Wednesday, October 31, 2018

Scouting the Trade Market: Zack Greinke

Before we dig into an intriguing and likely polarizing potential trade target, let's do a bit of housekeeping on where the Giants stand in regard to payroll room.  First of all, the Giants likely have close to unlimited resources for player payroll.  What held them back in 2018 was a desire to stay under the CBT threshold to avoid some nasty penalties that would kick in this year if they didn't.  You have to look at Cot's Tax Tracker shows that as of right now, they are committed to a bit over $168 M.  The Threshold rises significantly next year to $206 M giving them $37.8 M to spend before they reach it.  Looking ahead, they are committed to $132 M in 2020 and $96 M in 2021 so they are not in terrible shape in future seasons.  The Giants can also go as much as $20 M above threshold before the harsher penalties start kicking in so they might be willing to spend up $57 M for 2019 on player acquisition.

The conventional wisdom is that the Giants should start paring down payroll, try to dump big longterm contracts and set themselves up for a rebuild which would hopefully peak early next decade.  The problem with that scenario is the Giants have openly stated that is not an option.  They want to try to win in 2019 plus build for the future.  Crazy as it seems, if you look at the numbers above, they may well have the resources to do just that.

The D'Backs are openly considering a teardown of their current team as their window to win with Paul Goldschmidt is rapidly shrinking with must 1 more season before he becomes a FA.  The lions share of their payroll commitment is to one player, Zack Greinke.  If they are contemplating trading Paul Goldschmidt, then they almost certainly would jump at an opportunity to shed Greinke's salary even though Greinke has been earning his keep on the field.  Greinke has 3 years/$104.5 M left on his contract with an AAV of $34.4 M which is pretty close to his actual yearly compensation.  It's my understanding that some of that about $40 M of the total money is deferred beyond the end of the contract.  There is also a small bonus that activates if he is traded.

So here's the question: What if the Giants zigged when everyone says they should zag?  What if they took on Zack Greinke and all or part of his remaining contract?  On the surface, adding his contract would put the Giants right back up against the threshold all by itself which is clearly a bad idea.  But there's the question of how much overage the Giants might be willing to pay and their might be some ways to mitigate Greinke's cost.  As MLBTR pointed out, the D'Backs probably don't have to take back much of Greinke's cost because he appears to have plenty of value left but there might be some wiggle room.  They probably would balk at taking back the $73.3 M left on Evan Longoria's contract, but what if they took back Mark Melancon and the $31 M left on his deal?  What if they agreed to pay all or part of the deferred money?  Those scenarios could allow the Giants to add Greinke and still have money left over to upgrade the OF.  Let's break down what Zack Greinke brings to the table:

Performance:  Greinke is not what he was in his prime, but he's turned in solid numbers in his 3 years with the D'Backs with fWARs of 2.2, 5.1 and 3.5.  He's thrown over 200 innings in 4 of the last 5 seasons with steady K and BB rates with a modest GB tendency.  The one area in which he has been worse than in LA is HR/FB which should improve with pitching half his games in AT&T Park.

Stuff:  Greinke has excellent command of 4 pitches:  FB, Slider, curveball and changeup.  He has adjusted to the inevitable erosion of his FB velocity by gradually reducing how often he throws it and by relying more on a terrific changeup.  The curveball and changeup are his two best pitches.

Intangibles:  Zack Greinke will be 36 yo in 2019 and 38 in the final year of his contract.  He has aged very gracefully and seems to be in good position to maintain productivity through the end of the contract through adjustment in his pitch repertoire.  He fits in well with the Giants tradition of taking advantage of their pitches hitting abilities.  He is a bit of an odd duck personality with an open interest in Sabermetrics and commentary on management issues like the draft.  On the other hand, there has never been any hint of not fitting into a clubhouse or causing dissension.

Cost:  See discussion above.

Conclusion:  If the Giants are serious about contending in 2019, they should probably at least kick the tires on Zack Greinke and see how much of his cost the D'Backs might be willing to keep or take back in a swap of bad contracts.

Flame away!

9 comments:

  1. He's 5-0 at At&T in 7 starts, 30-8 at Dodger Stadium, what could go wrong with that?
    He wouldn't pull up lame like Samardzija or TJ like Cueto or daredevil like Bumgarner would he? Or forget how to pitch like Melancon?
    He just has to pitch better than just a good 36-38 year old, and not breakdown, right?
    No risk there!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Gotta get rid of something to take on a contract like that. Would the DBacks take Belt off our hands knowing they can’t resign Goldy? Belt will never thrive at AT$T and seems like there are multiple options for filling Belts shoes next season (Panda, Posey, Longoria) plus varios low cost options on the FA market. Not to mention it would open up a spot to sign Goldy after next year if they felt so inclined. The Giants cant afford to lose any offense but it isnt like they would be saying goodbye to a top 10 or really even a top 20 player at his position. Trick will be convincing AZ that Belt isnt complete trash which could be tough.

