User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.3148 seconds
54 querie(s) executed

Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. JMPH Posted: November 15, 2009 at 05:58 AM (#3387951)If it does, I will spend his entire career calling him Fartinez.
This makes perfect sense. With the second baseman on his way out, the Tigers will promptly replace him with an 20 year-old SS.
Anyway, this trade is a loser for both teams. Granderson loses serious value not playing CF, and I think the Tigers can get better for him anyway.
This.
I am curious about this. What does this suggest about his future?
If the Mets didn't already have Beltran, Granderson would make sense. But they do have Beltran and Granderson just isn't as valuable as a corner outfielder.
FYI, Granderson is under the Tigers' control for 4 more years at a cost of roughly 10 million a year. He also can't hit lefties a lick (.614 career OPS against them). That's scary when you consider the Phillies might have 4 lefty starters in their rotation next season.
Granderson just isn't a good fit for the Mets and that's why I would not make the trade. It's not that Fernando + Tejada and/or Holt is too much for Granderson. It's just the Mets could trade those guys for a different player of comparable value who would be a better fit.
Yes, but Everett is also a FA and their future SS is a project. Odd that the article mentioned only 2b.
This.
I would like to welcome these comments to 2007. Otherwise, no. Maybe this thread would provide a hint.
Didn't Sizemore just break his leg?
His ankle. He's supposed to be ready to go for spring training.
Whatever. The comments in this thread include a certain number of people who seem to think that Granderson isn't worth Martinez. In the non-Mets-fan universe, Martinez is a wild-card who can't stay healthy, and the Tigers would be crazy to trade Granderson for him. So I think my comments are perfectly valid right here on 15 November 2009.
Putting aside that this isn't enough for Granderson in the first place, don't you also have to think a whole bunch of teams would beat that offer anyway?
This brings me back to the "how about Jay Payton for Superstar X" days. Honestly, Newenhuis and Tejada (and possibly also Holt) are prospects that the Tigers GM has probably never heard of. Only Mets fans and prospect dorks know who they are. Not real trading chips.
That other stuff, no contest.
Mr. F!
Of course we have standards -- a piece has to be credible enough to be posted on the internet.
"The Tigers, intent on cutting payroll, came out of recent organizational meetings feeling that virtually everyone but Justin Verlander was available in a deal. Which means the Yankees could go get Curtis Granderson . Or that the Red Sox could put 26-year-old Miguel Cabrera on their short list (along with Adrian Gonzalez ) of possible middle-of-the-order bats."
I know this argument and it's basicall semantics. Granderson's abilities would be underutilized as a corner outfielder. Is that better?
Horseshit.
No. If you believe Tango's positional adjustment numbers (ten runs difference between CF and LF) and if you believe what play by play defensive stats tell us what happens when CFers move to LF (they gain ten runs in comparison to average) then yes he is no less valuable in LF, he will help the Mets in LF just as much as he helps the Tigers in CF (his WAR will be the same).
Now it is possible for someone to not believe those things but if you don't then the onus is on you to suggest why those numbers are wrong. If you can't do this then you've simply declared that Granderson loses value but you have no reasons or evidence to support your entirely unsubstantiated claim.
I don't buy the criticism of the Tigers for "letting" Magglio's option vest. They had to play him because (A) they were surely facing a grievance if they benched him just before he met the terms for the option to vest and (B) they were in a playoff race and he was their second-best hitter throughout the second half of the season. Their decision to play him last year is unrelated to their current financial situation.
How about Neuwenhuis/Tejada/Holt for Granderson?
