Good, Not Great: Second Thoughts on the Greinke Contract
by Freneau on Jan 26, 2009 6:52 PM EST
in Kansas City Royals News
Email
PrintEveryone is happy again. Dayton Moore shines again and a host of values have been reaffirmed. Greinke delivered a classic presser to boot. Zack Greinke is a tremendous pitcher, and the type of elite, top-end talent the franchise needs to win the Division. He'll be around until the end of the 2012 season, or at least could be. Its a good day to be a Royals fan, but perhaps I'm the only one who slowly and partially, is seeing a distinct lack of AWESOME!! in the big deal. Goodness, yes. Awesomeness, meh.
Reportedly, the contract breaks down like this:
| 2009 | 3.75 |
| 2010 | 7.25 |
| 2011 | 13.5 |
| 2012 | 13.5 |
This is a good deal, but I think a point of negativity, if you will, needs to be made. The Royals aren't really saving money here, so much as creating a scenario akin to if Greinke had merely gone to arb/pre-arb deal for two years, then signed a two-year /$27 million dollar contract after the '10 season. $13.5 per is actually quite a lot of money for payoffs years down the road. Sure, according to various sabermetric models, Greinke will likely be worth it, but this may be a lot closer to "breaking even" than you think.
Both parties get a little bit of security and that's about it. For Greinke, he gets some coverage in case he suffers a major injury or has a bad year or if the collusion, err "effects of the economy" continues. The Royals avoid two rounds of contract disputes and a 2010 scenario in which there is no earthly chance that Greinke is signable.
I'm thrilled that Greinke is "locked down" through 2012, but in reality its a two-year extension on an existing two-year deal. A two-year/$27 million dollar contract can be interpreted a number of ways, positive and negative. At a certain point, the logic flips, and if the team is risking an investment in Greinke through 2012, it makes sense to double-down in a sense, and get another year of his services.
Jump on me if you want, but after thinking about it for a few hours, there's a part of me that doesn't consider this a huge "get" for Moore. For a variety of reasons, Greinke's service-time clock and percieved value had left them in a favorable position. Greinke was going to be a bargain in '09 and probably '10 no matter what. Absent another year of team control, I have to say that they did not hit a home run with this deal. It's a double, maybe a two-RBI double, but it isn't a three-run homer.
157 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I was being facetious, but i do have a different perspective
I think your points are valid, and from a standpoint of numbers crunching only based on what we can expect from pre-arb and post-arb years, I agree with you.
I also think that perception can be more valuable than reality, and this is guaranteed to be largely perceived, on all sides invested in this (Greinke, Royals front office, Royals team, and the fans) as an awesome deal.
Like you say, both Greinke and the Royals get a bit of security and completely avoid the prospect of a pissing match in arbitration.
But I think the real value of the deal lies in its perception. First, other than Soria this is the first young cornerstone of a rebuilding franchise to sign a long-term deal (I might add that Soria’s deal was kind of an aberration to begin with as pre-arb contract extensions go since he was the one who personally requested an extension and the numbers are ridiculously skewed in favor of the front office). This deal sends a message to the fans, and to a lesser extent, to other potential young cornerstones like Gordon and Butler that the Royals are willing to shell out pre-arb guaranteed money in order to compete. It sends a message to the fans that the Royals are serious about competing, and the implied message is that GMDM thinks the Royals can be a playoff contender before 2012. Whether that actually happens is a separate issue, but whatever. I’m happy, and I’m even more happy that everyone else invested in the Royals is happy. Do I wish that the Royals tacked on a club option or extended it to 5/45 range or something? Damn right I do. But given the circumstances and how pessimistic some people were about this actually happening before the start of the season (or ever) this is a big win for GMDM and the Royals.
So yeah, maybe it’s a double in terms of crunching numbers, but has a lot of unquantifiable value beyond that.
Waiting for April.
maybe, I guess its just kinda hard to know exactly
But I think the real value of the deal lies in its perception. First, other than Soria this is the first young cornerstone of a rebuilding franchise to sign a long-term deal (I might add that Soria’s deal was kind of an aberration to begin with as pre-arb contract extensions go since he was the one who personally requested an extension and the numbers are ridiculously skewed in favor of the front office). This deal sends a message to the fans, and to a lesser extent, to other potential young cornerstones like Gordon and Butler that the Royals are willing to shell out pre-arb guaranteed money in order to compete. It sends a message to the fans that the Royals are serious about competing, and the implied message is that GMDM thinks the Royals can be a playoff contender before 2012. Whether that actually happens is a separate issue, but whatever. I’m happy, and I’m even more happy that everyone else invested in the Royals is happy. Do I wish that the Royals tacked on a club option or extended it to 5/45 range or something? Damn right I do. But given the circumstances and how pessimistic some people were about this actually happening before the start of the season (or ever) this is a big win for GMDM and the Royals.
