I heard the Nats intend to release McDougal and use Bruney as their closer.

Meanwhile, with Matt Holliday available as a good, young, all-around player at a position where the Yankees currently have a huge hole (like Tex at 1B last year, though admittedly not quite at his level), Cashman would be foolish to prioritize pitching over signing him. Then pitching.

Reposted from previous thread:

The idea of trading for a Rule V pick is very creative, but I wonder if the Yankees really have their eye on someone to whom they are willing to give a 25-man roster spot. If not, perhaps, they are looking to simply block a move by a competitor by selecting a player and then offering him back to his original team before spring training? Because simply removing Bruney from the 40-man and avoiding his arbitration payout is a plus, even a small consideration like that would be gravy.

As for the Granderson deal, I think it make sense provided two things: (1) he is not being brought in to replace Damon; and (2) Jackson could not be used in a Halladay deal without Montero and Hughes (I could live with a Jax and Joba deal).

Regarding #1, Granderson makes sense if the Yankees bring back Damon and Matsui. Then, he could man CF, while Melky vultures about 90-100 games (the same kind of plan I suggested with Cameron as the 4th man). That would give the Yankees a more potent outfield compared to last year as well as a youthful infusion and needed depth.

Regarding #2, I really don’t mind giving up Jackson. He is a good prospect, but far from a great one. In fact, you might say that Jackson’s upside IS Granderson. My only reticence in dealing him would be he might be a central piece in a better deal, but it’s hard to really know that.

[1] You make a good point about Holliday. Unless the Yankees are targeting Halladay, there isn't enough good pitching out there to make it a priority.

As an alternative to my #1 above, a trade for Granderson could actually pave the way for signing Holliday because it would give you enough offense to let both Damon and Matsui go. As good as both were last season, and as popular as they have been, the duo of Granderson and Holliday are much younger and likely to be much better over the long haul. The best part, however, is would both be cheaper than Matsui and Damon were in 2009.

In addition, you could essentially move Melky to RF and Swisher to DH, which would give you plus defenders at every outfield spot. Also, when you want to use Posada, Arod or Jeter as the DH, you could move Swish to LF, which means you'd be replacing Melky with the lesser back up (a much smaller drop off than taking Matsui out of the lineup).

[3] Make that "move Swish to RF".

The deal falls into the category, "Great trade--who'd we get?"

Can we really take Cashman at his word? "Pitching, pitching, pitching - then left field" could well go right up there with "Bubba Crosby is our centerfielder" and "We wish Alex the best of luck" (or whatever he said when A-Rod opted out).

Did I read that right? Ian Kennedy, Austin Jackson, Phil Coke and Michael Dunn for Granderson? Seems like quite a lot to give up for the guy.

[6] Exactly...Cashman has smartly used the smoke screen in the past, so it makes sense why he would do so now. "We are cutting payroll" and "focusing on pitching" sounds like statements designed to create leverage. After all, Cashman usually plays it close to the vest, so if that was the real plan, why would he announce it so freely and adamantly.

[7] The Yankees would be getting prospects from Arizona too, but regardless, I actually think it's a very fair to favorable price.

[7] [9] I do think that's a bit much for a guy who had as poor a season as Granderson did last year, and who might be a platoon player going forward.

Coke, Dunn, and perhaps IPK are replaceable, or at least losable without any worry to the farm system's depth. Jackson is another story, but william is right, the context matters. I'm concerned with Jackson going out in a trade because the Yanks have: a crazy old offense, but only 2 guys in the upper minors who look like for-sure major league hitters: Jackson and Montero.

If the prospects coming back are more pitchers, ugh. But if the Diamondbacks were giving back, say, two good-or-better hitting prospects, including an OF, then that's another story.

As for the Rule 5 1st pick from the Nats - who's available in the Rule 5 draft anyway? Is it possible Cashman is getting this guy because someone else wants that person and it might facilitate a trade? Just considering possibilities . . .

I seem to recall last year, or a couple of years ago, a team with a high Rule 5 draft pick taking a guy solely because they had already worked out a trade with another team, and that team wanted that guy.

[10] Do you really think Granderson is a platoon player going forward? He wouldn't be the first lefty to have a severe split until about this point in his career. Paul O'Neill is a great example. At a similar point in his career, he also was terrible against lefties?

