wow big deal brewing between the diamondbacks, tigers, and yankees

Arizona gets:
Edwin Jackson
Ian Kennedy

Detroit gets:
Max Scherzer, Austin Jackson, Michael Dunn, Phi Coke, cash

Yankees get:
Curtis Granderson

12/8/2009 8:52:06 AM

^ I like that deal for the Yankees. Seriously you give up Phil Coke, a good middle relief guy and worthless Ian Kennedy and in return get one of the best all around players in the game.

The Braves need to get on the Tigers about trying to acquire Granderson.

As for other news not yet reported in this thread. Braves signed Wagner (old news) and Saito.

12/8/2009 8:56:53 AM

austin jackson is the yanks' top prospect

12/8/2009 9:18:27 AM

^ okay that makes more sense in terms of a fair deal. I really only follow minor league prospects with the Braves, no one else.

12/8/2009 9:49:30 AM

Jackson is meh to me. He is not as young as some other prospects (23) and his minor league OPS is below .770. He's a good defensive player and a singles hitter with overrated gap power because his speed stretches singles to doubles.

Honestly, I compare him mostly to Juan Pierre if Juan Pierre struck out 110 time a year... but I guess he has value.

Quote :

"Jon Heyman of SI.com says a newer version of the three-team deal, one that could have sent Edwin Jackson and Ian Kennedy to Arizona and Curtis Granderson to the Yankees, “looks very unlikely.” …excellent… is it me, or are most reports about what can’t happen, instead of what can or is going to happen… According to Heyman, the Yankees will need to part with four prospects in any three-way deal to acquire Granderson, including Phil Hughes and Austin Jackson."

[Edited on December 8, 2009 at 9:58 AM. Reason : update... HUGHES not COKE (wrong phil?)]

12/8/2009 9:54:20 AM

looks like the mets have agreed to trade john Maine and prospects to milwaukee for Corey Hart.

this blows my mind as the mets pitching staff paper thin as it is....this must signal something else is on the horizon....Lackey?

12/8/2009 11:09:20 AM

Granderson also hit like .240 last year. I know he's better than that, and does pretty much everything well, but maybe something happened and he's not quite as good as it looked a couple years ago too.

12/8/2009 12:14:23 PM

granderson has been traded....more details to come

12/8/2009 1:40:12 PM

GREAT deal for the Yankees.

Don't need to re-sign Damon likely now and they didn't give up anything too special.

- Jackson, as I said, is only as hyped as he is because he is a Yankees prospect. Numbers, age and projection is nothing special according to most people.
- Coke is a mediocre middle reliever.
- Kennedy is a AAAA complainer with mediocre stuff.

12/8/2009 1:45:42 PM

the key for the tigers is not having to pay a ton for a guy who has to be platooned for vs lefties

12/8/2009 1:52:09 PM

Wow he'res the official breakdown, I like what the tigers got

Tigers get:
Max Scherzer (Ari)
Austin Jackson (NYY)
Phil Coke RP (NYY)
Daniel Schlereth, LHP (Ari)

Yankees get:
Curtis Granderson (DET)

Diamondbacks get:
Ian Kennedy (NYY)
Edwin Jackson (DET)

[Edited on December 8, 2009 at 2:14 PM. Reason : finalized]

12/8/2009 2:04:37 PM

tigers are reportedly in talks with mike cameron and rich harden....busy day for dave dombrowski

12/8/2009 2:08:25 PM

I did not like that deal when Hughes was a part of it, but I don't mind it that much at all if it's Coke.

Still have to address starting pitching though. Sabathia, Burnett, Pettitte is nice and all, but the three-man rotation doesn't work in the regular season.

12/8/2009 4:59:49 PM

oh, i'm sure they'll sign randy wolf, josh beckett, john lackey, and eric bedard

12/8/2009 5:12:06 PM

damn, gammons is leaving espn

hope he resurfaces somewhere...he's one of the good ones

12/8/2009 5:42:47 PM

I think Gammons will probably be either writing for a blog or doing work with NESN, assuming he still lives up in New England.

12/8/2009 6:45:11 PM

Quote :

"wow...rumor has it that the mets are after miguel cabrera and are offering jose reyes and one top tier prospect for cabrera and cash...."

Where did you see that? I didn't read the first page until now and I hadn't even heard of that rumor... not even a mention of it from the Mets beat guys on twitter and I assume that'd be pretty big news.

