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

By: nategearhart

nategearhart — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 15:29:55 +0000

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

By: bravojawja

bravojawja — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:30:02 +0000

Except for his first one, you’re right!

By: AlabamaFanRollTide

AlabamaFanRollTide — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 04:34:39 +0000

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

By: ok9275

ok9275 — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 02:38:15 +0000

So how much should Verlander expect to make?

By: SOBEIT

SOBEIT — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 01:39:38 +0000

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.

By: SOBEIT

SOBEIT — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 01:35:12 +0000

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.

By: phillyphannn83

phillyphannn83 — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 00:54:00 +0000

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.

By: stercuilus65

stercuilus65 — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 00:46:15 +0000

Yeah go straight home after September!

By: stercuilus65

stercuilus65 — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 00:45:36 +0000

Boo-hoo

By: stercuilus65

stercuilus65 — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 00:44:53 +0000

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

By: dirtydrew

dirtydrew — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 00:25:40 +0000

Ha ha hahahahahahahahaa. Go Giants!

By: giantraiderwarrior

giantraiderwarrior — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 23:22:12 +0000

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

By: seeinred87

seeinred87 — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 23:21:45 +0000

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.

By: sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo

sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 22:44:51 +0000

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.

By: jaydoubleyou22

jaydoubleyou22 — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 22:15:06 +0000

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.

By: sailcat54

sailcat54 — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 21:00:31 +0000

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?

By: paperlions

paperlions — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 20:50:39 +0000

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.

By: randygnyc

randygnyc — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 20:03:23 +0000

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.

By: Caught Looking

Caught Looking — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 19:42:12 +0000

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.

By: chukpark

chukpark — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 19:38:24 +0000

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.

By: fanofevilempire

fanofevilempire — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 19:33:28 +0000

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!

By: Caught Looking

Caught Looking — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 19:29:27 +0000

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.

By: paperlions

paperlions — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 19:17:33 +0000

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.

By: Lukehart80

Lukehart80 — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 19:03:14 +0000

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

By: echech88

echech88 — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 19:02:45 +0000

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).

By: ezthinking

ezthinking — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 18:40:31 +0000

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

Top artist get $3mil per show.

By: ezthinking

ezthinking — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 18:37:38 +0000

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

By: jaybird22seven

jaybird22seven — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 18:13:57 +0000

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

By: dwaibel38

dwaibel38 — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 18:06:31 +0000

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.