Posted by: Peter Houston | December 8, 2009

Twintter Meetings update

Give the assist to Kevin Kaduk from Yahoo! Sports for the term “Twintter”. Actually, give him the points too. He labelled this year’s Winter Meetings as Twintter Meetings because Twitter’s invasion on Indianapolis. He takes a nice look at the pros and cons of the assault. But enough about that.

THIS JUST IN: The Yankees have made a BLOCKBUSTER deal. The 3-team swap has the Yanks DISHING OUT PROSPECTS. But, you guessed it, Roy Halladay isn’t involved.

The deal sends CF Curtis Granderson to the Yanks, P Ian Kennedy and P Edwin Jackson to the Diamondbacks and P Max Scherzer, P Daniel Schlereth, P Phil Coke and OF Austin Jackson to the Tigers. Before I get into analysis of the trade, what does this mean for the Jays?

Well, it could put pressure on the Red Sox to get something done. Whenever the Yankes make a move, especially coming off a World Series title, the Red Sox feel more than inclined to reciprocate. I’ve got an idea, why don’t you go out and get the best pitcher available?

It also means OF Austin Jackson is no longer available as trade bait for Doc. He was one of the four players the Jays were said to be eyeing in return for Doc (Jackson, Jesus Montero, Joba Chamberlain and Phil Hughes). That’s ok. I’m much more interested in C Jesus Montero, as I’m sure everybody else is. The best part is, initially, the Tigers asked for Joba or Hughes. The Yankees refused. Saving them for another deal anybody?

To be honest, I really don’t like this deal for the Yankees. If you look at Granderson’s numbers (the important ones, including fielding), they have been consistently declining since 2007, except for when his OBP improved by 4 points from 2007-2008. He’s owed $5.5MM in 2010, $8.25MM in ’11, and $10MM in ’12, with a $13MM club option/$2MM buyout for ’13. For an outfielder, that’s not bad. The reason the deal isn’t good for the Yankees is because they give up two solid prospects in Kennedy and A-Jax. Kennedy struggled in the majors in 2008, but his minor league numbers and talent suggest he’s going to be very good someday. A-Jax isn’t half bad, either.

It’s hard to say exactly who won between the Diamondbacks and Tigers, but I’ll give the nod to the Arizona. They didn’t give up much and got a pretty nice return. Edwin Jackson, 26, emerged as a Cy Young candidate last year and as I mentioned before, Kennedy has good potential. Think of the rotation this leaves them with. Brandon Webb, Dan Haren, Edwin Jackson, Ian Kennedy and TBA (not really important anyway). I’m jealous.

The Tigers get a pretty nice haul. Max Scherzer built on an impressive 2008 campaign early on, but had his struggles down the stretch. I think he’s got the ability to be a legit # 2 guy, but we’ll have to see how he handles the AL. I always have my doubts about pitchers with good numbers coming from the NL to the AL. A-Jax is a nice prospect and they bolstered the bullpen with a couple lefties.

Good to see things are getting heated up at the Twintter Meetings. MLBastian has been relatively quiet today, but once he knows something, I’ll know something and then you’ll know.


Will Carroll of Baseball Prospectus tweets: “Do red sox have to answer the granderson deal? Some are saying yes and quick and big.”

4:05 “You’ve got to be kidding me” update


hearing #redsox wont give up either buchholz or casey kelly for halladay. can you say “market crash?”





  1. This deal seems pretty unworthy of the “blockbuster” tag to me; save for the fact the media needs to report on SOMETHING concrete from Indy and the Yanks are involved, what this deal is centred upon is a pitcher in Jackson whose numbers declined after the All Star break, and an above-average CF in Granderson (.249 avg, 30 HR, 71 RBI last year) who is basically another Nick Swisher (.249, 29, 82) for NY’s outfield.

    And we all saw how big of a role Swisher played in the World Series; he was gracious enough to hit .133 so Hideki could move up in the order and clinch the series . . .

    I also love that back to back headlines on Sports Illustrated’s winter meetings tracker read:
    “Potential blockbuster may be on life support”
    “Blockbuster three-way trade on the verge”
    with only NY prospect Michael Dunn being the difference.

    Is it blockbuster because of quantity of players and prospects (some of them highly regarded) plus teams involved, over actual quality of major league talent?

    • A blockbuster depends on the quality of players involved. A 5-team, 25 player deal for single A players is not a blockbuster. I think this qualifies as a minor blockbuster (if that makes sense?) but the term is largely subjective. Curtis Granderson, Edwin Jackson and Max Scherzer are pretty big names. Austin Jackson and Ian Kennedy have a lot of hype as far as prospects go. Sure, it’s not on the level of the Manny-Jason Bay blockbuster (who did the Pirates get again?), but I would argue it qualifies.

  2. I think they qualify blockbuster based on how many guys are involved. It could also be based on the fact that 3 teams were involved..

    I dunno, we all know what I think of the sports media’s love affair with hyperbole.

  3. i love you

  4. Facebook.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: