Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

Dodgers agree to a 6 year, $147 million deal with Grienke per Heyman


  • Please log in to reply
60 replies to this topic

#1 ScubaSteveAvery


  • the goats! think of the goats!


  • 7,109 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 08:58 PM

greinke, dodgers in agreement.


Link

greinke deal is for $147M, @ThatSportsGirlhad 1st



Link

The Dodgers now have the largest payroll in baseball history.

Edited by ScubaSteveAvery, 08 December 2012 - 09:03 PM.


#2 soxhop411


  • SoSH Member


  • 10,242 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 09:02 PM

What will the snowball effect be for the other FA pitchers left on the market? Should the sox even try to get one of them given the price it might take now?

#3 Bob Montgomery's Helmet Hat


  • has big, douchey shoulders


  • 12,920 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 09:09 PM

Well, you have to figure that Texas is going to sign someone. Or trade for RAD.

#4 BobbyVsToiletSeat

  • 161 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 09:10 PM

What will the snowball effect be for the other FA pitchers left on the market? Should the sox even try to get one of them given the price it might take now?


Sox shouldn't be looking to sign anyone else, it's a waste of money to get someone like Sanchez or Jackson to clog up the rotation for promising young arms like Barnes Webster and De La Rosa for when this team is actually ready to contend again.

#5 BobbyVsToiletSeat

  • 161 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 09:11 PM

Well, you have to figure that Texas is going to sign someone. Or trade for RAD.


I wonder what prospects we could get from them in a deal of Lester and Ellsbury

Edited by BobbyVsToiletSeat, 08 December 2012 - 09:11 PM.


#6 The Gray Eagle


  • SoSH Member


  • 9,429 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 09:15 PM

With the Dogers all set for starting pitching now and the Yankees seeming like they aren't going to be buying a starter, it might actually have the opposite effect than what the other free agents and their agents are hoping. Sure Texas might sign someone, the Angels maybe, but there aren't that many teams left with huge money to throw around who are in the market anymore.

Sanchez will get paid, but I don't think his waiting for Grienke will pay off that much. If Grienke had gone elsewhere and the Dodgers were still buying, then sure, he would have hit the jackpot. But now, there's one less big spender in the market for free agent starting pitching.

The Red Sox should keep their irons in the fire with Sanchez and Jackson, but wait a bit and see how this shakes out. I'm glad Philly didn't stick us with Lee's contract and especially glad that Dempster didn't take Boston's reported offer.

We'll see what happens, but there aren't that many big money teams left who will be buying.

#7 Jordu

  • 2,029 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 09:18 PM

If you figure Greinke for an average of 16 wins a season, that's $1.5 million a win.

#8 ScubaSteveAvery


  • the goats! think of the goats!


  • 7,109 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 09:22 PM

With the Dogers all set for starting pitching now and the Yankees seeming like they aren't going to be buying a starter, it might actually have the opposite effect than what the other free agents and their agents are hoping. Sure Texas might sign someone, the Angels maybe, but there aren't that many teams left with huge money to throw around who are in the market anymore.


Heyman says that Sanchez is now the Dodgers' top target:

even with greinke. word is #dodgers may try for another big free-agent starter. anibal seems to top the rest of their list.



Link

Edited by ScubaSteveAvery, 08 December 2012 - 09:22 PM.


#9 BobbyVsToiletSeat

  • 161 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 09:27 PM

Heyman says that Sanchez is now the Dodgers' top target:



Link


Let the Dodgers overpay for a junk box class of free agents. It would be hysterical if they go into the season with a 250+ million dollar payroll and not even make the wildcard

#10 armyguy25

  • 75 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 09:32 PM

If you figure Greinke for an average of 16 wins a season, that's $1.5 million a win.


Yeah but pitching wins are a worthless metric.

#11 hbk72777

  • 489 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 09:34 PM

Well, at least we won't have to hear about the Yankees spending more than any other team anymore.

#12 Bowlerman9


  • bitchslapped by Keith Law


  • 5,032 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 09:36 PM

If you figure Greinke for an average of 16 wins a season, that's $1.5 million a win.


