Zack Greinke to Dodgers - 6 years, $147 million

[DHonks]

Interesting that he chose the Dodgers over the Rangers. The Rangers could have offered far less money and--thanks to state income tax--he could have made the same or more. Throw in the expensive cost of living in SoCal compared to Texas.

[endaround]

Interesting that he chose the Dodgers over the Rangers. The Rangers could have offered far less money and--thanks to state income tax--he could have made the same or more. Throw in the expensive cost of living in SoCal compared to Texas.

You get taxed on where you play, so the difference is like 5%.

[Invader3K]

Well, if a player wants to win a World Series in the near future, the Dodgers look to be as good a team as any to accomplish that goal.

[nate82]

Well Greinke did get a no trade clause in a way as Greinke can opt out of his deal if he is traded which makes that even more valuable than a no trade clause.

[DHonks]

Interesting that he chose the Dodgers over the Rangers. The Rangers could have offered far less money and--thanks to state income tax--he could have made the same or more. Throw in the expensive cost of living in SoCal compared to Texas.

You get taxed on where you play, so the difference is like 5%.

 

 

I guess. I was assuming with 95 games played in states with no income tax instead of 102 in a state with 13.3% income tax, it could amount to a sizeable difference.

[endaround]

I mean it has an impact, but so does having to deal with the Ranger's terrible travel schedule.

[logan82]

Here is an article about taxes by city. Not a big difference.

[Eye Black]

Just to play devil's advocate, but there are other factors that could have influenced Greinke going to the Dodgers, like a pitcher-friendly stadium, not having the "ace" pressure, playing for a historic franchise. Certainly the money doesn't hurt, but I'm not aware of any competing offers that were leaked anywhere either.

Zack has mentioned on occasion that he prefers to bat as well. Still tough to argue that any factors outside of $$ played a significant role unless it becomes public that he turned down a comparable financial package from the Rangers.

 

Dempster's very attractive on a 2-year deal. I'd project a 3.75 ERA or so in about 200 innings, which would slide him into the rotation behind Gallardo and maybe Fiers. If he can be had for 2 years and about 20 million or a bit more that's a very good deal for the Brewers.

If he ends up signing a 2 year deal in the $20-22 million range, then he made a significant miscalculation in reportedly already turning down two year offers of $25 and $26 million from the Red Sox and Royals.

[TURBO]

I want no part of Dempster, please, someone sign him so we don't...

[Funketown]

I hadn't realized Dempster had already turned down those offers. Still though if they can snag him for 2/$25 I'd be happy.

[PrinceFielderx1]

Is this a sign that we should be acting quickly to re-sign Gallardo long term before we can no longer afford him?

[Roderick]

The bad news depending on how you feel about him is now the Dodgers have Greinke, they won't have any interest in Dempster. I think Dempster held out for 3 years because he was waiting on the Dodgers. He had made it clear when the Cubs shopped him last year that LA was his preference (his best bud is Ted Lilly) Now he'll likely settle for 2 years and the Brewers seem to be in the prime position.

 

Speaking of Lilly, I'm sure he'd be available cheap. He's owed $12 million, but Dodgers would have to eat a lot of that to move him. I don't think the Brewers need 2 old guys, but Lilly's presence might enable them to land Dempster at a bit of a discount. Narveson for Lilly with Dodgers picking up half his salary? Both guys coming of shoulder problems and said to be healthy.

 

The Dodgers just signed a Korean pitcher. They will be giving away Capuano/Harang/Lilly. I would like to pick up one of them instead of Dempster as insurance for all the Brewers young pitchers.

 

Giving up Narveson is too much, unless the Brewers think he is damaged goods, in which case they wouldn't have kept him.

[Invader3K]

Is this a sign that we should be acting quickly to re-sign Gallardo long term before we can no longer afford him?

 

I don't think so. Anyway, what incentive would Gallardo really have to re-sign at this point? He'll probably be able to get himself a huge contract in a couple years if he stays healthy and performing to his career norms.

[patrickgpe]

while their payroll is going to be insane next season with these moves and the sox trade last season, they are probably the favorites in the NL now. Just imagine once they have to pay Kershaw where their payroll will be.

[fondybrewfan]

They are not even rumored to be completely done yet. When you bring in $240 Million a year from local TV money alone there payroll still as plenty of room to grow.

 

On an unrelated note how on earth can any company afford to pay $240 Million annually for TV rights? I know the LA market is huge but jeepers how can they make any money at all out of this deal?

[gregmag]

I really like Greinke, and I'm glad he got a huge payday if anyone is going to. I'm also thrilled the Brewers got what they got for him.

 

But how is this a sport? With this kind of payroll disparity, I have a hard time taking MLB seriously.

[jerichoholicninja]

But how is this a sport? With this kind of payroll disparity, I have a hard time taking MLB seriously.

 

They still have to play games. How did the Marlins do last year? Or the Angels? The Rays seem to do just fine competing against teams with 4 times their payroll.

[patrickgpe]

thats all true, but the difference is that the dodgers and yankees can make mistakes and recover. if the brewers do this and Greinke blows his arms out of is ineffective they are done for years. for now the brewers are set up to be able to make a serious run every few years, the dodgers appear to be in it every year for the a while now.

[Warning Track Power]

But how is this a sport? With this kind of payroll disparity, I have a hard time taking MLB seriously.

 

Exactly. Don't talk to me about parity in MLB until there is parity in the payrolls. It's not about winning championships, its about making the playoffs consistently in order to play for championships. Teams in MLB can buy there way into annual contention regardless of how incompetent management is. A-Rod's deal likely will not preclude the Yankees from competing for the playoffs for the 18th time in 19 seasons because they can afford to go buy a Youkilis. Sure the NFL has its teams that annually compete, the Packers & Steelers come to mind, but they do so because they are well run organizations, not because they can buy their way into annual contention.

[Ennder]

Different sports are really different. In baseball the better teams (high payroll) pay a lot more per win than the lower payroll teams, it is just how the minors vs FA works. In the NFL the better teams pay less per win. Players actively take paycuts to play in a larger marker team for endorsements or a proven winner for their shot at the playoffs. Of course in the NFL the average player plays for so few years and contracts aren't guaranteed so it is hard to screw up too badly.

 

Look at year to year winning percentage in every sport and baseball doesn't really look much different than any other sport. The same teams make the NFL playoffs year after year, the same teams dominate NBA, the same teams seem to be in it in baseball. The difference between the best team and the worst team is generally lowest in MLB out of any sport by winning percentage. Every year a few low payroll teams are in the playoffs or just miss the playoffs.

 

I like that this is the Dodgers. They haven't been relevant for years and I think this is going to buy them a playoff run or two and then they will absolutely crash and burn and be awful but with a huge payroll. Should be fun to watch. Thing is even with that payroll they might be the 3rd best team in their division. That's baseball.

[JohnBriggs12]

Nobody talks about it, but the disparity in payrolls cheapens championships for teams that are able to buy their way into contention. It's like having a high school conference with a huge disparity in enrollments. The schools with the big enrollments will dominate over time. That isn't good for the sport. Sport is based on competition. It's why the USGA has golf handicaps. Is there an appeal to the David vs. Goliath story? Sure, when it happens, but mostly it's Goliath vs. Goliath. But when Goliath is just one of a handful of teams year after year, nobody outside those markets cares.

[gregmag]

These are all good points, much more thoughtful and substantial than my initial burst of venom. One theme that comes through what everybody is saying, I think, is that your critique of MLB's approach to payroll disparities depends on your baseline view of what a competitive sport should be. I believe pretty strongly that raw resource inputs shouldn't be very relevant to where teams start out. I'm (not surprisingly) strongly in agreement with WTP and Briggs -- when some teams are able to contend over a period of years because their resources cover their mistakes, while others are consigned to years in purgatory, I have a hard time staying interested in the "competition." If the goal is to entertain people in the biggest population centers -- well, I'm not them. Ennder has, I think, a very mature response to my brand of cynicism, and I really wish I could get into that mindset, but I've never been able to.

[jerichoholicninja]

Nobody talks about it, but the disparity in payrolls cheapens championships for teams that are able to buy their way into contention.

 

Only those that don't win feel that way. Do you think LeBron thinks any less of his championship? Or do any of the Yankees from their last 90's/early 2000's dynasty think any less of their championships? How about Tom Brady? Winning is winning, and the non-winniners will find any reason to diminish the accomplishments of the winners.

[MadScientist]

Nobody talks about it, but the disparity in payrolls cheapens championships for teams that are able to buy their way into contention.

 

Only those that don't win feel that way. Do you think LeBron thinks any less of his championship? Or do any of the Yankees from their last 90's/early 2000's dynasty think any less of their championships? How about Tom Brady? Winning is winning, and the non-winniners will find any reason to diminish the accomplishments of the winners.

 

1) Brady is irrelevant because the NFL has the exact opposite payroll structure that we are complaining about.

 

2) It is not the players opinion that is in question here, but the fans. If there are many teams that are out of it from day 1 and many others with a very slim margin of error even with top notch people running things, it is bad for baseball because it makes it more likely that large chunks of the country will tune out.

 

MLB's answer was to expand the playoffs, which helps some, but they really need to address the income disparity sooner rather than later. The best way to do so would be to share local TV revenue. If a team thinks they are too special to share, then they should not have the right to broadcast any image of the other team.

[splitterpfj]

When baseball tried to get a salary cap, they wound up with a cancelled World Series, and a loss in federal court.

 

Of course the teams should share local TV money...with or without a salary cap, but they won't.

 

Baseball has capped spending on the draft, they've capped spending on international free agents, they've added the "Competitive Balance Lottery", and they've expanded the playoffs - the one place where teams can still flex their dollars is in free agency.

 

Last winter, the Angels and Marlins threw money into the sky...and went nowhere, here's hoping the Dodgers have the same experience.