I’m glad the fans are excited and I hope this excitement translates into more people at the K, and then more spending. I guess my main hesitation is that we really have no way of knowing what Gordon thinks or Butler or anyone else. Nor if this is gonna make them sign for less or play harder or anything.
We obviously can't read their minds
But fortunately Zack pretty much says whatever comes to mind anyways, and if I had to bet on it, I would guess that his recent comments to the media about sticking around with the Royals are pretty much on point for what most young players ponder when it comes to considering whether to sign an extensions:
1) do i like playing for this team?
2) Is the team heading in the right direction?
3) is the team committed to winning, and will it happen soon?
4) is the team willing to spend money on bringing in outside “talent”?
Obviously every circumstance is slightly different, but overall I honestly don’t think it gets much more complicated than that for most young players. Greinke, for whatever reason, decided that the answer to these questions is yes. I think it’s safe to assume that he thinks more highly about some or all of Guillen, Jacobs, HoRam, Farnsworth, Crisp, and Bloomquist acquisitions than the RR community does. And my bet is that Gordon and Butler and whoever else, if presented with the opportunity of signing an extension in the near future, will consider the Greinke extension when trying to answer similar questions.
Waiting for April.
I think
it also sends a nice message around the league. That the Royals are at least trying to be something other than a laughing stock. Meche, Soria, Greinke – some real nice longer term pieces.
Also, let’s think about the terms and the money in light of our skeptical belief in DM’s negotiating style. It could be that this is all Greinke was willing to go to. Or, DM was trying to get a lot more and as soon as Greinke simply said, “well, let me think about it”, DM freaked and gave him what ZG was, at least initially, indicating he was willing to take.
Whatever, this is a day to be happy and relieved.
meat
Here
we go again. I don’t need to convince you. Not my job and don’t care what you think honestly. I am convinced, but thanks for your positive spin on the deal…..lol. Go have a beer and relax sunshine.
Just go jump
off a bridge if you are depressed with your life.
by powder blues on Jan 26, 2009 7:09 PM EST up reply actions
Maybe
i can get banned so i don’t have to read the negativity.
by powder blues on Jan 26, 2009 7:11 PM EST up reply actions
Somebody needs a snuggy and a swayze
Annnnnnnnd….
Bam how you like me now Bode
by Official Arrowhead Pride Parade on Jan 27, 2009 12:16 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Ya makes sense
Why couldn’t KC get a better deal on a 25 year old who just posted a 3.47 ERA. It appears GMDM was leaving flexibility on the payroll for this year and needed to backload it to do so.
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
It could have been four years for a total of 20 million
and someone here would have found a reason to piss and moan about it. Its four years and $38 million. Let it be. I’ve sat back for weeks and heard constantly how they need to get it done. Well they did. The earliest the Yankees or Red Sox can get him is the trade deadline in 2012. Works for me.
you have very liberal standards of pissing and moaning
I guess anything short of “BEST CONTRACT EVA!!!!!” is a waste of time and morally wrong
by Freneau on Jan 26, 2009 7:09 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I think it's a great deal.
Simply because, even if it is “break even”, WE GOT AN ELITE TALENT TO SIGN HERE AT MARKET VALUE! Elite home grown talent! He actually wanted to stay. ZG could have taken his arb years, and then signed for 20 mil a year in free agency. Instead, he’s making an additional 2 year commitment to this team, and city – and let’s be honest, he knew he was getting traded if he didn’t sign an extension, so it’s really more like a 3 year commitment.
If Burnett can get the money he got with his injury history, you can’t tell me Zack wouldn’t get $20 mil a year in 2011-2012 if he continues to pitch to his capabilities. He’s only 25.
realistically speaking
burnett is an interesting comp, i will give you that
but he has a much longer track record in the game than greinke does
and a much longer injury history, too
and is 6 years older
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Jan 26, 2009 7:37 PM EST up reply actions
get out of here man - your negativity is sickening!
Yeah burnett’s track record is he missed the equivalent of two full seasons (65 starts )in the last six years and is proven to pitch his best in his contract years (last year and 2005) !
No FA pitcher would ever sign with the Royals for a discount. If he continued his path of success Greinke would be NUMERO UNO as far as FA’s are concerned in 2010 and would have gotten no less than 5 years 100 million dollars and that is a fact. Even if he missed a significant amount of time in the next two years or had one subpar year you are looking at AJ Burnett’s contract + inflation
by GobbleforCyoung on Jan 27, 2009 8:46 AM EST up reply actions
The likely alternative options were two years plus two draft picks when Greinke leaves as a free agent
or two years plus a 5+ year, $80m+ (or whatever AJ Burnett got) when he became an unrestricted free agent. Barring serious injury, there was zero chance Greinke would sign only a two-year extension once he became a free agent.
