Perhaps in response to the Cubs’ astronomical asking price for Matt Garza, the Yankees have started to kick the tires on free agent right hander Edwin Jackson. With very few other viable options left on the market, it seems logical for Brian Cashman to take stock of the remaining inventory. However, the reaction to Jackson possibly adding pinstripes to his already crowded closet was met with a panicked reaction among the Yankee-focused blogosphere. When it comes to spending money this winter, the Yankees are damned if they don’t and damned if they do.
Edwin Jackson vs. Matt Garza, 2009-2011
Source: Baseball-reference.com and fangraphs.com
The initial negative reaction to Jackson is understandable, especially considering the 5-year/$80-plus million contract Scott Boras was rumored to be initially seeking. To many Yankees’ fans, such a commitment would be eerily similar to the one made to A.J. Burnett. In fact, according to Jon Heyman, Boras has been comparing his client to Burnett, among others, in an effort to justify the lofty contract demands. Considering how poorly Burnett’s contract has turned out for the Yankees, Boras probably should have ripped that page out of his book before sending it to Brian Cashman.
Even though Joe Pawlikowski draws a compelling parallel between the Yankees’ emerging interest in Jackson and the events that led to last year’s signing of Rafael Soriano, it doesn’t likely that the team would go down that road again. Besides, the objection to Jackson really isn’t about the cost, or at least not entirely. Rather, many Yankees’ fans seem convinced that the similarities between Jackson and Burnett extend well beyond financial concerns.
Regardless of the price, if the Yankees sign Edwin Jackson, it probably won’t be a popular move, especially with so many convinced he is just a younger version of A.J. Burnett. However, it should be noted that from age 28-31, Burnett’s ERA+ was 113 and his bWAR and fWAR were 10.5 and 16.4, respectively. So, maybe the comparison isn’t so damning after all?
During his career, Edwin Jackson has suffered from a variety of unfair stigmas. Because he has been around for so long (nine seasons), and played on so many teams (six), he has the feel of a veteran retread despite being only 27. Also, his inability to live up to high expectations (in 2004, Baseball America ranked the then 20-year old right hander as the fourth best prospect in the game) has fueled the notion that his career has been a failure. However, if you compare Jackson to his contemporaries, instead of his slow start and inflated expectations, a different image emerges.
Top-20 Starters from 2009-2011, Ranked by fWAR (click to enlarge)
Source: fangraphs.com
Over the last three years, Edwin Jackson has compiled bWAR of 9.1, which is good for 17th on an impressive list of pitchers age-27 or younger. Fangraph’s version of WAR is even more generous, rating Jackson at 11.2, or 20th among all starters regardless of age. Either way, it’s hard to argue that Jackson hasn’t been successful over the past three years. What’s more, when you consider that he is only now entering his age-28 season, there also valid reason to believe he could still be getting better.
So, what would be a good contract for Jackson? Obviously, a lot depends on how serious the Yankees are about maintaining a budget, but assuming the team is committed to a new era of fiscal restraint, then any contract with an average annual value well above the $12 million salary figure reportedly being demanded by Hiroki Kuroda and Roy Oswalt would seem excessive (even though fangraphs.com has valued him at over $16 million on average over the last three years). Similarly, it wouldn’t make much sense to commit long term when Kuroda and Oswalt are each willing to accept a one-year deal. However, Jackson does deserve a premium over both pitchers because he is not only much younger, but has also pitched in the American League. On that basis, a contract in the neighborhood of three years/$39 million seems reasonable, but again, the exact terms are ultimately a question for Hal Steinbrenner and Brian Cashman to settle (and hopefully nobody else).
Jackson isn’t the kind of pitcher a team should pursue at all costs, but he also shouldn’t be dismissed if the price is right. Instead of pouncing on the potential acquisition before hearing the actual terms, some perspective is in order. There could very well turn out to be a devil in the details, but until then, there’s little value in damning the concept.
[…] finally, if you’re an Edwin Jackson proponent (or skeptic) take a look at this profile written by William at the Captain’s Blog. I’m still not convinced he’d be […]