Before last season, in which Granderson was still pretty valuable, he was thought of as a stud CF'er, perhaps as good as Sizemore. Now, after one down (but far from "poor" year), it seems like many are severely discounting him. If I was the Yankees, I'd be thinking more about buying low than worrying that Granderson is in decline at age-28.

[11] There aren't many exhaustive lists available that I could find, but there usually is at least 2 or 3 attractive names. The Nats have the first pick, so the Yankees would first crack. If anything, the return would be likely be better than Coke or Dunn.

Then again, maybe Cashman wants to use the pick to select Igawa so no one else can steal him!

Granderson, last 3 years against LHP: .202 .261 .309 .570
So, in essence, 2 out of 3 games you have a stud (.940 OPS against RHP), and 1 of 3 games you have Molina with a hangover.

How about if we get a MiLB pitcher with these stats:
248.2 IP, 6.1 H/9, 2.8 BB/9, 9.9 K/9, 0.99 WHIP, 1.96 ERA
WOW! Those numbers are akin to Hughes MiLB career.

Oh... that MiLB pitcher is named Ian Patrick Kennedy!
Are we really ready to give this guy away?????

I would love Granderson.
But at this point, looking at Yankee roster commitments over the next 5 years, I believe we will need every single MLB quality 'free' kid we have on the farm, to balance out the huge dollars we have in a few players.

In 2012, we have commited about $120m to SIX players
(ARod, CC, Teix, AJ, Jeter, Cano)
Can we get another 19 players for a WS team om $80m without having a boatload of cost controlled players?

And what about if we do want another long/expensive contract type (Halliday, Holliday, Mauer, Felix, Hanley, etc)?

Maybe I'm looking too far ahead, but to me, it's not that guys like AJax and IPK are studs. It's that having a bunch of 'free' players on the team is essential to allowing us to get the big contract guys.

[12] No, I don't think he is. But from the Yanks' point of view, I hope they view Granderson as skeptically as possible, and project that skepticism. Basic negotiation: never assume the best case scenario, always work under the belief that the worst case scenario is going to be what happens. Thus, if Granderson does turn out to be a platoon player, is IPK+Dunn+Coke+Jackson too much (again, depending on the prospects)? Maybe its a worthwhile trade off for the potential that Granderson is better than that, or because of the prospects received in return. But I don't know either of those things . . . so I say that package is just a bit too much.

[12] SPLITS: Just for reference:
Paulie: .700 / .888
Curtis: .570 / .940

[14] I agree with your theory, OYF. But the difference between IPK and Jackson is huge. Jackson is the ONLY upper level OF prospect. IPK is one of many upper level pitching prospects. Nova, McAllister, Kontos when he comes back from TJ - any of those guys could be IPK's equal or better. And there are plenty more where those came from! Not so Jackson and OF/hitting prospects.

[14] Granderson's splits have been up and down over the last four years. If they are more like 2008 than 2009, then he is a star who also runs well and plays well above average CF. That equals a star player.

As of Ian Kennedy, he is going to be 25 next season and has little MLB experience, which means he has been an older player at just about every minor league level. In other words, his minor league stats need to be taken with a serious grain of salt. At this point, he is a marginal prospect and should not be an impediment in a deal for a player like Granderson.

Also, the Yankees have no commitments to Jeter (contract ends in 2010) or Cano (has $2mn buyout in 2012).

[2] I come back to your last point wrt this trade. Without knowing whether AJax + Joba could get Halladay, it's tough to make AJax the centerpiece of a deal for Granderson. I also agree with the comment above that which/what type of prospects we get from Arizona matters. In fact I think it matters a LOT.

Finally, I also agree (I'm feeling very agreeable this morning) that this trade only makes sense as part of a larger whole - perhaps also signing Holliday as you suggest. Or Damon I suppose.

[15] I think Granderson's proven ability is much greater than the potential of the prospects being traded. The bigger questions are on the IPK and Austin Jackson side. After all, I think the Yankees would be very happy if Jackson turned into Granderson, so the only real issue in the deal becomes the money involved (Granderson's salary versus Jackson's league minimum salary).

[16] Those are career splits. Check out Paul O'neill during his age -26-28 seasons (the ones you are using for Granderson).

