The Dodgers approached the division-rival Diamondbacks about a potential Zack Greinke trade after Greinke cleared revocable trade waivers earlier this month, reports Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports. Rosenthal’s report is the first mention of the fact that Greinke cleared waivers, although the fact that he did so is in no way surprising. Greinke’s six-year, $206.5MM contract comes with a staggering $34.4MM annual salary, and he’s owed $172.5MM from 2017-21. Talented as he may be, the vast majority of teams wouldn’t consider doling out that type of money for any pitcher, let alone one whose contract runs through his age-37 season.
Talks between the Dodgers and D-backs, according to Rosenthal, didn’t progress very far, and a trade isn’t likely to be revisited this season, as Greinke would no longer be eligible for a new team’s postseason roster now that it is officially Sept. 1 on the east coast. However, Rosenthal suggests that the two sides could revisit talks this winter, adding that the Diamondbacks may become increasingly willing to shed some payroll after a disappointing season that is currently on pace to yield the worst average attendance in franchise history.
Of course, there are plenty of variables that will factor into whether the D-backs are able to line up on a Greinke deal with the Dodgers or with any other club. First and foremost, it’ll depend on who is calling the shots atop Arizona’s baseball operations department. Chief baseball officer Tony La Russa and GM Dave Stewart signed Greinke to his record-setting deal (with owner Ken Kendrick’s approval), but the job security of both of men has been called into question recently due to the D-backs’ wildly disappointing season. A new GM or president of baseball operations could potentially be more inclined to deal Greinke than the incumbent duo.
Beyond that, Greinke’s performance in the 2016 season hasn’t lined up with the dominant results in Los Angeles that elevated his stock to the point that enabled him to demand such a staggering price. While Greinke turned in a pristine 2.30 ERA with 8.3 K/9 and 1.9 BB/9 in 602 2/3 innings over the life of his three-year Dodgers career, he’s pitched to a 4.17 earned run average and missed more than a month due to an oblique injury in his inaugural season with the D-backs. He’s seen incremental decreases in his strikeout and ground-ball rates, while his walk rate has elevated a bit. ERA estimators feel that he’s been better than that 4.17 mark would indicate, but it’d be unwise to ever expect Greinke to replicate his astounding 2015 campaign (1.66 ERA in 222 2/3 innings). Even if a team were to believe that Greinke’s true talent was that of a pitcher who can sustain an ERA in the 2.50 to 3.00 range — and there presumably are such teams — the D-backs would probably still have to include significant financial assistance in order to bring Greinke’s salary down to a more palatable price point.
On top of that, Greinke has a 15-team no-trade clause, giving him some considerable power over a theoretical effort to trade him. While he might welcome a chance to return to the Dodgers or a different contending club, there’s no guarantee that’d be the case. The odds of the D-backs finding an interested trading partner to which Greinke would not or could not block a deal that had the financial means to absorb the majority of an enormous contract and still believed him capable of pitching like a top-tier starter are long. That’s only half of the equation. If the D-backs were to get serious about trading Greinke and could find a willing partner, they’d still have to try to pry prospect value away from the interested team. And, the greater the ask from Arizona, the more of Greinke’s contract a trading partner would ask the D-backs to cover. Finding that balance point would be extremely difficult.
Rosenthal writes that the Dodgers will probably circle back to these talks down the line, and that certainly seems plausible, especially if there is a regime change in the Arizona front office. But, the number of hurdles that stand between the idea of this trade and the actual fruition of the trade is probably too great to realistically expect a deal to ever materialize.
It won’t matter who’s in the front office for AZ… the owner, Ken Kendrick, hates the Dodgers and will never trade with them. A major point of getting Greinke was to “stick it” to the Dodgers, along with Greinke being a fantastic pitcher.
Greinke made his bed by going to such an unstable org, anyways. Urias, on a per game basis – not full season, is already a mid-rotation type pitcher. Add Jose De Leon, Brock Stewart, Yadier Alvarez, and all the other pitching prospects the Dodgers have, it seems like a bad idea to block these guys with high salary pitchers. Hell, Jose De Leon should be in the rotation right now but there are too many guaranteed salary pitchers in the way. Greinke, at 32/33, is already in a decline.
