Let’s Nip This in the Bud And Talk About Why Zack Greinke Isn’t Coming to LA
December 18, 2010 at 10:44 am | Posted in Zack Greinke | 17 CommentsRoyals ace Zack Greinke has requested a trade. The Dodgers, inexplicably, have been part of the group linked to him in rumors for a few weeks now.
I think you can see where this is headed.
I’ve already seen Dodger fans, somewhat understandably, coming up with pie-in-the-sky trade proposals that Kansas City would never accept. That’s only part of the problem, of course, because there’s a variety of reasons why this isn’t happening and shouldn’t even really be a topic. Reasons like…
1) The Dodgers don’t need another starting pitcher. I’m not saying Greinke wouldn’t look nice alongside Clayton Kershaw at the top of the rotation, because he surely would. Let’s just be realistic here. The Dodgers already have six starters, likely pushing Vicente Padilla into some sort of swingman role. So the last thing they need is to add another, and it’s not like much could be done to make room.
Due to various combinations of no-trade clauses and rules against trading newly-signed free agents, the foursome of Ted Lilly, Hiroki Kuroda, Jon Garland, and Padilla surely aren’t going anywhere. I’m certain the Royals – and every other team in the majors – would like Kershaw, but I wouldn’t even trade him for Greinke straight up. Some have suggested Chad Billingsley, but that makes no sense. You could argue that Greinke (3.34 FIP in 2010 / 3.59 career) isn’t a huge upgrade over Billingsley (3.07 FIP in 2010 / 3.68 career) when you consider that Greinke makes $27m over the next two years while Billingsley will get about $13m in arbitration over that time. Besides, the entire point of trading Greinke for Kansas City is that he’ll be free-agent eligible for the 2013 season, just about when their crew of top-flight prospects will be ready. So will Billingsley; it doesn’t help the Royals to trade for someone else who’d be gone when those kids are ready.
With a different front office, you could possibly consider the idea of acquiring Greinke, and then shipping Billingsley off for a power outfield bat. It’s not a terrible idea in the right situation, yet I don’t think any of us consider that the current front office is capable of such forward-thinking moves.
2) Greinke’s expensive. Well, sort of. $27m over 2 years for a pitcher of his caliber is actually quite reasonable. Yet the Dodgers 2011 payroll is at about $115m, and they don’t even have a left fielder. That’s already far beyond what we’d expected, and it seems impossible that they could shoehorn Greinke’s salary into that as well.
The only way you could even consider it is if you were losing payroll elsewhere, yet I think we all agree the Royals aren’t interested in Casey Blake or Rafael Furcal. That brings me to the most infuriating idea I’ve seen from fans – that the Dodgers should send Jonathan Broxton as part of a package to KC. I can’t even express enough how ridiculous of an idea that is. The Royals already have a better closer in Joakim Soria, they’re not looking to acquire players who will be free agents after 2011, and they’re in no position to be acquiring expensive relievers coming off of poor seasons. It’s ridiculous to even consider.
Just because it’d be great for your team doesn’t mean it makes any sense whatsoever for the other side.
3) The Royals want the moon and more for Greinke, and the Dodgers can’t supply that. KC’s asking price is crazy, but that’s exactly what they should be doing. With Cliff Lee gone, there’s no one else remotely near Greinke’s quality available, and if C.C. Sabathia doesn’t opt out of his Yankee contract after next season – it sounds like he won’t – then there won’t be any top free agent pitchers on the market next year, either. The Royals have a rare and valuable asset, and they rightfully want top value in controllable prospects who they can add to their growing 2013-18 dynasty.
To get an idea of how much they want, we’ve heard that they asked Toronto for “more than” Kyle Drabek and Travis Snider, and that conversations with Washington had to start with Jordan Zimmermann, Drew Storen, and Danny Espinosa.
