Greinke traded to Brewers (pg 2)

[dew1679666265]

I wasn't talking about the Brewers. And when their window is up in 2 years, the trade proceeds/draft picks from Fielder, Greinke, Marcum, Weekes and Braun can replenish that system very quickly.

 

The Brewers paid for a career year Marcum may very well not repeat and Rickie Weeks is no safe bet to be healthy/productive long enough to have much value (only played 160 games or close to it once in his career). Fielder is a free agent after this coming season as well.

 

There's a real chance they'll only have Braun and Greinke who will bring them Type A prospects when they leave and they'll have to figure out a way to replace Fielder after this season, likely without having the funds to do so. And that's after giving up 1 MLB player (Escobar) and 3 other near-MLB ready prospects.

[Splendid Splinter]

The Brewers paid for a career year Marcum may very well not repeat and Rickie Weeks is no safe bet to be healthy/productive long enough to have much value (only played 160 games or close to it once in his career). Fielder is a free agent after this coming season as well.

 

There's a real chance they'll only have Braun and Greinke who will bring them Type A prospects when they leave and they'll have to figure out a way to replace Fielder after this season, likely without having the funds to do so. And that's after giving up 1 MLB player (Escobar) and 3 other near-MLB ready prospects.

 

If Weeks has another good year this coming season (that'll probably make him a Type A FA, but at worse Type B) then Brewers can offer both Weeks and Fielder arbs which both will decline.... Brewers will get several picks back (due to both being Type A FA most likely). That's if Brewers don't trade either one of them this offseason or by the trading deadline. I'm just saying here. They should be able to recoup some of it back, but not all of it. At least Brewers trade their SS who, IMO, probably won't be much with the bat in his career (think Orlando Cabrera but great defense) and Jeffress, who is one strike from being banned forever I think.

 

I don't think they should've done the trade with Grienke IMO as it took several good prospects from them (even though 2 are iffy) and it's not like they're going to up their payroll and leave it there so you would want as many cost controlled good players as you can get.

 

Also just curious, what did the Brewers give up for Marcum? I can't remember anything about that trade.

[jersey cubs fan]

I don't get all the "they shouldn't have done it" talk. It is really hard to win in baseball without impact players, and they were lacking them, especially with pitching.

[XZero771679666304]

I don't get all the "they shouldn't have done it" talk. It is really hard to win in baseball without impact players, and they were lacking them, especially with pitching.

 

It was definitely a "win now" move. The downside is that if they don't win now, it could backfire pretty badly. The Brewers went from having a top farm system to maybe the thinnest in the game in the past few seasons. Fielder will walk after 2011, with Greinke almost certainly following suit after 2012.

 

After that year, they may well have one good SP and holes in CF, 2B, C, SS, RF and 1B. Mat Gamel will probably fill 1B, but he's no Fielder. They traded away their SS as well as their top prospects at CF and 2B and top pitching prospects as well.

 

They could be holding onto the fool's hope that winning in 2011 will influence some to stay, but it's a gamble either way. But given that the Brewers' time with all those lauded prospects could pass with nothing really to show for it a distinct possibility, I think it's a move Melvin had to make.

[Geech]

Try reading my post again. Put whatever win number you want on the move from Narveson or whomever to Greinke. Then start subtracting.

 

Escobar is nothing special but Betancourt is worse. Subtract.

 

And IIRC the math is something like $5M = 1 win on the FA market, so paying Greinke $13M has an opportunity cost of over 2.5 wins. On a per-year basis we're talking the Dunn, Victor Martinez, Konerko class of players. Subtract.

 

When the dust settles, 2 wins sounds in the right neighborhood.

 

I'm a little late to the party, but I wanted to comment on this.

 

Subtracting wins according to the value of the contract is nonsensical. The whole point of estimating changes in wins is to get a sense of how much, in real terms, the baseball team improved. The dollar cost of the contract itself has nothing to do with that.

 

Consider the following scenario: A team replaces a 1.5 win player by signing a 4 win player for 15 million dollars per year. For the simplicity of the analysis, we'll assume they don't make any other moves. This means the talent level of the team has improved by 2.5 wins.

 

However, if we follow your method and subtract three wins due to the cost of the contract, the results suggest that the team is actually half a win worse than the year before. This is clearly not correct. In real baseball terms, this would be like replacing Blake Dewitt with Dan Uggla and somehow having a worse team. It makes no sense.

