Jump to content

IdahoBert

GAMMONS: D-backs, Tigers, Yanks all got what they needed from 2009 swap

Recommended Posts

It's not just the payroll in 2010, it's the payroll in 2011 and beyond, as well.

Trading granderson and Edwin saved them a lot of money relative to their direct replacements in Austin and scherzer. That's a fact. They also added two bullpen pieces in coke and schlereth that make the minimum. Free agent relievers aren't cheap, and you can't just acquire them easily via trade. The money they saved allowed them to add valverde and Benoit. Where would this team be without those four relievers? I'm not sure exactly how the salaries line up, but I think it is pretty close this year. I'd rather have those four relievers and Austin and max than have grandy, Edwin (FA after this year), and four replacement level RPs.

The money mattered.

Granderson is only making 8.25 million this season. Don't resign Ordonez and you'd actually save a million. In 2011 and beyond they had Willis,Bonderman, Robertson, Ordonez, and Guillen's contract coming off the books. Granderson is signed through 2012. Granderson had nothing to do with whether they could sign Valverde. They signed Damon to replace Granderson's bat. Damon made 2.5 million more than Granderson did in 2010. They had millions coming off the books after 2010 and could afford Granderson's modest 2.5 million increase. They'll have Ordonez and Guillen coming off the books this year. In no way was Granderson's contract hindering the future of this team. He was there most trade able asset. He appeared to be regressing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, the Granderson trade was part a gamble (as with most things). Part of it was for a skill gamble, and part of it a money saving opportunity. To say they spent money somewhere else you do not agree with, does not necessarily correlate to saving money on this part. For example: a friend saves money by not going to out to eat with you, but spends $300 for a concert later in the month, you may not agree with it, but it was his priority. You aren’t happy he didn’t go to dinner with you, so saving the $50 on dinner is stupid, if it was to spend it on the concert.

Jackson was an unproven minor league outfielder. Granderson had his 20-20-20-20 season a year before. However he was slumping, hitting in the .260’s iirc. He had a larger contract, Jackson did not. You take the gamble to lower payroll. If he didn’t’ have the MVP caliper season this year, but hit another .260’s season this year, most of the Yankees fans would be mad.

Similarly, Ordonez has finished first place in the entire league for batting average in the past. That was after he overcame an injury coming from Chicago. So the gamble here in my opinion was that he would overcome the injury and hit for .300 Unfortunately he did not. Lucky for us we have Peralta, Avila, Martinez, and Cabrera this year that are in that territory for averages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am in the camp that believes Scherzer and Jackson alone will make up for the love lost with Granderson.

I think both are still stars on the rise, and am hoping they kick it into gear at a time when the Tigers are running away with the Central in future years to come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The financial considerations were definitely a factor in the deal. That doesn't mean the deal was financially motivated.

Yes. Granderson still had fairly high trade potential at the time and the Tigers found a deal. They had tried unsuccessfully--I'm assuming--to address Grandy's problem's hitting lefties and may have wanted to avoid having to give him an even bigger contract down the line when he'd become a free agent (and perhaps lose him) and not get as much out of it as they could with a trade. Money may not have been the immediate, primary factor motivating a trade, but market considerations down the line probably were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The financial considerations were definitely a factor in the deal. That doesn't mean the deal was financially motivated.

If it was, why would they keep spending? Granderson was still a 3 WAR player in 2009. Surely that's worth 5.5 million? He was still a 3.6 WAR player in 2010. If Granderson was a free agent and Dombrowski signed him for 3 years and 23 million, people would love it. If you're a team looking to save money, why would you trade a productive player who had been a 3+ WAR the previous 4 years who's locked into a reasonable contract? The Tigers added 18 million in payroll in 2010. If they were thinking about 2011 and 2012, they had to of known all the millions in expiring contracts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If it was, why would they keep spending? Granderson was still a 3 WAR player in 2009. Surely that's worth 5.5 million? He was still a 3.6 WAR player in 2010. If Granderson was a free agent and Dombrowski signed him for 3 years and 23 million, people would love it. If you're a team looking to save money, why would you trade a productive player who had been a 3+ WAR the previous 4 years who's locked into a reasonable contract? The Tigers added 18 million in payroll in 2010. If they were thinking about 2011 and 2012, they had to of known all the millions in expiring contracts.

