OT - Johnny Damon has a Tigers offer
http://www.detnews.com/article/20100211/SPORTS0104/2110462/1361/Report-…
To summarize, Mike Ilitch has approved a 2 year/$14 million offer for Johnny Damon. Compare that to the AP's report on what the Braves are offering:
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AhJE3yrjwCuv0qrIE7miOK4RvLYF?slug…
So, if this does go through, I will have no idea why they traded away Curtis Granderson for an older, noodle armed version that makes 70% of his salary.
February 11th, 2010 at 5:27 PM ^
Do you think he will commit?
February 11th, 2010 at 5:40 PM ^
Is it even a committable offer? I bet DD wants to get Damon up on a visit first.
February 11th, 2010 at 6:06 PM ^
Damon wants to make a decision by the end of the week. FWIW, Jon Heyman of SI just tweeted that we may have offered him a bit more than 14 mil, with the White Sox and Braves both offering one year deals.
February 11th, 2010 at 5:39 PM ^
So, we trade away a superior outfielder who is supposed to make $5.5 million this year (and $8.25 million next year, 2 year total: $13.75 M) in the name of cutting costs and then try to sign Damon for $14 million. HOW DOES THIS MAKE ANY SENSE? WHY THE HELL DID WE TRADE AWAY ONE OF THE BEST PLAYERS ON OUR TEAM AND THEN TRY TO SIGN DAMON?
I have wondered about Dombrowski's decisions in the past, but given him the benefit of the doubt because he turned our team from a laughingstock into a competitor. Now I'm wondering if he's been experimenting with LSD.
February 11th, 2010 at 5:42 PM ^
I WILL TELL YOU WHY MAYBE DOMBROWSKI IS DOING WHAT HE IS DOING ARE YOU READY TO LISTEN OR ARE YOU STILL HOLDING DOWN THE CAPS BUTTON I DON'T KNOW BUT I'LL GIVE IT A SHOT ANYWAYS OK.
Maybe the Granderson trade wasn't all about money? Maybe the Tigers saw a decline in Curtis and also saw a way to get younger, more athletic, and add some very talented, intriguing prospects for a "leadoff hitter" who hit.249 last year, .1-something against lefties, and had a terrible OBP.
Look, I love Granderson as much as anyone...he's probably my favorite ballplayer out there...but I am not naive enough to think the Tigers dealt him just to save some money. Clearly that is not Ilitch's current MO.
February 11th, 2010 at 6:20 PM ^
Our lineup with Damon:
C: Laird/Avila
1B: Cabrera
2B: Sizemore/Santiago
3B: Inge
SS: Everett/Santiago
LF: Damon/Guillen/Raburn/Thomas
CF: Thomas/Raburn/Jackson
RF: Ordonez
DH: Guillen/Damon/whoever else is left
Our (probable) lineup without this year's roster changes:
C: Laird/Avila
1B: Cabrera
2B: Polonco
3B: Inge
SS: Everett/Santiago
LF: Raburn/Thomas/Guillen
CF: Granderson
RF: Ordonez
DH: Guillen/pick and choose
Assuming that you are correct in saying that we traded Granderson because we had big doubts about his long term viability (something I disagree with), then I still question the wisdom of what we seem to be trying to do. Our early moves indicate that we wanted to conserve costs and reload on younger talent, as we let Polonco, Rodney, and Lyon go without even putting up a fight and made the Granderson/Jackson trade. Picking up Damon and Valverde seems to be a way to attempt to make the team decent during the rebuilding process. I question the wisdom of this because I don't really see the point in handing out a two year contract to an aging Damon when we're going to unload a ton of dead weight salary going into 2011, which will allow us to grab a strong SS and OF, at the least. Damon is currently a decent batter and a terrible fielder. It be nice to have him, but he's not worth a $7 million hit this year or next year.
February 11th, 2010 at 6:48 PM ^
I don't think it's an effort to make us decent....I think it's an effort to still contend in a winnable division without breaking the bank. Yes, Damon is aging, but he's still a better offensive player than Granderson and isn't as bad defensively as he is made out to be (in fact, he'd be an upgrade in LF from Raburn based on Raburn's career defensive numbers). Two years isn't optimal in my opinion, but it's not four or five and seven million years is cake compared to the 18 we're paying Maggs (ick).
