Is Edwin Jackson On the Trade Market?
by Ian Casselberry on Nov 10, 2009 11:00 PM EST
in Detroit Tigers Hot Stove
Email
PrintAs a Detroit Tigers fan, you might presume that the team would field offers for virtually any player on the roster. It seems like a smart approach. Why not see what other teams might be willing to give up in return, even if you're not really serious about making a trade?
So when Jon Paul Morosi and Ken Rosenthal report "multiple major league sources" are telling them that the Tigers are putting Edwin Jackson on the trading block, it might seem like business as usual during the offseason.
But what if Detroit is looking to deal Jackson as way of keeping payroll down for next season? The sources who spoke with Morosi and Rosenthal said that was the case.
Perhaps this shouldn't be surprising for a team locked into paying almost $100 million to nine players next season. Yet Jackson also looked to be a cornerstone of next year's pitching staff, which presumably would once again be the strength of the team.
As you might expect, Tigers' GM Dave Dombrowski was vague when asked about the situation:
"We're listening to a lot of different things," he said. "People are talking to us about different stuff. I think we're open-minded, based on the fact that we didn't win a championship."
When asked directly about Jackson, he refused to get into specifics. And he didn't indicate whether any sort of deal was in the works or close to being made. But other executives around baseball are apparently doing the talking for him.
Are the Tigers worried about what sort of raise Jackson would get next season, due to arbitration? Dombrowski's never had a player go to a hearing since he's been with Detroit. But the team would have to pay up to avoid the process, as they did last year (and will have to do again this year) with Justin Verlander. Maybe the Tigers feel they can afford to give only one of their pitchers a big raise.
Last year, Jackson made $2.2 million. After a season in which he won 13 games, was among the top ten lowest ERAs among AL starting pitchers, and up until September, was considered the team's second-best pitcher, would he be in line for twice that salary? $4 million? Maybe more?
Perhaps the Tigers are also concerned about Jackson's September tailspin, and wonder if he can sustain a high level of performance over a full season. In his last seven starts, Jackson posted a 3-3 record and 6.14 ERA, while giving up 50 hits in 44 innings. Opposing hitters began to lay off his slider (perhaps because he was tipping it), forcing him to throw more pitches, and taking him out of ballgames earlier.
This could be a classic "sell high" circumstance for the Tigers. Trading away a lower salaried player who's still under club control for two more seasons isn't typically the way to keep payroll down. But the contracts that Detroit would surely prefer to trade - Carlos Guillen, Magglio Ordonez, Jeremy Bonderman, Dontrelle Willis, or Nate Robertson - won't interest anyone. So if you're looking to trim payroll somewhere, it has to be done with a player another team would take. (This is Lynn Henning's thought process with trading Curtis Granderson, as well.)
This would also seem to confirm the worst fears about next year's budget. Just how much do the Tigers want to spend on payroll next season? Would they like to keep it in the $130 million range? Or do they plan on reducing it? If so, there's not much money to add a shortstop and closer, while also giving Verlander his raise. Unless some wiggle room is created. (Of course, a raise for Jackson was presumed in that budget, as well.)
So how does this development strike you? I'll admit I was a bit stunned to read this. But if Dombrowski wanted to make a big move, this might qualify.
76 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
This has thrown me into a panic.
If DD does this, he’s taking our only competitive advantage over three of the four teams in the division and flushing it. It would be a clear signal that the team is abandoning 2010 and waiting for some of DD’s mistakes to burn off at the end of the 10 season.
If they thought attendance was down last year, well, pull this and look out below.
The other alarming thing in that article was that $3.5 million is too much to spend on Laird. If that’s the truth, we are in worse trouble than we all thought.
3.5 is alot for a defense only catcher...
granted he is an exceptional defensive catcher, but a .225 batting average can kill an offense. Especially when said catcher plays everyday.
as for Jackson, I’m not sure trading him is such a good idea.
My Music: Some Sorta Giant
New Song: One Days Work
He has shown the ability in the past to hit better than that, though
And between the two of them, we’re talking about a matter of an increase of about $5-6 million, which I wouldn’t think would be that much of an issue with some of the free agents coming off the books. As much as I want Polly to stick around, I don’t want it to be at the expense of someone who is a key member of the pitching staff in a year where the Tigers find themselves in a winnable division (unless the Tigers have internally decided that Jackson had a flash-in-the-pan season and won’t put up those numbers again…I see no reason why he can’t, though).
I would definitely appreciate some insight from someone more well-versed in this sort of thing than I, though. How much stock do you put into this story? What is the likelihood of a trade like this actually happening? And is there no way the Tigers could convince someone to renegotiate their contract?
by SabreRoseTiger on Nov 10, 2009 11:27 PM EST up reply actions
Baseball players don't renegotiate contracts
Not like they do in football and basketball, where money is deferred to open up room under a salary cap.
No pro athlete’s going to give back money.
by Ian Casselberry on Nov 10, 2009 11:40 PM EST up reply actions
So...what was it that the Red Sox did with Tim Wakefield?
by SabreRoseTiger on Nov 10, 2009 11:42 PM EST up reply actions
As I understand it, they gave him more money
Tore up his option, added another year.
Maybe I should’ve asked what you mean by “renegotiate.” I assumed you meant give a player less money.
by Ian Casselberry on Nov 10, 2009 11:50 PM EST up reply actions
I was aiming more at deferring money
I know the Dodgers did something with Andruw Jones’s contract last offseason (though they did it with the intention of releasing him), and I read somewhere that the Tigers were still paying Pudge in 2009 even though he’s been off the roster for a year and a half (and I believe they referred to it as “deferred,” but for the life of me I can’t remember where I read it).
I probably should not have asked that question. As you said, I phrased it badly, and it took attention away from my primary concerns (Which related to the likelihood of these EJ rumors being true or not).
by SabreRoseTiger on Nov 10, 2009 11:58 PM EST up reply actions
It's not a good idea.
That takes us from three reliable starters to two, and one of them coming off a season where he threw approximately one million innings.
It would be a horrible sign for 2010.
Exactly
Trade Laird, yes, but not Jackson. The choice between the two should be very, very clear.
I should apply a caveat here: don’t trade Jackson unless you can absolutely rob someone else. I’d trade him for Strasburg, or Javier Vasquez, for instance.
President, Vice President and Secretary of the Casey Crosby Fanclub.
by David Tokarz on Nov 10, 2009 11:33 PM EST up reply actions
Thirded.
We’d have to absolutely fleece someone if we’re trading Jackson. Giving up only Joyce was a steal, and we should revel in it as long as possible.
by StringTheory on Nov 11, 2009 12:13 AM EST up reply actions
O I agree...
Everette & Laird were liablities @ the plate,which was pretty much expected, maybe not 2 the extent @ which they performed. Especially when pretty much everyone struggled, had some viscious slumps last year. But, Grandy should pull thru & Polly was farely consistent, & Jackson? I don’t think that’s even an option, they need to add some1 & hope Gallaraga can get back to where he used to be. The rest of those guys, besides an againg vet Mags with one humongous contract, are so not worth the contracts they’re getting..wtf. The only solid guy @ the plate was Cabby. We relied to heavily on Verli & Porci & Eddy’s 1st 1/2 of the season, he kind struggled there after the break, like most everybody else. But they need 2 get a quality SS & catcher, maybe Avila’s a viable alrenative, but his d’s gotta improve. Along with RayB & Thomas, they had some lapses defensively, @ crucial times. Wilcox might be a good rook, he’s fast.
What tricky GM
What if DD is using Jackson as trade bait for Willis. By putting Jackson the market, teams will ask about him, the Tigers will ask for alot, but then they turn it around and will tell teams that for less they can have Willis. This way they keep Jackson unload Willis and possibly getting someone that we can use.
Who wants Willis though?
President, Vice President and Secretary of the Casey Crosby Fanclub.
by David Tokarz on Nov 11, 2009 2:27 AM EST up reply actions
realistically...
it’d be more like the bait & switch with Willis, robertson & Bonderman, which whoever would have to be as crazy as double D to give these guys these rediculous contracts. These 3 guys make about 3x as much as Verli, Porci, & EJ put together, it’s something like almost all 3/ 1 contact, & these guys deserve contracts as such, but those who posses them don’t, I don’t see anyone seein that kinda value in any of these guys, they’s have to be super desperate.
What your talkin about is kinda what Seatle did to us, we wanted King Felix & instead they pawned J (blown) Rod Washedup on us, & his bad kickstand (knee). Idk maybe it’s work with the Jedi Mind trick involved, maybe give ’em like free pizzas for a year 2.
I think a more accurate circumstance
would be ask a ton for Jackson and then come back and say you can have Willis for free! Still not likely to find a taker though.
I can't believe I ate the whole thing!
by tigerfaninChicago on Nov 11, 2009 7:36 AM EST up reply actions
Sorry,
I’m just to attached to this gold bar for what you’re offering. I do have this turd, though, if you’re interested…
I don't want to hear any weak sh*t from Jason Grilli.
by cherub_daemon on Nov 11, 2009 9:10 AM EST up reply actions
Or better yet . . .
Here’s this gold bar and this turd, which I will trade for several silver bars. You can have Jackson, if you take Willis.
It's just sad...
and frustrating. We’ve committed 65 million to Bondo, Robertson, Willis, Maggs, and Guillen for next year… when combined they have been worth anywhere 12-15 million… which would be more than enough to cover arbitration, etc. without having to consider raising the cost of beer at the CoPa (if Labatts is 9 bucks next year, I will cry). A pre all star break Jackson helped keep us in contention, and I hope DD realizes that (before trying to fill the “hole” internally or with Carl Pavano).
but will the pre all-star break Jackson show up in 2010
or will the post all-star break jackson?
I don’t know the answer; no one does. But keep in mind the guy after the break looked a whole lot more like the guy from 2007 and 2008.
Making a baseball team would be a lot easier if you could see into the future as easy as you could look at the past.
by Kurt Mensching on Nov 11, 2009 7:08 AM EST up reply actions
Jackson's still probably better than any realistic alternative
Odds are we won’t be able to pluck another Porcello from the farm system. And why is everyone portraying us as having no shot? It’s not like we finished the season 20 games out or lost 95 games. We missed the postseason by ONE game. I know I said that 2010 would be a bit tougher to win the division, but I absolutely did not mean we should just give up.
Anyways, Kurt, I like what you said in your post about how it doesn’t make sense to trade EJ from a purely financial standpoint because the minimal amount of money you save would be negated by decreased revenue.
by SabreRoseTiger on Nov 11, 2009 10:20 AM EST up reply actions
+1
This.
President, Vice President and Secretary of the Casey Crosby Fanclub.
by David Tokarz on Nov 11, 2009 10:45 AM EST up reply actions
Bad Contracts?
We’ve committed 65 million to Bondo, Robertson, Willis, Maggs, and Guillen for next year… when combined they have been worth anywhere 12-15 million
We hear a lot that these were all bad contracts—what was Dombrowski thinking?
The deals for Ordonez and Guillen were unquestionably good deals—we got our money’s worth out of those playeers. The Tigers backloaded those contracts for financial reasons, and now they’re, in effect, paying Ordonez for 2007.
Bonderman similarly was a very reasonable deal at the time—if he hadn’t gotten hurt, but that’s the risk you take when you hire baseball players. There is some reason for optimism about Bonderman—he seemed at the end of last year to have finally regained full strength.
Robertson similarly was a deal for market value at the time. Every baseball contract is a gamble, and that one hasn’t paid off, but I don’t recall a lot of people urging the Tigers to let Robertson walk at the time.
Willis, now—Wilis was a bad deal. All baseball contracts are gambles, but that one was a bad gamble.
How about contracts that have turned bad? :)
Although I was never sold on Robertson or Willis to begin with…
Can we trade Dombrowski instead?
If Dave hadn’t given all that money to Willis we wouldn’t be in this boat. The other bad contracts I can understand to some extent, most of those guys would’ve been worth it if they’d continued to perform as well as they were when they got their contracts, but Willis was already on a downward spiral and switching to the more hitter friendly league. That one will probably go down as the worst contract in Tigers’ history.
The obvious offseason strategy for the Tigers is to cobble together a semi-respectable lineup for 2010, much like this year’s lineup—and then look to spend in the 2011 preseason, when most of those big obnoxious contracts come off the books.
But, maybe the Tigers aren’t going to do that:
(1) Are they in such a financial crisis that they must dump payroll at all costs? I dont think so—they were able to come up with extra for Huff and Washburn last year, for example. This is going to be a bad year for them, monetarily, no matter what they do, but surely they can hang on ’til 2011.
(2) Or alternatively, maybe they’re going to reconfigure this team in a major way, not so much for payroll reasons, but for baseball reasons. Try to acquire a couple of good Sizemore-level hitting prospects—say a SS and an OF—for Jackson. Liquidate the present bunch—they aren’t going to win.
Somehow I would rather not liquidate Verlander, Cabrera, and Porcello
by SabreRoseTiger on Nov 11, 2009 9:27 AM EST up reply actions
Well, yeah, but . . .
. . . it’s Jackson who they’re talking about trading. You have to give up someone good to get someone good.
And there is something to be said for the notion of trading Cabrera. It depends on what you think is going on in his head. He has the physical talent to be the best player in baseball. He probably isn’t going to live up to that potential if he doesn’t get his drinking under control. Right now, he’d bring a lot of value in return. He won’t bring in as much in a trade if we wait until after he crashes and burns to deal him. If I were Tiger management, I’d trade him now if he didn’t seem committed to sobriety.
I don't think one incident should make us question Cabrera's commitment...
he made a mistake. People make mistakes. They happen. Should he have been more severely punished? I think so. But to question his entire commitment to the game is just plain stupid. In my opinion Cabrera came into this season looking more fit than ever. To me that says a bunch about his commitment.
My Music: Some Sorta Giant
New Song: One Days Work
Questioning commitment
Frankly, Cabrera is likely an alcoholic, given the .26 bac. The enormity of that may escape someone who doesn’t deal in bacs much, but most people couldn’t get there if they tried. It’s not a matter of his commitment to baseball, it’s a matter of his comitment to lviing.
Part of my law practice is drunk driving defense, and .26 shocks me. Think about that for a minute. And remember, this is not the only incident—there’s also the fight with the fat 16-year-old . . .
I don’t want to get rid of him at all. He might be the best Tiger player since Kaline. But he needs to spend part of the offseason in treatment.
plenty of people get wasted a few times in life without being alcoholics
no matter what their situation. that being said, he may have a problem, and DD said he is confident it will be addressed. there is a lot of money riding on him, I’m sure they are keeping a close eye on it.
Handy pocket bac calculator
At 240 pounds, he had to have (assuming 1oz. of 86% proof alcohol or 1 12 oz. beer per drink)—well, the darn calculator doesn’t go that high. 16 drinks only gets him to .20 2 hours later. Like I said, most of us couldn’t get to that level if we tried.
I could see a trade to the Angels
Brandon Wood and something really sweet from their farm system… but they lack the depth.
President, Vice President and Secretary of the Casey Crosby Fanclub.
by David Tokarz on Nov 11, 2009 10:46 AM EST up reply actions
+1
Man, you guys are saying all the right things!
President, Vice President and Secretary of the Casey Crosby Fanclub.
by David Tokarz on Nov 11, 2009 10:47 AM EST up reply actions
my pointless 2 cents
if ejax goes anywhere, send him back to the dodgers. they need pitching. I haven’t checked to see who they are offering, though.. not much news about them since the owner drama came about. But I bet we could make a deal.
We already have a first baseman, though
Can Loney play other positions?
by SabreRoseTiger on Nov 11, 2009 10:21 AM EST up reply actions
Hindsight is 20/20...
…but considering the Tigers failed to even reach the post season, how many of you still think it was a good idea to let Mags reach his option. I posted something back when Magglio had just started coming out of his shell, and was shocked to find how many of you were okay with keeping Mags.