 

In the case of Greinke, the improvement to the Brewers is equal to the difference between Greinke and the displaced starter minus the loss from replacing the shortstop. That's it, and it's probably closer to three or four wins than two.

[dew1679666265]

If Weeks has another good year this coming season (that'll probably make him a Type A FA, but at worse Type B) then Brewers can offer both Weeks and Fielder arbs which both will decline.... Brewers will get several picks back (due to both being Type A FA most likely). That's if Brewers don't trade either one of them this offseason or by the trading deadline.

 

And that's two veterans they'll be relying on leaving without big-time impact players to replace them. I had forgotten about Gamel, but he won't be an offensive force during the current window anyway.

 

Basically, a mid-market team that's not right on the edge of being really good gave up a ton of cheap production for a two year shot at winning and then their next window won't come until those draft picks develop (3-5 years?).

 

If they were the Rays where they were right on the edge of being great and Greinke/Marcum put them over the top, that'd be one thing. But in their position, I don't see the reward being high enough to give up all they did for a good improvement (Greinke) and a mediocre one (Marcum).

 

 

Also just curious, what did the Brewers give up for Marcum? I can't remember anything about that trade.

 

Brett Lawrie, a second baseman who was rated the #81 prospect in the minors by BA in 2009 and the #59 prospect in 2010.

[dew1679666265]

I don't get all the "they shouldn't have done it" talk. It is really hard to win in baseball without impact players, and they were lacking them, especially with pitching.

 

I just don't think the Brewers were close enough to being really good to mortgage the future so badly. They're much close to being a playoff team now, but there's still question whether they'll even make the playoffs still. If a payroll increase accompanied these moves, that'd be different. But if they don't win the World Series this season or next, they've pushed their next window back by 3-5 years instead of being patient with the current players coming up.

[davearm2]

Try reading my post again. Put whatever win number you want on the move from Narveson or whomever to Greinke. Then start subtracting.

 

Escobar is nothing special but Betancourt is worse. Subtract.

 

And IIRC the math is something like $5M = 1 win on the FA market, so paying Greinke $13M has an opportunity cost of over 2.5 wins. On a per-year basis we're talking the Dunn, Victor Martinez, Konerko class of players. Subtract.

 

When the dust settles, 2 wins sounds in the right neighborhood.

 

I'm a little late to the party, but I wanted to comment on this.

 

Subtracting wins according to the value of the contract is nonsensical. The whole point of estimating changes in wins is to get a sense of how much, in real terms, the baseball team improved. The dollar cost of the contract itself has nothing to do with that.

 

Consider the following scenario: A team replaces a 1.5 win player by signing a 4 win player for 15 million dollars per year. For the simplicity of the analysis, we'll assume they don't make any other moves. This means the talent level of the team has improved by 2.5 wins.

 

However, if we follow your method and subtract three wins due to the cost of the contract, the results suggest that the team is actually half a win worse than the year before. This is clearly not correct. In real baseball terms, this would be like replacing Blake Dewitt with Dan Uggla and somehow having a worse team. It makes no sense.

 

In the case of Greinke, the improvement to the Brewers is equal to the difference between Greinke and the displaced starter minus the loss from replacing the shortstop. That's it, and it's probably closer to three or four wins than two.

It's not nonsensical, it's correct.

 

In your example of replacing DeWitt with Uggla -- well duh, on the surface that move in isolation improves the team. But it also either a) jacks up payroll, or b) means you have to replace an Uggla-caliber player with a DeWitt-caliber player someplace else to keep the payroll the same.

 

If it's a), then sure, even an incompetent GM should be able to deliver additional wins if given significant additional dollars to spend.

 

If it's b), then my point remains.

 

You said, "the dollar cost of the contract itself has nothing to do with that." This is 100% wrong, so long as the same-sized contract could've yielded the same number of wins (or more) if given to another player instead.

 

To argue against the opportunity cost component of all this simply illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of Econ 101.

[Geech]

It's not nonsensical, it's correct.

 

In your example of replacing DeWitt with Uggla -- well duh, on the surface that move in isolation improves the team. But it also either a) jacks up payroll, or b) means you have to replace an Uggla-caliber player with a DeWitt-caliber player someplace else to keep the payroll the same.

 

If it's a), then sure, even an incompetent GM should be able to deliver additional wins if given significant additional dollars to spend.

 

If it's b), then my point remains.

 

You said, "the dollar cost of the contract itself has nothing to do with that." This is 100% wrong, so long as the same-sized contract could've yielded the same number of wins (or more) if given to another player instead.

