Greinke, Teahen, Jacobs & Bannister exchange arbitration figures with Royals
by James Quinn on Jan 20, 2009 8:08 PM EST
Email
PrintZack Greinke: $4.4MM. Royals $3.4MM. Diff: $1MM.
Mark Teahen: $3.85MM. Royals: $3.05MM. Diff: $800K.
Mike Jacobs: $3.8MM. Royals $2.75MM. Diff: $1.05MM.
Brian Bannister: $2.025MM. Royals: $1.45MM. Diff: $575K.
This from MLBTR.
Quick thoughts. I think Grenkie would have been signed already if the Royals were not still working with him on a long term deal. I kinda expect that to get done before that case ever goes to an arbitration hearing. The Royals DO NOT want to sit Zack down at a table and then spend an hour explaining to him and an arbitor why he is not that good of a pitcher.
I think the Royals are just going year by year with the other three. I hope Teahen's case gets settled peacefully, although he might respond well to another kick in the ass. Lord knows he did well after his last such kick (his demotion to Omaha back in '06). I expect Banny will settle easily as the two figures are not that far apart. Jacobs is the only one I think might end up in a hearing, which would be a crappy way for him to start his tenure in Kansas City.
76 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
And arbitrators look at the last two seasons of stats
And his counting stats weren’t huge in 2008 and were pretty small in 2007 as he was a reliever most of the year.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 20, 2009 8:34 PM EST up reply actions
Yes
Greinke should have had no problem getting $5 million or more, given that he has several comps in his service time class that received $6+ million. I wonder how much of this is the current market correction and how much is his agent submitting a number he could win in a hearing (rather than posturing for a “split the baby” resolution).
Do you think Greinke's agent just screwed up?
I don’t think the comps support $6M for guys with his service time and his 2-year stats. I’m sure his agent crunched the numbers more comprehensively than either you or I have.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 20, 2009 8:39 PM EST up reply actions
His agent certainly went with a conservative figure given what comparable players have received
Buehrle, Bonderman, Sheets, Bedard, etc. all received $6 million or more in their same service time year. Even with the half season in the bullpen, his “average” traditional numbers for the two seasons is still impressive: 162 IP, 3.56 ERA, 144 K, 10 wins.
I do not know the agent’s particular reasoning for that number, but as mentioned, one strategy employed in a high-low arbitration is to set a number lower than you could just to ensure you have a winnable case.
Even with the half season in the bullpen, his "average" traditional numbers for the two seasons is still impressive: 162 IP, 3.56 ERA, 144 K, 10 wins.
I don’t think those stats are comparable to the other pitchers you mentioned. That season primarily as a reliever really hurts his arbitration-relevant stats.
And I think further evidence that $6M was very unrealistic is the number the Royals came up with. Under Moore, the Royals don’t wildly lowball with their arbitration numbers. So if they thought there was even a realistic chance that Greinke could get $5.5M, they wouldn’t have submitted $3.4M. Both the Royals and Greinke’s agent recognized that his arbitration value was well below even $5M.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 20, 2009 10:13 PM EST up reply actions
Joe Blanton just got $5.5 million
Blanton is in the same service class as Greinke. His “average” line the last two years? 4.29 ERA, 11.5 Wins, 126 Ks.
Dontrelle Willis got $7 million after posting an average line for his 3rd and 4th seasons of 4.49 ERA, 11 Wins, 153 Ks.
Scott Kazmir, in the same service time class as Greinke and the name most mentioned as a comp for a long-term contract, is getting $6 million in 2009.
Brett Myers got $5 milllion two years ago as a 4th year posting an average ERA higher than Greinke.
Greinke should have received more than Blanton. The Royals are wildly lowballing Greinke.
The Royals are wildly lowballing Greinke.
And his agent is wildly lowballing Greinke too? That really doesn’t make sense.
One thing that is clear from arbitration cases is that playing time counts. Guys who play full seasons, make a bunch of starts and rack up innings get more money. Blanton over the last two years has averaged 33.5 starts and 214 innings. Greinke is down at 23 starts and 162 innings because he was in the bullpen for most of 2007. An arbitrator is going to take that into account. Dontrelle Willis averaged 34 starts and 230 innings pitched. Kazmir was at 30.5 starts and 180 ip. Bretty Myers was 32.5 starts and 206 ip.
