Jump to content

IdahoBert

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

Recommended Posts

There's no way that the Tigers or any other team would pay $6 million to replace Coke and Schereth's performance this year. So I would say that it would cost the $17 million that Grandy and Edwin Jackson's contracts amount to in 2011 to have them back. Back off Magglio and Inge and you're there.

I think 6 is high, but considering we paid Bobby Seay $2.4M for .8 WAR, I don't think it is TOO far off...even as strictly a reliever Coke was at a 1.1 WAR.

And also, what do you do this offseason when you have to add on to Granderson's contract and account for Jackson's FA. I get that Magglio didn't work out well and in hindsight was a poor signing, but now we can STILL add on...we can try again. We can go for Willingham, or Kelly, or even get Edwin Jackson back. We couldn't otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too bad the trade wasn't simply trading Granderson, it also involved Edwin Jackson.

Too bad you couldn't tell that Cecil's post was about Granderson's performance level, not the relative value of Edwin Jackson. But feel free to ignore the context of my post anyway.

Edwin Jackson was also making $8.35M (and next year both will make roughly 22-25M combined), so now take into consideration Edwin Jackson and the fact that you need to replace two bullpen arms. Like it or not, Coke and Schlereth have been two of our best relief lefties (hence the reason they have been on the team longer than any other potential lefties) so you would need to either downgrade those positions or find replacement players.

If Edwin Jackson is too expensive then trade him if you can replace the performance level more cost-effectively. Given that he's been above average since we traded him (much better than I expected, I admit it), that should not have been hard. No need to trade Granderson to fix Edwin's contract issues.

No need to downgrade from Coke or Schlereth. They have had a good stretch out of the pen for 20 or so innings lately, but so have about a zillion guys over the years and few of them required more than a $440k contract to have on their team's active roster. That's the way you build bullpen supporting casts, certainly not by trading one of your best position players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok I came up with my plan.

In 2010 I would not sign Damon. That saves 2.5 million. Jackson received a 2 million increase in 2010. I have 500k left over to play with. I would non tender Zumaya. That save 1 million in each of 2010 and 2011. I would not re-sign Everett. That is another million. I would sign Benoit to a minor league contract. I would then sign Will Ohman for 1.3 million. I would then sign Jamey Carroll for 2 years 3.5 million. I had a 2.5 million surplus and save 2 million without Jackson, Scherzer, Coke, Sclereth. I'm actually ahead 1.5 million now Santiago, Worth, Carroll could platoon at SS before Carroll would settle into 2B.

For 2011 I would not re-sign Ordonez or Inge. That's a 15 million savings. Granderson and Jackson make a combined 17 million. Now factor Jackson and Scherzer making a million combined. I'm also saving another million since Zumaya is gone. Now I'm even. With Carroll I wouldn't need Betemit and I never would've claimed Young. With those savings I should be able to afford Carroll for 2011. I would extend Benoit for what he's making now. I would sign Mota for less than one million. I would sign Andruw Jones for 2 million to platoon with Boesch in RF. (I would have a combined 800 OPS in RF) Now I'm 2 million over budget. Instead of signing Brad Penny I would sign Freddy Garcia for 1.5 million and save 1.5 million. I would be 500k over. I'm sure Illitch would spend the extra 500k if I asked nicely.

Sweet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think 6 is high, but considering we paid Bobby Seay $2.4M for .8 WAR, I don't think it is TOO far off...even as strictly a reliever Coke was at a 1.1 WAR.

And also, what do you do this offseason when you have to add on to Granderson's contract and account for Jackson's FA. I get that Magglio didn't work out well and in hindsight was a poor signing, but now we can STILL add on...we can try again. We can go for Willingham, or Kelly, or even get Edwin Jackson back. We couldn't otherwise.

With Granderson's contract comes his performance level too, so there would be no need to go out and get another bat for 2012.

In terms of re-signing or replacing Edwin Jackson for 2012, he's a good starting pitcher but he doesn't track to earn a whole lot more than the $8.75 million he's earning this year. There are only 27 starting pitchers who are earning more than $10 million in 2011. Most of them are between $10 - 13 million. So even if he's considered to be one of the top 25 starting pitchers (which is debatable) he's not going to fetch much more than $10 million.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still like the deal. You can't assume that Grandy would have done anything here like he's doing in NY. If offered the same deal and 4 players today that we got then I'd take again knowing the results thus far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I still like the deal. You can't assume that Grandy would have done anything here like he's doing in NY.

