• Revisiting December 8, 2009

    Posted by on September 7th, 2010 · Comments (36)

    On December 8, 2009 the Yankees (via trade) gave up Phil Coke, Austin Jackson and Ian Kennedy to acquire Curtis Granderson.

    This season, to date, Coke has pitched in 66 games for the Tigers with an ERA+ of 159. Kennedy, for the Diamondbacks, has made 28 starts, thrown 173 innings, and has an ERA + of 112. Jackson, for the Tigers, is considered to be in the running for the A.L. Rookie of the Year Award and has been mentioned as a candidate for the Gold Glove Award as well.

    Curtis Granderson’s first season in New York has been up and down.

    Regardless of how you felt about this trade at the time it was made, what’s your opinion of it now? Could this be one of the worst ever made by Brian Cashman – if not the worst, period?

    Comments on Revisiting December 8, 2009

    1. MJ Recanati
      September 7th, 2010 | 10:29 am

      Regardless of how you felt about this trade at the time it was made, what’s your opinion of it now? Could this be one of the worst ever made by Brian Cashman – if not the worst, period?
      ——-
      Coke is a relief pitcher. Not having him is no big deal.

      Kennedy wasn’t getting a chance to rejoin the rotation in New York. As a result, he became expendable. You can’t identify someone you’re willing to trade because they don’t fit into your future plans, trade them, and then pine for them after the fact. Kennedy had no place on this team any longer. Better to trade him than to waste him in the minors.

      Jackson may be in the running for AL ROY but that doesn’t really mean anything. Granderson isn’t a rookie so pointing out that Jackson is eligible for the award is a meaningless fact. Beyond that:

      4/4/10-4/30/10:
      Jackson: 23 games, .364/.422/.495
      Granderson: 22 games, .221/.310/.377

      7/16/10-9/16/10:
      Jackson: 50 games, .313/.367/.436
      Granderson: 49 games, .261/.333/.509

      Cumulative:
      Jackson: 128 games, .305/.359/.416
      Granderson: 113 games, .249/.319/.451

      It all depends on if you prefer your value in batting average (Jackson) or slugging average (Granderson). But, at the end of the day, Austin Jackson (3.4 WAR) and Curtis Granderson (3.1) WAR have played eachother to a draw thus far this season.

      All this nonsense talk about the Yankees missing Jackson is ridiculous. Jackson may turn into a decent player one day. But the Yanks don’t miss him one iota this year and they probably won’t miss him next year either. Detroit’s gain doesn’t necessarily mean our loss.

    2. Raf
      September 7th, 2010 | 11:28 am

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      Jackson may be in the running for AL ROY but that doesn’t really mean anything.

      They can always acquire him down the line, like they did with past AL ROY’s Pat Listach, Ron Kittle, Jose Canseco, Chuck Knoblauch, Angel Berroa and Eric Hinske :)

    3. September 7th, 2010 | 11:29 am

      What about the WAR totals this season, to date?

      Per B-R.com’s stats, Kennedy is 2.8, Jackson is 2.4 and Coke is 1.3 – that’s a total of 6.5 for the three. And, Granderson’s WAR is 1.9 on the season.

      Is that what a good GM does, trades 6.5 worth of WAR in order to acquire 1.9 worth of WAR?

    4. clintfsu813
      September 7th, 2010 | 11:44 am

      Having trouble envisioning the issue here….gonna need a metaphor ;)

    5. September 7th, 2010 | 11:48 am

      @ clintfsu813:
      Would you trade one date with all three Busty Cops for one date with Cameron Diaz?

    6. MJ Recanati
      September 7th, 2010 | 12:06 pm

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      Is that what a good GM does, trades 6.5 worth of WAR in order to acquire 1.9 worth of WAR?

      You’re going to measure a trade by adding the WAR values of the three players traded against the one acquired and not look at anything else?

      Trading for Granderson was Cashman’s initial hedge against bringing back Johnny Damon. By replacing Damon (1.5 WAR, according to Fangraphs) with Granderson (3.1 WAR according to Fangraphs), that opened up the LF spot for Brett Gardner (4.9 WAR, according to Fangraphs).

      So, using your own methodology, the Yankees actually sent out 6.5 WAR and replaced it with 8 WAR, or 8.3 WAR if you consider Boone Logan (0.3 WAR, according to Fangraphs) as Phil Coke’s replacement in the bullpen.

