I sit around a bunch of baseball fans at my job, and during work or breaks we'll talk
baseball. The other day, the Mets fan of the group mentioned how Curtis Granderson was
starting to come through for the Yankees (this was the night after he hit two homers
against the Rays). The three Yankee fans (including myself) were pretty ambivalent
about this declaration, and the ensuing debate led to this question I had:
Now that the season is winding down, was the Curtis Granderson trade a good move for the
Yankees?
Now, based on the eyeball test for the season, my gut instinct was to say no. However, I
wanted to make sure that my eyes weren't lying to me. So, I dug into it, and I came to this
conclusion:
The only way it was worth it is if the Yankees win the World Series and Granderson has a
Brosius-in-'99 postseason.
When looking at the trade, there are several factors to consider:
1. Is Granderson an upgrade over Austin Jackson?
2. Is Granderson an upgrade over Johnny Damon?
3. Was the overall value in the package given up for Granderson matched by his production?
4. What did the Granderson move prevent the Yankees from doing/force them to do?
Let's start with the first question: Is Granderson an upgrade over Austin Jackson?
Granderson
SPLITS G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB CS AVG OBP SLG OPS
Season 127 436 71 108 17 6 21 60 49 105 12 2 .248 .325 .459 .784
Jackson
SPLITS G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB CS AVG OBP SLG OPS
Season 142 578 99 172 32 10 4 37 45 160 25 5 298 .352 .408 .760
This point makes the biggest case for making the Granderson trade. His power numbers are
significantly better, as are his RBI totals and his strikeout totals aren't nearly as bad.
Also to continue the point, it can be fairly stated that Jackson probably duplicates most
of what the Yankees got this year from Brett Gardner:
Gardner
SPLITS G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB CS AVG OBP SLG OPS
Season 143 451 90 125 19 6 5 46 75 95 42 8 .277 .384 .379 .763
It's also safe to say that, given his better OBP and lower strikeout numbers compared to
Jackson's, that Gardner was a better fit in the Yankee lineup this year. And given the
dearth of power across baseball this year, where Jose Bautista might be the only 50 HR
hitter, you could give added value to the rarer commodity that Granderson provided over
Jackson, namely home run power.
For this point, I would say that Granderson, for this lineup, was an upgrade over Austin
Jackson as an everyday player.
2. Is Granderson an upgrade over Johnny Damon?
Granderson
SPLITS G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB CS AVG OBP SLG OPS
Season 127 436 71 108 17 6 21 60 49 105 12 2 .248 .325 .459 .784
Damon
SPLITS G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB CS AVG OBP SLG OPS
Season 135 505 79 135 33 5 8 48 67 86 10 1 .267 .355 .400 .755
This point, believe it or not, is a little murkier, and really ties into the last two
questions. Damon was actually a significantly better hitter at home (higher average, only
1 HR on the road), which was not much different from last year, when he was a catalyst for
a World Series champion. He gets on base more, walks more, strikes out less, and was a
known commodity, even if he's only a DH at this point.
That leads me to the point that probably clinches it for replacing Damon with Granderson:
You don't have to cringe when writing Granderson into your outfield lineup on a given
night. Plus, leading back to the same point from above, HR hitters have extra value this
year over most hitters, and Granderson has actually pretty even home and road HR numbers
(12 at home, 9 on the road).
So let's call it for Granderson on this point too.
Here's where it gets trickier, and requires a little more speculation:
3. Was the overall value of the package given up for Granderson matched by his production?
This has to be a resounding no. Even giving extra value to his HR total, you're still
talking about an above-average centerfielder who hit for a low average, didn't walk a lot
to compensate for his low average, struck out a lot and didn't steal many bases.
Remember, in return for Granderson, the Yankees had to give up not only Austin Jackson,
but also Phil Coke, a serviceable young bullpen arm, and Ian Kennedy, who was one of
three untouchables for Arizona at the trade deadline.
Kennedy
SPLITS G GS CG SHO IP H R ER HR BB SO W L P/GS WHIP BAA ERA
Season 30 30 0 0 185.0 155 83 78 25 66 161 9 9 99.8 1.19 .228 3.79
Now, you could also say that Kennedy has nowhere near those numbers if the Yankees hold
onto him. But, you could also say that he would have had a good amount of time to pitch in
the minors and make spot starts, which would have served the purpose of enhancing his
trade value.
Let's bring the last question into play:
4. What did the Granderson move prevent the Yankees from doing/force them into doing?
Two names for what the Yankees were forced to do: Nick Johnson (remember him?) and Javier
Vazquez.
Vazquez
SPLITS G GS CG SHO IP H R ER HR BB SO W L P/GS WHIP BAA ERA
Season 29 25 0 0 149.2 144 87 84 29 61 118 10 9 96.2 1.37 .252 5.05
Vazquez had his off-year, in his on-year/off-year career, in a contract year, when he was supposed to solidify the Yankee rotation behind Sabathia, Pettitte and Burnett. Now, I'll admit I didn't hate the Vazquez move after the Granderson trade, because the Yankees had taken themselves out of the running for Halladay, and apparently only Seattle was aware that Cliff Lee was available.
That brings me to my second point: The Yankees had to make the Vazquez and Johnson moves, since they no longer had an outfield spot for Damon and he didn't want to DH full-time at the time, and they didn't have the prospects to get a better pitcher like a Halladay or Lee.
This stings in two different ways, or should I say the same way two different times. The Yankees were never in the running for Lee during the winter, and probably get him if they have a package with Austin Jackson and Jesus Montero during June, when the Rangers swiped him away.
(I won't include Halladay in this argument necessarily, even if the Blue Jays probably do better with Kennedy, Jackson and Montero than the package they got from the Phillies. They didn't seem to be interested enough.)
Also, with Nick Swisher having a career year in right, what does this mean for the Yankee outfield going forward? Gardner is a very unique presence in that lineup in terms of his OBP plus his speed, as well as being a good defensive outfielder. Swisher's not going anywhere, between his switch-hitting ability, HR power and overall effect on the clubhouse. And now you have Granderson who almost has to play next year due to his salary and the Yankees now having a budget that they feel the need to stick to.
Does Granderson prevent them from making the big offer to Carl Crawford that they probably should make (even if my opinion is that he's not going to be a Yankee)? Does it take them out of the trade market if an upgrade becomes available?
All in all, it just doesn't seem to add up. You'd have to think that the Yankees offense would've continued to chug along with a .300+ hitter with speed instead of a .250 hitter with power. Combine that with the fact that Damon would've given future flexibility since he could've been had for 1 year later on in free agency, and you probably don't see Nick Johnson as a Yankee, the power upgrade was not worth it.
Give me trade and payroll flexibility over Curtis Granderson.
Unless he tears up this postseason. Then I take it all back.
~ David
No comments:
Post a Comment