Long-term extension for one: Greinke or Marcum?

[adambr2]

Greinke is almost assuredly going to be the more expensive of the two, while the production edge has been slightly on Marcum's side.

Still, just in my opinion, this one is a no-brainer to invest in Greinke. Do that and you have to feel pretty good about having two ace-caliber pitchers at the top of your rotation for years to come. Plus, now might not be a bad time to lock up Greinke long-term -- he's coming off two years that were probably a little disappointing by his standards.

Marcum to me is a much more risky investment and a perfect candidate to leave unsigned and offer arbitration to at the end of the season. He accepts it, great, you keep him around on a one-year deal and keep your rotation stacked without having to commit long-term to him. He declines, you happily take the picks and move on.

[brettac1]

Greinke. I generally lean toward the more power-type of pitcher, especially when he's younger and has a history of better durability (basketball excluded). Once Marcum loses a couple MPH off his fastball, he could enter into Suppan territory. A LHP with mediocre fastball velocity can get by for quite a while (Wolf for instance), but a RHP with the same problem generally can't. I really don't think these guys are that close, talent-wise.

[PrinceEatMeat]

Greinke hands down. Marcum is the kind of pitcher who doesn't project well a few years down the road (See Jeff Suppan). I'd extend him for maybe 2 years, and that's it. Don't think that's an option though. Greinke is the the smarter investment if we're looking at a 6-year deal or something like that. He's far more talented, and could be a great pitchers throughout that entire contract. Being more expensive isn't an issue in my opinion. Having Greinke and Gallardo both locked done for the next 5 years or so would be huge. The rest of the rotation can be filled in hopefully with guys like Peralta and Fiers.

[Mass Haas]

Marcum to me is a much more risky investment and a perfect candidate to leave unsigned and offer arbitration to at the end of the season. He accepts it, great, you keep him around on a one-year deal and keep your rotation stacked without having to commit long-term to him. He declines, you happily take the picks and move on.

Here's the new rules on arbitration:

 

Major league free agent compensation will be completely revised in 2013, with a team having to offer its former players who became free agents the average of the top 125 contracts -- currently about $12.4 million -- to receive draft-pick compensation if a player signs with a new team. It eliminates the statistical formula that had been in place since the 1981 strike settlement.

 

So no way would the Brewers offer Marcum arbitration at that level for 2013.

[JimH5]

Greinke for sure.

 

Marcum's performance is good, though not unique. If he fell off the map, you'd be able to find someone else who could do what he can do.

Greinke is a top 10 talent, capable of much more.

 

No need to overthink this one.

[markedman5]

Greinke at Marcum money.....................

[Warning Track Power]

Greinke hands down.

 

I'm comfortable moving forward with Greinke and Gallardo at #1 and #2 and backfilling the ortation with the Narvesons, Peraltas, Jungmanns, Bradleys, Thornburgs of our system. I just hope he takes a Weaver contract (5 years $85m) as I believe that is all the Brewers can afford.

[Funketown]

Greinke at Marcum money.....................

Greinke at Victor Santos money http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif.

 

Marcum scares me a bit in terms of aging. Lots of injuries, off-speed guy, struggled a bit down the stretch last year. Oh, and Greinke-Gallardo is a sick 1-2 punch at the bottom of the batting order!

[brwrsfan]

Greinke and I don't think it's close. Marcum doesn't seem like a guy that will age very well. His stuff isn't really dynamic and when he ages, these are the types of guys that really seem to crash hard. Grinke can flat out dominate and has better pure stuff. Even aging, he still seems to project much, much better. If both were on the FA market, would we have any shot at Greinke? Probably not, so this is really the only shot to get/keep a pitcher of his caliber.

 

Obviously though it really depends on the cost difference and if either has any interest in actually extending his stay here in Milwaukee. I think both like it from what I can tell.

[Pointer1VB]

Is this a trick question?

[JohnBriggs12]

Neither makes sense for the Brewers.

 

Greinke is going to want a long term deal (5 years or more), in the range of $16-18 million per. He's had one outstanding season. If he happens to revert to his 2009 form, he's going to want $20 million per. If he doesn't, he shouldn't get more than $13 millon per year. Those kind of contracts for pitchers are risky for the big boys (Lackey, Burnett, Zambrano). They can be devasting for small market teams.

 

If Marcum repeats his 2011, he's going to want $50 million over 4 minimum. That's way too much for a soft tosser who proved unreliable in the postseason.

 

Bradley, Jungmann, Peralta, Thornburg, etc. That's the future of the Brewer rotation They can always add a vet here and there to fill out the rotation or those guys can be used in deals to get premier pitchers for short term investments like they did to get Greinke and Marcum in the first place I prefer investing in youth with starting pitching. The Gallardo model is the way to go.

[Invader3K]

Greinke if the price is outlandish. I'm really not interested in a long term Marcum extension. He just screams out as a guy who could suddenly fall off a cliff, performance wise.

[narwhalattack]

Neither makes sense for the Brewers.

