Wow. To comment further, that's a big number for someone who doesn't quite seem elite.

Free Agency is dead!

that's a big number for someone who doesn't quite seem elite

I think there's a tendency among some baseball folks to treat a player's absolute best season as his "true talent". Jim Hendry used to do that, especially if a guy's best season happened to come with the Cubs (Neifi '04, Glendon Rusch '04). Zack Greinke's 2009 season was the sort of thing that sticks with folks (also, he went 31-11 over the last two seasons; Colletti seems like the sort of guy who probably still looks at something like that, too).

Sanchez is going to be a bargain.

Crazyness. The Dodgers' payroll is going to be well over $200M. Meet the new Yankees.

I have a hard time seeing how this contract ends as anything other than a major overpay -- market inflation may be one way -- though Greinke is surely better off pitching in Chavez Ravine than the Ballpark in Arlington.

In related news: Jesus Christ the Dodgers are spending a ton of money. Is there any doubt (especially given the salary retreat of the ACTUAL Yankees) that the Dodgers are the New Yankees in terms of blowing their wad on every star they set their mind on? Only problem is, they didn't even make the playoffs last year.

EDIT: Coke to #5, though given the simultaneity of posting, I submit that we really owe each other cokes.

I'll split one with you, Esoteric.

The Dodgers are the second team to reach the $200M threshold. Philly's $175M last year was the closest before now.

Also: this is gonna be a pretty interesting experiment in whether pitch-framing really does affect a pitcher's performance, or whether a pitcher carries his 'strike zone' with him regardless of who his batterymate is. The drop-off from Jonathan Lucroy to A.J. Ellis (for now at least) is pretty damn steep in terms of pitch-framing skills.

EDIT: For more on this, see Jeff Sullivan's article at Fangraphs

Also: this is gonna be a pretty interesting experiment in whether pitch-framing really does affect a pitcher's performance, or whether a pitcher carries his 'strike zone' with him regardless of who his batterymate is.

What is this in reference too?

What is this in reference too?

See the link I added in my edit.

The Dodgers are the second team to reach the $200M threshold. Philly's $175M last year was the closest before now.

Reached and blown by, to boot. This has to put them at nearly $220, doesn't it?

I wonder if this means they won't sign Ryu. Seven starting pitchers should be enough. And they still have a big hole at third base.

So where does Capuano or Harang go?

I'll admit to being surprised by this as it really makes no sense. But, hey, not my billions. Extra scary thing is this puts the Dodgers up to $164 for 2014 already and over $100 M guaranteed through 2017. This won't end well.

That's a lot of money.

This won't end well.

they put 2 billion into buying the team, so i don't imagine they're overly concerned about any luxury tax implications.

In a way, this is a major victory for sabermetrics. FIP/xFIP are far kinder to Greinke than ERA has been, and Greinke really only has one truly great season to his name.

This really does strike me as a major overpay. Greinke has not had consistently ace-level results.

I have a hard time seeing how this contract ends as anything other than a major overpay -- market inflation may be one way -- though Greinke is surely better off pitching in Chavez Ravine than the Ballpark in Arlington.

I'm not sure what you mean by "major overpay", but all he has to do is average the 4 fWAR/year he's had so far, not counting 2006 when he was mostly in the minors, and at $6M/fWAR -- which Swartz reckoned was going to be the case in 2012 -- he'll be a market level contract. If he averages the 5.7 WAR he's averaged since 2008, he'd be a bargain. Sure, he could get hurt in 2013 Spring Training and never pitch again, but I don't see why this is any more horrible a deal for the Dodgers than any other 6 year pitcher contract.

$24.5M per year? Seems high for Geinke, who has yet to come all that close to repeating his excellent 2009 season. Must be a lot of money in MLB - quick somebody tell Glass & Loria.

Now, if folks are going to be consistent, there should be a lot of hating on the Dodgers for having such a high payroll. Or does that only happen if they win?

I think there's a tendency among some baseball folks to treat a player's absolute best season as his "true talent".

You bet. There's even a tendency on the site featuring baseball for the thinking fan to do this. Dickey's 2012 could well be a new but established level for him. Reyes' 2011 and Wright's 2012 meant we could essentially forget each players previous three seasons. I think for Wright his four good months in 2012 turned something like 4/55 into 7/122.

Over the last three seasons Greinke's been a nice number 2 pitcher. Durable, but without a whiff of greatness. He's hugely odds on to never get near 2009 again, but he still racks up 25m per?

