2010 MLB Season Discussion

[Cephius]

The idea that he's "always out doing charity" is a little absurd to me. If he wasn't attending practice or preparing for games, wouldn't have someone brought that up before the trade and not after? Sorry, I don't buy it. And again, if an unmotivated player hits 30 homers in a tough ballpark to hit homers, I want more unmotivated players on my team.

Granderson makes 5.5m this year, 8.25m in 2011, 10m in 2012 and a club option for 13 million in 2013 with a 2m buyout. That's at least 25.5m over 3 years. Even if the Tigers sign Damon to a 2yr/14m deal, they still saved themselves at least 11 million dollars by trading Granderson. How, if - like you say - it doesn't make any sense otherwise, can we not view this as a monetary decision?

[*Shinzon*]

Like I said I don't agree with the whole charity deal, I'm sure there was an interest to ease up some of the payroll. I can't find the article now but I wouldn't have traded Granderson while trying to lockup Verlander. Doesn't make sense to me.

[*Shinzon*]

Ok found the article, sorry for double post:

Rosenthal

If the Tigers sign free-agent outfielder Johnny Damon — and even if they do not — fans again will ask, “Why the heck did they trade Curtis Granderson?”

The question will not go away unless Granderson stumbles with the Yankees (unlikely) or Austin Jackson emerges as a legitimate, immediate replacement for him in center field (even more unlikely).
FOX SPORTS POLL
Who will get the best of the Curtis Granderson trade?

* Yankees
* Tigers
* It'll be even


If the trade was just about money — and certainly finances were part of it — then fine, the Tigers were forced to play a bad hand.

But hold on.

The Tigers likely would pay Damon more this season than the $5.5 million that they would have paid Granderson, prompting several rival executives to speculate on a more fundamental motivation for the trade: The Tigers had soured on Granderson as a player.

Tigers manager Jim Leyland said in a telephone interview Tuesday that such a conclusion is “absolutely not true,” but why wouldn’t it be, at least to a degree?

Several parts of Granderson’s game regressed last season: His routes in center field; his ability to make contact; his performance against left-handed pitching.

All that surely was enough for Tigers officials to rationalize the deal, particularly when Granderson and pitcher Edwin Jackson were their only attractive trade chips.

Still, Granderson did not need to go.

True, the Tigers saved at least $7 million this season by sending Granderson to the Yankees and Jackson to the Diamondbacks for four less expensive players. They also saved money by parting with free-agent second baseman Placido Polanco, outfielder Marcus Thames and relievers Brandon Lyon and Fernando Rodney.

Yet, if the Tigers add Damon to their other free-agent signees — closer Jose Valverde and shortstop Adam Everett — they will top $110 million for 11 players and approach last year’s Opening Day payroll of $130 million.

Owner Mike Ilitch, who wants to win, sure does not seem to mind.

In fairness, the Tigers did not know at the time of the Granderson trade that Damon would be available this late in the offseason; circumstances change, teams adjust.

But Granderson, who turns 29 next month, is 7½ years younger than Damon. If the Tigers could afford Damon, they could have kept Granderson, traded Edwin Jackson and been in a similar position financially.

That is not what happened.

Leyland declines to criticize Granderson, whom he said is, “everything that is right about baseball, good-looking, bright, articulate, a good player with a chance to be a helluva player.”

The only negative that Leyland raises, if you even want to call it that, is that Granderson might have been too occupied with his community and charitable work in Detroit.

“I do think we took a little bit advantage of him from an organizational standpoint. He was one of those guys who wouldn’t say no to anybody,” Leyland said. “And there were some things he and his agent were doing on their own.

“Did it hinder his performance? I can’t answer that question. ... But if he comes into New York and tries to do too much (off-the field work), that will be tough for him. New York is a little bit different than Detroit.”

Granderson, after a workout at the Yankees’ minor-league complex Tuesday, repeated what he told FOXSports.com’s Jon Paul Morosi last month — that he had his best all-around season in 2007, his busiest year of community work.

“My most important priority is the field, plain and simple,” Granderson said. “I know who pays me. I know what my job is. I’m just in a position where I can do certain (off-the-field) things.”

The issue seems absurd when compared with the Tigers’ more notable off- the-field problem at the end of last season — first baseman Miguel Cabrera’s struggles with alcohol, which led him to pursue counseling.