Reyes and Wright aren't going anywhere... I can assure you of that.

** Also, since 2004 last year was the only year he missed more than five games in a season. He has been pretty durable since he turned 22.

[Edited on December 9, 2009 at 8:21 AM. Reason : x]

12/9/2009 8:21:28 AM

I was listening to one of the MLB satellite radio talk shows and they said that the mets are quietly shopping reyes and they mentioned cabrera's name. This is the same show where i heard the details of the granderson trade 2hrs before it was on ESPN.com

12/9/2009 9:10:25 AM

it's been known that they've been talking w/ other teams about reyes b/c they aren't sure if he's durable enough to last a whole season

12/9/2009 11:51:13 AM

Quote :

"damn, gammons is leaving espn hope he resurfaces somewhere...he's one of the good ones"

he's going to MLB network. he still says stupid shit just like all the other analysts.

also it looks like the orioles are sending chris ray to the rangers for kevin millwood. the rangers are eating 3 of the 12 million owed to him in 2010. the o's are also apparently pursuing erik bedard. if he comes back to baltimore and owns i will laugh so hard.

12/9/2009 5:27:43 PM

Randy Wolf and LaTroy Hawkins to Brewers....Rich Harden close to deal with Rangers. Finally they get a good front line pitcher if he can stay healthy.

12/10/2009 12:50:36 AM

[quote]Jon Heyman of SI.com reports that the Mets offered free agent outfielder Jason Bay a four-year contract worth roughly $65 million.
Bay turned down a similar contract from the Red Sox before hitting free agency, so the Mets would likely need to kick in another year to get a deal done. Interestingly, Heyman writes that the Mets didn't want to get into "protracted talks" for Matt Holliday, who could make up to $100 million this winter. The Mets are confident that Bay's pull-hitting style will translate to Citi Field, so it looks like they've finally made their preference known. Stay tuned.

12/10/2009 4:42:52 PM

I don't understand the Rangers' moves here:

They trade Millwood away for just about nothing AND 3mm so they can get rid of his contract - net effect, they save around 9mm

Then they sign Rich Harden for 7.5mm - new net effect, the lose millwood and gain harden, saving 1.5mm

Millwood is a bit inconsistent, but at least he pitches...Harden on a 1 year contract for 7.5mm? What's the point? He has to be incredible AND not get injured for that deal to make any sense.

And now I hear they are going to trade for Lowell, who is owed 12mm next year

Doesn't make sense to me.

[Edited on December 10, 2009 at 6:27 PM. Reason : Sox will pay 9mm of Lowell's contract...so that's not too bad]

12/10/2009 6:25:59 PM

ray is a pretty good reliever at best and average at worst.

harden > millwood.

and lowell is pretty good, and becomes especially attractive at only 3M.

12/12/2009 7:20:43 AM

Harden is only better than Millwood when he's healthy, which is not often.

Ray's numbers from 2009: 0-4 with a 7.27 ERA....at best he's a good reliever sure, even a closer possibly. But at worst, he is clearly not just average.

12/14/2009 11:25:52 AM

Looks like Lackey is taking a physical for the Red Sox. If they sign him, they'll have a monster rotation assuming everyone can stay healthy.

1. Beckett
2. Lackey
3. Lester
4. Dice-K
5. Wakefield or Buchholtz?

12/14/2009 4:28:01 PM

supposed 3 team deal in the works involving halladay going to philly & lee going to seattle

12/14/2009 4:36:31 PM

God baseball needs a salary cap so bad its not funny.

Its pretty bad when 5 teams make nearly all the moves every winter.

12/14/2009 6:09:03 PM

^ this is such an overstated claim by so many people who don't understand that a salary cap wouldn't help major league baseball

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=8409

12/14/2009 8:59:13 PM

in reality, we just want no free agency. keep the players you drafted, good luck. trade if you want.

12/14/2009 11:17:31 PM

The major argument of that article seems to be that most teams wouldn't be able to meet the salary floor. Who's to say that there actually needs to be a floor? Just because that's the way other leagues work doesn't mean MLB has to do that

12/15/2009 12:03:26 AM

well the MLB has pretty much proven that there's parity. as much as i hate to see the yankees sign whoever the #1 free agent is every year, they themselves proved that it's not an effective formula for winning world championships. yeah they made the playoffs almost every year this decade, but they were far from unbeatable. hell, if AJ burnett got hurt in 2009 like he was supposed to and wasn't able to pitch in october then the phillies might've won back to back championships. then again, jerry manuel was stupid enough to throw a 4 or 5 starter (pedro) twice in the world series. fucking idiot.

and there are numerous articles on why baseball doesn't need a salary cap. i just posted one of them. if there's anything that needs to be fixed it's the draft system. that's way more of an issue than a salary cap.

