What does Arizona take for Greinke?

[Richie the Rally Goat]

I'm not saying we should do nothing ever. But I'm saying that getting Greinke now and giving up what it would take to get him would most likely be a net negative for the franchise. This team needs to have a better core of players on the major league roster before we start thinking about this type of trade.

the whole premise of the thread is if AZ wants to offload the contract, the prospect cost of acquiring Greinke would be low, and if the Twins take all including the deferral could even bring back a couple flier prospects or lower the prospect cost of acquiring Paul Goldschmidt.

[ewen21]

Grienke has had a resurgence, but it's a hard bet for a team like this one to make. Track record or not, we are paying a guy from age 35-37 over almost a million for each years he has aged. His track record shows he's had down years and injuries as well. That becomes more and more likely the further you extend the timeline.

 

If Grienke were in his late 20's then it makes sense. Not sure where it leaves us to have this guy. We are betting against all odds that he bucks every trend in the historical arc of pitchers. Calling for Grienke now is silly, in my opinion

[jorgenswest]

Greinke is not the answer. Here is a fact: Other than the 2004 Boston Red Sox, no team won the World Series without a LHSP. So the Twins need to focus on a lefty (and Mejia is not the answer).

I don’t think there is causation here. It is very rare to go through a season without a starting left handed pitcher. Since the Red Sox won the series in 2004 there I think there have been 8 teams (less than 2%) including last year’s Indians. When there is better than a 98% chance that a team will have used a lefty starter it shouldn’t be surprising that it is very infrequent that a team wins the World Series without a left handed starter. The Twins should target the best pitcher regardless of left handed or right handed.

 

I do find your other argument about Grienke’s velocity compelling and the Twins really need to do their homework projecting his next three years.

[S.]

 

Grienke has had a resurgence, but it's a hard bet for a team like this one to make. Track record or not, we are paying a guy from age 35-37 over almost a million for each years he has aged. His track record shows he's had down years and injuries as well. That becomes more and more likely the further you extend the timeline.

If Grienke were in his late 20's then it makes sense. Not sure where it leaves us to have this guy. We are betting against all odds that he bucks every trend in the historical arc of pitchers. Calling for Grienke now is silly, in my opinion

If Greinke were in his late 20s, we wouldn't be having this conversation because we would have to trade Lewis and some of our other top prospects.

[ewen21]

If Greinke were in his late 20s, we wouldn't be having this conversation because we would have to trade Lewis and some of our other top prospects.

And there is the issue right there. This organization has been so irrationally skittish about making an actual baseball trade that takes some balls. Getting Grienke now is dumb. Period. He's 35 years old and we need to be in rebuild mode. What can anyone realistically expect from him next season, much less the next two seasons after that?

 

For whatever reason, this organization has had trouble thinking of young players as assets. They think of young players as projects instead. Luckily Kiriloff and Lewis don't seem to be projects with raw talent needing to be massaged and honed.

 

This organization has blatantly overvalued what it has on the farm for years. Wake me up when we are looking to sign a guy like Syndergaard. Organizations like KC, Milwaukee and Tampa have have taken risks trading away young talent, but when they do they do not bring back different young talent in its place. We've been incredibly stupid organizing our roster. For example, we should tried to trade Dozier a few years ago when he was at his maximum value. We had Polanco ready to step in and replace him, but no.....there was this silly notion that Dozier was a veteran leader.

 

Time to take a much more pragmatic view of what we have rather than getting all romantic about prospects. Sano could have been traded a couple of years ago when he had lots of value. He's never been a fit for this organization and he can't wait to get out.

 

Signing Grienke is a lightweight move, in my opinion. It's more about bringing in a name than it is building the roster smartly.

[old nurse]

 

And there is the issue right there. This organization has been so irrationally skittish about making an actual baseball trade that takes some balls. Getting Grienke now is dumb. Period. He's 35 years old and we need to be in rebuild mode. What can anyone realistically expect from him next season, much less the next two seasons after that?

For whatever reason, this organization has had trouble thinking of young players as assets. They think of young players as projects instead. Luckily Kiriloff and Lewis don't seem to be projects with raw talent needing to be massaged and honed.

This organization has blatantly overvalued what it has on the farm for years. Wake me up when we are looking to sign a guy like Syndergaard. Organizations like KC, Milwaukee and Tampa have have taken risks trading away young talent, but when they do they do not bring back different young talent in its place. We've been incredibly stupid organizing our roster. For example, we should tried to trade Dozier a few years ago when he was at his maximum value. We had Polanco ready to step in and replace him, but no.....there was this silly notion that Dozier was a veteran leader.