26 - .925/.548
27 - .776/.721
28 - .937/.575

Not until about 1994 did Paulie learn to consitently hit against lefties, so I wouldn't put too much stock in the splits.

Is there any particular reason we should lean toward believing that Curtis will figure out whatever Paulie figured out? I don't ask facetiously. Somehow I've not paid too much attention to Granderson and so don't have a great sense for him.

I hear he's a great clubhouse guy. I also see that B-R has Kirk Gibson as his most similar hitter through age 28. That's not too shabby :)

Speaking of the Nats, they signed Pudge to a *2-year* deal.

(shrug)

[23] Actually, it's more of a WTF??? than a *shrug*. They're paying him $3M/year to play BUC.

Pudge has always been a good provider, hasn't he?

[22] The comparison is only anecdotal. I only brought up O’Neill as an example of a hitter with bad lefty splits who eventually figured things out mid-way through his prime. Granderson is entering that phase of his career now, so if the big hang up is over that part of his game (he hits righties very well; has power and speed; plays a good CF), I think it should be considered in proper context.

[17] Agreed that position-wise, AJax is more valuable then IPK. My point is every kid we have that can be MLB average or better is VERY important. If IPK can be a 5th starter, he is valuable. It's why we have Gardbrera in CF and a BP full of kids. Cashman knows that high paid studs alone don't do it. You need free/low paid players also.

William.... you don't think Cano and Jeter will be Yankees in 2012?

"I think Granderson’s proven ability is much greater than the potential of the prospects being traded."
------------------------------------------------
I AGREE!!!! But......
You are missing the point. Our prospects are FREE. That is why they are so valuable. Unless you believe Cashman is happy to exceed $200m for payroll, we can't afford to pay for our entire roster.

We have $75-80m tied up in ARod, Teix and CC for 6 more years. That's more then 1/2 of Boston's roster. How do you get 22 more quality players for $120m if you don't have a LOT of free players?

It is indeed a delicate balancing act. Payroll flexibility certainly does come from having cheap/under control kids to balance out the many, and now seemingly ever increasing number of high priced stars.

So [28] the issue really becomes whether we think IPK and/or AJax will realize potential. If IPK is a 5th starter (or god help us a 3 or 4) then his value, to us, is extremely high - not so much b/c he's a 5th starter, but because he's basically free within the context of our payroll. And if AJax is - or approximates Granderson or the like overall, then he too is that much more valuable to us than to others. I like the argument. I just don't know the answers. Does Cash?

[27] They both probably will, but at this point, the Yankees do not have any obligation to them in 2012. Jeter probably will get another contract, but probably not at $21mn per season. As for Cano, the Yankees can pretty much decide in 2012 if they think he is worth at least $12mn (his salary minus the buyout). If so, the Yankees are in good shape. If not, they can decline the option and either part ways or seek to resign him at a lower number.

[28] I am not missing the point at all. Prospects may be "free", but they still have to provide a contribution. I personally don't think IPK offers much in that regard and the jury still remains out on Jackson, who will be 23. If the Yankees signed Holliday and acquired Granderson, they would pretty much have the same commitment as they have had to Matsui and Damon, so I am not sure why you think it will lead to a bloated payroll (in Yankee terms).

As for the money tied up in Arod, Tex and CC (it actually is less than $75mn the further you go out because Arod's salary starts going down), didn't they have the same commitment this season? Somehow they managed to have 22 other quality players.

[27] "If IPK can be a 5th starter, he is valuable."

Yes, but his value is very different if (on the one hand), he is the ONLY young, cheap guy we have who could be a 5th starter, than if (on the other hand), he is one of 4 or 5 or 6 guys who could be a 5th starter. The Yanks have a handful of IPKs, or guys who could be him, or better. They only have one Jackson, and only 1 guy who might turn into Jackson - and that guy is 18, was just drafted, and has ~15 PAs as a pro, at the lowest level of the minors (Slade Heathcott).

Yankee contract obligations '10-'14
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tpQLwiiQL4kzEzLhsUqVjLQ&output=html

[23] [24] [25] Are we sure Jim Bowden isn't still in charge over there? WTF indeed. I thought Mike Rizzo was supposed to be good.

