Greinke

by supernova on Sep 27, 2008 4:19 PM EDT Comment 56 comments

If you were the Royals GM and were offered Rick Ankiel, Brian Anderson and Clay Mortensen from the Cardinals for Greinke, would you do it?

Anderson has hit at every level in the minors, even though he's always been young for the level, and an average defensive catcher. He hasn't hit for power, but is still filling out and has that potential. I'd imagine he's the 2nd or 3rd best prospect in the Cardinals system and probably ranks in the top 5 among catching prospects.

Mortensen is a good starting pitching prospect who's had a good year in the minors this season. He was a 2007 draftee.

Ankiel is one year away from free agency (and is a Boras client), but plays a good defensive CF (allowing DeJesus to move elsewhere), has very good power, and is still developing as a hitter and outfielder. However, he has a high strike out rate and is somewhat of an injury risk.

Is this a fair deal? Would it help the Royals (as a Cards fan, I think it would help the Cardinals)? If you wouldn't do this deal, what do you think the Royals can get for Greinke that would be better?

Do you think the Royals will indeed trade Greinke?

0 recs | Comment 56 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

If the Royals GM were offered that deal

He’d slam the phone down pretty fast. If Zack goes on the trade block, there are going to be A LOT of teams after him. The Royals will get a much better haul than that (even though it’s not completely awful).

Rowdy Hardy Fan Club member.

by doublestix on Sep 27, 2008 6:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

No, that's not a fair deal

That’s either a joke or an insult. Not even remotely close.

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Sep 27, 2008 7:09 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

hmm, not sure if I agree there…what do you expect to get from another team?

Greinke isn’t exactly Haren or Santana…he’s had a great year this year, but a couple years ago, everyone thought he was going to be out of the game soon…

Royals may be able to get a bit more, but not sure if this would be considered a joke or an insult.

by supernova on Sep 27, 2008 8:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I see your problem

You really don’t know much about Greinke. Exhibit A:

a couple years ago, everyone thought he was going to be out of the game soon…

No, they didn’t. Are you talking about his bout with depression and social anxiety disorder which caused him to miss most of a major league season? That hasn’t been a problem for over two years. It affects his value, but not greatly. People who are familiar with Greinke, his stuff, his control and his stats recognize that he is a truly great young pitcher. He is very young, with his best years still ahead of him. He’s a young ace with two cheap years of team control left. He’s extremely valuable.

Royals may be able to get a bit more, but not sure if this would be considered a joke or an insult.

The Royals would get a hell of a lot more. Do you have any idea how valuable “young” and “cheap” are in this market? I guess not. The best part of that trade is Ankiel and he’s a one-year rental. What value does a one-year rental have to a team that won’t be contending in 2009? And the prospects you included aren’t even great prospects. So of course your offer is an ill-informed joke/insult.

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Sep 27, 2008 8:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not Haren or Santana... no...

I don’t know about the other guys. We don’t have to get snooty, any one us. But let’s just address this with these stats from Stats Corner I’ve been boring everyone to tears with today.

tRA+ is a fielding independent pitching stat that measures the pitcher’s fielding independent performance against the rest of the league, adjusting for parks. So 100 is league average.

Out of 130 qualfied starting pitchers, Dan Haren is 7th with a 138. Zack Greinke is 24th with a 123. How, that’s 17 places, but out of 130 pitchers. Their both #1s. Did you mean Ervin Santana for the other comparison? I don’t think so, but interestingly enough, he’s 6th with a 140. But what about Johan Santana? He’s got a 117 this year. That’s right — Greinke’s been better th an him (this year).

Greinke is also the youngest of all of them (Including Ervin) and ha no injury issues.

What’s that worth? I don’t know. But I’d say, given his contract status, youth, and health, that he’s very much in the same league of value as any of those guys.

OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG

by devil_fingers on Sep 27, 2008 9:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And Greinke cost much, much less in salary than both Haren and Santana

And a player’s value is significantly affected by how much he costs. Santana’s value was also decreased by the fact that he only had one year left before free agency and because the Twins had to trade him because Santana very publicly declined to sign an extension with them. The Royals are under no such pressure.

In short, if you are looking at talent alone when analyzing trade value, you’re looking at no more than half the equation.

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Sep 27, 2008 9:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually Haren has a very team-friendly contract for Arizona

2008: 4 million
2009: 5.5 million
2010: 6.75 million (with 250,000 buyout…Arb. eligble if declined)
2011: Free Agent

by Fernando Vina School of Linguistics on Sep 27, 2008 10:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

He actually signed a new contract in August which replaces that one

2009: 7.5M
2010: 8.25M
2011: 12.75M
2012: 12.75M
2013: 15.5M (club option or $3.5M buyout)

But you are right that this is a team-friendly contract, as was the one that he was under when the D-Backs traded for him.

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Sep 27, 2008 10:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

oh ok...yeah it's good for AZ either way.

I’d be thrilled if KC could lock him up for that type of deal if/when they start to talk extension with him in the off-season.

by Fernando Vina School of Linguistics on Sep 27, 2008 11:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd argue that Greinke is Haren

Space.

It's a problem we face.

So we never go anywhere.

We just stay in one place.

by hazel on Sep 27, 2008 10:02 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs

at least Haren.

More upside.

Don't forget to send your broken maples to the US Forest Service.

by 306008 on Sep 28, 2008 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

must be pretty even...

must be pretty even – i asked at vivaelbirdos too, and people there seem to think it’s too much for Greinke…

by supernova on Sep 27, 2008 10:04 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

That's a great way to evaluate a silly hypothetical trade

Mention that deal to anyone in any major league front office and they would have difficulty responding to you because they would be laughing so hard.

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Sep 27, 2008 10:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

wait

So one year of a league average outfield, and two good but hardly elite prospects for a #1 starter?

Yep, sounds fair to me.

Rowdy Hardy Fan Club member.

by doublestix on Sep 27, 2008 11:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Zachary Donald Greinke

Zack is a polished 24 year old SP with a plus plus fastball and an array of breaking pitches. He has NEVER had arm problems. He is a former 1st round draft pick. He is at or near the top of the American League in nearly every relevant statistical category RIGHT NOW. He has a track record of success in getting major league hitters to make an out.

Don’t forget, it is LIKELY that his BEST years are ahead of him. So with him under team control for two years, why would the Royals accept your WEAK offer.

If you want to even discuss this trade further at this board, all talks BEGIN and move forward with Colby Rasmus, and then others in addition. Greinke had equivalent if not better prospect status and he now has a MAJOR LEAGUE track record of success. I think all hypothetical talk should begin with him.

Alex Gordon in '08

by RoyalJHWKR on Sep 28, 2008 12:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually, it's Donald Zackary

So the question is why on this board is Davies often referred to as “Hiram”, but not Greinke as “Donald”?

by jbrocato on Sep 28, 2008 7:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Because Zack is a cooler name than Donald

just as Hiram is a cooler name than Kyle.

Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.

by jonfmorse on Sep 28, 2008 12:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Kids gunna win a cy young. Just watch, its magic.

"I can resist everything but temptation." - oscar wylde

by cfizzle on Sep 28, 2008 12:46 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

That trade would be abysmal for the Royals

…we would practically be giving Greinke away.

GMDM’s price should, at a minimum, be two of a team’s top five prospects. Greinke is future star, we should be able to get some in return. Nobody in that proposed trade remotely qualifies as a future star.

by DarthYoshi on Sep 28, 2008 10:44 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Not so fast

Bryan Anderson is arguably the top catching prospect in all of baseball at the moment. Both he and Jeff Clement (in Seattle’s system) have been topping the charts since Jarrod Saltalamacchia graduated to the bigs. Now, Clement has played 66 games in Seattle this year…so Anderson very well could be the TOP catching prospect in the game of baseball to not have seen a major league at bat.