Plus, in the last arb year, the restriction on comparing players to others in their service class goes out the window, so his comps go from Joe Blanton and Mark Buehrle to Jake Peavy and CC Sabathia.
very good points
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Jan 26, 2009 7:37 PM EST up reply actions
To be great
A contract doesn’t have to pay a guy less than he’s projected to be worth.
This is a great contract for this franchise. End of story, contract-wise.
Now we all get to hope Zack stays healthy and fulfills or exceeds the projections. That’s better than just about all the alternatives I can think of.
yes, that is true
all negotiations are a give and take, and teh Royals could have, maybe, gotten more
again, Greinke is in a pretty low leverage situation
No. Greinke has all the leverage in the world.
“Give me what I want….or trade me to a good team.”
Yeah, exactly.
realistically speaking
I think that maximizing the club’s leverage is usually not the best way to maximize the performance of the player.
It’s the Lee Mazzilli syndrome: while everybody treated him like the next great NY centerfielder, he kind of was. And then they didn’t, and he definitely wasn’t.
Anyway, now we can all get on board for the ongoing adventures of Zack Greinke and the Kansas City Royals, without worrying about mid-season cancellation. How cool is that?
Low leverage
He openly stated he was fine with playing to his FA years. Zack doesn’t strike me as a guy who has to have a penny from the Royals. If he broke his arm tomorrow he would just start up a lawnmower biz and be cool. Zack had all the leverage in the world and GMDM and Glass convincing him to sign for two years extra is absolutely fantastic.
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
its interesting to look at the contracts page on COts
http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2000/05/most-lucrative-contracts.html
maybe it says I’m dead wrong, maybe not (not being cute, its a lot of information)
but there’s good info there
Of the top ten salaries by starting pitchers
how many would have become free agents after his age 26 season?
Do you expect the economy to be bad in two years?
AJ Burnett got 5/82.5M in a depressed economy. What would you expect Zack to get if he duplicates last years numbers two years in a row? Oh by the way Burnett is 31
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
we have no idea... when you leave the yankees out of the equation its hard to know
but the royals only got two years security, bottom-line
Lowe is 35 and got 60 million for 4 years and the Braves, not Yankees, are in the equation!!!!!!! End of argument you lost
You wanted proof that he would have gotten more than 15 million I just proved it. Further evidence, read below:
Kyle Lohse (who sucks) got 40 million for 4 years. Oliver Perez (who also sucks) will get 45 million for 3 years.
These pitchers are 4’s and 5’s in teams rotations (Santana, Pelfrey & Maine)
Greinke is an American League Ace.
Ryan Dempster had an ERA close to 5 for two years as a reliever prior to him having a season like Greinke did last year. He is 31 years old and just got 52 million for 4 years!
For you to even attempt to put a damper and say its ok is pretty ridiculous.
by GobbleforCyoung on Jan 27, 2009 8:57 AM EST up reply actions
MLB teams value good, young players very highly
This has been particularly true over the last five years.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 27, 2009 4:32 PM EST up reply actions
Similar average annual salary to Santana’s during the same period of service, but exactly 4 years later.
Factor in MLB salary inflation, the value of a Cy Young award, and the effect of gamma rays on man-in-the-moon marigolds, and you get:
How many days until pitchers and catchers report?
thats why Santana gets 23 million a year (138 for 6 years)
and it was also a sign and trade which has to factor in…
by GobbleforCyoung on Jan 27, 2009 9:00 AM EST up reply actions
wow...did anyone else realize that Hafner's ridiculous contract extension....
just kicks in this year? That’s going to be worse than Sweeneys contract
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Jan 26, 2009 9:34 PM EST up reply actions
yikes! No I didn't
I’ll have to look it up to see how it compared to the Michael Young abomination
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Jan 26, 2009 9:39 PM EST up reply actions
Wow 4 year 52 just now kickin in
plus a 2.75 buyout. HAHA ouch
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
COUNT THE GOLD GLOVES!!!!
Wait, they want him to move to third?
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Jan 26, 2009 10:32 PM EST up reply actions
Doesn't look good for Cleveland
Paul Sorrento and Burnitz are among Hafners B-R comparables thru Age 31
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
my only concern
is Grienke’s short track record. one and a half seasons of effective starting.
I think we could’ve pulled off this same deal after next season. I’m the cautious sort, so I would have waited a year. The value is exactly where I thought it would be. Still I like the deal.
