I’ve been hearing a lot of people lately, both in the blogosphere and in the real world, talking about the Yankees trading for a top starting pitcher with a package centered around Brett Gardner. I think this is generally (barring something crazy, like a top-flight locked up Felix-like pitcher becoming available) a very bad idea.
Brett Gardner was worth 5.1 fWAR last season. The majority of that contribution was defense – but you knew that already. Brett Gardner is one the best defensive players in all of professional baseball. While he’s only an average-at-best hitter, Gardner was one of the most valuable Yankees last year according to fWAR, behind only Sabathia, Granderson and Cano. Simply replacing that fWAR would be very difficult next season – neither James Shields or Cole Hamels even reached that mark. And Gardner is under team control for longer than any of those guys. He’s currently paid very little in relative baseball terms, and is unlikely to get huge arbitration raises. That is to say: even if the Yankees trade for a starting pitcher worth as much as Brett Gardner has been, and under control for as many seasons, he’s still going to make more money, preventing the Yankees from adding value elsewhere.
But even if that’s all well and good, you might make the argument to trade from strength to address weakness. The Yankees have a loaded lineup and very few good starting pitcher options even if C.C. Sabathia sticks around. Gardner is a very attractive trade piece. Why not make the swap? There are a lot of reasons not to (not getting fair value for a defensive player in the trade, poor replacement options from the free agent market and the farm), but here’s my big one: trading Gardner makes our pitching problem worse.
Preventing runs from scoring is a collaborative effort between fielder and starting pitchers. The Yankees were, in part, able to get away with guys like Freddy Garcia and Bartolo Colon (and theoretically, Ivan Nova), because they had an exceptional defense. Brett Gardner was a big part of that. If they go back to 2004-2007 Yankee defense, things start to get ugly quickly. The Yankees can deal with sub-standard pitching a bit better with Gardner on the team. Trading from strength would mean trading someone like Nick Swisher, not Brett Gardner.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
26 Responses to Trading Brett Gardner Will Make Yankee Starting Pitching More Of A Problem
Leave a Reply
TIQ IQ
I agree that the trade with the Nationals discussed in the link was preposterous but I have to disagree about Gardner’s overall value. I take that 5.1 fWAR figure you mentioned with a rather large grain of salt. That’s not to say that Gardner is not a superior defensive player – he is. But how important really is that for a left fielder?
Last year Gardner was being lauded for being an “on-base machine”. Well, his OBP numbers came back down to earth a bit as his BABIP regressed to something more like his career norms and his walk rate, which was unsustainable for a guy with so little extra-base power also came back to Earth. Now the story is that he’s so good defensively that he’s not worth trading except in a package for King Felix. It seems like the goal posts are shifting a bit in terms of how this guy is being evaluated.
I think Gardner is a nice player whose skill set is a good complement to a team generally composed of sluggers like the Yankees. But he does have his downsides such as lack of power, proneness to striking out and prolonged slumps which partially negate his on-base skills and he regularly displays questionable baseball instincts (the headfirst slides into first base, ill-timed bunts).
Bottom line – Gardner is nice to have but not so valuable that the Yankees should not consider selling high on him in the right deal (emphasis on “the right deal”).
He certainly was worse in 2011 than 2010, but still by any reasonable measure he was elite. His 5.1 WAR was top-30 for hitters, and only down a little from 6 WAR in 2010. I was skeptical after 2010 about Gardner being able to repeat his awesome performance, but I’m not skeptical anymore.
Its true that Gardner is a CF playing LF. LF hasn’t been an offense-oriented position in the AL lately, but still, you’re right that the Yankees appear to have an extra player here. I’ve argued before that Gardner would be more valuable as a center fielder, since he’s probably a better defender than Granderson, and they should make the switch.
I don’t buy Gardner as an elite player. Certainly not based on those WAR numbers, which in his case are heavily weighted toward the defensive numbers which I don’t consider to be as reliable as the offensive stats.
If you can get an top quality starter and replace Gardner in LF, then it’s worth consider a trade. Having said that, Gardner is the best defensive outfielder I have ever seen. Whether in LF or CF, he adds significant value, so if his offense can improve just a little, there’s no reason he can’t be a big contributor for the next 3-4 seasons.