I wish arbitrators looked at the value of a player in more meaningful ways, but they don’t. They take starts and innings pitched into account. An arbitrator is going to see that for most of the 2007 season, Greinke wasn’t a starting pitcher and wasn’t even a closer. He was just a middle reliever. That really hurts his value for this arbitration year. Both the Royals and Greinke’s agent recognized that. Another full season in the rotation is going to make Greinke arbitration award next year go way, way up.
If I were Moore, I’d attempt to take advantage of the fact that Greinke will likely only get about $4M this year by offering him a long-term deal which includes $6M the first year. A big bump like that in the first year of the contract can turn a player’s head. Early millions can have a greater impact on a player than later millions.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 21, 2009 2:06 AM EST up reply actions
So the arbitrator would only look at IP and ignore Greinke's better ERA and Ks
and then conclude that Greinke deserves $1+ million less? Now, that does not make sense.
He would look at all of the above
He would look at all of Greinke’s stats and the roles that he’s been in over the last two years (only one full season as a starter and another season mostly as a middle reliever) and likely come to the conclusion that he’s worth $1M (or more) less. I think that is consistent with how arbitrators have done their job.
Do I think that both Greinke’s agent and the Royals have wildly misunderstood Greinke’s likely arbitration value? No. That is what really doesn’t make sense. Don’t you think both Greinke’s agent and the Royals crunched the numbers on comps and arbitration decisions to figure out what he’d likely get? Of course they did. And I don’t think they’d both be so wildly off the mark.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 21, 2009 2:46 AM EST up reply actions
Name the comps that would support the Royals' offer
Claudio Vargas?
Mark Hendrickson?
As for Greinke’s agent, sometimes agents misjudge a player’s value (scroll down).
by Gopherballs on Jan 21, 2009 12:01 PM EST up reply actions
In this case, you are arguing that both Greinke's agent AND the Royals very similarly misjudged the player's arbitration
First, we’re not talking about determining how good a player truly is. We’re talking about figuring out what a player’s arbitration value is. Arbitrators have their own, simplistic, antiquated evaluative criteria. Second, in this case you are arguing that both Greinke’s agent AND the Royals very similarly misjudged Greinke’s second year arbitration value. Third, as far as comps, you can look at all of the players you listed, then discounted for his GS, IP, the role he had over the two years and his first year arbitration amount.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 21, 2009 4:58 PM EST up reply actions
So in other words
you could not find a comparable pitcher in the same service time class who posted a 3.56 ERA in at least 324 IP with at least 288 Ks over his two previous seasons and still only got $3.4 million-$4.4 million?
Claudio Vargas had an ERA nearly one-and-one-half runs higher (4.95) than Greinke in less innings and still got $3.6 million — $200,000 more than the Royals’ offer to Greinke.
The Royals lowballed Greinke and for whatever strategic reason, his agent played it extremely safe and went with a number at the low end of the comp range. Per the rules, the arbitrator can only pick either the player’s number or the owner’s number — nothing in between — so the agent might have wanted to all but eliminate the risk of getting stuck with the Royals’ lowball number by submitting a conservative number for Greinke.
So in other words you could not find a comparable pitcher in the same service time class who posted a 3.56 ERA in at least 324 IP with at least 288 Ks over his two previous seasons and still only got $3.4 million-$4.4 million?
I didn’t look for any. I bet Greinke’s agent’s staff and the Royals front office did.
Per the rules, the arbitrator can only pick either the player’s number or the owner’s number — nothing in between — so the agent might have wanted to all but eliminate the risk of getting stuck with the Royals’ lowball number by submitting a conservative number for Greinke.