Anyways, Minnesota and Chicago have a lot of questions coming into the season too. Chicago is aging offensively with Konerko and Dye past their primes and it's hard to say whether or not Peavy's success in San Diego (pitcher heaven) will translate to US Cellular (pitcher hell). Minnesota's pitching staff has a lot of question marks, but with Mauer, Morneau, Span and Kubel it's hard not to paint them as the favorites.
Our success this season hinges on two things provided we sign Damon because I don't think Jackson is capable of being a dangerous enough leadoff hitter at this point of his career. One is Porcello's progression. Funny to think that he basically only threw fastballs last year and still found success. Taking that next step would be huge. Second is Carlos Guillen. They are a different team when he is healthy and hitting the ball well, two things that usually go hand-in-hand. He's had injury problems the last two years though so who really knows. Long story short I think we can contend for a playoff spot if those two players step up.
February 13th, 2010 at 1:08 AM ^
for someone who watched every yankee game last year on mlb.tv, yes, damon is in fact that bad in LF. Trust me.
February 11th, 2010 at 6:01 PM ^
Premise 1:
So, we trade away a superior outfielder
Damon, 2009: .282/.365/.489
Ganderson, 2009: .249/.327/.453
Damon, 2008: .303/.375/.461
Granderson, 2008: .280/.365/.494
Granderson's 2007 is looking more and more flukey in his career profile - Damon's seasons are like clockwork. Damon, for the past two seasons, has been a better player than Granderson.
Your second premise: That it costs more. Sure, if you omit the fact the Granderson is signed for an additional year, in which he was scheduled to make $10 million. That makes is relatively cost neutral. Considering that in year 3, which is when Damon would be off the books, and Granderson would still be making $10 million, is when Verlander gets an $8 million raise. To you see how, when looked as a matter of an annual budget, cutting Granderson allowed them to keep Verlander, and getting Damon does virtually nothing?
Third premise: That this is a Granderson for Damon switch. It's not. It's a Granderson and Jackson for Damon, Scherzer, Jackson, and Schlereth. The Tigers gave up a CF who is at his peak, in decline at the plate and the field, who will be unable to play CF by the end of his contract and doesn't possess the bat for a corner outfield spot. They also gave up a pitcher coming off a fluke year.
In return they got a potential future closer, an eliter 24-year-old pitching propect, and a CF prospect that can likely give them 80% of Granderson tomorrow. AND the flexibility to re-sign Verlander. Now, they're siging a temporary patch to the offense (WHO IS BETTER THAN GRANDERSON ANYWAY) to a contract that doesn't impact their reasoning for ditching Granderson: financial room to sign Verlander.
Get it?
February 11th, 2010 at 6:03 PM ^
Overall, when you take defensive value into account (UZR, UZR/150, etc.), Granderson is a superior player. I agree with everything else you said though.
February 11th, 2010 at 6:05 PM ^
Well, they don't even play the same position anymore - I'm assuming Damon isn't being signed to play CF, because, yikes. Damon plays a position where his defense is near-irrelevent.
February 11th, 2010 at 6:09 PM ^
Tell that to Raburn lol. That LF disaster he put up in Minnesota may have cost us a playoff spot.
February 11th, 2010 at 7:49 PM ^
I doubt you actually LOL'd at that.
February 11th, 2010 at 7:50 PM ^
I doubt you actually LOL'd at that.
February 11th, 2010 at 8:06 PM ^
Not sure which post I should respond to, but I actually did laugh as I shook my head and muttered constantly under my breath.
February 11th, 2010 at 6:40 PM ^
uh, they also played in MUCH different ball parks. how do you account for that?
February 11th, 2010 at 7:10 PM ^
VORP accounts for park and compeition factors!
Damon's VORPs:
2008: 39.3
2009: 39.3
Granderson:
2008: 41.4
2009: 25.8
That's 78.6 VORP for Damon, and 67.2 for Granderson - Damon was worth roughly 1.5 wins more than Granderson, accounting for park factors.
February 12th, 2010 at 6:14 AM ^
I love me some sabermetrics. Does anyone else think VORP sounds like a snack?
