Kearns locked up through 2009, club option for 2010

by Geki on Feb 1, 2007 3:11 PM EST

Per RotoWorld:

Nationals agreed to terms with outfielder Austin Kearns on a three-year contract with a club option for 2010.
The option would cover his second year of free agency. No word on the terms yet, but the guaranteed portion of this deal is probably worth about $16 million. Kearns asked for $4.25 million and was offered $3.65 million in arbitration.

Yeah, that's totally killer on a team's finances. Three years, $16 mil with a club option. Chalk up another negative for the trade.

Tweet Comment 13 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

So much for the $8 million a year...

That supporters of The Trade were foretelling. Agreed, that this is another reason The Trade blew ass.

The worst thing is that he will only be 29 at the end of this contract, and there is even a $10 million club option for that year.

Don't mind me...just thinking positive and pitching to contact, that's all...

by Paul Householder on Feb 1, 2007 3:56 PM EST reply actions

Bowden

"Certainly we think Austin's going to be a cornerstone of this franchise," said general manager Jim Bowden.

Ugh. They may as well have printed "said Bowden, still laughing about The Trade."

by Brian B on Feb 1, 2007 6:22 PM EST reply actions

My response

My response is just a long series of curse words and pain.

by James Quinn on Feb 1, 2007 6:27 PM EST reply actions

Good signing, if they trade him

This deal on its own is a good value. But the Nats are going to be so bad for the next few years that you have to wonder whether they're better off trading him for prospects. Their rotation is terrible - Patterson (when healthy, which is a big question mark) and AAAA spare parts. They play in a tough, deep division against two large market teams and two shrewd mid/small market teams. Trading Kearns in July, assuming he has a decent and healthy start, could fetch a decent return and help the Nats shoot for respectability down the road.

by ken on Feb 2, 2007 8:14 AM EST reply actions

With a contract like this...

...he will be even easier to trade. It is not too different from the Bronson Arroyo situation from last year.

by James Quinn on Feb 2, 2007 1:01 PM EST up reply actions

i wonder

if bowden would trade kearns for bray???

A woman needs baseball like Lance Armstrong needs a bicycle.

by Daedalus on Feb 2, 2007 1:28 PM EST up reply actions

I sure would

give back Bray for Kearns. Hell, I'd trade Bray, Majewski and Conine for Kearns. Honestly I would.

by James Quinn on Feb 3, 2007 12:23 AM EST up reply actions

Not too different?

I don't necessarily agree with that. Arroyo was a 14 game winning starting pitcher on a multi year deal making less than $4 million a year.

Kearns is a position player with only 1 full year experience without neing inured or being sent to AAA making $5 million a year.

Arroyo's situation was much more attrative than should the Nats put Kearns on the trading block... Granted, if they did they'd probably get more than a middle reliever and a washed-up shortstop in return. But I'm not ready to say Austin Kearns $16 million over 3 years is as desirable of a contract as what the Reds aquired with Bronson.

by indy on Feb 2, 2007 3:30 PM EST up reply actions

Arroyo

Arroyo had a .500 record when he was traded. He was not projected to be in the Boston starting rotation at the begining of the year, meaning he was not seen as one of the organizations five best starters at the time of the trade. The Reds saw him as the team's #2 starter, but I think most teams would have seen him as a back of the rotation type. Clearly he did much better than these projections, but last year was Arroyo's best by a wide margin.

If the trade had been Kearns for Arroyo last spring, I would have seen that as a close call. Krivisky offered either Kearns, Dunn or Pena for Arroyo and Boston choose Pena. That seems odd to me but that is what Hal McCoy learned earlier this year.

Anyway, getting back to the original point. I do think Kearns, with the contract he just signed, is of very similar trade value as Arroyo was at this time last year. In my opinion, at this point Kearns is roughly as safe a bet as Arroyo was 12 months ago.

by James Quinn on Feb 3, 2007 12:31 AM EST up reply actions

Kearns/Dunn/Pena choice wasn't that odd.

Dunn could be offered because the Red Sox didn't have a spot for him. Kearns and Pena were basically equal commodities last year, and Pena was more suited for a part-time role than Kearns was.

by Geki on Feb 3, 2007 10:22 AM EST up reply actions

I'll agree to disagree with you.

Arroyo won 14 games in 2005 for Boston (granted that only brought his career record to .500). I believe any 14 game winning starting pitcher on a multi-year contract making $3 million a year is more valuable than an outfielder making $5 million a year.

Kearns contract isn't absurd by any means, but Arroyo's deal is one of the more vauable multi year contracts out there. Look at what Gil Meche and Ted Lilly are making, and compare that Arroyo. I just don't think the Nats are getting THAT GOOD of a deal on Kearns.

by indy on Feb 5, 2007 9:14 AM EST up reply actions

We really agree more than disagree

I do think 2005 Arroyo is a more valuable asset than 2006 Kearns. And he did cost a bit less. I guess what I was trying to emphasis is that the gap between the two is not enormous, and that Kearns locked up at a reasonable rate is a very tradable commodity.

Go back in time with me to last March. Would you have traded Kearns, or even Pena, for Arroyo if he only had a one year contract? I wouldn't have at that point. The contract Kearns signed will make him very attractive to a lot of clubs, even more so if he plays 80+ games before the trading deadline and if his numbers remain at or above his 2006 production.

by James Quinn on Feb 6, 2007 10:54 PM EST up reply actions