I just don't see Ian Kennedy contributing as a starter in the AL East. He's much better suited for the NL West and I could see him being a solid pitcher for Arizona. But with his stuff I just don't see him cracking the rotation any time soon. I actually saw Jackson once and came away unimpressed. He looks small and not at all like a guy that looks like he'll develop power. I could be proven wrong, but I just didn't see it. Combine a lack of power with a lack of plate discipline and I don't see him ready to contribute with the bat any time soon. It's one thing if a guy who's hitting bombs has to cut back on swinging from his toes to make more contact and K less, but when you hit 4 home runs and still strike out at that rate over the course of a full season it concerns me.
Jackson does not project to hit for power in the big leagues and he's so far proved incapable of hitting the ball the other way. I have never seen an unbiased source project him to be a better player than Granderson is, and if you know of one I'd like to see it. Saying that Kennedy COULD be a #5 starter doesn't exactly make me regret giving him up. And merely being a lefty doesn't make Coke good. He doesn't provide anything that they can't get from Mike Dunn. I can understand if you have questions about Granderson's game, but I think you're significantly overrating the package that the Yankees gave up.
The only player that the Yankees traded who had one iota of contribution to last year's championship season was Coke. The Yankees were winning the WS with or w/out Coke last season. Nobody will say, "eh, I really would like to get that 28-year-old, high-character CFer who's a realistic threat for a 30/30 season...but Coke's a deal-breaker,sorry". I think some fans are down a little on this trade because they fall in love with the allure of the minor league prospect nobody's actually seen (in this case, Jackson). It's cool to have a home-grown player that you were able to see from the start. Kennedy and (especially) Austin jackson are nice prospects. But you have to give something to get something. Just because the Yankees didn't totally rape the Tigers/DBacks doesn't mean it was a bad trade. Granderson is the best player in the deal. He's an athletic, all-star player who is instantly the best outfielder on the team. In an off year, he still managed 30 homers, 20 steals and 91 runs. He's due to make 5.5 mill in 2010....a relative bargain. With some luck, MAYBE Austin jackson can be as good as Granderson. I'm not going to get bummed and automatically assume that jackson is a studly, guaranteed all-star that we just traded for nothing. The Yankees obviously would rather have a more proven commodity instead of potential. It's not like we traded Justin Upton for a 39-year-old Griffey Jr. I definitely think the Yankees are better next year w/Granderson. Will the trade look as good in 2012? Who knows. All I know is that Granderson gives the Yankees a better shot at repeating in 2010 than Jackon/Kennedy (2 non-factors last year)/Coke would have. All trades are risky, but I'm comfortable with this roll of the dice. I admit I'd prefer if Jackson wasn't included (duuh), but hey, them's the breaks. And I absolutely don't think this trade will prevent the Yankees from any other big moves. If they really want Doc Halladay, they'll get him. If they want Lackey, they'll get him. Remember all the people last off-season who assumed that, since the Yanks signed CC and traded for Swisher, there'd be no way that Tex was coming here. This team operates on another level. After winning a very sweet world title, I think I'll give Cashman (not "Cashshits" , lulz) the benefit of the doubt.
I think you're all misrepresenting my argument. I'm looking at the potential in the complete package we gave away, weighing it against the single player we received in return (a player whose numbers are declining) and feeling like it wasn't worth it. If you pick apart the players in our package, and take them individually, sure it looks like a fine trade. But when I consider them as a unit we just gave away, I'm left disappointed. Doesn't matter anyway. It's done and that's it. I'll live.
I wasn't trying to misrepresent or poke holes in your argument specifically. I was just giving my reasoning as to why I thought it was a solid trade (for now), and what I thought the possible reasons were for other fans disliking the trade (again, not you specifically). I think, as a whole package, we traded away the needed value to get a Granderson-type player. Not overpayment or under-payment...just pretty fair value. I would have preferred if we were able to pull off a no-brainer heist, but it didn't happen. I could be totally wrong, but I'm cool with taking a gamble that a player still under 30 can revert back a little toward his 2007, which was phenomenal. That upside doesn't come cheaply, unfortunately. At least we didn't have to deal a face-of-the-franchise caliber player to get him, which is what Granderson was for Detroit.
Cashman is live on MLB network right now. He says that Granderson will slot nicely into the #2 hole, and sure doesn't sound confident that Damon will be coming back. Also he's speaking very highly of another FA outfielder, Mike Cameron. Very interesting.
I think he is shit. Cashman didn't. He thought he was so good that he refused to include him in a trade for Santana. Cashman made the deal. And people are freaking about a guy that went from .300 to .280 to .250. But please almighty one tell us how that means he will bat .350 next year. I'm sure that's what you believe.
I like the move. I know everyone loved Jackson's potential but the NYY are a win now team, Jackson wasn't going to help them next season. There's also a good chance Jackson doesn't live up to the hype.