February 11th, 2010 at 7:08 PM ^
Premise 1
First of all, there is little reason to believe that Granderson is a worse option, in the near or long term, than Damon. Granderson, despite having the worst year of his career at the plate, did manage to hit 30 homeruns and steal 20 bases. It is not uncommon for players in their 20s to have a poor season, and it seems more likely than not, given Granderson's obvious talent and past seasons, that 2009 will be more of a blip than anything. For example, when Johnny Damon (a player whose early career was very similar to Granderson's) was 27, his splits were .256/.324/.363. He had a bad year and bounced back the next season at .286/.356/.443 and continued to have a great career.
Furthermore, I disagree with your assertion that Damon had a better season than Granderson in '08. Damon hit for better average, but with less power. Granderson actually had a better OPS (.859 vs. .836). Furthermore, Damon is a terrible fielder and Granderson is, perhaps, above average.
Finally, it should be noted that Damon is a big risk to regress over the next couple years because he is advancing in age and noticeably slowing down. There is a reason the Yankees traded for Granderson and let Damon go by the wayside.
Premise 2
Your point about getting rid of Granderson to make room for Verlander admittedly has merit. However, I that you overestimate the power of that move. As the $7 million offer to Damon indicates, getting an outfielder that is comparable from a hitting standpoint to Granderson will cost a lot. Now unless Austin Jackson proves able to produce in the majors (which isn't anything close to certain), we are going to have to look to the market and pick someone up. This is likely to cost a fair amount, meaning that the amount of money that was budgeted for Granderson's contract probably won't even come close to covering Verlander's raise, unless Jackson pans out.
Premise 3
I don't have any problem getting rid of Jackson. However, throwing in Granderson meant that we are giving up a CF with a history of success and a decent pitcher for a bunch of prospects. This could turn out well, but it could also turn out very badly, particularly if Jackson doesn't pan out. Basically, we gave up Granderson and Jackson for a pitcher slightly below Jackson's value, a prospect at closer (although we do have Ryan Perry already), a prospect at CF (who we hope will be as good as Granderson), and an aged corner outfielder with a good bat but no ability in the field. I personally don't think that's a good set of moves, mainly because I buy into Granderson's ability and potential much more than Austin Jackson's, because Granderson has been successful in the Majors and Jackson has yet to prove anything.
February 11th, 2010 at 7:13 PM ^
But Granderson is nearly 30 himself. He has little "development" left. What he is now is what he will be. Losing Granderson allowed them to sign Verlander, a top-notch young pitcher (who, if you account for park factors, wasn't really any worse than Jackson, despite the relative youth and cost) without really hampering their ability to compete in the mid-term. They are cheaper, younger, and not tangibly worse. I see that as a win.
February 11th, 2010 at 7:21 PM ^
1. I didn't mean to imply that Verlander is worse than Jackson (I believe the opposite is the case). I meant to imply that Scherzer is worse than Jackson.
2. I don't necessarily think that Granderson will develop a lot more. I just think that he'll return to form after one bad year, something that happens to a lot of players. Furthermore, I'm generally wary of trading proven commodities for prospects who have yet to see significant playing time. Furthermore, if Jackson doesn't pan out, we'll have to shell out another $7 million a year or so to pick up a decent CF. As Granderson has demonstrated that he is typically well above average (minus last season), I think that it would be worth it to pay the extra money to have him on the roster in 2011 and 2012, when we'll have dropped the salary weight needed to make the pick-ups necessary to turn the Tigers into a very good team.
February 11th, 2010 at 7:30 PM ^
Scherzer is not worse than Jackson. He had a better season than Jackson did last year, is cheaper, younger and under team control for SIX years. Why Arizona got involved in the deal at all is beyond me because they were absolutely fleeced. That being said, the one knock on Scherzer is that he has a violent delivery that lends itself to injury. It hasn't been an issue yet though so we'll see.
I understand the lack of trust people have in prospects, but I really don't see how Detroit could have turned the deal down. Jackson is an awesome defensive player already and could easily become a better leadoff hitter than Granderson. A leadoff hitter doesn't need to hit 30 homers to be valuable. They need to get on base, and that's something Grandy has had a problem with in the past.
Funny thing is that people are going to be pissed when Granderson has a monster year this year. His swing was tailor made for that short right field porch at new Yankee Stadium. Make sure you get him on your fantasy teams this year!