Go away! Guys, you're gonna wake up my Mom!
by David Howards Legacy on Jan 26, 2009 7:39 PM EST reply actions
It all depends on perfomance
If Greinke performs consistently as he did this past year, it will be a great deal. So many MLB deals do not actually deliver what they paid for. If the Royals get what they paid for, it will be great because they didn’t overpay someone to sign, which will continue to encourage other FAs and Glass.
4 years is a long time, especially for a pitcher
I’m not sure I would want to lock him up to a high-priced deal longer than 2 years anyway.
Plus, we don’t have to deal with all the anxiety over whether we’ll trade him or not over the next two years. That’s got to add at least a few months to every Royals fan’s life.
I think there might be a bit of cross-talk here
I’m not going to complain about “excessive negativity” or anything like that. I don’t get why people can’t just disagree and be done with it. Whatever. So I don’t want to be taken that way. I appreciate that you’re being as objective as you can be. But I think you’re greatly underselling the value of this deal.
I’m sorry if I’m misunderstanding, but I guess I’m having trouble seeing how this isn’t an outstanding deal for the Royals. Is it necessarily a “screw the player” team-option situation like Soria’s contract, or Evan Longoria’s, or (my favorite) Tim Wakefield’s. And, yes, it’s not like Dayton Moore really pulled a rabbit out of the hat — “Surprise! We discovered this pitcher that’s really good!” Still, it’s a great deal for the team. Yes, it might be the obvious deal, but there are a lot of times when…. various… front offices seem to lack a grasp of the obvious. And getting and obviously good, young player with no apparent physical problems locked up for four is a great thing. Whoever gets the “credit,” it’s great news.
So maybe I’m misunderstanding the point. On the pre-arb years, I think it’s obvious the Royals got a good deal. But the truth is, we don’t know where the economy is headed by the time Greinke reachecs what would have been his FA years. And so we should just analyze this like we would any other deal.
RR, you yourself linked to R. J. Anderson’s brief comment on the contract at BtBS — he doesn’t even seem to deal with wny Zack hardly pitched in the majros in 2006, or that he was used as a reliever in 2007, yet gets a projection from that and says, “good deal.” He even includes decline int he account, and I think that’s even being conservative, given Zack’s age, injury history (or lack thereof), and low mileage on his arm.
And speaking of FanGraphs…. look at the value chart on Greinke’s page. Yeah, 2008 was great. But what’s more interesting is 2007, where he didn’t even get into the rotation for at least half the year… and still put up 2.7 WAR, or about $11M worth of performacne. Again, we don’t know how the baseball economy will change — Tango and others are proceeding as they always would.
Why do I bring that up? Well, given the same rate of WAR inflation that we always use, by the time 2011 roles around, rather than being worth $4M as it was in 2007, 1 WAR will be worth altmost $6M. Heck, let’s just say 5.75 to be conservative. Given ths ose (accepted by the saber-crowd) assumption, in 2011 that 2.7 WAR performance, which most would agree isn’t really indicative of how good Zack’s “true talent” was because he was in the pen, will be worth over $15M. And the Royals have those years for less than that.
So unless this year is an incredibly fluky peak, he doesn’t’ even have to repeat it for this deal to be worth it. And the discussion above doesn’t even deal with all the surplus value Greinke is likely to Generate over the next two cheap arb years.
In other words, and at length — I respect your objectivity, RR, and I’m not going to complain about “excessive negativity.” But I have to disagree. This is a great deal for the Royals, no matter who gets the credit.
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Jan 26, 2009 7:57 PM EST reply actions 4 recs
Thank you for realizing this might be the best thing for the Royals in the last 5 years!
That's why we play the season on paper.
WRONG!
Rowdy Hardy was signed less than five years ago.
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Jan 26, 2009 9:40 PM EST up reply actions
This is a great deal for the Royals, no matter who gets the credit.
But, again, just to play the other side, it’s clear that Dayton Moore himself doesn’t by the advanced metrics and the cost of WAR and all the rest of it. Maybe its wrong to want the player to get screwed in a sense, though its all very relative. Still, Greinke was going to be cheap and a bargain for the next two seasons anyway. When evaluating this deal, I really don’t think enough has been made of that.
Bottom line, for it to be a great deal the Royals should be getting another deal of control, since they’re buying out — at market rates — his two pre-FA years.
Its really, almost weirdly, just a status quo deal in my book. Greinke gets what he would have likely got in 09 and 10 anyway, and probably 11 & 12 as well, only he’ll be a FA again in ’13.
He wins the deal.
No way
10 anyway, and probably 11 & 12
Zack only gets that much if he doesn’t pitch like he did this season.
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
per season, I doubt there will be much difference
the difference would have been that he would have signed a longer contract, so the headline value would be different
will see if in 4 years someone is ready to hand greinke 20 million per, i doubt it
Why do you doubt it?
I guess you are just doubting his talent which is crazy to me. This guy is just touching his talent level. Name me one pitcher that wasn’t injured who pitched to his peak at 24 and never again? If Zack was 27 or 28 I might go along with you (probably not) in this line of thinking but we are talking about locking him up in his absolute peak years.
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
will see if in 4 years someone is ready to hand greinke 20 million per, i doubt it
Well, if you’re speculating about larger economic changes that neither of us know how to predict, maybe — not much of a point.. If you think that Zack’s performance this season was a fluke that he has little or no chance to come close to repeating, well, OK, then we can argue about that.
But if you’re arguing that you “just know” that probably baseball economy is totally going to change and that the way that baseball analysts value contracts, well, you’re sort of entering the Mellinger Zone, where “special rules” apply to stuff that the Royals do (having to overpay for replacement level players, etc.) because while sabermetrics is fine, it doesn’t apply in this particular case for some reason.
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Jan 26, 2009 11:10 PM EST up reply actions
you think this year was a fluke?
seems to me everything I read, even from dudes who clearly have lost their analytical fastball (Steve Goldman, for example) if they ever had it (many ESPN writers) all have Greinke pegged as an “underrated ace.”
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Jan 26, 2009 11:19 PM EST up reply actions
I think Steven Goldman is a better judge of value than half the GMs out there
as i said somewhere else, if you take the yankees out of the equation, what team do you see doing a mega deal for zack?
the teams that do mega deals are generally the stupidest ones
I dunno
Goldman, Kahrl, and Sheehan are good writers whom I enjoy reading sometimes. There are high school kids writing on SBNation blogs who blow them away as analysts, although those kids blow a of people away. Maybe they’re smarter than really terrible GMs, but this isn’t the early 90s or something.
BP is mainstream now. That’s a good thing. I like those people’s stuff sometimes, so I don’t want to get into the specific examples of embarassing stuff they’ve written that would get ripped if Olney wrote it (Sheehan’s piece praising the Guillen deal when it happened is a good place to start, though… MGL took it apart piece by piece at the time).
But really, I don’t want to get into that. I will say that I think the burden is on you to show that Greinke is perceived the way you say he is, given what his value actually is. The Book guys may rip certain FOs, but their points aobut market value and WAR aren’ t that teams should pay those amounts, but that they generally do.
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Jan 26, 2009 11:42 PM EST up reply actions
I'm with d_f here,
where is this information that says we are the only ones that see him as an ace?
I’m also curious about why we are taking the Yanks out of the equation?
I just got back from your mom's basement.
maybe not,
but they’re always lurking when there is an ace around.
I just got back from your mom's basement.
I can't tell if we're disagreeing or not
I tend to agree that Dayton just did the obviously right thing here. And that’s good. It doesn’t make him a genius, or make the Guillen deal any better, etc. But, although I didn’t want to put it this way here, after some of the other decisions this offseason, doing the obviously right thing is nice.
Again, despite your constant criticism of the subjective sportswriters doing analysis, you simply are (implicitly, at least) asserting one or both of the following: 1) That Zack isn’t as good as he was this year, and probably more like he was last year ( a sub-3 WAR player). OK. Argue that point. and/or 2) WAR-based contract analysis is wrong, and even though he’s valued at $21M this year, the FA market for 26 year-old aces is going to crash to bad he would only have gotten two thirds of that in 2 years.
Other than a catastrophic injury situation, the likely downside is that the Royals “only” break even on the FA years, and they likely are better off than that.
Unless you and Mellinger came up with a new model to analyze the free agent market and the future economic downturn.
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Jan 26, 2009 11:17 PM EST up reply actions
Bottom line, for it to be a great deal the Royals should be getting another deal of control, since they’re buying out — at market rates — his two pre-FA years.
The Royals are getting two more years of Greinke that they couldn’t have gotten any other way. Without an extension, they have him for two years. With the extension, they have him for four years. And in EVERY year of the contract, they will be paying him lower than his likely market value.
Its really, almost weirdly, just a status quo deal in my book. Greinke gets what he would have likely got in 09 and 10 anyway, and probably 11 & 12 as well, only he’ll be a FA again in ’13.
Greinke would have gotten much more in 2011 and 2012 on the open market. Do you not think he’s a young ace? How much do you think 27-year-old FA aces get? The team that signs him gets five of his peak years. You think they’d give him $13.5M per year? No way. Not even close.
Both sides get something. Greinke gets security and gets to stay in KC (which I think he wanted). KC gets Greinke for 4 years at below market value, when they otherwise would have gotten only two.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 27, 2009 1:06 AM EST up reply actions
per year, he's probably making the same as would have as a FA
its just that fictional team would have signed him through 2015
If he went to free agency after the 2010 season, he likely would make more than $13.5M per year
And it very, very likely wouldn’t have been the royals that he would be playing for. That’s why this was very good deal for the Royals.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 27, 2009 1:39 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Way To Cut
Through the bullshit.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Jan 28, 2009 12:22 AM EST up reply actions
Zack has 3 seasons of 120+ ERA+
going into his 25th year of life. There isn’t too many pitchers you can compare that to.
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
that's because Zack is blocking Rowdy Hardy from the majors
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Jan 26, 2009 8:03 PM EST up reply actions
That and the fact that he would've had to go pro a year earlier to post 3 years of ERA+
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
Trade Buck, Mahay or HoRam and German
prior to the season now and pick up Sheets
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
I would really like to go after Sheets
Makes the Farnsy/HoRam/Bloomie signings look even more baffling.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
I'm so excited that I am watching ZG's 13th victory from last season!
That's why we play the season on paper.
How much would Greinke likely be worth once he becomes a FA?
How much is a young ace worth? Off the top of my head, I’d say $17M+. And that’s before the likely salary inflation. So $13.5M looks like a real bargain for those FA years. And the Royals got a bargain on the arbitration years too.
The immoderate moderator
According to the plan,
we should be contenders when this deal is up. That’s when we can either extend or get prospects, depending on need. I’m actually fine on the length.
I just got back from your mom's basement.
I think
just off the top of my head, that if Greinke “only” gives the Royals a 2.7 WAR performance each year of the contract, the Royals still come out ahead. I shouldn’t probably work it all out, but I’m too lazy — not sure about the second year.
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Jan 26, 2009 9:42 PM EST up reply actions
My very quick estimate put the break even at 3 WAR each for the FA years
But yes, I think it is a fair deal at 2.7 WAR per year. And it is hard to imagine Greinke only being a 3 WAR player per year over this contract.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 26, 2009 9:48 PM EST up reply actions
there is not a baseball perception that he's an ace though
it really doesn’t matter what the reality numberswise is
I am referring not to how valuable he really is
but what the perception is, since that is relevant to his market value
I'm pretty sure if we have a good idea
that at least many GMs have an idea.
Well, maybe not Ruben Amaro.
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Jan 26, 2009 11:19 PM EST up reply actions
or Bill Smith
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Jan 26, 2009 11:19 PM EST up reply actions
What makes you think that "baseball" doesn't perceive Greinke as an ace?
First, I think they do. Second, he’s likely to pitch like an ace in 2009 and 2010, which would make him an obvious and established ace by the time he gets to free agency. So when figuring his future value, that needs to be taken into account.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 27, 2009 1:07 AM EST up reply actions
+109812171927409172409128409
Baseball people are not stupid. They know how good Zack is.
Founder of the Johnny Giavotella fan club.
well I guess we can both assert without evidence
I see no general evidence that suggests that there is an industry-wide perception that greinke is an ace
none
maybe i’m wrong
As I posted elsewhere, the stat guys love him and the scouts love him. They love his stuff, control, mechanics, body, lack of injuries, everything. He realized ace potential in 2008 and I think pretty much everyone expects an ace future for him. I haven’t read any analyst (statty or toolsy) express any significant concern about his future. Really, none.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 27, 2009 1:41 AM EST up reply actions
all this talk about "ace" and "perception" is clouding the issue
look the market, and look at Greinke. He’s not a typical undervalued player. He’s not sneaking by guys like Jamie Moyer, and he’s not a knuckelballer. He strikes guys out. He’s young. He has not injury history. Everyone knows those guys are good. We aren’t talking about the Mark Ellis of pitchers here. And WAR-based analysis leaves aside stuff about “ace” and just says “if a guy is this good, he generally gets x amount of dollars.”
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Jan 27, 2009 9:22 AM EST up reply actions
hmm...
If the deal looked like this, would you feel differently?
2009: $4.2M
2010: $8.4M
2011: $11.5M
2012: $13.5M
It looks to me like Moore structured the deal as if he took some money out of this year’s and next year’s salaries and added them to 2011’s salary. Seems like a smart move to me.
Consider that Gil Meche was 27 when the Royals signed him for $55/5 and then consider what Greinke would have been likely to get at age 27, regardless of how he pitches over the next two years. $13.5M per is a ridiculous bargain and it carries less risk than virtually every other new pitching deal that has been signed in recent memory.
The Last Word on EVERYTHING
i don't remember having that signature line...has it always been there?
The Last Word on EVERYTHING
by Billex Gordler on Jan 26, 2009 9:12 PM EST up reply actions
i'm certainly not the last word on ANYTHING, much less EVERYTHING.