Quote :

"Its pretty bad when 5 teams make nearly all the moves every winter."

i can think of more than 5. they tend to be bigger market teams, but it's more than 5. and your statement only rings true in respect to free agent signings i think.

[Edited on December 15, 2009 at 1:02 AM. Reason : .]

[Edited on December 15, 2009 at 1:08 AM. Reason : .]

12/15/2009 1:00:14 AM

you mean charlie manuel, not jerry.

12/15/2009 8:20:14 AM

this game needs no salary cap, sirs.

12/15/2009 8:47:03 AM

Sure there are plenty of articles arguing that you can have a good team like the Marlins without the money, or that you can have a shitty team with the money. Bottom line: Top 10 payrolls of 2009:

Yankees (.636, World Series)
Mets (.432, disabled list)
Cubs (.516, 2nd in division)
Red Sox (.586, playoffs)
Tigers (.528, 2nd in division)
Angels (.599, playoffs)
Phillies (.574, World Series)
Astros (.458, shitty)
Dodgers (.586, playoffs)
Mariners (.525, 3rd in division, but far from shitty)

Bottom 10:

Royals (.401, last in division)
Rangers (.537, surprisingly good)
Orioles (.395, last in division)
Twins (.534, playoffs)
Rays (.519, good)
Athletics (.463, last in division)
Nationals (.364, last in division)
Pirates (.385, last in division)
Padres (.463, second to last in division)
Marlins (.537, second in division)

So let's see, 8 out of the top 10 payrolls had winning records, 5 went to the playoffs, and 2 were in the World Series. Only 4 out of the bottom 10 had winning records, and only 1 made the post season.

But you want to argue that money isn't the prime factor in making teams better? What about the rising ticket and concession prices? The fan almost always feels the crappy end of the out of control salaries.

12/15/2009 9:02:06 AM

Salary cap is never going to happen in baseball. Not worth even arguing about. Just like a playoff in college football = pipe dream.

MLB is a have and have-not league. Occasionally a have-not will rise up (i.e. Marlins/Rays/Twins) because of their excellent farm systems, but teams like the Yankees and Red Sox are always going to be in the playoff hunt.

I would like to see some changes to the draft system and rookie contracts/bonuses so that agents can't basically force lower payroll teams to pass on the best prospect so that they can get a bigger contract from a bigger market team.

12/15/2009 9:26:09 AM

Quote :

"if there's anything that needs to be fixed it's the draft system."

this

12/15/2009 2:12:08 PM

Quote :

"you mean charlie manuel, not jerry."

yeah. woops.

Quote :

"What about the rising ticket and concession prices? The fan almost always feels the crappy end of the out of control salaries."

the rise in ticket prices in recent years isn't because of player salaries. it was more because of fans having increased purchasing power after the economic boom of the 1990s as well as the rising interest in baseball in the last 10 years. if more people are willing to go to a game, you charge more for admission, especially if that team is winning. it doesn't matter if it's a team of all stars or a team of rookies. if they win, people come to the stadium, and you charge as much as you think you can get out of them. you can't charge joe the fan more on his ticket price because your team signed some big free agent if the team sucks. it would be absolutely foolish. player salaries aren't marginal costs. if you want a more detailed explanation, read this chapter from Baseball Between the Numbers, which is an awesome book that every fan should read. it really changes the way you look at the game.

http://books.google.com/books?id=uxdvwQdXbboC&pg=PA207&lpg=PA207&dq=neil+demause+do+high+salaries+lead+to+high+ticket+prices%3F&source=bl&ots=JAx-2c5Ibb&sig=noApZjCQNNzwwHoqFUEn_5WvAvs&hl=en&ei=EhQoS9-7Oo-vtgeg29HICw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=neil%20demause%20do%20high%20salaries%20lead%20to%20high%20ticket%20prices%3F&f=false

12/15/2009 6:47:38 PM

Quote :

"But you want to argue that money isn't the prime factor in making teams better?"