First, I thought you said that Greinke would have gotten $6M in arbitration, and was a lock to get at least $5M. Clearly Greinke’s agent didn’t agree if he was down at $4.4M. He recognizes Greinke’s second year arb. value is lower than your estimation. Second, it might be possible that he’s using a strategy to guarantee a hearing win, but this would be an atypical strategy. Typically agents submit a number on the higher end of a player’s range and the team submits a number on the lower end so that they both have good positions from which to bargain and eventually agree to a number somewhere in between. If Greinke does end up going to a hearing, then I’ll agree that Greinke’s agent was using the atypical strategy that you are positing. If they end up settling for something between $3.4 and $4.4M, then you will be proven wrong. I think they’ll compromise and avoid a hearing. We’ll see.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 21, 2009 6:29 PM EST up reply actions
Given the comps, the low number is puzzling
As I said at the outset, I really do not know what the agent’s reasoning was. The CBA rule makes a weird reference to consideration of the player’s physical or “mental defects,” so maybe Greinke’s history is in play. But there is something other than the comps bringing down the number. You thought he would get $5 million.
The comps are all publicly available (Cot’s even has a nice list of recent arbitration eligibles), so the team and the player have the same information on player salaries as you or I. If Greinke’s agent does not think he can convince an arbitrator that Greinke was as good as Joe Blanton or considerably better than Claudio Vargas, well, he deserves the reduced commission.
If Greinke does not accept less than $4 million, he would have succeeded in avoiding a “split the baby” outcome.
On the plus side for the Royals
maybe Greinke and Tim Wakefield are represented by the same guy
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Jan 21, 2009 7:11 PM EST up reply actions
You thought he would get $5 million.
I blame you! I had him at $4M and then you commented on one of my projected payroll posts that he was a mortal lock for $5-6M, so I adjusted my estimate upwards.
The comps are all publicly available (Cot’s even has a nice list of recent arbitration eligibles), so the team and the player have the same information on player salaries as you or I
And I think they have analyzed the data better than you have, including all of the relevant data.
If Greinke’s agent does not think he can convince an arbitrator that Greinke was as good as Joe Blanton or considerably better than Claudio Vargas, well, he deserves the reduced commission.
Or maybe they understand the arbitration system, comps and evaluative criteria of arbitrators better than you do. They certainly have more experience doing this than you do, as well as more of a vested interest in maximizing Greinke’s income.
If Greinke does not accept less than $4 million, he would have succeeded in avoiding a "split the baby" outcome.
I think it very likely that the two sides will compromise and closer to Greinke’s number than the Royals number, which will disprove your low-end-number-to-guarantee-a-hearing-win theory.
Look, sometimes I’m wrong. Sometimes you’re wrong. This time you thought Greinke would definitely get $5-6M in arbitration. The available data sure makes it look like you were wrong. I know you never like to admit that, but it happens.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 21, 2009 7:24 PM EST up reply actions
I was certainly wrong on how much Greinke will actually get paid
I based my estimate on the salaries of comparable players. Just looking at those salaries, Greinke pitched as well as or better than the comparable players who received $5-6 million and as well or only slightly worse than pitchers who received $6-$8+ million. It is fair to make a reduction for pitching less innings than some of these guys, but using his two-year average, he still pitched enough to qualify for the ERA title. Other than the sake of arguing, I do not see how you can look at Greinke and at Vargas and conclude that Vargas deserved $200,000 more than Greinke. Looking only at the comparable pitchers, his value should have been $5 million or more.
But as noted above, there are considerations other than the comparables, and as stated above, I do not know the agent’s particular reasoning as to those. I just found it surprising they would affect his value so much.
I never said that the lower number would guarantee a hearing. The strategy would be to get a number that is winnable in a hearing (“a number he could win in a hearing”) so as to gain extra leverage in negotiations and avoid the situation where they would have to split the difference with the Royals’ lowball offer. The pressure would be on the Royals because the arbitrator could only pick one or the other, and the Royals would know they would likely lose the hearing. If Greinke gets $4 million or more, the strategy would pay off.
Looking only at the comparable pitchers, his value should have been $5 million or more.
I have a feeling that both the Royals and Greinke’s agent have a database of every arbitration decision, the numbers submitted by both sides, their service time and all relevant stats. You’ve found some comps. I have a feeling their analysis was much more comprehensive. I doubt that your analysis is right and both the Royals and Greinke’s agent were way off.
I never said that the lower number would guarantee a hearing. The strategy would be to get a number that is winnable in a hearing ("a number he could win in a hearing") so as to gain extra leverage in negotiations and avoid the situation where they would have to split the difference with the Royals’ lowball offer. The pressure would be on the Royals because the arbitrator could only pick one or the other, and the Royals would know they would likely lose the hearing. If Greinke gets $4 million or more, the strategy would pay off.
Greinke’s agent submitting a number like $4.4M only makes sense if Greinke’s actual second year arb. value is about $4-4.4M. If it were actually $5-6M, as you have argued, then Greinke’s agent should have submitted a number in that range. If Greinke ends up with something less than $4.4M, then it is pretty clear that both sides realize his second year arb. value is less than $4.4M. Actually, the numbers both teams submitted show that pretty clearly.
So yes, Greinke’s agent submitted a number which is likely to get his client probably $4-4.2M, which is only makes sense if that is his approximate second year arb. value.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 21, 2009 11:08 PM EST up reply actions
One important thing to remember
BrRoyal brought this up and it is a good point. Greinke had a pretty low salary from his first arbitration year. And it was much lower than all of the supposed comps you mentioned (who all have more GS and IP than him over the last two years). As Sky recently said at BtBS:
I guess arb really is based on raises over previous contracts.
Another important factor limiting Greinke’s second year arb. value.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 22, 2009 6:24 AM EST up reply actions
I have a feeling that both the Royals and Greinke’s agent have a database of every arbitration decision, the numbers submitted by both sides, their service time and all relevant stats.
Yes, but it is actually two databases, one called Cot’s Contracts and one called Baseball-Reference.
But as for the comps, it is pretty telling that you cannot find any valid comps that would place Greinke’s value this low. Looking at the comps, it is pretty clear that other factors (like prior salary) skewed his arbitration numbers downward. Maybe these secret comps are hiding out with the scouting reports that grade Mike Jacobs’ defense as average.
But if you are really going to look at the stats and stand on your position that Greinke is worth $200,000 less than Claudio Vargas, you might need to turn around because I don’t think you will be able to keep a straight face.
by Gopherballs on Jan 22, 2009 12:37 PM EST up reply actions
Yes, but it is actually two databases, one called Cot’s Contracts and one called Baseball-Reference.
Yes, I’m sure that’s what they use. And I’m sure they just hunt and peck for comps here and there to come up with a half-assed guess as to what Greinke’s value is. Was my sarcasm clear enough? Or maybe they have a database which includes all of a salary, service time, arbitration numbers and all relevant stats which allows them to run comprehensive analyses to find all relevant comps based on how arbitrators have actually decided similar cases and how teams have settled with similar players in the past. And the independent analyses of both the Royals and Greinke’s agent found that his second year arb. value is no more than $4.4M and likely in the low 4’s (which is where they will probably settle. I have a strong feeling that their comprehensive analysis was better than your “I’m going to look for a few players that I think are good comps” analysis, which of course found players all significantly different from Greinke.
Reality has proven your prediction of Greinke’s arbitration value to be inaccurate. I’m done.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 22, 2009 3:34 PM EST up reply actions
Or maybe they have a database which includes all of a salary, service time, arbitration numbers and all relevant stats which allows them to run comprehensive analyses to find all relevant comps based on how arbitrators have actually decided similar cases and how teams have settled with similar players in the past.
This is exactly the same information that Cot’s includes. For every player in the majors, Cot’s lists historical salaries, service time, and for the years the player was arbitration eligible, the numbers each side submitted to the arbitrator, the amount they settled for prior to the hearing, or the amount the arbitrator awarded if it went to hearing. The stats are readily available at a number of sites. Compiling the potential comps is not a difficult task because each year there are only ten or so arbitration-eligible starting pitchers with more than four and less than five years of service time, plus a few more who signed multi-year contracts that included that service time year. In other words, no magic database is needed.
which of course found players all significantly different from Greinke
Then who are the players who are not significantly different from Greinke?
Greinke has to fall somewhere in the mix among Bedard, Blanton, Buehrle, Vargas, Willis, etc.
