Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Photo

What does Arizona take for Greinke?

  • Please log in to reply
140 replies to this topic

#121 S.

S.

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,102 posts

Posted 05 December 2018 - 11:00 PM

Not really sure where else to put this: 

I wonder what it would take to get both Greinke and Ray


#122 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 15,292 posts

Posted 06 December 2018 - 05:53 PM

I wonder what it would take to get both Greinke and Ray


Convincing Greinke to waive his no-trade clause, for starters...
  • ChrisKnutson likes this

#123 crapforks

crapforks

    Member

  • Members
  • 357 posts

Posted 10 January 2019 - 07:43 PM

Thinking about how much financial flexibility the Twins have made me want to bump this. Not because Greinke is a perfect fit, but because the addition of a starter who can be a difference maker would be coming from the trade market. (Apologies to Kluber). It’s incredibly unlikely, but paying Greinke 20-25 mil/year to run out his contract sounds really nice! Nicer than it did in November, somehow.

#124 ChrisKnutson

ChrisKnutson

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 477 posts

Posted 10 January 2019 - 08:41 PM

I wonder if they’d take back Duran.

#125 Winston Smith

Winston Smith

    2 + 2 = 5

  • Members
  • 2,941 posts
  • LocationOceania

Posted 10 January 2019 - 08:49 PM

Any offer would have to start with Duensing.

  • USAFChief, scottz, Otwins and 2 others like this

If you don't know where you are going, you might wind up someplace else.

 

Yogi Berra


#126 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 15,292 posts

Posted 11 January 2019 - 09:25 AM

Any offer would have to start with Duensing.


Duensing has a no-trade clause too. Contractually, he can no longer be a part of any fantasy trades on the internet. :)
  • ashbury likes this

#127 by jiminy

by jiminy

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 160 posts

Posted 11 January 2019 - 10:41 AM

Remember what the Twins gave up for Odorizzi? Me either. I think we're inflating his trade value a bit.

 

If the Twins were willing to pay Greinke his entire salary, $35M a year for three years,they could get him for no-names. But they wouldn't.That would be more than a third of their current payroll, for an aging picture clearly on the downside of his career.Not happening. 

 

Half a year of that salary, at the trade deadline, when they are in a playoff race, maybe.But now, and for three years? No way. They're not giving up talent, and busting the payroll, for someone with that much downside. I don't think the Twins would pay him $15M a year for three years as a free agent.

Edited by by jiminy, 11 January 2019 - 10:44 AM.


#128 Tomj14

Tomj14

    Pensacola Blue Wahoos

  • Members
  • 662 posts

Posted 11 January 2019 - 10:50 AM

 

Remember what the Twins gave up for Odorizzi? Me either. I think we're inflating his trade value a bit.

 

If the Twins were willing to pay Greinke his entire salary, $35M a year for three years,they could get him for no-names. But they wouldn't.That would be more than a third of their current payroll, for an aging picture clearly on the downside of his career.Not happening. 

 

Half a year of that salary, at the trade deadline, when they are in a playoff race, maybe.But now, and for three years? No way. They're not giving up talent, and busting the payroll, for someone with that much downside. I don't think the Twins would pay him $15M a year for three years as a free agent.

If the Twins wouldn't be willing to give Greinke 15 million for three years, who would they be willing to pay for?

Here are the players the twins can't get

Players that are too old, players that make too much, players that are too good and too young. (Doesn't leave much)

  • Twins33 and SF Twins Fan like this

#129 scottz

scottz

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 611 posts

Posted 11 January 2019 - 11:13 AM

 

Remember what the Twins gave up for Odorizzi? Me either. I think we're inflating his trade value a bit.

 

If the Twins were willing to pay Greinke his entire salary, $35M a year for three years,they could get him for no-names. But they wouldn't.That would be more than a third of their current payroll, for an aging picture clearly on the downside of his career.Not happening. 

 

Half a year of that salary, at the trade deadline, when they are in a playoff race, maybe.But now, and for three years? No way. They're not giving up talent, and busting the payroll, for someone with that much downside. I don't think the Twins would pay him $15M a year for three years as a free agent.

Twins picking up the entire salary and trading no names for him sounds fantastic. We're on his no-trade list, I believe, so it doesn't really matter, but I have to contest the "clearly on the downside of his career" part of your post. If you mean he has been worse than 2015 when he had a 1.66 ERA, 0.844 WHIP and threw 222.2 innings, then sure, he's on the downside. What does downside mean to you?

