Righty Jordan Zimmermann is one of the Dodgers’ “top targets” among free agent starters, Bob Nightengale of USA Today reports (Twitter links). That shouldn’t be read as a shift of focus away from Zack Greinke, he adds, so much as an indication of the team’s affinity for Zimmermann.
That report comes on the heels of another suggesting that the Giants could be a “formidable threat” to land Greinke. As Jon Heyman of CBSSports.com writes, San Francisco is at least creating an impression in the marketplace that it is prepared for a serious pursuit of the talented — but less than youthful — veteran starter. Of course, the Giants are also said to be doing some diligence on David Price.
It’s always intriguing to consider these two division rivals competing over a player, but in truth the connection goes beyond the fact that only one can win the NL West. Los Angeles probably has more free agent spending capacity than any team in baseball right now — whether or not it chooses to use it — while their neighbors to the north seemingly saved their hefty war chest for this winter’s strong group of free agents. And, of course, both have obvious needs in the rotation.
One year ago, it wouldn’t have been surprising at all to expect to debate the relative merits of these two pitchers. At that point, Zimmermann was coming off of a season in which he looked like an improving, top-of-the-rotation arm, while Greinke was good but obviously not getting any younger.
Things have changed quite a bit in the meantime, though. The 29-year-old Zimmermann has lost some luster, while Greinke turned in a season for the ages. Of course, there’s an argument to be made that perceptions and recency bias could be clouding the situation, but it seems clear at this point that Greinke will out-earn his younger competitor.
All told, it remains far too early to get any kind of a reasonable read of the market. There’s arguably been more chatter surrounding Greinke than other top arms — it’s mostly been crickets, in particular, regarding Johnny Cueto — but as of yet there’s nothing to suggest any sort of clarity. Indeed, if anything, these reports serve only to confirm the fluidity at the top of the pitching market.
Giants!! grab Greinke and get Alex Gordon!!
How about Greinke and Heyward?
Miller and Heyward
Miller & Morgan
Ha. 1 point for you.
Lol well played
Do the Dodger’s really have the most spending capacity? Isn’t this the 4th Year they have been over the luxury doesn’t the penalty get worse?
$100mm+ coming off the books this off-season. Around $50MM in 2017 when Ethier and Crawford contracts are over.
The Dodgers seem to have a never ending pocket full of cash. Ever since Magic took over, it’s been nothing but spending.
The controlling interest by far is Guggenheim Partners. Magic Johnson’s piece is tiny. Guggenheim and the media contract are the main sources of the Dodgers’ spending power. Magic looked like he might be the local face of ownership, but he is hardly ever seen, and rarely even shows up for games. All that said, the Dodgers don’t have endless spending ability. It’s difficult to know whether they are operating the team profitably currently but we can be sure they want to maximize profits. They’ve done a lot to rebuild the pipeline in the minors so the payroll trend over the next few years will be down most likely.
The luxury tax threshold maxes at 50% I believe, over $189M (or $179M payroll and about $10M for insurance, etc.). Between the TV deal, ticket sales, merchandise and concessions, the Dodgers probably generate—on the low end—about $450M per year in revenue. They probably contribute $30M-$40M in revenue sharing (aside from the $2B mlb takes out of their TV deal), and have $50-$75M per year in operating expenses (non-baseball personal, utilities, travel/lodging, spring training expenses, etc.). So on the low end they probably have about $300M—$350M per year to designate towards payroll and/or profit (or paying down the debt incurred to buy the team). A $250M payroll, would give them the capacity to add about $100M-$110M to the payroll (they have about $142m in AAV dollars committed to 2016), and still profit about $35M—$45M.
And it’s likely more…just like the Yankees likely generate more revenue than the Dodgers do—their tickets cost more, their TV deal is better, etc.—but they also have stadium debt to pay (although that allows them to avoid property taxes) and costs of doing business are higher in NY than in LA.
Of course all of this is speculative, and none of us have access to the actual records and figures, but it’s fun to think about it.