He is 21, has already progressed to AAA, has hit over .300/.360/.420 in his minor league career, as a catcher. This year he has thrown out 41 of 109 base stealers in the minors.

Rick Ankiel has hit 25 home runs in 413 at bats this year and has 36 homers in 585 at bats since being brought up as an outfielder. The last time the Royals had a power bat like that (25+ home runs) was when Carlos Beltran hit 1 more homer than Ankiel this year in over 100 more at bats. The last time the Royals had a power bat like that (1 home run every 16.5 plate appearances and over 25 homers) was in 1998 when Dean Palmer was manning 3rd base (34 hr in 572 at bats ~ 16.8 ab/hr.)

That fills two immediate GAPING holes in the Royals’ organization. If you can get Ankiel to sign for another few years, then that gives you your top power hitter throughout 3 or more of his prime years (he’ll be 29 to start next year) and a stud catcher through all of his arbitration eligible years and could possibly sign him long term. It gives you immediate improvement in the lineup.

We haven’t even gotten to the pitchers, yet…and both supernova and I (playing GM) offered up one major league ready pitcher in addition to that haul for one pitcher who has put together one incredible season this year and two other decent seasons in his 4 big league years.

by stlfan on Sep 28, 2008 11:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The problem is that

we’ve had Texas fans “offer” us even more.

Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.

by jonfmorse on Sep 28, 2008 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, I'd greatly prefer Texas's fake, hypothetical, faux-GM trade offer

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Sep 28, 2008 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If only we could get some desperate Mets fans in on this

we’d probably get three fake starters and six fake prospects!

Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.

by jonfmorse on Sep 28, 2008 1:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm sure we'd be able to come to a fake agreement in principle in no time

And then work out the details after that.

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Sep 28, 2008 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

maybe John McCain would suspend his campaign to help us work out the details of that trade

…it’d be a pretty durned important trade, after all.

by DarthYoshi on Sep 28, 2008 8:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If he takes public service seriously, he has to suspend his campaign (again) and come help us get this thing done

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Sep 28, 2008 10:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If he gets the White Sox to trade you and JoGui to the White Sox for Swisher

He’s got my vote. (I’m registered in NYC, so it won’t matter. Win win win).

OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG

by devil_fingers on Sep 28, 2008 10:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

A few things

1. We’d only get Ankiel for one year. The fact that we’d have Ankiel for only one non-contending year means that he’d have pretty low value for the Royals.
2. Mortensen is a really mediocre prospect.
3. Clearly you guys have no idea how valuable Greinke is in this market and how desirable he is. You may write him off as a guy with only one good season, but other major league GM’s don’t see him that way.

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Sep 28, 2008 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1...to all three points

A few additional observations:

There is no way Bryan Anderson is the best catching prospect in all of baseball right now. He hits for absolutely zero power (.388 SLG in AA ball last year, .379 SLG in AAA ball this year), and that is why his career OPS in the minors is sub-800. Even for a catcher, that is a big, big, red flag. Going back to the hypothetical Rangers trade, the Rangers have two excellent catching prospects—Taylor Teagarden and Max Ramirez—and I would take either of them over Anderson, even though MaxRam’s defense is awful (his bat will play anywhere) and Teagarden had an off year. Anderson is seriously being overvalued by the Cards fans—John Sickels has Anderson rated at a B-, and he barely cracks Sickel’s top 5 prospects in St. L’s farm system. The Rangers’ farm system is deeper, and Teagarden gets a B+ from Sickels while Ramirez gets a B.

Signing Ankiel to an extension is by no means a sure thing—in fact, I probably doubt it would happen, since I’d imagine he’d almost certainly want to test the FA waters, as he’d likely make more $$$ there.

