Skip to content

Dodgers looking to add starting pitching, Zack Greinke and Anibal Sanchez “on their list”

Nov 6, 2012, 4:14 PM EDT

Zack Greinke Getty Images

A potential reunion between the Dodgers and Hiroki Kuroda is one thing, but Jayson Stark of ESPN.com reports that Zack Greinke and Anibal Sanchez are also “on their list” as Los Angeles looks to add starting pitching.

Los Angeles’ payroll is already around $200 million, so making a serious run at Greinke or even Sanchez would more or less say the Dodgers can spend whatever they want at this point.

Beyond that the Dodgers already have veteran starters Clayton Kershaw, Chris Capuano, Aaron Harang, and Josh Beckett, plus Chad Billingsley and Ted Lilly as health question marks.

I’m not sure how Greinke and Sanchez fit into that equation, but given the Dodgers’ recent moves it’s tough to write it off. Which is something we’re probably going to be saying about a lot of Dodgers rumors all offseason.

  1. Marty - Nov 6, 2012 at 4:21 PM

    Damn, the Giants must have really pissed these guys off.

    • dcfan4life - Nov 6, 2012 at 8:23 PM

      Missing the playoffs after high expectations im sure made them far more upset. Especially when you compare payrolls to any other NL playoff team.

      • koufaxmitzvah - Nov 7, 2012 at 6:10 PM

        The big trade you’re referring to was made after the trade deadline. Ergo, plenty of ballgames were played before the increase in payroll. But, whatever.

  2. historiophiliac - Nov 6, 2012 at 4:21 PM

    Grrrrrrr! >:(

  3. echech88 - Nov 6, 2012 at 4:43 PM

    Not to say Greinke or Sanchez would be bad moves for the Dodgers…but the way they spend will have some serious impact in a year or two just because they will be so heavily invested financially at so many spots that the only way to bring in the next big available star will be to completely eat an existing contract.

    In other words, they are running out of positions to fill because they’ve been spending HUGE on marginal upgrades.

    Case in point: Instead of being smart and patient, they threw money at Ethier and took on Crawford even when they are the one team that could EASILY lock up Josh Hamilton. To make room for the upgrade (Hamilton, or really any other great OF that becomes available in the next 4 years), they will have to flush money down the toilet to make room.

    This feels like it will eventually happen with the rotation too. The next great available pitcher will necessitate them to eat more money to make room when they have 5 big $ pitchers filling it out.

    • gibbyfan - Nov 6, 2012 at 4:55 PM

      Good analysis and perfect example of it no longer about great baseball minds, strategy, scouting, etc. It’s all about having tons of $$$ and desperately throwing it around to buy a title–that’s what it has become. To me, it takes a lot away from the game and becomes only about money –but at least I have something to passionately root for,or should I say against –hope they choke on their boatloads of $$$ –go giants

      • echech88 - Nov 6, 2012 at 5:15 PM

        I think it is only a temporary advantage if it does not come with a smart front office that knows when to exercise restraint.

        Going bananas with the spending is what derailed the Red Sox and it appears the Yankees have also realized it has to be balanced out with smart decisions otherwise the money just eats up your flexibility.

        The money is an obvious asset but if you are not spending it on the right guys it can have an adverse impact. This doesn’t even get into how bringing in big names inflates your fan base’s expectations to be upset about anything other than a championship.

    • dodgertalk5 - Nov 6, 2012 at 5:13 PM

      Nobody cares about Hamilton. Take a look at that outfield… Lets be real bro, that’s the best outfield in the game. Not to mention the signing of puig. The kids 19 years old and they’ve got him locked up for years to come. If they pick up another solid pitcher or two, they will be dominant for many years. There roster is young! How could spending money for the all star roster impact them in a bad way.. Yeah they struggled at the end of the season, but this is a big off season for them and there will be a positive outcome, rings! Believe it or not, teams who spend are teams that win.

      • echech88 - Nov 6, 2012 at 5:23 PM

        The team is certainly better than it was before but you are missing the point: overspending impulsively will result in them not being able to get the RIGHT piece when it becomes available.

        Hamilton is lightyears beyond Ethier and Crawford and the Dodgers would be the hands down favorite to lock him up if they hadn’t filled their outfield with those two.

