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┬ábased 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.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s