I agree with your premise that nobody should have guessed that Grandy would become such a HR beast; however you don't have to have Grandy's NYY performance in 2011 to make it a bad deal; just his normal performance over his career makes it a bad deal.

We gained little to nothing in terms of starting pitching, we gained somewhat defensively and we would have lost quite a bit offensively even if Granderson was just at his career norms in 2011. Of course if you're going to "normalize" away the unexpected you should also factor out Jackson's insane BABIP-induced 2010 season and Granderson's injury-shortened 2010, which would make it even more lop-sided/bad.

If offered the same deal and 4 players today that we got then I'd take again knowing the results thus far.

If you are saying that you would trade away Edwin Jackson and Curtis Granderson's 2011 seasons for what Max Scherzer, Austin Jackson, Phil Coke and Daniel Schlereth have done in 2011 (obviously this is a completely opposite premise from the first part of your post I quoted separately above, but that's your decision), I'd have to disagree, big-time. There's no way you could trade that performance in hindsight, Scherzer and Edwin Jackson have been fairly similar, and Granderson has beaten the living tar out of Austin Jackson in 2011.

Even if Granderson regresses to career norms after 2011 (which is likely) he's still likely to be a far more valuable player than Austin Jackson, at least for the next couple of years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with your premise that nobody should have guessed that Grandy would become such a HR beast; however you don't have to have Grandy's NYY performance in 2011 to make it a bad deal; just his normal performance over his career makes it a bad deal.

We gained little to nothing in terms of starting pitching, we gained somewhat defensively and we would have lost quite a bit offensively even if Granderson was just at his career norms in 2011. Of course if you're going to "normalize" away the unexpected you should also factor out Jackson's insane BABIP-induced 2010 season and Granderson's injury-shortened 2010, which would make it even more lop-sided/bad.

If you are saying that you would trade away Edwin Jackson and Curtis Granderson's 2011 seasons for what Max Scherzer, Austin Jackson, Phil Coke and Daniel Schlereth have done in 2011 (obviously this is a completely opposite premise from the first part of your post I quoted separately above, but that's your decision), I'd have to disagree, big-time. There's no way you could trade that performance in hindsight, Scherzer and Edwin Jackson have been fairly similar, and Granderson has beaten the living tar out of Austin Jackson in 2011.

Even if Granderson regresses to career norms after 2011 (which is likely) he's still likely to be a far more valuable player than Austin Jackson, at least for the next couple of years.

I agree with all of your posts in this thread.

The Granderson trade was bad when it was made & it looks even worse now. The Tigers traded the best player in the deal & received the worst return. Even Arizona looks to have gotten a better return, considering Ian Kennedy's performance this season.

The premise behind the trade was very faulty. A fairly young, reasonably-priced, elite CF is not a player who should be traded, unless it's an overwhelming return. Austin Jackson & two bullpen arms wasn't enough value to justify the trade.

I think the trade was financially motivated. Dombrowski backed himself into a corner; he had approved numerous bad contract extensions & foolishly allowed Magglio Ordonez's $18 million option to vest. He had no financial flexibility to improve the roster over the offseason. So, he traded two of the few tradeable assets on his roster in order to cheaply fill holes and free up salary (which was used to sign Jose Valverde.) After the Valverde signing, Dombrowski had maxed out his budget, but Ilitch approved the Damon signing later in the offseason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I always have a difficult time with threads like these because there's no salary cap in baseball and I don't know how much money the owners can truly afford. Illitch once spent over $130 million, so who's to say he can't do it again? Thus, I'm inclined to go with the talent and let the owner spend another $15 million. That's what I root for as a fan.

I think swapping one group of players for a another at lower cost and longer control was a sgnificant part of the deal for the Tigs. Just the way I read the tea-leaves at the time - not all that quantifiable and I'm not going to argue with any one that doesn't believe it but I do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think swapping one group of players for a another at lower cost and longer control was a sgnificant part of the deal for the Tigs. Just the way I read the tea-leaves at the time - not all that quantifiable and I'm not going to argue with any one that doesn't believe it but I do.

I have little doubt the trade was financially motivated. I don't think they would have made it otherwise. I think the Tigers got themselves into a situation where they needed to move some salaries, so they traded two relatively expensive but marketable players for the best return they could find. It was not a horrible trade given the circumstances, but one I wish they didn't make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with your premise that nobody should have guessed that Grandy would become such a HR beast; however you don't have to have Grandy's NYY performance in 2011 to make it a bad deal; just his normal performance over his career makes it a bad deal.