 

Greinke is going to want a long term deal (5 years or more), in the range of $16-18 million per. He's had one outstanding season. If he happens to revert to his 2009 form, he's going to want $20 million per. If he doesn't, he shouldn't get more than $13 millon per year. Those kind of contracts for pitchers are risky for the big boys (Lackey, Burnett, Zambrano). They can be devasting for small market teams.

 

If Marcum repeats his 2011, he's going to want $50 million over 4 minimum. That's way too much for a soft tosser who proved unreliable in the postseason.

 

Bradley, Jungmann, Peralta, Thornburg, etc. That's the future of the Brewer rotation They can always add a vet here and there to fill out the rotation or those guys can be used in deals to get premier pitchers for short term investments like they did to get Greinke and Marcum in the first place I prefer investing in youth with starting pitching. The Gallardo model is the way to go.

 

 

Actually, he's had 1 otherworldly season and a few good seasons and 1 meh season. And Bradley, Jungmann, Peralta and Thornburg are just prospects and are far from guarantees. It's still too early to say that they're the Brewers rotation of the future. I think the Brewers should extend Greinke but not Marcum.

[JohnBriggs12]

Neither makes sense for the Brewers.

 

Greinke is going to want a long term deal (5 years or more), in the range of $16-18 million per. He's had one outstanding season. If he happens to revert to his 2009 form, he's going to want $20 million per. If he doesn't, he shouldn't get more than $13 millon per year. Those kind of contracts for pitchers are risky for the big boys (Lackey, Burnett, Zambrano). They can be devasting for small market teams.

 

If Marcum repeats his 2011, he's going to want $50 million over 4 minimum. That's way too much for a soft tosser who proved unreliable in the postseason.

 

Bradley, Jungmann, Peralta, Thornburg, etc. That's the future of the Brewer rotation They can always add a vet here and there to fill out the rotation or those guys can be used in deals to get premier pitchers for short term investments like they did to get Greinke and Marcum in the first place I prefer investing in youth with starting pitching. The Gallardo model is the way to go.

 

 

Actually, he's had 1 otherworldly season and a few good seasons and 1 meh season. And Bradley, Jungmann, Peralta and Thornburg are just prospects and are far from guarantees. It's still too early to say that they're the Brewers rotation of the future. I think the Brewers should extend Greinke but not Marcum.

They are keys to the rotation of the future. A lot has already been invested in Bradley and Jungmann as first round picks out of college. If two of those guys turn out to be quality major league starters, they'll be fine rotation wise and have plenty of cash left to round out needs elsewhere. If the pay Greinke $20 million per year for 5 years and he gets hurt or turns into John Lackey, they'll still have the young guys but with no safety net of saved cash to buy or trade for a veteran. Yes they are all prospects. But teams pay dearly for quality starting pitching prospects.

 

Greinke didn't come out of thin air. He's here because they had prospects to deal to get him. Same goes for Marcum. Nothing is stopping them from doing that again for different guys. One big reason the Brewers were able to do that when they did was because Suppan was finally off the books. Loading up the books again makes no sense. Sure I'd take Greinke for 4 years, $56 million. But he wants much more than that I'm sure and I don't think he's worth the risk.

 

[monty57]

I could see a 2 year extension, but I couldn't see the Brewers signing Marcum long-term. It appears that they are a ways apart on the one-year deal to avoid arbitration, so maybe Marcum thinks he's worth more than the Brewers do.

 

I'd like to sign Greinke to a 4-5 year extension at the right price. It doesn't make sense to overpay for him, but I like that we're using our exclusive negotiating rights to at least attempt an extension. It would be nice having him and Gallardo as the 1-2 starters while we work in the guys from the minor leagues.

 

I don't think we'll extend both of them, and all things being equal, there's no doubt I'd rather extend Greinke if it's an either/or situation.

[adambr2]

Marcum to me is a much more risky investment and a perfect candidate to leave unsigned and offer arbitration to at the end of the season. He accepts it, great, you keep him around on a one-year deal and keep your rotation stacked without having to commit long-term to him. He declines, you happily take the picks and move on.

Here's the new rules on arbitration:

 

Major league free agent compensation will be completely revised in 2013, with a team having to offer its former players who became free agents the average of the top 125 contracts -- currently about $12.4 million -- to receive draft-pick compensation if a player signs with a new team. It eliminates the statistical formula that had been in place since the 1981 strike settlement.

 

So no way would the Brewers offer Marcum arbitration at that level for 2013.

Thanks for the info, I didn't know that. That sucks, basically what it means to me is that it's going to be a lot harder for small market teams to get compensation for their very good, but sub-elite players entering free agency. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me especially for purposes of competitive balance.

[ilikewisco]

I would choose Greinke over Marcum as well. But I don't have as much worries of Marcum being a soft tosser. It works for him; he locates, has that cutter, and pitches smart. The injury concern is always there, but if he'd be willing to sign for 3-4 years from 10-12 mil per, I think I would do it. He's had two really good seasons in a row, and I don't think he regresses for a while.