Time to take a much more pragmatic view of what we have rather than getting all romantic about prospects. Sano could have been traded a couple of years ago when he had lots of value. He's never been a fit for this organization and he can't wait to get out.

Signing Grienke is a lightweight move, in my opinion. It's more about bringing in a name than it is building the roster smartly.

Dozier's maximum value was Jose De Leon.

[old nurse]

Which 15 teams does Grienke block? It would almost be a given that he would not have to block known cash strapped teams like Tampa Bay, Pittsburgh, Oakland or Miami. and probably the Royals. Detroit could be added with their 2 bad contracts. Money flow seems to be effecting the Mets and Rockies.  The chances are the Twins would be on the blocked team list.  Grienke has already made over 200 million and has 200 more coming with deferred money.  I don't think offering him a little more money will appeal him to join a sub 500 team.

[S.]

 

What can anyone realistically expect from him next season, much less the next two seasons after that?

A better pitcher than anyone on our roster?

[nicksaviking]

Which 15 teams does Grienke block? It would almost be a given that he would not have to block known cash strapped teams like Tampa Bay, Pittsburgh, Oakland or Miami. and probably the Royals. Detroit could be added with their 2 bad contracts. Money flow seems to be effecting the Mets and Rockies.  The chances are the Twins would be on the blocked team list.  Grienke has already made over 200 million and has 200 more coming with deferred money.  I don't think offering him a little more money will appeal him to join a sub 500 team.

Yeah I’d like to know which teams are on the list as well. Greinke is a bit eccentric though, his list might be less predictable than most players. Who knows if his is based on financial incentives.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Yeah I’d like to know which teams are on the list as well. Greinke is a bit eccentric though, his list might be less predictable than most players. Who knows if his is based on financial incentives.

 

I do know that he loves to bat, so there is a good chance his list is predominantly AL.

[Mike Sixel]

A better pitcher than anyone on our roster?

Concur

[ewen21]

Dozier's maximum value was Jose De Leon.

Precisely. And this was a guy held up by some as the "face of the franchise"

The market for second baseman was limited and Dozier isn't as good as a lot of our fanbase believed him to be. For the Dogers to deal DeLeon for Forsythe tells you all you need to know about what the market thought of our "face of the franchise"

 

In any event, I don't support a move for a pitcher over 35 years old that's going to cost a ton of money. I don't need to see us make a splash just to make a splash. Grienke's rope could run out at any time given his age. I think people want Grienke just to see the Twins land a big name

[ewen21]

A better pitcher than anyone on our roster?

He's just going to keep pitching at the same level when he switches leagues at age 35. The money and age makes the move ridiculous. I predict a sharp decline within the next two years. That's not even a stretch. As a matter of fact, it is highly likely

[old nurse]

 

Precisely. And this was a guy held up by some as the "face of the franchise"
The market for second baseman was limited and Dozier isn't as good as a lot of our fanbase believed him to be. For the Dogers to deal DeLeon for Forsythe tells you all you need to know about what the market thought of our "face of the franchise"

In any event, I don't support a move for a pitcher over 35 years old that's going to cost a ton of money. I don't need to see us make a splash just to make a splash. Grienke's rope could run out at any time given his age. I think people want Grienke just to see the Twins land a big name

That some would call Dozier "the face of the franchise" is to not see Mauer.  The return for Dozier will likely be as productive for De Leon     Given the money owed Grenke, the return for him would be similar to Dozier. 

 

[Major League Ready]

 

A better pitcher than anyone on our roster?

 

Berrios was one place lower in WAR ranking among all MLB SPs last year. At the end of next season Berrios will be a couple months shy of 26 and Greinke will be about to turn 36. In other words, Berrios is coming into his prime and Greinke is at a point where a very large (almost all) SPs decline significantly. So, it’s possible Greinke will be better than Berrios next year but I would not bet on it. I would bet Berrios has a higher WAR over the next 3 years.

 

Regardless, Greinke likely makes us better next year but unless he defies the odds in a big way, the money could be spent more effectively. I would prefer to extend Gibson or sign your $15-18M FA of choice this year or next and invest the difference. Eolvaldi would be a better choice too but obviously the competition will be fierce for him. Any of these moves makes us better for a longer period of time.

