Grand Cards: Today's Lynn Henning is an Idiot Moment

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Today's Lynn Henning is an Idiot Moment

So, this is funny. Yesterday I wrote a post called "Today's Lynn Henning is an Idiot Moment" based on a post he wrote on his blog. In it, the following gem was buried:

But for now, as Tigers fans lament Willis' troubles and Cabrera's all-too-frequent drinking incidents, the Marlins camp would love to have that trade back.


And I started to rant about how "all-too-frequent" isn't usually used to mean "two," and is a disingenuous way to insinuate that the Tigers needed to drag Cabrera off of bar stools just to get to the stadium on time. Ultimately, I deleted the post because I thought that it constituted unnecessary ranting and I just wasn't in the mood for negativity.

Then Today Happened.

We are treated to an article entitled "How the Tigers can stay in Contention" by a credible former baseball executive that understands the ins and outs of roster and payroll management. Oh wait, no. It's by Lynn Henning. Now, I will say that this is exactly the type of article that sports columnists are supposed to write, and I have no problem with that whatsoever. However, it should come as no surprise that the article touches on a familiar topic.

They will trade Curtis Granderson for two players. I cannot shake a personal belief that dealing Granderson is their only way out of heading into 2010 with zero chance to win the division. This is said with the understanding that losing your center fielder and leadoff man is not an ideal way to get better.

But I believe the Tigers will get a bullpen arm and a position player for Granderson (either a corner outfielder or a shortstop) that, coupled with some creative approaches to center field, will make them a better team in 2010. I'm probably in a group of one who has this conviction, but every time I play GM I come up with no scenario other than inducing another club to deal handsomely for Granderson. And I believe some club will do just that.


OH MY GOD SHUT UP.

I've tried to comment on this via creative license. I've tried to flatly refute it as half-baked and needless speculation. But to no avail. Henning keeps on writing it and then other media picks up on it and before you know it there is a call for a trade. It can happen. But this is getting ridiculous, no?

Henning is the only person who is legitimately calling for this to happen. HE EVEN SAYS SO:
I cannot shake a personal belief that dealing Granderson is their only way out of heading into 2010 with zero chance to win the division... I'm probably in a group of one who has this conviction


You're probably right. A team would pay handsomely for Granderson because he is an above average player with a below average contract who you surmise could be had for a bullpen pitcher and corner outfielder. That would be highway robbery.

I'm sorry, but I just fail to see any scenario in which trading Granderson for those pieces makes the team more competitive in 2010. The Tigers are hamstrung because of a $18 million to Ordonez, $13 to Guillen, $12 to Willis, $12.5 to Bonderman and $10 to Robertson. Heck, even $6.6 to Inge is more damaging than the $5.5 million that they will pay Granderson next year. I'm not saying that next year is a lost cause, but I don't see how trading one of your youngest, most productive and least expensive players helps the team in any way. Give me an actual scenario. Name some names. Sure, it will be wild speculation--but that's all this trade talk is anyway, so why not go for the gusto?

Maybe because no reasonable scenario exists. Until you find one, just stop writing. And please, please, don't make me write any more of these posts. They are getting so tiresome.

4 comments:

  1. Sorry to say as a born and mostly raised southeastern-Michiganer and lifelong Tigers fan I agree with him on the trading of Grandy. He is overvalued by fans in their lineup from an offensive perspective, especially as a leadoff hitter. All you have to look at is his OPS and strikeout to walk ratio, not to mention the inability to steal bases consistently. Maybe this one year is an anomaly but I think keeping him will cost the Tigers more than it would benefit them. I'm not saying I'm sold on Raburn either. He was not exactly a model of consistency either, especially on the defensive side. I hope they find room for Wilkin Ramirez in their lineup next year instead of Thames/Guillen/Ordonez as outfielders...

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't advocate that the Tigers trade Granderson especially for what Henning thinks we should take for him.

    That said, he has to learn how to hit lefties. It is too late in his career to be batting .169 or whatever it was this year against lefties. Kirk Gibson struggled early in his career against lefties but eventually figured it out.

    I think Granderson is really "on the clock" on this. (Plus he could shut Henning up)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Pitching, pitching, pitching. It's the first thing my dad taught me about baseball. If we (Tigers fans) can get a pitcher for Granderson, then we should trade him.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Verlander, Jackson, Porcello. Granderson is worth a high-end starting pitcher, which the Tigers don't particularly need, and bullpen pitching is relatively dime-a-dozen. Also, to quote one of my favorite sites "Good pitching is indistinguishable from sufficiently advanced defense". I don't know how the Tigers would far if they had to put a replacement level player in Centerfield, given how difficult it is to play defense there.

    ReplyDelete