Jump to content

IdahoBert

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

Recommended Posts

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.

AZ was hot for Kennedy. There were also reports AZ was concerned Scherzer was an injury risk with his mechanics.

The question is whether or not AZ had to have Kennedy to part with Scherzer, and, I suppose, if NY had to have Curtis to part with Ian.

I am not convinced either condition in the above sentence is true, let alone both, but that is pure speculation on my part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mean to imply anything with this wrt Granderson/Jackson, but if you use DRS instead of UZR as the defensive metric when calculating WAR, Grandy and Jackson have each been about 10 win players since the trade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the problem with 3 way deals. I don't believe you can isolate each component because at the end of the day you evaluate whether what you gave up is worth what you get in return, regardless of who went where. Technically don't 3 way deals have to be broken up into separate deals in terms of paperwork? I thought they did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Right which means the payroll was 115 plus 13+ for sheffield for a total of 128+. Just cause they cut him doesn't mean they were off the hook.

Cots had it listed at 115 million but didn't include Sheffield's 13 million. Again, if the team wanted to save money, why did they go out and spend Shefiield's 13 million?

Cot's Baseball Contracts: Detroit Tigers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They could've traded Jackson for Daniel Hudson. Would anyone be upset with that? I'm sure there are other good deals that could've been made with Jackson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Do you really think that they could have gotten Scherzer and Schlereth for Edwin and a low level prospect? I don't. They ended up with Kennedy and Edwin, so I guess if the low level prospect was on par with Kennedy then you would be right. What sort of alternative to Scherzer are you seeing that you honestly think could be had for Edwin Jackson? Not a lot of teams looking to trade a young cost controlled guy for an old costly guy. If you were the GM of a team who would you trade for Edwin Jackson?

The Tigers had no luck replacing that lefty specialist this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cots had it listed at 115 million but didn't include Sheffield's 13 million. Again, if the team wanted to save money, why did they go out and spend Shefiield's 13 million?

Cot's Baseball Contracts: Detroit Tigers

I have 2008 - $137, 2009 - $128, 2010 - $129, 2011 - $105

I guess you are missing the point. Sure they spent the money, the move wasn't made to save as much as it was to reallocate. Going forward they have a younger, cheaper more flexible roster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you really think that they could have gotten Scherzer and Schlereth for Edwin and a low level prospect? I don't. They ended up with Kennedy and Edwin, so I guess if the low level prospect was on par with Kennedy then you would be right. What sort of alternative to Scherzer are you seeing that you honestly think could be had for Edwin Jackson? Not a lot of teams looking to trade a young cost controlled guy for an old costly guy. If you were the GM of a team who would you trade for Edwin Jackson?

The Tigers had no luck replacing that lefty specialist this year.

Daniel Hudson. Duane Below I'm sure could handle the lefty specialist role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They could've traded Jackson for Daniel Hudson. Would anyone be upset with that? I'm sure there are other good deals that could've been made with Jackson.

That was a deadline deal, totally different. The Tigers weren't in position in 2009 or 2010 to be sellers like the DBacks were. Given their spending, it's hard to imagine the Tigers keeping Edwin simply to trade for a better return once they had fallen out of the race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have 2008 - $137, 2009 - $128, 2010 - $129, 2011 - $105

I guess you are missing the point. Sure they spent the money, the move wasn't made to save as much as it was to reallocate. Going forward they have a younger, cheaper more flexible roster.

Just because Austin Jackson is younger and cheaper doesn't mean he's better. Granderson's contract expires after 2012 (Club option or buyout for 2013) They are just as flexible. The move was made because they thought Granderson was declining. Why then would you buy out 3 years of arbitration with Granderson with a 5 year contract to say only two years later you want to save money and be more flexible? It seems that type of thinking has been getting Dombrowski in trouble. (See Robertson, Willis)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That was a deadline deal, totally different. The Tigers weren't in position in 2009 or 2010 to be sellers like the DBacks were. Given their spending, it's hard to imagine the Tigers keeping Edwin simply to trade for a better return once they had fallen out of the race.

Apparently the Tigers were sellers since they traded Granderson for the cost controlled rookie. I'm sure there were other deals to be made. Jackson had a career year and was still young.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just because Austin Jackson is younger and cheaper doesn't mean he's better. Granderson's contract expires after 2012 (Club option or buyout for 2013) They are just as flexible. The move was made because they thought Granderson was declining. Why then would you buy out 3 years of arbitration with Granderson with a 5 year contract to say only two years later you want to save money and be more flexible? It seems that type of thinking has been getting Dombrowski in trouble. (See Robertson, Willis)

All I ever claimed was that I thought long-term finances were a consideration in the deal. That isn't to say there weren't other considerations.