The real issue is whether Granderson’s performance last season marked the start of a downward slide, or whether it was something of an aberration.

Guess what the Yankees think?

Granderson’s .484 OPS against left-handed pitching last season was the lowest among American League players who had enough plate appearances to qualify for the batting title. But in 2008, his OPS against lefties was a respectable .739.

Yankees hitting coach Kevin Long acknowledged, “There is some work to be done,” both with Granderson’s mechanics and approach against left- handed pitching. Long, however, said he was confident that Granderson could make the necessary adjustments.

“I’m not too concerned about it,” Long said. “I really feel like he’s going to have a good year and that is not even going to be an issue. And you know what? We’re not going to make it an issue.

“We’re going to be positive about it, work on it. Half of it might be the battle of, ‘People don’t think I can do it.’ If we get him over that obstacle, we can go from there.”

Yankees third base coach Rob Thomson, who works with the team’s outfielders, seemed equally unfazed by Granderson’s difficulties in center late last season.

“Not giving anybody an excuse, but I’ve heard it from a lot of our outfielders — it’s very tough to see in Comerica Park,” Thomson said. “You see a lot of route problems, read problems — it happens in Comerica, the glare off the seats ...

“I’ve watched a lot of tape on him. This kid is a special cat. He’s really athletic, really strong, really fast, a quick-twitch guy. I think a lot of that stuff is overblown. He is a much better defender than people are giving him credit for.”

Leyland said that center field is indeed “a tough place to play in Detroit,” but that Granderson experienced problems on the road “a little bit, too.” Granderson could wind up in left for the Yankees, with Brett Gardner taking over in center. Yet, such a move probably will not happen right away.

No one argues that Granderson is a perfect player — he struck out 141 times last season, 21 of his 30 homers were solo, his misplays in the outfield cost the Tigers in a pennant race. But really, how many perfect players are there?

For $23.75 million over the next three years, Granderson should have easily fit in Detroit, particularly when the team’s payroll will become far more flexible after this season.

Whatever the Tigers were thinking, they will regret trading him.

[Ensam]

The idea that he's "always out doing charity" is a little absurd to me. If he wasn't attending practice or preparing for games, wouldn't have someone brought that up before the trade and not after? Sorry, I don't buy it. And again, if an unmotivated player hits 30 homers in a tough ballpark to hit homers, I want more unmotivated players on my team.

Granderson makes 5.5m this year, 8.25m in 2011, 10m in 2012 and a club option for 13 million in 2013 with a 2m buyout. That's at least 25.5m over 3 years. Even if the Tigers sign Damon to a 2yr/14m deal, they still saved themselves at least 11 million dollars by trading Granderson. How, if - like you say - it doesn't make any sense otherwise, can we not view this as a monetary decision?

Except why would they sign Damon to make more than Granderson this year then? Why not pay Granderson 5.5m this year than trade him next year?

[OctavoGilgamesh]

if you hired an agent wouldn't you want him to get you as much money as possible?

Of course I would.

The problem is that we are in disagreement with what as much money as possible with more than what the player is worth really means. In my opinion, getting a client as much money as possible is the same as getting what the guy is worth.

When an agent consistently over values his own clients, passes up worthy deals, prices others out of the market before negotiations can even begin, etc, he is trying to get more than what the players are worth. I guess that can be a good thing with teams like the Yankees, who frequently seem to be bidding against themselves for Boras clients, but there is a lot of inherent risk involved to the player involved in that sort of negotiating.

[Cephius]

Except why would they sign Damon to make more than Granderson this year then? Why not pay Granderson 5.5m this year than trade him next year?

Like I said, they'd still be saving money by trading Granderson before his backloaded years kicked in. They saw an opportunity to save some cash and get some prospects and they took it, I don't think it's much more complicated than that. We keep bringing up Damon but there's no way the Tigers could have expected him to be available, since the trade was done during the winter meetings when it was still widely assumed Damon was going to be back with the Yankees.

[Cephius]

Of course I would.

The problem is that we are in disagreement with what as much money as possible with more than what the player is worth really means. In my opinion, getting a client as much money as possible is the same as getting what the guy is worth.

When an agent consistently over values his own clients, passes up worthy deals, prices others out of the market before negotiations can even begin, etc, he is trying to get more than what the players are worth. I guess that can be a good thing with teams like the Yankees, who frequently seem to be bidding against themselves for Boras clients, but there is a lot of inherent risk involved to the player involved in that sort of negotiating.