Your numbers are probably in the ballpark, so to speak. One thing to in mind is though. While the media deal is worth about $330M annually on average, it starts lower and increases over the life of the contract. Also, on the expense side is the improvements they’ve been making to the stadium.
I factored in the way the media deals are structured. I figured they take in about $200—$220M from ticket sales/concessions (45K per night, $28 ticket cost, plus concessions and parking of about $25), $50M from national TV, their local TV deal currently paying about $130M-$150M per year, plus radio deals, ballpark advertisements, etc., would could net them millions more. I’m probably, as you say, in the ballpark, but who knows? We could be way off.
“Also, on the expense side is the improvements they’ve been making to the stadium.”
That could be a zero-net cost or close to it. Remember, Guggenheim owns this team. If anyone is capable of manipulating the tax codes to benefit themselves—pay for improvements on the stadium, earn tax credits and don’t pay taxes, could balance itself out.
I think your numbers are likely in the neighborhood. I read the Dodgers probably net around $280 mill per yr (on avg) from their TV deal.
The Dodgers avg. ticket price was about $28 and their attendance was about 3.76 million so ticket revenue alone was about another $105 million. Doesn’t include parking, concessions and souvenirs.
There is also the national TV deal which nets each team around $50 mill a year.
That’s about $435 mill right there, but the Dodgers also have to pay luxury tax. My guess is total revenue nets out to around $450 mill, like you said. But I also wouldn’t be surprised if it got to close to half a billion.
The Dodgers TV contract ($8.5 billion over 25 yrs) nets them around $280 mill a year AFTER you factor in revenue sharing to MLB,
They also lead MLB in attendance.
Point is, they have a lot of financial wherewithal to utilize.
All that said, I think payroll will be reduced. I could see payroll reduced to somewhere around $230 mill or so because of the fact that the luxury tax rate will reach the max 50%.
That said, that still likely gives the Dodgers (before arb raises) around $100 mill to spend this year before they get to that level (they are at about $135 mill in payroll allocated to ’16 so far).
So the Dodgers will likely be active on the open market.
The Dodgers aren’t getting $280M from the TV contract right now. It’s paid out on an upwardly trending scale over 25 years…lower payments at first, higher payments in the end. They likely receive about half of that total this year, with a roughly 5% increase in payments annually until it totals about 150% of the average value—or in the last year of the deal they’ll receive about $420M.
Yeah I was taking the average amount per year to be paid out for the TV contract. Actual payments will be paid out in a different manner.
Zimmermann would be a great pick up for the Dodgers.
5yrs/$100MM or 6yrs/$120MM
Zimmerman isn’t going that cheap.
He would have gotten more if it was the winter of 2014-15…..but he wasn’t great this year. Seemed like he “lost a step”. If he gets more than 5/115…..someone’s probably going to get fired…..lol
$22M-$25M/yr
Or any other team so that’s not really saying much.
I’ll consider this respectful taunting.
I will assume that each team is trying to gauge the other at where they stand on each player.
I’m a fan of Greinke, he always seems focused with a controlled aggression and more importantly, mentally tough. I see him having another 3 – 4 strong years and he’s the type of pitcher who could adjust and still be successful once his velocity starts to decline. A good buy for a contending team in my opinion and could easily move into a head pitching coach position at any MLB team once his contract is up.
If cueto is smart he’ll wait till all the other top tier names sign and really cash in. Zim in la makes a lot of sense though I could see the Yankees competing for him.
“Los Angeles probably has more free agent spending capacity than any team in baseball right now — whether or not it chooses to use it”
That is the exact statement that can be said of the Yankees, who arguably draw more revenue than the Dodgers do, but have started to get overlooked.
Rick Honeycutt weighed in on Grienke, saying he believes he could pitch effectively into his 40s. Reading between the lines, the message was basically that the Dodgers would be nuts to let him sign somewhere else if it’s only a matter of five years vs. four. It would be pitchforks and torches time in LA if he signed with the Giants.
Not really no. If they don’t get greinke they go after price. If you’re a Dodgers fan, what’s the difference?