Skip to content

Zack Greinke’s six-year, $147 million contract with Dodgers does not include no-trade protection

Dec 9, 2012, 10:27 AM EDT

dodger stadium getty Getty Images

The Dodgers can have quite a firesale if they want.

ESPN and SiriusXM’s Jim Bowden reports that the record six-year, $147 million contract committed Saturday to free agent right-hander Zack Greinke does not include a no-trade clause. Also without no-trade protection are center fielder Matt Kemp, who agreed to an eight-year, $160 million extension in November 2011, and right fielder Andre Ethier, who signed for five years and $85 million this past June.

The Dodgers are still operating with great comfort financially, so there’s no reason for them to want to ship off any of these parts. But that could of course change at some point in the future.

Greinke’s contract runs through 2018, Ethier’s goes until 2017 and Kemp is signed through 2019.

  1. uyf1950 - Dec 9, 2012 at 10:32 AM

    I read today where his contract with the Dodgers does allow him to opt-out after 3 years if he wants. It also allows him should he be traded to opt-out at the end of the season he was traded. Seems like the Dodgers bent over backwards to accommodate Greinke.

    • proudlycanadian - Dec 9, 2012 at 10:39 AM

      He will be better paid than Kemp, although the latter will probably have a bigger impact on the team going forward.

    • koufaxmitzvah - Dec 9, 2012 at 11:17 AM

      “Seems like the Dodgers bent over backwards to accommodate Greinke.”

      The Dodgers made their offer more enticing. They have backloaded the contract for themselves in case Greinke decides LA isn’t where he wants to be, and Zack still gets paid top tier wages for his 3 years.

      And none of that effectively cost them anything. Unlike providing use of a private jet plane 10 times a year. That was bending over backwards; this is being creative..

      • uyf1950 - Dec 9, 2012 at 1:11 PM

        My friend I’m not exactly sure how you can really say his contract is back loaded. He signed a deal for 6 yrs/$147MM. In fact it’s anything but backloaded:
        Signing Bonus: $12MM
        2013: $17MM
        2014: $24MM
        2015: $23MM
        2016: $24MM
        2017: $23MM
        2018: $24MM
        Here is the link with the contract details: http://www.truebluela.com/2012/12/9/3745618/zack-greinke-contract-details-dodgers

        Now I don’t know where you come from but that hardly seems like a backloaded contract to me. Especially when you consider the signing bonus of $12MM and his $17MM 2013 salary means he will have been paid $29MM of his $147MM contract by the time his 1st season with the Dodgers ends.

  2. mauijim3 - Dec 9, 2012 at 10:37 AM

    Only a few teams were interested in him as a FA, so that contract alone could serve as a “no-trade” clause.

    • cackalackyank - Dec 9, 2012 at 12:26 PM

      Exactly right….who is going to want him for that? Problem is that teams that might take that on are in cities that he could not handle the stressfull lifestyle

      • jl9830 - Dec 9, 2012 at 1:57 PM

        Greinke’s personal problems= overrated. He did just fine in a big market with the Angels and just signed a huge contract to remain in Los Angeles.

      • uyf1950 - Dec 9, 2012 at 2:04 PM

        jl9830, I think some of the big market teams for example: Philadelphia, Boston and New York (Yankees) both the fans and media would eat him for lunch and spit him out at the first sign that he is not earning his contract if it ever came to that. I think that might be a little different then him playing in Anaheim or LA.

    • gabrielthursday - Dec 9, 2012 at 4:43 PM

      Like everything, it depends on performance. But if he pitches in a manner consistent with the past few years, 5/118 is going to be more attractive than 6/147; and 4/94 may be still more attractive. Obviously, if his performance disappoints, he’ll be untradeable, but as the years decrease (and AAV declines marginally), his contract will (all things being equal) become more attractive. At some point, paying for his anticipated decline years will wipe out the advantages with a lesser year commitment, but it’s had to judge when that might be.

  3. hushbrother - Dec 9, 2012 at 10:48 AM

    But of course they’ll want to keep Beckett, Crawford and Gonzalez no matter what happens.

    • proudlycanadian - Dec 9, 2012 at 10:55 AM

      If Beckett and Crawford do not work out, they could flip them for Vernon Wells.

  4. sportsnut101 - Dec 9, 2012 at 10:52 AM

    why would he opt out after 3 yrs whos gonna pay him more when hes older

    they overspent for him big time i dont find him as a number 1 starter

    • manchestermiracle - Dec 9, 2012 at 12:09 PM

      Neither do the Dodgers with Clayton Kershaw anchoring their staff, but Greinke would be #1 on a lot of teams.

  5. jjpileggi - Dec 9, 2012 at 10:54 AM

    “In case of bad results, break glass, trade guys”

  6. number42is1 - Dec 9, 2012 at 11:11 AM

    Jeff Loria approves this post

  7. 1972wasalongtimeago - Dec 9, 2012 at 11:17 AM

    Anyone whose had Greinke on their fantasy team knows he can be very good ON OCCASION. Mostly though, he’s not reliable and will have many games where he’s just bad. Every time he pitched was an adventure. Terrible contract.

  8. fanofevilempire - Dec 9, 2012 at 11:20 AM

    let’s be real, sooner or later those great BIG contracts
    become big BADcontracts and they get moved…………..

  9. kvanhorn87 - Dec 9, 2012 at 11:27 AM

    Call me a cynic but I think the Dodgers made those contracts and left the option to fire sale the team so that Fox buys into their commitment to winning. What happens after they secure the tv deal is anyone’s guess.

  10. mybrunoblog - Dec 9, 2012 at 11:59 AM

    Another ridiculously bad contract. Greinke is being paid like a stud #one starter when we know he is probably a #2 possibly even a # 3 starter. I guess the Dodgers really are are crapping money because they are using it like kindling.

    • jl9830 - Dec 9, 2012 at 1:58 PM

      Greinke a #3 starter LOL. I get the debate around ace or not, but calling him a #3 just sounds vengeful towards the Dodgers or Greinke or something.

      • mybrunoblog - Dec 9, 2012 at 9:59 PM

        Greinke has never won more than 16 games, has a career era of 3.77 and hasn’t thrown a complete game in 2 years. Oh yeah, he is 1-1 with a 6.77 era in post season play. This guy isn’t a legit number 1 starter. Maybe a number two but put him on a good staff he’d be a number three starter.

  11. missingdiz - Dec 9, 2012 at 5:34 PM

    Greinke’s ERA has been under 3.40 once, his one great year in 2009. Kyle Lohse has been under 3.40 twice, 2011 and 2012. Personally, I think recent performance is more important. A Cy Young from 2009 won’t get anybody out in 2013. I think the Dodgers have made an expensive mistake, even if Greinke doesn’t decline in the next few years.

  12. joerymi - Dec 10, 2012 at 12:20 AM

    I can’t imagine a single scenario where opting out after three seasons would happen. Even if he is traded to a crap team, it seems highly unlikely his value in three years would be anything but diminished, or equal at best.

Leave Comment

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

Featured video

Patience finally paying off for Royals fans
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. R. Castillo (3082)
  2. G. Stanton (2255)
  3. N. Arenado (2121)
  4. J. Hamilton (2112)
  5. A. Rizzo (2104)
  1. C. Kershaw (2063)
  2. M. Trout (1998)
  3. D. Ortiz (1961)
  4. A. Pujols (1789)
  5. H. Ryu (1741)