Shouldn't this trade be proof enough that the Tigers can't maintain that level of salary generosity and the Yankees can easily afford to take on salary dumps from other teams?
And how do you figure Steinbrenner makes less money than Ilitch?
Shouldn't this trade be proof enough that the Tigers can't maintain that level of salary generosity and the Yankees can easily afford to take on salary dumps from other teams?
And how do you figure Steinbrenner makes less money than Ilitch?
This trade should not be proof of that.
Not every trade that improves the salary situation can be seen as a trade solely to improve the situation. That's silly.
The Tigs probably upgraded at SP, got some much-needed bullpen help, and downgraded at CF. But outfield is by far their strongest and deepest position in terms of prospects. They will be fine in 2010, and they may yet be better very soon. The loss that will hurt the Tigers most won't be Grandy or E-Jack...it will be Polanco. And in the long run, this will most likely be a move that improved the Tigers.
Ilitch 1.6 Billion
George the King 1.2 Billion
Still a ton of money but he has an extra 1/5 on Steinbrenner
Net worth =/= income. Most of Steinbrenner's net worth is the Yankees, and the media empire he's created to broadcast the Yankees. Ilitch's is tied up in pizza - you can't just sell Little Caesar's to pay for baseball salaries. And I'd wager that a lot of the difference between Ilitch and Steinbrenner is the casino his wife owns, which Forbes might consider "his" because he's married to her, but in no way, shape, or form will MLB allow the casino money or net worth to help finance the Tigers. That stuff stays separate. It's why the casino is in his wife's name in the first place.
...he also owns TWO teams. Just a thought.
Per ESPN, the Yankees payroll was 208 million in 2009. The Tigers were 119 million (5th in baseball). http://espn.go.com/mlb/teams/salaries?team=nyy. Thus, the gap between the Yankees and Tigers is 89 million dollars. (That is 2.6 A-Rods without deducting the salaries of the players the fictional A-Rods would replace.)
The point here is that the Tigers have to dump salary. This is not a baseball move. Detroit had no choice but to get rid of good, young pitching and the most popular player on the team amongst fans. The only reason why the did this was economics. Does Detroit have some bad contracts? Hell yes. (Willis and Robertson come to mind). But there is no room at all for error.
Meanwhile, the Yankees can add payroll at will b/c they have all the money they will ever need. I heard that the YES network made the Yankee organization 500 million last year. (That's per 97.1 the Ticket in Detorit from Mike Valenti. He is not always 100% correct, but he is a Yankees fan.) I don't blame the Yankees. They didn't make the rules, they are just exploiting what's there. It is the system that is broken.
It IS a baseball move. THEY GOT THE BEST PLAYER IN THE TRADE, in Max Scherzer. Further - do you think "Saving money" can't be a baseball move? In the next two years, they're going to have to re-sign the 2nd best pitcher in baseball - you think that won't be expensive? That Granderson is worth 1/4 as much as Verlander?
Granderson is a league average CF who is an awesome person. He's not worth the money.
The point I was trying to make is that the Yankees only have to focus on the pure on the field part of a trade. Saving money is not an issue there. The Tigers are making this trade for money and money alone. They shopped Granderson and Jackson and got what they could. Every beat writer in Detroit who covers and knows the team thinks so.
Mentioning Verlander hits on what I was driving at. To sign him, Detroti will have to get rid of players. Despite that, I think everyboby here expects Verlander to be in pin stripes in two years. (See also, C.C. Sabatha.) The fact that Granderson will already be there doesn't make us any happier about it.
Look, I hope you are right about Scherzer. Granderson was a very popular player in Detroit. We love the guy here. It sucks that he has to go because of money.
And there went my Tiger...Mr. I will not be getting any of my money next season.
I wouldn't call Max Scherzer a schmo.
I don't know how I feel about the deal yet. I think Granderson erased a lot of defensive shortcomings of the poor corner outfielders. But, for those opposed to dealing Granderson, I'd love to hear what you think is fair value for him.
It is hard to put a price on the face of the team.