What did those guys receive the year before?
They were all starters before, and previous salary is also a factor.
I believe they all made significantly more than Greinke in their first arbitration year
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 21, 2009 7:24 AM EST up reply actions
They're probably counting on the arbitrator
Being of the mindset that GREINKE JUST DOESN’T KNOW HOW TO WIN!!!!111
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Jan 20, 2009 10:41 PM EST up reply actions
That's basically counting on an arbitrator being an arbitrator
How these guys do their analysis and evaluation isn’t a mystery. Lots of counting stats and old school metrics.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 20, 2009 10:45 PM EST up reply actions
Damn
Shoulda read your post first!
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Jan 20, 2009 10:41 PM EST up reply actions
I can see all of those of being settled.
There is no huge disagreement there with any of them. Jacobs maybe.
The Allard Baird of incisive internet discourse.
by kcbottom9th on Jan 20, 2009 8:33 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Those are all pretty reasonable numbers
Thankfully the differences aren’t too huge. I had become persuaded that Greinke would be more expensive than my initial $4M projection. Turns out, that was in the right ballpark. Teahen might make $3.5M. Thankfully Jacobs probably won’t make more than $3.5M. If the Royals can get Bannister for $1.75M, they’ll be getting a good deal. I expect all of them to be settled before a hearing.
The immoderate moderator
I think the Royals will settle with each, probably a bit on the players' side of the midpoint
Greinke’s midpoint – $3.9M. I predict they’ll agree to $4M.
Teahen’s midpoint – $3.45M. I predict they’ll agree to $3.5M.
Jacobs’s midpoint – $3.275M. I predict they’ll agree to $3.5M.
Bannister’s midpoint – $1.7375M. I predict they’ll agree to $1.8M.
The Royals don’t fight too hard on arbitration cases under Moore. They avoid hearings and make compromises with players, usually willing to give a little more than the player.
The immoderate moderator
The Royals don’t fight too hard on arbitration cases under Moore. They avoid hearings and make compromises with players, usually willing to give a little more than the player.
As long as the players have some reasonable upside – as all of these players possess, this is an excellent business philosophy, indeed. Moore shouldn’t be relentless in withholding money from any arb.-eligible player still available. I’m glad to see us come to agreements with the vast majority of the arb.-eligible players. Hopefully, with this type of depth, many of them can fulfill meaningful roles – some limited – with the team in ’09.
The Nation at large. I'll be playing the role of RR Resident Optimist this offseason. What role will you assume?
by Royals Nation on Jan 20, 2009 9:02 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
As long as the players have some reasonable upside – as all of these players possess, this is an excellent business philosophy, indeed.
Agreed. It isn’t worth the downside to fight tooth and nail over $100K here or there. And I think the Royals numbers are set to facilitate an agreement. The numbers the Royals submit appear to be a bit more generous than many teams, leading to a smaller difference between the two numbers and thus a greater likelihood of coming to agreement.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 20, 2009 9:07 PM EST up reply actions
Exactly
The implications of not coming to agreements are significant, and potentially detrimental.
- The player becomes pissed off at the team, refusing to re-sign and/or placing the team in an inconvenient situation
- Disgruntled fanbase – lowered attendance, ticket sales, merch. sales, etc., meaning less budget and fan interest
- Reputation rubbing off poorly on incoming talent
Sign them early as a token gesture, hoping that they’ll stay. (As you can see, I’m a notorious advocate of extending/retaining young players on long-term deals. I’d strongly consider a long-term deal for Aviles in late summer if he is posting a .300/.330/.450 line by then.)
The Nation at large. I'll be playing the role of RR Resident Optimist this offseason. What role will you assume?
by Royals Nation on Jan 20, 2009 9:19 PM EST up reply actions
why?....
he’s 28 and we have him under club control through his likely (or unlikely) peak years…hes a guy that came up at the perfect time on the development curve. we can have him until hes like 34 by which time we probably wont want him
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Jan 20, 2009 9:28 PM EST up reply actions
Would you really?
He’ll be 33 going into his first FA year. From a club control point of view, him emerging at 27 is perfect. He will probably be on the slide (and at 2B) by the time he hits FA.