    7. September 7th, 2010 | 12:20 pm

      @ MJ Recanati: If you want to play that game, then you have to add up all the WARs – including all the others in the Logan deal, no?

      Plus, you could have to then also say we lost Damon’s WAR potential at DH and replaced it with Nick Johnson’s WAR, etc.

    8. MJ Recanati
      September 7th, 2010 | 12:33 pm

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      If you want to play that game, then you have to add up all the WARs – including all the others in the Logan deal, no?

      Fine. Melky Cabrera (-0.5), Mike Dunn (0.0), Javy Vazquez (-0.1), Boone Logan (0.3). Yanks come out ahead in this one with a total WAR of 0.3.

      It’s a flawed methodology but there you go.

      The point I was trying to make was that you’re trying to grade Cashman on the 6.5 WAR total that Kennedy/Jackson/Coke have put up without the benefit of context or replacements.

      Separately, by AB’s, Marcus Thames has been the team’s primary DH this year. He’s put up a 1.0 WAR. Add that to the 8.3 I gave you before and the trade — with all of its related moving parts — still comes out fine for the Yanks.

      Dude, the Yanks have the best record in baseball. At any moment this year have you felt like the Yanks were missing Ian Kennedy or Phil Coke?

    9. September 7th, 2010 | 1:00 pm

      @ MJ Recanati:

      MJ, bottom line, if I asked you to spend $6.5 million on a house that was worth $1.9 million, would you do it? Probably not. Would you do it if it meant that it would allow you to pass on having to buy another house at $1.9 million. Still, probably not. Would you do it if it meant that you could then go out out and buy some other houses at near market value? Still, probably not.

      And, that’s what Cashman did when he traded 6.5 worth of WAR in order to acquire 1.9 worth of WAR.

      Then again, that’s what he did when he overpaid Burnett. And, it’s what he did when he overbid on Igawa. It’s all he ever does – overpay to get something that’s often not worth it.

    10. MJ Recanati
      September 7th, 2010 | 1:12 pm

      @ Steve Lombardi:
      The $6.5M house example isn’t even a parallel example, Steve.

      I won’t be dragged into another one of your arguments where you move your targets around and use selective, inconsistent logic to frame Cashman in poor light. You and the other minority of folks that think Cashman is a bad GM are entitled to your opinion, even if it’s not entirely based in fact. Most of the rest of the baseball community — his peers, intelligent blogs and baseball scholars — seem to disagree with your view and the facts certainly don’t bear out your points.

      If you want to think that trades can be analyzed simply by adding up WAR and saying “voila!” that’s fine but I don’t personally subscribe or endorse that view and I’m pretty sure no one else in the baseball community does either.

    11. MJ Recanati
      September 7th, 2010 | 1:14 pm

      @ Steve Lombardi:
      And, for the record, I said what I said with all due respect. It wasn’t meant as an insult, I just refuse to argue with you when you constantly change the terms of the argument.

    12. clintfsu813
      September 7th, 2010 | 1:27 pm

      Then again, that’s what he did when he overpaid Burnett. And, it’s what he did when he overbid on Igawa. It’s all he ever does – overpay to get something that’s often not worth it.

      Isnt this the unfortunate but neccessary ways of Yankees dealings. We ALWAYS overpay. Always will. Bottom line, guys will demand more from the Yanks then they would say the Tigers. (Johnny Damon)

    13. September 7th, 2010 | 1:27 pm

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      If you want to think that trades can be analyzed simply by adding up WAR and saying “voila!” that’s fine but I don’t personally subscribe or endorse that view and I’m pretty sure no one else in the baseball community does either.

      See: http://waswatching.com/2010/07/24/traded-inside-the-most-lopsided-trades-in-baseball-history/

    14. Raf
      September 7th, 2010 | 1:36 pm

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      Dude, the Yanks have the best record in baseball. At any moment this year have you felt like the Yanks were missing Ian Kennedy or Phil Coke?

      With hindsight, certainly! :)

    15. clintfsu813
      September 7th, 2010 | 1:39 pm

      @ Raf:
      We were pretty darn certain we wouldnt be needing those two guys, right?

    16. Raf
      September 7th, 2010 | 1:49 pm

      Who who would Kennedy have started in place of? Sabathia, Burnett, Pettitte, Vazquez or Hughes?

      Would it have been prudent to keep him in the minors for another season in the hopes that one of the 5 previously listed starters faltered (7 if one counts Chamberlain and Mitre, 8 if Gaudin is counted)? Even more so if he was “buried” by the organization?

    17. MJ Recanati
      September 7th, 2010 | 1:50 pm

      @ Steve Lombardi:
      A topic for an interesting book, perhaps. But I still wouldn’t grade trades on such a simplistic basis.

      But since you’re fixated on this, let me ask you:

      Do you miss Phil Coke? Do the Yankees miss Phil Coke? Are relief pitchers not completely fungible and totally unpredictable from one year to the next? Where would you predict Phil Coke’s WAR to be in 2011 and 2012?

      Do you miss Ian Kennedy? Do the Yankees miss Ian Kennedy? Did the Yankees have any space on their roster for him? Isn’t the entire purpose of having redundant/expendable players the fact that you can trade them to get someone else that you need more?

      You can’t possibly miss Austin Jackson because you never saw him in the big leagues or heard much encouraging news from him in the minor leagues to have ever truly grown so attached to him. Your own posts on Jackson over the past two years were constantly reminding fans to temper their enthusiasm and expectations on a player that was considered inferior to his closest minor league peer, Andrew McCutchen of Pittsburgh.

      The Yankees either decided they didn’t want Johnny Damon back or predicted that they wouldn’t be able to sign Damon in a reasonable amount of time. As such, they decided to trade for a player that was both better defensively than Damon in CF and possessed a reasonably similar offensive skill-set to Damon’s.

      By trading for Granderson, they improved their team defense in the outfield, cleared a path for Brett Gardner to win the starting LF job and removed most of Damon’s negotiating leverage. The cost was the team’s best or second-best positional prospect, a completely fungible relief pitcher and a redundant/expendable back-end starting pitcher whose repertoire did not profile very favorably in the challenging American League/AL East.

      If Granderson were hitting .300 and hadn’t gotten off to such a poor start, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation. But because he’s only hitting .250 for the year, everyone is up in arms. Never mind that his replacement in Detroit is barely outperforming him, you seem to want to portray this trade as some lopsided defeat on Cashman’s resume.

      You just can’t do that.

    18. Raf
      September 7th, 2010 | 1:58 pm

      clintfsu813 wrote:

      @ Raf:
      We were pretty darn certain we wouldnt be needing those two guys, right?

      Back then yes. But that was in the past, we need to talk about the present and the future. Melky, Dunn, Kennedy and Jackson were all spare parts then, but they’re important contributors at the moment. Never mind that they can bottom out in the future, or didn’t have much of a past, what is important now is the present. No sense trying to add context to the discussion, it will only serve to confuse things. Much better to oversimplify :D

    19. Garcia
      September 7th, 2010 | 2:07 pm

      I’d do the trade again, why? Because I wouldn’t want to be deprived of hearing Sterling sing “the Grandy-man can”.

      In all seriousness, I have to agree with MJ — I don’t see how this trade is a bust, but some want to view it that way. Even with all that WAR, the Tigers still stuck and the Yankees don’t. That’s what I see.

    20. Garcia
      September 7th, 2010 | 2:17 pm

      @Steve
      Aren’t you the same person that dismisses all of Javy’s stats from last year because it was in the NL? So how can you look at Ian’s stats and think that translates the same to the AL?

    21. Corey Italiano
      September 7th, 2010 | 2:21 pm

      Garcia wrote:

      Aren’t you the same person that dismisses all of Javy’s stats from last year because it was in the NL? So how can you look at Ian’s stats and think that translates the same to the AL?

      I’d like to see Steve’s answer to this question.

    22. MJ Recanati
      September 7th, 2010 | 2:26 pm

      Garcia wrote:

      Aren’t you the same person that dismisses all of Javy’s stats from last year because it was in the NL? So how can you look at Ian’s stats and think that translates the same to the AL?

      That’s actually an excellent point.

    23. September 7th, 2010 | 2:32 pm

      Are Kennedy’s numbers inflated by pitching in the NL? Maybe? But, we don’t know for sure.

      As far as Vazquez, here is what I wrote:

      But, the big thing with Vazquez is: Can he pitch in the American League? If you look at his career, in terms of his component skills, Vazquez is pretty consistent. Yet, for some reason, his bubble-gum card stats, outside of 2007, are much better when he’s in the N.L. than when he’s in the A.L. (where the Yankees play). In the Senior Cicuit, he’s a Cy Young contender. In the Junior Circuit, he’s a league average pitcher. Perhaps it’s the A.L. ballparks that do him in? (By the way, his lifetime ERA while pitching in the Bronx is 7.09 over 6 games.) But, even at his worst, Javy should be good for close to 200 innings pitched and somewhere around 12-14 wins.

      And, I stand by that – because there’s a body of work to look back on for Javy. We just don’t have that with Kennedy – not like the sample size we have for Vazquez.

    24. September 7th, 2010 | 2:38 pm

      @ MJ Recanati: Or, to anyone else who thinks this was a good/smart trade by Cashman. Let’s take a different approach here.

      The challenge I now present to you: Why don’t you explain why this trade (Coke/Kennedy/Jackson for Granderson) was not a situation where the GM overpaid to acquire the talents of Granderson. By this, I mean, show us how the current and future value of Granderson is greater than the current future value of the three players, en masse, who were exchanged for him.

      I’ll just hang up now and listen to what you have to say.

    25. MJ Recanati
      September 7th, 2010 | 2:39 pm

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      Are Kennedy’s numbers inflated by pitching in the NL? Maybe? But, we don’t know for sure.

      Fair point, even if that’s a value-meal sized hedge/equivocation.

    26. MJ Recanati
      September 7th, 2010 | 2:43 pm

      @ Steve Lombardi:
      I already did this. As I’ve said twice, the Yankees traded an expendable back-end starter (Kennedy), a fungible reliever (Coke) and an OF prospect (Jackson) for an outfielder (Granderson) that adequately replaced (offensive) and far surpassed (defensively) the player he was brought in to replace (Damon). In so doing, Cashman opened the door to Brett Gardner on an everyday basis.

      What happens in the future is ultimately irrelevant as long as the short- and intermediate-term needs of the Yankees are met. With Damon gone and Granderson/Gardner in his place, I’d say the Yanks have met their short- and intermediate-term needs.

      Granderson will be gone by the time Jackson reaches his true prime-aged years which is why it’s meaningless to look at what happens three or more years from now.

    27. YankCrank
      September 7th, 2010 | 2:56 pm

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      By this, I mean, show us how the current and future value of Granderson is greater than the current future value of the three players, en masse, who were exchanged for him.

      You can’t really look at the future value of this trade if you want the Yankee perspective, honestly. The Yankees primarily deal with the “now,” and right now they traded a lefty reliever who was expendable, a 5th starter type who was expendable because a number of arms passed him, and an outfielder who may be good one day for an outfielder who just hit 30 home runs.

      I truly think the Yankees realized that Jeter/Posada/A-Rod aren’t getting any younger, and they need to surround their aging stars with as many prime productive players as they can. Would it have been nice to watch and see if Jackson turned into something over the next few years? Sure, but is it nicer to have a CFer who will probably hit 20 home runs this year, steal some bags, play solid defense and join with Tex/Cano/Swisher/Gardner as the younger core of he team? Yes.

      Plus, how is it overpaying? The Yankees have built up their system so they could afford to deal players and still be competitive at all levels. The AAA team didn’t hurt or miss losing any of these players, neither did the major league team. We won’t miss them in the future either, so what’s the big deal here?

    28. GDH
      September 7th, 2010 | 2:59 pm

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      Dude, the Yanks have the best record in baseball. At any moment this year have you felt like the Yanks were missing Ian Kennedy or Phil Coke?

      I’m one that does not think this trade was a bust. A push, maybe, but we’ll see. At the time this trade was made, IPK was done – cooked in New York. If a point can be made about JV not being able to hack the AL East or NYC, the same can be said for IPK, even more so. A year earlier when he was one of the “3 kids” – then his value was peaked, but not this past off season. Everyone could see he held zero value to the Yanks. He was a cog to make the deal happen. Coke was a decent reliever but nothing incredible. Jackson was a prospect with zero MLB experience, but worth a flyer. We have yet to see how his next couple years pan out, but right now he’s no better or worse than a Gardner type.

      In the end, I love Garcia for laying it out: You miss Damon and Jackson? Lots of good they did Detroit this year. The team the Yanks put on the field is superior. I’ll take Curtis and a ticket to October every time.

    29. Jake1
      September 7th, 2010 | 3:15 pm

      The only way right now this trade doesn’t go down as a HUGE bust is if Granderson has a bigtime clutch filled October.

      Otherwise it isn’t even a conversation. They could have gotten this type of performance from Jackson who is 8 yrs younger and 1/10 the price.

      Plus they would have had a competent starter in Kennedy and a lefty out of the pen in Coke. At the very least they could have made attractive trade chips in other deals.

    30. MJ Recanati
      September 7th, 2010 | 3:21 pm

      Jake1 wrote:

      The only way right now this trade doesn’t go down as a HUGE bust is if Granderson has a bigtime clutch filled October.

      Granderson is signed through the 2012 season so he could have a crap-filled October and still provide positive value to the Yankees in 2011 and 2012.

      Jake1 wrote:

      hey could have gotten this type of performance from Jackson who is 8 yrs younger and 1/10 the price.

      The Yankees had no intention of starting Austin Jackson in CF or LF this year so this point is moot.

      Jake1 wrote:

      Plus they would have had a competent starter in Kennedy and a lefty out of the pen in Coke. At the very least they could have made attractive trade chips in other deals.

      First, Kennedy was passed by in the organizational depth chart. The Yanks had no intention of ever starting Kennedy again. The Yanks have Boone Logan as their LHP out of the bullpen and he’s doing just fine.

      Further, this point is contradictory. They DID make attractive trade chips, hence the three-way trade with Detroit and Arizona for Granderson.

    31. Evan3457
      September 7th, 2010 | 5:47 pm

      The key ideas here are consolidation of value and marginal value to the team.

      1) Kennedy had 0 marginal value to the Yankees; they had decided he had no future with them. I thought this was short-sided, and I said, at the time, “I think he’ll make somebody, probably in the NL, a very good #4 starter.” Which means very little to this team, as the Yankees were never going to give him that chance. The Yanks may have prematurely minimized his value by burying him, but a) that value was not going to increase much; he had already proven he could dominate at AAA; and b) this is an intrinsic part of the price of being the Yankees and having to win every year; you’re not allowed to wait out severe growing pains of rookies. Steve himself several times said how much he disliked Kennedy and wanted to see him gone, or, at least, never starting again for the Yankees.

      Sorry, Steve, that “Cashman’s the GM, he’s supposed to know more than me” stuff cuts no ice with me. You don’t get to have both sides of the argument. If you agreed that Kennedy was valueless as of last October, you don’t get to hammer Cashman for throwing him into the Granderson deal.

      2) Phil Coke’s performance is overrated by several measures. His ERA is low. First; he’s down from 10 HR allowed to 1, primarily because of the difference in home parks. Last year, 7 HR at home, 3 on the road. This year, 1 at home, 0 on road. What does another 6 HR do to his era? 6 HR is 9 runs, more or less, which is 8 earned runs, more or less, which means an ERA of 3.97, not 2.70. His WPA last year for the Yankees was +0.9. This year so far, 0.8. Which means, situationally, he’s been no better this year than he was last year. Phil Coke is 1.3 WAR in 57 IP. Logan is 0.8 WAR in 34 IP, which means Logan’s been more effective, per inning, than Coke, and while pitching in a tougher HR park. Last year, Coke allowed only 12 of 54 inherited runners to score, or 22%. This year, he’s allowed 13 of 39 to score, or 33%. Last year, he was better than average in this category; this year, he’s slightly below average. (Lg. avg. is 31%) By the way, Logan’s allowed only 3 of 22 to score, an outstanding 14%.

      Now, I don’t think Cashman is a genius for trading for Logan. The guy is lefty, and has a live arm, but nobody could’ve forseen he’d do this well. The complement of that is that Cashman shouldn’t be faulted for Coke doing superficially better than he did last year, even though a close examination of his work shows he’s not really pitching very much better at all. (FIP, 2009: 4.68, 2010: 3.00….however, xFIP, 2009: 4.20, 2010: 4.43)

      3) Granderson for Jackson; there’s the thing. Let’s think about this for awhile. First, Granderson had a huge slump for most of this season. Second, Jackson is hitting well above what should’ve been expected from his minor league career. His BABIP for the year is STILL .418, and, I cannot stress this enough, that would be the highest BABIP I’ve seen looking back through at least 20 seasons. Griffey never had a BABIP this high. Neither has Jeter. Nor Ichiro. Nor Manny. Nor Albert Belle. Nor Frank Thomas (Well, in his first partial season, he was at .421). His xBABIP (from the Hardball Times xBABIP Calculator) is .348. His BAVG is therefore roughly .050 too high. As his BAVG makes up the bulk of his offensive value, he’s hitting over his head.

      And yet, with Jackson getting unusually lucky to hit over his head, and Granderson having another poor season by his standards, who has the higher OPS+? Granderson does, 110 to 108. I still think Granderson’s better, and will prove it in the long run.

      But the main point in this section is: anyone who thinks the Yanks would’ve opened the seasson with a starting OF of Gardner in left, Jackson in center, Swisher in right, and Winn the 4th, stand on your head. With no hands. There was no chance the Yanks would’ve started Jackson. Which means Melky and Damon would still be here, and Gardner would’ve been part-timing, again.

      =====================================
      Jackson, Coke and Kennedy were pieces of obvious real value, but no marginal value to the Yankees. At least not this year, and maybe not for more than 1 years. You’re trying to win every year; so what to do with them. I’ll tell you what: you trade them for 1 big piece, even if the overall “value” of what you’re giving up is “greater” than what you’re getting, even if not by a little.

      You know why? Because nobody deals Halladay or Lee for those three pieces, and if you don’t trade them, their value to this team is just about 0. So you trade them to consilidate your talent, that is, to get more usable value in the lineup, rotation, bullpen or bench. That value helps you win, now. Leaving Kennedy and Jackson and AAA doesn’t.
      ====================================
      I’ll throw one more at you. Brandon Laird. Right now, Laird has real value to someone, but 0 marginal value to the Yanks, because he’s not supplanting Tex or A-Rod anytime soon. So if you trade Brandon Laird for a good lefty reliever, or a tolerable #5 starter, and Laird produces 3-4 WAR for the team your trading him to, and the #5 starter only produces 2 WAR, you’re still winning the trade, because Laird has 0 value to you at AAA, unless you have a major injury to fill, and because you want to win now.

      That’s the bottom line on the Granderson deal.

      And I STILL think Granderson’s going to get a lot better.

      Soon.

    32. September 7th, 2010 | 11:32 pm

      The wild card in all this is Jackson, does he continue to establish himself as a major league player or slip back next year. I think Curtis is on the downside of his career and will not be a good postseason player. Right now a small minus for Cashman that could become a large minus.

    33. MJ Recanati
      September 8th, 2010 | 8:24 am

      @ Joseph Maloney:
      How Jackson performs in his big league career is irrelevant to the Yankees, as Evan and I have both pointed out. Jackson was never going to be starting for the Yankees in 2010 or, likely, in 2011 so that made him expendable.

    34. Jim TreshFan
      September 8th, 2010 | 9:20 am

      Since we’re assuming that players would produce at the same level in NY as they are producing elsewhere, then wouldn’t one of Cashman’s worse decisions be letting Carl Pavano go? Pavano currently is 16-10 with an ERA+ of 118 in 197 IP for the Minnesota Twins. Given the current state of the Yankees rotation wasn’t it a huge gaffe to let an ace like Pavano get away? Again, I’m just assuming he’d be pitching like that in NY. :D

    35. September 8th, 2010 | 11:15 pm

      @ MJ Recanati:
      MJ I don’t agree with that statement at all. Jackson had 5 years in the minors already and if he had a good spring for the Yanks who to say he wouldn’t have made the club. Melky has been struggling all year, you can’t imagine Girardi replacing Melky with Austin (assuming he had in fact made the club). Jackson gave the club a low cost player who may in fact turn out to be better than any of us expected. Granderson on the other hand is higher priced and in decline, don’t let his recent hot streak fool you.

    36. Raf
      September 9th, 2010 | 1:38 am

      Joseph Maloney wrote:

      Melky has been struggling all year, you can’t imagine Girardi replacing Melky with Austin (assuming he had in fact made the club).

      Nope. Girardi probably would’ve wanted Jackson to play every day instead of rotting on the bench. At the very least, Jackson probably would’ve gotten the call sometime during the season had someone gone down.

      Memory may be failing me right now, but I think the last rookie to break camp with the club was Jeter in 1996. And the only reason that happened was because Tony Fernandez got hurt and the Yanks couldn’t find a replacement.

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.