Never Mind the Bays — Mets Take Granderson

If you think wins are worth closer to seven million dollars a year, and that Curtis Granderson is a three-win player next year — reasonable assumptions, given the work of some, and the projections we have on our site — then giving him four years and $60 million is not a problem. It’s almost dead on. The problem comes when you realize that this is almost the exact same deal that the team gave Jason Bay. When he was two years younger. Mets’ fans might feel a chill go down their back right now, as I did when I heard the comparison.

Maybe the comparison won’t hold up to inspection, though.

If you zoom out past last year, things look good for Granderson. Since 2010, he’s 13th in the league in home runs, sixth in the league in isolated slugging percentage, and the 22nd-best outfielder by wRC+. Over that time frame, he put up 13.8 wins. If he did that again, he’d be worth the contract and then some.

Of course, he’s older now. Power peaks fairly early, as does defense, and he’s decidedly post-peak. But the projection systems take that into account, and OLIVER’s five-year projections have him worth over nine wins in the next four years. If you inflate the price of a win 10% every year over those four years, you get close to $60m in value even if you start with a $6m win this season. ZiPS is less optimistic (7.9 WAR over four years), but its owner would take the over based on the fact that the broken forearm came at the plate.

Will Granderson be the same in a new park? Our park factors have Yankee stadium inflating homers by lefties 14% (second-most in the league) while Citi plays just one percent above average. Granderson’s away isolated slugging percentages over the last four years are still comfortably above .200, though, and only one year in New York saw him put up a huge home/away split in terms of power. Most players play better at home, and he gets to keep his home city!

At 33, though, Granderson is also two years older than Bay when he signed his contract. And Bay, over the four years going into that signing, had been 14th in the league in home runs, 29th in isolated slugging, and had been the 15th-best outfielder by wRC+. There’s that chill again. Why should Mets fans believe that Granderson will age better than Bay? Especially since he’s coming off a much worse season than Bay was coming off of back in 2009.

The non-hitting part of the package, with Granderson, is better than the one Bay offered. As a plus on the basepaths and in the field, Granderson has ways to offer value even as his power wanes, ways that Bay could not. Jason Bay hadn’t played center field in five years when he inked with the Mets. Granderson won’t play center with Juan Lagares around, but he played center last year. Projections that have him a minus on defense are probably projecting him as a center fielder. As a scratch center fielder, he should be a positive in the corner outfield. And Granderson has been a positive on the basepaths every year since he became a regular — Bay was closer to scratch and never showed the same peak speed as Granderson.

It seems that speedy players age better than those without speed, and that’s probably because their athleticism helps them be a plus on the basepaths and in the field even as their bat wanes. And that’s how we can take this past a comparison between two players. Because it’s 2013, and in 2013 $60 million dollars is worth less than it was back then Bay signed, and wins cost more money on the open market.

You might take a look at Granderson’s strikeout rate, and the fact that he’s been swinging more at pitches outside the zone, and want to run the other way. Toby Hyde did. But that’s just the natural process of aging, and last year was the first time Granderson swung at more pitches outside the zone than the league. And none of the comps in Hyde’s piece played center field, even at a scratch level, going into the seasons he’s covered.

Curtis Granderson is an athletic former center fielder that has been mostly healthy other than a couple bad hit-by-pitches that cost him much of last year. He fills a desperate need for the Mets, who don’t have great short- or long-term options at his position. Given his tools, he should age fairly gracefully. This deal isn’t a glaring overpay (beyond the fact that free agency is a tough place to get value), it won’t handcuff the team, and he’s projected to be an above-average player for two or three years. Why don’t people like it more?



Print This Post



Graphs: Baseball, Roto, Beer, brats (OK, no graphs for that...yet), repeat. Follow him on Twitter @enosarris.


Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
LaLoosh
Guest
2 years 9 months ago

“Why don’t people like it more?”

Do you really have to ask that? 200 Ks/season and moving to a park that doesn’t have a friendly porch… oh and tying up 15M per for ages 33 -36 seasons for a team with big financial limitations… no reasons at all.