    ReplyDelete
  3. OT: Anyone following the snarky behavior / comments of Red Sox players and Cora? All over the internet - I am not seeing any positive sporting behavior here...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Why don't the Giants take Greinke AND Goldy - give back Belt and a young pitcher...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Brandon Belt is a near term asset not a candidate for a tear down or rebuild.
    How would he aid AZ?
    Prospects that they would consider for the future are exactly the ones that the Giants should be holding as tightly as they can -- for the Giants future!
    For someone with a 1B need for a challenge in 2019 would give AZ much more for Goldschmidt that the Giants can, would, or should.
    Hopefully...
    Swapping Greinke for Melancon aids AZ in their payroll without compromising 3+ years out but helps SF FO think they can compete in 2019, but at a high cost (net $25/yr less what AZ takes back).
    Address the OF problem 1st, and 2nd, through free agency then sign Holland and an SP comeback candidate or 2 for less than what Greinke would cost.
    The 2019 cost of Greinke (less Meloncon) isn't too frightful -- it could work for a year -- but the cost in 2021 for a 38-yo Greinke could well be a disaster.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Off topic a bit: the Dodgers squeezed a million off David Freese knowing his desire to stay in LA.
    They denied their $6MM option paying him $500K, then signed him for one year for $4.5MM, netting themselves a mill at the expense of a guy who wanted to be a Dodger(?).
    He performed down the stretch as a reliable RHB against LHP (overall for LAD: .385/.489/.641/1.130) and outhit the rest of the team in the WS. He was not the reason they lost!
    Freese turns 36 in April and susceptible to old age and not a plus fielder at best, but he comes to play and is par excellence in the post season.
    Good for LA, they get a veteran clubhouse presence and save a mill.
    Cheap basturds.
    (Misspelling intentional)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Pollock getting a QO isn't going to help him any!
    For a guy who is a health risk, that is multiplied for a high pick team like the Giants. Assuming they managed to get under the CBT last year, taking a QO player will cost their 2nd round pick, 10 after the supplemental. Could be like #50 or so. That's better than not having one in the 2nd round, isn't it?
    Pollock should stick AZ for $17.9 million, play cool with health, then he is a FA without a QO. He won't get that much with a 5-year, if he can even get a 5 year deal.
    Can't blame the D'backs for tagging him, but if they are rebuilding, what good does he do them? Can trade in off season -- he's a rental, or in July if he's healthy enough.
    This does neither team a favor, his value in acquisition is diminished, if he stays, he costs AZ a bunch more, probably more than he's worth.
    Kinda makes Harper more useful -- he's probably worth a lot more than the draft pick IF he plays to his good years rather than his bad years.
    PS, he has more "bad" years in the last 5 than good, 3 of them have been T OR below 1.5!
    At least one of them plays defense -- when he plays.
    Giants should avoid BOTH!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Is anyone concerned with the seemingly endless search for a GM?
    Is it not the "right" candidate, too many "right" candidates, or indecision at the top?
    We mere fans twist and turn while projecting our "the Giants should ..."
    Maybe the Giants aren't interested in the players with QO's but the 10-day period for the players to decide to accept/reject is now, not at the GM meetings starting tomorrow.
    GM meeting? Oh, let's send, uh, Amy G...
    Is there turmoil at the top?
    Is Charles Johnson stepping in as he did in the Stanton slap-down last year?
    Can the brass not decide who they want, just "we don't want Evans"?
    Was he the Giants problem last year, or was it was the flock who couldn't shoot straight.
    C'mon, Larry (Curly and Moe) do something.
    The natives are restless!
    (Can you say that anymore?)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MLBTR Latest Update — Nov. 4:

      The Giants have interest in Dodgers GM Farhan Zaidi, MLB.com’s Jon Morosi tweeted earlier this week, and The Athletic’s Ken Rosenthal reports (subscription required) that Zaidi is “likely” to interview with San Francisco. While it would be certainly interesting to see such a major executive jump between the two NL West arch-rivals, clubs generally don’t stand in the way of front office employees interviewing for jobs that would offer a promotion — Zaidi would be the head man in San Francisco, whereas Zaidi is behind Andrew Friedman on the Dodgers’ baseball operations hierarchy. Rosenthal speculates that Los Angeles could give Zaidi a raise to keep him in the fold. Zaidi joined the Dodgers following the 2014 season and his contract terms aren’t known, though since Friedman’s deal is up after the 2019 season, it stands to reason that Zaidi may also only have one more year remaining on his pact.
      Rosenthal also hears from one source that the Giants’ hunt for a new GM is “nowhere at the moment.” Part of the issue could be that the Giants “do not view themselves as the type of club that should settle for a team’s No. 2 executive,” even though big names (i.e. Friedman, Theo Epstein, Dave Dombrowski) who might fit a “No. 1” description don’t seem available. Indians president of baseball operations Chris Antonetti and GM Mike Chernoff “are not in play,” Rosenthal reports, at least for the Dodgers job and perhaps any other positions. Chernoff recently declined an interview with the Mets for their general managerial opening, and has reportedly been in talks with Cleveland about a contract extension.

      Abbott: Who's on first!
      Costello: I don't know.

      Wonder if they're on the interview list...

      https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/11/03/san-francisco-giants-gm-search-general-manager-hire-mlb-trade-rumors/

      Delete