We gained little to nothing in terms of starting pitching, we gained somewhat defensively and we would have lost quite a bit offensively even if Granderson was just at his career norms in 2011. Of course if you're going to "normalize" away the unexpected you should also factor out Jackson's insane BABIP-induced 2010 season and Granderson's injury-shortened 2010, which would make it even more lop-sided/bad.

If you are saying that you would trade away Edwin Jackson and Curtis Granderson's 2011 seasons for what Max Scherzer, Austin Jackson, Phil Coke and Daniel Schlereth have done in 2011 (obviously this is a completely opposite premise from the first part of your post I quoted separately above, but that's your decision), I'd have to disagree, big-time. There's no way you could trade that performance in hindsight, Scherzer and Edwin Jackson have been fairly similar, and Granderson has beaten the living tar out of Austin Jackson in 2011.

Even if Granderson regresses to career norms after 2011 (which is likely) he's still likely to be a far more valuable player than Austin Jackson, at least for the next couple of years.

I guess I was looking at a longer term than 2011 when I made that statement. I'm not arguing that the Tigers have "won" the deal at this point, I am saying that I think looking back at it in 2015 we may have "won" the deal. Obviously only time will tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have little doubt the trade was financially motivated. I don't think they would have made it otherwise. I think the Tigers got themselves into a situation where they needed to move some salaries, so they traded two relatively expensive but marketable players for the best return they could find. It was not a horrible trade given the circumstances, but one I wish they didn't make.

All in all, I think we are giving hindsight too much credit. Granderson was a flawed player when he played here. Two of his last 4 seasons he was under 500 OPS against LHP. You don't want the opposing manager to be able to take your leadoff and only fast player out of the game late by a pitching change like we saw happen so many times with Grandy. So he doesn't lead off in NY - great, but if he was better suited not to lead off, then maybe DD really did have some idea behind trying to build a team that fit together better - because if Grandy didn't lead off in Det, we didn't have a lead off hitter. And at the end of 2009, I don't think too many would have put the odds on him ever hitting a 950 OPS against LHP any higher than of Austin Jackson becoming a young Tori Hunter.

In the end I have to agree with Gammons to the point that everyone got what they wanted. Clearly a lot of fans didn't want what DD wanted, but I bet he still loses no sleep over the trade.

Edited by Gehringer_2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yah I can try to explain the financial logic until I'm blue in the face, but in the end this trade was about us betting on Granderson's decline. Last year we looked right, this year we look wrong. We'll see I guess.

Not sure if we'd have been able to work the Hudson/Jackson deal within our division. Rasmus would be interesting too though, or Stewart/Frasor even maybe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All in all, I think we are giving hindsight too much credit. Granderson was a flawed player when he played here. .

I never liked the trade. Even with his flaws, I thought Granderson was a good two-way player and I don't think those types of players are easy to find. So, he wasn't a leadoff hitter. Then bat him someplace else. I never felt they got enough for him in return.

They still don't have a leadoff hitter. I love Jackson's defense, and I'm hopeful he'll become a decent offensive player. He's no leadoff hitter at this time though. He's not good at getting on base and really doesn't take advantage of his speed. He's surprisingly slow getting out of the box for a speedster and never seems to get to first on infield grounders as fast as I expect. I am encouraged that he's starting to bunt for hits more though. He's just an OK base stealer for a fast guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I never liked the trade. Even with his flaws, I thought Granderson was a good two-way player and I don't think those types of players are easy to find. So, he wasn't a leadoff hitter. Then bat him someplace else. I never felt they got enough for him in return.

They still don't have a leadoff hitter. I love Jackson's defense, and I'm hopeful he'll become a decent offensive player. He's no leadoff hitter at this time though. He's not good at getting on base and really doesn't take advantage of his speed. He's surprisingly slow getting out of the box for a speedster and never seems to get to first on infield grounders as fast as I expect. I am encouraged that he's starting to bunt for hits more though. He's just an OK base stealer for a fast guy.