They weren't looking to save money. They were looking to reallocate the money they owed him and Jackson. Certainly, part of the attraction of the deal was that Scherzer and Ajax would cost considerably less and would cost considerably less for the near future. They felt that a combination of Austin, Schlereth, Coke, Scherzer, Valverde, and Damon would provide more total value per dollar than Granderson and Edwin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They weren't looking to save money. They were looking to reallocate the money they owed him and Jackson. Certainly, part of the attraction of the deal was that Scherzer and Ajax would cost considerably less and would cost considerably less for the near future. They felt that a combination of Austin, Schlereth, Coke, Scherzer, Valverde, and Damon would provide more total value per dollar than Granderson and Edwin.

Exactly. The trade was based on performance than money. I was disputing the fact that the Tigers were looking to save money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Cecil, they had expiring contracts. They also had raises due to Cabrera, Verlander. Teams plot this out. When you factor in raises and arbitration figures for 2012, they'll be at about $100 million already, that's not counting any new signings. Plus we don't really know about any of the other big expenses they might have.

It's a classic case of selling high. It wasn't because they didn't like Granderson. I'm not even sure it was part of a broad strategy long term. It could have simply been "This opens things up for us down the road." Maybe not the particulars.

I also don't think Ilitch sits down and tells DD what the budget is. He's given the information from DD and together they review them and pick the best course, or DD presents the courses and Ilitch picks.

There's expenses beyond salary. There's revenues we don't know about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO: That trade had zero to do with finances. The money they spent, the pick ups they made all have a feeling of 'win now' IMO. I keep going back to the fact that Illitch is looking more and more like the cript keeper every day. I, personally, think he wants to win now, but also not at the total expense of the teams future. It is a very fine line IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes Cecil, they had expiring contracts. They also had raises due to Cabrera, Verlander. Teams plot this out. When you factor in raises and arbitration figures for 2012, they'll be at about $100 million already, that's not counting any new signings. Plus we don't really know about any of the other big expenses they might have.

It's a classic case of selling high. It wasn't because they didn't like Granderson. I'm not even sure it was part of a broad strategy long term. It could have simply been "This opens things up for us down the road." Maybe not the particulars.

I also don't think Ilitch sits down and tells DD what the budget is. He's given the information from DD and together they review them and pick the best course, or DD presents the courses and Ilitch picks.

There's expenses beyond salary. There's revenues we don't know about.

Even with Granderson's contract, the Tigers would still be at 2009's payroll. They could choose not pay 12.5 million a year for a 32 year old 2.1 WAR player who has no defensive value. Granderson was the best value on the team. They could've not re-signed Ordonez. If they plotted this out and figured Granderson would cost too much, where did they find the money to sign Martinez and Benoit? What do you think is a better deal; Benoit for 3 years 16.5 million or Granderson 3 years 23.5 million? This team thinks a 35 year old Martinez making 12-13 million opens things up more in the future? Speaking of revenues, wasn't Granderson not the ultimate fan favorite in Detroit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even with Granderson's contract, the Tigers would still be at 2009's payroll. They could choose not pay 12.5 million a year for a 32 year old 2.1 WAR player who has no defensive value. Granderson was the best value on the team. They could've not re-signed Ordonez. If they plotted this out and figured Granderson would cost too much, where did they find the money to sign Martinez and Benoit? What do you think is a better deal; Benoit for 3 years 16.5 million or Granderson 3 years 23.5 million? This team thinks a 35 year old Martinez making 12-13 million opens things up more in the future? Speaking of revenues, wasn't Granderson not the ultimate fan favorite in Detroit?

If they had kept Granderson would they have had been willing to sign Valverde, Benoit, Martinez, pay Jackson or his replacement? Plus the spots spent on Coke and Schlereth?

What you don't know is their cash flow situation. Payments go up and down from year to year. Bottom line is a case can be made from both a financial and performance standpoint for this deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If they had kept Granderson would they have had been willing to sign Valverde, Benoit, Martinez, pay Jackson or his replacement? Plus the spots spent on Coke and Schlereth?

What you don't know is their cash flow situation. Payments go up and down from year to year. Bottom line is a case can be made from both a financial and performance standpoint for this deal.

