MLBTR and Rotoworld had some interesting comments about the Zack Greinke FA negotiations this offseason. Good ol' Zack is openly saying that he made a proposal to the Rangers before he accepted the Dodgers' offer and added that he was simply looking for what team would give him the most money. His exact quote? "I could play for the worst team if they paid the most."
I'm not sure what to make of that. I believe money is the biggest factor for most players, possibly rightly so. Professional ballplayers work in an profession with a very small window in which to likely make the vast majority of the money they will ever make in their life. It would be irresponsible for them to not grab it while they have the chance. On the other hand, when you are talking about a 9 figure deal, it is also likely that you are set for life, no matter what and a few extra millions tacked onto an option are not going to determine whether you die in poverty or luxury.
You could reasonably infer from Greinke's comments that when push comes to shove, he's also not going to do anything to help his team win if it means something less for him, no matter how minute. You have to wonder if a guy like Greinke would have reacted with the grace of Barry Zito if he was left off a postseason roster, or with the enthusiasm of Timmy if he was put in the bullpen for the postseason.
Maybe Zack Greinke will be the guy who solidifies the Dodgers' pitching rotation and gives that star-studded, gold-plated team the championship they are trying to buy. All I know is there is another team in the Dodgers' division that has won it all 2 out of the last 3 seasons with a 180 degree opposite attitude coming out of the clubhouse.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My guess is that if Greinke were in the dugout when Hunter did his speach in Cincinnati in the playoffs last year, he would have been booking his tee times for the following week instead of throwing sunflower seeds in the air. This is exactly the kind of attitude you don't want on your team and especially not at that price tag. Where do the dodgers think he is going to find the motivation to push himself now that he has satisfied his only concern of getting paid? Not that I feel sorry for the Dodgers in any way but what a horrible way to build a team!!
ReplyDeleteTo those who rightly point out Sabean learns from his mistakes, this one confirms it - he was wrong to get Beltran but corrected the mistake by getting Pence the next year, at least as far as team chemistry, which is way undervaluded even by Sabean before, is concerned.
DeleteI prefer to look at it more from the process than the results with the GM's moves. Any trade is a roll of the dice, just because it didn't work didn't mean that he should not have done the move, just like if it worked, it did not mean that he did the right thing (that last angle is the one most used by Sabean Naysayers after 2010 and still to a lesser extent after 2012).
DeleteThe thing is, Beltran have joined teams and carried them with great hitting. He's also disappeared when teams need him most because he's nursing an injury (much like for the Giants in 2011, Cards in 2012 playoffs). Given that the team was leading - when they had no rights to be leading with Posey out for the season, Sandoval out for large parts of the season, Zito out of the season too - I can understand why the Giants decided to go for it all at that point and get Beltran. Not every team has the chance to repeat. He's kind of like Two-Face's coin in the Batman series: you don't know which side will be face up.
Likewise, I'm sure Sabean had heard some good word about Pence as a teammate, but there is no way to know how one particular person will fit in with the group nor that he's suddenly going to lead the team and bring out the best in everyone, as he appeared to do in the Reds series (I consider all the rest more baseball superstitious traditions than uplifting Knute Rockne's stuff).
I'm not sure this is a particular area that Sabean could have learned from, sometimes you have to dance with the devil to get where you want to go. He rolled that dice with Beltran and lost, but that doesn't mean that he shouldn't have took the trade, I don't think.
I watched the world series film again last night. Bochy said at the end "lets do what we can to win"... Yup, sounds right. Not wrapped up in ego, not wrapped up in himself, wrapped up in putting players in the best place to succeed. That's a Larry Baer quote, about Big Head. Hah.
ReplyDeleteAlls I know is this is going to be a clash of the titans. We got the rabid fans, we got the home grown core, we got the hunger. Lets go up against their best, and lets beat em senseless.
I would add also that often players put too much pressure on themselves that they can't perform as they are able. Best example of that from quotes I've seen is Ishikawa. He would be up and down, but at some point he decided to, as he said it, put it in God's hands, and he started hitting like he could. I would also put Zito's first two seasons with us, plus all of Lincecum's first starts for us, the pressure gets to people (and that's human, that's life) and they underperform what they are capable of.
DeleteWhen a manager can get the team to play as they are capable, to do what they can to win, that gets the ego out of the way and let's the player's talent shine more. Actually there is a great example of that just this week, with Belt. He was interviewed and he expanded upon this quote he gave a while back, about how he stopped thinking about himself and started thinking about the team. This time, he gave a timing of when this happened and he hit .323/.383/.472/.855 for the rest of the season.
So if the manager can get the player out of his own head and to let the player's talent shine in spite of what he might normally be thinking, that manager is doing his job. Bochy appears to be good at that (but not perfect, both Rowand and Tejada bellyached last season and got dumped soon afterward) and his history in one-run games as well as performance above Pythagorean, as a THT study found (their study found that he added on average one win per season over what could be expected based on actual runs scored and allowed) supports that he has the knack of getting the most out of his players (Dusty too, just not to as good an extent).
I don't need to beat them senseless, I don't even need to beat them in the annual series, I just need for the Giants to get further into the playoffs than the Dodgers do. A senseless beating or dozen wouldn't be so bad either. :^D
With the way the Dodgers are constructed, I don't see them winning anything at the moment unless everything breaks right for them. Besides the obvious need for staying healthy, someone is going to have to step up and be a leader on that team, and there don't appear to be too many candidates. If injuries do crop up and they start losing, who in that clubhouse is going to rally their teammates to turn it around. That's a team filled with head cases and me first types, with a manager who lacks the ability to bring them together. Sure their talent might win out, but there's also the possibility that they completely tank to start the season and never recover.
ReplyDeleteReally, it all still comes down to Kemp and Kershaw, since if they are playing at MVP levels then the Dodgers will be good and if either one is hurt or struggling, then LA is probably doomed.
I agree that they need a leader, but I don't know that Mattingly isn't capable of leading the team. I don't know that he is either, basically I think that is yet to be seen. It is hard to lead when everyone is getting to know each other. I think that they at least has that possibility, though I would totally agree with you that right now the Dodgers don't look like they have a player who could lead them.
DeleteStill, who knew that Pence would end up being the spiritual leader in that way? Posey, yeah, he's a definite possibility but no Giants fan would have brought up Pence as the likely hero when we were facing elimination, down two games to none, one loss away from going on vacation.
Ideally (for them), one of their star players is going to step up and take the reins. So far, it does not look like anyone is taking that mantle. I wouldn't say that they are doomed if one of the K's are hurt or struggling, but that's also true for any team, losing one of your best players will always hurt, as we saw, it handicapped the Giants in the first half, but once he got going in the second half, the team started winning more too.
Just noticed that Billingsley has a bad year/good year cycle going and that suggests that 2013 could be a bad year for him. We can at least hope so.
Greinke did help lead the Angels down the stretch with his performance. He should have won a number of games that the team lost because they could not score the runs to win, that could have gotten them into the playoffs, especially down the stretch, at the end. Plus he helped the Brewers get into the playoffs his first year with them too. So I would not write him off quite yet, but 2013 would be a telling year, given all the pressure on the players and everyone, from GM down to the rest of the team. The owners aren't buying losers and if the team stumbles out the gate, I assume the clock will be ticking for people, starting with Colletti, and Mattingly too, as the new GM would presumably be allowed to pick whoever he wants, and that goes for players too, as the GM might want to shake things up, just at minimum to show that he's doing something to fix things, because obviously what they have isn't working.
Have to give Grienke some credit for being honest and not saying one of the most overused phrases when a free agent signs a mega contract: "It's not about the money." Though I don't think Grienke will just take the money and not pitch well from slacking off, but we will have to see about that.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with some of the comments here. Once things take a turn for the worst, it's going to be hard to see someone in that Dodgers clubhouse stepping up and being THE leader. Too many "leaders" and not enough people willing to "follow." Looks like there's going to be another Lakers team in LA.
I agree that Greinke deserves a point or two for honesty here. Was going to mention it in my post, but it interrupted the flow and so skipped over it and then forgot to put it back in later.
DeleteGreat post DrB, very thought provoking!
ReplyDeleteThis gets at the whole debate that, to generalize, pits the sabers against the traditionalists, for lack of better categories. On the saber side, the general thought is "if we can't measure it, it don't exist". On the trad side, "chemistry will help teams win".
If you have followed Greinke to any extent, you know that he's a saber. He knows about FIP, he knows about DIPS, he focuses his energies towards improving per DIPS dictates, though ironically, I think he's one of those pitchers who regularly underperforms his FIP. So of course he's going to say "go for the money" because he figures that the winning will take care of itself.
It don't hurt, either, that LAD is spending all that money too, from his perspective, and look to do so going forward. We need to remember that a player is not going to share all of his feelings and factors into his decision, just the ones he feels like sharing.
And I think that is what might be unsaid on his part, that the LA money spending spree makes him think that they can be the Yankees of the West, and therefore can win the championship at some point. I think the general impression, too, is that World Series championship today is now random, that Selig has made the conditions right for the game today that it is very hard for any team to dominate and thus what the Giants did is lucky or flukey or both.
What he's missing, I think, is that history shows that it is not money that buys you championships, it is good, talented players. The Yankees won all those championships during the Jeter era because of Jeter and co, not because of their money, though that helped to keep the team together, so that did help extend things (of course, all my opinion). That's why they didn't win with Mattingly, they didn't have the talent nor could buy that talent, at least during that time.
And I used Jeter when I probably should have said Pettitte and Riviera, as it is pitching that is the linchpin of winning World Series, as I've been saying for a long while, based on the BP study on success in the playoffs.
