The Detroit Tiger Weblog



« | »

Maybe that helped us

Thanks to Jason Beck for tweeting the line of the day. Dave Dombrowski was talking about Johnny Damon and the White Sox interest and offered up this gem. Dombrowski also confirmed that the Tigers have an offer out to Damon, and that he expects the saga to end, but that isn’t nearly as entertaining.

Posted by on February 19, 2010.

Tags:

Categories: 2010 Season, Spring Training

32 Responses

  1. HA! I just cut this same exact thing to paste on here. What a great line!

    by Joey in Portland Or on Feb 19, 2010 at 1:10 pm

  2. Maybe the Sox should have gotten Obama to put on his cap and play golf with Damon. He helped Chicago get the Olympics, didn’t he?

    by Spike on Feb 19, 2010 at 9:08 pm

  3. I”m liking that I keep hearing the Tigs haven’t offered him 2 yrs.

    by Joey in Portland OR on Feb 19, 2010 at 9:50 pm

  4. 1 year, $8 million for Damon. Too much for one year, but at least it is just one year.

    by Rick G on Feb 20, 2010 at 6:27 pm

  5. This moves makes sense. I was a little skeptical when the rumors starting floating around because I thought they should give the other guys (Thomas, Raburn, et al.) more areas in which Leyland could plug them in and see what they can do (some of my buds are big on Thomas but I just don’t see it. He has a smooth swing, but it’s a Joe Mauer like line-drive swing that does not produce a lot of homeruns, and of course he is no Joe Mauer at the plate) and leave LF open to give Ramirez and maybe Jackson another place to get some games in. However, since signing Valverde, re-signing Verlander and talking AL Central titles (though a healthy Twins team just seems deep), I think it is a good move. One year is perfect, and if he produced, heck, another on top of it, as well. Allows Leyland to put Sizemore/Jackson in the 2-hole (though another poster, and Bilfer, I think, suggested Guillen there and although that would be nice, once it goes onto the line-up card: Damon, Guillen, Mags/Cabrera, Cabrera/Mags, who goes 5th!? Inge? No way..Sizemore/Jackson?! Guillen must bat fifth, Inge/Sizemore/Jackson is some order 6,7,8. No legit wood 5-9 would be disasterous).
    Damon for one year, and then 32 million worth of contracts (Robertson, Willis, Bonderman) off the books and can go and get some heavy lumber to help poor Cabrera.

    by Dr. Detroit on Feb 20, 2010 at 7:12 pm

  6. Not sure who that other guy is but that’s lame shtick.

    As far as the Damon deal it makes this team better than it was at the end of last year. The starting pitching is better, the OF defense as a whole will be better, and we don’t have to worry about Granderson not hitting LHP or him being a late inning albatross when teams bring in a lefty in the 8th to get him out with two on.

    Sizemore should be leading off but trying Jackson there in the first 20 games or so seems fine.

    by The real Dr Detroit on Feb 20, 2010 at 8:26 pm

  7. Done deal. I like it. Guillen is gonna cry, I wish Leyland had left Guillen’s remarks alone last fall.

    by Kevin in Dallas on Feb 20, 2010 at 11:26 pm

  8. I like the deal because
    1. Damon can hit
    2. Damon can hit
    3. He’s a good clubhouse guy ( yes Jim it does matter)
    4. Who’s to say Guillen would put up Damon numbers as the everyday LF’er. They are probably the same on Defense. Yes Carlos we remember
    5. It ain’t my money
    6. Ok! I will still keep eating the pizza
    7. I’m heading off to Lakeland on Thursday …feeling better

    by Jud on Feb 21, 2010 at 2:52 am

  9. I would also add that while I’ve heard/seen several suggestions that we’ve essentially traded Granderson for Damon, it is in fact Damon and Jackson… and probably 20-30 fewer K’s. More money in 2010, sure, but one player who might outplay CG this year and another who might outplay him in the long run. That, and a pitcher exchange that buys us a few more years of team control. I don’t see what’s so confusing to anybody about the entirety of the Tiger’s offseason moves.

    by MacD on Feb 21, 2010 at 9:59 am

  10. Oliver added as non roster invitee , because you never have enough left handed pitching. Where were they when the Tigers played in the left pitchers friendly Tiger Stadium

    by jcm on Feb 21, 2010 at 11:22 am

  11. I’m happy about the Damon signing for a few reasons beyond addressing the obvious immediate team need of a LH and leadoff bat:

    1. Its a short-term deal.
    Overpaying (or not) is acceptable on a one-year commitment. If the Tigers fall out of contention quickly, he becomes a nice trade asset at the deadline. This is a no risk move.

    2. Positive clubhouse influence
    Damon provides an excellent role-model for potential future Tiger leadoff hitters like Sizemore and Jackson. He’s supposedly a good clubhouse guy all around and has been on successful teams.