I'm not impressed by a 4.12 ERA in the NL. I don't know what I'd consider fair value for Granderson, because I don't have extensive knowledge of every prospect that might be available on all 29 other teams. But this is not it. And besides that, I like rooting for something other than the laundry, and Granderson is a terrific guy to root for, a ballplayer's ballplayer, and would have been a great representative of the city. And we're getting back....just some dudes. Here we are trading two of our core players - arguably our biggest core guy - and the Yankees are just peddling off a couple spare parts that were falling off the wagon anyway.
The Tigers were no fun in the late '90s and early '00s because they were just a bunch of faceless jobbers going in and out. We finally turned that around in the middle of this decade and had a bunch of guys that were a hell of a lot of fun to root for. Granderson was one of the guys who led the spontaneous celebration outside the clubhouse with the fans when we beat the Yankees in 2006.
There's more to Granderson and this trade than just "he can't hit lefties." I've never been so upset to see a player leave the Tigers.
...like a family member just died.
You put the emotional attachment to Granderson as well as anyone and anyone who doesn't feel some sense of detachment right now, has probably not watched that much Detroit Tigers baseball lately
You don't follow baseball outside of Detroit, do you?
Scherzer, first of all, is 24, and was in his first full season. He pitches in Arizona - the dry desert air makes balls go farther - and in a bandbox. Scherzer is moving from a park that allows disproportionately MORE HR's than the average park to one that allows disproportionately FEWER HR's than the average park. He is moving from the 2nd best run-scoring environment in MLB over the past 3 years to the 18th best run-scoring environment. More evidence? Check his home/road splits. When he's not in the 2nd most difficult place to pitch in major league baseball, his HR's are cut to a third, and his ERA drops 0.80 points.
HE. IS. A. GOOD. PITCHER.
Granderson is a league average hitter and an above average fielder who's 28. In 4 years, he still won't be able to hit a lefty, and he'll slow down enough to the point that he'll need to play in a corner OF - where his bat will be a liability. In the meantime, Jackson will be giving Detroit a reasonable facsimile of what Granderson is giving them now - an average MLB CF'er. Except he'll be doing it for the league minimum instead of $12 million a year.
Edwin Jackson was an average pitcher who had a hot 2 months to start the year. The Diamondbacks paid a price for a guy they thought was "a #2 starter" who is actually more like a #4 starter.
The Tigers FLEECED the D-Backs.
You had me up until the part where "Granderson is an average center fielder." Despite trying to appear more knowledeable by throwing in that little dart about not following baseball, there's absolutely nothing to back up the claim that Granderson is just average. He's in the top half of the league whether you're looking at traditional stats or sabermetrics. Even his "crappy" OPS this year of .780 - well below his norm - was good for 12th among centerfielders and within .016 of 6th.
And you claim Jackson will definitely provide an equal replacement for Granderson? Right away? You can't possibly know this. Projections are not definitives.
I don't care what the Tigers did to the D-backs - you'll notice I haven't said a peep about Edwin Jackson. (And I notice, despite all the extra stats you bring to the table, you're no less prone to brushing aside inconvenient truths than the rest of us. Edwin Jackson didn't have "a hot two months", he had a 3.16 ERA in the month of July - that's not "through" July, that's in July. And his August wasn't too shabby either, three of his five starts were quality starts.)
Point is, the way I see the Scherzer-Jackson swap, the D-backs might be way worse off from 2009 to 2010, but we'll be about the same - if you're right about Scherzer that he can be expected to perform better once away from the desert. Keep in mind he'll have the DH to deal with. But like I said, I have no qualms about trading Jackson.
But Granderson? That's a salary dump. Pure and simple. We give Curtis Granderson to the Yankees for a cheaper player who we hope turns out as good. I don't know how you can claim Austin Jackson will definitely jump right in and be a "reasonable facsimile" after watching Cameron Maybin spend two years mostly in the minors. In exchange for basically getting to morph a prospect into an All-Star in one offseason - now they have Granderson instead of Jackson - the Yankees gave us a guy whose biggest asset is the arm he throws with.
P.S. At no point in Granderson's contract will he make $12 million, unless the Tigers (make that Yankees) pick up the team option on the last year.
12th of 30 isn't "average"? It's pretty damn close.
Further, I never said that he'd be as good as Grandy right away. What I'm saying is this:
This team, as constituted before this trade, MAY make a run at a Central division title, but their talent level doesn't support a claim that they can do much more than that - they need to reshuffle, that takes a few years.
SO, Granderson will be 32 and making $10 million at that point. His defense will have slipped due to age. So, do you want that, or a guy that your scouts tell you will bring most of what Granderson gives you TODAY? I know my answer.
Also - maybe it is a salary dump - but would you rather have Granderson or have the money to keep Verlander? Finally, you need to give up something to get something. They vastly upgraded a SP, and got a closer of the future. In exchange, they had to exchange a certain level of certainty for an unproven player.
Your statements are limited to mistruths like asserting Scherzer is mediocre, which lead me to think you don't follow much beyond the Tigers.
You're going to claim vindication of your absurd "average centerfielder" claim based on one stat? A stat at which Granderson performed more than 70 points below his career average? I can do better: based on one stat (home runs), Granderson is the best centerfielder in the league. Or maybe we should stick with OPS: if we were having this argument last year, would Granderson be the fourth best in the league? And that wasn't even his best year.
For someone who likes to call forth stat after stat about ballpark-adjusted abilities and so on and so forth to prove your point about Max Scherzer, you sure do like to zero in on a couple basic ones to judge Curtis Granderson.
If I formed my opinion on what baseball you follow the same way you form yours of mine, I'd be forced to conclude you follow everyone but the Tigers considering your "mistruths" like claiming Edwin Jackson had two hot months and that was it.
YOU'RE THE ONE THAT CITED HIS STATUS AS HAVING THE 12TH HIGHEST OPS TO CLAIM HE WAS NOT AVERAGE. Now you're going to blame ME for laughing at the asinine stat YOU brought up? I agree using that number is stupid as shit - but YOU'RE the one that said "Hey, he was the 12th best CF in OPS!" in an effort to claim he wasn't average!
I'll admit to being wrong about Jackson - he had 4 good months and 2 poor ones (though, if you look at his July peripherals, things started to go south). Regardless, he's still a mirage of abnormally low BABIP (just like Washburn was before the Tigers traded for him). I don't, for the record, think he's "bad". I think he's a guy that can throw 180 innings of 4.30-ish ERA baseball. That definitely has value. It doesn't have as much value as Scherzer.
Do you want me to talk Granderson without zeroing in on a handful of stats? Fine:
1. He has excellent power for a CF.
2. He has reasonably good patience and walks a decent amount.
3. He's an excellent defensive player.
1. He strikes out enough that his batting average will never hit .290 again unless he miraculously gets better placte discipline. There are VERY few players that can strike out 140 times and maintain an average that high. Despite the fact that he walks a decent amount, this will stop his OBP from ever really being that good for a leadoff man.
2. He is useless against lefties - effective bullpen usage can remove him from the game.
That's really it - he comes out to being a player that is better than he is worse - which I agree with. He's a good player. He's not all-star caliber. The reason why I DON'T think he's irreplaceable is because this Tiger team is extremely flawed right now, and can't honestly contend for much more than the Championship of the worst division in baseball. In 3 years, when they may be able to have a contending team, Granderson will NOT be as good as is now, as he's sort of at the late stage of his peak (age 29 next year). So, they traded him for:
1. An elite young pitching prospect with a year of MLB experience (Scherzer is 24, and was the 11th pick in the draft 2 years ago). A pitcher who is one of the 10 best strikeout pitchers in major league baseball.
2. A solid hitting prospect that, by the time the Tigers can contend, has a solid chance of being roughly as valuable as Granderson.
3. Immediate bullpen help with the potential of getting their future closer (Schlereth).
4. A toss-in, garbage reliever.
5. All of this for substantially less money than what they would be paying the combination of Jackson and Granderson in 3 years (Granderson would be making $10,000,000 that year, these three, combines will be making around $1,000,000.
