Skip to content

Breaking down Zack Greinke’s six-year, $147 million deal

Dec 9, 2012, 12:59 PM EST

greinke getty red Getty Images

Jim Bowden of ESPN and SiriusXM has the full financial breakdown of Zack Greinke‘s new six-year, $147 million contract with the Dodgers — the most amount of money ever promised to a right-hander.

2013: $17 million
2014: $24 million
2015: $23 million
2016: $24 million
2017: $23 million
2018: $24 million

Greinke will also receive a $12 million signing bonus, and he can opt out of the deal after the 2015 season.

The contract does not include a no-trade clause, but Greinke will be allowed to become a free agent the following winter if he’s dealt. The 29-year-old is expected to be introduced at Dodger Stadium on Tuesday.

  1. dwaibel38 - Dec 9, 2012 at 1:06 PM

    Just to point out (as a bitter Angel Fan), based upon 24/23 million a year it works itself out to about 750,000 a start.

    • ezthinking - Dec 9, 2012 at 1:37 PM

      About what a very good (not great or historic) band/hip hop artist/pop signer gets per night for a concert.

      • ezthinking - Dec 9, 2012 at 1:40 PM

        Here’s some rapper info for comparison sake. http://www.celebritynetworth.com/articles/entertainment-articles/rappers-concert/

        Top artist get $3mil per show.

  2. jaybird22seven - Dec 9, 2012 at 1:13 PM

    Wow, I think they over paid for him !!!!

    • sailcat54 - Dec 9, 2012 at 4:00 PM

      It will be interesting to see if the Bums get their money’s worth out of Greinke. Or, for that matter, their money’s worth out of rest of the players for whom the Dodgers have paid altogether too much.

      No matter. How many days until spring training?

      • SOBEIT - Dec 9, 2012 at 8:35 PM

        With that kind of money for Greinke as well as the other contracts…worth it or getting value = WS. Otherwise, bust for all the signings.

  3. echech88 - Dec 9, 2012 at 2:02 PM

    The no trade clause stuff is kind of interesting. Given how reckless they have appeared with these contracts and trades you would assume they would just mindlessly include the NTC as well.

    Who knows? Maybe the plan for ownership is to go BIG right now and ride the attention to securing that monster TV deal and then once the ink is dry they’ll be prepared to sell off a piece or two and come back down to Earth (relatively speaking).

  4. Lukehart80 - Dec 9, 2012 at 2:03 PM

    I don’t remember seeing that particular type of trade kicker before. Interesting.

    • Caught Looking - Dec 9, 2012 at 2:42 PM

      I’m not sure if that ‘kicker’ is really any different than the existing rules as a player with five years or more of major league service who is traded in the middle of a multi-year contract can, during the offseason, require his new team to either trade him or let him become a free agent.

      • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Dec 9, 2012 at 5:44 PM

        I think that rule is just that the player with 10/5 rights can veto a trade. Not sure f he can demand a second trade.

    • seeinred87 - Dec 9, 2012 at 6:21 PM

      Yeah, I thought that was really cool. It’s kind of a compromise no-trade. Though my first impression is that it would limit his trade value fairly substantially.

  5. paperlions - Dec 9, 2012 at 2:17 PM

    The opt out is also huge leverage for Greinke if he has 3 solid years to start the deal….by then Kershaw will have been extended…and depending on what the offseason market is for pitchers that year, he may have huge leverage to get an extension or higher AAV from the Dodgers.

  6. Caught Looking - Dec 9, 2012 at 2:29 PM

    So this deal could potentially be a 3 year/$76 million deal if he opts out after the 2015 season? OUCH.

    With or without the opt out, I think the Dodgers will come to regret this deal for this pitcher.

    • stercuilus65 - Dec 9, 2012 at 7:44 PM

      Over 250 million a year tv money..OUCH. They can afford it easily.

