2011 #
From the LA Times:
“Kemp shit a league-leading 39 home runs and had 126 runs batted in along with a .324 batting average and 40 stolen bases.”
Comment by Ron— November 18, 2011 #
Wow… what the hell did he eat? And where can I get some?
Comment by Dave Pomerantz— November 18, 2011 #
Mike, I think you’ve lost sight of reality: Do you not realize how many dream fields $160 million can build?
Comment by ThtsaPaddlin— November 18, 2011 #
I wonder how many beach houses it could buy.
Comment by Paul— November 18, 2011 #
Totally random thing, but I had the thought earlier this off-season of, as part of his extension, offering Kemp “Team Captian” status. Mainly a selling point to Kemp more than anything else, but he seems like he’d be a good fit for the role.
Btw- the last Dodger team captain? Mr. Davey Lopes.
Comment by Brandon— November 18, 2011 #
[...] but obviously, Kemp’s new mega-deal and Eveland’s trade to Baltimore takes them out of the mix. Let’s look at the other [...]
Pingback by Non-Tender Monday « Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— December 12, 2011 #
[...] Back in November, the Dodgers locked up outfielder Matt Kemp for the next eight years for the enormous sum of $160 million. At the time, not only was it by far the largest in Dodger history, it was the seventh-largest contract in baseball history and the largest in National League history. While we noted that the deal wasn’t entirely without risk – Kemp was just one year off a hugely disappointing 2010 and tying up that much money in any single player can easily turn sour – we were generally very happy with the outcome. As I said at the time, “if you’re going to make that gamble, making it on an athletic outfielder that you know well and who is just entering his prime is a much smarter choice than doing it on a player already into his 30s who is an uncertain commodity.” Kemp ended up finishing second in an MVP race that he probably should have won, even before Ryan Braun‘s testing issues became public, and the combination of few available free-agent bats likely to be had next winter and Kemp’s youth meaning that he’s only signed through 34 made the deal seem extremely appealing. [...]
Pingback by So How Good Does Matt Kemp’s Contract Look Now? « Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— January 25, 2012 #