 

If the Twins can convince Greinke to waive his no-trade clause, they should do it immediately.

  • Twins33, 70charger, Tomj14 and 1 other like this

#130 laloesch

laloesch

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,734 posts

Posted 11 January 2019 - 11:46 AM

 

Too old, too expensive, move on.

 

Couldn't agree more. I want nothing part of such a deal.  


#131 ewen21

ewen21

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Members
  • 1,446 posts

Posted 11 January 2019 - 05:35 PM

 

Twins picking up the entire salary and trading no names for him sounds fantastic. We're on his no-trade list, I believe, so it doesn't really matter, but I have to contest the "clearly on the downside of his career" part of your post. If you mean he has been worse than 2015 when he had a 1.66 ERA, 0.844 WHIP and threw 222.2 innings, then sure, he's on the downside. What does downside mean to you?

 

If the Twins can convince Greinke to waive his no-trade clause, they should do it immediately.

You want to pay a pitcher 105 million dollars for three years of service in his age 35, 36 and 37 seasons.

 

Please don't be shocked when others don't agree with you

 

 

 

 


#132 crapforks

crapforks

    Member

  • Members
  • 357 posts

Posted 11 January 2019 - 08:28 PM

You want to pay a pitcher 105 million dollars for three years of service in his age 35, 36 and 37 seasons.

Please don't be shocked when others don't agree with you


105mil for those three seasons seems to not be an ideal use of funds. If there was a way, without much of a prospect return, to get those years for $60-$75mil? I’m into that. Of course it isn’t my money.

#133 Channing1964

Channing1964

    Ft Myers Miracle

  • Members
  • 332 posts
  • LocationPhoenix,Az

Posted 11 January 2019 - 08:40 PM

Zack Grienke is a winner no matter what, but i dont think he fits in our plans. Id rather see us get one or two of the available veteran guys and let em compete with Mejia and Pineda for the 4-5 rotation spots.
  • bighat likes this

#134 scottz

scottz

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 611 posts

Posted 11 January 2019 - 10:07 PM

You want to pay a pitcher 105 million dollars for three years of service in his age 35, 36 and 37 seasons.

Please don't be shocked when others don't agree with you


Things that I’m not shocked by:
1) Delayed flights out of O’Hare.
2) When people have different opinions than me.

That said, Greinke has had a stellar 15 year career and his “decline” in the last three years would have made him our #1 pitcher. Berrios is getting better and may pass/should pass Greinke over the next three years. Gibson has been good for the last year and almost a half. In that time he has not been as good as declining Greinke. I don’t expect him to be as good as declining Greinke for the next three years.

If we had $100 million on the books for 2020, I’d want to give better prospects in order to get a discount on the $35 mil. But we don’t. We have zero on the books beyond this year. Maybe they are planning to extend Berrios and Rosario and Buxton and Sano and Polanco and Astudillo (I can dream). But right now, $35 mil for Greinke and $100 mil for the rest of the team for 2019-2021? Yeah, let’s go.

But it won’t happen though, because of the no trade clause. And I haven’t heard anyone affiliated with the Twins say anything about him. No rumor except chatter in here. So, no worries to all of you with different opinions. It’s moot. Shocking!
  • 70charger, h2oface, spycake and 1 other like this

#135 jorgenswest

jorgenswest

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,175 posts

Posted 11 January 2019 - 10:55 PM

Grienke’s 105 million and three years sounds like a foolish deal until you realize that...

The Twins committed 114 million for 10 seasons of Hughes and Nolasco. The return was one good season. I would bet on two good seasons for the 105.

Last year they committed 38 million in free agency on their starting rotation in Lynn, Santana and Hughes. They combined to perform below replacement level. I would bet on the 35 million to Grienke.

Last year maybe spent 23 million on free agents Castro, Morrison and Reed. They also failed to reach replacement level. Turns out team friendly deals to third tier free agents doesn’t always pay off.

If the DBacks are willing to include some good prospect capital to get a team to take on the full deal I think it needs strong consideration. It could be an opportunity to add a guy to the top of the rotation and improve the farm system.

Count me in. I think I agree.
  • Mike Sixel, scottz, zenser and 5 others like this

#136 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 29,124 posts

Posted 11 January 2019 - 11:51 PM

Grienke’s 105 million and three years sounds like a foolish deal until you realize that...

The Twins committed 114 million for 10 seasons of Hughes and Nolasco. The return was one good season. I would bet on two good seasons for the 105.

Last year they committed 38 million in free agency on their starting rotation in Lynn, Santana and Hughes. They combined to perform below replacement level. I would bet on the 35 million to Grienke.