Drabek, a 1st-round pick in the same draft that brought the Dodgers Kershaw, just turned 23 and was the jewel in the Roy Halladay deal for Toronto. He’ll be in the Jays’ rotation this year; Snider doesn’t even turn 23 until the spring, yet just completed his 3rd MLB season and has an OPS+ of 103. The Washington crew is impressive too. Storen was a 1st-round pick in 2009 who had a quality rookie year last year and is the Nationals’ closer of the future. Zimmermann battled back from arm surgery to have a 1.59 ERA at four MiLB stops last season, and Espinosa, a second baseman, has an .820 OPS and 40 HR in parts of 3 MiLB seasons.
The Royals are known to want middle infield help, so any conversation with the Dodgers would have to start with Dee Gordon. They’re also known to prefer a center field prospect, so that’s Trayvon Robinson. If they liked Storen, they’d love Kenley Jansen, and then they’re clearly going to want a starting pitcher as well, and while LA doesn’t have a Drabek-type, someone like Rubby De La Rosa (who broke out at 21 last year) would certainly be nice.
So would you trade Gordon / Robinson / Jansen / de la Rosa for two years of Greinke? I don’t know that I would, and even if I would, I don’t know that it’d satisfy the Royals anyway.
4) Under no circumstances should the Dodgers be worried about pitching over offense right now. This isn’t new; we’ve been complaining about this for months. Yet the Dodgers have focused on pitching as the offense stagnates, and as each day goes by the Matt Guerrier deal looks worse and worse. (By comparison, Dan Wheeler, who’s a comparable pitcher with a better strikeout rate, signed for one year and $3m in Boston yesterday). Sure, I’d like Greinke, but not nearly as much as I’d like a left field situation that isn’t a black hole. I mean, we’re in a position where Jon Weisman is actually saying that Tony Gwynn – yes, the same one who had a .591 OPS last year – should be a starting outfielder, and I can’t even disagree with him.
So sure, it’d be nice to see Greinke in Dodger blue. It’d be a hell of a lot of fun to see him and Kershaw as a 1-2. It’s also not an idea that’s based in reality, unfortunately.
Now let’s get back to our regularly-scheduled groaning over the Scott Podsednik menace.
17 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a Reply
Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.








Hopefully in the near future, maybe before the 2013 season, we could have a shot in Felix Hernandez. Hernandez would want to play for a winner and he would be the next Fernandomania, thus calling his own mania Felixmania. However, he won’t wear #34 since we all have a good feeling it will be retired in honor of the great Fernando Valenzuela.
Comment by Eduardo— December 18, 2010 #
GIANTS SUCK!
Comment by juan— December 18, 2010 #
Well said, my eloquent friend. Well said.
Comment by jeffreydm— December 18, 2010 #
Every time I see a Greinke/Dodgers rumor I ignore it. As you’ve pointed out Mike, it doesn’t make sense for either side, plus the Dodgers don’t even need pitching. It’s silly that this is even a rumor still. Ned should be concentrating on a left fielder. That’s it.
Comment by dodgerbobble— December 18, 2010 #
Exactly. By the way, that Elton Brand Buffalo bobblehead is awesome.
Comment by Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— December 18, 2010 #
Thanks. It’s one of my favorites in the collection.
Comment by dodgerbobble— December 18, 2010 #
I agree with this. The only way acquiring Greinke would make sense is if Billingsley would be flipped for a big bat. I’m not advocating a Billingsley trade by any means, but it would make some sense.
As you said, though, Ned Colletti isn’t exactly creative when it comes to acquisitions.
It’s a luxury, not a necessity; a luxury the Dodgers don’t have with their offensive deficiencies.
Comment by Dustin Nosler— December 18, 2010 #
After Uggla was traded for spare parts, can’t blame Ned for inquiring. Doesn’t mean there’s any ongoing discussions. Wouldn’t want guys like that one commenter on this site, Jeff, to get all huffy because Ned wasn’t in the conversation.