You're right, but I'd argue against that being a bad thing (as far as agents go, not talking about being good or bad for baseball). When was the last time we've seen a situation like the one Damon is in now? Not often. But there are tons of contracts where players get more than they're worth. Look at the contract Randy Wolf got this year. Or take a look at how much Carlos Lee is making in Houston. Or how middle reliever Brandon Lyon got 3 years and 15 million. It's not just the Yankees or Boras - it happens all the time. If an agent overvaluing a player works and a team is stupid enough to sign him, isn't the agent doing his job?

[Ensam]

Like I said, they'd still be saving money by trading Granderson before his backloaded years kicked in. They saw an opportunity to save some cash and get some prospects and they took it, I don't think it's much more complicated than that. We keep bringing up Damon but there's no way the Tigers could have expected him to be available, since the trade was done during the winter meetings when it was still widely assumed Damon was going to be back with the Yankees.

Except Granderson's contract is very team friendly, trading a team friendly contract to save money does not make sense.

It was not done purely for financial reasons, and it's showing based off them spending more money this offseason in free agents then it would have cost to keep both EJ and Granderson. It was a baseball decision.

[Cephius]

Who have they signed besides their closer? Extending Verlander's contract isn't a free agent signing and can't be counted as such.

[BadKarma]

At least they can correctly conjugate verbs...

A fail nitpick from a fan of a fail team, woopty fuckin doo I hit 's' by mistake.

Somebody is sad right now.

[Ensam]

Who have they signed besides their closer? Extending Verlander's contract isn't a free agent signing and can't be counted as such.

I don't think you realize how little money they traded away compared to how much they'd be signing. And no one has brought up Verlander's name but you.

They traded Edwin Jackson (4.2 mil) and Granderson (5.5 mil). That's 9.7 mil.

They then signed Jose Valverde (Who's worth is far below the previous two it's not even funny) to a 2 year, 7 mil per contract with a club option for a third year at 9 mil (fucking LOL)

And now they're offering Johnny Damon a 2 year, 7 mil contract. So that's over 4 mil more their spending next year.

And even better, for two years, they'll pay Johnny Damon and Jose Valverede 28 million dollars. Edwin Jackson and Curtis Granderson will be making 26.3 million dollars.

So yes, they're outspending what they traded through free agency. The trade was not financially motivated. I don't know how you can say it is when they're spending more money than the traded away

[*Shinzon*]

Yeah I can't believe they signed Valverde to a deal like that. No body else even wanted the guy.

[Cephius]

I don't think you realize how little money they traded away compared to how much they'd be signing. And no one has brought up Verlander's name but you.

They traded Edwin Jackson (4.2 mil) and Granderson (5.5 mil). That's 9.7 mil.

They then signed Jose Valverde (Who's worth is far below the previous two it's not even funny) to a 2 year, 7 mil per contract with a club option for a third year at 9 mil (fucking LOL)

And now they're offering Johnny Damon a 2 year, 7 mil contract. So that's over 4 mil more their spending next year.

And even better, for two years, they'll pay Johnny Damon and Jose Valverede 28 million dollars. Edwin Jackson and Curtis Granderson will be making 26.3 million dollars.

So yes, they're outspending what they traded through free agency. The trade was not financially motivated. I don't know how you can say it is when they're spending more money than the traded away

You're completely twisting things to suit your argument. You can't ignore Granderson's contract beyond 2010 and then bring in numbers that span the next two years. Also, Johnny Damon hasn't been signed yet. If there were really a 2yr deal on the table I'm pretty sure he would have agreed to it by now. So yes, I can quite simply say they aren't spending a lot of money... yet! They've signed one free agent to a horrible contract, and extended Verlander. That doesn't scream "we have tons of cash!" to me.

I'm bringing up Verlander because it's the only other significant money they spent this offseason besides Valverede.

[Kang]

Crap, I'm four pages behind (been watching olympics all week). I'm glad baseball is almost here once again. Not sure if this has been posted yet but this could be a thorn in Doc's return to Toronto. I always knew politicians were no good.

http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/...urn=mlb,219022

[*Shinzon*]

Man sometimes Marty Noble provides such gems on the Mets' website:

Marty Noble

This year, the lockers on Catchers' Row have been made narrower, the same width as the others, ostensibly because the Mets appear to be collecting catchers as Jay Leno collects cars, and they need more. They almost have a backlog of backstops, and now they are hoping to add veteran Rod Barajas to their fraternity Kappa Delta Shinguard, and they have urged Mike Jacobs to take his old mask out of mothballs.

