What is your opinion of the A.J. Pierzynski signing?
MJH on accountability
I disagree that Greinke is better than Weaver. At least, strictly better. Yeah, I know, WAR doesn't think Weaver's an ace. I don't care. He's been outperforming his peripherals for years now, especially at home. Weaver pitching in Anaheim is probably as good as or better than almost any pitcher in any particular park.
If Greinke's better than Weaver, it's not by much, and it's probably an apples to oranges comparison.
Eric, I'm with Andy and unpersuaded a whit by your opinion of Greinke.
But our opinions don't matter. What does is how the Angels see it, how they've positioned their relationship to Weaver, and whether or not they would pay the new guy on the block more. I'm of the opinion they wouldn't, unless the new guy is Verlander, Kershaw or Strasburg.
I think that's the team dynamic they've selected, and team chemistry is a biggie ....As it plays out, we'll see whether that's an accurate evaluation or not.
Well if your argument is that Weaver is better than Greinke, that's fine. But that doesn't translate into meaning that Zach Greinke will be the same price as or cheaper than Jered Weaver. Those two ideas do not correlate.
Jered Weaver clearly took a below market rate to stay with LAA through his prime. Zach Greinke is at the age where he's looking to set himself up for life. That, and he's got multiple teams competing for his services. I'm of the opinion that if Jered Weaver wasn't pitching in such an offensive-suppressive park like Anaheim, that his ERA would be closer to 4.00. I don't feel the same way about Greinke. I think his stuff plays up to any ballpark he's pitching in.
If the Angels want Zach Greinke, they're going to have to pay him well into the $100M range. If they don't, they will be beat out by multiple teams, and it doesn't make sense from Zach Greinke's perspective to accept between $20M and $40M less just to stay in Anaheim. After all, there's a reason the Angels declined about $27M worth of options in Haren and Santana.
Eric: " there's a reason the Angels declined about $27M worth of options in Haren and Santana"
Of course they have a reason - but it's not necessarily the one you want to imply. it's because LA is sane and those 2 pitchers were both considerably overrated, and quite overpaid at those amounts.Big name pitchers, with a bag of mediocrity.
LA is simply doing the obvious. But it doesn't mean that they have earmarked that $27M for Greinke. Let's see what happens. And yes, the idea that Greinke is unlikely to take a massive discount to stay in LA, was the very point I was making in the first place when you replied to me!!
The Angels also need an out fielder, maybe two out fielders and third baseman. That would allow them to move Trumbow to DH which is his natural defensive position - Those need might also be reason enough to dump 27 million worth of options for Haren and Santana
Personally, I was a little surprised at dropping Harens option because he has been a very good pitcher for quite some time and has been incredibly durable. He had a bad season last year and dealt with some back issues. Comparatively, I think hes worth at least as much as CJ (~15 mil per season). Santana, I wasnt surprised. Dude has never been consistent.
As far as Weaver vs Greinke, I guess I put a premium on mental toughness. Weaver has it, Greinke does not. At least IMO. So, I think weaver (with obviously lesser stuff) is a better bet than Greinke. At least if you dont think the cross body delivery will thrash Weavers back sooner rather than later.
Weaver is a good pitcher. Grienke is a good pitcher. What Weaver took to stay in LAAAAAAA does not effect what Grienke will get if he stays there. CJ got the deal he got because he is a over 30 #2 when he hit the FA market, and that's the price of an over 30 #2. Grienke will get at least 18 million over at least 5 years, that is the absolute floor. A more likely contract is 5 years at 20-23, so 100-115 million, with an option for a 6th year.
I agree with eric. By locking up Weaver before FA, the Angels may have saved themselves somewhere between $20 and $50m. Evaluating which one is "better", by any measure, is not the same as how much they'll cost, which is a function of skill, need, other available players to sign or trade for, etc. That's why Greinke will cost substantially more than Weaver does right now, regardless of which one of them is "better".
Also, the Angels hardly need another OF. They have Wells, who's long past his prime, but is still probably good for a few dingers. And they have Bourjos, whose defense is arguably better than Trout's. Assuming they don't try to move Trumbo back to 3B, or make an opening at 1B or DH somehow, they should have their regular OF covered. What they really need is to go back to Spring 2011 and beat the Rangers' offer to Beltre. Oops.
Thanks for all the responses. Unfortunately, it sounds like there is a lot of doubt about the Rangers' chances of signing Greinke. This along with it also sounding like both Hammy and Nap are gone too is sort of depressing but I'm still hoping that something big happens.
I'm of the opinion that with WAR increasing due to the general increase in average salaries and what not, that Greinke at $23 million AAV for 6 years would be a pretty good investment and I'd even go slightly higher to have that extra TORP to help increase odds during playoff series. I really hope they make a strong push for him and even if they don't land him but force LAA to pay through the nose for Greinke that will at least subside the pain of the them signing him for a long term contract... at least a little bit.
I think the issue here is not money, I think the Rangers have shown a willingness to put up large chunks of money on an annual basis, but the question here is how many years will another team offer Greinke? I believe 6 years is where the Rangers drew the line with Cliff Lee, if I remember right they would not offer 7 guaranteed years for Lee to stay with the Rangers, so if anyone offers Greinke more than 6 years I believe the Rangers will bow out of the equation, but I have seen quotes from Nolan Ryan saying he doesn't think durability will be an issue at all for Greinke going forward because of his easy pitching motion. I think he is an Angel next year though, I don't think the Angels can afford to lose him, but with the Dodgers also involved who knows what kind of fat contract he will get.
You are so right 33. Greinke will be pitching in the National League in 2013.
I don't think the Rangers sign Greinke. I think we are looking more down around the Haren/Marcum area for pitchers. Honestly, I don't think he is worth 150 mil at 6 years and I don't see the team offering that kind of cash. You may be looking more at a minor rebuilding season for us this year. We have a 50/50 shot at losing Josh and the bullpen needs to be rebuilt add in Feliz and Colby not ready to ptich until the All Star break and you get in my opinion a minor rebuild. There are too many questions for 13 right now to justify that kind of money on Greinke. Don't ge tme wrong I am in favor of signing Greinke but I do not think he is worth that kind of money. The rotation has to be the top priority and yes we need a no kidding lights out shut em down ACE. But I really don't see it happening unless Tampa is willing to take Cruz, Kinsler, and Olt for one of their Aces.
I wudda been happy with Josh Johnson and a shotat Jose Reyes, in a Deal to move both. Oooops, trumpedby Toronto! Wow, whatta super trade. Wonder who'll get Flipped by the Jays?
The Rangers are trying to get rid of shortstops, not acquire more expensive ones.
Yes, eric and one of the SS gets Upton or a TORP.Can U guess which ONE? Good Catchers, Pitchers & SSin your Org. are cards worth holding & dealing from strength.But then U knew that, right? Oh yeah... too many(great) Short Stops!What an albatross for an Org. pfffffffttttt
Seems reasonable that they'll be able to trade at least one catcher. If I'm not mistaken, they currently have Buck, Arencibia, and Wilson. Most teams don't carry 3 catchers and I don't know if any of them have options left, but if they do I can't imagine it would sit well with any of them.
I still think we're probably the 3rd or 4th most likely team to sign Greinke, though just off the top of my head I'd guess our odds are probably at like 10%.
@Andy~10% seems LOW by Grienke being the #1 Winter Focus for the Ranger Org.There's nothing MORE important than acquiring a TORP(or two) in OUR rotation.That being said, I'm not ruling out an on going TORP talks with TB either. Slamming the Door on the Angels Rotation is a very VERY damaging opportunity.I like the Maddux Brothers approach, along with Nolan's stature looking on. How 'bout 90%?
90%? I'm pretty sure the Angels are the overwhelming favorite. And the Dodgers have been linked to him, and have already proven they can and will throw their financial weight around to, perhaps, become the Yankees of the NL.
Right now (and this is just me pulling numbers out) I'd guess the Angels have a 40-50% chance, the Dodgers probably 20-25%, the Rangers 10-15%, and other teams each 5% or less.
Are you? ( im just wondering, not trying to troll. Ive just noticed you type a little like him. )
NOPE... never never never. My 1st experience (I can truely remember) was Larsen's World Series Miracle.Yogi jumping on him at the bumb. I go back much further than Slick Rick.My respect goes to ALL your opinions here.ItZ NOT about me... Simple, itZ about Baseball. Go Rangers!!!!
Did you know Don Larson was on LSD when he threw that perfect game?
THAT SHIT CRAY
Don Lardon on acid? He must have given that tip to Doc Ellis.
Not trying to troll, but what does it even mean to say "I like the Maddux Brothers approach, along with Nolan's stature looking on." Jon Daniels was working magic before Nolan or Mike Maddux were here, I don't understand the idea that they are the ones influencing what Jon Daniels does as GM.
God damn you, primi.
I stand corrected.
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.