Wawa
Guest
Wawa
2 years 9 months ago

Granderson never struck out 200 times or more in any given season. But yes he does strike out a lot in general.

ReuschelCakes
Guest
ReuschelCakes
2 years 9 months ago

Splitting hairs, are we? 195 in 2012 smells close enough to 200 for me. And his K rate in 2013 was 28.2% versus 28.5% in 2012 so very similar.

Tim Sikorski
Guest
Tim Sikorski
2 years 9 months ago

1. Granderson has never struck out 200x in a season. His high was 194 in 2012 and previous high was 174 in ’06. Followed by seasons of 169, 141 twice, 116, and 111; hardly anything to be concerned about, particularly for a guy with his power/obp. Saying he strikes out 200x a year is quite an exaggeration.
2. Granderson hit 46% of his homeruns on the road as a Yankee. His power is not a product of the short porch in left. He also hit 30 HR’s while playing in Detroit, which is not a hitter’s haven.

JayT
Guest
JayT
2 years 9 months ago

His Oliver projections have his defense staying the exact same over the next five years while his wRC+ goes from 109 to 89. It seems optimistic to assume his defense won’t change, and if it does, it would bring down the war total fairly significantly, no?

I’ve noticed this defense issue with every player I’ve looked at the Oliver projections. Are you guys just not projecting defense?

nico
Guest
nico
2 years 9 months ago

Is there marked disapproval of the deal already? Most of the sentiment I’ve seen has been of the “fourth year’s a killer, but good contract otherwise” variety.

The Bay comparison is interesting and one I hadn’t really thought of – his downfall baffles me to this day, and (although this does, admittedly, sound like a bit of a cop-out) it really feels like an aberration that can’t fairly be used a template for comparison with similar players. You say yourself that Granderson’s 2013 was at least somewhat influenced by his attempts to recover from his broken hand, so the fact that his last season before coming to the Mets was “much worse” than Bay’s doesn’t seem entirely significant.

In any case, the summary paragraph at the end is really nice and basically echoes my own thoughts on the contract. Mets aren’t there yet, but this is a nice move and a step in the right direction.

RC
Guest
RC
2 years 9 months ago

Why is Bay’s decline an aberration? He’s exactly the sort of player that ages poorly.

Poor/slow baserunner
Bad fielder
Low batting average/poor contact hitter
Value based on power and walks.
History of lower body injuries.

He’s a friggen template for old player skills.

vivalajeter
Guest
vivalajeter
2 years 9 months ago

Well, he’s not really a Poor/slow baserunner. You make it seem like he’s built like Thome or Giambi. And he was about a .280 hitter before coming to the Mets. I haven’t followed him much, but if he had a lot of lower body injuries, then he played through them, because he didn’t miss much time with Pit/Bos.

But that aside, of course his decline is an aberration. Even if he’s the type of person that declines faster than the average player, you shouldn’t expect any individual player to decline as much as he did. Just look as his wRC+ over the course of his career. Other than one season (2007), he was consistently in the 130-150 range. With the Mets, he was at 106, 98, 49. That’s not a normal decline for anybody.

James Andrews, M.D.
Guest
James Andrews, M.D.
2 years 9 months ago

Come on mang.
He went from 7th in AL MVP voting in 2009 to 88th out of 93 outfielders with 1000 PA between 2010-2012 in terms of WAR.
It was an unusually dramatic decline.

BJsworld
Guest
BJsworld
2 years 9 months ago

Before signing with the Mets he was above league average in baserunning and slightly below league average in defense. He was a consistent 260 hitter who in the 5 previous seasons never played less than 145 games. Let me revise your summary:

League average baserunner
Slightly below average defender
Average contact hitter
Lots of value for power and walks
Consistently played in 90% of his games

Zen Madman
Guest
2 years 9 months ago

Bay’s decline is an aberration because it’s like 3 standard deviations from the mean. He was a likely candidate for decline, but not for 2 concussions, loss of eye-sight, etc. He’s an outlier.