Add those names to Omir Santos, Henry Blanco, Chris Coste and Josh Thole. No passed balls down here.

Members of the Mets' hierarchy confirmed the club's pursuit of Barajas, the 34-year-old right-handed hitter who hit 30 home runs in 778 at-bats with the Blue Jays the past two seasons. But their indications were that Barajas hadn't accepted the Mets' offer of a one-year Minor League contract with a provision that covered his likely play in the big leagues. As of 6 p.m. ET on Thursday, the Mets hadn't heard from Barajas' agent.

If he signs, Barajas will be the primary catcher and probably cost Santos his big league status. One of the Mets' decision makers made a point of saying Blanco is the reserve catcher whether or not Barajas signs.

Time had revised the Mets' thinking on him. When Barajas, Bengie Molina and Yorvit Torrealba were available as free agents, Molina was the club's first choice and Barajas was a distant third. Torrealba was in between, closer to Barajas. Now the Mets have pursued all three.

And general manager Omar Minaya has told Jacobs that an ability to catch would enhance his chance to win a position on the 25-man Opening Day roster.

"I told [Fernando] Tatis the same thing," Minaya said. "We could have two emergency catchers so [manager] Jerry [Manuel] wouldn't have his hands tied late in a game."

Jacobs' reaction was comparable to what Delgado's would have been, or maybe less enthusiastic. A catcher exclusively in the Mets' Minor League system from 1999-2004, he began playing first base in '05, the year he made his memorable big league debut -- and hit four home runs in 13 at-bats. Jacobs served as a designated hitter and first baseman with the Royals last season after three seasons playing first base wih the Marlins.

"I want to see you catch again," Jose Reyes said with a needle in his voice.

Reyes had been Jacobs' Double-A teammate. It was one of the rare times Reyes' needle didn't prompt a smile.

"Hey, I'll do it," Jacobs said.

But his words had more resignation than rejoicing in them.

Jacobs had come back to the Mets -- he thought -- to compete for the first-base assignment. Minaya expects Jacobs' presence to push incumbent Daniel Murphy, who hardly lacks motivation.

"Murphy has to perform," the general manager said.

But the Mets have invested so much time and thought in Murphy since the final weeks of the 2008 season that his not playing first base this year appears quite unlikely. If Jacobs, 29, batted right-handed, his chances of winning a roster spot would improve. Or if he were a skilled catcher with the power he has -- 5.19 home runs per 100 at-bats in the big leagues -- he'd be a better fit.

And they'd need another locker.

Jacobs was assigned No. 77 at first, not a positive indication. But he talked his way into something more suitable.

"I'm 30-something," he said.

He'd like to keep that number beyond April 5.

"He could be here," Minaya said.

But that may require another locker in Citi Field.

Even Fernando Tatis is being asked to catch, really Minaya? Really?

[Ensam]

You're completely twisting things to suit your argument. You can't ignore Granderson's contract beyond 2010 and then bring in numbers that span the next two years.

beyond 2010, he only has one more year under contract, which is at 10 mil, which is an amazing bargain for a player like him.

The only reason to trade extremely team friendly contracts for financial reasons is if you need money off the books completely. trading extremely team friendly contracts, than using that money to sign old guys who suck, is nothing to do with finances.

What they did does not scream "we have a ton of cash". What they did also does not scream "we have no cash." What they did is "our cash is concurrent"

[Saga]

Don't know if anyone's in charge of creating a league or anything, just made a quick BG page on ESPN fantasy baseball is anyone's DTF for it: http://games.espn.go.com/flb/leagueo...leagueId=33043

[Moss]

Invite me, I'm always dtf

You prefer Roto to H2H categories?

[Saga]

Invite me, I'm always dtf

You prefer Roto to H2H categories?

Can always make a new H2H one, just always played roto so it's what I'm used to. Want me to make one head to head?

[Absolutely Virtue]

I'm DTF if there is space. No preference for style, but I've got more experience with roto than h2h. I need to dig up my ESPN password.