[29] Yes, I believe Cashman does. Theo CERTAINLY does. The reason why the Sox can compete with us is because they can afford some expensive guys (Manny was the 2nd highest paid for a while) AND they have developed their farm.

However, the Yankees are different in that all other teams WILL sell the farm for a chance to be dominant for a year or 2. Trading HanRam was a good move for 2007, but not a good move for a dynasty.

There were a great number of contributing parts to our Dynasty. They were ALL important. But ultimately, the 5 biggest reasons for our run were (in no particular order: 1) Derek Jeter 2) Bernie Williams 3) God! 4) Andy Pettitte 5) Jorge Posada.

When they were CHEAP, we could afford to go out and get high end pitchers and some other parts. Ultimately, our Dynasty was build ON OUR FARM! And that was when other teams couldn't compete for hi-end talent, and we would always get the Giambis of the world.

But we did have to compete for Teix, AJ and CC. We paid a high price for them. So expensive FAs are now even more expensive because there are other bidders.

If we want to shitcan 2012 and beyond, and be happy with best chances for 2010 and 2011, sell the farm and get the Hallidays, Hollidays, Lackeys, Mauers and the rest.

But if we want a good shot at the PS EVERY year, we must always have homegrown talent. It's really simple math.

For me, the biggest issue with bringing in Granderson is the existence of Mike Cameron. I'd be ambivalent about the proposed 3-way trade, and given that I'm sure I overvalue the Yanks prospects, maybe that means it would be a good trade. Hard to argue with bringing in Curtis. Then again, is:

A) Granderson and one or two throw ins, minus IPK, AJax, 2 throw in 'pen lefties
really better than
B) Cameron, IPK, AJax, the 2 lefties, minus no one?

The money is going to be pretty close, and shouldn't really throw this one way or the other.

Why not just sign Cameron and keep the kids? Does anyone think the marginal gain of Granderson over Cameron for one year, plus the remaining Granderson years, is going to be worth more than just keeping the kids?

Than again, if Jackson is traded, that would make me think Montero is here to stay - which would be perfection.

[34] How do you know Theo "certainly" does? How much better (if at all) is his track record than Cashman's?

Also, your logic is kind of backwards. Because of the current economic climate, there are actually fewer bidders for high-end free agents, not more (if you believe most media accounts).

While the Yankees did build a dynasty around a core of players, it was just that... a core (all of whom were paid well by mid-way through the run anyway). The team still regularly added high profile and high priced players.

If you think adding star players like Holliday and Mauer (in particular) leave you exposed in 2012, well, I am not sure what logic supports that claim. Having the likes of Austin Jackson and IPK does little to ensure the Yankees are powerful in 2012, but signing the best players in the game does.

[35] Cameron's negatives are he is far from durable, will be 37 and has definitely begun is decline phrase. In Granderson, you'd have a good defensive CF'er who is just entering his prime with two very good offensive seasons under his belt. In other words, yes, I think the difference between Granderson and Cameron is worth the kids, especially because Granderson is signed to such a good contract (avg. salary of $9mn through 2012 and only $5.5mn in 2010).

[31] You are missing my point. I AGREED with you on AJax vs. IPK. However, my point is they are BOTH valuable. Also, I believe IPK is STILL our most valued starter. Show me some guys with better numbers. And pitchers 3 years away are hard to bank on.

No question that Jesus is #1 and AJax #2. My guess is IPK is in the top 5.

And AJax does NOT have to be better then Granderson to be valuable. If he is FREE and better then Melky... he is very valuable....

NOT because of his talent so much...
but because of his price.

[32] That's the story Diane. That should be posted on top of EVERY thread here to remind people of our financial reality going forward. However, we have 2 option years on Cano (which I'm guessing we will take) and I'm guessing we have at least 2 more years of Jeter at $15m/yr or more.... so I would add those 2 to the spreadsheet.

There are ALWAYS quality FAs available.
The real question is: Who are the next Core FIVE?

[35] You make a good point. I'd say that Cameron is a one-year guy at best, with the chance (just because of age), of being hurt, whereas Granderson could play CF (or even LF) for at least 3 or 4 years, perhaps until some of the low-level guys (DeLeon, Mesa, Heathcott etc) are ready (if that ever happens) - and with a much lower injury risk to boot.