 

To argue against the opportunity cost component of all this simply illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of Econ 101.

 

Your argument still makes absolutely no sense. At no point is the goal of estimating changes in the team talent level anything close to keeping payroll the same. Yes, it is possible that replacing Dewitt with Uggla will require the team to downgrade elsewhere, however there is absolutely no reason that this must happen. Because there is no logical reason that a downgrade must occur, you do not subtract wins until a move actually happens. It's that simple. Opportunity cost has nothing to do with this equation, unless it results in an actual move, because opportunity cost in and of itself has no tangible effect on the team talent level.

 

You even acknowledge that I am correct with possibility "a", except for some reason you tried to further obfuscate the issue by bringing in GM competence, which also has no relevant place in this equation. You have no leg to stand on here; you are wrong.

[Ball And Glove]

If Weeks has another good year this coming season (that'll probably make him a Type A FA, but at worse Type B) then Brewers can offer both Weeks and Fielder arbs which both will decline.... Brewers will get several picks back (due to both being Type A FA most likely). That's if Brewers don't trade either one of them this offseason or by the trading deadline.

 

And that's two veterans they'll be relying on leaving without big-time impact players to replace them. I had forgotten about Gamel, but he won't be an offensive force during the current window anyway.

 

Basically, a mid-market team that's not right on the edge of being really good gave up a ton of cheap production for a two year shot at winning and then their next window won't come until those draft picks develop (3-5 years?).

 

If they were the Rays where they were right on the edge of being great and Greinke/Marcum put them over the top, that'd be one thing. But in their position, I don't see the reward being high enough to give up all they did for a good improvement (Greinke) and a mediocre one (Marcum).

 

FWIW, extension talks with Weeks have been ongoing throughout the winter. He's at least been open about his desire to stay, which is more than we can say about Fielder. It's probably in Weeks' best interests to sign a short extension to prove he can stay healthy, anyway. Losing Lawrie hurt because there's no apparent heir to Weeks at 2B (at least one that's close), but the argument could be made that Lawrie's not a 2B, anyway. He's worse defensively there than Weeks ever was.

 

I'm definitely uncomfortable with the farm system losing its impact players and nothing but potential role players left behind, but at least the division is relatively wide open. Everyone here is absolutely right that this doesn't guarantee the Brewers anything, but it at least puts them in the discussion at the start of the year, which is probably the best the organization can hope for.

 

It's probably not best for the long-term health of the organization, but Attanasio's shown he's willing to lose money for a year or two if the team is competing, and Melvin is desperate to keep his job. It does make the next couple drafts very important, though. They really need to hit on quite a few of their high picks if the downswing after 2012 is going to last for less than a couple years. If they bomb or only manage to get a slew of 3-star guys like they have the past couple years, they'll probably end up like the Astros.

[NewUserName]

Do you guys think that this trade may be similar to the Bartolo Colon trade for Montreal? I am not saying that the Brewers gave up that level of talent, but I think they are in a similar place as Montreal was back when they made that trade for Colon.

[dew1679666265]

FWIW, extension talks with Weeks have been ongoing throughout the winter. He's at least been open about his desire to stay, which is more than we can say about Fielder. It's probably in Weeks' best interests to sign a short extension to prove he can stay healthy, anyway. Losing Lawrie hurt because there's no apparent heir to Weeks at 2B (at least one that's close), but the argument could be made that Lawrie's not a 2B, anyway. He's worse defensively there than Weeks ever was.

 

I'm definitely uncomfortable with the farm system losing its impact players and nothing but potential role players left behind, but at least the division is relatively wide open. Everyone here is absolutely right that this doesn't guarantee the Brewers anything, but it at least puts them in the discussion at the start of the year, which is probably the best the organization can hope for.

 

It's probably not best for the long-term health of the organization, but Attanasio's shown he's willing to lose money for a year or two if the team is competing, and Melvin is desperate to keep his job. It does make the next couple drafts very important, though. They really need to hit on quite a few of their high picks if the downswing after 2012 is going to last for less than a couple years. If they bomb or only manage to get a slew of 3-star guys like they have the past couple years, they'll probably end up like the Astros.

 

Re-signing Weeks at this point is probably a good idea. I don't know that much about Lawrie, but my biggest issue with the trade is dealing a top 100 prospect for a guy who's been pretty mediocre overall, is 28 (I think) and coming off a career year. You're paying for the career year that he's pretty unlikely to repeat - much the same with Greinke, except Greinke's a lot better.

