I won’t lie, I was lukewarm about the chatter three weeks ago that the Yankees were looking to acquire Curtis Granderson from the Tigers. I didn’t like the fact that he only hit .249 in 2009 and that he only got on base 32.7% of the time. I didn’t like that he strikes out so much and that for a guy with his speed, he only stole 20 bases last year. His .183 average against lefties in 2009 bugs me too. But there’s just something about him putting on the pinstripes that makes me believe he is going to turn it up as the Yankees center fielder over what could be a good portion of the next decade. 

Again, at the beginning I didn’t like this idea. Then, when I inserted Granderson into the Yankees lineup, something dawned on me. The Yankees lineup is so tenacious and deep that hitting between Jeter and Teixeira (against righties) will only make him a better hitter. Something is strikingly wrong if you only hit .250 when batting before Teixeira and A-Rod. After saying this, however, I’m still quite concerned about Granderson’s poor numbers in 2009.

To obtain Granderson, the Yankees had to part with their first or second best prospect, Austin Jackson. The Yankees, who have been reluctant to give up Jackson, traded him in the deal because he would most likely turn out to be a Curtis Granderson-type player down the road. It makes more sense for the Yankees to give up Jackson in a trade for Granderson instead of a trade for Roy Halladay. This is because in return for Jackson, the Yankees received the best case scenario of what Austin Jackson would become in about 7 years. Granderson is already established in the MLB, unlike Jackson. At age 22, Jackson’s future is up in the air, although it does look bright. Granderson has four full major league seasons as a starting center fielder under his belt.

I’ve spent the last two nights reading about Curtis Granderson and Austin Jackson, reading articles on the three-way trade and scouting reports on the two players and reading fan discussions and forums. There are a million different angles and opinions. When you get so many people talking about one topic there’s bound to be differences and conflicting reports. Some people love Austin Jackson and think he is going to be a future star in the majors. Other people aren’t so high on him and don’t expect him to be anything sensational.

People are also speculating on who got the best deal out of the three-team trade. Some people think the Yankees lost greatly in this deal citing Tigers GM and former Marlins GM, Dave Dombrowski, “ripped off”  the Yankees. Others believe the Yankees got the best part of the deal and stole Granderson away from the Tigers for almost nothing. It all depends on how you view the players that were traded. If you believe Granderson is going to be a star in New York then you must believe the Yankees got the best part of the deal. If you think Jackson is going to rise, Max Scherzer is going to become a big time pitcher and Granderson is going to flounder with the Yankees, then maybe the Tigers got the best part. Maybe you think Ian Kennedy and Edwin Jackson are going to make the Diamondbacks’ rotation one to reckon with. Time will tell who got the best out of this trade. How do you define or set parameters to figure out who got the best deal in the trade and who got the short end of the stick? If the “best” means winning the World Series then we all know who is most likely to be known as getting the best out of the Curtis Granderson, three-team trade, even if Granderson doesn’t do all that great.