Granderson is an All-Star/4-WAR centerfielder in his prime who also happens to be massively underpaid and enormously popular. The only reason his name has been floated out there is that the Tigers have a $125+ million payroll for next year before signing a single free agent. However, Granderson isn't part of the financial problem. He makes $5.5 million next year, and he has a very team-friendly contract for 3 years thereafter. If he is traded, it won't be to save the $5 million he is owed. That just doesn't make sense. He would more likely be traded to save $25 million or $35 million next year, in a package deal with some combination of albatross contracts (ie Magglio, Dontrelle, Bonderman, Robertson, and Guillen). The deals floated in this thread for Granderson straight-up have been ridiculous. Add Magglio and one of the expensive pitchers and they start to make some sense for the Tigers.
In my opinion, the Red Sox are the best potential trade partner for Detroit. Magglio would be very useful as a platoon partner for Drew, and they would view a guy like Bonderman or Robertson as a reliever and rotation depth rather than as a starter. Even if those guys had basically no value and their contracts were viewed as part of the cost of Granderson, would the Red Sox rather have Granderson for 4 years at an average of $16-17M per year through age 32 or Holliday for 7 years at $18-20M through age 36? I think they'd prefer Granderson by a wide margin. If the Tigers really need to cut payroll, I could see something like Granderson, Magglio, and Bonderman for Reddick, Bowden, and Delcarmen. By taking on $30+ million in 2010 salary, a team could potentially trade a Neuwenhuis/Tejada/Holt type of package to the Tigers rather than giving up the sort of elite talent that Granderson alone would require.
I would have taken a chance with the grievance, given the amount of money involved. There was also talk of platooning him, which could have helped. He sucked eggs for long enough in the early part of the year that they could have defensibly benched him for performance reasons. Talk of benching Magglio started a lot earlier than right before the option vested.
Their decision to play him last year is unrelated to their current financial situation.
The heck it isn't. I'm sure Ilitch and Dombrowski would love to have the 18 MM in savings right about now. I doubt very much they'd be looking to trade Granderson and company in order to save a few bucks if they had that money to play with.
I might be wrong, but I believe the rules prohibit releasing a player for non-performance reasons but not benching him. Also, it was considered highly unlikely a grievance would be successful. So the grievance issue probably wasn't relevant -- the real concern was that benching/releasing him might have alienated fans/teammates/future FAs.
they were in a playoff race and he was their second-best hitter throughout the second half of the season. Their decision to play him last year is unrelated to their current financial situation.
So basically, keeping your second-best hitter for a few months for the sake of that year's playoff run is worth losing 4 years of Granderson?
I don't think Mike Cameron did as well in a corner but what do I know and even if that's true, one example hardly disproves the rule.
Why would you think that? Do you think that the Tigers don't scout every level of the minor leagues? I guarantee you that Dombrowski not only knows who they are but has detailed scouting reports on each one of them.
-- MWE
I don't think that he meant that literally. He just meant that Martinez and crew are not players who would excite Dombrowski.
Here's my issue with this trade. It's not how much I value these prospects. As I've said, I am very concerned about Martinez's inability to stay healthy, I don't think much of prospects who hit with almost zero power (like Tejada), even if you can say they "held their own" in a league "for their age," and Holt has a great arm and one pitch.
But you need numbers of prospects to have a decent chance to "hit" on some of them, and when you keep doing 3:1 and 4:1 deals, especially in a system that is already thin (and which is only just beginning to get a bit less so), that lessens your chance of having some of those "hits." If the Mets are going to have any sort of budget control, they need to have some young players actually develop and be young Mets, instead of trade bait for somewhat higher-priced veteran guys, or for FAs-to-be like Santana.
All that said, if the Mets did a deal like this (and it would sure as hell have to be Martinez, not a guy like Newenhuis, whom BA doesn't even rank among the Mets Top 10 prospects), I'd go for it if it meant they would non-tender Francoeur. A Pagan/Beltran/Granderson outfield would be pretty damn awesome defensively, and you could begin to see the glimmerings of a line-up there if everyone stayed healthy.
(I feel when I agree with you it should be noted. :-D)
Martinez's struggle against LHP throughout his career is another obstacle against him eventually excelling.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main