 

The Brewers are definitely going to have to scout and develop well now. If they can make a deep run in the playoffs here, I think they were a series of successful trades even if they do set the organization back over the long term. And Melvin probably had to do it to keep his job. However, I don't think the return was good enough to maximize their ability to contend.

[dew1679666265]

Do you guys think that this trade may be similar to the Bartolo Colon trade for Montreal? I am not saying that the Brewers gave up that level of talent, but I think they are in a similar place as Montreal was back when they made that trade for Colon.

 

Wasn't that before Montreal moved? I think Milwaukee's a lot more stable than Montreal was at the time and has better ML talent, but it's similar in that neither team was good enough to make those moves, I think.

[David]

I guess this is as good a place as any to post this

 

New Brewers manager Ron Roenicke intends to be super aggressive on the basepaths in 2011.

 

Roenicke, of course was the bench coach in Anaheim for Mike Sciosica, one of the game's most aggressive managers. "At times, you're going to say, 'Why are you running so much?" Roenicke said. "Why are you getting thrown out trying to take extra bases?'... That's the style I like to play."

 

:lol: :lol: :lol: awesome

[davearm2]

It's not nonsensical, it's correct.

 

In your example of replacing DeWitt with Uggla -- well duh, on the surface that move in isolation improves the team. But it also either a) jacks up payroll, or b) means you have to replace an Uggla-caliber player with a DeWitt-caliber player someplace else to keep the payroll the same.

 

If it's a), then sure, even an incompetent GM should be able to deliver additional wins if given significant additional dollars to spend.

 

If it's b), then my point remains.

 

You said, "the dollar cost of the contract itself has nothing to do with that." This is 100% wrong, so long as the same-sized contract could've yielded the same number of wins (or more) if given to another player instead.

 

To argue against the opportunity cost component of all this simply illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of Econ 101.

 

Your argument still makes absolutely no sense. At no point is the goal of estimating changes in the team talent level anything close to keeping payroll the same. Yes, it is possible that replacing Dewitt with Uggla will require the team to downgrade elsewhere, however there is absolutely no reason that this must happen. Because there is no logical reason that a downgrade must occur, you do not subtract wins until a move actually happens. It's that simple. Opportunity cost has nothing to do with this equation, unless it results in an actual move, because opportunity cost in and of itself has no tangible effect on the team talent level.

 

You even acknowledge that I am correct with possibility "a", except for some reason you tried to further obfuscate the issue by bringing in GM competence, which also has no relevant place in this equation. You have no leg to stand on here; you are wrong.

Actually I'm not the one that's wrong, but whatever.

 

Look dollars are a finite resource, so spending them one place necessarily means they cannot be spent someplace else. That's the definition of an opportunity cost.

 

From wikipedia: "A person who has $15 can either buy a CD or a shirt. If he buys the shirt the opportunity cost is the CD and if he buys the CD the opportunity cost is the shirt."

 

To put it into the immediate baseball context, just replace $15 with $13M, "CD" with "Zach Grienke", and "shirt" with "Adam Dunn". Hence the opportunity cost of paying Grienke is forgoing the production you could have had from Dunn (or some other player or players that would generate positive WAR) instead.

 

Ask anyone that knows anything about basic economics and they'll tell you I'm 100% right.

[Guest]

Dave is correct.

 

The $13M for Greinke could have gone to Crawford. It could have paid a good part of Cliff Lee's salary. It could have been invested in an extension to keep Fielder on the team.

 

Dollars matter whenever the budget is limited.

[Menace II Sobriety]

Dave is correct.

 

The $13M for Greinke could have gone to Crawford. It could have paid a good part of Cliff Lee's salary. It could have been invested in an extension to keep Fielder on the team.

 

Dollars matter whenever the budget is limited.

 

 

Actually Dave is not correct. He missed 2 key points.

 

1. He stated that the payroll would go up, which on a transaction based point it did, but a $13 MM acquisition will obviously raise the current payroll. But the Brewers payroll is actually lower than it was at the start of the previous season. With the subtractions of Hall, Hoffman, Suppan and others. I believe Suppan made 12.5 MM last year so it could be stated that they dumped Suppan for Greinke for 500k plus prospects.

 

2. He states that the 13 MM to Greinke stops them from using that money to acquire other key assets they could use. Where else are you going to find a 5 WAR player at 2x13. Or what group of players could you assemble to be worth that WAR at the same cost. The Brewers were never in contention for either Crawford or Lee. The cannot risk the future on those types of deals (Soriano). Also Fielder was already offered over 100 MM to sign an extension. The money for the first 3-4 years isn't the problem, and as soon as they paid 6/150 which it very well might cost many would think they vastly overpaid.