        By the way, Hamilton would cost less than these two combined while hitting more home runs than both of them combined. You should not be thrilled about that.

    • koufaxmitzvah - Nov 6, 2012 at 6:23 PM

      Marginal upgrades?

      Henley Ramirez vs. Juan Uribe
      Adrian Gonzalez vs. James Loney
      Carl Crawford vs. Juan Rivera

      Please… stop.

      • paperlions - Nov 7, 2012 at 9:21 AM

        The problem is that they are spending a lot more money for what will amount to relatively modest upgrades. Ramirez is a defensive disaster at any position and is not the guy he was two years ago at the plate. Gonzalez is a good hitter and defender, but really…he’s only good, while he’s paid to be great. Plus, these guys are all at then end of their primes or past it already. Once a guy hits 32, he’s likely to on the down side (or already been there for a couple of years).

        Now, the Dodgers have these guys (plus Eithier, who’s contract has too many dollars and years), signed for a long time….and if they want to upgrade from them, they will have to eat a lot of money to do it….and THOSE upgrades will likely be marginal.

      • koufaxmitzvah - Nov 7, 2012 at 10:01 AM

        It’s obvious our perceived value of the dollar needs to be reeled in. Owning a ball club is now officially a billionaire’s investment. $10,000 to me is piddlywinks to them. But discounting the Guggenheim collective and the TV contract, both Uribe and Loney made over $7 million last year, one via a free agent contract and the other through arbitration. Is one Josh Beckett equal to make the same amount of wins as a Uribe and Loney combined? That is how the agents normalize their $20 million contracts.

        Hanley was a good move considering they needed 3rd base. He’s worth a season long flyer. He could really shine or totally disappoint, but his contract only means that he was once considered the prize of his franchise. Gonzalez is the key to the new Dodgers lineup. We saw him as a Padre continue to come up big both offensively and defensively and as a fan, I’m thrilled to see the team have him, and Gonzalez will make Kemp that much better.

        This is all speculation. It’s possible the team could tank just like it was possible for Mittens to snag 270. Yes, the upgrades to follow will not make much of a difference, but I’m not convinced the new look Dodgers will fail. That’s just a lot of hot air coming mostly from Giants and Red Sox fans. I mean, come on.

      • paperlions - Nov 7, 2012 at 11:37 AM

        The problem is that there are still only 25 roster spots. That is the limiting commodity….as the Yankees are finding out, you have to spend them wisely….or the money you spend still won’t result in a well constructed team. The Dodgers look like they are going to be old, expensive and unathletic in the very near future….and no matter how much money they have, they still won’t cut a guy they owe $50M to just to free up roster space.

    • doyerfan27 - Nov 7, 2012 at 12:45 AM

      I see what you’re are getting at. I agree and I don’t. I definitely feel like Ned needs to watch the spending and get the right pieces in here and not just the big names, at the same time I don’t think you realize how much money this ownership really has and is willing to put into this team. They bought the team for $2 BILLION and should receive about $4 BILLION in a tv contract at some point in the near future, so I really don’t think they care about not having enough to bring in the right piece if it pops up on the market. Also, you really have to look at who we just signed. We just got guys in their prime and will be(hopefully of course) solid for years to come and possible trade chips to bring in what we need or just relieve financial space at a later date if need be. Once we bring in another solid starter or two there isn’t much the Dodgers will need to add over the next few years to be one of the premier teams in the league. Lastly, with this group having a full offseason and 162 game season to build chemistry the sky is the limit.

      • doyerfan27 - Nov 7, 2012 at 12:46 AM

        That was for echech88’s post. Sorry new to this board

  4. dalucks - Nov 6, 2012 at 4:50 PM

    I might be in the minority with this viewpoint but baseball is always better when you have a team with a payroll over 250 million dollars and they cannot make the playoffs or they can barely play .500 baseball. It always makes an interesting storyline.
    I know the Dodgers will sell out a few games and they might be somewhat profitable as fans hope for a winning season will keep them in the seats as the Dodgers play themselves out of contention.
    Just saying.

  5. frenchysplatediscipline - Nov 6, 2012 at 4:57 PM

    Damn.