To give it some context, if you cut Pettitte a little slack for his short 2004 season, Greinke from 2010 through 2012 was only as good as the three worst consecutive seasons of Andy Pettitte's career. Pettitte, for good reason, never signed a long deal at an AAV as high as any pitcher in the game.

Now, if folks are going to be consistent, there should be a lot of hating on the Dodgers for having such a high payroll. Or does that only happen if they win?

Now why would people ever do that?

Honestly though I think it depends. I've been complaining since the Dodgers signed the fox deal that they can basically operate somewhere around $250 million payroll (or is it $280?) and still be getting tons of money from their other revenue sources so they can out spend everyone basically. I don't see much complaining at this point in time though cause it's not like they didn't load up on a bunch of free agents by outspending people, a signing or two like that and the yells may come out.

Well, unless they decide to lose.

Now, if folks are going to be consistent, there should be a lot of hating on the Dodgers for having such a high payroll. Or does that only happen if they win?

The Dodgers still aren't close to the Yankee peak of outspending second place by 50%+. Short of a salary cap someone has to be #1, and it might as well be a team in a big market that does indeed market themselves well and generate tons of revenue. But 5 or 10%, not 50%.

Also: this is gonna be a pretty interesting experiment in whether pitch-framing really does affect a pitcher's performance, or whether a pitcher carries his 'strike zone' with him regardless of who his batterymate is. The drop-off from Jonathan Lucroy to A.J. Ellis (for now at least) is pretty damn steep in terms of pitch-framing skills.

He underperformed his peripherals just the same with Lucroy and non-Lucory, and his best season came without Lucroy. We know much more about Greinke than 59 starts with Lucroy. Now, maybe this eliminates one of the reasons he underperformed his peripherals (bad catcher), but I don't see much more than that.

To give it some context, if you cut Pettitte a little slack for his short 2004 season, Greinke from 2010 through 2012 was only as good as the three worst consecutive seasons of Andy Pettitte's career. Pettitte, for good reason, never signed a long deal at an AAV as high as any pitcher in the game.

This analysis is....wanting.

In a way, this is a major victory for sabermetrics. FIP/xFIP are far kinder to Greinke than ERA has been, and Greinke really only has one truly great season to his name.

Last 3 years he's about a 5 win player by fWAR and 3 wins by bWAR. If you assume slight age-related decline for the first 3 years and then more normal regression for the last 3, they're paying Greinke almost exactly what fWAR says. So they're basically spending to take the upside out of the deal, barring a return of 2009 or an ageless Greinke. Or they just don't care and are fine paying $7 or $8M per win.

Greinke has always been a solidly above average pitcher (expecting his age 21 season in 2005 obviously) since he eats up innings even when his ERA is closer to league average so the chances are (as much as for most any pitcher really) he's going to be a worthwhile rotation member going forward so at least the Dodgers should expect to get a return on the investment even if this is an overpay. That being said I've been really puzzled by the ridiculous amount of press and praise he has received this offseason and all the comparisons to contracts of pitchers much better than him. He has gotten an insane amount of mileage out of one spectacular season that he hasn't come within a mile of repeating at any point in his career. It's nice that he has these great peripherals but he hasn't been living up to them for years now.

I'm not really being critical of the amount he's getting paid, obviously the Dodgers have tons of money to burn and don't give a #### about how high their payroll goes. They acquired the best pitcher on the market and have improved themselves for the coming seasons at a cost that doesn't seem likely to hamper them over that timespan so that's all that really counts. I'm just amazed that so many people have been viewing Greinke as this big-time ace when there's little rational reason to think he's one of the top pitchers in the game.

Edit: I find it interesting to compare Greinke to James Shields. Both have one fluke season but Greinke's was amazing while Shields' was terrible. They both tend to underperform their peripherals though one difference is that Shields has probably pitched in front of much better defenses so that's a point in Greinke's favor for sure. Still, the main difference is that one season each. The question is how much is that dramatic difference in outliers really worth?

To be fair I should acknowledge that Shields is probably overrated by the MSM too.

This analysis is....wanting.

And your comment isn't?

You have to lean entirely on fWAR, talk vaguely about taking the upside out of the deal (as though that wasn't a major negative), and follow it with a hefty dose of je ne sais quoi regarding paying 8m per win.

Funny stuff.

Among the bromides you missed were 'in any case, they're a big market team. Even if the contract goes south, they can well afford it. It won't keep them from acquiring the players they need if they happen to be close.'