 

For the length and monetary value of the contract, it is hard to find a better cost per dollar for a team needing pitching that any other available player could provide.

 

To put it in Dave's terms the team found $20 bucks in their pocket bought themselves the t-shirt, cd, and had money left over to buy a cheeseburger. Opportunity cost works in a bubble but it does not take the extra money the team had to spend coming off of last years budget. ECON 101.1

[Geech]

Actually I'm not the one that's wrong, but whatever.

 

Look dollars are a finite resource, so spending them one place necessarily means they cannot be spent someplace else. That's the definition of an opportunity cost.

 

From wikipedia: "A person who has $15 can either buy a CD or a shirt. If he buys the shirt the opportunity cost is the CD and if he buys the CD the opportunity cost is the shirt."

 

To put it into the immediate baseball context, just replace $15 with $13M, "CD" with "Zach Grienke", and "shirt" with "Adam Dunn". Hence the opportunity cost of paying Grienke is forgoing the production you could have had from Dunn (or some other player or players that would generate positive WAR) instead.

 

Ask anyone that knows anything about basic economics and they'll tell you I'm 100% right.

 

Opportunity cost is not some esoteric concept. It's not controversial, nor is it in of itself at the center of this debate. The problem here is your inability to coherently apply the concept to baseball or to comprehend the meaning of my argument. There is no question that spending 13 million dollars on Greinke means the Brewers have less money available than they would otherwise. They could have spent that money on another player, as you suggest, used it for player development, or used it to renovate their offices. However, none of those things impact the value of Greinke's contribution to the team.

 

The talent level of a given team exists independent of the team's payroll. A given 25 players have the exact same talent regardless of whether they are paid 100 million or 60 million dollars. It is true that more payroll flexibility gives the team the ability to hire better players, but that isn't what we are talking about. We are estimating the change in talent level of the Brewers, represented by expected wins next season, from the Greinke trade. The only things that matter in this equation are the abilities of the players in question -- i.e., Greinke, the pitcher he is displacing, the shortstops they swapped, and the other traded players.

 

Of course payroll is important to the Brewers, and of course there are limits to what they can spend. However, that does not make it logical to discount Greinke's on-field value to the team by his payroll, a factor which does not impact his performance for the team. If you're trying to make the argument that Greinke's payroll is a significant downside to the trade, then you are doing it the wrong way. If you are trying to understand how opportunity cost works within the framework of baseball, then you are not quite there.

Edited January 2, 2011 by Geech

[Geech]

Dave is correct.

 

The $13M for Greinke could have gone to Crawford. It could have paid a good part of Cliff Lee's salary. It could have been invested in an extension to keep Fielder on the team.

 

Dollars matter whenever the budget is limited.

 

Of course salaries matter, that's not the issue. The issue is that Greinke's salary doesn't turn him from a 4 win player to a 2 win player, which is essentially what Dave is trying to claim.

[treebird]

Dave is correct.

 

The $13M for Greinke could have gone to Crawford. It could have paid a good part of Cliff Lee's salary. It could have been invested in an extension to keep Fielder on the team.

 

Dollars matter whenever the budget is limited.

 

Of course salaries matter, that's not the issue. The issue is that Greinke's salary doesn't turn him from a 4 win player to a 2 win player, which is essentially what Dave is trying to claim.

 

i'm with geech on this one. all that matters is the moves that happen. further, bringing up guys like crawford is really unfair. do you honestly think a guy like that would come play in milwaukee and cross his fingers that he gets to finish in third in front of 2.5M people every year for the same money as he'd get in boston?

[Guest]

Yeah, the opportunity cost gets borne out when they're unable to improve with their remaining resources, not debited from Greinke's value. By that logic, if you had 25 4-win players making 8 million each, that would somehow be a 50 win team.

[davearm2]

Actually I'm not the one that's wrong, but whatever.

 

Look dollars are a finite resource, so spending them one place necessarily means they cannot be spent someplace else. That's the definition of an opportunity cost.

 

From wikipedia: "A person who has $15 can either buy a CD or a shirt. If he buys the shirt the opportunity cost is the CD and if he buys the CD the opportunity cost is the shirt."

 

To put it into the immediate baseball context, just replace $15 with $13M, "CD" with "Zach Grienke", and "shirt" with "Adam Dunn". Hence the opportunity cost of paying Grienke is forgoing the production you could have had from Dunn (or some other player or players that would generate positive WAR) instead.

