• Curtis Granderson ’12 & Gorman Thomas ’80

    Posted by on January 6th, 2013 · Comments (19)

    Two of a kind?

    Player HR SO OBP Year Age Tm G PA RBI BA SLG 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
    Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
    Generated 1/6/2013.

    .
    Thomas had basically two good seasons left in him after 1980, for those scoring at home.

    Comments on Curtis Granderson ’12 & Gorman Thomas ’80

    1. Evan3457
      January 7th, 2013 | 1:06 pm

      Well, that’s OK, because the Yanks only need one more good season from
      Granderson.

    2. McMillan
      January 7th, 2013 | 7:17 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Well, that’s OK, because the Yanks only need one more good season from
      Granderson.

      … Making it less than 3.5 “good” seasons in exchange for Austin Jackson and Ian Kennedy.

    3. MJ Recanati
      January 8th, 2013 | 10:58 am

      McMillan wrote:

      … Making it less than 3.5 “good” seasons in exchange for Austin Jackson and Ian Kennedy

      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.

    4. McMillan
      January 8th, 2013 | 11:13 am

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      But it’s a stretch to say that the Yankees haven’t gotten value from Granderson.

      Of course it is. And it’s more than a bit of a stretch to say the “Cashman/Dombrowski trade docket” is “pretty even.”

    5. MJ Recanati
      January 8th, 2013 | 12:06 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      And it’s more than a bit of a stretch to say the “Cashman/Dombrowski trade docket” is “pretty even.”

      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.

    6. Raf
      January 8th, 2013 | 1:30 pm

      @ MJ Recanati:
      I’m sure he’ll find a way :P

    7. MJ Recanati
      January 8th, 2013 | 1:46 pm

      @ Raf:
      Don’t I know it!

    8. McMillan
      January 8th, 2013 | 2:23 pm

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      Two trades, one a clear dud for both sides and one a winner for both sides.

      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.

    9. MJ Recanati
      January 8th, 2013 | 4:31 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      one a very significant mistake on the part of the “Manchild

      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:

      A third trade: Lowell for Johnson, Yarnell and Noel.

      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.

    10. Ricketson
      January 8th, 2013 | 4:56 pm

      MJ Recanati 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.

      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:

      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.

      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.

    11. MJ Recanati
      January 8th, 2013 | 5:49 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      There’s no way that you forget about this one…

      No, I really did forget about this one.

      Ricketson wrote:

      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.

      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:

      The team also traded its first round pick from 2001.

      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:

      Lilly could have played in the starting rotation for years to come.

      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.

    12. Raf
      January 8th, 2013 | 5:59 pm

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      McMillan wrote:
      one a very significant mistake on the part of the “Manchild
      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:
      A third trade: Lowell for Johnson, Yarnell and Noel.
      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.

      Forgot about Pudge for Farnsworth too :P

    13. Raf
      January 8th, 2013 | 6:07 pm
    14. Ricketson
      January 8th, 2013 | 6:17 pm

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      No, I really did forget about this one.

      I thought you had written: “forget about this one…”

    15. Evan3457
      January 9th, 2013 | 3:31 am

      McMillan wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      Well, that’s OK, because the Yanks only need one more good season from
      Granderson.
      … Making it less than 3.5 “good” seasons in exchange for Austin Jackson and Ian Kennedy.

      Which assumes that both would have done as well had they stayed with the Yankees.
      Especially Kennedy.

    16. McMillan
      January 9th, 2013 | 7:32 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Which assumes that both would have done as well had they stayed with the Yankees.
      Especially Kennedy.

      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.”

    17. Evan3457
      January 9th, 2013 | 9:26 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      Which assumes that both would have done as well had they stayed with the Yankees.
      Especially Kennedy.
      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.”

      Could’ve.

      Probably not.

    18. MJ Recanati
      January 10th, 2013 | 9:24 am

      @ 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.

    19. McMillan
      January 10th, 2013 | 3:41 pm

      @ Evan3457:
      MJ Recanati wrote:

      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.

      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…”

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.