I agree somewhat, but you could also look at this as the Diamondbacks sticking it to the Dodgers if they saddle them with Greinke’s contract on top of having to pay Kazmir and McCarthy for another couple years.
It’s all about business before it’s about anything else. After his weak season it would be difficult for the D’Backs to market Grienke at anything but a steep discount. If they were willing to eat $50M they might get something back.
I think the Dodgers can clearly afford to eat Greinke’s contract w/ no problem and get 2-3 productive seasons back. It’s probably not wise decision though, which is why they brought in execs from Tampa and Oakland. They want to be more efficient with their money going forward… only spend those type of dollars on elite players and spread it out like they did this off-season.
The Dodgers could absorb all of this…but everyone is forgetting that all ownerships are worried about that 2018 winter free agency class, with Kershaw, Machado, and Harper just to name a couple. It’s going to be bonkers and as high as the dodgers payroll is now, it’s all off he books that winter. I believe Kershaw will opt out, it’s the fiscally responsible thing to do for which the Dodgers will blow the competition away to make him a lifetime dodger and Urias, Seager and DeLeon will be all we have on the books. Depending on what we do with Turner, were lining ourselves up for that big class!
Kershaw will opt out if he recovers from the back injury, which I strongly suspect will be surgically repaired after this season is over. That said I have little confidence that the Dodgers will pony up the chunk of change that will be required to retain him. By 2018 (again assuming a full recovery and no regression) that number could push near $40M/year. The cost of retaining him will be unprecedented and while the Dodgers can afford it as well if not better than any other franchise, the recent history of them spending big on free agents is not there.
“and while the Dodgers can afford it as well if not better than any other franchise, the recent history of them spending big on free agents is not there.”
I think they’ll pony up if the talent’s elite. In their minds’ they felt Greinke and Cueto last year weren’t elite. They were kinda right.
Cueto has a 138 ERA+ this year. That doesn’t look too shabby.
While I’m in agreement with you, the Dodgers should take Greinke back under the right circumstance. Perhaps little trade in prospects and some salary eaten.
If sticking it to the Dodgers was a major reason why the Dbacks signed Greinke, they really are a horribly run organisation. That would be the definition of stupidity.
I don’t suppose you believe that for a second. I sure don’t. They threw the dice and lost the bet, for a whole lot of reasons nobody could have predicted. The only question now is whether they hit the reset button a la the Padres or take a chance on the pieces coming together next season.
Living in AZ, and listening to the DBacks execs on radio interviews, etc. I have gotten the impression that it wasn’t sticking it to the Dodgers (or Giants for that matter) but was really the result of overall organizational incompetence. Keith Law wrote an article recently describing the shortcomings of the AZ FO and, to put it lightly, it wouldn’t give me a lot of confidence in their FO if I was a DBacks fan. They felt like they were closer to competing than they were, likely due to their serial over-valuation of their players. I question the critical thinking ability, and sanity, of any FO that wakes up on a Friday and decides to commit $206.5MM to one player on a whim.
A whim? Isn’t that like the most massive subjective assumption of the week?
Read Rosenthal’s tick tock of it. There was essentially zero discussion prior to the day of signing him. That’s “on a whim” if I’ve ever seen it.
I believe I found the article you mean; it was good reading. Not sure I get your “whim” conclusion though. Sounds like management was discussing Grienke a week or more ahead of the whirlwind day that ended with an agreement. Helps to remember they went after Cueto first, not exactly a low-ticket item. They were clearly prepared to spend big at the top of the rotation, but did not see initially themselves as players for Grienke. Would the speed of the negotiations be a headline but for the high profile of the player, the other teams involved, and size of the contract? Probably not. Probably it would be considered situation normal in baseball.