The Allard Baird of incisive internet discourse.
Save a ton of money
Imagine the money we save – potentially – if we signed him today. Or mid-season (assuming he’s reasonably good). It’s a risk, sure, but small and mid market teams absolutely need to take these risks.
The Nation at large. I'll be playing the role of RR Resident Optimist this offseason. What role will you assume?
by Royals Nation on Jan 20, 2009 9:36 PM EST up reply actions
I'm not so sure that we need to take those risks.
When those risks don’t pan out, the small market teams don’t have the reserves to keep going.
I just got back from your mom's basement.
I agree
The risks are too high that Aviles goes Berroa on us. His minor league performance is too spotty, and he’s awfully BABIP reliant isn’t he? No reason to do anything more than go year to year with Aviles.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Jan 20, 2009 10:43 PM EST up reply actions
2010: $2MM
2011: $3.5MM
2012: $4.5MM
2013: $6MM
2014: $6MM (team option)
^That is a reasonable hypothetical if we sign him soon. We wouldn’t even have to buy out a guaranteed F.A. year (instead, perhaps, granting him a team option). Right now, he would be crazy not to accept this move.
The Nation at large. I'll be playing the role of RR Resident Optimist this offseason. What role will you assume?
by Royals Nation on Jan 20, 2009 9:38 PM EST up reply actions
Ok, those numbers aren't bad.
If he performs as well throughout this year, I’d be on board with that. As long as the team option buyout is around 500K – 1M.
I just got back from your mom's basement.
It's all about that 2014 season
I don’t know how likely a scenario it would be if Aviles becomes a 2-3 WAR player in 2014. But if he posts that level in ‘13, we’d be owing ourselves a huge favor by making this contract happen much, much sooner. It’s ultimately how championship teams are built. With moves like these.
The Nation at large. I'll be playing the role of RR Resident Optimist this offseason. What role will you assume?
by Royals Nation on Jan 20, 2009 9:45 PM EST up reply actions
It's way to soon to worry about buying out any of Aviles's FA years
He’s going to be under team control throughout his peak-plateau years. We don’t even know if we’re going to want any of those FA years when he’ll be about into decline.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 20, 2009 10:16 PM EST up reply actions
Definitely
Aviles is 28 won’t be arbitration eligible til he is 30 years old. No way do you try to sign him long term. If he stays at SS and at the current level thru 2010 then you toss him a decent deal to buy out his arbitration years.
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
That was the idea
Buying out the arb. years – and that sweetener post-arb. year option – while setting the budget, not to mention increasing the fan interest and such. I know his 2008 season was lucky, but even if he regresses to a .280/.320/.440, that’s not a bad option for a SS.
The Nation at large. I'll be playing the role of RR Resident Optimist this offseason. What role will you assume?
by Royals Nation on Jan 21, 2009 1:40 AM EST up reply actions
Due to his midseason callup, wouldn't he still have 3 years
of pre-arb salary?
At the least, they still should control him for 6 more seasons (including 2009), so they’ll control his rights through 2014 even without a deal.
Yes
The Royals have pretty cheap team control of Aviles for six more years. There’s no reason to sign him to a muti-year deal right now. No one knows how real Aviles’s 2008 performance was. He needs to prove more before the Royals give him a lot of guaranteed money in an attempt to get a small bargain on his arbitration years.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 20, 2009 10:15 PM EST up reply actions
aviles is too risky at this point
82 games of major league play, not a great minor league track record.
And the upside of extending him into this mid 30’s isnt great
The upside of calling him up at his age, and two months into the season
Is that the Royals get 6 2/3 seasons out of him, including pretty much all of his best years. Then by the time he’s no longer under team control (after his age 33 season), you don’t want him anymore either. In fact, he could go into decline sooner than that, and the Royals might want to non-tender him earlier than that.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 20, 2009 10:38 PM EST up reply actions
Hence
Then by the time he’s no longer under team control (after his age 33 season), you don’t want him anymore either.
Hence the team option. Well, unless that $500K buyout can be stowed to make an Evan Longoria run in 2025.