How can you be against trading someone in the abstract? No one is untradeable in the right package and the right package isn’t just King Felix.
Gardner has a lot more trade value than Swisher does since Swisher is a free agent next year and how is Swisher that much easier to replace? I don’t want to trade Gardner either and would be against trading straight up for any of the Nationals pitchers mentioned. That said, the Yankees have few guys with a lot of trade value (Cano, Granderson, Nova, Gardner, Montero, Banuelos, and Betances.) and the free agent market for pitching is pretty thin this year.
I’d rather trade Gardner than Cano or Granderson and trading Nova wouldn’t really help if we’re trying to add pitching. You have to give value to get value back.
“How can you be against trading someone in the abstract?” – I love this sentence.
What is Gardner’s trade value? I’m pretty sure that its less than his actual value to the Yankees. That was part of the point of my post – I actually think in the abstract, he isn’t likely to command equal value. This is because what he’s good at – defense – doesn’t seem to return equivalent WAR back the other way.
Would you trade Gardner for Matt Cain, straight up? I’d say no. They’re comparable in WAR and both contribute (at least primarily) to defense rather than offense. But Cain’s a free agent, and Gardner is both cheap and will remain cheap and under control for a long time.
We may not be able to find a really good trade situation. I don’t think one exists out there that I would do that centers around Brett Gardner.
I don’t know what his trade value is and I might be against all of the offers for him but I wouldn’t be against exploring what his value is. The Yankees don’t have a lot of trade chips and he is one of them.
Also, I think we get a little carried away about the value of his defense. If you accept that the defensive metrics undervalue Granderson’s defense in Center than it follows that they overvalue Gardner’s defense in left. If Gardner is getting credit for stealing opportunities from Granderson than replacing Gardner with a lesser defender in left would not have quite the impact that the stats might imply. It should also follow from that he would be more valuable to a team that could use him in Center because we are frankly underutilizing his skills in Left.
Finally, I think you are nuts to not want to trade him for Cain. I’d trade him and at least one non-Montero/Banuelos/Betances prospect for Cain. I might require a negotiating window so that I wasn’t trading 3 years of Gardner for one of Cain but I’d definitely do that deal. For one, it’s easier to find an OFer than a 1-2 starter. Secondly, the WAR comparison doesn’t take into account the added value of a really good 1-2 starter in the postseason.
I’m actually not immediately willing to accept that Granderson is consistently underrated by defensive metrics, but I’ve been beating that drum for awhile.
Even if Cain signs an extension, we’re still talking about 1 year of Cain for 3 of Gardner. Cain’s likely going to be a free agent if not traded/signed with a negotiating window, and an expensive one at that. I haven’t seen anyone estimate his salary after free agency, but even next year he’s making $15 million. So the correct calculus is “Gardner + ~10-15 million vs. Cain”
You can buy a lot of stuff for that kind of money. Like another starter. You could also just sign Cain a year from now.
“You can buy a lot of stuff for that kind of money. Like another starter. You could also just sign Cain a year from now.”
How did that work out with Cliff Lee? I think people tend to underestimate how hard it is to acquire a top of the rotation starter via free agency.
The 2013 crop of free agents looks good now but it will be considerably thinned out before 2013 as guys are traded and signed or just signed to extensions. Also, while it is a deep field, I like Hamels and Cain much more than the rest of the 2013 crop. I guess I could say I like Greinke too but it’s pretty clear from Cashman’s lack of interest last offseason that NY wouldn’t likely pursue him.
Sure, Cain would be expensive and he’s not as valuable as a cost controlled pitcher. NY is not a small market team though and it is more important to get the right pitchers than to worry too much about surplus value. How many years were the Yankees trying to find an Ace before they signed Sabathia? I think it was 4-5 long years and they’d probably still be looking if he had been serious about wanting to pitch in the west.
I think you overrate Cain. Cain is a number 2 pitcher in an extremely pitcher friendly park. I don’t think he will be nearly the same pitcher in the AL East, and I think it’s highly likely given his peripherals he’s no more than a number 3 starter in the AL East, playing in Yankee stadium. In which case I wouldn’t want to trade/sign for him at all.
