Zack Greinke close to hiring an agent.....

[monty57]

What we know is that Grienke and the Brewers were "at the table" and when the Cain deal hit the two sides quickly "left the table." Whatever the exact details were, once they broke off talks I think the chance of Grienke remaining a Brewer beyond this season became very, very slim.

 

Now I think the Brewers have to decide whether it's better to have Grienke pitch through the season, offer the one-year deal and take the comp picks or to trade him. Which choice is better will depend on how the team is playing and how much other teams would offer to get Grienke for a playoff run. I just hope that Melvin/Attanasio are at least willing to listen to other teams' offers.

[RockCoCougars]

If the Brewers are unwilling to commit that much money to Greinke, where should they utilize it? It's not like they have a ton of non locked in pre arby/arby guys, and let's face it, the farm system is pretty barren at the high end. Though there are some pitchers with promise, none of those guys will be expensive until a Greinke deal would be almost over. If you are not going to spend money on your own young talent, then you are left with a few scenarios, which you could mix and match..... overpay Marcum as the consolation prize and/or throw smaller 8 figure deals at the Wolf/Ramirez of the world and/or work from the Sal Bando school of quantity over quality and sign several $3-$6 million guys every off-season. In my view, you don' let a legit ace Cy Young caliber pitcher walk because you are concerned about tying up payroll.

 

Actually, I think that the most likely scenario if the Brewers let Greinke walk, is that the team suffers, attendance drops and payroll is rolled back a bit.

[monty57]

It's not like they have a ton of non locked in pre arby/arby guys, and let's face it, the farm system is pretty barren at the high end.

 

Which is exactly why it would be a death stroke to the franchise if Grienke was signed to a monster deal and then got hurt or just didn't pitch well. The Brewers would not have the pre-arby/inexpensive talent to put together any sort of decent team when they have a $25MM albatross around their neck. Even if he does continue to pitch well, not having any inexpensive/pre-arby talent makes fielding a winning team around Braun/Grienke seem unlikely.

 

Actually, I think that the most likely scenario if the Brewers let Greinke walk, is that the team suffers, attendance drops and payroll is rolled back a bit.

 

As to attendance, it can drop whether or not we have Grienke (or any monster deal) signed. I'd guess that the Brewers' play so far this season has a lot of season ticket holders doubting that they will re-up their season tickets next year. And that is with Grienke playing at a Hall of Fame level. Simply having Grienke on a team doesn't make them win... it didn't for the Royals and it isn't for the 2012 Brewers. Having a $25MM Grienke on the team may actually make them losers if that $25MM is 25% or more of the total payroll. Having a $25MM Grienke with a torn labrum isn't even something I like to think about.

 

So, since attendance can drop with or without signing a monster contract, why not do it? Since we already have some big, long-term, guaranteed deals on the books, I don't think Grienke is feasible. If we have a large % of our payroll locked into big, long-term guaranteed contracts, an attendance (aka revenue) drop would send us far into the red, forcing us into fire sale where we'd get nothing in return in trade (salary dump). With a pretty weak farm, a fire sale would pretty much guarantee the Brewers to be one of the worst systems in baseball for a long time. Imagine if we got return back for our stars like we gave up to get K-Rod last year. Conversely, if we don't have a large % of our payroll locked into big, long-term, guaranteed contracts, we have flexibility if the attendance drops and we have a lower revenue stream, so that we aren't forced into salary dump trades.

 

My first rule in business is that you should never put yourself in a position where something which is at least partially out of your control could force you into the red for an extended period (or put you out of business). Attendance is out of the Brewers' control. They can do some things to "nudge" it one way or the other, but they can't guarantee that they'll bring in 3MM fans/year. Anything can happen to cause attendance to drop, and therefore, the Brewers shouldn't guarantee contracts which could be unsustainable if we see an attendance drop.

 

Let's use a simple example of a team with $100MM designated for payroll (after concessions, management costs, stadium fees, etc). Let's say that figure is based on selling out every game (attendance is maxed out). There is no way I'd ever get my guaranteed contracts anywhere near $100MM, because if I did, then any decrease in attendance would put me in the red with no way to get out. I'd only guarantee contracts up to what I would deem to be the "worst case" revenue stream. Since most of the variance in revenue comes from attendance, that would pretty much mean I'd base my long-term guarantee "ceiling" on the worst case attendance number.

 

One thing about baseball is that if you have extra money, you can generally find a short-term fix to an answer (like K-Rod last year) by finding someone who needs to make a salary dump trade. However, it's really hard to get rid of bad long-term contracts, and they can hurt you for a long time.

[RockCoCougars]

It's not like they have a ton of non locked in pre arby/arby guys, and let's face it, the farm system is pretty barren at the high end.

 

Which is exactly why it would be a death stroke to the franchise if Grienke was signed to a monster deal and then got hurt or just didn't pitch well. The Brewers would not have the pre-arby/inexpensive talent to put together any sort of decent team when they have a $25MM albatross around their neck. Even if he does continue to pitch well, not having any inexpensive/pre-arby talent makes fielding a winning team around Braun/Grienke seem unlikely.

 

Actually, I think that the most likely scenario if the Brewers let Greinke walk, is that the team suffers, attendance drops and payroll is rolled back a bit.

 

As to attendance, it can drop whether or not we have Grienke (or any monster deal) signed. I'd guess that the Brewers' play so far this season has a lot of season ticket holders doubting that they will re-up their season tickets next year. And that is with Grienke playing at a Hall of Fame level. Simply having Grienke on a team doesn't make them win... it didn't for the Royals and it isn't for the 2012 Brewers. Having a $25MM Grienke on the team may actually make them losers if that $25MM is 25% or more of the total payroll. Having a $25MM Grienke with a torn labrum isn't even something I like to think about.

 

So, since attendance can drop with or without signing a monster contract, why not do it? Since we already have some big, long-term, guaranteed deals on the books, I don't think Grienke is feasible. If we have a large % of our payroll locked into big, long-term guaranteed contracts, an attendance (aka revenue) drop would send us far into the red, forcing us into fire sale where we'd get nothing in return in trade (salary dump). With a pretty weak farm, a fire sale would pretty much guarantee the Brewers to be one of the worst systems in baseball for a long time. Imagine if we got return back for our stars like we gave up to get K-Rod last year. Conversely, if we don't have a large % of our payroll locked into big, long-term, guaranteed contracts, we have flexibility if the attendance drops and we have a lower revenue stream, so that we aren't forced into salary dump trades.

 

My first rule in business is that you should never put yourself in a position where something which is at least partially out of your control could force you into the red for an extended period (or put you out of business). Attendance is out of the Brewers' control. They can do some things to "nudge" it one way or the other, but they can't guarantee that they'll bring in 3MM fans/year. Anything can happen to cause attendance to drop, and therefore, the Brewers shouldn't guarantee contracts which could be unsustainable if we see an attendance drop.

 

Let's use a simple example of a team with $100MM designated for payroll (after concessions, management costs, stadium fees, etc). Let's say that figure is based on selling out every game (attendance is maxed out). There is no way I'd ever get my guaranteed contracts anywhere near $100MM, because if I did, then any decrease in attendance would put me in the red with no way to get out. I'd only guarantee contracts up to what I would deem to be the "worst case" revenue stream. Since most of the variance in revenue comes from attendance, that would pretty much mean I'd base my long-term guarantee "ceiling" on the worst case attendance number.

 

One thing about baseball is that if you have extra money, you can generally find a short-term fix to an answer (like K-Rod last year) by finding someone who needs to make a salary dump trade. However, it's really hard to get rid of bad long-term contracts, and they can hurt you for a long time.

 

All solid points, but as bad as things look now, they would even be worse without Greinke. I look at this team and see a decimated underperforming offense, with pitching that has underperformed. I think that it's easier to fix a poor offense than it is to fix a poor pitching staff, especially when it doesn't appear that a Greinke-like trade would be advisable or even possible given the state of the farm system.

 

Obviously, something could happen with an injury, but moving forward with a team where you should get approximately 40 percent of your starts from Gallardo/Greinke should keep things at least on the cusp of competitiveness moving forward. You could plug the young pitchers in the back end of the rotation and use any excess funds toward the offense.

[monty57]

All solid points, but as bad as things look now, they would even be worse without Greinke. I look at this team and see a decimated underperforming offense, with pitching that has underperformed. I think that it's easier to fix a poor offense than it is to fix a poor pitching staff, especially when it doesn't appear that a Greinke-like trade would be advisable or even possible given the state of the farm system.

 

It's too early now, but it's quickly becoming time to start thinking in the other direction. We don't have a farm system to do a "Greinke-like trade," but we could find a team who does have that farm system, and get them to do a Greinke trade so that we would then have more good, young players, with hopefully one of them being a top-quality young shortstop to combine with our good pitching prospects to help us build winning teams in future years.

 

Turning some combo or Greinke, Marcum, K-Rod and Hart into a group of pre-arby guys/prospects who can help us out for the next six seasons is becoming more and more appealing to me. Maybe this would mean attendance would go down some next year (or maybe not if "spun" correctly), but with the increase in the amount of pre-arby guys we'd have, we could tolerate a drop in payroll. While there definitely is a correlation, it's not about how much money you spend, it's about how much talent you have on the roster. Turning some of our "trading chips" into quality young talent would do a lot to help us build winning teams in future years.

 

Once Greinke walked away from the table, I think our chance of re-signing him became at-or-near zero, so it's probably time the Brewers decide what actions will bring about the best future without Greinke. Maybe selling this year would hurt attendance next year, or maybe "holding tight" and losing guys to free agency will hurt attendance next year. I don't know which would hurt attendance more, but expecting a drop-off in attendance after this season, I'd rather have $80MM guaranteed with a big group of talented pre-arby guys (from trading guys this season) surrounding our "core" instead of $100MM guaranteed with a couple of really high-priced guys but a few guys with minor-leage talent that will play for cheap.

 

If it turns out the ticket sales stay high, we can always find a way to spend the money to upgrade if we feel the need, but if ticket sales fall, there aren't a lot of options to cut that $100MM in guaranteed contracts. Nor, as we're finding this year, is it easy to upgrade weaker positions when you're already over budget.

[thebruce44]

It's not like they have a ton of non locked in pre arby/arby guys, and let's face it, the farm system is pretty barren at the high end.

 

Which is exactly why it would be a death stroke to the franchise if Grienke was signed to a monster deal and then got hurt or just didn't pitch well. The Brewers would not have the pre-arby/inexpensive talent to put together any sort of decent team when they have a $25MM albatross around their neck. Even if he does continue to pitch well, not having any inexpensive/pre-arby talent makes fielding a winning team around Braun/Grienke seem unlikely.

 

Actually, I think that the most likely scenario if the Brewers let Greinke walk, is that the team suffers, attendance drops and payroll is rolled back a bit.

 

As to attendance, it can drop whether or not we have Grienke (or any monster deal) signed. I'd guess that the Brewers' play so far this season has a lot of season ticket holders doubting that they will re-up their season tickets next year. And that is with Grienke playing at a Hall of Fame level. Simply having Grienke on a team doesn't make them win... it didn't for the Royals and it isn't for the 2012 Brewers. Having a $25MM Grienke on the team may actually make them losers if that $25MM is 25% or more of the total payroll. Having a $25MM Grienke with a torn labrum isn't even something I like to think about.

 

So, since attendance can drop with or without signing a monster contract, why not do it? Since we already have some big, long-term, guaranteed deals on the books, I don't think Grienke is feasible. If we have a large % of our payroll locked into big, long-term guaranteed contracts, an attendance (aka revenue) drop would send us far into the red, forcing us into fire sale where we'd get nothing in return in trade (salary dump). With a pretty weak farm, a fire sale would pretty much guarantee the Brewers to be one of the worst systems in baseball for a long time. Imagine if we got return back for our stars like we gave up to get K-Rod last year. Conversely, if we don't have a large % of our payroll locked into big, long-term, guaranteed contracts, we have flexibility if the attendance drops and we have a lower revenue stream, so that we aren't forced into salary dump trades.

 

My first rule in business is that you should never put yourself in a position where something which is at least partially out of your control could force you into the red for an extended period (or put you out of business). Attendance is out of the Brewers' control. They can do some things to "nudge" it one way or the other, but they can't guarantee that they'll bring in 3MM fans/year. Anything can happen to cause attendance to drop, and therefore, the Brewers shouldn't guarantee contracts which could be unsustainable if we see an attendance drop.

 

Let's use a simple example of a team with $100MM designated for payroll (after concessions, management costs, stadium fees, etc). Let's say that figure is based on selling out every game (attendance is maxed out). There is no way I'd ever get my guaranteed contracts anywhere near $100MM, because if I did, then any decrease in attendance would put me in the red with no way to get out. I'd only guarantee contracts up to what I would deem to be the "worst case" revenue stream. Since most of the variance in revenue comes from attendance, that would pretty much mean I'd base my long-term guarantee "ceiling" on the worst case attendance number.

 

One thing about baseball is that if you have extra money, you can generally find a short-term fix to an answer (like K-Rod last year) by finding someone who needs to make a salary dump trade. However, it's really hard to get rid of bad long-term contracts, and they can hurt you for a long time.

 

All solid points, but as bad as things look now, they would even be worse without Greinke. I look at this team and see a decimated underperforming offense, with pitching that has underperformed. I think that it's easier to fix a poor offense than it is to fix a poor pitching staff, especially when it doesn't appear that a Greinke-like trade would be advisable or even possible given the state of the farm system.

 

Obviously, something could happen with an injury, but moving forward with a team where you should get approximately 40 percent of your starts from Gallardo/Greinke should keep things at least on the cusp of competitiveness moving forward. You could plug the young pitchers in the back end of the rotation and use any excess funds toward the offense.

 

The Brewers pitching staff is 14th in the NL in ERA, and 7th in xFIP. So while they have under preformed, I am starting to think that they are really a fairly middle of the pack unit. This of course is brought down by the bullpen which is easier to repair than the starters via trade, but still.

[brwrsfan]

Article on cnnsi.com this morning claims the Brewers will move Greinke if we are out of the race because dollars/years in an extension aren't that close right now. Of course, they supply no source of any kind, nor any quotes from anyone within the Brewers organization.

 

http://www.fannation.com/truth_and_rumors/view/329722-if-theyre-out-brewers-will-shop-greinke?eref=sihp&sct=hp_bf2_a4

[Oldcity]

I don't exactly understand the motivation for the new FA compensation rule. Why does they player need to be with a team all year? Are they trying to lessen the excitement of the trade deadline?

[dlk9s]

Jim Bowden on ESPN.com (I know, lol) suggested that the Brewers might deal Grienke if they're out of it for a package of, say, two "significant" prospects and a throw-in and then still possibly re-sign him after the season. As much as I want this season to turn around, if it really looks hopeless come the trade deadline, that would be a dream scenario (all things considered).

 

But yeah, Bowden is typically loltastic.

[RockCoCougars]

If the Brewers trade Greinke, I'd say the odds of resigning him are about zero. The two primary things that they have on their side right now are familiarity and approximately a six month window of exclusive negotiating rights. If they trade him to a team primed for a WS run, both go out the window, and they will have to line up behind the deep pocketed teams in November.

[Raw Biz]

It would be amazing if they talked with Greinke about a possible resigning after they traded him. Tell him that they know he wants to be on a winner and obviously this year's team isn't going places. However, they have some good young pitching coming up soon. If they could land an impact bat or two by trading him, they could put themselves in really good position for the next few years. Tell him that they really want to keep him but they also want to improve the team and give Greinke the chance to win now. Trade Greinke to the Rangers/O's for Profar/Machado (not sure if either trade would happen but would be the players I'd be targeting) and then make a good run at him in the offseason.

 

I think people put too much stock into "exclusive negotiating rights" while a player is on the team. Most guys don't want to negotiate contracts during the season anyway. I don't think trading Greinke away would diminish any possibility of resigning him IF he really wanted to stay here anyway. Sure other teams might offer more money but that would be the case if we traded him or not. If we traded him for some impact bats, I think that would only improve our chances of being able to resign him because A) we would be a better team by adding more talent and B) we'd save 6-7 million on his contract this year (not a big number but every little bit helps).

[monty57]

I don't exactly understand the motivation for the new FA compensation rule. Why does they player need to be with a team all year? Are they trying to lessen the excitement of the trade deadline?

 

I think the original reason for granting draft picks for losing free agents was that small market teams who were in a playoff run felt they were in a "Catch 22," in that they could either trade their talent away and miss the playoffs, or play to the end of the season and lose all their talent for nothing in free agency. Since big market teams signed all the top free agents, the draft picks were supposed to even things up by allowing the small market teams to make a run at the playoffs and then get the big market teams' draft picks when they lost players to free agency.

 

What actually happened was that the big market teams made a strategy of trading for Type A/B players to win their division and then ended up with additional draft picks when they "lost" the players to free agency. The small market teams were hurt as the team with the #1 pick should have received the 31st pick as well (first pick in the 2nd round), but now big market teams got multiple picks before the second round ever began and could quickly replenish their farm system. As with many rules & regulations, The Law of Unintended Consequences took hold and created a scenario where the opposite of the intended outcome actually occurred.

 

By only allowing teams who hold onto the player the whole year to receive draft picks, they are hoping that this means that small market teams "going for it" and holding onto their players will still get picks, but big market teams who trade for the "hired gun" will not gain picks. The 1st pick of the 2nd round will be closer to the 31st pick, and teams who choose to trade prospects for a chance at the playoffs will have a harder time replenishing their farm.

 

Teams traded for mid-season upgrades long before draft picks were awarded, so while there may be a short-term drop in mid-season trades while teams lament not getting picks, in the long-run I don't see this having a big effect on trade deadline deals... at least for the "big named players." Teams who want to make the playoffs will want players who can make them better, and teams with those players who are not going to make the playoffs will want to get something rather than lose the player to free agency. It actually seems like a decent answer, since the trade value of the player will have to be greater than the value of the picks the trading team would receive, so the "price" stays high for top talent (in other words, teams like this year's Brewers won't get shafted if they try to trade Greinke as they can fall back on receiving the picks).

 

Note: MLB would probably say they're helping the "bad teams" get good and making it more difficult for the "good teams" to stay good instead of using the big market/small market references.

[monty57]

Sorry for the 2nd post in a row, but I'd also like to mention that it would be phenomenal if the Brewers were to be able to trade Greinke for someone like Profar and then turn around and re-sign him without losing draft picks.

[3and2Fastball]

It would be amazing if they talked with Greinke about a possible resigning after they traded him. Tell him that they know he wants to be on a winner and obviously this year's team isn't going places. However, they have some good young pitching coming up soon. If they could land an impact bat or two by trading him, they could put themselves in really good position for the next few years. Tell him that they really want to keep him but they also want to improve the team and give Greinke the chance to win now. Trade Greinke to the Rangers/O's for Profar/Machado (not sure if either trade would happen but would be the players I'd be targeting) and then make a good run at him in the offseason. .

 

That would be amazing.

 

What I'm wondering is: is that even legal? I mean, is it legal (legal in terms of MLB rules) to have all of that pre-planned in advance?

 

Has that ever happened before in MLB history? i.e. a player is traded at the deadline and then re-signed in the off season?

 

I could see a scenario where a player gets traded and the GM says "we'd still like to sign you for next year", and the player says "well, cool, give me the best offer when the time comes and my agent and I will weigh it against all the other offers...." etc

 

But to have it worked out in advance? Is that legal? Just wondering...

[jerichoholicninja]

Since the player would be property of the team asking him to resign with them I don't think it could be illegal. Unethical maybe but probably not.

 

Wasn't Herald Baines traded a couple of times only to resign with the team that traded him in the offseason?

[3and2Fastball]

Wasn't Herald Baines traded a couple of times only to resign with the team that traded him in the offseason?

 

I don't believe so. Baines played with the White Sox and Orioles 2 different times in his career but never in the scenario we are talking about here. He played with the Orioles in '93, '94 & '95 and then signed with the White Sox for the 1996 season and was traded back to the Orioles at the deadline in 1997

[joepepsi]

A player has been traded mid season before then re-signed with his former team. I can't think who did this recently, but I know it happened.

[Hitman_Hart]

This happened with Rick Aguilera going from MN to Boston in a trade, only to resign with MN after the season. 1993 or 1994, I think.

 

 

edit: It was 1995.

[gobrew23]

Don't know why I remember this, but I believe the Orioles did this with Sidney Ponson in the early 2000's.

[brwrsfan]

It's not against the rules for him to resign with us. To have a deal in place before we trade him seems like it would violate rules though.

[HiAndTight]

Sorry for the 2nd post in a row, but I'd also like to mention that it would be phenomenal if the Brewers were to be able to trade Greinke for someone like Profar and then turn around and re-sign him without losing draft picks.

 

 

That......that is a dream scenario that could literally propel this team into the World Series in the future.

 

While trying to keep the drool in my mouth, if you could put Profar at SS and have him hitting leadoff as early as next year and playing GG caliber SS WITH Greinke, it'd almost make up for losing Lawrie(almost, still think he's Ryan Braun with the defensive chops at 3rd).

 

Still...our window would be open for 6 years or however long Greinke was signed. I've gone on and on and on about how successful I think our pitching staff can be WITH Greinke around and building that foundation with Gallardo.

 

But now we'd have the same thing with Profar/Aoki/Braun/Aram/Hart/Weeks/Gamel/Lucroy(who's WAY too far down in that order, but just as a starting point.

 

Rotation of Greinke/Gallardo/Thornburg/Peralta/Estrada-Narveson-Fiers....

 

 

But back in reality, we probably won't end up with either player, much less both. But what an unprecedented coup that would be if we somehow did end up with both?

[HiAndTight]

It would be amazing if they talked with Greinke about a possible resigning after they traded him. Tell him that they know he wants to be on a winner and obviously this year's team isn't going places. However, they have some good young pitching coming up soon. If they could land an impact bat or two by trading him, they could put themselves in really good position for the next few years. Tell him that they really want to keep him but they also want to improve the team and give Greinke the chance to win now. Trade Greinke to the Rangers/O's for Profar/Machado (not sure if either trade would happen but would be the players I'd be targeting) and then make a good run at him in the offseason. .

 

That would be amazing.

 

What I'm wondering is: is that even legal? I mean, is it legal (legal in terms of MLB rules) to have all of that pre-planned in advance?

 

Has that ever happened before in MLB history? i.e. a player is traded at the deadline and then re-signed in the off season?

 

I could see a scenario where a player gets traded and the GM says "we'd still like to sign you for next year", and the player says "well, cool, give me the best offer when the time comes and my agent and I will weigh it against all the other offers...." etc

 

But to have it worked out in advance? Is that legal? Just wondering...

 

Edit-I thought there was a situation with the Yankees in which they tried doing this with Dave Winfield and were subsequently penalized for it leading to Steinbrenner's suspension for two years(lifetime at the time).

 

I got the story 100 pct wrong....after going back and reading about it, it jarred my memory, though...the particulars were worse than I previously recalled.

 

 

Anyway, I'm nearly 100 pct certain that it is illegal to work out terms of a contract, or to "collude," to re-sign with the team that's trading you the following year.

 

But as someone else said, nothing wrong with saying, "Hey, we'd love to have you back next year, and we're doing this so we can be competitive and to fill a huge need," and then perhaps point out all the pitching prospects we have coming up, and...perhaps a promise to try and surround him with the best position players possible?

[RockCoCougars]

If Greinke was willing to agree to a contract why wouldn't he do so to preclude a trade? I highly doubt that trading a guy mid-season would endear yourself to him to the point where you are still his preferred destination. Why would you want to resign with a team that put you on the trading block months before? Maybe if the Brewers drafted him and he had played here 7 years with kids in school or something, but let's be real- he's barely been here a year. You may counter with the 'Greinke wants to win' theory, but to me trading him for prospects signals a rebuild. Sorry, but I don't buy that the Brewers could trade Greinke to a team with deep pockets and he makes a deep run in the playoffs, yet he would be excited to come back here because they got some 19 year old shortstop in return for him.

 

I think that the smartest move for the Brewers would be to sit down in good faith (I'm not convinced that they've done this yet) with his representation and make a offer that is actually fair market value (e.g. exceeding what Cain got) because basically, the price is going up with every start.

[Raw Biz]

If Greinke was willing to agree to a contract why wouldn't he do so to preclude a trade? I highly doubt that trading a guy mid-season would endear yourself to him to the point where you are still his preferred destination. Why would you want to resign with a team that put you on the trading block months before? You may counter with the 'Greinke wants to win' theory, but to me trading him for prospects signals a rebuild. Sorry, but I don't buy that the Brewers could trade Greinke to a team with deep pockets and he makes a deep run in the playoffs, yet he would be excited to come back here because they got some 19 year old shortstop in return for him.

 

I think that the smartest move for the Brewers would be to sit down in good faith (I'm not convinced that they've done this yet) with his representation and make a offer that is actually fair market value (e.g. exceeding what Cain got) because basically, the price is going up with every start.

 

Because Greinke wants to play for a winner. He's also a smart guy and understands the business. If they truly don't want to negotiate in-season, then trading Greinke is the best plan. I know chances are slim to resign him anyway which is why they should try and get something out of him. But they could easily tell him:

 

"Look you know we're probably out of it (if in fact they are something like 10 games under or whatever in July). We want to keep you but we also realize there will be a lot of other teams bidding on you. In order to better our ballclub for the future, we are going to trade you. This in no way reflects any desire that we don't want to keep you. In fact, it's the opposite. We want to improve our ballclub and hopefully prove to you that we can build a winner and maybe we can work out a deal in the offseason. We thought we had a great ballclub this year but unfortunately, injuries and a few slumps derailed the season. With a healthy team next year, plus the addition of some good young pitching prospects coming up, as well as the impact bat we're getting for you, we should have a very good ballclub. If you resigned with us, that would put us over the top and we could make a very good run at the playoffs and possibly World Series."

 

I think Greinke wouldn't hold it against the Brewers by trading him because he understands the situation. He might even appreciate being traded to a potential winner because he wants to win. Sure if he went to Texas and won a World Series, they would really want to resign him. But they also paid a ton for Darvish and Hamilton's a FA as well. The point is, aside from signing Greinke to an extension in-season, which is looking more and more doubtful as the days go by, trading him for an impact bat and then making him an offer in the offseason is the best plan.

[pretendastronaut]

A player has been traded mid season before then re-signed with his former team. I can't think who did this recently, but I know it happened.

 

Cliff Lee sort of qualifies. Closest one I can think of.