 

Ask anyone that knows anything about basic economics and they'll tell you I'm 100% right.

 

Opportunity cost is not some esoteric concept. It's not controversial, nor is it in of itself at the center of this debate. The problem here is your inability to coherently apply the concept to baseball or to comprehend the meaning of my argument. There is no question that spending 13 million dollars on Greinke means the Brewers have less money available than they would otherwise. They could have spent that money on another player, as you suggest, used it for player development, or used it to renovate their offices. However, none of those things impact the value of Greinke's contribution to the team.

 

The talent level of a given team exists independent of the team's payroll. A given 25 players have the exact same talent regardless of whether they are paid 100 million or 60 million dollars. It is true that more payroll flexibility gives the team the ability to hire better players, but that isn't what we are talking about. We are estimating the change in talent level of the Brewers, represented by expected wins next season, from the Greinke trade. The only things that matter in this equation are the abilities of the players in question -- i.e., Greinke, the pitcher he is displacing, the shortstops they swapped, and the other traded players.

 

Of course payroll is important to the Brewers, and of course there are limits to what they can spend. However, that does not make it logical to discount Greinke's on-field value to the team by his payroll, a factor which does not impact his performance for the team. If you're trying to make the argument that Greinke's payroll is a significant downside to the trade, then you are doing it the wrong way. If you are trying to understand how opportunity cost works within the framework of baseball, then you are not quite there.

I'm not sure how I can make this any clearer to you.

 

We are looking at the big picture of how the Brewers will perform with and without Greinke on the roster.

 

Sure Greinke personally provides the Brewers 4 wins (or whatever number you choose).

 

He also precludes them from re-signing or acquiring other players whose salaries would sum to Greinke's $13M (approximately). These players would also have provided wins.

 

To have a comprehensive analysis of this move's impact, you need to net out the foregone wins of the other players the Brewers could have had instead, but whom Greinke renders unaffordable. It's that simple.

 

Look in the end it's a good move for the Brewers. But its WAR impact is being overstated by anyone ignoring the opportunity cost component.

[davearm2]

Dave is correct.

 

The $13M for Greinke could have gone to Crawford. It could have paid a good part of Cliff Lee's salary. It could have been invested in an extension to keep Fielder on the team.

 

Dollars matter whenever the budget is limited.

 

Of course salaries matter, that's not the issue. The issue is that Greinke's salary doesn't turn him from a 4 win player to a 2 win player, which is essentially what Dave is trying to claim.

Greinke is still a 4-win player by himself.

[davearm2]

Some of you people need ask yourself this.

 

Why do we all complain about Alfonso Soriano?

 

Is it because he doesn't provide positive WAR? Nope that's not it. He does.

 

It's because he's overpaid, right?

 

The implication, of course, is that Soriano's money could've been spent more productively.

 

So Soriano's actual WAR needs to be offset by the WAR's other players could've provided but that the Cubs now can't afford.

 

Same calculus applies to all players, Greinke included.

[davearm2]

Actually Dave is not correct. He missed 2 key points.

 

1. He stated that the payroll would go up, which on a transaction based point it did, but a $13 MM acquisition will obviously raise the current payroll. But the Brewers payroll is actually lower than it was at the start of the previous season. With the subtractions of Hall, Hoffman, Suppan and others. I believe Suppan made 12.5 MM last year so it could be stated that they dumped Suppan for Greinke for 500k plus prospects.

Getting hung up on these numbers misses the bigger point. The point is, there was $13M available to spend. Spending it all on Greinke was just one option (and arguably the best option). But you still need to consider what could have been done with that money, and net it out.

 

2. He states that the 13 MM to Greinke stops them from using that money to acquire other key assets they could use. Where else are you going to find a 5 WAR player at 2x13. Or what group of players could you assemble to be worth that WAR at the same cost. The Brewers were never in contention for either Crawford or Lee. The cannot risk the future on those types of deals (Soriano). Also Fielder was already offered over 100 MM to sign an extension. The money for the first 3-4 years isn't the problem, and as soon as they paid 6/150 which it very well might cost many would think they vastly overpaid.

 

For the length and monetary value of the contract, it is hard to find a better cost per dollar for a team needing pitching that any other available player could provide.

It's easy to argue that this was the best way the Brewers could have spent that $13M. I wouldn't debate that.

 

All I'm saying is you're overstating the impact if you choose to ignore the opportunity cost element.