Yanks/Tigers/Snakeheads Blockbuster

Some quick thoughts on the blockbuster trade between the Yanks, Tigers and D'Backs that appears to be nearing completion.

According to the report:

The Yankees get Curtis Granderson, the D'Backs get Edwin Jackson and Ian Kennedy, and the Tigers get Max Scherzer, Daniel Schlereth, Austin Jackson, and Phil Coke.


-At first glance, I love what the Tigers did. They get Austin Jackson (.300/.354/.405 in triple-A last year) to take over center field right away. While he may not equal Granderson's ability to hit (against righthanders, at least), he should be adequate defensively and could eventually be as good a hitter.

In giving up Granderson, the Tigers were able to shed salary (he is in the middle of a 5 year/$30.25M deal that has a 2014 club option), and get value for a player that suffers so greatly against lefties, he should probably be considered for a platoon. Keith Law has suggested this, and his numbers certainly back it up. His OBP is .367 in his career against righties and only .270 against lefties. His OPS .894 v. RHP, .614 v. LHP. Those numbers don't look good for an everyday leadoff hitter.

In addition to getting Jackson, I believe the biggest gain for the Tigers is Scherzer. The 11th overall pick in 2006, he is exactly the kind of power arm that the Tigers covet. In 226 professional innings, he has struck out 240 batters with a 3.68 ERA. The Tigers clearly wanted to sell high (or relatively high, after his second half decline) on Jackson, but I doubt I would even take Jackson for Scherzer straight up.

Schlereth (the Tigers presumably now assume the league lead in "Sch's") was the 26th pick overall in 2008 and should be a nice lefty addition to a Tiger bullpen that struggled with injuries and depth last year.

-It's really a typical move from the Yankees perspective. Granderson's contract is no object to them, and while people have soured some on Austin Jackson as a superstar (he was ranked as New York's top prospect going into 2009), it still shows a clear tendency to undervalue young players in favor of more well-known, "established" players. They may know something we don't, but it doesn't surprise me one bit that the Yankees trade a once-, if not still, highly regarded prospect for a big money player with noticeable flaws and four more years left on a contract.

Giving up Ian Kennedy, to me, is of little consequence, because they had no intention of using him. Just like they have with Joba Chamberlain and Phil Hughes, the Yankees have managed to build unrealistic hype around top prospects before crushing such value by chronic mismanagement. Remember when Brian Cashman wouldn't trade Ian Kennedy and Melky Cabrera for Johan Sanatana? Or when Chamberlain and Hughes were off-limits in talks for Roy Halladay? Well, those are only good strategies if you intend to get contributions from them, or trade them, for value that exceeds Roy Halladay and Johan Santana. From the looks of things, they haven't gotten the contributions, as Chamberlain has been yanked in and out of the rotation and Hughes has been pushed to the bullpen. And there is no way we can say that getting Curtis Granderson comes close to the impact of Halladay or Santana.

-For the D'Backs, it doesn't make much sense to me to trade Schlereth and Scherzer for Edwin Jackson and Ian Kennedy. I guess they assume that's two above average starters -- with the potential for Jackson to be dominant in a return to the NL -- for one and a reliever. I, personally like Scherzer more than anyone else in that deal, even without considering that he is cheaper and younger than Jackson.