Look at the hauls that someone like Dan Haren, an excellent pitcher on a club-friendly contract, took in. The value of starting pitching has been skyrocketing over the last couple years (hence why a guy like Carlos Silva is able to make $12 mil a year). Greinke is already a legitimate #2 starter, and he is far from hitting his peak. He has two more years of club control at an extremely cheap price. This would be an awful trade for the Royals.

by DarthYoshi on Sep 28, 2008 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

But to Cardinals fans, of course he’s the best catching prospect in baseball! Maybe the best prospect in baseball! Maybe the best catcher in baseball!

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Sep 28, 2008 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

a little too far there.

Not our best prospect, nor our best catcher…

however, the proposed deal would fill 3 spots on next year’s major league club for the Royals.

by stlfan on Sep 29, 2008 9:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

do you seriously not get it?

We aren’t interested in trading Greinke for the sake of improving “next year’s” major league club—most of us are willing to bet that our 2009 roster will not be contending for a playoff spot. We aren’t building for next year, we’re building for 2010 and beyond, and that is why your proposed deal is utterly abysmal from our standpoint.

by DarthYoshi on Sep 29, 2008 9:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It would also "fill 3 spots on next year's major league club" if you traded us 3 pieces of organizational filler for Greinke

The point is that the talent you are offering simply isn’t enough. Ankiel is good, but getting him for one year means he has minimal value for a rebuilding team like the Royals. Anderson is good, but not good enough to be the centerpiece of a deal for a guy like Greinke. And Mortensen is crap. He’s not ready to fill any hole on any major league roster. Unimpressive at AA and AAA last year. He’s probably still 2 years away from the majors and doesn’t have big upside even then. In short, the above offer is crap and doesn’t even begin to approximate Greinke’s true value in the market.

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Sep 30, 2008 12:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I offered up 7 different pitchers

2 of which could be chosen. One of them was the PCL pitcher of the year last year. I did not offer up Clayton Mortensen.

by stlfan on Sep 30, 2008 12:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This thread is about an offer which includes Mortenson

But the big problem isn’t the throw-in pitcher. The problem is the two major principles. Anderson is a good catching prospect, not great. Ankiel is a one-year rental. That limits his value to the Royals greatly. These deals aren’t close.

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Sep 30, 2008 6:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Where the hell is McCain?

He’s losing my meaningless vote

OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG

by devil_fingers on Sep 30, 2008 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Almost completely agree

except I think Greinke is a legit #1 right now. In the Big Boy league.

OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG

by devil_fingers on Sep 28, 2008 5:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'll agree with Grienke being a #1. Not quite an #1 ace but definate #1.

Don't forget to send your broken maples to the US Forest Service.

by 306008 on Sep 28, 2008 5:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Grienke STAYS!

NO chance of moving him for next year. We’ll at least keep him for one more year if we can’t get a long term deal signed. Then after his Cy Young year next season, we’ll try to sign him again. If nothing is reached, we’ll trade him for minimum 4 Top 10 Prospects!!

Don't forget to send your broken maples to the US Forest Service.

by 306008 on Sep 28, 2008 4:22 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

+1

If the Royals are/were serious about building a winner, then keeping Greinke is a must. The only way he would be traded was if a Haren/Santana package came along. Don’t see any 6 for 1 deals coming KC’s way. Greinke is the ace that all winning teams have. He is home grown and seems like a descent guy to boot. He will be 25 in 2009. Why on earth would the Royals deal him?

by daveyork on Sep 28, 2008 8:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

more like only a Haren-like offer

The Twinkies got robbed by the Mets for Santana.

But I disagree with a lot of this post, even though I would rather keep Greinke as well. It isn’t a matter of a “6 for 1” deal—I’d take a “3 for 1” deal for Greinke if those three players were elite prospects who would dramatically improve the team. And I really don’t care if a player is “homegrown” or seems like a decent guy as long as they could help the team (not saying I want a team of jackasses, but a team of 25 saints probably isn’t going to win a pennant race).

