Granderson to Yankees in 3-way trade? p. 20

[davearm2]

FWIW following up on the post a few above:

 

Take Granderson's career line, halve his strikeout total (from 618 to 309), and credit him with an additional 93 singles (309 * 0.300), and his slash stats change from:

.272/.344/.484/.828

... to:

.308/.376/.519/.896

 

his approach that makes him strike out a lot also contributes to him walking a lot. his obp would decrease, not increase.

I think you might be able to argue that a guy's walk total could decrease, although you could easily argue the opposite side of that one too -- walks might increase as swing-and-miss strikeouts become foul tips, leading to deeper counts.

 

Regardless, a guy would need to lose more walks than the additional hits he picks up for his OBP to decrease. That's extremely unlikely IMO.

[Rob]

What exactly are you trying to argue, davearm? It seems like dexter is trying to argue overall production despite strikeouts, while you're keyed in on his comment that strikeouts are no different than other kinds of outs. It might help if you both argue about the same thing.

 

And dexter, I don't hate you. I just put you on ignore while you were in that annoying "I've learned just enough sabermetric stuff that I'm forming new opinions, but I'm doing it for all the wrong reasons" phase. I was particularly bad in that phase, so don't take it personally.

I'm definitely focused on his comment that strikeouts are no different than other kinds of outs, without a doubt. I hear that a lot these days, and it drives me crazy because it's so horribly flawed, for the simple reason I've outlined.

 

That's what I thought.

 

While that comment itself isn't entirely true, it's a nice shortcut for certain arguments. When comparing Granderson to another player for the purposes of deciding whom to acquire, for instance. In that sort of situation, the end result of their approach is what matters, and faulting somebody for the strikeouts at that point serves no purpose.

 

What you're arguing generally only has use for a hitting coach who is trying to squeeze the most out of his player... and most people on a message board are interested in playing GM and manager, not hitting coach.

[XZero771679666304]

Strikeouts should not be counted against a player twice. Sure, you have a better chance of getting a hit on a bip, but at the end of the day if a player is productive, the manner on which they made their outs is nearly irrelevant. Now if you have a case in which a player's propensity to strike out is so pronounced that it allows them to be nearly neutralized (i.e. Corey Patterson, or increasingly so with Soriano), then it can become a big issue.

 

But has been said a few times now, if a player posts a 1.000 OPS and K's 150 times is he worse than a player with an OPS of 1.000 and 50 Ks? Perhaps very, very marginally so, but not to a degree even worthy of discussion. You could make the argument that if said player cut back on the strikeouts they could be even better, but it does not diminish their value.

 

Now if we want to get subjective about it, you could say someone like Granderson would be the type you would like to see put the ball in play more often (because of his speed), as compared to someone like Prince Fielder (who'd you just as soon see K with runners on if he is going to make an out (GIDPs). But does it ultimately make the player markedly less productive? No. A productive player is productive, an unproductive player is unproductive. Stats like OPS, eqa, etc. are indicators of this, not strikeouts.

 

And ftr, you don't know that altering your approach to cut down in K's wouldn't negatively affect a player's production any more than you know that it would.

 

And the end of the day, does the player who Ks a lot still maintain their production? If the answer is yes, then it's a non-issue.

[Guest]

Nobody wants to go to the plate and K. It's a pretty safe assumption that the player is already doing the best they can to optimize their level of production with the type/amount of contact they're making.

[davearm2]

What exactly are you trying to argue, davearm? It seems like dexter is trying to argue overall production despite strikeouts, while you're keyed in on his comment that strikeouts are no different than other kinds of outs. It might help if you both argue about the same thing.

 

And dexter, I don't hate you. I just put you on ignore while you were in that annoying "I've learned just enough sabermetric stuff that I'm forming new opinions, but I'm doing it for all the wrong reasons" phase. I was particularly bad in that phase, so don't take it personally.

I'm definitely focused on his comment that strikeouts are no different than other kinds of outs, without a doubt. I hear that a lot these days, and it drives me crazy because it's so horribly flawed, for the simple reason I've outlined.

 

That's what I thought.

 

While that comment itself isn't entirely true, it's a nice shortcut for certain arguments. When comparing Granderson to another player for the purposes of deciding whom to acquire, for instance. In that sort of situation, the end result of their approach is what matters, and faulting somebody for the strikeouts at that point serves no purpose.