Like I pointed out back then, there is a bottom line to this business and letting go of talent was inevitable once Mags had reached his option. I know he isn’t the only bad contract on this roster, but personally I would trade Magglio’s 2010 performance for Edwin’s any day. Even if Mags puts together a MVP type season we’re still stuck letting go of a young, very talented starter.
I'll make that decision I start to see how he produces next season...
Magglio has the bat necessary to make the option seem like a good one.
My Music: Some Sorta Giant
New Song: One Days Work
This is absolutely not the point.
First of all: we knew that we were overypaying for Maggs when we signed him. We knew that this year was coming, and we knew that it was going to hurt in the wallet. Deal with it. If we didn’t include these option years, chances are the deal never gets done, and you never see maggs in a Tigers uniform, and never see the Tigers in the playoffs in 06, let alone the World Series. Secondly, I don’t know what Maggs final batting ave. was this year, but I do know it ended up over .300. He slumped for much of the summer, but I think that he’s proven himself as a consistent .300 big league hitter. You’ve gotta give him credit where credit is due.
it was .310
good for 10th in the American League.
by Kurt Mensching on Nov 11, 2009 3:39 PM EST up reply actions
Of course thats the point!
The point is that they knew what position they would be in this season financially…and in spite of that, they retained a player that no matter which way you spin it, is incredibly overpaid. I’ve said it a dozen times…Mags is one of, and will forever be, one of my favorite Tigers. That being said, they should have parted ways with him last year when they had a chance.
So you’re upset that we had the 10th best batting average in the AL this year? You really wish we would have benched the 10th best BA?
by Ohio Tiger on Nov 12, 2009 12:18 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Think about what you're saying
You really wish we would have benched the 10th best batting average in the league this year?
by Ohio Tiger on Nov 12, 2009 12:19 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
ABSO-FREAKIN-LUTELY!
If benching the 10th best batting average in the league meant that Edwin Jackson, and Curtis Granderson were not even being considered for trade bait.
Even if the team was ok with its payroll last season, I would (without hesitation) have benched the 10th best batting average in the league if it meant signing a real corner outfielder and a shortstop.
This would have been a no-brainer!
Breach of Conract
considering the Tigers failed to even reach the post season, how many of you still think it was a good idea to let Mags reach his option
Not only is that hindsight, but I don’t think the Tigers could sit him down to avoid having his option vest, as opposed to sitting him for purely baseball reasons, without spending this offseason litigating (and losing) the resulting breach of contract claim. We probably would have ended up owing him the money anyway, without playing him.
I've heard this over and over...
…but there is no way anyone could guarantee that they would have been in breach of contract. During the first half of the season Magglio was simply not performing, and they would have been well within their legal right to waive him at that point. I understand they wanted to make a run at the playoffs, but if it meant sacrificing this teams future that was a mistake!
Apparently Morosi/Rosenthal are suggesting a Jackson-for-Sherrill trade with the Dodgers
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2009/11/tigers-shopping-edwin-jackson.html
If it were a cost-cutting measure, this would not make much sense because Sherrill would probably make almost as much as Jackson. You’d end up saving maybe a million. I’m not sure what to make of the suggestion from a strategic standpoint, since we already have two lefty relievers. I don’t know that much about Sherrill because we don’t see Baltimore that often, and then he was in the NL. He didn’t impress me much in the NLCS, though. On the other hand, he does have closing experience.
by SabreRoseTiger on Nov 11, 2009 11:37 AM EST reply actions
What Morosi/Rosenthal say . . .
Is that the Tigers are not talking about trading Jackson for Sherrill, although they had some interest in him at the trade deadline last year.
Sherrill is a decent loogy who surprisingly had a good year when pressed into closing by the Orioles. But heck, if we were going to do that, we might as well go with Seay or Ni at closer—cheaper, and chances are, about as good.
I don't what Morosi or Rosenthal are thinking.