As much as I like IPK, given the presence of Nova, McAllister, Kontos et al., IPK is just a guy - and so are Dunn and Coke. Its all about Jackson and the prospects received in return.

When they were CHEAP, we could afford to go out and get high end pitchers and some other parts. Ultimately, our Dynasty was build ON OUR FARM!

That isn't particularly true. O'Neill, Martinez, Boggs, Wetteland, Duncan, Raines, Strawberry, Cone, Rogers, Gooden, Girardi, Sierra, Fielder, etc, etc, etc were all acquired from the outside.

It took an elbow injury to Tony Fernandez for Jeter to get a shot. Rivera emerged sometime during the 96 season, the primary setup guys where people like Wickman, Nelson and Howe. Bernie had shown up for good in 93 and by 96 was among the higher salaried players on the team.

[35] Also, if you sign Holliday and trade for Granderson, you'd pretty much be set at 7 positions for at least the next three to four years. You'd also be relatively young: Holliday (30), Texiera (30), Granderson (29), Swisher (29), Cano (27) and Melky (25). If you assume that Arod will be productive for the foreseeable future and Montero can replace Posada, then the Yankees only long-term question would be who replaces Jeter when the time comes.

Ah, William beat me to it in [36]

[38] If IPK is a top 5 Yankee prospect than the farm system is not in very good shape. IPK came out of a major college and pitched in the lower minors at ages 21-22. Of course his numbers will be off the charts. He has always been an older player at just about every level, so it is very easy to be deceived by his stats.

Unless the Yankees are serious about getting away from an approximately $200mn payroll, there is little reason for them to shy away from Granderson, Holliday, etc. The name of the game is adding value, not cheap players.

"Also, your logic is kind of backwards. Because of the current economic climate, there are actually fewer bidders for high-end free agents"

Really? So we got CC on the cheap? Or is he the highest paid pitcher in baseball?
Really? So we got Teix on the cheap? How many position players get paid more? (1) ARod (2)???? Is he the 2nd or 3rd best position player in the game?
Really? So we got AJ on the cheap? Look at his numbers. Was he a 'good deal' for 5/$82.5?

The bad economy has made 2nd and 3rd tier players a good deal.
But our guys, Miggy Cabrera, and now Halliday, Holliday and Bay won't come cheap.

So.... we know how good our core was 10 years ago.
Who is our core now?

[43] "Unless the Yankees are serious about getting away from an approximately $200mn payroll,..."
I think that is the money line (double meaning intended).
How serious the Yankees are by reducing payroll and by how much is a huge part of the context in evaluating worth.

Really? So we got CC on the cheap? Or is he the highest paid pitcher in baseball?
Really? So we got Teix on the cheap? How many position players get paid more? (1) ARod (2)???? Is he the 2nd or 3rd best position player in the game?
Really? So we got AJ on the cheap? Look at his numbers. Was he a ‘good deal’ for 5/$82.5?

How many teams were in the bidding for CC, Teix and AJ?

Sabathia was a special case, as the Yankees offer was far and away the better offer than Milwaukee.

[44] You make it seem like the Yankees had to pay more because so many teams were bidding? Instead, the reality was the Yankees blew CC out of the water to get him over his NYC reticence, while he Tex sweepstakes came down to a battle with Boston, who will always be bidders regardless of economic situations. There is nothing to suggest that there is more competition for free agents. If anything, all of the evidence points the other way.

As for the core over the next 5 years, I think Tex, Holliday, Granderson, Cano and CC would be five very nice 30 and under players upon which to build a team, with the likes of Joba, Hughes, Montero and others in the running. Of course, if you had asked that question in 1995, guys like Pettitte, Mariano and Posada might not have come to mind.

[45] I agree. Who knows...maybe the debt of the new stadium has them more cost conscious, but if the reports of the added revenue is true, I fail to see the impetus to lower payroll (especially considering the significant additional revenue from the 2009 post season). I think the payroll is just an attempt to gain leverage with agents who probably see money as no object for the Yankees.

[46] "How many teams were in the bidding for CC, Teix and AJ?"
Well... I guess enough that we paid serious money for them.