I suppose that is a difference in opinion on what a whim is then. I’ll admit that I forgot about the internal discussions that had occurred in the week or so prior to the day of the signing and saw that when I went back and reread it. Where I see it as a whim though, is that they completely shifted their stance within the course of a few hours. As you mentioned, they had talked about Greinke previously, but had always concluded they were not players for him. When they decided on a Friday morning that they were in on Greinke and were prepared to float him a record AAV contract, that seems like a decision on a whim to me. Throwing out an idea is one thing, but waking up one day, deciding you are going to do it, then getting it done within five hours is something else entirely. They did go after Cueto, but remember that Cueto was a depressed asset this offseason due to his elbow issues and struggles down the stretch in 2015. He wasn’t nearly the big fish that Greinke was. You are correct in saying that if it were a lower-profile player, it wouldn’t be a headline, but in the case of a journeyman player coming at a reasonable or bargain price, there wouldn’t be as much pressure to make sure it’s a good deal. The Greinke contract came with enormous expectations and deservedly so, as it has saddled a mid-market team with an enormous salary commitment for the foreseeable future, the exact competition window that they’re aiming for. I suppose what I’m getting at is, with all that is public knowledge about their FO, making the relatively snap decision to sign Greinke seems (completely personal opinion) like another in a line of irresponsible (possibly incompetent) decisions that have put the organization in a diminished capacity to compete going forward, in which the FO did not fully grasp the consequences of their decision.
You assume they didn’t grasp the consequences. Personally I don’t find any reason to jump to that conclusion except for the far too easy justification that their moves didn’t work out as they planned, so now they are open to wholesale second-guessing. I suspect a lot of deals for free agents are made quickly, and quite often GMs daisy chain in a matter of days from one free agent to the next as the negotiations break off or the players they are after are signed by other teams. The Dodgers tried and and evidently failed to sign three front-end starters before settling for the worthless Kazmir, so maybe being prepared to move decisively when opportunity knocks is actually an important part of a GM’s job. Risk aversion isn’t a virtue unless you are running a team to be cost effective but never actually competitive. I don’t ding GMs for taking risks in the name of winning that don’t pay off as much as I do GMs who take few risks and don’t seem to prioritize winning.
You are correct, I do not know, but I do assume that they did not grasp the consequences of their deals. I said from the beginning (not going to link to my personal social media, so we’ll have to use the honors system) that it was a loser of a deal for all teams involved. Of course the result makes it look worse, but as you said, you can’t discount the effort based on the results. I agree with what you’re saying regarding a killer instinct and a willingness to win and prioritize winning, I wish the Dodger FO had more of that, but the financial and prospect position the Diamondbacks put themselves in with the pair of major deals they made this winter does not leave them with a promising future. Going all in is a valid strategy. It hasn’t worked out in recent years, notably San Diego, but it can work out. Spending nearly half of the AAV of your new TV deal on one player and trading away two first round picks for a #2-3 starter is pouncing on opportunity, but I would argue that maybe a bit of discretion would have been the better play. Risk aversion shouldn’t be a priority, I agree, but taking on risks that don’t even solidify you as a contender in your division are unnecessary risks in my opinion. So, back to the original debate of grasping or not grasping the consequences, I cannot prove that they did not grasp them, but if they did, they took on an awful lot of risk for a relatively low chance of success (according to PECOTA and other projection systems), which does not seem to be a good investment in my estimation.
Love to see the Diamondback ownership losing money on baseball; it’s better than seeing them throw money around undermining our democracy.
That is funny.
I’ve seen some out in left field posts here over the last 10 seasons, but this one takes the prize.
Lmao true
Read the section on the Kendricks in Dark Money by Jane Mayer and then see how much humor you find then.
I actually feel bad for the Diamondbacks. They are a small-to-medium market team and have dumped so much money into Zack Greinke and then dump so much in terms of prospects for Shelby Miller. It’s really going to set the Diamondbacks back after they had such a talented core in Paul Goldschmidt, AJ Pollock, and others.
On top of the dollars owned to Greinke, he also has a no trade clause. Greinke’s picky and very candid about places that are tough to pitch. Dodgers had to rearrange their rotation for him to avoid Coors and he doesn’t like Wrigley, as well. Can’t see him liking the AL because he couldn’t hit, too.
Well then it’s time for him to man up and stop whining.
I remember when I first saw AZ talking to greinke this offsets on I laughed my ass off. Then the next thing you know they signed him. So I will stay away from this being impossible lol.
I remember when I first saw AZ talking to greinke this offseason I laughed my ass off. Then the next thing you know they signed him. So I will stay away from this being impossible lol.