Comment by Dave— December 18, 2010 #
If you are referring to me…I wouldn’t get butt hurt over not getting Greinke because we have enough pitching. Uggla…different story. If we are going after more pitching, better get one that can swing a bat…like Ankiel…hell, he can pitch (sorta), play the outfield too…
Comment by Jeff— December 18, 2010 #
It makes no sense, so unplug Ned’s phone. If it made sense he wouldn’t do it.
Comment by SamAdams— December 18, 2010 #
Greinke has like 27 mil/2 yrs left? if the didgers have another 13.5 mil/season to spend, get Beltre. Even with him im sure we can back load someomore. at this rate, we already have a 2015 payroll around 95 mil.
Comment by Chris S— December 18, 2010 #
The math on this doesn’t add up. Greinke costs MORE than Billingsley, so why would we trade Billz to get a pitcher that’s of comparable skill (but is more expensive) AND hope to get some prospects or a left fielder in return for him?
I’m already pretty surprised by all of the $$ Ned has spent this offseason. I would be absolutely stunned if he spent more to get Greinke. Not only (as has already been pointed out) is that a little too creative for him, but that’s more money than we thought he was given to spend.
Comment by jeffreydm— December 18, 2010 #
maybe im wrong but the only logical thing i can see with greinke is that a) we trade billz for power bat, b) if the Dodgers blow this season, we flip Greinke around to someone who will repay us with new prospects, and c) if we hold onto Greinke, then im pretty sure he will end as a type A and we get a top draft pick plus supp pick. So could Greinke be some sort of savings account for future prospects?? Can Ned even comprehend a thought like that?
Comment by Chris S— December 18, 2010 #
I totally see your point – but I think that getting Greinke, then flipping Billz for prospects in the future or an impact hitter right now only works if absolutely everything goes according to plan.
It’s like thinking 12 moves ahead in chess, then being surprised by what your opponent does on the very next move. When you have such a long term strategy, there’s more that can potentially go wrong. And I don’t see Ned as being the type to pull that off.
Comment by jeffreydm— December 18, 2010 #
Mike, one point in what you wrote that I want to “argue” is the idea that the fact that Wheeler’s signing makes Guerrier’s look worse. Here’s the thing. I think because of a few factors like:
A) Better chance to win
B) Added exposure from media types (espcially BoSPiN) and knowing those media types will be “on your side”
C) Additional opportunities for endorsements because of the added exposure
teams like Boston/NY/Philly, those teams are able to sign guys for less than other teams can. It’s something I’ve noticed for several years and it’s just one more thing to irritate you about the way things are in baseball today. Without getting into the argument that the Dodgers should be one of the teams benefitting from this (which is an entirely different argument that has been done to death), it’s just not fair to the rest of baseball.
MLB should just go do what it really wants. Let the Phillies and Mets play in a 11-game playoff with the winner playing the winner of the Red Sox-Yankees 11-game playoff in an 11-game World Series. They could have each playoff last two weeks and each World Series last two weeks and they could have 6 World Serieses a year. Every other team in MLB could just play in AAAA, which is about what we are doing any way.
My rant is now complete and as MSTI said you may now return to your regularly scheduled program, “Anything but Podsednik” already in progress.
Comment by Penguinator— December 18, 2010 #
I actually thought of something similar, for me it was a 12 team Playoff. Giants, Phillies, Red Sox, Yankees bubbled in at the top of the brackets. Then the Cardinals, Braves, Reds, Dodgers, Twins, Angels/Rangers, Rays, White Sox start a set of playoffs. Just get rid of the season, but no they want to expand the postseason instead.
Comment by DodgersKings323— December 19, 2010 #
I do have one good thing to say about Scott Podsednik. Yep, I found one.
His last name isn’t Hairston. Don’t ever say it couldn’t get worse.
And by the way, while I like the idea of Thames, in some ways he’s “Manny Lite.” It’s different but similar. Real good stick with some pop, bad glove.
That all being said, is there any way? Is it even possible. Just playing half the games? Incentive laden deal? Manny back to the Dodgers? Probably not, but I don’t think I’d be shocked, just a little surprised, if it actually happened.
Comment by Penguinator— December 18, 2010 #