6. Gained financial flexibility that gives them a good chance to re-sign the 26 year-old Justin Verlander - the 2nd best starting pitcher in baseball.
ALL they gave up for all these things is one over-rated pitcher and a solid CF (who they may have replaced, in this trade). I'm not arguing that Jackson is going to be as good as Granderson next year - he won't.
They just don't. He's a useful piece and a great guy, but at this point in his career, he can't be a cornerstone of a team. You can effectively remove the bat from his hands in the final 3 innings of close games, assuming you started a RHP. Hell if you start a lefty, like CC, or Lester, you remove him completely from the game offensively.
For full details, courtesey http://www.mlbtraderumors.com:
"12:48pm: Heyman tweets that an agreement has been reached, with only medicals pending. We'll do a fresh post once this trade is official. To reiterate: the Yankees get Curtis Granderson, the D'Backs get Edwin Jackson and Ian Kennedy, and the Tigers get Max Scherzer, Daniel Schlereth, Austin Jackson, and Phil Coke."
...is this a good trade? This is about logic. It doesn't make any sense. The Tigers are essentially dumping a guy they didn't have to trade, who makes a reasonable salary for a guy his caliber. Wasn't Illitch pretty forthcoming saying "finances weren't an issue" last year? One game away from the playoffs and now it's a firesale?
And that's to say nothing of what Curtis has meant to the city of Detroit. He was a great, community guy in a city that badly needed one, in a time it badly needed one. I don't buy the prospects issue either. Max Scherzer is only a year younger than Edwin. Austin Jackson is a great prospect but why trade potential for proven commodities (Cameron Maybin, anyone)? So basically they've traded two All-Star players with very reasonable salaries for 4 "prospects" who may or may not pan out, while alcoholic Cabrera eats (or drinks) up the rest of the budget. After 2010, Magglio's contract frees up a shit-ton of space - it doesn't make sense.
And too the Yankees of all teams? It makes me sick to my stomach.
I pray to God Dombrowski's right because last time I saw balls this big they were rolling towards Indiana Jones
This just about says it all. I loved the trade for Cabrera and that they spent what was necessary to keep him, so I don't understand why the same year they sign him they all of a sudden act like the contract is too large.
I applaud the current regime for some of the moves they made, but don't punish us because you idiotically gave Nate Robertson any money at all, much less his current stupid contract (in addition to the deals for Willis, Bonderman and Magglio). Curtis was the type of player you build around, and if none of those prospects pan out, this deal looks even worse than it already appears.
NSFMF - Magglio also has a guaranteed contract for 2011 if he reaches the same threshold as last year. So we get the same shenanigans again this year. Should we pay him and not use him so we can save money for next year, or actually use the $18 million dollar man and get tied down for another year at $15 million.
On the other hand, god I wish I was Scott Boras, he sure as hell knows how to make money off of incentive laden contracts.
Those safeguards were necessary for Magglio to sign with Detroit in the first place. He came here because he was a big question mark coming off surgery and nobody wanted to guarantee him money. Detroit signed him to an incentive laden deal that gave the Tigers an out if he wasn't healthy.
He had a couple of spectacular seasons, I wouldn't complain.
Verlander to the Red Sox or Mets at the deadline, I guess. Meh.
That dude could've ran for mayor next year and won. Who will be our CF next year? Please don't say Clete Thomas. Who will be our leadoff guy? Again, please don't say Clete Thomas.
I don't understand how we don't try to get a top 3B prospect for one of these guys. If Grandy's average is an issue, then I know we can't resign Inge with his current production.
To whoever says Scherzer is a "schmo" - do you follow baseball?
We just dealt out slightly less than $10 million off the books in exchange for three pitchers (apx. $2.9-3.5 million) and a prospect (est. $400k-$600k), meaning that we dumped $5.5-6 million in salary. In exchange, we get a prospect that may be able to replace Granderson at some point in his career, one decent (albeit relatively unproven) reliever, one pitching prospect (again a reliever), and a middle of the rotation starter (who, being fair, could get better) to replace Edwin Jackson.
This does address some bullpen issues, but at the same time, we still have numerous deficiencies:
We have yet to get a closer or set-up man.