Unclear who is beating the “trade Brett Gardner for a pitcher” drum.
It’s certainly possible that Gardner’s perceived value on the trade market is lower than his actual value if teams are not as cognizant of defense as fWAR. However, it’s also possible that fWAR may overstate Gardner’s defensive value, since the underlying metric (UZR) has its issues.
Also, Gardner turns 29 next year and speed is one of the first skills to decline. That’s not to say that he isn’t going to be a valuable player for the next couple of years but there’s a real chance that he is at his peak value right now.
Fair point, although he clearly hasn’t started to decline yet.
Gardner is entering his age-28 season (bRef). That’s 4-5 years of peak remaining, 3 of which will be arb-eligible & therefore cheap.
Gardner was born August 24, 1983 which makes him 28 today and 29 before the end of next season. Estimates of when players peak range from 27-29. Bill James claims that a player’s five year peak is age 25-29.
I’m not saying Brett Gardner isn’t going to be a valuable player over the next couple of years but you are probably wrong in thinking he is in the middle of his peak years. He is more likely the best he’s ever going to be and about to start to decline. He was old for a rookie which is one of the reasons why he was ranked higher as a prospect.
That was supposed to say one of the reasons he WASN’T ranked higher as a prospect.
It’s been touched upon, but I wouldn’t even bother making fWAR comparisons between a hitter and pitcher anymore. UZR is so flimsy, in my opinion, that batter-to-batter is suspect enough, so throwing another wrinkle into the mix only makes things more tenuous.
I don’t like it. Gardner is a gritty type player, has improved and I think should be our leadoff man because his value on the basepaths cannot be overstated. His defensive skills are, of course and as noted, superior. Yes, corner outfielder is traditionally a Power spot, but we trade that off by making Second Base a Power spot on this team. KEEP BRETT GARDNER.
The Yankees would actually be much better off trading Curtis Granderson and putting Gardner in CF.
1. Granderson has 2 years of control left (making him valuable), but they will cost us much more than Gardner’s 3 years.
2. Granderson is a “sell-high” candidate; it’s unlikely he’ll hit 40 HR again (turning 31 and having never done it before), which means his trade value is maximized right now, and the Yankees will be less likely to have to add another piece to a deal.
For example, I bet the Giants would do Granderson for Cain straight up (solves their offensive problem; more cost certainty), but it would take at least Gardner & Nunez.
Of course, since we don’t have an obvious replacement in LF (Jeter?), and it’s not clear that the next FA class (Kemp, Hamilton) will be signable, it’s probably not a good idea to move either player.
You are being overly simplistic in assuming that he won’t hit 40 HR’s again unless you assume that it’s pure luck that he started hitting lefties well in 2011 or think that the fences are going to be moved out to the dimensions of Comerica Park.
Gardner is not a more valuable player than Granderson.
The words you’re looking for are “regression to the mean”. Generally, when a player does something they’ve never done before, it’s a good idea to worry that part of that success was due to random error. For example, do you expect Ellsbury to hit 30 HR again next year?
Now, some of Granderson’s progress is real (he did change his approach). But some of it is also ephemeral (career high HR/FB). And there will be non-random changes that should depress his offense. First, you can expect pitchers to just approach him differently next year. Second, he’ll be a year older and on the wrong side of 30.
I still wouldn’t trade Granderson, mainly because there is no one to plug into his slot. But I would argue he is less “valuable” than Gardner moving forward, for 3 reasons:
1. Trade value (you can get guys w. Grandy that you can’t w. Gardner).
2. Surplus value (Granderson might produce more value than Gardner, but that difference is less than the difference in salaries).
3. Years of cost control.
The problem with saying that he will regress to the mean is that the bulk of the mean was during a time when he hit in a pitcher’s park and couldn’t hit lefties. After the Yankees acquired him, someone looked at all his flyballs at Comerica and replotted them against the dimensions of Yankee Stadium and determined he would have had 9 more HR’s in 2009 had he called Yankee Stadium home. In other words, he would have hit 39 HR’s in a year that he only slugged an anemic .239 against lefties. He has been crushing lefties since he and KLong made adjustments in his swing back in August 2010. It’s not a small sample and it doesn’t take a year and a half for pitchers to change how they approach a batter who is having the success that Granderson is. There really is no reason to think that if Granderson stays healthy he will hit 35-45 HR’s every year for the near future.
Ellsbury may regress to the mean. I don’t know if there is any reason for his jump in power like there is for Granderson. You are wrong to just assume regression to the mean though. Would you have told the Blue Jays to trade Jose Bautista last offseason?
I take your point about Granderson, and the reasons to believe the spike might be real.
If you look at Bautista, his power DID regress (54 to 43 HR; .357 to .306 ISO). However, other things happened (he got more “respect” in BB & IBB) that led to a marginal increase in his wOBA (.378-.447 OBP).
Some commenters DID call for Bautista to be traded in the offseason. It all depends on what you need and what you think trading him can get you. If you could turn Bautista’s 53 HR into two reliable 25-HR corner OF, but can’t do that if he’s hitting 40 HR, maybe that’s worth the deal.
I certainly wouldn’t trade Granderson for Cain. People have seemed to deem Cain an ace when his peripheral numbers have never shown this to be true, and the ERA jump he should experience going from that park in the NL, to the AL East and Yankee stadium make him a very risky play.
2006- 4.15 ERA, 3.96 FIP, 4.59 xFIP
2007- 3.65 ERA, 3.78 FIP, 4.47 xFIP
2008- 3.76 ERA, 3.91 FIP, 4.46 xFIP
2009- 2.89 ERA, 3.89 FIP, 4.16 xFIP
2010- 3.14 ERA, 3.65 FIP, 4.00 xFIP
2011- 2.88 ERA, 2.91 FIP, 3.78 xFIP
Outside of this season Cain has consistently posted a a FIP between 3.65 and 3.96, and had never posted a xFIP below 4.00. He has been a big benefactor of playing in the NL, and playing half of his games at AT&T Park.
2006- 8.45 K/9, 4.11 BB/9
2007- 7.34 K/9, 3.56 BB/9
2008- 7.69 K/9, 3.76 BB/9
2009- 7.07 K/9, 3.02 BB/9
2010- 7.13 K/9, 2.46 BB/9
2011- 7.27 K/9, 2.56 BB/9
Also Cain has never really been a real strikeout pitcher, and outside of 2006 when he didn’t pitch 200 innings (190) he hasn’t struckout more than 7.69 per 9 innings in a single season. While he has held the walks back the last 2 seasons, he also isn’t the kind of extreme walk suppressor you would look for with these kind of K numbers when looking for a move to the AL East (like Cliff Lee was).
Moving from the really weak hitting NL West (and extremely pitcher friendly AT&T Park) to the really hitting strong AL East (and extremely hitter friendly Yankee Stadium) is going to cause all of these numbers to regress to at least some degree. In fact I don’t believe Cain will be a able to maintain a K/9 above 7.0 moving to the AL East. For the most part I think he will yearly check in around the mid to high 6′s, while his walk rate should regress closer to his 2009 numbers (3+ BB/9) than his 2010-2011 numbers.
2006- 3.5 WAR
2007- 4.0 WAR
2008- 3.7 WAR
2009- 3.3 WAR
2010- 3.7 WAR
2011- 5.2 WAR
A check of his WAR per year reveals he has only ever really checked in as an “ace” in this category this past season, and has only posted what I would consider a true number 2 or better WAR 2 seasons in his career. The real Matt Cain (in the AL East at least) is a lot more likely to be in this 3.3-3.7 range, than it is in the 5.2 WAR he posted this season.
He has also only ever checked in with a GB% of 40% or better once (this season-41.7%) in his career, meaning that while he has never had a huge problems with HRs a move to Yankee stadium would his HR numbers would climb.
His velocity also has to be a concern as it was a career low 91.2 MPH this year, down from 91.5 last year, and 92.5 from the year before that.
For all these reasons I would like to avoid Matt Cain for the Yankees. He just doesn’t seem to match up well with being an “ace” that so many claim him to be.