 

We have plenty of investment opportunities.  Buxton / Sano / Cave / Kepler / Austin / Garver and even Rosario all have a significant gap between floor and ceiling and it would be nice to have as much budget as possible to address these positions as some of them likely will fail. I include Rosario because he was horrible the 2nd half as a result of opposing pitchers adapting and I am not totally convinced he can counteract those adaptions.

[S.]

 

He's just going to keep pitching at the same level when he switches leagues at age 35. The money and age makes the move ridiculous. I predict a sharp decline within the next two years. That's not even a stretch. As a matter of fact, it is highly likely

He could add a full 1.00 to his 2018 ERA and he'd still be a top 3 pitcher on our team even IF (and that's a big if) Gibson can maintain his 2018 numbers. Show me where I said he has to keep pitching at the same level to be a worthwhile investment? He put up a 3.21 ERA last season. Even if he added a full run to his ERA, I think most fans would've been ecstatic to have another pitcher on our roster puting up a 4.25 ERA and giving us 180-200 innings and I don't see why I should just assume Greinke is going to immediately implode and turn into trash. Yes, he is in his decline phase, but his decline phase is sure as **** going to be better than every pitcher currently on our roster not named Berrios or Gibson, and it would not surprise me if their numbers are comparable or Greinke outperforms one or both for some of those years.

 

As I pointed out earlier, "In 2018: Greinke - 135 ERA+, 3.70 FIP. Gibson - 121 ERA+, 4.13 FIP. Berrios - 114 ERA+, 4.22 FIP. Or any other stat you prefer, Greinke still outperformed both. And lets not forget that Gibson's 2017 and 2016 seasons he put up 5.07 ERA and 83/87 ERA+." 

 

Regardless, Greinke likely makes us better next year but unless he defies the odds in a big way, the money could be spent more effectively. I would prefer to extend Gibson or sign your $15-18M FA of choice this year or next and invest the difference. Eolvaldi would be a better choice too but obviously the competition will be fierce for him. Any of these moves makes us better for a longer period of time.

 

So you extend Gibson and that somehow improves our pitching staff over 2018? What FA are you getting for $15-18M that is better than Greinke? When you say "invest the difference" do you mean the Pohlads pocket some more cash or what exactly are you investing in that is going to improve our pitching staff?

[ewen21]

Historical data for a pitcher entering his late 30s isn't something I'd use for future projections. Guys in that age bracket fade quickly.

 

Pretend all you want about how he'd be the best pitcher on our staff in 2019. He'd be the highest paid most credentialed guy, that's for sure

To keep on insisting he'd be the "best pitcher on our staff" is absurd to me.

 

Grienke makes zero sense for a team in our current position. Zero

[S.]

 

Historical data for a pitcher entering his late 30s isn't something I'd use for future projections. Guys in that age bracket fade quickly.

Honest question then: if his stats from the last year or two are irrelevant for projecting his 2019 performance, how would one go about projecting his future performance? I understand if people don't care about his numbers from 5 or 10 years ago, but how would you gauge his projected future performance if you're not going to use his numbers from the last year or two?

 

And perhaps you aren't all on the Gibson train (sorry, no offense meant - I have a hard time keeping track of who said what in some of these threads), but if you're a Gibson guy, why is it fair to assume his 2018 numbers are the new normal when he is 31 years old and his only good seasons of the last 6 seasons have been 2018 and 2015?

 

Anyways, to be completely honest, I'd say the chance that we actually get Greinke is probably close to 0 so this is more just an exercise in forum discussion/debate regardless. I certainly don't think Greinke is a sure thing but we have plenty of money. And we aren't going to be getting Kershaw or Eovaldi. And we aren't going to be trading Lewis and our other top prospects for an ace. And doing some low risk/low reward 4th and 5th starter signings isn't going to move the needle on being competitive in the post season, where as I think IF Greinke could be solid for even 2 of those 3 years, that could be a big boon to us. There absolutely is risk (mostly just in the form of money since he isn't going to cost top prospects), but the potential reward could be good. Or we could extend Gibson, sign another 4th man, and go the low risk, low reward route, which is probably the most realistic scenario.

[Major League Ready]

 

He could add a full 1.00 to his 2018 ERA and he'd still be a top 3 pitcher on our team even IF (and that's a big if) Gibson can maintain his 2018 numbers. Show me where I said he has to keep pitching at the same level to be a worthwhile investment? He put up a 3.21 ERA last season. Even if he added a full run to his ERA, I think most fans would've been ecstatic to have another pitcher on our roster puting up a 4.25 ERA and giving us 180-200 innings and I don't see why I should just assume Greinke is going to immediately implode and turn into trash. Yes, he is in his decline phase, but his decline phase is sure as **** going to be better than every pitcher currently on our roster not named Berrios or Gibson, and it would not surprise me if their numbers are comparable or Greinke outperforms one or both for some of those years.