it's really not the prime factor. even though you seem to make the assumption that the numbers speak for themselves here, i really don't think you're going deep enough and considering a lot of factors. even though a majority of the top ten teams had winning records and 5 went to the playoffs, that doesn't do enough for your argument

Yankees (.636, World Series)
Mets (.432, disabled list)
Cubs (.516, 2nd in division)
Red Sox (.586, playoffs)
Tigers (.528, 2nd in division)
Angels (.599, playoffs)
Phillies (.574, World Series)
Astros (.458, shitty)
Dodgers (.586, playoffs)
Mariners (.525, 3rd in division, but far from shitty)

the cubs had the 3rd highest payroll and finished 5 games over .500 in a relatively weak division. they don't support your argument of money being the prime factor in making teams better. they weren't a good team. they benefited from 3 other teams being sub par or worse. put them in a tougher division, and they don't finish second.

yes, the red sox have a relatively high payroll. they also draft and trade well. they generally don't overpay (too badly) for players, because they have stat nerds running the front office who know the real value of players. they allocate their money well with player development and acquisitions. this is the opposite of what the yankees do.

the tigers might as well have finished in last in their division after the way they choked down the stretch. that was pathetic. don't use them finishing second with a high payroll as a way to support your argument.

the dodgers almost blew their chances of winning the NL west last year because they didn't perform so hot down the stretch. they may have won it and gone to the NLCS, but don't expect it to be so easy for them next year.

the mariners weren't shitty, but they still had some pretty high salaries they were paying from shitty contracts made by bill bavasi. that's likely what put them in the top 10.

so basically your 8 teams with winning records can be broken down into 5 good teams (yankees, sox, angels, phillies, dodgers) and 5 decent or shitty teams considering more than just win-loss record (mets, cubs, tigers, astros, mariners). not so overwhelmingly in your favor is it?

now, one thing you may not realize is that, despite the fact that they are in the bottom ten in payroll, the orioles could likely sustain a 120-140 million dollar payroll with their current fanbase/market size/attendance figures if angelos decided he didn't want marginal profits for himself. trust me. i'm a fan. i would know. they have the money to have been the 3rd or 4th highest spending team this year. they know they could, but they also know that doesn't mean they should. i don't care what team we're talking about. money comes in 3rd behind drafting well and player development. knowing exactly how to throw your money around to put the best, not necessarily the highest profile or most expensive, players on the field or in your bullpen is very important, but it's also an issue that many fans and people running the front offices of many major league teams do not understand.

12/15/2009 8:36:05 PM

Quote :

"so basically your 8 teams with winning records can be broken down into 5 good teams (yankees, sox, angels, phillies, dodgers) and 5 decent or shitty teams considering more than just win-loss record (mets, cubs, tigers, astros, mariners). not so overwhelmingly in your favor is it?"

i just realized my math didn't add up here. oops. but yeah, out of those 8 teams with winning records, the cubs, tigers, and mariners weren't exactly great teams as i was saying. so i think you could only really make a case for half of those teams in the top 10 seeing success because of their ability to spend.

12/16/2009 2:05:50 AM

Deadspin has informed me that 21 teams won a playoff series this decade. 21!

You guys using a single season as evidence for your arguments are bonkers.

[Edited on December 27, 2009 at 4:19 PM. Reason : ]

12/27/2009 4:18:29 PM

Jason Bay signs with the METS.

There goes his career.

12/29/2009 4:05:33 PM

Wright-Beltran-Bay is a homeless man's Utley-Howard-Ibanez

We still need another arm or two or three to stay within 10 games of them

12/29/2009 4:08:53 PM

^^^ Good point.

As for Bay signing with the Mets, I think that is a good pickup for them if he can sustain his level of play (which seems difficult for FAs that sign with the Mets). Mets still need starting pitching bad, but their lineup should be stout assuming everyone is healthy.

I still think the Braves will take 2nd place next year behind the Phillies.

12/29/2009 6:08:00 PM

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/story/12822939/as-prospect-desme-retires-to-enter-priesthood

lol at the A's losing their best prospect so he can become a priest

1/22/2010 2:52:54 PM

miguel tejada is back in baltimore.

god dammit orioles...