Jackson for Sherrill would be a terrible trade from our perspective. LA would have to throw in more than that.
by StringTheory on Nov 11, 2009 12:13 PM EST up reply actions
Dodgers
Go get Chin-lung Hu from the Dodgers, he is (or was) a bigtime shortstop prospect. Also heard they may shop Russell Martin. An EJack and Laird for Hu and Martin trade might make some baseball sense.
An EJack and Laird for Hu and Martin trade might make some baseball sense.
That would be a good trade, although it migh leave Avila out in the cold a bit. And also, an important consideration, Martin’s significant other, Marikym Hervieux, would be a more than adequate replacement for Misty May Treanor. :)
Make it Hu and Billingsley
And maybe
President, Vice President and Secretary of the Casey Crosby Fanclub.
by David Tokarz on Nov 11, 2009 2:42 PM EST up reply actions
Is Kershaw a possibility?
Another young left handed arm would be nice, but I have no idea how much the Dodgers are valuing him at.
Personally, I like the idea of trading Jackson.
Clearly, we would have to get some good return on him, but I am quite open to the possibility. I really think this is less of a financial/money saving move, and much more of a “sell high” type of move. I think if we’re all being reasonable we can agree that his first half numbers last season were ridiculous, and he will never sustain those types of numbers over a whole season. He is a good pitcher, an innings eater, and a reliable middle of the rotation arm, but guys don’t normally get left off of playoff rosters one year, and become staff aces the next. Why not entertain offers for him? if we can get some good, young prospects to bolster our depleted farm system, or pick up some solid contributers for this year, why not? I really can’t see Jackson ever being the same pitcher he was last April-July.
That sound you heard was Lynn Henning's head exploding from joy overload
by SabreRoseTiger on Nov 11, 2009 2:57 PM EST up reply actions
Trade Grandy....
and we’re right back to the dark ages, circa 2003.
We’ll have given up. Period. Back to the days of hoping for fourth place.
May as well make JV available while you’re at it, DD.
I'm half-expecting to read that in about four hours
by SabreRoseTiger on Nov 11, 2009 3:16 PM EST up reply actions
Jackson is one thing.
Dumping Grandy, unless you absolutely fleece someone, will badly injure attendance and the organization’s standing with the community.
That and the fact that it doesn't seem to go with the perception of Mr. I that I've gotten from you guys
Mr. I is portrayed as a man who badly wants to win a World Series yesterday (I can’t say I blame him. The guy’s 80 years old). It doesn’t make sense for him to reverse course and order DD to slash payroll or rebuild. I know there’s not a lot of budgetary flexibility right now, but it’s a division that we could win in 2010 with a couple minor tweaks, and next offseason, we’ll be able to make a FA splash with all the money that’s coming off the books, but it’ll be meaningless if half our guys are on other teams.
by SabreRoseTiger on Nov 11, 2009 3:47 PM EST up reply actions
I'm inclined to agree with you
I may not be well-versed in defensive metrics and projection stats, but my instincts have served me well the past few years.
by SabreRoseTiger on Nov 11, 2009 3:31 PM EST up reply actions
well, I have to say
the man knows a thing or two about liquidating teams effectively from his Marlins years.
by Kurt Mensching on Nov 11, 2009 3:53 PM EST up reply actions
He pulls this...
he’ll get a familiar feeling from a bunch of half-empty crowds, just like he did at Pro Player or whatever they called it back then. He has a pretty disappointed fan base right now, and dumping players for prospects will only exacerbate the problem. No one wants to watch Pittsburgh Pirates style baseball.
I'm way late to the party
I remember when we got Jackson. He was 14-15 in 2008 with OK career numbers. He had an explosive 2009, there’s no doubt about that. Look at his career numbers though. Even with 2009 his career ERA as a starter is 4.50. Trade high but only if we can fill a large hole for him.
2100 Woodward and Twitter
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bless You Boys
Related FanShots on Bless You Boys
![From Ed Price via Twitter:
"[...] Tigers sorting through offers from 12 teams on Edwin Jackson."
(Photo via CherryHill InJersey)](http://cdn2.sbnation.com/fan_shot_images/88776/twilight_line_small.jpg)
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