  7. fanofevilempire - Dec 9, 2012 at 2:33 PM

    that’s a lot of green back!
    I hope he is worth it…………..
    considering TV money they got they taking a shot, 88 was along time ago.

    good luck magic!

  8. chukpark - Dec 9, 2012 at 2:38 PM

    On the other hand, the opt-out provides Greinke with incentive to have three lights-out years in a row. If that happens, the Dodgers will be the biggest beneficiary. Then they will either avoid the riskiest three years of the deal, or they will have an opportunity to re-evaluate how much they think Greinke is worth. In the meantime, the Dodgers may have signed Verlander or King Felix, giving them a lot more leverage if Greinke opts out.

  9. randygnyc - Dec 9, 2012 at 3:03 PM

    Paper, if I was an owner, I would never give an opt out. It is no advantage to any team. We all know how perception is everything. Greinke doesn’t need to have 3 solid years to hold the dodgers hostage. He only needs to have 2 reasonable year and one exceptional year in his opt out year. Those first 2 years will be forgotten if he contends for the CY young in year 3. I lost taste for the players getting these opt outs after both AROD and CC exercised theirs.

    • paperlions - Dec 9, 2012 at 3:50 PM

      Totally agree…the opt out has huge value to the player and no benefit to the team. Essentially, it lets the player opt out (usually) at the perfect time to get one last huge deal…instead of waiting until his deal expires at age 35.

  10. jaydoubleyou22 - Dec 9, 2012 at 5:15 PM

    I hope he opts out. I would rather have him from 29-32 and then spend the money elsewhere after the 2015 season. To quote Kasten, pitchers break.

  11. giantraiderwarrior - Dec 9, 2012 at 6:22 PM

    Sad that they have to spend so much money just to even come close to winning the west.

    • stercuilus65 - Dec 9, 2012 at 7:45 PM

      Boo-hoo

  12. dirtydrew - Dec 9, 2012 at 7:25 PM

    Ha ha hahahahahahahahaa. Go Giants!

    • stercuilus65 - Dec 9, 2012 at 7:46 PM

      Yeah go straight home after September!

  13. phillyphannn83 - Dec 9, 2012 at 7:54 PM

    Nothing against Zach and not to wish something bad on him personally, but the Dodgers deserve to have him need Tommy Johns surgery this season. Their recklessness with contracts, both player and television, are setting a bad precedent. Inflation rates are out of control in this country and wages are climbing at no where near the same rate. WE are the ones paying those contracts! They are pricing us out of the stadiums and making our cable bills soar sky high. Its absolutely disgusting and reckless. I’m am not religious but greed and gluttony certainly lead to bad things.

    • nategearhart - Dec 10, 2012 at 10:29 AM

      Wow dude, wishing a serious injury on someone just because of how much money they make? You’re a sick fuck.

  14. SOBEIT - Dec 9, 2012 at 8:39 PM

    Strange contract…up and down annual$, opt-out after 3, FA after traded.

    That last one is interesting because any team trading for him might be scared off by that if he might be a rental. Gotta give em credit for creativity.

    So glad the Giants dumped Colletti…reminds me of all his stupid transactions as a Giant.

  15. ok9275 - Dec 9, 2012 at 9:38 PM

    So how much should Verlander expect to make?

  16. AlabamaFanRollTide - Dec 9, 2012 at 11:34 PM

    $147 mill for a guy that I’m almost certain has never won a Post Season game lol, wow .

    • bravojawja - Dec 10, 2012 at 9:30 AM

      Except for his first one, you’re right!

Leave Comment

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

Featured video

Cubs shore up rotation with Jon Lester
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. W. Myers (4701)
  2. M. Kemp (3732)
  3. M. Cabrera (2925)
  4. J. Kang (2773)
  5. J. Upton (2631)
  1. M. Morse (2620)
  2. W. Middlebrooks (2304)
  3. A. Rios (2275)
  4. C. Headley (2211)
  5. C. McGehee (2211)