IIRC, the new Stadium allows the Yanks to forego if not minimize their revenue sharing payments (or something to that extent), so I don't know how serious they would or will be about lowering their payroll. It seems that they have more money to play with, especially now that they've won the World Series.

[48] IIRC, Boston was right there with Teix, and there were some rumblings that the Nats & O's were interested. AJ came down to NY and Atlanta, with the Burnetts choosing NY because the Mrs. doesn't like to fly.

re: lowering the payroll - i personally question whether the yankees are really going to lower the payroll. if they are though, one reason may be that hal and hank want to pocket some of this money rather than spend as much as george did - so again pure speculation, but they may feel that they can field a competitive team for x number of dollars less than the over $200M and utilize that money for other things

From ESPN...

11:27 Nick Pietruszkiewicz: From Buster Olney: There were execs who were involved in discussions late Monday night about the possibility of a three-team deal involving Curtis Granderson, and one idea raised was that the Yankees would get both Granderson and Jackson. It is unclear whether this avenue has any legs to it. As talks broke up late Monday, two of the teams made it clear they weren't happy with the proposal on the table.
Tuesday December 8, 2009 11:27 Nick Pietruszkiewicz

11:53 Nick Pietruszkiewicz:
From Buster: One of the teams involved in the proposed three-way Granderson trade continues to push the recast deal on Tuesday morning that would conclude with the Yankees getting both Granderson and Edwin Jackson.

[49] That's not really true because while the Yankees can deduct some expenses from the new Stadium from their revenue sharing bill, it is also true that their revenue is increasing significantly. For example, if the Yankees were able to deduct $50mn more dollars from their bill, but saw revenue increase by $100mn, they would wind up kicking in an additional $50mn to the pot. Of course, more revenue is a good thing, but the Yankees aren't getting a free ride. Regardless, your point holds. The 2009 Yankees did very well and should have no impetus to cut payroll.

[51] If they get both, what else do they have to give up? I am not a big Jackson fan, but if the cost doesn't increase too much, he wouldn't be a bad #5 starter with upside (if his 1st half was more true than his 2nd half).

"As for the core over the next 5 years, I think Tex, Holliday, Granderson, Cano and CC would be five very nice 30 and under players upon which to build a team, with the likes of Joba, Hughes, Montero and others in the running"

I agree 100%. I agree 100%.

You have a 'cheap' core of "Joba, Hughes, Montero and others".
Although, without AJax and IPK, I wonder who the others are for the next 2 years.
And this means we can NOT trade "Joba, Hughes, Montero and others"... correct?

And if it turns out that this core of "Joba, Hughes, Montero and others" do NOT become MLB average or better.... are we still contenders?

for 2010-2013: Tex, Holliday, Granderson, Cano and CC (and ARod, Jeter and AJ) = 8 players at $150m/yr.

That leaves $50m for 17 other players -or- $3m/player.
So.... you agree that we need a bunch of CHEAP players in that 17?

My 'philosophy' does NOT speak against Holliday or any one specific deal. It DOES speak to the fact that we MUST be very careful about trading top prospects. It speaks to the fact that "Joba, Hughes, Montero and others" are an essential part of a continuing dynasty.

Lastly.... our dynasty core came out of a farm that got a number of good picks over the previous decade. International signings may be our saving grace, as we ceratinly have not had many high picks over the last 13 years. And if MLB institutes a "max price per slot" on the draft, it will be harder to get good talent in the future.

More from ESPN...

Nick Pietruszkiewicz: More from Buster: The Tigers are the team that's re-ignited this morning's conversations about the three-way trade with Arizona and the Yankees. They have lowered their asking price, according to sources. One version proposed had the Yankees getting both Curtis Granderson and Edwin Jackson, but it may be that Jackson ends up in Arizona.

Nick Pietruszkiewicz: From Buster: The Diamondbacks are negotiating with the idea that they are going to get both Edwin Jackson and Ian Kennedy. There is growing confidence on at least two sides on the three-team deal that this has a good chance to get done. One source who had placed the odds at 20 percent at 9 a.m. ET texted at 11 a.m. that the odds were up to 30 percent.

[54] Of course you could trade Joba, Phil and Montero if you thought it improved the team, but I am betting that those have enough talent-driven upside to warrant being kept. In other words, the Yankees should let ability drive their decisions, not cheapness.

