Greinke traded to Angels for three prospects; Rangers nearly won the bidding (Latest: revisiting this trade in December 2015; post 481)

[zzzmanwitz]

Most people on earth aren't gambling with $100 Million in guaranteed money.

[slappzilla]

It's a poor point when pertaining to the topic at hand.

 

You could say that about any big name FA ever that didn't take a midseason offer before hitting the FA market.

[zzzmanwitz]

I do say that about any FA that didn't take a midseason deal that was on the table. Any way you look at it, if you have money on the table and you turn it down, it is a risk. I would say that more often than not it pays off for the big name players, but that doesn't take away the fact that they could end up getting less than the offer that was given or even nothing if there is an injury. Casey McGehee took a risk by turning down the Brewers multi-year offer and it didn't work out for him as his performance took a major down turn.

[monty57]

This doesn't pertain to Greinke, but one thing the Brewers have on "their side" going forward is that Braun is a vocal proponant of young players taking long-term deals when/if they're offered. It never hurts a GM's cause when the "face of the franchise" tells the young guys to take the offer.

 

I hope to see a number of "Lucroy-type" deals getting signed over the next few seasons.

[rluzinski]

What's interesting about player salaries these days is that it is mimicking the economy in general. There is a quickly shrinking "middle class" of player.

 

I don't think that is true. The distribution of player talent in any sport is something like a bell curve, with the distribution of talent in MLB on the extreme end of one tail. You end up with a kind of pyramid shaped distribution. If what you are suggesting is true, there would be a glut of above average (but not elite) MLB players being consistently underpaid and/or overpaid. That would represent a major market inefficiency that could be exploited by other clubs.

 

The pretty stunning thing to me is the length of these monster contracts being given out the last few years.

 

You have a point but keep in mind, lots of these deals are back loaded by design and in some cases, batters may be forgoing a larger per year salary for longer deals. I believe Votto is an excellent example of this. He is something like a 6 WAR player right now, which is worth around $25 mil/year. When his previous contract runs out after 2013, he's actually taking a large pay cut for a few years. From 2014 - 2016, The Reds will get a projected $75 mil of production for only $56 mil. At that point, the Reds still owe him $19 mil if he never played again.

 

You also have to consider the time value of money. The $25 mil he is scheduled to receive in 2023 is worth only around $18 mil in today's money and that's only considering inflation.

 

Don't get me wrong, the Reds are still exposing themselves to a lot of risk but not as bad as if you just look at at what the balance of Votto's contract is at the time of a hypothetical injury.

[monty57]

You also have to consider the time value of money. The $25 mil he is scheduled to receive in 2023 is worth only around $18 mil in today's money and that's only considering inflation.

 

I look at it like "90 days same as cash" / "No payments for a year" sales. Stores do these deals, fully willing to miss out on money now because they know it will cause consumers to buy more than they'd be willing to if they had to pay now. It leads to a "we'll worry about paying for it when it's due" mentality and causes people to go into bankruptcy when the bills actually arrive.

 

Which happens more... teams extending guys at the end of a 7+ year deal, or teams trying to salary dump guys they signed to 7+ year deals?

 

Logically it makes some sense, but in reality it probably allows GM's to spend themselves into bad situations.

[igor67]

The problem with the time value of money is that players also have a declining value with time. It would be nice if they just canceled each other out, but they don't. There is also the issue of the time value of executives. How many GMs are still going to be in the job by year 7 of that deal? This sets up a huge real market inefficiency where they have a strong incentive to overpay someone else's budget.

[TheCrew07]

The problem with the time value of money is that players also have a declining value with time. It would be nice if they just canceled each other out, but they don't. There is also the issue of the time value of executives. How many GMs are still going to be in the job by year 7 of that deal? This sets up a huge real market inefficiency where they have a strong incentive to overpay someone else's budget.

 

That was a condition surrounding contracts I hadn't thought of before, excellent insight.

[HiAndTight]

Well Hamels already signed a deal for $24M AAV, and he's not the best pitcher or player in MLB. I think we've already entered the period where salaries are going to be downright scary. Pujols's deal also comes to mind (not that he's not an all-time great, but considering the age range the Angels purchased).

 

 

 

And to this I refer people to the Kevin Brown, Mike Hampton, Chan Ho Park, Darren Dreifort, Albert Belle type days...Mo Vaughn.

 

These things even themselves out.

 

 

And what's going to do that in THIS particular instance is the Phillies, Yankees, Red Sox and other teams not wanting to pay the luxury tax.

 

The Yankees are reportedly going to let Swisher walk so they can avoid the luxury tax. The brilliance of Bud Selig. It's not a salary cap, but it evens out the playing field so some teams can't just throw out a rotation of 5 guys making 160 million dollars.

 

I honestly believe the market of teams that we're going to face in signing Greinke is going to be a LOT different than it's previously been for a pitcher like Grienke.

 

I think the Royals, Rangers(if they don't sign Hamilton), LAA(If they let Haren go or move Santana) LAD, and then not a lot of other big market teams.

 

 

I think if the Brewers go with the 5/112 with a 6 year option for 24 with a 5 million dollar buyout, we have a very good chance of keeping him.

 

 

AND-most importantly, I think if we do that, it makes MORE sense financially because it keeps the Brewers as contenders. You can trot out a lineup that 1-8 if they produce like they're capable of is one of the best in the NL, and a rotation with Greinke/Gallardo and then Fiers who I believe is legit(3.50 legit, but hey, maybe even better) and then you have so many talented pitchers like the two we got from LAA, Rogers, Wily,Nelson, Thornburg who could make big impacts, Estrada and Narveson or Burgos....

 

Bottom line, I believe our lineup is aging and if you don't get Greinke back, you should sell them off. If you do, I think you ride them out because you could be a legit WS contender with all the young pitching to compliment Yo/Greinke, many of whom can be used out of the pen.

 

Hell, we could have a SU/CL combo in Henderson and the Kottaras trade. Or Del Los Santos has a great year next year, Axford bounces back, and Henderson performs well.

 

We certainly have the power arms.

 

 

And if we go that route, I believe there would be enough excitement there that we would still draw 3 million. Which with the new TV deals would put us in a position to comfortably spend over 100 million. If we lose Greinke, I think the domino impact hurts this team more than any number like WAR could quanfity and we struggle to win 80 and attendance drops off.

[HiAndTight]

"Do we really have any reason other than wishful thinking to believe that Greinke will not accept the highest bid if it comes from New York, Boston, etc?"

 

Jonathan Lucroy was quoted as saying Greinke would not like to play in New York or Boston. Lucroy has known him personally for nearly 2 years. That is about 2 years longer than any of us have known him. He specifically said those two cities. Now, does that rule out a mid level team like a Detroit or Texas or LA Angels couldn't pony up some big bucks to sign him? Not at all. I am purely speaking of places where there is a definite difference in the type of media coverage there is (LA Dodgers, Chicago Cubs, New York Yankees, Boston Red Sox). I agree that the Angels is a good spot for Greinke in terms of quality of team, ability to pay, and media relations.

 

He is different from other big name FA because he has Social Anxiety Disorder. It is a documented fact. Of course Greinke wants to make as much money as he can, but he also wants to enjoy his time playing. That's what Free Agency is all about. Its about picking the best possible situation for the player, that includes many factors, not just money. I will repeat, I do not think the chances of him resigning with Milwaukee is good (maybe 10-20%), but to say because he already said no once doesn't mean he won't revisit the idea. In fact, I'm pretty sure Doug Melvin and Zack Greinke when asked the question about resigning after the trade, they both made it sound like it would at least be an option to explore. Sure, it could be just PR on both of their parts, but it could also be sincere. No one here can say that there is no chance he will resign here because we A) don't know what the actual final offer was, B) we don't know if that is the most the Brewers are willing to offer, C) we don't know which other teams are going to pursue him, D) we don't know how much they will offer, and E) we don't know how important getting maximum money means in relationship to his personal well being.

 

As an aside, the MLBPA doesn't look very favorably on top tier FA's accepting much less than the highest offer.

 

Is this just an assumption that we make as fans or is there something documented somewhere that states this?

 

I believe that the Brewers could re-sign Greinke in free agency, and I think they could afford the offer that it would take to do so (whether or not this would be wise is another story).