The Bay deal can still be bad at its conception without being as terrible as the actual result (an outlier).

Jack Carter
Guest
Jack Carter
2 years 5 months ago

” it really feels like an aberration that can’t fairly be used a template for comparison with similar players.”

Players with Bay’s profile fall apart between 31 and 35 all the time. It’s the norm. What’s unusual is that its been the norm since baseball began and people are still puzzled by it and find it unusual.

“Mets aren’t there yet, but this is a nice move and a step in the right direction.”

It’s a shit move, entirely in the wrong direction. If the Mets are going to contend, they’re vastly more likely to contend in the last two years of Granderson’s deal, precisely the years you’d rather not have bought.

Terrible deal, in every sense.

John
Guest
John
2 years 9 months ago

Its not an overpay in price. Its an overpay in years. And Sandy bidding against himself.

tommaso metolini
Guest
tommaso metolini
2 years 9 months ago

Whiffs are a huge concern. He K’s a huge amount. And K’s usually worsen with age (and no steroids). So keep those fingers crossed.

Dayton Moore
Guest
Dayton Moore
2 years 9 months ago

LMAO!

LaLoosh
Guest
2 years 9 months ago

LOL

triple_r
Member
2 years 9 months ago

With regards to the bit about Granderson’s defensive projections being for center field: Do projections chane when a free agent gets signed by a new team? I was thinking about this earlier this week when Hughes went to Minnesota, but it’s also applicable here.

gnomez
Guest
gnomez
2 years 9 months ago

I would think Granderson would be in RF.

Spike
Guest
Spike
2 years 9 months ago

Chris Young will prob be in RF and Grandy in LF.

Mr Punch
Guest
Mr Punch
2 years 9 months ago

I suspect the negative reaction from Mets fans has a lot to do with Granderson being seen as a a Yankees reject.

P.S. – I had the misfortune to watch Bay play LF in Fenway Park, where speed isn’t much of a factor; he was awful. Really awful. Granderson is vastly more skilled in the field.

LaLoosh
Guest
2 years 9 months ago

has nothing to do with Grandy having been a Yankee.

Jack Str
Guest
Jack Str
2 years 9 months ago

Agreed–it’s a shite signing because it’s all wrong for a team that only has a chance to contend when its now second highest paid player will be returning a fairly small percent of what he’s being paid.

AC of DC
Guest
AC of DC
2 years 9 months ago

If pressed to guess, I’d suggest that people are looking at Granderson’s four Yankee seasons’ changes in K rate (+6%), contact (-10.3%), swinging strike (+5.3%), etc. and are fearful they’re looking at a guy who’s ahead of where he should be on the aging curve. I know there were stretches where it certainly seemed he’d already dropped off a cliff, but of course such impressions can be deceptive.

Mets fans have likely also become accustomed to bad singings and misspent money and so may adopt a negative eye as a defensive reaction. Ideally, even without the short fence, he’ll still be productive at the plate, and as the author notes, he’ll be an able corner OF. Granderson’s always seemed like a swell guy, and I wish him well in the change of boroughs

LaLoosh
Guest
2 years 9 months ago

Jason Bay was a swell guy too.

Mets Fan in Anger Management Says
Guest
Mets Fan in Anger Management Says
2 years 9 months ago

interesting perspective Eno.

I had a dream Alderson and I were talking about a potential Granderson acquisition:

And I was like, you know, “Don’t go there”, you know.

But he kept on about wanting to see some kind of a doctor’s note or something about the 2013 hand injuries and I said “Look, I’m seriously serious, you DON’T want to go there.”

But he kept talking and talking and being such a nag and then…I just…blacked out, I blacked out, and when I woke up I was standing over him and I was screaming:

“I TOLD YOU NOT TO GO THERE, I TOLD YOU NOT TO GO THERE!”

Unfortunately this dream is likely to repeat many times over the next four years especially the line above in all caps.

