Blake Snell: His Dodgers Contract Feels Like A Gross Overpay

Blake Snell: His Dodgers Contract Feels Like A Gross Overpay

Late night breaking news cheese dropped tonight as Blake Snell has signed a five-year contract with the Los Angeles Dodgers. I don’t know how else to lead with this post other than by coming right out and saying this deal feels like a gross overpay that I wouldn’t have been able to attach my name to this deal. Hell no, we won’t go.

Before you come for my throat. I ask you to evaluate the evaluator. The last time I wrote a post like this on a pitching contract I despised, I was proven right. Oh, and I was also the lead liaison when the Phillies signed Zack Wheeler, arguably the greatest free agent starting pitching contact ever. If I worked for another team, Wheeler would be playing for another team. I can promise you that.

I’m not trying to be a Blake Snell hater but can we be serious about this contract? WTF was that?

I get the intrigue with Snell. I’m not trying to call him a bad player. That’s not the purpose of today. Teams were obviously interested and pushed the price tag up because he’s really good at missing bats. Even in a shaky season with the Giants this past year, Snell posted a career high 12.5 K per 9 rate. That’s a really impressive number. Add in the fact that he’s a left starter and boom, there you go. Snell is a rich man for a reason.

I’ve also talked in the past about all of the reasons why I wouldn’t invest in Snell long term. In encourage you to read that post in the previous sentence because it’s going to be a lot of the same verbiage thrown at you.

A: He walks way too many batters. In 2023, Snell led MLB in walks, and had he pitched more innings in 2024, he may have done it again. While supremely talented, Snell is flawed in the sense that he gets himself in trouble.

B: Because Snell gets himself in trouble with some unnecessary walks, it limits his workload. Snell has pitched at the MLB level for nine seasons. He’s crossed the 130-inning mark in two of those seasons. Some of it has to do with previous injuries. A lot of it has to do with too many walks, pitch count rises, he exits the game far sooner than he should.

If I’m investing in a starting pitcher, he better eat up innings. Snell has provided essentially zero evidence that he can do that. Which by the way, is the same problem that Tyler Glasnow has. The guy never pitches so why are we paying him this albatross rate? The only difference is Glasnow is more injury prone than Snell is. By the way, that Glasnow deal looks bad too quickly.

C: Snell is already a rollercoaster. If I’m spending this kind of money, I want certainty. When Snell loses it, he loses it. During the 2024 MLB Season, Snell posted a 9.51 ERA through his first six starts. Maybe some of that had to do with missing Spring Training but it doesn’t ignore the fact that he’s never been a pinpoint control artist.

Pitching contracts are already risky given the nature of the position. Are we sure this is a guy who is going to age gracefully? Right now the strikeouts get him by. What happens if the pure stuff takes a dip down (and it will) as father time catches up? Is that a deal you want on your hands during his age 35 and 36 seasons? Hard pass for me.

It’s not my money. The Dodgers already have a crazy payroll and clearly they’re all in. I’m not going to fault them for it. This just would have never been the contract I allocated my resources to. Not long term. The only positive here is that the Dodgers signed Snell after the Giants paid the price of the qualifying offer the offseason prior. I’m sure that fact alone is making Dodger fans smile and maybe it will all prove to be worth it in the end. When you have a rotation that looks like this, maybe complaining about the price tag is dumb. I’m just not sure how you can ignore the red flags of this deal at the same token.

Click Here for more MLB Content

Subscribe to Vendetta’s Twitch

Subscribe to Vendetta’s YouTube

Check out Vendetta Fantasy Contests