I'm just amazed that so many people have been viewing Greinke as this big-time ace when there's little rational reason to think he's one of the top pitchers in the game.

This bore repeating.

You have to lean entirely on fWAR, talk vaguely about taking the upside out of the deal (as though that wasn't a major negative), and follow it with a hefty dose of je ne sais quoi regarding paying 8m per win.

I'm not leaning on anything -- just pointing out that the Dodgers are paying for fWAR, or they're the Dodgers and they don't care. It's pretty clear.

Among the bromides you missed were 'in any case, they're a big market team. Even if the contract goes south, they can well afford it. It won't keep them from acquiring the players they need if they happen to be close.'

Which you clearly understand and stated the same thing in a different way.

It's nice that he has these great peripherals but he hasn't been living up to them for years now.

He's underperformed peripherals for 3 straight years...and the three years before that he matched his peripherals almost exactly. Is 3 years enough time to definitively say we should predict on his ERA and not his FIP? Serious question. I'd be curious what his ZiPS is for next year, and/or if anyone has studied that.

The whole Dodger situation is unbelievable. From McCourt making out like a bandit to this unprecedented spending spree with no end in sight.

Is FIP not a rational reason?

I'll be the bad guy here: when a pitcher has significantly underperformed his peripherals in as large a sample as Greinke has,
It becomes reasonable to posit that said pitcher isn't "underperforming" so much as he is "not as good as FIP would lead you to believe."

Defense indepent pitching metrics are usually pretty good for projection, but there are certainly outliers. Greinke appears to be one and unfortunately (because as a fan, I'd love to see him do it again) Zack Greinke probably is a lot closer to his 2010-12 ERA in terms of true value than he is either his 2009 season or his xFIP.

I think there's a tendency among some baseball folks to treat a player's absolute best season as his "true talent"

When he was with the Jays, this was one of Gord Ash' specialties.

Also, this is one of those "Holy ####### ####, they spent how much?" deals.

You bet. There's even a tendency on the site featuring baseball for the thinking fan to do this. Dickey's 2012 could well be a new but established level for him. Reyes' 2011 and Wright's 2012 meant we could essentially forget each players previous three seasons. I think for Wright his four good months in 2012 turned something like 4/55 into 7/122.

This is silly. At the time Reyes signed his contract, he had 4 seasons of 5.8 WAR or higher. Wright had 5 seasons of 5.2 WAR or higher (and 3 seasons above 7 WAR). Their contracts weren't about pretending their best seasons were their true talent - they were about trying to determine whether they had reclaimed levels of performance they had both amply demonstrated. Especially with Reyes, the question was less "How good is he really?" than "Will he bust a hamstring?"

Is FIP not a rational reason?

If we were discussing a pitcher who suddenly underperformed his peripherals last season after pitching to them in the years before that then I'd say yes, it's a rational reason. Greinke has underperformed them for three years straight though so I'm not going to believe that he should be projected going forward based just on FIP. Looking at one big element of potential ERA fluctuation, BABIP, his numbers the past three seasons are normal for him so you can't say that it's just balls finding holes or bad defense. If someone wants to make a reasonable argument for WHY his FIP should be used to project him going forward I'm very willing to listen and learn but I'm not going to just accept the Cameron/Sheenhan-esque dogmatic, absolute belief in stuff like that.

Over the last three seasons Greinke's been a nice number 2 pitcher. Durable, but without a whiff of greatness. He's hugely odds on to never get near 2009 again, but he still racks up 25m per?

See, and I'll posit that a 10.5 K/9 and 4.5 BB/K is, in fact, more than a whiff of greatness. You can argue for ERA or xFIP or whatver, but if you can do that, you're more than just a durable innings eater.

He's underperformed peripherals for 3 straight years...and the three years before that he matched his peripherals almost exactly. Is 3 years enough time to definitively say we should predict on his ERA and not his FIP? Serious question. I'd be curious what his ZiPS is for next year, and/or if anyone has studied that.

I'm not the one to answer the question of how large a sample size is large enough for that but instinctively three full seasons seems plenty large enough for me to be inclined to think that his peripherals aren't a reliable gauge. What's key to me is that though he did perform to his peripherals in those three previous seasons he still was far from outstanding in two of the three. Even if you believe FIP is closer to reality then I don't think he should be viewed as better than a mid-120s ERA+ pitcher which would still put him short of the praise heaped on him.