 

What you're arguing generally only has use for a hitting coach who is trying to squeeze the most out of his player... and most people on a message board are interested in playing GM and manager, not hitting coach.

I get what you're saying Rob.

 

When I hear a comment like, "who cares if Granderson strikes out a lot?" my immediate reaction is to cringe and think, well, anyone who's interested in Granderson being as productive as he can be should care, because his core metrics (slash stats, mainly) would all go up if he were to strike out less.

[Rob]

What exactly are you trying to argue, davearm? It seems like dexter is trying to argue overall production despite strikeouts, while you're keyed in on his comment that strikeouts are no different than other kinds of outs. It might help if you both argue about the same thing.

 

And dexter, I don't hate you. I just put you on ignore while you were in that annoying "I've learned just enough sabermetric stuff that I'm forming new opinions, but I'm doing it for all the wrong reasons" phase. I was particularly bad in that phase, so don't take it personally.

I'm definitely focused on his comment that strikeouts are no different than other kinds of outs, without a doubt. I hear that a lot these days, and it drives me crazy because it's so horribly flawed, for the simple reason I've outlined.

 

That's what I thought.

 

While that comment itself isn't entirely true, it's a nice shortcut for certain arguments. When comparing Granderson to another player for the purposes of deciding whom to acquire, for instance. In that sort of situation, the end result of their approach is what matters, and faulting somebody for the strikeouts at that point serves no purpose.

 

What you're arguing generally only has use for a hitting coach who is trying to squeeze the most out of his player... and most people on a message board are interested in playing GM and manager, not hitting coach.

I get what you're saying Rob.

 

When I hear a comment like, "who cares if Granderson strikes out a lot?" my immediate reaction is to cringe and think, well, anyone who's interested in Granderson being as productive as he can be should care, because his core metrics (slash stats, mainly) would all go up if he were to strike out less.

 

I'd be careful about making blanket statements like that. Some players are perfectly capable of making the adjustment you describe. But some players aren't, and there are ALWAYS risks involved with trying to make changes to a player's mechanics and approach.

[17 Seconds]

You've made the point that Granderson has been productive despite his K rate, that's true.

 

You've also made a separate point, that being that K's are no different than other kinds of outs. To wit: "Striking out isn't costing you a chance at anything any more than a popout or ground out does," and "it doesn't really matter how you're making outs."

 

Both of the those quotes are from you in this thread, and both are foolish, as I've (attempted to) illustrate for you.

 

Ugh, I'm saying that when you look at the outs AFTER the fact, they aren't really that different from other outs.

 

Are you really not getting this?

 

I'm saying that over the course of a full season, a .900 OPS guy with 140 K's isn't going to be much different from a .900 OPS guy with 80 k's.

 

That's now 5 times I've explained it.

And I'm explaining that looking at outs AFTER the fact makes you look foolish.

 

The reason is simple. All strikeouts are outs. Not all balls in play become outs.

 

You can continue tabulating the number times you've made ridiculous statements if you like, although I'm at a loss for why you'd want to.

 

You're not even making sense now. The fact that Rob backed it up despite the fact that he hates me pretty much shows you you're talking nonsense and that you just cant admit that you initially misunderstood my argument.

 

Does it need to be explained to you a 7th time that I'm talking about how strikeouts shouldn't be counted against a player's production when he's shown what it is? Like Rob said, you're counting K's against a player twice.

 

Strikeouts are already reflected in a players line. If a player is putting up an .850 OPS, you shouldn't be trying to discredit that because he stries out a lot, which is what the original poster did.

 

Hopefully you'll just cut your losses at this point..

If you can't follow how much sense I'm making here, then that's on you. Just go on believing that strikeouts are the same as other kinds of outs, and let the knowledgeable baseball fans here continue with the discussion.

 

Looking through the posts on the last 2 pages, it appears that everybody understand the context of the situation except you.

 

I'll say it for the 18th time. My argument was never that strikeouts don't hurt a players production. my argument was that when you look at a players production, it doessn't matter much if he got it by striking out a lot or striking out a little. it's the same production.

 

The context of the argument was started by the guy who devalued Granderson's prouction because he strikes out a lot.

 

IF THE PRODUCTION IS EXACTLY THE SAME, THEN IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER HOW HE GOT THAT PROUCTION.

 

An .850 OPS with a lot of strikeouts isn't much different than an .850 without strikeouts. Could that .850 OPS be higher without thhe K's? Of course, but AGAIN, that's not the context of the conversation.

 

As 3 people have now said, you appear to be counting strikeouts against a player twice.

 

Seriously, it's obvious that you misinterpreted by original argument and just can't admit it.

[17 Seconds]

What exactly are you trying to argue, davearm? It seems like dexter is trying to argue overall production despite strikeouts, while you're keyed in on his comment that strikeouts are no different than other kinds of outs. It might help if you both argue about the same thing.

 

And dexter, I don't hate you. I just put you on ignore while you were in that annoying "I've learned just enough sabermetric stuff that I'm forming new opinions, but I'm doing it for all the wrong reasons" phase. I was particularly bad in that phase, so don't take it personally.

I'm definitely focused on his comment that strikeouts are no different than other kinds of outs, without a doubt. I hear that a lot these days, and it drives me crazy because it's so horribly flawed, for the simple reason I've outlined.

 

That's what I thought.

 

While that comment itself isn't entirely true, it's a nice shortcut for certain arguments. When comparing Granderson to another player for the purposes of deciding whom to acquire, for instance. In that sort of situation, the end result of their approach is what matters, and faulting somebody for the strikeouts at that point serves no purpose.

 

What you're arguing generally only has use for a hitting coach who is trying to squeeze the most out of his player... and most people on a message board are interested in playing GM and manager, not hitting coach.

I get what you're saying Rob.

 

When I hear a comment like, "who cares if Granderson strikes out a lot?" my immediate reaction is to cringe and think, well, anyone who's interested in Granderson being as productive as he can be should care, because his core metrics (slash stats, mainly) would all go up if he were to strike out less.

 

This post makes it very clear that you never understood the context of my original argument. I can tell you only skimmed through my posts and didn't understand what I was saying.

 

We're talking about getting Granderson.... who is a guy who has pretty much proven what type of hitter he is. He will strike out. Would I like him more if he struck out less and produced a little more. Obviously.

 

The original argument was as simple as this: The high strikeout totals mght hinder him from being even better than he is, but they don't diminish the good prouction he currently gives.

 

Meanwhile, you keep trying to talk about how strikeouts AFFECT production, as opposed to whether or not they dimish the actual production. You're still counting strikeouts against a player twice.

[Rob]

He fully acknowledged that he zeroed in on one portion of your post that was misleading and nitpicked at it. You dont need to get so bent out of shape.

[17 Seconds]

He fully acknowledged that he zeroed in on one portion of your post that was misleading and nitpicked at it. You dont need to get so bent out of shape.

 

He did? I assume you're talking about this post-

 

I'm definitely focused on his comment that strikeouts are no different than other kinds of outs, without a doubt. I hear that a lot these days, and it drives me crazy because it's so horribly flawed, for the simple reason I've outlined.

 

He's still taking my statements out of context. He is still arguing how strikeouts affect a players numbers, and that's something I never even brought up. I'm talking about how it doesn't matter if a player achieves his production with or without strikeouts. He's implying that I said strikeouts don't affect production, when I never did.

 

The original argument started when the other guy tried to devalue Granderson's production because of how much he strikes out.

 

So if he puts up an .850 with a lot of strikeouts, is that crappier than an .850 OPS with a low amount of strikeouts? No, not really, and that's the only thing I've been saying the WHOLE time. I never said strikeouts don't affect how good he is.

[jersey cubs fan]

When I hear a comment like, "who cares if Granderson strikes out a lot?" my immediate reaction is to cringe and think, well, anyone who's interested in Granderson being as productive as he can be should care, because his core metrics (slash stats, mainly) would all go up if he were to strike out less.

 

That's not true at all. I don't get how anybody can think it is. If a person simply works on striking out less, it could easily result in even less production. The "just put the ball in play" philosophy probably results in the weakest performance a player can have.

[NewUserName]

is there any evidence that if a player strikes out less his production will improve? I may have misread some posts here, but that seems to be the argument without any actual proof. Well, except for trying to make a logical assumption that if a player puts the ball in play some of them will be hits. I didnt see the counter logic that if a player changes his approach to KO less, will his new approach be as productive as he was when he KO'ed more.

 

I guess here is my question. Has there been players who have decreased their KO totals in their prime by a significant margin? If so what was the effect on their overall production? Also, was the change something that was done to actually reduce KO's? or was there some other change(steriods, late development) that also led to reduced KO rates?

 

Just to point out some of the old time arguments my dad makes. His contention is that a player should choke up and shorten his swing with 2 strikes. My counter to that is would you rather have Ryan Howard hitting ground balls or would you rather have him hitting HRs/KOing/BBing. I know it is pretty simplistic, but honestly I think there is a mentality that KO's are MUCH worse then a ground out. Which is just wrong and pretty dumb

[davearm2]

When I hear a comment like, "who cares if Granderson strikes out a lot?" my immediate reaction is to cringe and think, well, anyone who's interested in Granderson being as productive as he can be should care, because his core metrics (slash stats, mainly) would all go up if he were to strike out less.

 

That's not true at all. I don't get how anybody can think it is. If a person simply works on striking out less, it could easily result in even less production. The "just put the ball in play" philosophy probably results in the weakest performance a player can have.

Really the heart of the issue is, how much power (and to a lesser extent, BABIP) would a player sacrifice to achieve a given improvement (reduction) in strikeout rate?

 

For example if a guy could cut his strikeout rate in half while only diminishing his power by 5%, with no change in his BABIP, then he'd be crazy not to make that adjustment in his hitting approach.

 

But if a guy would lose a lot of power and also some BABIP while only reducing K's by less than 10%, then it's a bad choice.

 

And in the end, the tradeoff of K's for power and BABIP will be different for every player.

[Tarver]

Funnily enough, Patterson is a good example of someone who cut down on his Ks to the extreme detriment of his offensive productivity.

[davearm2]

is there any evidence that if a player strikes out less his production will improve? I may have misread some posts here, but that seems to be the argument without any actual proof. Well, except for trying to make a logical assumption that if a player puts the ball in play some of them will be hits. I didnt see the counter logic that if a player changes his approach to KO less, will his new approach be as productive as he was when he KO'ed more.

 

I guess here is my question. Has there been players who have decreased their KO totals in their prime by a significant margin? If so what was the effect on their overall production? Also, was the change something that was done to actually reduce KO's? or was there some other change(steriods, late development) that also led to reduced KO rates?

 

Just to point out some of the old time arguments my dad makes. His contention is that a player should choke up and shorten his swing with 2 strikes. My counter to that is would you rather have Ryan Howard hitting ground balls or would you rather have him hitting HRs/KOing/BBing. I know it is pretty simplistic, but honestly I think there is a mentality that KO's are MUCH worse then a ground out. Which is just wrong and pretty dumb

KO's aren't worse than a ground out. They are worse than balls in play though.

 

As I stated above, whether or not a player should choke up and shorten his swing with 2 strikes would all depend on the tradeoff of increased balls in play and decreased power for that particular player.

 

I can't remember who said it, but earlier in the thread the point was made that Granderson's game in particular would probably lend itself to net gains in productivity from decreasing his K rate. Admittedly, it's speculative, but the principles for why that could be are sound.

[jersey cubs fan]

When I hear a comment like, "who cares if Granderson strikes out a lot?" my immediate reaction is to cringe and think, well, anyone who's interested in Granderson being as productive as he can be should care, because his core metrics (slash stats, mainly) would all go up if he were to strike out less.

 

That's not true at all. I don't get how anybody can think it is. If a person simply works on striking out less, it could easily result in even less production. The "just put the ball in play" philosophy probably results in the weakest performance a player can have.

Really the heart of the issue is, how much power (and to a lesser extent, BABIP) would a player sacrifice to achieve a given improvement (reduction) in strikeout rate?

 

For example if a guy could cut his strikeout rate in half while only diminishing his power by 5%, with no change in his BABIP, then he'd be crazy not to make that adjustment in his hitting approach.

 

But if a guy would lose a lot of power and also some BABIP while only reducing K's by less than 10%, then it's a bad choice.

 

And in the end, the tradeoff of K's for power and BABIP will be different for every player.

 

But improvement in K rates guarantees you nothing, so what is the point in a productive player trying to change that aspect of his game? It's a flaw, but it's a flaw you can, and should live with. You can try and fix it, but you're risking too much for hopes of modest overall improvement. Doesn't make sense. If you can eliminate all strikeouts and go from a 850 OPS player to a 1050 player, great, but it's not going to happen and it's not worth trying.