As to why do you do that WRT Granderson? Maybe it is as simple as the economy fell in 2009 and the long-term financial prospects of the Tigers weren't as rosy as they were in the off-season after the 2007 season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just because Austin Jackson is younger and cheaper doesn't mean he's better. Granderson's contract expires after 2012 (Club option or buyout for 2013) They are just as flexible. The move was made because they thought Granderson was declining. Why then would you buy out 3 years of arbitration with Granderson with a 5 year contract to say only two years later you want to save money and be more flexible? It seems that type of thinking has been getting Dombrowski in trouble. (See Robertson, Willis)

I didn't say Jackson was better.

There was a point where we had far too many guys that we couldn't do anything with in regards to sending them down if they were struggling which is no longer the case and some how all the trouble Dombrowski has gotten him into was rebuilding his entire roster, building a superior team while cutting his payroll by $25million in just 2 yrs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All I ever claimed was that I thought long-term finances were a consideration in the deal. That isn't to say there weren't other considerations.

As to why do you do that WRT Granderson? Maybe it is as simple as the economy fell in 2009 and the long-term financial prospects of the Tigers weren't as rosy as they were in the off-season after the 2007 season.

Again, if the economy fell in 2009, why do you go out and sign Damon and Valverde? Besides in 2009 they were 4th in the AL in attendance. Trading Granderson wasn't going to help that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cots had it listed at 115 million but didn't include Sheffield's 13 million. Again, if the team wanted to save money, why did they go out and spend Shefiield's 13 million?

Cot's Baseball Contracts: Detroit Tigers

When, in 2010? Maybe because they knew they were going to have a bloated payroll in 2010 regardless, and wanted to take steps to be competitive.

All my point WRT the Granderson deal is that helped facilitate lower payrolls 2011 on. I think that was part of the appeal of the deal from the Tigers vantage point. You are welcome to disagree and argue that, but I really wasn't speaking towards towards an immediate benefit as opposed to a longer-term plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't say Jackson was better.

There was a point where we had far too many guys that we couldn't do anything with in regards to sending them down if they were struggling which is no longer the case and some how all the trouble Dombrowski has gotten him into was rebuilding his entire roster, building a superior team while cutting his payroll by $25million in just 2 yrs.

The cutting of payroll has nothing to do with Granderson. It's Sheffield, Bonderman, Willis, Robertson all being gone. You could throw a cost controlled guy in RF like they are doing now. Or LF. Good CF don't come around everyday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, if the economy fell in 2009, why do you go out and sign Damon and Valverde? Besides in 2009 they were 4th in the AL in attendance. Trading Granderson wasn't going to help that.

Because they presumably thought Damon and Valverde were better fit within their goal of being competitive and having lower payrolls from 2011 on.

Dealing Granderson and E. Jackson essentially gave the Tigers a cost-controlled CF, a SP, and 2 RP. That paired with letting bad contracts expire led to a fairly massive reduction in payroll. They then reallocated their resources, some short-term and some long-term, and still realized a sizeable reduction in pay-roll while remaining competitive. I think that was a goal of the Granderson deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When, in 2010? Maybe because they knew they were going to have a bloated payroll in 2010 regardless, and wanted to take steps to be competitive.

All my point WRT the Granderson deal is that helped facilitate lower payrolls 2011 on. I think that was part of the appeal of the deal from the Tigers vantage point. You are welcome to disagree and argue that, but I really wasn't speaking towards towards an immediate benefit as opposed to a longer-term plan.

But they went and spent a lot of money in 2011 and beyond and Granderson was only scheduled to make 13.5 million in 2011 and beyond. If you weren't talking about the immediate future, why did you bring up the 2009 economy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because they presumably thought Damon and Valverde were better fit within their goal of being competitive and having lower payrolls from 2011 on.

Dealing Granderson and E. Jackson essentially gave the Tigers a cost-controlled CF, a SP, and 2 RP. That paired with letting bad contracts expire led to a fairly massive reduction in payroll. They then reallocated their resources, some short-term and some long-term, and still realized a sizeable reduction in pay-roll while remaining competitive. I think that was a goal of the Granderson deal.

The thing is, they knew they had millions of dollars of lower payroll coming. What other move have they done to save money? If Dombrowski doesn't have enough foresight, why did he buy out 3 years of arbitration instead of waiting? I guess Granderson is another case of a bad contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But they went and spent a lot of money in 2011 and beyond and Granderson was only scheduled to make 13.5 million in 2011 and beyond. If you weren't talking about the immediate future, why did you bring up the 2009 economy?

I think the poor economy in 2009 had a fairly large influence what the Tigers thought their long-term revenue stream would be moving forward. Granderson was dealt in 2009, so I think it at least somewhat relevant.

That written, the bad contracts on the books for 2010 were already there in 2009. They were sunk costs, and very little could be done to alleviate them. My guess is Ilitch recognized this and essentially instructed Dave not to grow payroll in 2010 (from 2009), and that long-term the pay-roll really needed to be in the 100 - 110 M range, all while remaining competitive.

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...