Last year maybe spent 23 million on free agents Castro, Morrison and Reed. They also failed to reach replacement level. Turns out team friendly deals to third tier free agents doesn’t always pay off.

If the DBacks are willing to include some good prospect capital to get a team to take on the full deal I think it needs strong consideration. It could be an opportunity to add a guy to the top of the rotation and improve the farm system.

Count me in. I think I agree.


Plus, they spent that money and took up three roster spots each year... Then replaced them with three bad players. And again.
  • scottz, Twins33, h2oface and 1 other like this

It's IL now, btw, not DL.....


#137 howieramone2

howieramone2

    Just say no to myths!

  • Members
  • 1,630 posts
  • LocationMaple Grove/Schaumburg

Posted 12 January 2019 - 01:04 PM

 

Grienke’s 105 million and three years sounds like a foolish deal until you realize that...

The Twins committed 114 million for 10 seasons of Hughes and Nolasco. The return was one good season. I would bet on two good seasons for the 105.

Last year they committed 38 million in free agency on their starting rotation in Lynn, Santana and Hughes. They combined to perform below replacement level. I would bet on the 35 million to Grienke.

Last year maybe spent 23 million on free agents Castro, Morrison and Reed. They also failed to reach replacement level. Turns out team friendly deals to third tier free agents doesn’t always pay off.

If the DBacks are willing to include some good prospect capital to get a team to take on the full deal I think it needs strong consideration. It could be an opportunity to add a guy to the top of the rotation and improve the farm system.

Count me in. I think I agree.

When did Castro and Reed become third tier free agents? Going into last season Castro caught the 2nd most innings of any catcher since 2013. He couldn't help it he got Darvished. When we signed Reed, he was the 3rd highest rated reliever in free agency. Hindsight is so cool.

Edited by howieramone2, 12 January 2019 - 01:16 PM.

  • jorgenswest likes this

#138 jorgenswest

jorgenswest

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,175 posts

Posted 12 January 2019 - 01:57 PM

When did Castro and Reed become third tier free agents? Going into last season Castro caught the 2nd most innings of any catcher since 2013. He couldn't help it he got Darvished. When we signed Reed, he was the 3rd highest rated reliever in free agency. Hindsight is so cool.


Fair enough. I was thinking tiers in terms of dollars committed. I wasn’t looking backward but rather that the dollars they received gave an indication of their value moving forward. They weren’t 100 million dollar guys or 50 million dollar guys or in terms of a single year they weren’t 25 million or 15 million dollar players. They signed contracts that almost any organization could take on. I should have described it that way.
  • howieramone2 likes this

#139 Battle ur tail off

Battle ur tail off

    Cedar Rapids Kernels

  • Members
  • 210 posts

Posted 14 January 2019 - 03:44 PM

 

When did Castro and Reed become third tier free agents? Going into last season Castro caught the 2nd most innings of any catcher since 2013. He couldn't help it he got Darvished. When we signed Reed, he was the 3rd highest rated reliever in free agency. Hindsight is so cool.

 

Since the catcher is a terrible hitter and marginal defensive catcher, I'd say. Also, certainly he was a middle of the road pickup and catcher when better options existed. 

 

Reed had pretty good value, but why go for the #3 guy? You knew your bullpen needed help, go get the top dog. Again, he was cheap and of Twins predictability. 

 

This is the reason the Twins rarely "win" trades or free agent signings. They go for guys that are looking for a bounceback season, or middle of the road dudes. I'm for quality over quantity. If they would just embrace that philosophy, I think they would be better off. 


#140 howieramone2

howieramone2

    Just say no to myths!

  • Members
  • 1,630 posts
  • LocationMaple Grove/Schaumburg

Posted 14 January 2019 - 04:04 PM

 

Since the catcher is a terrible hitter and marginal defensive catcher, I'd say. Also, certainly he was a middle of the road pickup and catcher when better options existed. 

 

Reed had pretty good value, but why go for the #3 guy? You knew your bullpen needed help, go get the top dog. Again, he was cheap and of Twins predictability. 

 

This is the reason the Twins rarely "win" trades or free agent signings. They go for guys that are looking for a bounceback season, or middle of the road dudes. I'm for quality over quantity. If they would just embrace that philosophy, I think they would be better off. 

Castro's above average defensively. Can you provide the board with the names of the better options? The top dog reliever in Colorado had a difficult year for much more money and many more years. The Rockies had better hope for a bounce back season from him.