    ….

    To me, this is really similar to the Valverde acquisition. Not only is a massive short-term need addressed, but a positive example is set for young players who aren’t quite ready to handle the closer/leadoff roles just yet. It may be costly, but its smart for the long run.

    Its great to have an owner who is willing to go beyond his own fiscal interests to address team needs. As Tiger fans we should be really grateful to have such ownership, especially now that another savvy (though maybe not so thoughtful and generous) owner has passed on, and especially (x2) in comparisons to the Lions ownership’s incompetence.

    Since the Granderson and Jackson deals were about 2011-2014 more than about 2010, this Damon signing fits well with a successful offseason that has the team shoring up its long-term positioning while maintaining competitiveness in the short-run. Initially, I was very pessimistic about downgrading from Polanco and the others. Looking at a lineup filled with below average hitters everywhere outside of Cabrera and Ordonez was depressing. Now I see that this team is doing just what Joe Dumars claims to attempting – reloading for the future while maintaining competitiveness. This isn’t easy (or cheap), but the Tigers are doing it right by avoiding any long-term costly commitments to players that aren’t franchise-caliber.

    by Mat on Feb 21, 2010 at 12:37 pm

  12. Extremely baffling. Apparently they had this much to spend on a position player and a pitcher and THIS is how he choose to do it? 36y/o crappy OF and a closer ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm…

    by David on Feb 21, 2010 at 1:08 pm

  13. While I agree with your general take, this one part won’t work:
    “…he becomes a nice trade asset at the deadline. This is a no risk move.”

    Apparently at Damon’s request the deal includes a no-trade clause, so Damon doesn’t have to worry about being dumped at the trade deadline

    by Coleman on Feb 21, 2010 at 1:10 pm

  14. Which Damon will gladly waive if we are out of the race and he can go to a contender.

    by Kevin in Dallas on Feb 21, 2010 at 1:23 pm

  15. If you’ve got a better solution, I’d love to hear it. If you say something like “they should have taken that money, added Inge and 100 Hot N Ready’s and gone after Hanley Ramirez” then don’t even bother wasting our time.

    I love the deals. What 163?

    by Kevin in Dallas on Feb 21, 2010 at 1:26 pm

  16. David – 100% totally agree. $8 million for a 36yr old with declining skills, declining skills with evidence they’re about to fall off of a cliff. Especially since most of his power was inflated by ‘Damon’s Deck’ in the new Yankee stadium. $8 million for someone who projects to be a bad defender, with maybe 12 HR’s, 6-8 sb’s, .420 slg %, .750 ops.

    However, I CAN offer a solution, grease the palm of Damon’s physician, so that he’ll fail his physical and void the contract.

    by greg on Feb 21, 2010 at 1:59 pm

  17. David, totally agree. As far as the solution goes, well the solution for this team was obvious and is still obvious and that is to do outside of the box trading. There wasn’t anything else for us to do this offseason besides that. We have too many guys that can’t help us for the long-term and we are wasting time and money by letting them rot here instead of using them as a catalyst to get a leg up. Instead of spending money on short term rentals of old players like Damon and Valverde, the Tigers should have used those assets to trade away their players that don’t have high value and start cleaning up the house. You could look at it as trading money to another team instead of spending it on these old guys. Or you could look at it as using the money to pay down these contracts so that the players are now worth more as trade chips. Either way, the money is equity and we used that equity to juice some short term stays with some undesirable players for the future, and all that does is make the road to a future dynasty more littered with trash and weak ROI efficiency, and ultimately for the next 10 years you are going to see the Tigers win a TON, TON less games than they could have if they were managing this team logically in the present time. I’d rather be a fan of a team that didn’t spend much money but got more wins per money than the teams that spend it “stupidly”. I find Mr. Illitch to be very disrespectful for his actions of letting DD keep his job and his continued support of these types of moves.

    by TSE on Feb 21, 2010 at 2:10 pm

  18. I don’t understand. Are you suggesting the team spend money to get rid of the bad contracts (Willis, Robertson, etc.)? What does cleaning house get you? It not like the franchise is teaming with AAA propsects who are blocked by veterans.

    I understand the concept of cleaning house for a rebuild in the NBA, particularly with so few roster spots and the draft positioning incentive, but MLB doesn’t work the same way. The moves made this offseason have set the Tigers up well in the future. The Valverde and Damon signings don’t compromise that, they just happen to help the present, where, while the Tigers probably aren’t contenders, theres always a chance they sneak into the playoffs in a weak division.

    by Mat on Feb 21, 2010 at 2:23 pm

  19. It doesn’t really matter at this point, cause it’s not like it’s a realistic outcome to our reality with the hand we have been dealt and with how the guy playing the hand is going to play it out. These complaints are really just spillover complaints from many years ago and they aren’t going to go away so it’s just a matter of how much longer do you want to explore all the possibilities of which we will never experience?

    by TSE on Feb 21, 2010 at 3:44 pm

  20. It would be amusing to see if he would waive his no-trade to go back to NY. Well, actually it wouldn’t, since that would mean we were out of contention.

    by Coleman on Feb 21, 2010 at 4:25 pm

  21. They over paid by about 3m on the Damon contract which, by my estimation, makes this the best contract move of the Dombrowski Era.

    by stephen on Feb 21, 2010 at 4:46 pm

  22. They overpaid a LOT more than $3MM.

    by TSE on Feb 21, 2010 at 5:06 pm

  23. Damon’s contract at 8 million was obviously driven by the market. What did the Braves offer, what did the Sox offer? In a sport with no cap-limitations, over-paying someone really does not mean anything. If this were basketball/football, and we spent 4-5 million more “than we should have” and could have spent it on re-signing the star to more money/longer contracts, or invest in another position, that’s one thing. But it doesn’t matter in baseball. $8 million may be steep for a 36 year old with no-doubt lower homerun totals coming this year without the lower deck in Yankee stadium, but he is obviously a stop-gap until we can find who will be a legit lead-off hitter for us in the future. Spending $8 million on a lead-off hitter we need is a GOOD sign for us fans, not something to lament.

    by Dr. Detroit on Feb 21, 2010 at 5:43 pm

  24. I’m just happy!!!! Go Tigers!!!!!!!!!

    by Kathy on Feb 21, 2010 at 6:14 pm

  25. Do you have any back-up on this?

    I’m thrilled that it’s a one year deal. But if you can show me that the CWS had offered significantly less, and that’s all that was out there, then I’ll agree.

    by Kevin in Dallas on Feb 21, 2010 at 6:25 pm

  26. you choose…
    Granderson or Jackson and Damon ????

    I love Granderson…but good luck in NY I’m going Jackson and Damon. I basically happened because theres No one or two hitter.. Does this even happen if the Granderson trade wasn’t made?

    by Jud on Feb 21, 2010 at 7:54 pm

  27. MLB trade rumors had the WS around 4.5M, although Tampa Bay was recently reported to have had the 2nd highest bid, but that figure wasn’t listed.

    by Andre in Chi on Feb 21, 2010 at 8:15 pm

  28. Roster spot wise it’s-
    Granderson / Thames
    or
    Jackson / Damon.

    I think the latter will help win more games. The Tigers look like a better now and in the future.

    by Keith (Mr. X) on Feb 21, 2010 at 8:17 pm

  29. Totally Jud. If Granderson were still here, no way do we make this kind of deal. Jackson has the makings of being Granderson 2.0 at the fraction of the cost, and a half a decade younger. We lost the Central last year, and we needed to change the team as it stood. The only way to do that was to either (1) spend more money or (2) trade valuable assets. We spent money were it was needed: Verlander and a closer (Valverde, barring injury, is going to be a stud for us) but we needed a new look. Granderson, for all of his benefits, also is a terrible lead-off hitter because of his strikeouts, low OBP and his streakiness. But he also was the most valuable asset the team had outside of JV, Miggy and Porcello. Who do we trade to get back a guy like Scherzer (whom by the way is a monster–a Padres buddy of mine was happy to see him go), Jackson, Coke and Schlereth, solid, potentially spectacular talent, all team controlled contracts, and all of their contracts combined equaling about a 1/4 of Granderson’s? Inge? Yeah, right. Mags? Guillen? Granderson was it and we made out. Damon is a winner and a proven hitter. Yes, he throws like me trying to throw left-handed (i.e. terribly) but it’s a one-year deal. Solid move.

    by Dr. Detroit on Feb 21, 2010 at 8:29 pm

  30. Ouch.

    by Kevin in Dallas on Feb 21, 2010 at 9:56 pm

  31. A one year deal can’t do any harm and might do a lot of good. But I find this Damon story a lot less interesting than the trade that DD will probably do before the end of spring training. If we really do have a surplus of pitching — and fourth outfielders — can we get a relatively young SS or 3b who can both field and hit? Can you imagine what that would be like?

    by Spike on Feb 22, 2010 at 4:15 pm

  32. 8NnrPt Thank you for the material. Do you mind if I posted it in her blog, of course, with reference to your site?

    by Cialis on Mar 3, 2010 at 10:06 pm

« | »




Recent Posts


Pages



About The Detroit Tiger Weblog

About the Site Detroit Tigers Weblog was launched in July, 2001. At the time it was the only Tigers blog and it resided as a blogspot page. There were multiple authors and it mostly consisted of links to the rare times the Tigers were mentioned in the national media. We only had a few dozen […]more →

Switch to our desktop site