To recap: the Yankees acquired Curtis Granderson, the Tigers acquired Austin Jackson, Phil Coke, Max Scherezer and Daniel Schlereth, and the Diamondbacks got Edwin Jackson and Ian Kennedy.
Before we evaluate what happened in more depth, let's rewind and take a look at what everyone was thinking at the time. The Yankees were lauded for acquiring an All-Star centerfielder who could build on his 2009 HR total (30) as a lefty in the New Yankee Stadium. In exchange for him the Yankees gave up a top CF prospect who not only wasn't expected to get a chance to play but was a guy the Yankees started to sour on with his lack of progress as a prospect. Additionally they traded Phil Coke, a young(ish) lefty reliever who showed some promise but wasn't considered a big piece and former top pitching prospect, Ian Kennedy who missed most of 2009 and wasn't expected to have a role with the Yankees.
The Tigers gave Edwin Jackson to Arizona who was coming off a surprisingly great 2009, a 3.62 ERA in 214 innings pitched, and the aforementioned Curis Granderson to the Yankees, a pretty hefty price for no sure things.
In order to get the two pitchers to rebuild their rotation (Jackson and Kennedy) the Diamondbacks sent young pitchers Daniel Schlereth and Max Scherzer to Detroit. Scherzer showed flashes of brilliance during his time with the Diamondbacks but there were concerns that he couldn't stick in the rotation. Therefore, as far as the Dbacks were concerned, they were trading 2 future relievers (or injury risk in Scherzer's case) for 2 current starters to bolster their rotation.
At that point in time if you had to determine a winner, it would be the Yankees with acquiring Curtis Granderson without giving up any player that was guaranteed to help them out in 2010.
Lucky for us, 2010 is over (well the regular season anyways) so let's fast forward to present time, how does the trade look now?
To start, let's look at a simple graph illustrating how these players performed for their respective teams this year according to FanGraphs WAR (Wins Above Replacement) an all-inclusive stat that measures all a player can do compared to any minor leaguer-- replacement level player-- a team could bring up, in one easy to look at number, wins.
 |
| *Edwin Jackson was traded to the Chicago White Sox for Daniel Hudson. WAR totals include his time on the White Sox. Hudson himself had 2.2 WAR for the Diamondbacks, so it's essentially a wash as far as this year is concerned. |
If we evaluate this trade simply by using WAR, the Yankees, who were considered "winners" in December would now be declared "losers". Similarly, the team that seemed to get the short end of the stick in December, the Diamondbacks, would now be considered the winners. However, this all implies equal salaries, which is not the case. Coke, Scherzer, Kennedy, and Jackson are all pre-arbitration players and make chump change. Edwin Jackson was due $4.2M this year and will be paid $8.35M in 2011. Curtis Granderson was due $5.5M in 2010, and will be paid $8.25M in 2011, $10.0M in 2012 and has a $13M option ($2M buyout) in 2013.
When you consider 2010 production and salary, the Tigers come out on top of this deal shedding ~$10M of 2010 salary plus much more in the future all while getting more value. The Diamondbacks helped their (salary) cause by swapping Edwin Jackson to the White Sox for starter Dan Hudson, and while Jackson was excellent for the White Sox, Dan Hudson thrived in the JV League, going 8-2 with an ERA south of 2.5, with above average peripherals as well.
If the past means anything, and it does, Curtis Granderson is the best player of the group and he filled a large need for the Yankees, so I would hesitate to call them actual losers. And while he is expensive compared to rookie Austin Jackson, Granderson earns his salary (and some) and as we all know, money isn't really an issue for the Yankees. Also, even though Austin Jackson is a ROY contender in the American League, the Yankees likely didn't trade a future star. Austin Jackson has a lot of potential but he's yet to develop any semblance of power and his .396 Batting Average on Balls in Play (BABIP) is both a) unsustainable and b) a large contributing factor to his production.
I would say the Tigers should be considered "winners" since they managed to get value while lowering salary but that would imply one of these teams is a loser, and that's just not the case. This seems to be the rare "everyone is a winner" case, which is almost unheard of in 3-way deals with so many players moving. The Diamondbacks traded the best starting pitcher but got 2 solid starters in return, the Tigers traded the best player but got 4 good pieces, and the Yankees took on the most salary and traded the most players but they also got back the best player in return.
If these teams had a time machine I don't think either team would go back in time to cancel this deal although the Diamonbacks would surely love un-do their Dan Haren trade. It may be cliche and/or a copout, but this trade was even.
No comments:
Post a Comment