The Last Word on EVERYTHING
by Billex Gordler on Jan 26, 2009 9:12 PM EST up reply actions
take mine seriously because I am a big deal
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
not that i'm aware of...
my other point would be that this deal is the best possible deal. there are hundreds of scenarios in parallel universes that would make this a less than perfect deal, but those scenarios don’t reflect reality. the only argument against it is if you believe the Billy Beane approach with Haren, that is, to trade Greinke now for like 7 prospects. I think that’s a totally defensible argument and I might even agree with that. But if you’re not arguing for a trade then by all measurable and realistic measures, this is a wonderful, near perfect deal.
The Last Word on EVERYTHING
by Billex Gordler on Jan 27, 2009 9:14 AM EST up reply actions
he apparently received some no trade protection in the 2 arb years.
Per Rosenthl:
Royals’ Greinke: Cy or bye?
Royals right-hander Zack Grienke received “very minor” no-trade protection in the first two years of his new four-year, $38 million contract, according to a source with knowledge of the deal.
Grienke, 25, will earn $13.5 million in each of the final two years, prompting one rival executive to say, “He’s going to get traded in one of the thirteen-and-a-halfs, unless he wins a Cy Young Award before then. And he could.”
So we’re aparently not the only ones who think he’s awesome.
Don't Stop Believing!
There ya go...
You just couldnt let things get to positive around here i understand… Good work.. So would you be happy if we signed greinke to a 6 year 10 Mil instead?? or would you find something wrong with that too??
Bloomquist. God? Or just an illusion? You be the judge.
I'm ready for Spring!
Especially with the snow and ice storm that put my buddy’s 2008 silverado in the ditch tonight.
That's why we play the season on paper.
Really?
C’mon now. Weren’t we expecting an extension in the $32-36 million range? What’s another $2 million to guarantee he’ll be here?
First we’re worried if he’s going to have to be traded because we won’t be able to sign him to extension and now we have complaints because he wans’t signed for an arbitrary number?
Jeeze, let it go. Aces don’t grow on trees. I’m pumped!
by Royal from Queens on Jan 26, 2009 9:28 PM EST reply actions
I will admit
I did not read any of the 200+ posts before mind so yeah…
by Royal from Queens on Jan 26, 2009 9:41 PM EST up reply actions
I don't have a problem with the money
I have a problem with the years, as in there aren’t enough of them
I would have liked more years
I would have liked to have paid Greinke less money too. And have him paint the stadium in the offseason as well. But it takes two to tango. And I don’t think Greinke would have gone in for the painting or for more than four years. Just like Kazmir. Greinke wants some guaranteed money now and then go back to FA when he’s 29 so he can get another big payday. Moore can’t force Greinke to do whatever he wants.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 27, 2009 1:09 AM EST up reply actions
exactly...
i can’t think of a single instance of a player with two seasons before free agency signing a deal that buys out more than two years of free agency. we’d all love a 10 year deal for $80-100M, but that possibility doesn’t reflect reality. at all.
The Last Word on EVERYTHING
by Billex Gordler on Jan 27, 2009 9:16 AM EST up reply actions
You really do not want to guarantee more than three or four years (in special cases) with a pitcher
The attrition rate for pitchers is just on a different level than position players, so it is better to go one year too short given the risks. Sure, a club option with a buyout on the end would reduce that risk, but given the leverage that Greinke had being only two years away from free agency and the reduced amounts he accepted for the arbitration years, Moore should not be faulted for not getting an extra cherry on top of the deal.
Considering how much we've been overpaying on players
I have to think “breaking even” is a pretty big win for us.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Jan 26, 2009 9:35 PM EST reply actions 3 recs
I really agree.
I think RR may be right that this is only a good, not great, deal moneywise. That’s sort of what NYRoyal is saying: Zakk will probably be over at least a little over the breakeven # of 3 WAR during the contract.
But I feel like getting one very good pitcher, even if at an only-good price, could be a nice snowball effect. The perception, as DCRoyal notes, is that we’re going in the right direction.
Plus, consider the “swing value,” the difference between this result and the opposite scenario. I mean, this deal looks moderately good, but compared with how bad everyone would have felt if Zaq had put us off, off, off for two years, then bolted—that’s a big swing. I think a lot of us would have been really crushed.
I can’t say how excited I am. In baseball there are no sure things, you just try to make good guesses and good deals. The best teams just have a bit higher percentage of making the right calls, like good poker players. And I think this is like having the flop go our way, after getting a pair of jacks in meche and soria.
SOOO excited!
I guess I don't see why
Signing a guy with Greinke’s talent at his age to a 2 year $27 million isn’t a home run?