 

As I pointed out earlier, "In 2018: Greinke - 135 ERA+, 3.70 FIP. Gibson - 121 ERA+, 4.13 FIP. Berrios - 114 ERA+, 4.22 FIP. Or any other stat you prefer, Greinke still outperformed both. And lets not forget that Gibson's 2017 and 2016 seasons he put up 5.07 ERA and 83/87 ERA+." 

 

 

So you extend Gibson and that somehow improves our pitching staff over 2018? What FA are you getting for $15-18M that is better than Greinke? When you say "invest the difference" do you mean the Pohlads pocket some more cash or what exactly are you investing in that is going to improve our pitching staff?

 

I already said Greinke likely improves the team next year unless he drops off the ledge like James Shield did when he turned 35. Not the point ... Pitching is not the only way to make the team better? The incremental payroll budget should be used wherever it provides the greatest net gain. Even with the restriction of improving pitching, Extending Gibson or signing a similar FA + investing in the BP or the $13M being used to sign a $23M/year SP instead of a $10M SP is likely more effective than spending $25M/yr on Greinke in the final two years of his contract.

 

Obviously, the $23M vs $10M is hypothetical but one thing we can say with certainty is that teams with $250-275M in annual revenue will run out of money before the teams with $450-$550M in revenue. Productivity per dollar spent is incredibly important for a team with less than average revenue no matter how unpopular the theory might be here. The difference provides a opportunity to sign Eovaldi as an example.

[Major League Ready]

 

Honest question then: if his stats from the last year or two are irrelevant for projecting his 2019 performance, how would one go about projecting his future performance? I understand if people don't care about his numbers from 5 or 10 years ago, but how would you gauge his projected future performance if you're not going to use his numbers from the last year or two?

 

And perhaps you aren't all on the Gibson train (sorry, no offense meant - I have a hard time keeping track of who said what in some of these threads), but if you're a Gibson guy, why is it fair to assume his 2018 numbers are the new normal when he is 31 years old and his only good seasons of the last 6 seasons have been 2018 and 2015?

 

Anyways, to be completely honest, I'd say the chance that we actually get Greinke is probably close to 0 so this is more just an exercise in forum discussion/debate regardless. I certainly don't think Greinke is a sure thing but we have plenty of money. And we aren't going to be getting Kershaw or Eovaldi. And we aren't going to be trading Lewis and our other top prospects for an ace. And doing some low risk/low reward 4th and 5th starter signings isn't going to move the needle on being competitive in the post season, where as I think IF Greinke could be solid for even 2 of those 3 years, that could be a big boon to us. There absolutely is risk (mostly just in the form of money since he isn't going to cost top prospects), but the potential reward could be good. Or we could extend Gibson, sign another 4th man, and go the low risk, low reward route, which is probably the most realistic scenario.

 

The all it costs is money argument suggests how effectively the given payroll is used has little correlation to success. Given we can say with absolute certainty that the Twins have to produce nearly double the WAR per $ spent as the top teams in terms of revenue, this premise is badly flawed. Look up "opportunity costs".

[Rosterman]

Actually, looking at the bigger picture, you could probably extend both Odorizi and Gibson for the same amount owned Greinke for the length of the contract and still have monies left over for a pretty darn good relief pitcher on a 2-3 year deal.

[Mike Sixel]

Actually, looking at the bigger picture, you could probably extend both Odorizi and Gibson for the same amount owned Greinke for the length of the contract and still have monies left over for a pretty darn good relief pitcher on a 2-3 year deal.

That does not make the team much, if any, better.

[S.]

 

The all it costs is money argument suggests how effectively the given payroll is used has little correlation to success. Given we can say with absolute certainty that the Twins have to produce nearly double the WAR per $ spent as the top teams in terms of revenue, this premise is badly flawed. Look up "opportunity costs".

All I said was that the risk we would take with Greinke is primarily a money cost and not a prospect cost, which is factually correct. Obviously money is still a cost and being effective with payroll is important to success. And yes, spending big money on Greinke means less money to spend elsewhere. My point was that trading for another pitcher who is somewhere in the ballpark of Greinke's skillset is going to cost good prospects, where as Greinke will not require nearly those same level of prospects due to his contract and the fact that Arizona is looking to shed some payroll. Whether or not you value the money or the prospects more is open for debate (and also depends on the prospects and who the other pitchers would be), but the simple fact is that if Greinke was on a $10M a year contract, or if Arizona decided they wanted to eat most of the contract, they'd be asking for good prospects. Thus my statement that there absolutely is risk but its mostly in the form of money. I wasn't saying that spending big money isn't a risk in its own right.