I’m surprised the Dodgers didn’t go after Ryan Braun harder he makes a lot of sense for that lineup with all the LH hitters
That would have made them a really good team for a world series run,so they didn’t do that they like to throw money at players that don’t produce and are way past there prime.
I’m not. This FO likes to talk about how they are pursuing elite talent, but they don’t seem to like to actually sign or trade for elite talent.
I can see getting frustrated about them not trading for elite talent, but other than Scherzer, Cepesdes, and maybe Cueto, what elite talent has been available on the free agent market since the FO has taken over?
Not sure why you are discounting trading, but to the free agent list of elites, the obvious addition is Greinke. One weak season does not remove him from the list. What they got instead was fourth or fifth choice, at best. Not what anyone was led to expect in this so-called pursuit of elite players.
Trading, for the most part, is out of their hands. This is why people say trading is a much harder route to acquire talent. The Dodgers can offer a great package to Philly for Hamels but it’s up to Philly to accept their package. I say this because it’s been reported that the Phillies weren’t as high on Jose De Leon as others.
And you proved my point… Greinke, going forward, is not likely to be an elite pitcher. 33 year old + pitchers are mostly innings eating, mid rotation starters, at best. His velocity on all his pitches are down and he’s getting hit harder. What’s elite about a 4+ ERA?
Greinke’s style of pitching is fairly universally expected to age gracefully, though. Pitching in Arizona has certainly contributed to his struggles, as that ballpark is far from a pitcher’s park, and Greinke is somewhat of a contact pitcher. Most of his 4+ ERA is in a handful of starts, as well. Greinke was described as the FO’s #1 priority in the offseason and they didn’t get him. A team with all the money in the world couldn’t pull the trigger and land elite talent. They didn’t land Price, or Cueto, or Greinke. Then they went after Iwakuma, a pitcher 3 years older than Greinke, after claiming Greinke’s age (by the end of the deal) was a determining factor.
As for the deal with Philly, the Dodgers and Phillies were in agreement on a deal for Hamels and the Dodger FO essentially “spaced out” and couldn’t lock it down.
His velocity is down as he is getting older, that is pretty much the bottom line when looking at a pitcher older an age declining. I probably give him another year, but I don’t think he’s an elite pitcher going forward. This is something the FO for saw when deciding if a $170MM investment was worth it. Yes, he was their #1 target but they weren’t going to keep him at all cost.
They went after Iwakuma on a shorter term deal with much less money. That comparison is not even remotely similar. The risk for Greinke’s contract was significantly greater for Iwakuma’s.
I also do remember them having a deal done for Hamels. You have a link for that?
There was a point in the season where Kershaw and Greinke were both on the DL. That would’ve killed the Dodgers season if they were still on the team.
Greinke’s velocity has declined slightly, but a velocity decline is not going to hurt him as much as it would another pitcher who relied on velocity more. He has always been known as more crafty than overpowering. The Dodgers were prepared to offer five years but not six, so they obviously didn’t anticipate a precipitous decline before then. The problem was his age 37 season, which the Dodgers did not want any part of. So the FO went after Iwakuma and offered him a contract through his age 37 season. I understand $15MM isn’t $34MM, but they missed on their primary target, blamed age, then signed a pitcher through the same age season. Everyone knew Greinke would be surplus value on the front end of the contract and would decline some and likely be negative value at the end, but that tradeoff is one that makes sense for a perennial WS contender with deep pockets. Iwakuma wouldn’t have provided nearly the same value. Bottom line, more to the point, the FO prefered a lame fall-back option rather than actually going for an elite target.
Molly Knight talks about the finalized deal in her book. She says that the FO got “distracted by other deals” and the Rangers capitalized on the indecision and came in with a late offer.
That would have killed the Dodgers? Who did they sign instead of Greinke that effectively bridged the DL gap this year? It’s been an endless stream of 4A starters in the rotation. Again, back to the point BlueSkyLA is making about not going for elite talent, Cole Hamels would have been in the rotation if the FO had capitalized on that trade, The Dodgers would have still had a top tier starter, and then would have been able to ride out the injuries of Kershaw and Greinke, instead of getting by on smoke and mirrors.
If it was in Molly Knight’s book, that would’ve been Ned Coletti’s decision. Her book came out before Hamels was traded.