Is that good?

#13 tims4wins


  • PN23's replacement


  • 6,849 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 09:43 PM

So Zach Greinke is now the highest paid pitcher in baseball history, right? Zach Greinke?

edit: highest paid righthander. whatever

Edited by tims4wins, 08 December 2012 - 09:54 PM.


#14 SoxScout


  • Maalox Territory


  • 30,161 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 09:55 PM

Over the last six years his FIP has been 17, 19, 47, 21, 23 and 21 percent better than park and league adjusted average.

#15 Jordu

  • 2,029 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 10:05 PM

Is that good?


I dunno. It is astounding, though. It makes me wonder how a win can be worth $1.5 million to a franchise -- from an economics standpoint. What is the route through the balance sheet from paying a pitcher $1.5 million a win to turning a profit for the franchise?

I know I am grossly oversimplifying, but it is a question that honestly interests me. Maybe I'm in the wrong thread.

A few years ago people were saying a free agent pitcher unusually cost about $1 million a win. The price appears to have jumped.

#16 Rasputin


  • Will outlive SeanBerry


  • 26,122 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 10:11 PM

I'm going to suggest that not all wins are created equal, from the team's financial standpoint.

From the Dodgers standpoint, I think they have to earn back the trust of the Dodger fans that bailed under the prior ownership. If they're halfway competent, they'll own that division and make the Yankees jealous.

#17 soxhop411


  • SoSH Member


  • 10,242 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 10:35 PM

RT @JeffPassan: Dodgers have $210,130,953 in commitments for players on their roster. The Astros have $800,000"

. WOW

#18 TheYaz67

  • 3,520 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 10:42 PM

Well, at least we won't have to hear about the Yankees spending more than any other team anymore.


No kidding

2013 Commitments > $10 million

Greinke - $24.4 million
Gonzalez - $21.8 million
Crawford - $20.8 million
Kemp - $20.2 million
Beckett - $17 million
Ramirez - $15.5 million
Either - $13.5 million
Lilly - $13.1 million
Billingsley - $11 million
Kershaw - $11 million

And Kershaw at 4 years service time is going to see a big raise in the next couple years.

That list above is almost $169 million for 10 of the 40 guys on their roster - eyeballing it with Greinke (and salaries for the first & second year guys on the roster) they have to be north of $240 million total by now I think....

#19 SoxLegacy

  • 548 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 10:43 PM

So Zach Greinke is now the highest paid pitcher in baseball history, right? Zach Greinke?

edit: highest paid righthander. whatever


Yeah, that is sort of stunning. Also agree with GrayEagle re: Dempster and Lee.

#20 SoxScout


  • Maalox Territory


  • 30,161 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 10:44 PM

Thought about this a few times the last few days, 30x8 for Cano?

#21 soxhop411


  • SoSH Member


  • 10,242 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 10:46 PM

Thought about this a few times the last few days, 30x8 for Cano?


Wasn't there a report today that said Cano would not give NYY a "home town discount"? What are the odds NYY trades him if they cant work out a contract?

#22 SoxLegacy

  • 548 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 10:53 PM

Wasn't there a report today that said Cano would not give NYY a "home town discount"? What are the odds NYY trades him if they cant work out a contract?


Wow, that's a huge hole to fill if they trade him. Looking at that project of 30x8, I can see why the Sox would want to extend Pedroia now instead of down the road when things are potentially even crazier.

#23 BobbyVsToiletSeat

  • 161 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 10:54 PM

Thought about this a few times the last few days, 30x8 for Cano?


I wouldn't bet against the Dodgers being the team to give it to him either. Depends on how bad the Steinbrenners want to keep him

#24 Plympton91


  • loco parentis


  • 6,479 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 11:01 PM

The Red Sox will be paying $90 million over 3 seasons to Napoli, Victorino, and Gomes. The Dodgers will be paying $147 million over 6 years for Zach Greinke. Advantage: Dodgers. Not even close. I'll take Greinke with Mauro Gomez, Ryan Sweeney, and JC Linares. Maybe Greinke really doesn't want to play in Boston, and while the Dodgers are a large market, the paparazzi will have many, many bigger fish to fry than a boring guy on the Dodgers staff so he can be reasonably anonymous in LA. But, damn, in this FA market I'd have to say the Dodgers got an absolute bargain in terms of both dollars per year and number of years. Perhaps the new "market inefficiency" is long-term contracts, and so we'll see lots of deals that seem insane for mediocre talent at 3 years while players who want to settle into long-term contracts will have to take a much larger relative discount than in years past.

Edit: how is it a bargain? Fewer dollars and fewer years than C.C. Sabathia and Cliff Lee, with no "opt-out" clause like Sabathia got (at least not yet reported) and this is in a market that has clearly exploded beyond the levels in which those contracts were signed.

Edited by Plympton91, 08 December 2012 - 11:17 PM.


#25 Jed Zeppelin


  • SoSH Member


  • 15,539 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 11:03 PM

How is it a bargain?

#26 Darnell's Son

  • 4,398 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 12:23 AM

How is it a bargain?


It's a bargain if you hate Cherington with every bone in your body.

#27 Pumpsie


  • The Kilimanjaro of bullshit


  • 10,622 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 12:24 AM

If you figure Greinke for an average of 16 wins a season, that's $1.5 million a win.


Or, about $7,000 a pitch for the next 6 years.

#28 Snodgrass'Muff


  • smarter as Lucen


  • 20,878 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 12:35 AM

Sox shouldn't be looking to sign anyone else, it's a waste of money to get someone like Sanchez or Jackson to clog up the rotation for promising young arms like Barnes Webster and De La Rosa for when this team is actually ready to contend again.


Even if all three of Barnes, Webster and De La Rosa pan out and become mainstays in the major league rotation, that's likely not going to happen before 2014 and might not be until 2015. In that time, the Sox will likely lose Lester and will definitely part ways with Lackey. That means they'd have Buchholz and those three by 2015. Now you need for Doubront to pan out as well to have a full rotation.

In short, you need the best case scenario to work out perfectly for a pitcher like Jackson or Sanchez to become a "block" for any of the young guys. Fact is, both Jackson and Sanchez are far more likely to be productive major league starters for the next five years than any of the three prospects you mentioned. The Red Sox will be lucky if they get one better than average major league stater from that bunch. I'm more bullish on the farm than most, but the idea that they shouldn't consider signing Jackson or Sanchez because they will block all three of Webster, DLR and Barnes is fairly ridiculous.

That said, six years is a long time for a pitcher making 24.5 million a year. And the comparison between Gomes, Napoli and Victorino vs Greinke is a non-starter. Three years vs six is where that comparison should stop.

#29 keyalyn

  • 549 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 12:47 AM

Edit: how is it a bargain? Fewer dollars and fewer years than C.C. Sabathia and Cliff Lee, with no "opt-out" clause like Sabathia got (at least not yet reported) and this is in a market that has clearly exploded beyond the levels in which those contracts were signed.


Which would be relevant if Greinke were at all comparable to Sabathia and Lee. Greinke has had a 106ERA+ over the past three seasons. Lee and Sabathia before their contracts? 142 and 145. Lee and Sabathia were more durable and had better peripherals across the board. They were legitimately elite starters when they signed their big contracts, while Greinke was the best guy on the market who has been hardly dominant the past 3 years. $24.5M a season isn't a bargain for him.

#30 maufman


  • SoSH Member


  • 12,367 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 12:59 AM

Greinke is perhaps my favorite non-Sox player, but $147mm is too big a commitment to an SP who isn't a future first-ballot Hall of Famer. The best-case scenario for the Dodgers is this deal works out OK.

#31 MikeM

  • 841 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 01:05 AM

Edit: how is it a bargain? Fewer dollars and fewer years than C.C. Sabathia and Cliff Lee, with no "opt-out" clause like Sabathia got (at least not yet reported) and this is in a market that has clearly exploded beyond the levels in which those contracts were signed.


I don't know if i'd go as far as labeling it a bargain, but i agree in principle that if/when we do go the FA route to pull in that frontline type our system isn't producing (which likely is just a matter of time on the when, imo), it's probably not going to be looking any better/safer as a whole then this one is. Or at least as far as the upper echelon contracts annually handed out in free agency go.

At this moment in time, i'm pretty neutral on labeling that a missed opportunity though. At least under the hypothetical scenario there was a chance of him signing here over LA at those dollars, which likely wasn't the case to begin with.

#32 DeJesus Built My Hotrod


  • SoSH Member


  • 10,320 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 01:10 AM

The Red Sox will be paying $90 million over 3 seasons to Napoli, Victorino, and Gomes. The Dodgers will be paying $147 million over 6 years for Zach Greinke. Advantage: Dodgers. Not even close. I'll take Greinke with Mauro Gomez, Ryan Sweeney, and JC Linares. Maybe Greinke really doesn't want to play in Boston, and while the Dodgers are a large market, the paparazzi will have many, many bigger fish to fry than a boring guy on the Dodgers staff so he can be reasonably anonymous in LA. But, damn, in this FA market I'd have to say the Dodgers got an absolute bargain in terms of both dollars per year and number of years. Perhaps the new "market inefficiency" is long-term contracts, and so we'll see lots of deals that seem insane for mediocre talent at 3 years while players who want to settle into long-term contracts will have to take a much larger relative discount than in years past.

Edit: how is it a bargain? Fewer dollars and fewer years than C.C. Sabathia and Cliff Lee, with no "opt-out" clause like Sabathia got (at least not yet reported) and this is in a market that has clearly exploded beyond the levels in which those contracts were signed.


As keyalyn posted above, Zach Greinke, who is 29 years old, has posted ERA+s of 100, 103 and 114 since his fantastic 2009 season. CC Sabathia and Cliff Lee haven't had ERA+s below 110 in years before and since they signed their contracts.

You should also note that some of his peripherals, such as K/9 are trending toward decline. Furthermore, the questions about Greinke's make-up haven't been dispelled by his SSS post-season performance - he has given up 12 ER in 16.2 IP.

You think the Sox should have targeted him but I take the other side. The only planet on which this Zach Greinke contract is a bargain is one where Anton Chigurh's cubicle dreams of being a GM are realized.

The Dodgers have saddled themselves with yet another large contract obligation without making their team demonstrably better.

Edited by DeJesus Built My Hotrod, 09 December 2012 - 01:20 AM.


#33 SoxScout


  • Maalox Territory


  • 30,161 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 01:26 AM

You should also note that some of his peripherals, such as K/9 are trending toward decline.


His K% is trending up over the last 6 and last 3 seasons. His BB% is almost amazingly static and awesome over the last 5 years. Also, his groundball rate is exploding in to dominance territory over the last 4 year trend.

#34 SoxScout


  • Maalox Territory


  • 30,161 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 01:29 AM

JimBowdenESPNxm: According to a Dodger source:Greinke has a full player opt out clause after 3 yrs & if traded during contract he can opt out at end of yr



#35 rembrat


  • SoSH Member


  • 23,386 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 02:55 AM

The 'if' should read 'when' there is no way the Dodgers keep all these guys for the duration of the contract.

#36 jon abbey


  • Shanghai Warrior


  • 17,292 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 04:48 AM

The 'if' should read 'when' there is no way the Dodgers keep all these guys for the duration of the contract.


What's stopping them from running a $250M payroll if they have a $250M annual TV contract (as they seem to starting in 2014)? That's a genuine question, but it seems like they could possibly still turn a profit depending on how the luxury tax and other penalties match up with their ticket and other income.

#37 wutang112878


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,626 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 08:00 AM

At first glance I thought this assertion was crazy, but then I did the math. At $250M they would be ~$70M over next year, and ~$60M over after 2013. Even if they stay in luxury tax land, their penalties would 'only' be ~$12M, $18M, $24M, and $30M. Its scary, but yeah they might be able to handle it.

