The Granderson Analysis

I wrote a lengthy piece on the Mets’ interest in Curtis Granderson on November 13. I wrote that a four-year deal was a bad idea based on his top comparables and rising strikeout and whiff rates. That has not changed.

Basically, if you like this deal, you’re arguing one or both of: that Granderson will not age like the hitters he is most similar to, and that 2013 didn’t happen and any results from 2013 should be thrown out because they are tarnished by his hand and shoulder injuries.

Edit: Or perhaps you’re arguing that by the fourth year of Granderson’s contract (2017) the Mets will be in a position to run larger payrolls, and a likely 1.5 win player (max) making $15 million will not interfere with any other roster priorities.

35 comments
cpins
cpins

Two ways this works out and Toby hit on one of them w/his last comment.


If the Mets can break the 80 win barrier and start drawing closer to 3m than 2m in 2015 then the club ought to be generating a significant profit, raising payroll closer to $120m should be possibly without bleeding red ink and a $15m under-peforming deal should be easily absorbed.  And if the Mets aren't drawing at least over 2.5m in 2015 then 2016 will be ugly when Harvey first hits arb.


The other way is if Juan Lagares can develop into a 95-ish wRC+ hitter in 2015 while Cesar Puello posts 2 WAR in his first full season with the big club.  This would allow the Mets to trade Granderson (maybe with some cash) midway through his deal.


Given it appears that the Wilpon's no longer have a way to finance annual operating losses - getting to .500 this season and stopping the attendance hemorrhage may be absolutely essential to the future.  If that's true then a bad long-term deal or two this season that allows the club to hit the .500 mark may be the only way to have a shot at increased payroll in the future that will be necessary to acquire outside talent when Harvey is back.

supert
supert

Without a "4th year" in all likelyhood Granderson wouldn't be a Mets.

flushed
flushed

In his final year, Granderson will probably come closer to justifying his 2018 paycheck than Young will this year. 15 million will end up being the equivalent of 7.25 by then anyway.

Jeff Robins
Jeff Robins

My question will be whether the contract has a no-trade clause. By 2017, if need be, he could always be shipped to the AL as a designated hitter.

trouble
trouble

I'm sure that most people would rather have had the deal be only three years. But this was a deal that HAD to be done. It reminds me a lot of the Pedro deal. We needed to overpay a little to re-legitimize the franchise and make it an attractive place for other players to sign.

Marcus Jensen
Marcus Jensen

I was against the signing initially. But the Zips projections favor him being about a 1.5-2.0 WAR player each year of the contract. At 15 million a season it's not that much of an overpay.

onetruerob
onetruerob

I would say my argument is two-fold, one is that I think he's capable of a rebound to about his career average, which is an impressive .261/.340/.488 and that even if he is a 1-1.5 WAR player in the end of his career the Mets won't be in a bad spot even if their payroll isn't one of the top in baseball as we're seeing a massive shift in the value of a win due to the influx of new money in baseball. At the current valuation of a win, if Granderson were a 1.5 win player, it would still only be about a 5 mil overpay.


Also worth noting is that Granderson will be younger at the end of this deal than Ellsbury will be at the end of his.

dave42
dave42

This is a team that will strike out a ton.  Lagares, Young, Granderson, OK, they'll cover a lot of ground in the field.  But they will bring a whole new meaning to the term Generation K. 

gloveman
gloveman

if there is only one year where he is overpaid, then I'll be one happy camper! I think on this one you need to credit ownership with getting it done. It just needed to happen!

Chris
Chris

I agree with the EDIT. Although I'd replace "will" with "had better be".

lakes
lakes

I really didn't want to guarantee him four years, but with Choo poised to sign for (at least) double what Granderson got, and the next best option the vastly overrated Nelson Cruz, the Mets absolutely needed to make this happen, and if four years was the sticking point, so be it. I can't hate the deal.

So far as other needs go, I'm very lukewarm on Drew. Before the Mets enter the market for him, they need to go get at least one solid, reliable starter. I thought Dan Haren would have been perfect for what they need, 30 starts, ~180 average or better innings at a reasonably priced one year contract. I don't think they get Arroyo, they won't be in on Garza, Santana, or Jiminez, I see Maholm as a realistic candidate. After that, if there's any money left, then they can get Drew.

yankeehater
yankeehater

I am neither upset, nor thrilled by the deal. The team is better than it was yesterday....which isn't saying much I know. Hopefully they get 2 decent years out of him before the inevitable takes place.

Daniel
Daniel

I think grandy will be a good deal for the first 2-3 years. Should provide + defense, power, and speed for us. I'm excited.


Now we need a SS, and I'm good. Go get Drew. Give up the 3rd rounder.

Mark Kelly
Mark Kelly

Nice of SNY to flip the switch on the comment application mid, biggest story of the week. 


I said previously I'm torn with excitement on this. Grandy is a good move, but in reality this really just replaces the production Byrd gave the mets last year. Defensively this makes the outfield AWESOME... which will help the young pitchers. But Grandy isn't going to out produce what Byrd gave the mets last year. 


More moves need to get done, before i'm Legit excited about 2014... but this at least helps.

pundit18
pundit18

@Marcus Jensen The problem with all of these projection is small sample size. This is why stats have to be supplemented with scouting. I'm comfortable with Granderson being a 2.5 -3.0 WAR player his first 2 years.

onetruerob
onetruerob

@Marcus Jensen Take the over on his Zips too, it only knows that he was hurt last year, not that it was a broken arm (which is usually considered a freak occurrence, not a sign of a player breaking down)

natew
natew

"Also worth noting is that Granderson will be younger at the end of this deal than Ellsbury will be at the end of his." 


Actually that is NOT worth noting as the only reason its true is because Ellsbury's birthday is in Sept and Granderson's is in March.  Both players will have their age 36 season in the last year of their deals.  The reason the Ellsbury deal could be better is that 5 of the 7 years he will be under 35, while with Granderson its only 2 of 4 years. 

metman9
metman9

@lakes I am happy to see the Mets get Granderson from a pure baseball standpoint both on the field and off.  Grandy will finally add protection for Wright, the guy can hammer.  Those long fly balls I think will start turning into doubles and triples at Citi Field, and he is not a product of Yankee Stadium, 48% of HRs were on the road.  Yes, his swing and approach changed to fit Yankee Stadium which made him susceptible to the offspeed and pitches away.  Hoping his approach will again adapt to Citi, he will also provide some much needed leadersip for the young players.

Personally I would rather see the Mets NOT invest money in the starting rotation, most of the guys we are all seeing being talked about wont take a 1 year deal and anything more than one year is a pure waste unless Neise or Gee become expendable at the All Star break trade deadline.  I can see the Mets focusing on low risk high reward stop gaps as they already have Neise, Wheeler, Gee, Mejia and guys like Montero and Syndergaard have already been mentioned by the Mets as being guys they expect to see this summer in Queens.  I would anticipate  spring training invite for the final spot until those guys are reading in June/July.  
Would not mind seeing Davis and/or Murph moved to Tampa for Escobar (they are looking for a 2b), or even packaged for upper level position player prospects to free up money to make a run at Drew.  Jed Lowrie is a possibility but Alderson may not want to part with the pieces, though I would move Montero for Lowrie. 

Mark Kelly
Mark Kelly

I highly doubt it's the 3rd rounder that would stop them... More the money and commitment required for a non-elite level SS. 


Not that i don't like Drew, but considering what Peralta got, he could cost near what Grandy just got.. 4 years 48 mil maybe... not sure, but that will be the hold-up... not a 3rd round pick.

Former MetBlogger
Former MetBlogger

@Mark Kelly

No doubt - I blame Granderson 100%.  :)


My comment was wiped out completely, but I share your sentiments.  If they increase payroll back above 120 million, it's not as big of a deal.  If they don't, they need to look to move him once he bounces back.  Either way, the FA OF market is bleak next year, so the Mets should really look into moving Granderson if they can…an AL team might give up a couple of decent pieces for him.


btw - I'm in double stealth mode now, my avatar now buried beyond a fake Twitter account.  I'm slipping deeper and deeper into the internet.  Someday, I shall just be THX 1138….

Mark Kelly
Mark Kelly

What small sample size with Granderson? He's got a whole lot historical data he isn't a rookie.

natew
natew

* 4 of 7, rather

natew
natew

J.P. Ricciardi told me at last month's GM Meetings that the Mets would be willing to make that move for the "right" player, but that signing two free agents tied to draft pick compensation was unlikely.

from MLBtraderumors

Daniel
Daniel

@Mark Kelly Drew is a 3-4 WAR SS. Don't be fooled by 2012 where he missed 11 months. He's only 31 in 2014 and will only cost around 4/48 IMO

Derpy
Derpy

Meh, it's not a big deal anyhow. Most the people who hate livefyre were annoying trolls.

Mark Kelly
Mark Kelly

It's ok... Dealing in a similar world i know these things tend to happen... Just compltely funny i just posted... And came back and it's gone and a new system is in place.


I figured there would be a heads up from some of the bloggers, had it have been a planned flip over. 

Other than no EDIT feature, it's a much better system. 

Former MetBlogger
Former MetBlogger

@Mark Kelly

In terms of the 120 million dollar comment, I was just speaking about my dislike of the 3rd and 4th years…no edit button in live-fire, life-wire, whatever...

natew
natew

I wonder if it would change if one of those guys market falls apart and the price comes down.  But yea, lots of factors... most of them green and rectangular...

Mark Kelly
Mark Kelly

I think it's more unlikely because of 10 reasons other reasons before it is "Losing of a 3rd round pick"


Mark Kelly
Mark Kelly

Exactly, i don't think losing the 2nd round pick really came into the picture.

Mark Kelly
Mark Kelly

I don't disagree, and it's not that i don't like him... I just said i doubt it would be the 3rd round pick that stops the mets from signing him... It will be the monetary

Former MetBlogger
Former MetBlogger

@Mark Kelly The comment above wasn't that clear - I posted when I thought I could edit.  Here's the summary.  


1) I like the fact that the Mets are finally adding some MLBers this offseason

2) I don't like the 4th year.  The 3rd year I can live with.  If the payroll has flexibility to go back to normal big market levels, then I don't care about the 4th year as much…all teams need to be able to absorb losses at the end of contracts these days.

3) If payroll isn't increasing, I hope the plan is to shop Granderson once he rebounds this year.  The market for OF's is bleak next year, and Granderson could bring back a couple of nice pieces while taking the risky 3/4 years off the books.

4) Even if payroll isn't ballooning in the near future, I think it would be wise to shop Grandy next offseason if he rebounds, given the market.  

5) Again, happy the Mets are adding actual talent and not "hope-for-the-best" players...