Your argument seems to suggest that the Yankees have never had success with signficant financial obligations, but they just did win a World Series with big dollars owed to 7 or 8 players. More important than building the farm is making sure that when you do give out a big contract, you pick the very best players. I think the Yankees did that with Teixeira and CC and shouldn't be afraid to do it again if/when the right player comes along.

[55] Interesting...and amusing that a baseball executive would be texting a percentage increase as if it was actually be measured by some scientific instrument.

Lastly…. our dynasty core came out of a farm that got a number of good picks over the previous decade.

Good picks? As in selection, or position? Regardless, only Jeter and Posada were drafted.

[58] And Posada was drafted as a 2B, which goes to show you the predictability of the draft. The number of highly touted Yankee prospects who have floundered more than outnumber the ones who panned out (even with other teams), so one has to be careful getting to infatuated by the farm.

Keith Law just tweeted that Bill Madden has won the Spink award. Does that now make Madden a hall of famer?

LOL

[60] hey man, if Dave Niehaus can win a HOF award...

[60] Seriously? Bill Madden? The Spink Award winner? Ugh. Who votes on that thing, and what is wrong with them?

Who would be the equivalent Frick Award winner?

Granderson deal gaining momentum ...
http://tinyurl.com/yzkeat6

[62]

Michael Kay of course

How bout this (I have no idea if anyone would go for this but seems like a fun idea):

Make the trade for granderson

then trade granderson + igawa, or some other middling pitching prospect for Halladay + Wells (obviously just to eat Wells' contract).

I don't want Wells, and I don't want Wells' contract, but to be able to get Halladay without giving up hughes, joba or montero seems like a good deal for the Yanks, who are able to absorb the $$. Maybe Wells responds to the change of scenery/race to the WS. Maybe the injuries get behind him and he becomes a serviceable hitter again. He can still play the field. If he doesn't respond well, then he's a 4th outfielder/bench player (albeit a very expensive one) that has to be as good or better than the Yank's past bench players.

It resolves the Yankees pitching deficiency. Then we try to resign Damon & Matsui for 1 or 2 yr deals (pass on Holliday/Bay) and revisit again next year.

[56] "More important than building the farm is making sure that when you do give out a big contract, you pick the very best players."
and, maybe more importantly, making sure that when you do trade some of your best prospects, you trade for the very best players. is granderson one of them? i don't think so.

[62]

In happier news, Sean Forman (of Baseball Reference.com) has been made a member of the BBWAA.

[63] These rumors are all over the map. The latest ESPN entry has talk about the Tigers asking for Hughes and Jackson.

[65] The Wells contract is really bad. No, make that really, really bad. Wait, that's really, really, really bad.

[66] Is Granderson one of the very best players? Maybe not, although before 2009, I think many people would have argued he was. Having said that, Austin Jackson and (definitely) IPK are not among the game's best prospects either.

Granderson about to happen?

Buster Olney of ESPN.com believes a three-team deal that could send Curtis Granderson to the Yankees is ‘close,’ while Joel Sherman of the New York Post believes the Yankees have been sent his medical records.

According to Steve Gilbert of MLB.com, the D-Backs will get Ian Kennedy from the Yankees and Edwin Jackson from the Tigers, with Arizona prospects Daniel Schlereth and Max Scherzer going to Detroit.

[68] i'm not worried about kennedy and don't expect anything out of him. but i think jackson is in fact among the game's best prospects, and certainly among the yankees' best.

you mention here how bad the wells contract is. there's an outfielder who had one or two good years before he turned 28, and then faded badly. that happens a lot. yet somehow the "proper context" for granderson is paul o'neill, one of few hitters who got better in his late 20s/early 30s. the proper context is something between, and projecting granderson to get better when his current trend is downwards seems absurd to me.

BBWAA votes to expand Cy Young ballot from 3 to 5 names.

('bout time)

Wow, this deal just may go through. I'll just say that, for all the big picture arguement, if you're going to trade Austin Jackson, Curtis Granderson is exactly the type of player you want back - cheap, young, talented, and proven. We can disagree on exactly how well he rates on those parameters, but if you goal is to continue to infuse young talent trading AJax for Granderson does exactly that.

from Heyman: teams in agreement on trade. assuming medicals check out, it's a go.

hat tip to RAB:
http://twitter.com/SI_JonHeyman/status/6471408702
"teams in agreement on trade. assuming medicals check out, it's a go."

