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

By: joerymi

joerymi — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 05:20:51 +0000

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.

By: mybrunoblog

mybrunoblog — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 02:59:26 +0000

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.

By: missingdiz

missingdiz — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 22:34:50 +0000

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.

By: gabrielthursday

gabrielthursday — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 21:43:42 +0000

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.

By: uyf1950

uyf1950 — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 19:04:41 +0000

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.

By: jl9830

jl9830 — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 18:58:52 +0000

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.

By: jl9830

jl9830 — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 18:57:06 +0000

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.

By: uyf1950

uyf1950 — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 18:11:24 +0000

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.

By: cackalackyank

cackalackyank — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 17:26:26 +0000

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

By: manchestermiracle

manchestermiracle — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 17:09:54 +0000

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

By: mybrunoblog

mybrunoblog — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 16:59:07 +0000

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.

By: kvanhorn87

kvanhorn87 — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 16:27:39 +0000

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.

By: fanofevilempire

fanofevilempire — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 16:20:07 +0000

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

By: 1972wasalongtimeago

1972wasalongtimeago — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 16:17:25 +0000

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.

By: koufaxmitzvah

koufaxmitzvah — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 16:17:07 +0000

“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..

By: number42is1

number42is1 — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 16:11:08 +0000

Jeff Loria approves this post

By: proudlycanadian

proudlycanadian — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 15:55:25 +0000

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

By: jjpileggi

jjpileggi — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 15:54:41 +0000

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

By: sportsnut101

sportsnut101 — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 15:52:39 +0000

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

By: hushbrother

hushbrother — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 15:48:21 +0000

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

By: proudlycanadian

proudlycanadian — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 15:39:43 +0000

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

By: mauijim3

mauijim3 — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 15:37:36 +0000

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

By: uyf1950

uyf1950 — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 15:32:08 +0000

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.