 

And I believe that Greinke has told Lucroy that he would prefer not to play in Boston or New York and I also believe that Greinke may indeed feel that way himself. I also believe that when the offers start coming in, those things matter less and less. Remember, CC also didn't "want" to play in New York, he wanted to play on the West Coast, and he preferred to stay in the NL. Neither of those things happened.

 

I would like to see some examples in the last ten years or so where the biggest FA's in MLB passed up the highest offer to take a supposed better situation.

 

Yes, I understand that he has dealt with anxiety in the past, but every assumption that this would prevent him from playing in a big market or succeeding in one has always been nothing more than that -- an assumption.

 

And I don't think you're going to find anything documented regarding the MLBPA frowning on its biggest free agents taking less money in free agency. I'm sure this isn't an "official" policy, but it was mentioned when CC was considering turning down the Yankees offer as a free agent. Of course, there's not much they can do about it if the player is dead set, but most players don't want to stir the pot in their union -- and it does make economical sense, the top FA sets the market, and if he takes a substantially low offer, it's going to affect the market for others.

 

 

 

I just want to once again reiterate that when CC was a FA the Yankees made it clear they'd blow any deal off the table and where not worried about the luxury tax threshold, and where not talking about not bringing back a key contributor because they didn't want to pay the tax on it.

 

Nor did you have the Angels who'd spend 330 million or whatever that they spent last off-season, Boston may be in play. Not sure about their situation salary wise...but teams are starting to creep up on that luxury tax. Just another aspect of the brilliance of Selig.

 

I believe what it will do is the opposite of what many on here think. Instead of contracts continuing to escalate because of Pujols an Prince(remember Arod and the other contracts I mentioned where everyone thought contracts would continue to dramatically increase...).

 

I think it's a slightly different era in baseball these days regarding Free Agency. Just SLIGHTLY more similar to the NBA with that luxury tax. The Yanks may be willing to pay Grienke 150 over 6, even despite his struggles in NYC, but I don't think they'd pay 300 million for the dollar for dollar tax(which is to my understanding how it works).

 

I also thought Selig made it a progressive system in order to keep the mid and small markets more competitive.

 

 

By the way, the Tigers and their owner desperate to win are a team I think could be very likely to overpay to get him.

[HiAndTight]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I could have SWORE you were one of those telling me I was overrating Profar and that I was undervaluing Profar by saying that I didn't think we could get Profar for Greinke straight up.

Because you were the only one saying that...

 

Obviously I mis-spoke and meant to say underestimating GRIENKE in the 2nd part of that statement, but since you where part of that conversation, you knew exactly what I was saying.

 

Yeah...actually I was for about the first 7 pages of the thread.

 

 

You see, often times this board forms an opinion as a group. TCO7 agreed with me, but go back and read the first 5-10 pages of the Greinke thread in the transactions thread where I argued with just about everyone about how good Profar was to the point of getting bashed for quoting Keith Law.

 

Just take a look. And then of course everyone started to look a little closer to the deadline and the entire tune changed. But yeah, I was just about the only one saying that initially.

 

But....I did ask a pretty direct quetstion to a direct person that I didn't think was you...so....

[JackNicholson1974]

Ask Casey Mcgehee or John Axford if they took a risk by not signing when they had the chance.

 

Ask Bill Hall if he would have rather gone year-to-year.

[endaround]

Ask Casey Mcgehee or John Axford if they took a risk by not signing when they had the chance.

 

Ask Bill Hall if he would have rather gone year-to-year.

 

Ask Prince Fielder if he's upset he didn't sign before becoming a free agent.

[monty57]

RE the H&T posts on luxury tax:

 

I agree that the luxury tax was a good idea by Selig and will dampen inflation to some extent. Just my opinion here, but I think multiple teams like the Angels will rush up to the luxury tax threshhold while the Yankees and Red Sox fight to get down to it (that's been happening for a couple of seasons). I think the small/mid market teams will all be able to spend more.

 

However, Yankee and Red Sox fans feel entitled to the unfair advantage they've held for years. If I'm not mistaken, the TV deals for some teams is almost to the level of the luxury tax, so there will be teams pocketing well over a hundred million per season if they stick at the luxury tax level. I believe what will happen is that teams like the Yankees will get sick of having to play in an environment where they don't have a monetary advantage over everyone else, and they will willfully spend above the luxury tax just to regain their advantage.

 

Right now, the "big spenders" are teams that know they have big media money increases coming there way. It's kind of like someone getting told they'll get a raise in a month, so they go out looking for a new house. Once the house is bought, they've already spent their raise, so then prices even out. They've got a new house and maybe a few new toys, and they settle into that level of lifestyle... at least until the next raise comes around.

 

Since the other teams' "raises" are all bigger then the Brewers' (who were working from a floor of having the worst TV deal in the league), fairly or unfairly, other teams will see a bigger revenue increase than Milwaukee. Attanasio has done a wonderful job of increasing his revenue streams, and may have maxed out the revenue he can draw from the stadium. Now they are in a position where they are more dependant on the ebb & flow of attendance numbers. The CFO, whose name escapes me at the moment, has a big task in trying to estimate upcoming attendance in order to set the team's payroll budget going forward. My guess is that they will lower that estimate going into 2013 based on the team's performance this season.

 

To summarize, I think we're seeing big inflation among most or all teams except those at the ultra top end (Yankees/Red Sox). This should continue until all teams have their new TV deals in place. At some point, I believe the teams at the ultra top end will change course to some extent, probably when one or both misses the playoffs to a team like the Orioles. At that point, they'll realize the way to get back to the playoffs is to quickly re-stock their team by spending over the luxury tax.

 

To add to your arguement, I think Selig's best idea was making internet revenue shared equally among all teams. As more-and-more people watch MLB.tv on their iPads, and as things like AppleTV hit, it will level out the playing field more than anything in history. I'd guess within the next ten years most all programming will be somehow tabbed to the internet, and these local TV station deals will cease to exist. At that point, the Brewers will no longer be small/mid market. Again, just a guess.

[MJLiverock]

RE the H&T posts on luxury tax:

 

 

 

Right now, the "big spenders" are teams that know they have big media money increases coming there way. It's kind of like someone getting told they'll get a raise in a month, so they go out looking for a new house. Once the house is bought, they've already spent their raise, so then prices even out. They've got a new house and maybe a few new toys, and they settle into that level of lifestyle... at least until the next raise comes around.

 

Since the other teams' "raises" are all bigger then the Brewers' (who were working from a floor of having the worst TV deal in the league), fairly or unfairly, other teams will see a bigger revenue increase than Milwaukee. Attanasio has done a wonderful job of increasing his revenue streams, and may have maxed out the revenue he can draw from the stadium. Now they are in a position where they are more dependant on the ebb & flow of attendance numbers. The CFO, whose name escapes me at the moment, has a big task in trying to estimate upcoming attendance in order to set the team's payroll budget going forward. My guess is that they will lower that estimate going into 2013 based on the team's performance this season.

 

To summarize, I think we're seeing big inflation among most or all teams except those at the ultra top end (Yankees/Red Sox). This should continue until all teams have their new TV deals in place. At some point, I believe the teams at the ultra top end will change course to some extent, probably when one or both misses the playoffs to a team like the Orioles. At that point, they'll realize the way to get back to the playoffs is to quickly re-stock their team by spending over the luxury tax.

 

I was thinking of how to express my thoughts on this and you came pretty close to do it for me. Prices for above average to elite players move up but not smoothly, it goes in fits and starts tied to thinks like media deals, when big market teams have big contracts drop off and who is available. All the discussions complaining about paying guys like Hart, Ramirez, Wolf, etc. $10MM+ a year, to me seem like living in the past. As soon as it appears the Brewers can even come close to paying the market rate for above average to elite talent the scale shifts up because it has to economically speaking. If the Brewers are getting free agents that are in that above average area at market rates it likely means the Brewers just had some surge of cash which will quickly be dwarfed when the rest of the market competition gets their surge of cash. Just when you think, "Hey, the Brewers are throwing around $20MM/year offers like the Yankees/Angels/Red Sox of a few years ago, BAM, those teams move the market on that talent to $25-30MM a year." In turn those guys that used to be $8-$10MM a year guys become $14-15MM/year. Guys like Ramirez, Hart, #3 starters are all going to get contracts paying them well in excess of $10MM per year and closer to those mid teens at the end. $10MM a year isn't going to get what $10MM did 3 years ago. The sheer dollars of the big market team's surege easily overwhelm the smaller market teams increases. So the Brewers got an extra $20MM in revs from the new TV deal and some playoff bumps in attendance/merchandise, shares, etc. Teams like the Yankess, Angels, etc, get bumps in the $50MM+ range from TV deals when they roll onto the next contract. Makes it real easy for them to pay that extra $3-$5MM per year for an average to elite guy because there is no trophy for wins per dollar spent, only wins.

[Baldkin]

So true. I looked at the last 10 years of team salaries, and while the average salary has gone from 71 million in 2003 to 98 (27 mil) million in 2012, the mean salary has only gone from 68 million to 85 million, (17 mil) while the average of the top 3 spending teams has gone from 125 million to 181 million (56 million!!)

 

MLB has gone to more and more into the haves and the have-nots when it comes to free agency.

[HiAndTight]

RE the H&T posts on luxury tax:

 

I agree that the luxury tax was a good idea by Selig and will dampen inflation to some extent. Just my opinion here, but I think multiple teams like the Angels will rush up to the luxury tax threshhold while the Yankees and Red Sox fight to get down to it (that's been happening for a couple of seasons). I think the small/mid market teams will all be able to spend more.

 

However, Yankee and Red Sox fans feel entitled to the unfair advantage they've held for years. If I'm not mistaken, the TV deals for some teams is almost to the level of the luxury tax, so there will be teams pocketing well over a hundred million per season if they stick at the luxury tax level. I believe what will happen is that teams like the Yankees will get sick of having to play in an environment where they don't have a monetary advantage over everyone else, and they will willfully spend above the luxury tax just to regain their advantage.

 

Right now, the "big spenders" are teams that know they have big media money increases coming there way. It's kind of like someone getting told they'll get a raise in a month, so they go out looking for a new house. Once the house is bought, they've already spent their raise, so then prices even out. They've got a new house and maybe a few new toys, and they settle into that level of lifestyle... at least until the next raise comes around.

 

Since the other teams' "raises" are all bigger then the Brewers' (who were working from a floor of having the worst TV deal in the league), fairly or unfairly, other teams will see a bigger revenue increase than Milwaukee. Attanasio has done a wonderful job of increasing his revenue streams, and may have maxed out the revenue he can draw from the stadium. Now they are in a position where they are more dependant on the ebb & flow of attendance numbers. The CFO, whose name escapes me at the moment, has a big task in trying to estimate upcoming attendance in order to set the team's payroll budget going forward. My guess is that they will lower that estimate going into 2013 based on the team's performance this season.

 

To summarize, I think we're seeing big inflation among most or all teams except those at the ultra top end (Yankees/Red Sox). This should continue until all teams have their new TV deals in place. At some point, I believe the teams at the ultra top end will change course to some extent, probably when one or both misses the playoffs to a team like the Orioles. At that point, they'll realize the way to get back to the playoffs is to quickly re-stock their team by spending over the luxury tax.

 

To add to your arguement, I think Selig's best idea was making internet revenue shared equally among all teams. As more-and-more people watch MLB.tv on their iPads, and as things like AppleTV hit, it will level out the playing field more than anything in history. I'd guess within the next ten years most all programming will be somehow tabbed to the internet, and these local TV station deals will cease to exist. At that point, the Brewers will no longer be small/mid market. Again, just a guess.

 

 

 

I agree with you....just like the Lakers and the Knicks spend WAY over the cap and pay the luxury tax, so too may the Red Sox and Yankees(though they've said they don't want to).

 

However, a couple things.

 

1st-that's more money in our pockets, and they're not going to be able to go out and sign the #1 and #2 FA on the Market like the year they cost us Mike Trout.

 

2nd-I don't think the other teams, the Cubs, Dodgers, Angels, Rangers, most of THOSE teams are going to be as willing to pay the luxury tax.

 

 

It's as close to a salary cap as we're going to get and it's going to go a LONG way IMO to evening out everything.

 

And if you are correct in that in 10 years most of the TV money will be shared, that would be an INCREDIBLY amazingly great thing for the Brewers.

 

All this being said, I still don't believe the Brewers slash their payroll to 80 million all the sudden and out of the blue as some have said, and have a lot of ammo to be able to fire off at a guy like Greinke. I think you could put together a very good team, re-sign Greinke and still only end up paying a total of 110 or so with some room for in season moves or aditions.

[JackNicholson1974]

Ask Casey Mcgehee or John Axford if they took a risk by not signing when they had the chance.

 

Ask Bill Hall if he would have rather gone year-to-year.

 

Ask Prince Fielder if he's upset he didn't sign before becoming a free agent.

 

I am not putting forth the position that NOT signing a contract extension is always a bad thing. I am refuting the position someone said earlier that foregoing the extension (at 112 million) was NOT risky at all.

 

My position is that it is always risky, sometimes the risk pays off (Fielder) other times it doesnt. But either way, it is a risk.

[RockCoCougars]

Former Brewer Jody Reed is the poster boy for someone who turned down a contract to live to regret it. The money doesn't sound like much these days, but it was big money back then.

 

http://www.bostonspastime.com/jodyreed.html

[monty57]

I think the Brewers could sport a $100MM payroll. However, I think they will be overly cautious in their assumed ticket sales. The operating budget will probably be lowered if people stop attending games this year (a sign that they may not buy tickets next year). The more solid numbers will come when the initial ticket sales start coming out and season ticket renewals come in. If a lot of season ticket holders fail to renew and initial ticket sales fall, then I think we'll see a substantial decrease in the 2013 budget.

 

If the Brewers go on a bit of a winning streak here, maybe people continue to come out to the ballpark, so the owners make a little money this season, putting them in a better mood when deciding the 2013 budget. If most season ticket holders renew, and early ticket sales match 2012, then we'll probably see the payroll in the $90MM's. I don't see a $100MM payroll unless Greinke comes back because there's really no need for it, even if we have the money.

 

Personally, I think some season ticket holders (the ones who bought their first season tickets 2 or 3 years ago) will fail to renew and we won't have as many early ticket sales as we have the past couple of years when we had the Greinke & Marcum trades one offseason and were coming off the playoffs in the other. These lowered numbers will likely cause Schleisinger to give a cautious estimate to Attanasio, and the budget will be lower than 2012 (which Attanasio and Melvin said was well over budget). The "extra" money - if it's there - could be kept in reserve for mid-season additions if we're in the hunt, or put into the owners' pockets if we're not.

 

As I said earlier, this is all a guess, as the financials are closed to the public.

[Funketown]

Personally I don't understand why more players don't sign guaranteed deals rather than waiting for FA. If you could have one of the following opportunities, which would you take: ($25 million with probability 1) or ($50 million with probability .7, $20 million with probability .20, $500,000 with probability .10)? I'd take the first without blinking. But, I suppose when it comes to values in the $10+ million range I'm quite a bit more risk averse than professional athletes tend to be.

 

Greinke is laboring a bit today against the A's. His total pitching line with the Angels is now 16 IP, 12 ER, 8BB, 14K.

[monty57]

Greinke is laboring a bit today against the A's. His total pitching line with the Angels is now 16 IP, 12 ER, 8BB, 14K.

 

I'm glad when teams give up players for the Brewers' rentals, but rentals are a crapshoot. An .800 OPS hitter could be a 1.000 OPS guy or a .650 OPS guy over a couple of months. A good pitcher could be great or terrible over a couple of months. We got lucky with how well CC pitched, but that's not the norm.

 

Unless there is a massive hole (like the Brewers trying to find a SS or 3B last season), I hope the Brewers stay away from making big moves for rentals when they're in the playoff hunt, and I will usually root for the Brewers to trade their pending FAs to a team with a desparate GM every time they're not in it.

 

Personally I don't understand why more players don't sign guaranteed deals rather than waiting for FA.

 

I agree, and I'm glad Melvin is open to the idea of extending "core" players. I hope he limits it in the future to making "Lucroy-type" offers to the players he pegs as "core" players early (while they're in pre-arby) and stays away from offering market value deals to guys in their final arby year or offering guaranteed deals to fringe players like McGehee. Locking up Segura and some of our pitchers to go along with Lucroy and Braun should build a nice "core" for the foreseeable future. Non-core guys will come and go. Enjoy them while they're here, but they're replaceable.

[splitterpfj]

Side note...Kottaras just took Greinke deep.

[slappzilla]

nice!

[brettac1]

Well, if Greinke couldn't help the Brewers get to the playoffs this year, I am glad he is helping the A's get there instead.