The reason the Royals would want to deal him is that for the next two years, Greinke’s value may very well not be higher than it is now. Even if he improves on his stellar 2008 season, Greinke would turn into just a one-year rental if we tried to trade him next offseason, which would significantly diminish his trade value. Let’s be honest—we probably won’t compete for a playoff spot in 2009. I think a reasonable goal would be 80-81 wins. This means that, absent an extension, we would have Greinke for only one year in which we could realistically be competitive for a postseason spot, and keeping him for that one year (and then risking him walking away for big money) just isn’t worth it.

Bottom line: while I would rather sign Greinke to a reasonable extension, one that, say, averages out at around $9 mil per year for 4-5 years, I would also rather flip Greinke now for some MLB-ready future stars than keep Greinke for the next two years and risk walking away with nothing except maybe a draft pick.

by DarthYoshi on Sep 28, 2008 8:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That is the key point

Other fans are offering deals as if we HAVE to deal Greinke. We don’t. We have all the leverage. If you want to impress us, go ahead and try, but odds are it will take a lot for us to even be interested at this point.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Sep 29, 2008 1:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Do we really?

Everyone knows we probably aren’t going to contend in 2009. Will keeping Greinke for another non-contending year and reducing his trade value to that of a one-year rental really help us?

by DarthYoshi on Sep 29, 2008 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Of course

It always helps to have good players. Will we contend in 2009? Maybe? Probably not. We don’t know for sure. And we still have Zack for 2010. Even if we don’t deal him until July of 2010, I think we have seen this year that you can still get a pretty good haul for a 2-3 month rental.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Sep 29, 2008 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not to mention

He could still be dealt in the first half of next season as well.

by BrRoyal on Sep 29, 2008 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And the reason the Royals have all the trade leverage is because they still have multiple options

They could potentially sign him to a long-term deal. They could trade him this offseason. They could trade him at midseason. They could trade him next offseason. They could trade him at midseason 2010. Now, not all of those options are equally desirable, but the Royals aren’t backed into a corner where they only have on option (as the Twins were with Santana last offseason).

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Sep 29, 2008 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1

Indians got Matt LaPorta (exactly the kind of hitter the Royals could use) and some prospects for a brief rental of their ace.

OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG

by devil_fingers on Sep 29, 2008 1:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Only way I deal Greinke

Is if we get (a) at least one impact, potential MVP/Cy Young caliber prospect; (b) one additional solid prospect with a lower ceiling but perhaps more polished and © one other decent prospect that can fill a position of need.

This trade proposal fails.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Sep 29, 2008 1:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Great

now “and” is copyrighted?

OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG

by devil_fingers on Sep 29, 2008 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

so basically

Chris Davis, Taylor Teagarden, and Matt Harrison?

Perhaps…

Rowdy Hardy Fan Club member.

by doublestix on Sep 29, 2008 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I have mixed feelings about Davis

But yea, that proposal is way more plausible than the above Cardinals proposal

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Sep 29, 2008 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

But what about those prophetic tattoos on his arms?

OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG

by devil_fingers on Sep 29, 2008 9:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why don't we do what every other

smart organization does? (for the most part)

Let’s extend Greinke for 4/5 years and he’s our ace for that long, then, depending where we are then, we trade him in that last year of his contract before he’s going to make his huge payday at 28/29(let’s hope). This is where we can truly get the LaPorta’s, Sizemore’s, or Hanley’s out there. It’s high risk, but it’s much higher reward.

by I need more Esteban on Sep 30, 2008 2:32 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

although I think the risk is that high.

OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG

by devil_fingers on Sep 30, 2008 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I DON'T think the risk is that high

im’ a good tper

OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG

by devil_fingers on Sep 30, 2008 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2008/09/indians-leaning.html

Just say this on MLB Trade rumors. Good site by the way. There is NO way we should settle for ANYTHING less. Grienke isn’t Sabathia, but with the price for pitching as high as it is, this is the price!

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2008/09/indians-leaning.html

Don't forget to send your broken maples to the US Forest Service.

by 306008 on Sep 30, 2008 7:52 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs