Curtis Granderson ’12 & Gorman Thomas ’80
Posted by Steve L. on January 6th, 2013 · Comments (19)
Two of a kind?
| Player | HR | SO | Year | Age | Tm | G | PA | RBI | Pos | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Curtis Granderson | 43 | 195 | .319 | 2012 | 31 | NYY | 160 | 684 | 106 | .232 | .492 | *8/D |
| Gorman Thomas | 38 | 170 | .303 | 1980 | 29 | MIL | 162 | 697 | 105 | .239 | .471 | *8/D |
.
Thomas had basically two good seasons left in him after 1980, for those scoring at home.
Well, that’s OK, because the Yanks only need one more good season from
Granderson.
Evan3457 wrote:
… Making it less than 3.5 “good” seasons in exchange for Austin Jackson and Ian Kennedy.
McMillan wrote:
Curtis Granderson 2010-2012: 4.03 bWAR/season.
Austin Jackson and Ian Kennedy 2010-2012: 4.05 bWAR/season.
Obviously the Tigers and Diamondbacks control Jackson and Kennedy for three more seasons each whereas the Yankees only control Granderson for one more season. But it’s a stretch to say that the Yankees haven’t gotten value from Granderson.
MJ Recanati wrote:
Of course it is. And it’s more than a bit of a stretch to say the “Cashman/Dombrowski trade docket” is “pretty even.”
McMillan wrote:
Two trades, one a clear dud for both sides and one a winner for both sides.
Unless there’s another trade that I’m forgetting about, I just don’t see how you can objectively argue otherwise.
@ MJ Recanati:
I’m sure he’ll find a way
@ Raf:
Don’t I know it!
MJ Recanati wrote:
Two trades: one a very significant mistake on the part of the “Manchild;” a second perhaps a mistake or perhaps not, but one which can be viewed more favorably in terms of Detroit’s acquisitions at this point in time. A third trade: Lowell for Johnson, Yarnell and Noel.
McMillan wrote:
When you acquire the best player in a trade it’s hard to say it was a significant mistake. The trade didn’t work out but the reasoning behind the trade was more than sound.
McMillan wrote:
Forgot about that one. Clearly Lowell did great for Florida (and then for Boston). Yankees had no plans for Lowell since Joe Torre and company were madly in love with Scott Brosius who, just months before this trade, had put forth the most unlikely season one could’ve ever imagined. Brosius wasn’t being jettisoned for a rookie 3B. The return didn’t work out, that much is for sure. But examining the trade in hindsight without conceding that Lowell had no role on the 1999 Yankees isn’t appropriate.
MJ Recanati wrote:
I was not comfortable with the trade at the time it was made: Lilly had an E.R.A. of just 3.40 in 11 starts at the time and had been averaging almost nine strike outs per game as a relatively young starting left-handed pitcher. The team also traded its first round pick from 2001. I don’t think its hard to say this was a significant mistake, especially given the role Lilly could have played in the starting rotation for years to come.
MJ Recanati wrote:
There’s no way that you forget about this one… The fact that the organization did not have any plans for Lowell at the major league level does not diminish have traded him and gotten little, if anything, in return.
Ricketson wrote:
No, I really did forget about this one.
Ricketson wrote:
As I said, the return on the trade clearly didn’t work out. That being said, the Yankees had a redundancy at 3B and tried to use Lowell to acquire a LHP starter that had been rated a top-100 prospect in the 1998 and 2000 editions of Baseball America (where Lowell had been similarly rated in BA’s top-100 for 1998 and 1999). I can’t remmeber enough about Yarnall to say anything of substance but the fact that it didn’t work out for him in the majors doesn’t change the fact that he was at least a rated prospect and the Yankees had no plans for Lowell so they took a shot and it didn’t work out.
Ricketson wrote:
I wasn’t concerned with this aspect of the Weaver/Lilly trade. Griffin had just graduated to Double-A and the Yankees have historically used their minor leaguers as depth for trade purposes.
Ricketson wrote:
He could’ve. But Weaver was considered one of the best young pitchers in baseball and was coming off consecutive 200 IP seasons. For a team that had Roger Clemens, David Wells and Orlando Hernandez all in their twilight years, the team wanted a pitcher that was entering his prime years and was proven at the MLB level to pair with Mussina and Pettitte.
MJ Recanati wrote:
Forgot about Pudge for Farnsworth too
Ricketson wrote:
Meanwhile
http://a.espncdn.com/mlb/s/2002/0706/1402738.html
http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/news/020705weaver.html
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/news/2002/07/05/weaver_yankees_ap/
MJ Recanati wrote:
I thought you had written: “forget about this one…”
McMillan wrote:
Which assumes that both would have done as well had they stayed with the Yankees.
Especially Kennedy.
Evan3457 wrote:
The “assumption” is that the “manchild” or “third stooge” could have utilized Kennedy and Jackson to acquire a player(s) that would have given the team more “than 3.5 ‘good’ seasons.”
McMillan wrote:
Could’ve.
Probably not.
@ McMillan:
The Yankees traded young players for an established one that would fit into the team’s “win now” mentality. If you’re suggesting the team were to trade Kennedy/Jackson for prospects they could control for longer than four years, it’s simply not a likely scenario given the team’s place in the win cycle.
@ Evan3457:
MJ Recanati wrote:
I was suggesting a g.m. other than the “manchild” should have been expected to have done better than 3.5 “good” years in exchange for a prospect such as Jackson, a young starting pitcher of the caliber of Kennedy, and a decent relief pitcher. Another trade on the Cashman/Dombrowski ledger in favor of Dombrowski… Yes, the “manchild”/”third stooge” works within the parameters of a mandate to “win now,” but he also works with payrolls in excess of $200 million each year as g.m./”controller of the universe…”