Actually, I'll also say: if Brueny and Coker-face are gone, which reliever are we going to hate?! Though Dunn, now that he's out of the deal, seems a good candidate given his FB velocity and BB rate.

Wow, this could be some deal. Jackson and Granderson? And A Jax is the only big prospect they give up...

NICE

http://twitter.com/nyp_joelsherman/status/6471127241
"Removing Dunn from deal was key for #Yankees"
IPK, AJax and Coke for Granderson.

[76] Say what? Jackson and IPK to the Diamondbacks.

One must think that either Melky or Gritner are now tradebait.... unless they are our LFer(s)?

Can't figure if Jackson is coming to NYC or not. That seems crazy to get both of them.

[75] yes, i am down for hating dunn - i don't think he is that good, he is ugly, and i bet girardi uses him more than he should

i am not sure about this trade - i am guessing the yanks feel ajax is taking too long to develop and they think his ceiling is lower than hoped for

[80] See [78]

Not a fan of this deal unless Jackson comes to NY too. And even then... I don't know.

Fangraphs has something up on the trade
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-big-trade

"From the Yankees perspective, this deal is almost too good to be true. Heading into his age 29 season, he’s a legitimate +4 win center fielder signed to a bargain contract for the next four years. I ranked him as the 22nd most valuable asset in terms of trade value in baseball over the summer, and the Yankees are getting him for a variety pack of role players. He instantly makes their team better, giving them a legitimate all-star center fielder who should thrive in Yankee Stadium. For as much as the Yankees have a payroll advantage, they continue to win because Brian Cashman targets the right players. Granderson is a fantastic acquisition for them."

[80] sounds like edwin jackson is going to arizona

[70] No one who has seen Jackson play rates him among the best prospects in the game (top-20), so I have to go with them.

As for the comparison to Wells, that would be relevant if the Yankees were considering sinking huge dollars into Granderson, but they aren't.

[80] http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4725108

No way Alejo, Edwin is going to Arizona.

Trading Melky or Gardner, who are now expendable, could net a piece to at least cover for the loss of IPK

[84] That's kind of how I feel about Granderson too. In 2007 and 2008, Granderson was among the best performers in the game. In 2009, he slipped to just pretty good and for some reason so many people have discounted his value. If he was over 30, I could see creeping concerns about age, but the man is just now entering his prime.

[84] Looks like the Cashman haters will have to head south for the winter.

[86] but they ARE considering (apparently more than considering) sinking their top or 2nd best prospect in him. that's a lot, and worth plenty of money.

OK..... if Granderson is a Yankee, can I get some analysis of his defense and throwing arm?

Wow! Fangraph is praising the Yankees and blasting the Diamondbacks. What are we going to do about Granderson's splits? Calling Kevin Long!

In Loving Memory:

http://web.yesnetwork.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=7124051

A quick Poll: THIS year... are we getting a LFer also?

I'm not ready to part with A-Jax for a guy who strIkes out 150 times a year, and has not improved for 2 years. Not happy.

Why would Cashman rush into a trade like this with a rising player like A-Jax?

[91] Who cares where Jackson ranks in the Yankees minor league system (assuming he is even #2). Relative value is meaningless...what counts is real value. Jackson's best case scenario might be Curtis Granderson, so why not get the real thing who is locked up through his prime at a very reasonable price?

[97] have you been tapping my phone? I've been telling people all day "why hold onto the guy who MIGHT turn into Curtis Granderson when you can get the guy who IS Curtis Granderson?"

[97] even if A-Jax is nothing more than Granderson, wouldn't you rather have his one or two good seasons on the Yankees, rather than the Tigers? Grandy hasn't improved since '07, quite the opposite.

[92] Granderson is an above average defender (according to metrics has rated anywhere from outstanding to a notch below average) with an average throwing arm.

[96] AJax' biggest problem is he strikes out too much (123 times in 550 MiL plate appearances). A-Jax had a .759 OPS in the internation league, so I am not sure how much of a rising star ge really is.