Signed,

Mets Fan Disappointed That When We Start Spending Again (Finally!) We Revert to Circa Winter 1991-1992 Eddie Murray / Willie Randolph-Type Acquisitions of Players That Have Seen Better Days and By The Time We Have a Formidable Team This Dude Will Be Hamstringing Our Payroll Because Bulk of Money Likely to Be Deferred A La The Lovely Bobby Bonilla Contract (AKA The Gift That Keeps on Giving)

Cliff
Guest
Cliff
2 years 9 months ago

Granderson is a scratch defensive center-fielder? Wasn’t he one of the worst center fielders in the game by UZR? I think he would be a scratch corner outfielder.

NS
Guest
NS
2 years 9 months ago

If you take a significant sample (~4 years), he’s average by DRS and UZR standards. If you only look at the last 2 or you weight significantly for recency, he’s worse.

RC
Guest
RC
2 years 9 months ago

No, hes not.
AVG LAST2: -12/150
AVG LAST3: -5/150
AVG LAST4: -4/150.
AVG LAST5: -7/150

Essentially, he had a +9/150 year in 2010, and has ranged from bad to terrible otherwise from 2008 on. He’s not even close to an average CF, and hasn’t been for a long time.

RC
Guest
RC
2 years 9 months ago

Choo played Center this year. He was -17/150 this year, and hasn’t been a good outfielder for years. He was -15/150 in RF last year, and roughly average in RF the year before.

Granderson was -18/150.

Don’t assume that because a team does something that there’s a good reason for it. The yankees kept Jeter at short despite the fact that ARod was a much better defender at the time. They put Granderson in center despite the fact that Gardner was a much better defender.

They’re clearly an organization that doesn’t think much about defensive metrics when it comes to guys who can hit, or guys who are “important”.

Jason Bay was a scratch LF for the Red Sox, and about -5/150 for the Mets. Frankly, I’d be surprised if Granderson is significantly better than that. 0/150 is about the best I’d hope for.

NS
Guest
NS
2 years 9 months ago

DRS

AVG LAST 2: -8
AVG LAST 3: -1 (what I said)
AVG LAST 4: +2 (what I said)

DRS and UZR combined

AVG LAST 2: -10
AVG LAST 3: -3
AVG LAST 4: 0 (what I said)

You can pick and choose which metrics and which years count if you wish, but be honest about what you’re doing.

By the raw data, he is exactly what I said: average in a significant sample, a bit worse if you weight the data in that sample for recency.

RC
Guest
RC
2 years 9 months ago

Only average by DRS. Terrible by UZR. Its your choice, but its a little dishonest to show UZR, and DRS+UZR, and then just ignore UZR.

NS
Guest
NS
2 years 9 months ago

“It’s a little dishonest to show DRS+UZR and then ignore UZR”.

That’s rich. From the beginning, my statements have been based on UZR. Just not UZR only.

JAMill
Guest
JAMill
2 years 9 months ago

As a Mets fan I have mixed to positive feelings. The number and years certainly jump out at you, but that’s the price of FA nowadays. I like the power potential and Grandy’s overall game.

I think a lot of fans might feel better after the winter meetings if SA swings a deal, but this is a good start to the off season for the Mets.

Howard Eskin
Guest
Howard Eskin
2 years 9 months ago

Cole Hamels and Cliff Lee K/9 rates just went up a bit.

chuckb
Guest
chuckb
2 years 9 months ago

Only until the Mets decide that Granderson has to be platooned, which won’t be long.

RC
Guest
RC
2 years 9 months ago

“As a scratch center fielder”

Granderson had a -18 UZR/150 the last season he actually played (2012), and was -8/150 the year before. He’s not even close to a scratch CF. He’s a bad one.

His career comes out to basically average because he was really good when he was young. He’s probably not as bad playing LF, but hes probably still below average.

jpg
Guest
jpg
2 years 9 months ago

I don’t have the time to research and post the link but I distinctly remember seeing articles that stated Granderson’s UZR was skewed negatively by the Gardner’s range in left. In essense, Granderson was getting docked because Gardner was making plays in center field zones.