[jersey cubs fan]

KO's aren't worse than a ground out. They are worse than balls in play though.

 

That just isn't true. The worst thing you can do is ground into a double play. Just "putting the ball in play" is not an accomplishment in and of itself. Part of decreasing K is going to be becoming more aggressive early in the count, to avoid 2 strike situations, that means slapping at pitcher's pitches, and making his day a heck of a lot easier than if you were more patient, and more willing to risk the strikeout for the much greater reward than simply putting the ball in play.

[SouthSideRyan]

It's also possible that Granderson already is altering his swing with 2 strikes. His ISO is over 100 points higher with less than 2 strikes than with.

[Sever82]

Not sure if anyone caught Talking Baseball with Levine this weekend but Chicagocubsonline.com has a little summary of what was said and I feel a bit relieved by what Levine said:

 

Bruce Levine shot down the 'reports' from Phil Rogers on what it would take for the Cubs to land Curtis Granderson ... especially the one that mentioned Carlos Marmol. Levine was pretty adamant on the fact the Cubs would not include Starlin Castro in any deal ... much less one for Curtis Granderson. The Cubs view Castro as their future shortstop and feel the 19-year old could be in the big leagues a couple of months after the 2010 season begins.

 

Levine explained later in the show that he can guarantee that a Cubs' source did not tell Phil Rogers they would give up Starlin Castro and Andrew Cashner in a deal for Granderson.

 

I usually believe levine, he's sometime off in his rumors but he usually states whether its from a source or his feeling. I'm guessing the whole Castro thing is from his sources and the feeling around the organization. I personally can't stand Rogers because he never backs anything up.

[dew1679666265]

When I hear a comment like, "who cares if Granderson strikes out a lot?" my immediate reaction is to cringe and think, well, anyone who's interested in Granderson being as productive as he can be should care, because his core metrics (slash stats, mainly) would all go up if he were to strike out less.

 

That's not true at all. I don't get how anybody can think it is. If a person simply works on striking out less, it could easily result in even less production. The "just put the ball in play" philosophy probably results in the weakest performance a player can have.

Really the heart of the issue is, how much power (and to a lesser extent, BABIP) would a player sacrifice to achieve a given improvement (reduction) in strikeout rate?

 

For example if a guy could cut his strikeout rate in half while only diminishing his power by 5%, with no change in his BABIP, then he'd be crazy not to make that adjustment in his hitting approach.

 

But if a guy would lose a lot of power and also some BABIP while only reducing K's by less than 10%, then it's a bad choice.

 

And in the end, the tradeoff of K's for power and BABIP will be different for every player.

 

BABIP is tied to LD%, though. If you start slapping at pitchers' pitches just to avoid Ks, then the likelihood is that you'll have more weak contact. Weak contact rarely leads to hits - since LD% will go down and, thus, BABIP will fall.

[davearm2]

KO's aren't worse than a ground out. They are worse than balls in play though.

 

That just isn't true. The worst thing you can do is ground into a double play. Just "putting the ball in play" is not an accomplishment in and of itself. Part of decreasing K is going to be becoming more aggressive early in the count, to avoid 2 strike situations, that means slapping at pitcher's pitches, and making his day a heck of a lot easier than if you were more patient, and more willing to risk the strikeout for the much greater reward than simply putting the ball in play.

The idea I have is that a player should not change his approach at all until there are two strikes. If a guy is selective and swings hard early in the count, then he should continue to do exactly that.

 

Only once the count reaches two strikes would the approach change to a more contact-emphasized swing, so most of the concerns you laid out here are not valid.

[davearm2]

When I hear a comment like, "who cares if Granderson strikes out a lot?" my immediate reaction is to cringe and think, well, anyone who's interested in Granderson being as productive as he can be should care, because his core metrics (slash stats, mainly) would all go up if he were to strike out less.

 

That's not true at all. I don't get how anybody can think it is. If a person simply works on striking out less, it could easily result in even less production. The "just put the ball in play" philosophy probably results in the weakest performance a player can have.

Really the heart of the issue is, how much power (and to a lesser extent, BABIP) would a player sacrifice to achieve a given improvement (reduction) in strikeout rate?

 

For example if a guy could cut his strikeout rate in half while only diminishing his power by 5%, with no change in his BABIP, then he'd be crazy not to make that adjustment in his hitting approach.