Classic Don post... you have to make extreme exaggerations about what the other person believes and completely distort facts in order for your point to have any credibility. A few basic points: 1. Batting average is a shitty stat to use. No one is denying that his BA has declined (as have his other stats) in the past two years, but his BABIP was also down in those two years. I don't know if that means a rebound is likely, or if there's something else going on, but he was playing in a very large park, and I would expect an improvement playing in Yankee Stadium. The bottom line is that despite all of this, his OPS last year (below average for him) was still 30 points higher than Melky's (a career best for him), and Granderson's career OPS is over 100 points higher than Melky's. This is a significant offensive upgrade at the CF position. 2. Kennedy wasn't the sticking point of the Santana deal. Hughes was. 3. It shouldn't matter what Cashman's opinion of Kennedy is/was for you to judge this trade as good/bad. It should matter what YOUR opinion is/was. You thought Kennedy was shitty. So for you to complain about including him in a trade as evidence that the trade is a bad one is... well... I'll just say it's very Don-ish in your approach to paint everything Cashman does as horrible. And for the record, I'm not a huge fan of this trade. I just don't think it's awful. It could turn out to be a good move. Or not. But I don't think replacing A-Jax or Melky with Granderson is a bad thing for the next few years. And I'm not that worried about losing Kennedy (and if you're being consistent, you're not worried about it either). Face it, Don. You can't even form your own opinion on the matter. You just say, "Cashman likes Player X? He must suck!" Borrrrrring.
What exactly are you going to trade for Halladay? Kennedy and Jackson were both part of every trade scenario. Montero/Hughes/ ???
Blue Jays would be lucky to get Montero alone, and they know it. They're going to get a package equivalent to the one the Mets gave the Twins for Santana.
I see the driveling idiot known has Cashshit strikes again. *The Washington Times reports that the Nationals will take Zach Kroenke from the Yankees with the first pick in the Rule 5 draft and then send him back to the Bombers to complete the Brian Bruney trade. The Yankees must think they completely blew it when they left Kroenke available for the draft. The 25-year-old southpaw had a 1.99 ERA in 72 1/3 innings for Triple-A Scranton/Wilkes-Barre last season, though that came with a modest 55/30 K/BB ratio. The odd thing about this is that Kroenke will still have to pass through waivers if he fails to make the Yankees out of spring training. However, with Phil Coke gone, he may have a real chance of winning a bullpen spot.
Yea, I must admit that's a bit of a head scratcher. Kroenke blows. His fb does not even hit 90 and he'll get destroyed by Major League hitters. From what I've read over at Scout, his stuff does not translate well to the ML at all. I don't know what the Yanks are thinking here.
Jamie Hoffman 291-.390-.466 with 23 doubles, 10 homers, and 15 steals between Double- and Triple-A last year. Yea, it would have been idiotic to pick Kroenke. Kroenke taken by Diamondbacks.
This is reasonable. I'm not a fan of this trade, and I think it leans more toward awful than you, but I agree. It's one of those "genius or idiot" deals. Either Cashman looks like he made a fantastic deal a couple years from now (in which case I'll happily eat my crow,) or he looks like an ass. I'm not worried about losing Kennedy either. I liked him, but he probably was a 5th starter. Those are replaceable. I just don't see the point to trading someone projected as the same player (AJax) received as part of the deal. I guess when you're the Yankees, the "win now" attitude is all that matters. What most bugs me is Coke as part of this deal. I don't know how you feel about him, and I know a lot of Yankees fans don't care about him, but he was a significant reason why the Yankees made it to the World Series this year. People forget how well he pitched during the season. Plus, the effect it now has on Marte (unless we get another lefty in the pen) gets under my skin. Especially when we trade all that young talent for a guy whose numbers have declined in each of the past two years, directly following his personal peak.
Actually, I don't agree that it's a genius or idiot deal. I think it's likely that the Yanks will be a moderately better team for this trade in the next few years, and probably a few after. And I think, at worst, Granderson will perform like he did last year (low OBP, good power), and A-Jax will be a decent/good player. But this isn't like trading a young guy for someone who's turning 40. That's part of it. Especially if you think about how Jeter, A-Rod, Posada, Mo, and Pettitte are all well on the wrong side of 30. This is a win now team if I ever saw one. And as long as they don't mortgage the future entirely to win now, I have zero problem with it. 1. There will be another lefty in the pen. Don't worry your pretty little head about it. 2. Coke is the definition of expendable. He really didn't pitch that well. He had a few memorable appearances, but he was not a significant reason why the Yanks made the WS. Nearly anyone could have filled that role. Seriously. You are seriously overvaluing "all that young talent" and undervaluing Granderson. Wait til you get a chance to watch Granderson play. You'll see.
Just because you think the Yanks will overpay for Halladay doesn't make it true, buddy. Besides, the Sox version of it is a 1:1 with Buchholz. Toronto would be stupid not to make that trade as well.
Granderson is 28. He's not old. He's not slowing down any time soon. He's a perfect fit for Yankee Stadium, and it gives us a plus fielder in a position we haven't had one in a long time. The only thing we really gave up is AJax who is an unknown commodity. Kennedy's ceiling is a 3rd starter, but who knows if he ever reaches it. Give me a guy who can contribute over unknowns any day. I'm not saying it was a steal, or even a great deal, but I definitely like it. I may be biased though as I've always like Grandy.
Okay, see. This is exactly why I ignore so many of your posts. I'm not spending the entire offseason arguing with you while you post in your Cappydickish style.