Why would they not? They signed Valverde and Damon. Damon made 2.5 million more than Granderson. Would they re-sign Ordonez? Probably not but I would rather have Granderson than Ordonez. In fact, keeping Granderson over Ordonez would save them money this year. I don't get the cash flow argument? If anything Granderson would generate more cash flow than Jackson. Their moves after the Granderson trade doesn't suggest a team looking to save money. They spent 10 million on a 37 year old coming off major ankle surgery but needed to save money by trading a 3+ WAR player making the same? When trying to save money, why do you trade a player performing above their contract?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even with Granderson's contract, the Tigers would still be at 2009's payroll. They could choose not pay 12.5 million a year for a 32 year old 2.1 WAR player who has no defensive value. Granderson was the best value on the team. They could've not re-signed Ordonez. If they plotted this out and figured Granderson would cost too much, where did they find the money to sign Martinez and Benoit? What do you think is a better deal; Benoit for 3 years 16.5 million or Granderson 3 years 23.5 million? This team thinks a 35 year old Martinez making 12-13 million opens things up more in the future? Speaking of revenues, wasn't Granderson not the ultimate fan favorite in Detroit?

I think we all agree with you. If only they could have traded Ordonez and Edwin Jackson for Austin Jackson, Scherzer, Coke, and Schlereth then this team could have still spent the same amount of money signing Benoit and Martinez and and been so much better. Unfortunately, to get young cost controlled players you have to give up a combination of young cost controlled players and good contracts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would rather have Granderson over Jackson, cost controlled or not. I have no doubt they could've shopped Edwin Jackson separately and got a good return.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Tigers payroll was 115 million in 2009. It was 133 million in 2010. Yes they absolutely needed to trade Granderson's 5.5 million so they could spend an extra 18 million.

No it wasn't

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are mixing up why they did something vs. what they should have done in hindsight.

Doesn't matter why they would spend $10 million on Maggs..... the point is they wanted to. Keeping Granderson and Jackson over cheaper players might have prevented them from being able to sign the guys they wanted. Edwin made more than Scherzer. Austin made less than Granderson. They make a lot less now considering the raises to those 2. You have to fill out a roster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would rather have Granderson over Jackson, cost controlled or not. I have no doubt they could've shopped Edwin Jackson separately and got a good return.

You think they could have gotten Max, Coke, and Schelerth for Edwin Jackson?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No it wasn't

Yes it was. They owed Sheffield 13+ million. They had no problem spending it in 2010.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would rather have Granderson over Jackson, cost controlled or not. I have no doubt they could've shopped Edwin Jackson separately and got a good return.

I don't disagree, and I have argued the same thing about Edwin Jackson from day one.

Heck, that is part of the reason I think the deal was made with some consideration towards financial flexibility / DD's was concerned his budget would likely get smaller in the long run. Because absent that, dealing Granderson for A. Jackson, Coke and Kennedy at the time seemed a high risk / low reward move absent the desire to acquire cost controlled players. FWIW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You think they could have gotten Max, Coke, and Schelerth for Edwin Jackson?

I personally think it was possible to pry Max from Arizona with Jackson and some other consideration without dealing Granderson. But that is speculation on my part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I personally think it was possible to pry Max from Arizona with Jackson and some other consideration without dealing Granderson. But that is speculation on my part.

I just don't see it. I think the Diamondbacks really wanted Kennedy and the Tigers were brought in to get him out of New York. I think they only took Edwin Jackson to get the deal done and had every intention of flipping him first chance they got.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Micro said AZ has been after Kennedy for quite some time.

Wasn't there an article recently that went through the trade timeline? It may be in the mega thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are mixing up why they did something vs. what they should have done in hindsight.

Doesn't matter why they would spend $10 million on Maggs..... the point is they wanted to. Keeping Granderson and Jackson over cheaper players might have prevented them from being able to sign the guys they wanted. Edwin made more than Scherzer. Austin made less than Granderson. They make a lot less now considering the raises to those 2. You have to fill out a roster.

I'm looking in hindsight at the moves they made after trading Granderson and don't see a team looking to save money. What other cost saving move did they make? They had Sheffield's contract come off the books but chose to spend it immediately. If they were looking to save money, why did they not pocket that money? Each year they had dead contracts expire, they went and spent the money. On top of that, why would they even buy out Granderson's arbitration years in the first place and then two seasons later say we have to save money?

You think they could have gotten Max, Coke, and Schelerth for Edwin Jackson?

Why does it have to be Scherzer? You could probably get Scherzer and Schlereth. Maybe include a low level prospect. Am I going to be upset if we don't get a lefty specialist? No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Motown Sports Blog



×
×
  • Create New...