 

Actually, looking at the bigger picture, you could probably extend both Odorizi and Gibson for the same amount owned Greinke for the length of the contract and still have monies left over for a pretty darn good relief pitcher on a 2-3 year deal.

 

Extending Odorizzi does nothing to improve this team's starting pitching. I want to be competitive in the post season. Odorizzi does not move the needle at all in that regard.

[ewen21]

I'm basing this off historical data for pitchers Grienke's. When you extend out that timeline a player's useful life ends. Not many get as far as he's gotten.

 

You cannot act like he's ten years younger than he is. We inherit three years of Grienke in his late 30s. Not sure why anyone would get all fired up to bring him here

[Major League Ready]

We can definitely afford an Eovaldi type free agent if we don't have any significant dead weight contracts.  Obviously, landing a free agent SP with this profile is an uphill battle even with the available budget. The point being we should exhaust any such option and avoid the practices that are likely self-defeating. FAs that produce 1WAR/12-15M in payroll is self-defeating.

 

If we spend $60M of a $130M budget on 4 players that produce 6 WAR, we have to average almost 2 WAR across all of the remaining roster. This equates to 1.73 WAR per million $ of payroll. That is a very tall order. Go ahead and sign high profile guys but they need to produce 1 WAR per $4M like JD Martinez did last year. That type of production nets an additional 9 wins.

[PseudoSABR]

[nicksaviking]

That sure is a mish-mash of teams, some look like contenders he may waive the clause for but would like leverage, others are definitely not contenders so he really just must not want to go places like Detroit or Baltimore. I could see the Twins either way as his agent may have said they were one of the 15 most likely teams to make a deal. Notably, Milwaukee is not on the list and they are a contender, so he must be very open to going there as one poster previously speculated. No Chicago, Florida or Texas teams either.

[cmoss84]

The more I think about it, the more I am loving the idea of bringing in Greinke-as long as it is with Goldschmidt. 

Initially I was in the "no way do I want to spend 95 million on a 35-year old SP" camp. 

 

But after looking at some numbers, and projecting what both of these guys can do for us...I am in. 

 

Greinke is due 95.5 million over the next 3 years...basically 32/year. Let's say we non-tender Odorizzi, saving 9 million, and replace his spot in our rotation with any combo of Gonsalves/Mejia/Romero. Essentially, we'd be paying Greinke 23 this year and 32 the last two years. He has surpassed 200 innings 5 of the last 7 years. Some of you might say this is a bad thing-more miles, etc. etc, but he is a great athlete who has a history of being very durable. Let's say his drop looks something like this:

2019: 190 inn. 3.50 ERA. 175 SO. 15 wins.

2020: 175 inn. 3.75 ERA. 160 SO. 15 wins.

2021: 160 inn. 4.00 ERA. 150 SO. 13 wins.

(you are more than welcome to project different numbers and share)

 

I am not going to argue that he would be our best pitcher, but he would be our #2 this year and our #3 the last two years. I also have a feeling that if we ate his entire salary, we would receive Goldschmidt for very little. 

Berrios

Greinke

Gibson

Pineda

Romero (then Mejia/Gonsalves)

 

We cut bait with Cron, putting that $ towards Goldy. He splits time at 1B and DH and hits .290 30/100 runs/100 RBI. We would still have money for one high quality RP and one high quality IF. 

 

We have to win the division NOW! 

 

*do this, then go get Noah for Royce or Kiriloff (yes, three years of cheap Noah is worth it).

 

 

[ChrisKnutson]

This may sound crazy, but maybe we should follow the Met’s blueprint and ask for 2B/SS Ketel Marte to be included in the deal, because let’s be honest, taking on Greinke’s entire contract for some of our top prospects doesn’t seem like a good idea, regardless how of how well Greinke pitches. If I were to guess, I’d bet that those two would likely cost us Larnach, Arraez, Gonsalves, and Cave (fills their immediate CF need).

[Danchat]

I don't think the Twins are at the point where Greinke would want to waive his no-trade clause to play for us. If the Twins were competitive, maybe it'd be another story, but I don't think he's going to be an option.