#38 Rudy Pemberton


  • Just a string of characters


  • 28,285 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 08:24 AM

Greinke's most similar pitchers include Alex Fernandez, Bill Gullickson, and Ismael Valdes (as well as John Smoltz and Josh Beckett). He's a very good pitcher, but damn that's a lot of money. The Dodgers don't seem to give a damn so I guess it doesn't matter but for all the money they've spent, they still don't seem to be a lock to win anything. I know he's been unlucky and had poor defenses behind him, but exactly one season with an ERA under 3.4.

#39 Spacemans Bong


  • chapeau rose


  • 16,495 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 08:50 AM

Good job, Agent Colletti. Your reward of Christmas cioppino is waiting for you back at headquarters.

#40 Spacemans Bong


  • chapeau rose


  • 16,495 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 10:34 AM

I'm going to suggest that not all wins are created equal, from the team's financial standpoint.

From the Dodgers standpoint, I think they have to earn back the trust of the Dodger fans that bailed under the prior ownership. If they're halfway competent, they'll own that division and make the Yankees jealous.

Two problems with this: they aren't halfway competent (they've spent a TON of money on crap, frankly) and, if the news hasn't come down to the swamps yet, the Giants have won two of the past three World Series. So you know, just swinging your dick around and spending $10 million per WAR isn't going to cut it when you have competition that has good resources themselves and is more efficient.

#41 MakMan44


  • stole corsi's dream


  • 13,171 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 11:29 AM

Didnt see this noted but he got a full player opt out after year 3 and aanother if he gets traded

https://twitter.com/JimBowdenESPNxm/status/277660862842548224
link to tweet

Edited by MakMan44, 09 December 2012 - 11:57 AM.


#42 Gash Prex

  • 1,141 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 11:35 AM

Didnt see this noted but he got a full player opt out after year 3 and aanother if he gets traded


So basically the Dodgers take all the risk and Greinke takes none ....you have to really want a player badly to do this

Edited by Gash Prex, 09 December 2012 - 11:36 AM.


#43 Snodgrass'Muff


  • smarter as Lucen


  • 20,878 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 11:44 AM

Didnt see this noted but he got a full player opt out after year 3 and aanother if he gets traded


Plympton, how does this change your evaluation of the deal, if at all? I'm not trolling here, I'm genuinely curious how this affects the way you see the situation.

#44 YTF

  • 3,668 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 02:16 PM

The Red Sox will be paying $90 million over 3 seasons to Napoli, Victorino, and Gomes. The Dodgers will be paying $147 million over 6 years for Zach Greinke. Advantage: Dodgers. Not even close. I'll take Greinke with Mauro Gomez, Ryan Sweeney, and JC Linares. Maybe Greinke really doesn't want to play in Boston, and while the Dodgers are a large market, the paparazzi will have many, many bigger fish to fry than a boring guy on the Dodgers staff so he can be reasonably anonymous in LA. But, damn, in this FA market I'd have to say the Dodgers got an absolute bargain in terms of both dollars per year and number of years. Perhaps the new "market inefficiency" is long-term contracts, and so we'll see lots of deals that seem insane for mediocre talent at 3 years while players who want to settle into long-term contracts will have to take a much larger relative discount than in years past.

Edit: how is it a bargain? Fewer dollars and fewer years than C.C. Sabathia and Cliff Lee, with no "opt-out" clause like Sabathia got (at least not yet reported) and this is in a market that has clearly exploded beyond the levels in which those contracts were signed.


You take those three along with Iglesia at short and you damn well better hope Papi and Ellsbury stay healthy and Greinke doesn't give up more than two earned per game

#45 DieHardSoxFan1


  • Smarter than Theo, just ask him


  • 2,777 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 03:46 PM

Two problems with this: they aren't halfway competent (they've spent a TON of money on crap, frankly) and, if the news hasn't come down to the swamps yet, the Giants have won two of the past three World Series. So you know, just swinging your dick around and spending $10 million per WAR isn't going to cut it when you have competition that has good resources themselves and is more efficient.