I agree that there is irony in Jackson not having developed any better OBP skill than Grandy, since that was surely a major objective for the trade - but where we differ I guess, is that I give more credit to DD for having what I think is basically a good concept; which is that the CF at COPA has to be good defensively and cover a lot of ground,i.e be fast, and that being a given, is not likely to be a high ISO guy so you at least want him to be a high OBP guy. That combination makes your ideal CF canditate your natural leadoff man. Grandy hadn't been the best fit for that role on the offensive side, and the most likely career trajectory would only take him further from it. I can't blame DD for not forecasting "Granderson V2.011"

So maybe Austin doesn't turn out to be the guy, All in all I still think that given the other constraints, the basic logic of what DD was trying to accomplish in the trade was sound - and I think that even apart from the increased relief depth and greater cost control that was also gained. Plus I still like Scherzer more than Jackson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The argument that the Tigers could not afford Granderson is just completely ridiculous to me regardless of the team's payroll, Granderson this year is making less money than Magglio, and it barely goes up next year. Trade Edwin Jackson if you wanted to, I certainly didn't want to keep him, but keeping Granderson would not have had much if any effect on what the Tigers could do financially. No Damon last year (oh no!) and maybe no Magglio this year, what a disaster that would have been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The argument that the Tigers could not afford Granderson is just completely ridiculous to me regardless of the team's payroll, Granderson this year is making less money than Magglio, and it barely goes up next year. Trade Edwin Jackson if you wanted to, I certainly didn't want to keep him, but keeping Granderson would not have had much if any effect on what the Tigers could do financially. No Damon last year (oh no!) and maybe no Magglio this year, what a disaster that would have been.

+1 Spot on, in fact one of the reasons the Yankees were hot on Grandy was the fact that his contract was relatively affordable. I hated the trade the day it was made and I still hate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a thought ......how "untouchable" do you think Grandy is right now, as far as the Yankees are concerned? Pure speculation of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just a thought ......how "untouchable" do you think Grandy is right now, as far as the Yankees are concerned? Pure speculation of course.

It's not going to happen but I'd bet that if some fool team offered up a quantity of starting pitching they'd bite. And no, I can't define "quantity" well.....lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The argument that the Tigers could not afford Granderson is just completely ridiculous to me regardless of the team's payroll, Granderson this year is making less money than Magglio, and it barely goes up next year. Trade Edwin Jackson if you wanted to, I certainly didn't want to keep him, but keeping Granderson would not have had much if any effect on what the Tigers could do financially. No Damon last year (oh no!) and maybe no Magglio this year, what a disaster that would have been.

I'm certainly not saying that the tigers couldn't afford granderson. I agree that his contract is very good and he provides a lot of value. I'm saying the trade overall had financial motivations because it allowed to them to trade granderson's affordable contract and edwin's high contract for four players that make basically nothing, thereby allowing the tiger to reallocate some resources to other aspects of the team.

It has little to do with saving 8 million on grandy and everything to do with acquiring other cost controlled players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's no way that the Tigers or any other team would pay $6 million to replace Coke and Schereth's performance this year. So I would say that it would cost the $17 million that Grandy and Edwin Jackson's contracts amount to in 2011 to have them back. Back off Magglio and Inge and you're there.

I was only using 6 mil for coke and schlereth because that is what their fangraphs values add up to. My point was, we don't have a reliever in the system as good as coke so you would have to turn to free agency to acquire one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I always have a difficult time with threads like these because there's no salary cap in baseball and I don't know how much money the owners can truly afford. Illitch once spent over $130 million, so who's to say he can't do it again? Thus, I'm inclined to go with the talent and let the owner spend another $15 million. That's what I root for as a fan.

I would love for the owner to take a loss every year and just pay for all the best players, but these guys didn't get to the position they are in by losing money on their businesses. Did you see the Forbes reports for the last couple years? The 130 payroll was not sustainable. As a fan, I'd be worried about sticking with a high payroll for too long, losing too much money, and having to go through a true rebuild because we didn't recognize when to get the best value for our assets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah.... I don't really see what's hard to grasp about that. You have to fill a 25 and 40 man roster with somebody. Forget the individuals, like Damon and Magglio and Valverde and Benoit, and instead focus on the $$ involved. Because that's two seperate arguments. Trading Granderson and Jackson at that point freed up $XX amount of millions for the future. It's not about lowering your payroll overall, it's about gaining as much flexibility as possible. If you want to argue that they didn't do the best job they could have once they got that flexibility, fine. But that's not the same thing as arguing that the trade was or wasn't financially motivated.

And be leery of published payroll figures. Is that opening day payroll? Rosters change throughout the year. Plus does it count deferred payments to players from the past? And do we know if they have other big bills due? Like a balloon mortgage payment, or other loan? Those are things we are nit privvy to. It's not cut and dry, there's cash flow situations.

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...