February 11th, 2010 at 7:40 PM ^
I botched my punctuation. The "young pitcher" I was referring to after the comma that was after Verlander was Scherzer, not Verlander.
Jackson, IME, was a mediocre to average pitcher who rode an abnormally low hit-rate to a fluke first half, and course-corrected like a bitch in the 2nd half. He was overvalued, and DD was smart to deal him.
Scherzer, to most scouts, is a far superior player.
February 11th, 2010 at 7:58 PM ^
jackson had a great first half, but showed his true colors down the stretch when he was needed the most. the bullpen is much improve from last year.
February 11th, 2010 at 10:34 PM ^
Yes Yes 1,000x Yes! Great insight into this discussion.
February 11th, 2010 at 9:40 PM ^
I was going to write something similar, but not nearly so eloquent. Then, as I scrolled I had premonition that you(Castro) had probably already responded, and damn skippy I was right.
February 11th, 2010 at 5:50 PM ^
The reason why DD did it is:
Damon + AJax + Scherzer + Schlereth + Coke > Granderson + EJax
February 11th, 2010 at 5:52 PM ^
Sorry if I sound a little rash, but some fans must not really get it.
First, Detroit is not cutting costs. That's why they just dropped 80 mil on Verlander, signed a closer and are ready to pay 14 for Damon. Looking at the likely Damon signing as a simple trade-off for Granderson is dumb. No offense. Two completely different beasts, especially when Granderson's salary was escalating for the next three seasons anyway.
The trade was a great long-term move for the team. I say this somewhat regretful as Granderson was an excellent player and perhaps an even more excellent person. Despite that, trading him while selling high on Jackson should yield us a future setup/closer (Schlereth), a top-flight starter (Scherzer) and a leadoff hitter in Austin Jackson who might end up being a better all around player than Granderson was. Anything we get out of Phil Coke is icing on the cake. The best part is that they are all locked up long term for incredibly low prices.
Personally, I think the FO is seeing an opportunity to compete in a weak division by making a couple short term moves that will hopefully appease the appetite of the average fan with Damon and Valverde. This will carry over into next offseason when we unload a massive amount of yuck with the Guillen, Ordonez, Robertson, Inge and Bonderman contracts all coming off the books. Then we can become even more active in FA and continue to build around Cabrera, Verlander and Porcello. I think their future is a lot brighter than most would think. Anytime you have a top-5 hitter and pitcher locked up long term you are in good shape.
/semi-rant
February 12th, 2010 at 10:01 AM ^
in a nutshell. Detoit is hoping to compete over the next year or 2, then when all that salary drops off the books, DD can evaluate the talent this trade brought and what already exists in the minors. He than can have cash to fill the holes around Cabrera and Verlander. Then compete for the title.
February 12th, 2010 at 10:15 AM ^
Yes, and in the process, he got a 3rd starter with a solid chance to be elite two years from now (Scherzer), a guy that may be closing by then, or at least a power late inning reliever (Schlereth), a guy projected to be a starting-caliber CF (Jackson). Add that on to the 25 year old we're breaking in at 2B who I'll bet money will out-produce Polanco next year, a young catcher you can hit, the huge pitching prospect in AA that they'll be breaking in by then (Casey Crosby), and a 4th pitcher that MAY be in the D by then (Jacob Turner), the Tigs are set up pretty fucking well.
February 11th, 2010 at 5:58 PM ^
What everyone said in this thread... The media likes to play up how Detroit is in shambles and therefore its sports teams must be in economic shambles, too. Yet the Tigers and Wings are backed by one of the most courageous owners when it comes to spending, and still draw more fans than most of their counterparts (save for the big NY, Bos, Chi markets). Lump the Pistons in here too, who are one of the most valuable NBA franchises in the league with the arena set up and have been drawing more fans than anyone around for years now.
Damon fills a huge need and is an upgrade. Valverde fills a huge need and is an upgrade. Hopefully Scherzer, Coke, Schlereth and AJax compensate for Edwin Jackson's one decent half of a year and Granderson's Brady Anderson-esque power surge of solo right field shots.
I think DD has managed to actually make the team better overall without sacrificing the piggy bank pretty damn well...maybe we're not the best team in the Central on paper but we sure will compete like hell until 2011 when we can reorganize and maybe chase a Carl Crawford.
February 11th, 2010 at 5:59 PM ^
I get a chub thinking about the 120 runs Crawford would score with Cabrera driving him in. Not to mention he's one of the top defensive players in baseball.
February 11th, 2010 at 6:07 PM ^
It boggles the mind that people just saw DD sign a multi-million dollar closer, sign Verlander for $80 mil, and think the team is fucking cutting costs. Come on, people.
February 11th, 2010 at 6:16 PM ^
I don't really have an opinion on this, but it seems odd especially since everyone seems to believe the next year, or maybe two, will be mainly used to rebuild the team. I see the 2010 central as a race between the Twins and Sox.
February 11th, 2010 at 6:26 PM ^
So to summarize the 2010 Tigers, they:
-Continue to be run by a guy who consistently gets outmanaged and doesn't know how to fill out a lineup card
-Traded their most popular player citing payroll concerns, then (correctly) broke the bank to sign Verlander and (probably correctly) Valverde
-Allowed Polanco to walk intending to replace him with a potentially promising but untested rookie while their biggest rival signed Orlando Hudson (not to mention Jim Thome!)
-Still have the one of the worst hitting catchers in the league while ignoring one of the better prospects at the position
-Are seriously looking into signing an overpaid, defensively poor OF for TWO years (spitting in the face of their previous payroll claims) when we already have solid guys like Raburn missing out on ABs because of DH types forced into the OF like Guillen
Did I miss anything? I see a second or third place finish at best this year if this crap continues. Here's looking forward to 2011 when most of those bad contracts are off the books and maybe we make some good decisions.
February 11th, 2010 at 7:15 PM ^
While I disagree with most of your points, I will only address your point about Laird and Avila. The Tigers have said that both Laird and Avila will see playing time next year. Laird will likely catch for Verlander and split the other pitchers with Avila, unless Avila bats very well, which makes sense, considering how big an asset Laird is defensively.
February 11th, 2010 at 6:34 PM ^
Hopefully he makes center field a "No Fly Zone"
February 11th, 2010 at 9:10 PM ^
Do we have an over/under on how long it will take "no-fly zone" to "enjoy" the status currently held by "snake oil?"
February 11th, 2010 at 9:43 PM ^
Is unofficially set at 21 months after Demar plays his last game as a Wolverine.
February 12th, 2010 at 6:22 AM ^
No, I'm sure once he graduates there will be threads asking "who's the next no fly zone?"
February 11th, 2010 at 7:38 PM ^
idea of adding damon to the line up. ive said it before, when this was first brought up awhile ago. its not about the money, get over it. i believe it has to do with long term deals. but thats me. i appreciate what DD is trying to do. trying to stay competitive with young talent and he knows he needs another good bat in the line up. this would be a great move!
February 11th, 2010 at 8:56 PM ^
I'd take Damon over Granderson in the leadoff hole for the same objective reasons already made in this thread: more contact, higher BA, higher OBP, more of a threat on the bases, doesn't have to bat 7th against lefties, much more consistent year over year. And considering who he'd theoretically replace in left (Guillen), his defense is at least a wash and probably better than that.
But there's more - the dreaded "I" word, intangibles. Damon has been there, done that when it comes to pennant races and post-season. Not only do the numbers favor him as a leadoff guy, but his track record, confidence, and competitiveness are the kinds of things I thought were missing from the Tigers regular lineup down the stretch last year. I couldn't help but think they were in trouble even when they were up 3 with 4 games left. The swagger, the belief that they owned this division, just wasn't there. Verlander was a clear leader in the pitching rotation - but who filled that role every day? Damon has potential there.
February 12th, 2010 at 7:25 AM ^
about the different parks they play in. Comerica park is a perfect park for Damon, Lot's of room. Damon has good zone awareness, who struck out 43 times less than Grandy last year. He puts the ball in play from both sides of the plate. Grandy Hits home runs and Damon improves the team batting average.
February 12th, 2010 at 8:16 PM ^
He has two offers from Detroit, one is a one year deal, the other is a two year deal. It sounds like Damon can pick which he prefers, more money or job security.
I hope he takes the one year deal.