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
not enough years man
and there really is little savings in the contract either
look, its a nice deal, yay he’ll be a royal for 2 more seasons
but most great deals give the player more years in exchange for a bit of a discount, the royals don’t get that here
although many think so
just give evidence other than a hunch that it isn't a savings
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Jan 26, 2009 11:20 PM EST up reply actions
I agree it isn't as good as the Soria deal, or Longoria, or a bunch of the other Rays
or Pedroia’s, but it’s still a very good deal. We can’t count on every agent being guilty of borderline malpractice.
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Jan 26, 2009 11:22 PM EST up reply actions
it's exactly as good as longoria and soria...
those guys are in totally different situations. greinke has 4 years of service. soria has 2. longoria has less than one.
The Last Word on EVERYTHING
by Billex Gordler on Jan 27, 2009 9:22 AM EST up reply actions
Do you think Zack would get less that 4 year 52 if he was a FA today?
I don’t think he would. Yes he has had the one mental issue which is a big deal but this is still a kid that isn’t 25 yet just posted a 3.47 ERA and 200+ IP on a bad team. I would think Zack would get that easily if he was on the market free right now even in a depressed market. Oliver Perez who has less of a track record than Zack will probably get around that 4/52 figure and he is two years older.
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
he's the next Sandy Koufax, dontcha know
remember those two seasons when Perez was average or better?
yeah, me neither
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Jan 26, 2009 11:44 PM EST up reply actions
your just missing the whole point. The deal is a success because he signed an extension
The fact that its for market value now (as opposed to 18-20 million plus he would have earned after two more seasons) makes it a great signing!
by GobbleforCyoung on Jan 27, 2009 9:04 AM EST up reply actions
Maybe its just that "this is a really dark period!"
by Official Arrowhead Pride Parade on Jan 27, 2009 12:21 AM EST up reply actions
Take that back
seriously, take it back son.
by Official Arrowhead Pride Parade on Jan 27, 2009 9:18 PM EST up reply actions
FanGraphs Gives their take
Just wanted to make sure and get it here, just in case people somehow miss the 3 FanShots that will pop up over the next couple days linking to it.
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
i've thought about this for about the 100th time today
and the deal is still f’ing awesome.
Founder of the Johnny Giavotella fan club.
I give it a B-
Hehe, just kidding. I give it an “A”. Another year, or team option or vesting option would have made it an A+.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 27, 2009 1:42 AM EST up reply actions
Next up on Missed Points, our regular feature examining good things that just aren’t good enough:
The 1985 Series: Should Have Had It In Five
The Treaty of Paris: No Option on Canada?
Shakespeare’s Henriad: Needs More Falstaff
Kubla Khan’s Stately Pleasure-Dome: Its Inherent Energy Inefficiencies
and our highly anticipated series finale:
George Brett’s Career 67% Stolen Base Success Rate: A Tarnished Legacy
by 2X2L on Jan 27, 2009 10:28 AM EST reply actions 2 recs
If you were trying to set up an easy target for all of the "positive" posters
to knock down and generate some traffic, well done RR. Well done. 130 posts and counting.
Awesome deal
I could care less about the money, as long as we have him and Glass is spending it. The years, another one would’ve been awesome, but like stated elsewhere, it probably wasn’t an option or Moore would’ve done it.
So Moore did the best he could with what the other side was willing to do. There are two sides to this thing.
by I need more Esteban on Jan 27, 2009 3:25 PM EST reply actions
Good deal
The fact that we’re only buying out two FA years keep it from being “great,” I suppose, but it still retains a legit number one starter for a good price. Reminds me of the orioles re-signing Brian Roberts, in that Zack is willing to hang around for awhile….but he retains the option to hit the FA market while still in his prime.
Stathead, Zack Greinke fan, and Rock Band 2 singer extraordinaire.
yup
i’ve always felt buying out two FA years was a fair compromise for both sides. zack can STILL hit the market at 29, which is fairly young for a free agent as it is. at that point he can re-sign if we are good by then, or say “f this” and go somewhere else* while he is still in his prime.
*provided said place has Chipotle’s
Founder of the Johnny Giavotella fan club.
*provided said place has Chipotle’s
And that the place isn’t too big and scary…which rules out all of the richest teams. I have a sneaking suspicion that Greinke is going to eventually re-sign with the Royals for another 4-5 years.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 28, 2009 4:57 AM EST up reply actions
good thing for the Royals
that the Marlins are ultra-cheap and the Rays don’t look to be awash in money (or particularly desparate for picthing), or I think the situation might be very different.
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Jan 28, 2009 11:33 AM EST up reply actions
hmmm
maybe. I hope so. but then again, if he becomes the pitcher we think he will be, then he is going to command A LOT of money. like, maybe $20m a year or more depending on teh economy. the glass family will have to step up to the plate.
Founder of the Johnny Giavotella fan club.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Royals Review
Related FanShots on Royals Review
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.
