More from the mailbag:
You've got a point, Kevin. I guess I should have been more specific. The Yankees do seem interested in getting younger, but not a lot younger. They could have kept Austin Jackson and they could have kept Ian Kennedy. They would be a little better if they'd kept Jackson, a little worse if they'd kept Kennedy. Both players have bright futures and will represent a great deal of value over the next four or five seasons.
But neither of them were anything like sure things. The Yankees probably figured that Granderson, in addition to being quite a bit younger than Johnny Damon, was something close to a sure thing.
In the event, he's having the worst season of his career. Fortunately for the Yankees, it probably won't matter much (and presumably they'll platoon him in October). Fortunately for the Yankees, if they have to eat the $20 million Granderson's owed after this season, it won't affect the product on the field.
The Yankees will never go young, because they're not willing to except the accompanying level of uncertainty. What they will do is go younger. And that will serve them well, as it has this year.
- In your post about Matsui, I don't follow your reasoning about the Yankees "get-younger impulse." I'd see it if what they had done was sign Curtis Granderson as a free agent to replace Johnny Damon. In reality they had a cheap and talented in-house replacement named Austin Jackson, and they traded him along with a good young reliever for Curtis Granderson's not-exactly-bargain contract.
Granted, this trade looks even worse in hindsight than it did at the time, but the fact is the Yankees went out and got an expensive veteran in the pre-season, when they could have given the young guy a chance and then traded for a veteran in July if the young guy flopped. I would argue that neither the specific decision nor the general strategy it implies will serve the organization well. They are fortunate to have enough money that such errors don't hamstring them for the duration of the bad contract.
Kevin (Sewell, N.J.)
You've got a point, Kevin. I guess I should have been more specific. The Yankees do seem interested in getting younger, but not a lot younger. They could have kept Austin Jackson and they could have kept Ian Kennedy. They would be a little better if they'd kept Jackson, a little worse if they'd kept Kennedy. Both players have bright futures and will represent a great deal of value over the next four or five seasons.
But neither of them were anything like sure things. The Yankees probably figured that Granderson, in addition to being quite a bit younger than Johnny Damon, was something close to a sure thing.
In the event, he's having the worst season of his career. Fortunately for the Yankees, it probably won't matter much (and presumably they'll platoon him in October). Fortunately for the Yankees, if they have to eat the $20 million Granderson's owed after this season, it won't affect the product on the field.
The Yankees will never go young, because they're not willing to except the accompanying level of uncertainty. What they will do is go younger. And that will serve them well, as it has this year.


You must be signed in to post a comment