This is silly. At the time Reyes signed his contract, he had 4 seasons of 5.8 WAR or higher. Wright had 5 seasons of 5.2 WAR or higher (and 3 seasons above 7 WAR). Their contracts weren't about pretending their best seasons were their true talent - they were about trying to determine whether they had reclaimed levels of performance they had both amply demonstrated. Especially with Reyes, the question was less "How good is he really?" than "Will he bust a hamstring?

" That isn't silly, billy, it's preposterous. It's not even possible to tell what it is you're claiming. Are you arguing that GMs collectively or Alderson specifically thought that 4 months in 2012 represented a return to a level of skills Wright hadn't demonstrated since 2008, and that those four months surely represented the reclamation of a 'level or performance he had amply demonstrated? No one would think it resembled a guarantee, or at the least should admit thinking that.

As for Reyes, he had hamstring problems, then averaged 158 games a season for four years, then had more hamstring problems. Are you arguing anyone paying attention to his career was going to be sure his hamstring problems were beyond him because, one year in three, he was durable? That after demonstrating four years of durablity was no guarantee of continuing durability, one year of durablity magically did?

See, and I'll posit that a 10.5 K/9 and 4.5 BB/K is, in fact, more than a whiff of greatness. You can argue for ERA or xFIP or whatver, but if you can do that, you're more than just a durable innings eater.

So, your point is that Grienke has been secretly great for the last three years? See, I'm sure that in order to be an argumentative pain in the ass, you'll be pleased to posit just about anything.

at $6M/fWAR -- which Swartz reckoned was going to be the case in 2012 -- he'll be a market level contract.

I did not read the linked article, but does anyone take this number seriously? Robinson Cano has averaged 6 WAR for the past four years ... would he be a bargain at $32 million per year? A slight overpay at $40 million?

Jack Carter is not doing a very good job with reading comprehension. Also, while it's possible that Greinke doesn't pitch as well as his (elite level) peripherals due to something we simply don't know, it's also possible that he's just had the bad luck to underperform them for three years.

I think the amount of money is silly, because pitchers get hurt and any time you sign someone for 5+ years I feel you have to assume that they'll be hurt for roughly a years worth of time and include age related decline, but trying to argue that Greinke isn't a special pitcher (and ignoring that he's by a significant amount the best pitcher on a scarce market with several teams looking for high quality starting pitching) is just silly. As is the insane argument that the only reason Reyes and Wright got their contracts was GMs beguiled by a single strong season.

at $6M/fWAR -- which Swartz reckoned was going to be the case in 2012 -- he'll be a market level contract.


I did not read the linked article, but does anyone take this number seriously? Robinson Cano has averaged 6 WAR for the past four years ... would he be a bargain at $32 million per year? A slight overpay at $40 million?

I think that is the contention, yes.

As is the insane argument that the only reason Reyes and Wright got their contracts was GMs beguiled by a single strong season.

According to that $6M/win number, Wright's deal is in fact a huge bargain. Wright averaged 3 WAR during his crappy years.

How many pitchers would you rather have over the next 6 years just based on performance alone? This is not some rhetorical or gotcha! question. Genuinely curious.

My list
Kershaw
Felix Hernandez
Verlander
Sabathia (although he started showing some wear and tear this season)
Maybe Jared Weaver
Maybe David Price

I'm probably missing a couple of people but I do think Greinke is elite.

How many pitchers would you rather have over the next 6 years just based on performance alone? This is not some rhetorical or gotcha! question. Genuinely curious.

My list
Kershaw
Felix Hernandez
Verlander
Sabathia (although he started showing some wear and tear this season)
Maybe Jared Weaver
Maybe David Price

Erm...Stephen Strasburg? Weird that you'd omit him, given that I'd take him over literally every single one you listed there (plus Greinke) if we're talking strictly about "for the next six years" proposition.

It seems likely that a large part of Greinke's underperformance is probably due to pitching in front of poor defensive teams. The 2010 Royals and the 2011-2 Brewers both look like pretty poor defensive squads just from looking at the positional starters briefly on bbref. Of course that's likely to remain an issue for him since the 2013 Dodgers are probably below average defensively everywhere other than 1B and 2B, unless Crawford bounces back to being a plus in LF like he was in Tampa Bay.

Erm...Stephen Strasburg? Weird that you'd omit him, given that I'd take him over literally every single one you listed there (plus Greinke) if we're talking strictly about "for the next six years" proposition.

He probably just forgot him. He did say that he'd probably forgotten a couple guys.