The Nation at large. I'll be playing the role of RR Resident Optimist this offseason. What role will you assume?
by Royals Nation on Jan 20, 2009 10:57 PM EST up reply actions
I happen to believe there’s another tangible element to long-term contracts. It helps promote the team. It helps sell tickets. It increases marketability. It gives us future assurance, so we can willingly set budgets in much more advanced time.
The Nation at large. I'll be playing the role of RR Resident Optimist this offseason. What role will you assume?
by Royals Nation on Jan 20, 2009 10:58 PM EST up reply actions
Aviles is under team control through 2014
(28) 2009 pre-arb
(29) 2010 pre-arb
(30) 2011 arb
(31) 2012 arb
(32) 2013 arb
(33) 2014 arb (extra year of team control because he was called up two months into the 2008 season)
First, its too soon to know if the Royals definitely want him in 2012, 2013 or 2014. We don’t yet know for sure how good he is. We don’t know when he’ll start declining. We don’t know how much he’ll be worth in those seasons. So giving him millions of guaranteed dollars (which at best would save the Royals a little arbitration money) is extremely unwise at this point.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 20, 2009 11:05 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
I'm speaking hypothetically
If he continues above average performance for a significant portion of 2009….a good enough sample size to judge. I’m not suggesting we sign him now. I know he was never a hot commodity as a prospect, but my hypothetically makes some sense, although, yes, it’s arguable either way.
The Nation at large. I'll be playing the role of RR Resident Optimist this offseason. What role will you assume?
by Royals Nation on Jan 21, 2009 1:42 AM EST up reply actions
I don’t think it would likely end up saving the Royals money and there would be significant risk that his production would drop off at age 32 or 33, making him not worth that guaranteed money. And why would there be increased fan interest from signing this kind of deal with a player that only covers the years he’s under team control anyway? If it buys out FA years, then maybe, but probably only if we’re talking about impact players that one could potentially build a franchise around, like Greinke or Gordon.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 21, 2009 1:49 AM EST up reply actions
Agreed
I think we do have a pretty idea idea of when he’ll start declining — probably in about 2 years, maybe a bit sooner, maybe a bit later
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Jan 21, 2009 11:23 AM EST up reply actions
Get Greinke signed
Offer a two year extension for $5 million in 2009, $8 million in 2010, $10 million in 2011 and $12 million in 2012. That’s $35 million and not too far off from Kazmir’s contract last April (wasn’t that around $37 million for a four year contract that gave the team a two year extension).
by Valcour on Jan 20, 2009 9:30 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
+1.
I would love for it to happen. I’m skeptical Greinke accepts the move, but dammit, he should.
The Nation at large. I'll be playing the role of RR Resident Optimist this offseason. What role will you assume?
by Royals Nation on Jan 20, 2009 9:46 PM EST up reply actions
I would love to see that happen.
Zack is still high risk, but if he is willing to sign a 4/35 now I think the Royals should go for it. If Zack wins more than 12 games next season and keeps his ERA under 4 the Royals are going to have to pony up a dumptruck full of money to lock him up through 2012.
www.rockchalktalk.com for pretty good KU baseball coverage
Zack is still high risk?
What is the risk? And is that risk really high?
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 20, 2009 10:21 PM EST up reply actions
The risk of him completely flaking out and pitching like crap.
And yes, that risk is high.
How long have followed Mr. Grenkie’s career? You are asking very strange questions.
www.rockchalktalk.com for pretty good KU baseball coverage
by James Quinn on Jan 20, 2009 10:36 PM EST up reply actions
The risk of him completely flaking out and pitching like crap.
And yes, that risk is high.
Have to call BS on that. He had one season with essentially a mental breakdown. One. And since then it’s been treated with no apparent ill effects to his pitching. And yet the risk is high? Where do you get that the risk is high? Dysfunctional depression and social anxiety disorder is very treatable. I don’t think the risk is high at all. It’s there, just like injury risk is there for someone who had an injury years in the past.
How long have followed Mr. Grenkie’s career? You are asking very strange questions.