Projections for Greinke with a modest 5% inflation in $/WAR peg him at $125 million over 6 years. At 10%, it's $152 million.

#46 In my lifetime

  • 395 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 06:24 PM

At first glance I thought this assertion was crazy, but then I did the math. At $250M they would be ~$70M over next year, and ~$60M over after 2013. Even if they stay in luxury tax land, their penalties would 'only' be ~$12M, $18M, $24M, and $30M. Its scary, but yeah they might be able to handle it.


You forgot the new CBA , which also puts them in line to lose their revenue sharing rebate. This penalty is % loss is phased in and although it is difficult to determine the exact amount, depending on the year/big market team it will likely be in the 10-40M range. I think the better chance is that the Dodgers after "the new car smell is worn away" decides the payroll they put together is a handicap. No matter what how large your budget (and every team has one), a team is of course better off spending wisely.

I would expect being obligated to pay 20M + per year for 5 or 6 years to 4 players, who are not Hall of Fame shoe-ins will at some point be regretted by the Dodgers, regardless of their huge TV deal.


And at least 3 of the following long term contracts are bound to painful some time in the future. (chart from Cot's Contracts):

salary + p-r bonus
. Pos'n ML Srv Agent Length / Total Value 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
. Gonzalez, Adrian 1b 7.108 John Boggs 7 yr/$154M (12-18) $21,857,143 $21.857 $21.857 $21.857 $22.357 $22.357
. Crawford, Carl lf 10.072 Brian Peters 7 yr/$142M (11-17) $20,857,143 $21.107 $21.357 $21.607 $21.857
. Kemp, Matt cf 6.049 Dave Stewart 8 yr/$160M (12-19) $20,250,000 $21.250 $21.250 $21.750 $21.750 $21.750
. Greinke, Zack rhp-s 8.057 Casey Close 6 yr/$147M (13-18) $19,000,000 $26.000 $25.000 $26.000 $25.000 $26.000

#47 DeJesus Built My Hotrod


  • SoSH Member


  • 10,320 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 06:58 PM

His K% is trending up over the last 6 and last 3 seasons. His BB% is almost amazingly static and awesome over the last 5 years. Also, his groundball rate is exploding in to dominance territory over the last 4 year trend.


And yet his results, when looked at on an ERA+ basis, don't suggest he is anywhere near a Sabathia or a Lee. Hell, he wouldn't have been a top ten pitcher using that metric in either league last season.

To be clear, Zack Greinke is a very good pitcher and the shortage of arms on the market clearly benefitted him in this situation. But I wouldn't want my team paying a guy who is arguably a borderline number three starter that money over six years.

Edited by DeJesus Built My Hotrod, 09 December 2012 - 06:58 PM.


#48 RIrooter09

  • 1,694 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 07:30 PM

And yet his results, when looked at on an ERA+ basis, don't suggest he is anywhere near a Sabathia or a Lee. Hell, he wouldn't have been a top ten pitcher using that metric in either league last season.

To be clear, Zack Greinke is a very good pitcher and the shortage of arms on the market clearly benefitted him in this situation. But I wouldn't want my team paying a guy who is arguably a borderline number three starter that money over six years.


Number three starter? On what team?

#49 DeJesus Built My Hotrod


  • SoSH Member


  • 10,320 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 08:50 PM

Number three starter? On what team?


You are right - I should have been more clear. My point is that, he isn't a staff ace, like a Sabathia or, arguably, even a clear number two pitcher. He'll be paid like an ace and he'll assume the role of the number two starter on that staff but his most recent results simply don't support that position.

#50 RIrooter09

  • 1,694 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 10:09 PM

You are right - I should have been more clear. My point is that, he isn't a staff ace, like a Sabathia or, arguably, even a clear number two pitcher. He'll be paid like an ace and he'll assume the role of the number two starter on that staff but his most recent results simply don't support that position.


If you're using ERA+ maybe, but here are his 2012 ranks under a few other statistical categories: fWAR: T5th, xFIP: 5th, FIP: 6th. He was an elite pitcher this season by those metrics.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users