So, the Ddodgers decided to pay nearly $25M per year, or clear No. 1 starter money, for a guy in Zack Greinke who, except for one year in 2009, has never shown better than No. 2 numbers, if that.
The Baseball-Reference numbers tell us that, out side of 2009, Greinke has never had more than 3.5 WAR. That's No. 2 starter territory, and borderline at that. Yet the fluff machine at ESPN is all over touting how he's worth every penny.
Add in that Greinke's career year was three years ago, going on four and, IMO, he's never going to be more than a No. 2 starter. Yes, they're a big-market team in LA, adn doesn 't spending work? Look at the Yanbkees, right?
Wrong. The Yankees spent and spent and spent from the mid-80s to the mid-90s and went nowhere.
I'll bet Greinke never busts 4 WAR in a year in the first half of the contract and never busts 3 WAR in the second half.
Assuming that's the case, with a payroll already likely to be at $220M next year, and assuming this means Clayton Kershaw gets at least $30M a year if the Dodgers want to keep him, I can see monetary sand being pounded down ratholes right now.
Comparing the two pitchers? Kershaw has, year in and out, had a higher Wins Above Average than Greinke has had Wins Above Replacement. That's a HUGE difference.
I just haven't gotten the sports media's "love" for Greinke in general. ESPN is the worst on this, but I think he's generally been overrated.
It's not just that the Dodgers have an actual No. 1 in Kershaw. Grienke might have been a default No. 1 with the Royals or the Brewers, but he simply is not an "ace."
Update, Dec. 13: The Angels, meanwhile, made a better deal in landing Josh Hamilton.