 

I think I would go a little higher money wise on Greinke as well. 4-5 years at maybe 16-17 per year, possibly even 18, or another year. I think he has the stuff to dominate, and if he could do that it would be a steal. But we should obviously get a discount for the last two seasons.

[Raw Biz]

Marcum to me is a much more risky investment and a perfect candidate to leave unsigned and offer arbitration to at the end of the season. He accepts it, great, you keep him around on a one-year deal and keep your rotation stacked without having to commit long-term to him. He declines, you happily take the picks and move on.

Here's the new rules on arbitration:

 

Major league free agent compensation will be completely revised in 2013, with a team having to offer its former players who became free agents the average of the top 125 contracts -- currently about $12.4 million -- to receive draft-pick compensation if a player signs with a new team. It eliminates the statistical formula that had been in place since the 1981 strike settlement.

 

So no way would the Brewers offer Marcum arbitration at that level for 2013.

Thanks for the info, I didn't know that. That sucks, basically what it means to me is that it's going to be a lot harder for small market teams to get compensation for their very good, but sub-elite players entering free agency. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me especially for purposes of competitive balance.

I actually think it's a lot better than what it used to be. The Elias Rankings were awful. Mediocre guys (can't remember any off the top of my head) were netting teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, etc. first and second round picks. In addition, only the top 10 first-round picks are protected.

[Eye Black]

It would be hard to beat having Gallardo and Greinke at the top of the rotation for the next few years.

According to Jon Heyman the Giants are focusing on extending Matt Cain with a long-term contract. That would be another potential 2012-13 Free Agent off the market, and I have a bad feeling that if the Brewers can't extend Greinke this off-season, he will become too pricey for them next Winter.

[Roderick]

Greinke didn't come out of thin air. He's here because they had prospects to deal to get him. Same goes for Marcum. Nothing is stopping them from doing that again for different guys.

Other than they don't have those types of prospects in the system (right now) to trade.

 

But put me down in the let them play the 2012 season and see what happens. I will pay that extra premium for waiting to verify how these pitchers will do for another season.

 

If I am resigning one now it would be Grienke, with hopefully some salary protection if Grienke misses time due to non-physical reasons.

[gregmag]

I've given Briggs a lot of grief over his undervaluing of Greinke and Marcum, and I still don't agree with his conclusion here, but I think he's right about some important things. Most important, we will need serious production from our pool of pitching prospects if we're going to stay relevant. Short of the odd Doug Davis pickup (the first one), the only way you get cheap, good SPs is to acquire them via draft or trade and develop them. With our payroll structure, we're pretty much doomed if one of our pitching prospects doesn't emerge as at least a midrotation guy in the next two years, and we probably won't contend without two.

 

But yes, we should extend Greinke. He has a good health record. He has filthy stuff. Power pitchers generally age well. Right, he's only won one Cy Young (slacker!), but even when he isn't pitching up to his potential, he's really good. Even with young guys emerging, you need rotation anchors. We can't just trade for another guy like him, because (a) there aren't many guys like him, and (b) our only really prime trade chips are -- wait for it -- our pitching prospects. Besides, if we somehow get a comparable veteran, we're going to face the same set of questions. If the choice is between Greinke and the wages of time and luck, I'll take Greinke.

[RobDeer 45]

I'm very hesitant in signing these guys long term. I know people will think I'm nuts but I really think we need to trade these guys, or at least one of them to replenish the minors. Especially if we can't sign them to an extension. I'd rather sacrafice this year to make a run again in another year and be relivant for a couple years. Get some young arms to go with what we have already and you're looking at a much better team for long term success.

 

If we can get a fair deal for ZG, great. I'm just not sure he's the guy that you spend a boat load on and hope he can take us to the next level.

[reillymcshane]

I'd go with Zach in a heartbeat. I actually like Marcum a lot. But if I had to pick, I'd go Greinke.

[monty57]

I know people will think I'm nuts but I really think we need to trade these guys, or at least one of them to replenish the minors.

 

This is the sword on which we're balancing this offseason. We could trade Greinke, Marcum, Wolf, K-Rod, Hart, etc and get a boatload of talent back, making us weaker this season, but a stronger team for the foreseeable future. However, we're not trading anyone, and instead we added talent (and payroll) to "go for it" this year, potentially losing a lot of talent at the end of the season, which will be hard to bounce back from. One thing that can help ease this pain is to extend Greinke and/or Marcum, but adding Ramirez to a back-loaded deal may have prevented us from doing this. I hope we still have enough payroll to extend Greinke, as I doubt we can extend both. If we can extend Greinke and if some of our young pitchers can fill in the 3-5 slots in the rotation, we could still be a decent team going forward. If either of these "ifs" don't work out, then we could be back where we were a few seasons ago, signing expensive FA pitchers who often don't pan out.

[Warning Track Power]

Now that Fielder is officially gone, I hope the Brewers FO gets serious about extending Greinke and building through pitching. With Gallardo and Braun, Weeks, Lucroy, Hart, A-Ram and Nyjer/Gomez/Schafer locked in for the next few seasons I think extending Greinke will help ensure our competitiveness i.e. over .500 for the next 4-6 years.