We lost a key piece of our outfield and will lose production there.
We have an absolute mess in the middle infield.
Our rotation still needs a fifth serviceable starter, as we also have lost Washburn.
If this is our only important move this offseason, I will be displeased/rather upset/extremely angry.
Yankee fan here in Jersey so I don't see Granderson regularly. I hear his defense regressed last year down the stretch. Can any of you Tiger fans fill me in on what was up with that?
is Austin Jackson better turn into what Cameron Maybin never amounted to. I had such high hopes for Maybin and to get a young similar prospect is exciting, that's the only way I look at it so I don't rip my hair out.........
Everyone thinks and expects Austin Jackson to be very, very good. His power production went down this past season compared to the year before, though. He is a very good hitter though, with speed. He could use another year in the minors, IMO. I wouldnt say that he is a leadoff hitter either. I think he is most likely to be a 3 hole hitter in the future.
Everyone besides the teams and the players think it is done. I hope not. I really do. The Yankees have absolutely no need for Granderson. Not in center and not in left(the Yankees will re-sign Damon, IMO). Also, Austin Jackson, as of 2:10, has not heard anything, according to Chad Jennings of The Journal News and the LoHud Yankees Blog, who was the beat writer for the Yankees AAA team in Scranton, who A-Jax played for. I wouldnt say its done just yet.
The Yankees 2010 prospective rotation:
Wang? Hughes? Mitre?
Edwin Jackson was traded to Arizona, not New York.
thanks for the clarification Bray
Edwin Jackson would be going to the D-Backs in the proposed trade.
The 2010 prospective rotation for the Yankees, as of this moment:
As a Cubs fan, I can say you better hope for Mitre to fill that last spot. He is the veritable picture of inconsistency.
Granderson makes a reasonable salary this year. Problem is, he's signed for two more at rates that won't be reasonable if he performs at a 2009 level. He'll also turn 29 before the season starts... so improving on his numbers at this point is not a given. Sure, the Tigers only save 5.5 million this year on Granderson's contract. But they save 25 million over 3 years. With a ton of their bad contracts coming off the books next year (Bondo, Willis, Robertson and Maggs if he doesn't vest his option) the Tigers should have tens of millions to spend.
Is Granderson worth the difference between a 70 win season and a 80 win season? Who cares, it's a 3rd/4th place team anyway. But moving him now and potentially having a 70 win season this year sets them up to be in a better position to win 95 in '11 and '12.
I hate it. I hate it. I hate it.
Curtis was and forever will be my Tiger. Teared up watching a montage of his highlights while fucking Buster Olney tried to act like the Tigers weren't getting jobbed.
This makes my heart hurt. Curtis was not only a great player, but a great person, and MY TIGER!!!
This is what you get when you have contracts like Maggs, Bondo, D-Train and Robertson and btw...have a salary budget unlike the yankees.
I think this is a good deal for the Tigers. The only thing to give me pause (Paws?) is that it was done by the same guy who thought signing Dontrelle Willis to a contract extension was a good idea.
I love Granderson and am very sorry to see him go -- he is a Gammonsesque 'special' human being. But they are getting some great arms in return.
The Tigers OF defense could be woeful next year. And they still have some horrendous contracts (Cabrera not being one of them). But I'm half-expecting a deal where Detroit sends Cabrera, Ordonez, and Willis (maybe Robertson or Bonderman or Guillen, too?) to Boston in exchange for a couple of prospects.
First of all... Boston isn't taking all those contracts for prospects. Miggy is 120 million. Every other person you named has at least 10 million left. No way Boston gives up anything of value for that... regardless of the inclusion of Miggy. Outside of Miggy, none of those guys would make Boston's 40 man, let alone 25 man roster. And they'd have to give up more than $10 million a man to do it.
Secondly... why would Detroit package all those guys with Cabrera... when they can just play out the year and see Willis, Bondo, Robertson and Maggs (if his option doesn't vest again) walk? Keep Cabrera and then have $50 million come off the books in just those 4 names. Much more attractive than losing Cabrera.