I agree about the money, at that level, you should think about other factors that matters to you. Do you want to live there? Will you be able to live your lifestyle there? How important is winning to you? How important is World Series winning? I have brought up many of these points with regards to Lincecum, as I fear that he'll be another Zito-esque albatross if he went to LA or NY, whereas if he stuck with SF for a few million less per season, he can stay comfortable and accepted, whereas what he saw Zito get in SF will be exponentially worse if he joined the Dodgers or Yankees (and to a lesser degree, the Mets) where the media spotlight is that much brighter as well as harsher.
About what he's willing or unwilling to do, vis-a-vis Zito and Lincecum, I don't know him enough to say either way. That he chose money over winning could suggest, as you say DrB, that he won't be a team player. However, if he chose money over winning because he thinks anyone can win, he could still be willing to work for the team even in that circumstance, of course, as long as the manager can explain it so that he accepts that as the truth.
Lets be honest guys, no matter how much all of us think we know what we would do if we found ourselves in Greinke's situation we don't. There is only one thing that any of these players can allow to be on their minds and it is the money. Greinke is no different from any other player staring at possibly their first and only big pay day. When you reach that point in your career there are no loyalties to your team or city or the school systems in Mike Hampton's case. The only loyalty you have is to yourself and that is why you take the money everytime. If you forget this concept as a player you can be assured your agent will help you remember.
ReplyDeleteIt isn't the worst thing in the world to play for whoever the team is that overpays for you. Chances are that if the team doesn't win they will end up trading you to a contender before the deadline a few years into your enormous contract! Although highly unlikely, it is possible that a free agent could arrive and actually earn the money they sign for (Barry Bonds and Miggy Cabrera are the only 2 that come to mind) and end up a hero! That's why you don't give hometown discounts or let any other factor affect your decision. You never know what will happen after you sign that contract and for which team you will actually be playing when the contract ends.
I agree up to a point. I do think that if you give a hometown discount or monetary concessions for non-financial benefits whether it be winning, location, climate, schools, whatever that it's only fair that you get a no-trade clause to assure that your team won't do what the Marlins did this offseason.
DeleteThat's not always true. Carlos Lee told the Giants to stop giving him an offer (even if they were willing) because he got what he was looking for from the Astros (he has huge ranch nearby). Pagan jumped at the Giants offer once it reached 4 years, even though he had a number of other suitors who maybe would have been willing to up their offer. Scutaro accepted our 3 year, $21M deal, even though the Cards 2 year, $18M deal suggests that he could have gotten $24-27M for a 3 year deal.
DeleteThe fact is: everyone is different. To some, location is more valuable. Javier Vazquez would only sign with a team in the East Coast time zone so that he'll be closer to home. And yeah, some will want as much money as they can get. Not ballplayer, but Bob Hope was infamous for wanting every dollar he could get even after he was fabulously wealthy. I'm sure there are players like that. I was honestly surprised that Bumgarner signed that deal with us. I thought he would want to be closer to home, but he appreciated all the Giants had given to him and done for him, clearly.
It is not the worse thing in the world to take the biggest deal necessarily. But it is if it puts you into a position that you are not comfortable with or can't handle. Of course, sometimes you think you can but you can't, but that's life. But they should at least be considering those other factors, that's something an agent should (but probably don't) mention.
And if you get a no-trade clause, then yeah, you know who you will be playing for.
I'm not so sure that every player would accept playing for the worst team if they paid the most. We are talking about huge sums of money that if managed wisely would not only set up the player and his family for life, but also the next two or three generations of the player's family for life. A few millions or tens of millions less would not change that situation significantly. I would think a player with true integrity would accept less if it meant going to a team that had a better chance of winning, a better team chemistry, more loyal fans, or a better living environment for his family. Of course money doesn't buy happiness, but it sure does buy a lot of comfort. Only thing is that $147 million doesn't buy a lot more comfort than $145 million would. If the Dodgers are filled with mercenary-minded players like Greinke their team chemistry would surely be lacking because each player would only be in it for himself. I hate to wish ill on any player, but when I read Greinke's quote the first two words that popped into my head were "rotator" and "cuff".
ReplyDeleteI agree. I think that's what I meant when I said "up to a point" in my response to Pato above. If it's the difference between, say, $4 M and $6 M, that's a pretty big potential difference in your future financial well-being, but the difference between $145 M and $147 M in really negligable from a future quality of life standpoint.
DeleteThere are always exceptions and of course other factors come into play occasionally but it is rare that you get a player like Weaver who took less to stay in LA or Tom Brady who structured his contract so that his team would be more competitive. First off you have to consider that whatever the $$ amount on the contract is you can automatically deduct around 35% or so for taxes. Then consider most of these players have families they support which probably in most cases means their parents as well so right off the bat you have 3 generations you are supporting. Then consider all of the "friends and family" you would have with their hands out. Also it is important to consider that many of these athletes invest their money but not all of them invest wisely so they would rather have that extra 5 million or 10 million just in case they make a bad investment it wont bankrupt them. They also have their greedy agents and the players association breathing down their necks to set the market for the rest of the players. Finally you have a laundry list that reads like an all star team of all the ex professional athletes that end up losing everything after their careers are over.
DeleteAll very valid points, Pato.
Delete