 

But if a guy would lose a lot of power and also some BABIP while only reducing K's by less than 10%, then it's a bad choice.

 

And in the end, the tradeoff of K's for power and BABIP will be different for every player.

 

BABIP is tied to LD%, though. If you start slapping at pitchers' pitches just to avoid Ks, then the likelihood is that you'll have more weak contact. Weak contact rarely leads to hits - since LD% will go down and, thus, BABIP will fall.

I don't think you can make this sort of blanket statement. If a guy stopped swinging for the fences with two strikes, you might actually see his LD% rise, as his FB% declines.

[Backtobanks]

Not sure if anyone caught Talking Baseball with Levine this weekend but Chicagocubsonline.com has a little summary of what was said and I feel a bit relieved by what Levine said:

 

Bruce Levine shot down the 'reports' from Phil Rogers on what it would take for the Cubs to land Curtis Granderson ... especially the one that mentioned Carlos Marmol. Levine was pretty adamant on the fact the Cubs would not include Starlin Castro in any deal ... much less one for Curtis Granderson. The Cubs view Castro as their future shortstop and feel the 19-year old could be in the big leagues a couple of months after the 2010 season begins.

 

Levine explained later in the show that he can guarantee that a Cubs' source did not tell Phil Rogers they would give up Starlin Castro and Andrew Cashner in a deal for Granderson.

 

I usually believe levine, he's sometime off in his rumors but he usually states whether its from a source or his feeling. I'm guessing the whole Castro thing is from his sources and the feeling around the organization. I personally can't stand Rogers because he never backs anything up.

 

Rogers is terrible, but I always have a problem with most of the "experts". Some of them assume that the Cubs need a CF, so they're automatically interested and the Tigers want young players, so automatically it's Castro and Vitters without doing any leg work. I swear that some of them steal ideas from NSBB.

[Backtobanks]

From Foxsports:

 

Tigers sending Granderson to Angels? — 11:38 a.m.

Newsday's Ken Davidoff is reporting that the Tigers and Angels have discussed a trade that would send Curtis Granderson to Anaheim.

 

If Granderson is indeed on his way out of Detroit, Orange County might be the best possible destination.

 

Granderson has traditionally played very well at Angel Stadium, with a 1.133 OPS and eight home runs in 21 career games. Granderson has said publicly that he enjoys playing in the ballpark, because of how comfortable it is to hit and play defense there.

 

Also, Granderson would probably welcome the chance to play alongside Torii Hunter. Granderson is not averse to playing left field and has spent some time there in the past.

 

The two developed a mutual admiration while playing in the American League Central — Granderson for the Tigers, Hunter for the Twins.

 

And Hunter has made his feelings about Granderson well known.

 

"When I first met him, I knew he had good qualities, man — good character and everything," Hunter said in a 2007 interview. "We went out to eat years ago, when he first came up. We had a good conversation. You can (learn) a lot about a person by talking to him and listening to his words. And he chooses his words carefully. He's a good, quality guy.

 

"I'm telling you: Lock him up for five, six years if you can. When he gets older, I think he's going to be hitting in the third hole. You can put money on that. As far as hitting, man, it's there. Defense, it's there.

 

"He's a superstar."

 

Of course, the Tigers did lock up Granderson to that long-term contract. But now economic realities have forced them to consider something that seemed inconceivable a short while ago.

 

At this time last year, there was plenty of speculation about whether the Angels would make a push to acquire Magglio Ordonez from Detroit. What was true then remains true now: The Angels have organizational depth at catcher and the middle infield positions, areas of interest to the Tigers for 2010 and beyond; and Reagins has pitching to spare in the upper levels of his farm system.

[Sever82]

Wow, i've been checking some Detroit baseball forums and wow talk about overvaluing Granderson. Saw someone say it would take Vitters, Castro, Cashner, Marmol and Jackson to get Granderson. I mean wow, really? I think some fans overvalue their player a little too much. If the Cubs decided to trade Derek Lee to the Giants, i wouldn't ask the Giants for Posey. And you can argue that DLee has more value than Granderson.

 

On the subject of Granderson, i think it would be a nice pickup if they landed him but if i woke up tomorrow and heard the Yankees got him, i'd be like, ehh ok. With Peavy i was a little dissapointed the cubs didnt get him but with Granderson, it doesn't really matter, they either do or dont. Granderson isn't exactly a superstar.