Ruki Motomiya
Guest
Ruki Motomiya
2 years 9 months ago

My primary confusion is…aren’t the Mets not competing for a while?

Zen Madman
Guest
2 years 9 months ago

There’s no reason they shouldn’t compete in 2015. They potentially have a sick, sick rotation. This move is questionable for 2016 and 2017, though.

Ruki Motomiya
Guest
Ruki Motomiya
2 years 9 months ago

Hm. Wasn’t aware of that. Makes more sense in that case.

dovif
Guest
dovif
2 years 9 months ago

Harvey, Wheeler, Syndergaard, Niese and Gee would make a good SP, If they can surround Wright Granderson, Murphy with some other good hitters and the likes of Dudas/Davis, develope they are going to be a really good team in a few years

Brian
Guest
Brian
2 years 9 months ago

A really good kid. A very good player. Not a superstar.

Sheaitain'tSo
Guest
Sheaitain'tSo
2 years 9 months ago

This is a damned if they do, damned if they don’t signing. If the Mets did not sign Granderson (or anyone of consequence – which they weren’t going to sign anybody else with “name value”), there would be riots outside of CitiField for failure to act or improve the team.

They sign Granderson for what the market determines 4/60 and people still complain.

The fourth year hurts, but was necessary to get the deal done. I’d rather have Granderson for 4/60 than Ellsbury 7/153 or whatever outrageous contract Choo gets for a player with terrible platoon problems.

Then again, I would rather have stayed the course and gone with another low-risk, high-reward signing in the other corner, but that was not an option. The fanbase forced this signing and they will have to live with the fourth year of Granderson.

nrmax88
Guest
nrmax88
2 years 9 months ago

who cares what the stupid fans think? They’re going to be more pissed when they realize how little Granderson is making an impact. The fans are stupid. They’re like little children. They have no clue what’s good for them. What they think is irrelevant, nobody is coming through those doors to watch Curtis Granderson play.

Sheaitain'tSo
Guest
Sheaitain'tSo
2 years 9 months ago

I agree with you one hundred and ten percent, but that’s unfortunately the New York market and that is what the Mets have to deal with.

silv3rbullet13
Member
silv3rbullet13
2 years 9 months ago

The fanbase and the radio media in NY are juggernauts and helped fuel this signing. Staying the course would have been a much better option, especially when the mets are set to compete in the 3rd and 4th years of this deal.

RC
Guest
RC
2 years 9 months ago

Fans care about winning.

Most of the Red Sox fans panned the Victorino/Gomes/Napoli signings. A good year later, they’re local heros.

Fans loved Josh Beckett. A bad year later, and hes a local villain.

“Big Name” signings don’t do shit unless they help you win.

nrmax88
Guest
nrmax88
2 years 9 months ago

you nailed it with the last paragraph. What you suggest absolutely was an option. I am, for the first time, really disappointed in Sandy.

Jack Str
Guest
Jack Str
2 years 9 months ago

Silly thing to assert. They could have used the 15m AAV for CG and simply spent it on a productive FA or two for the 2014-15 seasons instead of committing payfoll to a declining player for 2016 and 2017.

sturock
Guest
sturock
2 years 9 months ago

>>This deal isn’t a glaring overpay (beyond the fact that free agency is a tough place to get value), it won’t handcuff the team, and he’s projected to be an above-average player for two or three years. Why don’t people like it more?<<

People don't like it because it's the Mets, pure and simple. The Mets have been the media's punching bag for a long time, we Met fans are shell-shocked from several years of bad teams, and no one takes the club seriously. As Eno points out, $15 million is no longer an overpay. Plus, Granderson is an improvement on Andrew Brown or Eric Young, Jr., is he not? He will make the team better, obviously not all by himself, but he's better than what they're putting out there. Now, if only they could find the first-base version of Granderson, so they won't have to depend on the likes of Lucas Duda or Ike Davis…

I'm happy with this move. And Alderson can still shop the bargain bins for the next Marlon Byrd if he so desires.

Tristram Shandy
Guest
Tristram Shandy
2 years 9 months ago

Regarding the first-base situation, why are the Mets not talking about Loney there?

odbsol
Guest
odbsol
2 years 9 months ago

Because they already have Davis & Duda and would have to move them to create roster space?

chiefs
Guest
chiefs
2 years 9 months ago

Duda/Satan platoon + money saved > Loney

Tristram Shandy
Guest
Tristram Shandy
2 years 9 months ago

>>Duda/Satan platoon + money saved > Loney<<

"Now playing first base for the Mets: Lucifer!"

Dan the Mets Fan
Guest
Dan the Mets Fan
2 years 9 months ago

It’s an OK move. Given we have very little risk tied up in the pay roll, it’s reasonable. I think most fans here hate it and most Mets fan around will hate it primarily because we all still have unrealistic hopes and expectations about what a team can actually acquire via free agency. The answer, sadly, is not too much. I personally was hoping for Ellsbury, but at a max cost of $120 million. That was not realistic, unfortunately. I was hoping for Peralata at a max cost of $36 million, which was also unrealistic. I would like Choo at a max cost of about $100 million. I’m guessing that too will end up being unrealistic. That leaves moves like this one and Chris Young. It’s not great, but not too bad either. If not for the WIlpons ludicrous payroll restrictions you could couple this with signing Stephen Drew and make it a solid offseason.

bjoak
Member
bjoak
2 years 9 months ago

The Jason Bay comparison borders on logical fallacy. It was the same team and the same deal (not adjusted for inflation). These two irrelevant facts do not make for comparable players. Skill sets, injury history, and aging patterns of similar players would have been much better.

gbaked
Member
2 years 9 months ago

bay is a top similarity score for granderson.

FeslenR
Guest
FeslenR
2 years 9 months ago

doesn’t mean Granderson will end up like Bay, fellow
Mets fan…but….with our team’s luck…

Josh
Guest
Josh
2 years 9 months ago

Anyone running down this signing is a freaking MORON. If Granderson can play a scratch RF, he projects to be no worse than Choo. In this market this is a great signing. Idiots don’t know what they are talking about.

senor_mike
Guest
senor_mike
2 years 9 months ago

A Mets fan here trying to look at this objectively (not necessarily an easy thing to do).

Oliver fWAR projections for Granderson over the next 4 years are as follows:
2014: 3.0
2015: 2.6 (2.86 inflation rate)
2016: 2.1 (2.54)
2017: 1.5 (2.0)
9.2, or the equivalent of $64.4m right now
If you believe in the 10% inflation rate value of a win per season, then that number looks more like $72.8m

Now I don’t necessarily believe he will age as gracefully as Oliver does, but Oliver is also a lot smarter than me so who am I to complain. Besides, it isn’t like those projections are so far fetched considering exactly how he was injured last year and his 11/12 output.

Either way, 4/$60m looks to be right at – if not a little bit lower than – market value

Next, I tend to think that Granderson will be patrolling LF next season. Looking at Mets LFs last year, they supplied an fWAR of 1.3 total (1.7 from EYJ). Theoretically Granderson would deliver an expected 1.7 win improvement just next season, which would absolutely be a tangible improvement.

More difficult to qualify is the question of “what does his place in the lineup mean for everyone else?” I don’t know the answer to where he’ll hit, but I am comfortable saying that he is reliable 2nd power source in a lineup sorely in need of one, and that should help somebody see more fastballs than before.

And finally, while I don’t think the 2014 Mets will be playoff caliber team, I also feel like they aren’t as far off as many others do. I believe they are legitimately competitive in 2015, and also believe that it would have been impossible for them to fill in all of their holes in one off-season going into 2015.

I guess I like the move.

stan
Guest
stan
2 years 9 months ago

I have a question about the constant inflation in WAR/ $. Back when that projection system started it was based on the amount of money paid for WAR in that year. Since then fangraphs has methodically increased it 500K or more per year based on nothing in particular as far as I can tell. That amounts to an inflation rate of 10% or more for each year. Salaries across the board have not increased 10% per year over the last five year nor have salaries for free agents. The rate of $5M/ WAR which was used just last year at this time was already absurd and now we’re talking about $6M?
That’s especially crazy when you consider that WAR is based in such a large part on playing time. Any player who is signed as a free agent is going to receive a lot of playing time if he’s healthy in order to justify the team’s investment. That means that virtually every free agent deal fangraphs analyzes these days is going to appear to be favorable for the team as a rule.

quincy0191
Guest
quincy0191
2 years 9 months ago

The simple argument is that Granderson’s kind of a one-dimensional player and his power won’t translate to Citi Field. That’s not entirely fair, as he does play good defense, run well, and get on base, but it’s clear the 40+ HRs are his calling card, and if that goes to 20-25 a year it’s easy to see this being an overpay.

More than that, Granderson doesn’t really fit with the Mets timeline. He’ll help replace Harvey in 2014, but won’t do it on his own, and there’s very little chance New York does anything next season barring significant improvement from several players. That’s likely true in 2015 as well. By the time the Mets have their prospects up and humming, Granderson’s going to be 35 and well into his decline phase. If they signed this deal next year, with Harvey coming back, Wheeler, d’Arnaud, and Syndergaard settled in, and Nimmo and Puello knocking on the door, I could understand it. But Granderson’s going to have to age well to help the Mets win meaningful games.

jpg
Guest
jpg
2 years 9 months ago

He has consistently provided value on the base paths and he could be an asset defensively. At the plate he hits for power and takes walks. He’s far from one dimensional.

steve-o
Guest
steve-o
2 years 9 months ago

Apparently ” scratch” is the new “impactful”.

Bip
Member
Member
Bip
2 years 9 months ago

Didn’t Granderson get a qualifying offer? If the Mets are losing a pick for this, that is a reason to start to dislike what is otherwise a borderline deal.

Pat g
Guest
Pat g
2 years 9 months ago

Anyone who dislikes this deal is moron plain and simple

FeslenR
Guest
FeslenR
2 years 9 months ago

really? Wow, your logic is logical.

by the time this deal ends, he will be 37. MOST players decline around 35 years. Is it a horrid deal, no.

Is it a good one? Not really also.

Brooks
Guest
Brooks
2 years 9 months ago

well, no he’ll be 36.

Beno Harris
Guest
Beno Harris
2 years 9 months ago

Great move. Look away from the stat sheet for a second. Brings a nice skill set of power, speed, defense on top that with some outstanding intangibles. Top notch move. Slides right in as the Mets cleanup hitter to finally give Wright the protection he quite frankly hasn’t seen since Beltran left. This isn’t the 1995 Indians he’s being added too, it’s 2014 Mets and they sure as hell need him.

BranchRickey11937
Guest
BranchRickey11937
2 years 9 months ago

It was an interesting post and for the most part an interesting comments discussion. After considering them all I’d say the arguments are in favor. After all, the Mets are a major league franchise and they have to put major league players on the field. Complaining that big league players are too expensive nowadays doesn’t cut it. I’d rather see them give the four years to Granderson than to have gone with an even more expensive and longer-term option.

TexasGusCC
Guest
TexasGusCC
2 years 9 months ago

Forget only looking at numbers, let’s compare Bay to Granderson:

Bay: At time of signing, the Mets put out a huge PR fiasco as to how Bay’s pulling homeruns reflects better to Citifield than Matt Holliday, who was also a free agent represented by Scott Boras. The only fact was Holliday wanted more money, that was the real deciding point. Bay plodded around in left field and was not a good runner nor was he a good fielder. Bay seemed to have glazed eyes and probably was overwhelmed by the pressure of having 50 beat reporters bringing up the same failures every night. Bay swung hard for the fences all the time. Bay was a nice guy, but didn’t fit on the Mets.