Well, I’ve followed him long enough to know how to spell his name. (Zing!) And I don’t overreact to one significant incident. That incident affects his value. But not by as much as you think. His market value is very high right now and it’s going to go higher every year.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 20, 2009 10:42 PM EST up reply actions
Good catch on the spelling,
but I am still right.
Greinke has effectively lost two of his five years in the majors due to his personal struggles. And he has only had one really good full season as a starting pitcher. And no, his problems are not easily treated by medicine and anyone who told you they were probably works for a pharmaceutical company.
So yes, Greinke is high risk. I like him a lot and want him to sign a long term contract with the Royals. But he is high risk. And if you do not think so then we should talk about some mortgage backed investments I’d like to sell you at a nice discount!
www.rockchalktalk.com for pretty good KU baseball coverage
by James Quinn on Jan 20, 2009 10:54 PM EST up reply actions
Greinke has effectively lost two of his five years in the majors due to his personal struggles.
How do you figure? He lost the 2006 major league season, period.
And he has only had one really good full season as a starting pitcher.
How does this effect the assessment of his risk?
And no, his problems are not easily treated by medicine and anyone who told you they were probably works for a pharmaceutical company.
You might want to tell that to the many, many people who have such problems effectively treated by medication and therapy (like Zack). A great many people with these problems do their jobs extremely well and aren’t “high risk” employees.
So yes, Greinke is high risk. I like him a lot and want him to sign a long term contract with the Royals. But he is high risk. And if you do not think so then we should talk about some mortgage backed investments I’d like to sell you at a nice discount!
Do you know how severe his condition is? Do you know him well? Have you talked to him? Have you talked to the people who know him and work with him? Do you know what meds he’s on? Of course not, and neither have I/do I. What I do know is that for over two years, he’s been just fine with no problems affecting his performance on the field. And yet you somehow are certain he’s high risk? Please. Your certitude is silly at best.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 20, 2009 11:12 PM EST up reply actions
And it seemed to help him
since he was 5-17 with a 5.80 ERA
Bloomquist. God? Or just an illusion? You be the judge.
That buys a couple FA years for pretty cheap
If I were Greinke’s agent, I would advise against him doing that. I recognize the value of security, but the FA market is likely to pick up in the next couple of years and salaries are going be going back up again. And young, injury-free, elite FA pitchers are going to be making more than $15M per year. Greinke certainly would. Hell even in this market, he would have made more than $15M per year. Security certainly counts, but it wouldn’t give rise to this kind of discount.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 20, 2009 10:20 PM EST up reply actions
I can't even remember the last time a Royals player went to arbitration
And I don’t expect it to happen this year.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
You mean went to a hearing?
Yeah, it’s been a while. None under Moore, I believe.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 20, 2009 10:45 PM EST up reply actions
I want to say Carlos Beltran
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Jan 20, 2009 11:07 PM EST up reply actions
I have been told
Emil Brown won his case in 2006. How? COUNT THE RBIZZZZZZ!!!111
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
He was actually a decent player?
clearly better than any FA position player DMGM has signed yet (other than Grudz, who was brought in by Baird originally)
and well worth the money in 2005 and 2006, although not 2007, though the Royals had squeezed plenty of surplus value out of him by then.
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Jan 21, 2009 11:25 AM EST up reply actions
Some points
Greinke has actually had TWO good seasons as a starter – don’t forget his rookie season.
I am as big a supporter/believer in Aviles as anybody on this site, but I would NOT sign him to any kind of a long-term deal REGARDLESS of what he does this season. It’s too bad for Mike that he came up at a late age, but this is a business, and the Royals would be foolish to sign him long term because of his age. If he IS that rare player that starts very late and has a great career anyway – then the Royals will do just fine to keep him for 5 years or so, and then trade him once he is too expensive, because he will be entering his mid 30s as a middle infielder, a position that declines quicker than others.
Mr Glass, this is a pro sports team, not a retail store - run it like one!
+1
what’s fair for the player is not always what’s best for the team
For players in general, I want them to get the most money they deserve, because the owners, well, you know…
for all decent Royals players, of course, I want Wakefield-style contracts
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Jan 21, 2009 11:22 AM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