I'd definitely take Kershaw and Verlander over the next six years. Those two are beasts and have the track record. I'd probably take King Felix as well but his results have been underwhelming the last two years. I think Sabathia is wearing down just a bit so I'd take Strasburg. I'd probably take Price over Strasburg as well. As talented as Srasburg is, he didn't average six innings a start last year and he has yet to prove that he is capable of 210-220 innings a year consistently.

Man, the Dodgers have some question marks but they have a huge upside. I'd probably rank them as the best team in the NL right now.

I think there's a tendency among some baseball folks to treat a player's absolute best season as his "true talent".

You bet. There's even a tendency on the site featuring baseball for the thinking fan to do this. Dickey's 2012 could well be a new but established level for him. Reyes' 2011 and Wright's 2012 meant we could essentially forget each players previous three seasons. I think for Wright his four good months in 2012 turned something like 4/55 into 7/122.

This Wright stuff is weird. Even if Wright repeated exactly his 2011 in 2012, if he repeated his worst season out of 7 in the league, there is no way in hell he would be willing to sign anything close to a 4/55 extension. If evaluations of Wright are too past-driven, it's not at all about 4 months in 2012, but the thousand games before that.

I'd definitely take Kershaw and Verlander over the next six years. Those two are beasts and have the track record.

I understand where you're coming from, but the only reason I'd still prefer Strasburg over them is because Kershaw has already demonstrated serious hip injury issues (Strasburg had TJ surgery, yes, but they're very different beasts in terms of effectiveness of reparative surgery and lingering issues) and because Verlander has been SUCH a workhorse for SO long that, when thinking of the next six years, you just have to assume that the innings will eventually add up. (Then again, he could turn out to be the next Nolan Ryan -- a genetic freak of nature in terms of his physical indestructibility...but the odds by definition have to be against that.) Strasburg simply has less mileage.

Dickey's 2012 could well be a new but established level for him.

RA Dickey in 2010: 138 ERA+, 6.7 IP/S.

RA Dickey in 2012: 140 ERA+, 7.1 IP/S.

RA Dickey was a very good pitcher in 2010-2011. Giving him a two year extension at less than Anibal Sanchez will likely get is not overpaying.

Greinke hasn't been pitching for random teams, he's been pitching for the Royals and Brewers, who have generally had pretty lousy defenses.

Kershaw has already demonstrated serious hip injury issues

He did put up a 0.77 ERA last September with that hip injury. Maybe it will cause him problems in the future but right now, he's outstanding.

Verlander has been SUCH a workhorse for SO long that, when thinking of the next six years, you just have to assume that the innings will eventually add up

I know what you are saying about the wear and tear but I'd rather bet on Verlander staying healthy than a guy who has yet to show he can put up 210-200 innings consistently. Will Strasburg stuff hold up after two or three full seasons? It might but we won't know until he does it.

The dollars and 6 year commitment are both high but I don't think either are full-on crazy. This, however, puts this contract fully into crazy town IMO:

@JimBowdenESPNxm: According to a Dodger source:Greinke has a full player opt out clause after 3 yrs & if traded during contract he can opt out at end of yr

So the Dodgers now how seven viable starting pitchers and they still might sign Ryu before their 30 day window closes to get to 8:

Kershaw
Greinke
Beckett
Billingsley
Capuano
Lilly
Harang
[Ryu]

I know Lilly and Billingsley are both coming off of significant arm injuries at the end of 2012 but most teams would be happy with either of those guys as a #3 or 4 and its possible that neither guy makes it into this rotation. I assume at minimum Harang and Lilly are sent packing, with Capuano's fate probably dependent on Ryu signing or Billingsley's health.

Depends on whether you think bWAR or fWAR is more predictive. I'd probably split the difference over the past 4 years, which makes this about a market value contract. Obviously that depends on inflation continuing to rise.

fWAR since 2009: 5.1, 4.0, 5.1, 9.3

bWAR: 3.3, 1.4, 3.2, 10.1

I think ZIPS uses something like 7,5,3,1 for weighing yearly performance. Doing that for fWAR gives you 5.35. For bWAR it's 3.55.

Assuming 5.5 million per win, 5% inflation and a .5 WAR a year WAR decline, fWAR says 150 million and bWAR says 83 million. I'm guessing Greinke's true worth is somewhere around 110-120 million, so this looks a bit below market value. The upside is that he has another 9 WAR year and that's probably what the Dodgers are paying for. The downside of course is that he gets injured and ends up being a 1 WAR starter by the end of his contract. Santana has to scare the Dodgers a little.