    Was kinda hoping to see skerny1 post “Ned gonna Ned” AGAIN so I could laugh my ass off, YET AGAIN!

    • ptfu - Nov 6, 2012 at 6:04 PM

      “Ned gonna Ned” gonna end?

  6. fuddpucker - Nov 6, 2012 at 6:05 PM

    This is great, another baseball team besides the Yanks and BoSox that we can sit back and watch FAIL due to unnecessary overspending.

    • dodgertalk5 - Nov 6, 2012 at 6:54 PM

      Yankees fail? Pretty sure they made it to the post season. Not to mention the amount of World Series championships

  7. SOBEIT - Nov 6, 2012 at 6:37 PM

    Let’s see, top 10 payrolls for the past 3 years resulted in 3 championships. All over $100M annually…except for the Brewers. The kicker…the 3 championships went to the Giants (2) and Cardinals (1). They are 8 & 9 respectively on the list with Brewers at #10.

    The top tier 2012 payrollls in order include: Yankees, Phillies, RedSox, Angels, Tigers, Rangers, Marlins, Giants, Cards., Brewers.

    Winners of WS since 2000 in order: 7NL to 5AL
    Yankees, Dbacks, Angels, Marlins, RedSox, WhiteSox, Cards, RedSox, Phillies, Yankees, Giants, Cards, Giants.

    Yes, you have to spend money to win it all…but it doesn’t have to be the most money. Dbacks and Marlins are really the only exception at about $67M dbacks and $50M Marlins payroll. Well, the Cards in 2006 had a $88M payroll. And Giants in 2010 had a $97M payroll.

    So I guess the sweetspot is $90M-$120M. It will be interesting to see where the Dodgers end up in 2013 payroll and then what they get for it.

  8. joerymi - Nov 6, 2012 at 10:15 PM

    Front loading one of these guys might not be the worst idea, if their goal is pitching.

    Their first-time luxury tax next season would actually be lower than if it were this season, and they appear as though they will hit it next season regardless.

    If signing an above average starting pitcher is in their plan, now might be the best time. Doesn’t sound like sound financial sense to spend wildly, but if you are going to spending stupidly, you might as well do it smartly.

  9. wj4122 - Nov 7, 2012 at 2:22 AM

    Stan kasten is not a fool. He as good as anyone in the game right now and he knows exactly what he is doing.

    • paperlions - Nov 7, 2012 at 9:32 AM

      He may not be a fool, and he likely knows exactly what he is doing….but the moves the dodgers have made the last 6 months show that he is clearly NOT as good as anyone in the game. Keeping Ned was stupid, the guy is clueless. They gave up good prospects AND took on the entire contracts of a bunch of overpaid old guys….and they signed a marginal reliever to a horrible contract. I’m still waiting for their first good move….so far, they’ve just spent a lot of money, and they haven’t spent it wisely at all.

  10. doubledsquared - Nov 14, 2012 at 8:42 PM

    The Dodgers are overspending. The question isn’t whether or not they’ve upgraded – clearly they have. I think Gonzalez, Crawford and Beckett will all do fine next year as will Ramirez.

    But at some point you have to have a semblance of a plan going forward. Grienke, Sanchez or Kuroda would also all be an upgrade. And they will also be inconsistent as they’ve been for much of their careers.

    What the Dodgers aren’t yet is a TEAM – the way both the Giants and Cardinals have been.

    The Dodgers have also spent quite a bit on bringing in new (and more) scouts and developmental people. I think the plan is spend what you need to now to be competitive, give yourself a chance at a championship and – if nothing else – be entertaining. Then, in 3 years time, the farm system will be strong again and the Dodgers can start to develop a championship team from within and the payroll will come back down to earth as young players emerge.

    So if the Dodgers draw 3.5 million fans in 2013 and 2014, keep collecting from that big TV contract and finish 2nd two years in a row I think ownership will look at that as a disappointment but not total failure even though fans and the media no doubt will.

    However, if in 2015 they’ve got nothing but a bunch of big contracts and aging players with no younger players ready to come up – well then you’re the 2012 Red Sox. And that’s a big problem.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Red Sox shopping Lester and Lackey
Top 10 MLB Player Searches