Yes, it would’ve killed them. Instead of Kazmir half assing for 5-6 innings, they would’ve had to throw out Bollinger’s 88 mph fastball or whoever the equivalent to Stephen Fife is in the farm now. Even if you hate their acquisitions, you have to realize Kazmir, McCarthy (when first came off the DL), etc. are big league pitchers. They are capable of getting outs, although they do it inconsistently.
Their depth has saved them. I don’t know how you can even refute that.
The 2016 edition features an update on the 2015 season, including the Hamels non-trade.
Didn’t know that. Thanks.
The depth has been useful, but the depth was only necessary because the rotation was not what it could have been to begin with. This FO signed injury-prone starters and did not go after top talent that was available.
They’ve signed injury prone pitchers because they cost less. For example, Bruce Chen, Samarjidza, Kazmir, Mike Leake are all similar but Kazmir cost much less because his injury history. It’s clear that the FO sees past injury issues as a market they can exploit.
In regards to Greinke, I think he’ll still be a fine pitcher, but nowhere near what he was with the Dodgers going forward. His innings would nice, but like I said earlier in the thread, Urias is already a mid rotation type starter on a per game basis making much less than Greinke. Rich Hill is also similar to Greinke’s past season on a per game basis. Either way, I don’t think Greinke is elite anymore.
I agree that Kazmir came at a clear discount due to his injury history, but stockpiling injury-prone pitchers has just made for a very deep DL. Of course, saying that now has the benefit of hindsight, but I don’t think it was a stretch at the time of their signings to suggest that precisely this could happen when adding so many injury-prone guys. I have more faith in Greinke than you do, but I too am pleased with Urias at the ML level and think he can develop into an ace or at least top tier #2 starter.
Interesting discussion. About all I can add is the most persuasive testimonial to Grienke’s durability for my money came from no less an authority than Rick Honeycutt. If you caught his comments last winter you’d come away with the distinct impression that he was lobbying strongly for his return. He said Grienke is the type of pitcher who could be effective well into his late 30s, or maybe beyond. Apparently the D’backs bought that argument but the Dodgers didn’t.
AZ went all in with Grienke and Miller, and lost! It makes sense for them to cut their losses while they can. They would have to eat a good deal of Zacks’ contract and if I’m familiar with LaRussa and the D’Backs owner they might try to get Miller involved in this “trade “. Grienkes’ quick decline might have a little something to do with his unhappiness in Arizona. He feels the organization put their failure to thrive completely on his shoulders. Would he pitch better somewhere else. Yes, but he’s still a pitcher in decline. He’s not the pitcher he was ( see Lincecum, Weaver, Bulcholtz) but he would make any staff better. But not at 250 mil, no way!
They didn’t lose. Their projection to compete was for the next 3-4 years when they signed Grienke and traded for Miller. Despite the big contract and bad trade, they are really trying to compete. It was for the duration of Goldshcmidt, Pollock and Lamb’s team friendly deals. They should have a good offense as it is (Pollock back, Peralta better) and if Miller is fixed (he looked decent yesterday) and Grienke comes back to being an ace they can make a run in the next few years.
National media likes taking it to the DBacks and I understand some of the criticism coming there way, but they should also be praised for some good moves and that they went all in not for one season, but the next 3.
I tend to agree with ducoach. There was little to no planning and thinking through of the decision to sign Grienke, and the Miller trade was universally despised at the time, and is more so now. As you mentioned, the team has missed Pollock, Miller hasn’t head his head right, and Grienke hasn’t been Grienke, but even if those players return to form, the team still has problems. Guys like Ahmed, Drury, and Owings are not the answer, and the DBacks traded away several top prospects in the Miller trade. If you look at the teams the DBacks would have to compete with in the division, the Dodgers have a prospect pipeline that is going to be emerging in the next few years, the Giants have a window of competition very similar to the Diamondbacks, except they’re a better team, and both of those teams can outspend the DBacks, especially now that Arizona is loaded down with the Grienke contract.
It made sense to explore the trade for this year, given the garbage rotation the Dodgers have. However, there’s hope in the farm system, so I don’t think exploring a Greinke trade makes as much in the off season. Would’ve been nice to have him for the stretch run and playoffs.