Thirdly... if you are going to trade Cabrera... trade him by himself. That brings back the best collection of prospects. Then you still let those stiffs walk at the end of the year. But keeping the stiffs for their final year allows you to get full value for Miggy.
Look, I emotionally hate this trade. Heck I bought a Granderson throwback Toledo Mud Hens Jersey last year, but its not a bad deal.
We trade Granderson who had 3 years + option year on his contract for 38 million
Edwin Jackson, two more years under team control probably going to get 6 or 7 per.
Max Scherzer, who I love, young strikeout guy. Almost a strikeout an inning guy. Who is 26 and is under team control for 5 more years. He had a 4.10 ERA in the worst home ball park for pitchers in the MLB.
Daniel Schlerth..Yes that Schlereth, son of the ESPN announcer and former Bronco. Lefty with a huge cannon, he was the setup man for the D'backs last year and should step into that role, or close this year. We control him for 6 years.
Phil Coke, huge arm, was Yankees reliever who was really good the first half, pressure, fatigue maybe set in. Yanks tend to kill their relievers. Can be a set up man right away. We have him under control for 5 years.
Austin Jackson- He won't replace Grandy, but he has the chance to be really good. Decent defender arm, good hitter, average power. Below average speed for cf, won't steal many bases in MLB. Could blossom if the power comes. We control him for 6 years.
For those saying we didn't save much money, these are all less than 2 million players. Two of them fill the holes of the bullpen, that you would otherwise pay Rodney or others 5 million or so to fill those spots. So in reality this deal saves about 15-20 million.
The 10 you save between Grandy, and Jackson's contract, and the 10 your not spending on relievers.
Predictions, Scherzer is a nice surprise to everyone. Schlereth closes. Coke is a nice set up man. And our offense is worse because the top of the lineup will be scary young with Jackson and Sizemore.
Verlander, Porcello, Scherzer is a really really good rotation start with Crosby coming up quick to join them.
Good point. Plus (from mlbtraderumors.com):
The Tigers receive four players: starter Max Scherzer, relievers Daniel Schlereth and Phil Coke, and center fielder Austin Jackson. The Tigers get five years of Scherzer, six of Schlereth, five of Coke, and six of Jackson, potentially 22 years of control in total. Scherzer, 25, and Jackson, 23 in February, are probably considered the prizes of the haul.
That's a lot of years of cheap control for Detroit.
Your giving Coke too much credit. I am a huge Yankees fan, and watched every game closely. Phil Coke was apart of the "Philthies"(Coke and Hughes-Yankees broacaster Michael Kay coined the term). But I did not see how he was filthy in anyway. I saw a pitcher that was an accident waiting to happen. I saw someone thats stuff was the most vulnerable of any pitcher to get absolutely rocked. And what happened? He got crushed. He gave up the most home runs of any MLB reliever.
As for your tendency to kill relievers comment, that was under Joe Torre. Joe Girardi balances it out. It shouldnt have mattered with Coke anyway because he was groomed to be a starter, but moved to the bullpen at the end of the 08 season. He was even told to go into the 09 spring training preparing to start.
Micheal Kay sucks donkey balls. He said that Chamberlain's pitch count is high because his stuff is too filthy, so that hitters foul off too many pitches. I about fell out of my chair with trying to swallow that load.
Coke was groomed to be a starter, hence pitching every fifth day. The grind of a season, not knowing when you will pitch or pitch every other day is not easy to learn.
Plus, I will argue with the World Series title, Giraldi did grind his bullpen. He had nothing left at the end. Hence, you going with the 3 man and using Joba from the pen. Your bullpen was one of the best early in the season, but by the end your bullpen had nothing left. Part of the problem being Gaudin, Joba and Pettite are 5 inning pitchers in the regular season.
This is why in the playoff games, you were consistently going to Riveria for 2 innings.
Giraldi doesn't have a rep for killing bullpens, but between the stadium and last year he's starting to build one.
If Giardi grinded his bull pen at all it is because of Major injuries to Marte, Bruney, Wang and others.
If you keep those guys healty then your in damn good shape plus Joba's three inning per start August/September was a grind forced on them by management.