1/25/2010 5:49:37 PM

this has to be one of the most erroneous articles I've ever read

Quote :

"When looking at ballparks, there are three "types," a hitter's park, a pitcher's park and a neutral park. But, just considering hitting, there are some things to consider. First, look at the dimensions of the park. Asymmetrical parks, in my opinion, tend to be good hitter's parks. Asymmetrical meaning, the dimensions are identical at all points in the park. For instance, an asymmetrical park might have dimensions of 335 to LF, 378 to the LF power alley, 404 to center, 378 to RF power alley and 335 to RF. A hitter probably would thank me for the 335 to right field. It is a pretty fair distance for most hitters in MLB today. A great hitter's park, I think, is Jacob's Field in Cleveland. It's a smaller park with somewhat odd dimensions. There are several open areas in left field and center field that are great for hitters. Another park I would deem a great hitter's park is PNC Park in Pittsburgh. Again, smaller dimensions, smaller park, lots of open space for hitter's to go after. Pitcher's parks are those parks which have longer dimensions, are usually not asymmetrical, and have tons of crevices and other things that help the pitcher more than the batter. A great example is Houston's "Whatever they're calling it this year" park. First of all, the worst part is center field. Good God folks, 435 feet to center? Not only that, and I'm not sure if this feature is still there, but in the early days, out in center field at, what was then Enron Field, there was a little hill that went up to the fence, AND a flagpole that was in play. If a hitter was strong enough to get one out there, it possibly could have meant an inside-the-park'er. But, 435 to center is foreboding to most hitters; therefore, pitchers love it. I believe the old Tigers Stadium was like that as well. It was this big, cavernous field at Trumbull Street, that also had a flagpole in play, and a long drive to center field. Neutral parks are interesting, and as we move on in the new stadium era of Major League Baseball, we are seeing more of those. Safeco Field in Seattle and "Whatever San Francisco's Park is called now" are good examples of neutral parks. Safeco is great. Looking at Safeco Field, left field seems to favor hitters, especially with that big open spot right above the bleachers. Right field, seems to favor pitchers, with a slightly longer dimension, more seats and so forth. San Fran's park is a little bit the same way. San Fran actually has MLB's smallest right field line at about 308 feet into the bay. Left-handed hitters love that. Left field is a ton longer, at about 345 feet (about the same as Minnesota's Metrodome), thus favoring pitchers. The Metrodome, which thankfully has it's baseball days numbered, is what I consider a neutral park as well. Hitters love the 327 feet right field line. Pitchers love the 343 feet left field line, and my guess is that pitchers and hitters alike have their own views about that white roof. Another thing to consider is the parks orientation, which direction it is facing has a lot to do with the wind factor, and whether hits become homeruns, or really bad pop-ups. To conclude, hitting is affected in every park, based on a number of things, orientation, dimensions, seating and so forth. Check it out next time you are watching a game on TV, and see if you can assess the different factors that might make it a hitter's or a pitcher's park. Or better yet, a neutral one."

2/8/2010 1:11:08 PM

What do you mean?

The butchering of the definition of asymmetrical? Or perhaps using Jacob's Field? Or calling SAFECO neutral? Or wondering if Tow's Hill was still in Houston? Or not pointing out that the power gaps in AT&T are the toughest in all of baseball to hit out or that the wind comes off the bay knocking down any non-Bonds high fly all to RF

2/8/2010 1:52:18 PM

and PNC being a great hitter's park, etc



and holy jeez, I knew Longoria left money on the table when he signed that deal, but for the Rays, his contract for the next 5 years has to be the best in baseball

Quote :

"# 6 years/17.5M (2008-13), plus 2014-16 club options * signed extension with Tampa Bay 4/18/08 * 08:$0.5M, 09:$0.55M, 10:$0.95M, 11:$2M, 12:$4.5M, 13:$6M, 14:$7.5M club option ($3M buyout), 15:$11M club option, 16:$11.5M club option * if Longoria otherwise would be arbitration-eligible o after 2010, 2011 salary increases to $2.5M o after 2011, buyout for 2014 option increases to $4M * club must decide by 11/2014 whether to exercise 2015-16 options * 2016 option may increase to $14M based on rankings in MVP vote * award bonus: $50,000 for All Star selection"

I wouldn't be surprised to see him get Boras and attempt and NFL-style renegotiation towards the end of the deal

2/8/2010 2:31:31 PM

As a Phillies fan, I am really excited to see what Halladay is going to be able to do in the NL. Looking forward to another great year of baseball.

2/8/2010 2:38:47 PM