Granderson: Plays an acceptable centerfield, no matter what the metrics say because we see his games too when the Mets aren’t playing, or getting killed. Granderson has always had good wheels and is an intelligent, New York tested player that SHOULD be able to change his game to fit Citifield and use his power for more extra base hits even if he hits only around 25-28 homeruns. 35+ doubles and 7+ triples are fine numbers. Granderson, hopefully, will be able to alter his approach to his new home park. What doesn’t get any attention is that he is also a very nice guy that can give leadership to a team that sorely lacks it and has alot of young players that need it. Isn’t that worth an extra million or two?

vivalajeter
Guest
vivalajeter
2 years 9 months ago

I think it’s a good enough deal, simply because it was the best option they had. I’m going to assume that banking the money and going with a lower payroll, that wasn’t a realistic option. So the money would be spent either way.

With that in mind, this is a significantly better use of money than going for someone like Nelson Cruz. I don’t know what he’ll ultimately sign for, but I have no doubt that it’ll be a vast overpay.

Ellsbury wasn’t an option, and I think Choo would be a little out of their price range, so Granderson’s the best player to target. They did what it took to get it done, but they clearly had to do something. You can’t go forward with Chris Young, Juan Lagares, and an unknown.

3 years would’ve been easier on the team, and $12-14MM/year would’ve been easier, but if the only way to sign him was to give him the contract he got, then I don’t think it’s far out of line.

The Real SN
Guest
The Real SN
2 years 9 months ago

Granderson’s contract likely will end up not that much worse than the Ellsbury contract. Yanks will likely be gagging on the last 2.5-3 years of Ellsbury’s contract while Granderson probably will be worthless for the last 1.5 years of his, plus while Yanks are stuck with Ellsbury’s age 35-36-37 years Mets will be free to get (in theory anyway) a guy who in that timeframe will be in his 32-33-34 years.

LaLoosh
Guest
LaLoosh
2 years 9 months ago

Why should the Granderson deal be judged in terms of the Ellsbury deal? That’s kinda ridiculous. The whole point is that this deal represents a big risk *for the Mets.* Not that this is definitely a bad deal but it has a fair amount of risk given that CG is entering his mid 30s and if the Mets aren’t willing and able to work around this deal if it goes bad then they shouldn’t try to play in this end of the sandbox. We’ve seen the Mets previously not be willing to move on from bad deals so this concern is very real.

Brooks
Guest
Brooks
2 years 9 months ago

again, as I stated below, the only reason why those other contracts hamstrung the Mets is because there were several of them and because they had no payroll flexibility to improve the team further. They don’t have that problem this time. You would hope that by the time the second half of this deal rolls around, the financial state has improved and there is enough flexibility for it to not hurt. And who knows, maybe Grandy is still producing.

Brooks
Guest
Brooks
2 years 9 months ago

This contract only hurts if you have zero payroll flexibility. And we all know Sandy’s thoughts on payroll flexibility. If a 15 million dollar salary is hurting us in 2017 then we have bigger problems. The Giants have been paying Barry Zito 18-20 million for the last seven years. They’ve done just fine. I have no problem with this contract.

Jack Str
Guest
Jack Str
2 years 9 months ago

“…and he’s projected to be an above-average player for two or three years. Why don’t people like it more?”

Because, given the bulk of the value CG gives the Mets will manifest in the next couple of years, he’s going to be largely worthless just when the Mets miiiight have some chance to contend.

The Chris Young and Colon signings actually fit the needs of these Mets. One and two year deals that keep attendance from going into freefall while the youngsters develop are just what the Mets should be doing, especially if those short deals also do not include no trade clauses.

For a team with a decent chance of contending in 2014-2015 looking to add 3 wins, CG is a solid signing. The Mets are the opposite of that team. Terrible, terrible move, and obviously so.

wpDiscuz