Poll Results: Best-to-Worst 3+ Year Free Agent Contracts for 2010

The first number (ordinal ranking) is where The Book Blog readers ranked the deals. The second number is the percentage of Fangraphs readers who think the player gave the team the best value, and the third number is for the team that signed the worst deal:

Based on 250 Book Blog readers and 3000 Fangraphs readers.

1. 58 – 03 – Figgins

3. 11 – 05 – Polanco
2. 08 – 03 – Byrd

5. 07 – 10 – Lackey
4. 04 – 09 – Wolf

6. 06 – 17 – Holliday
7. 04 – 19 – Bay
8. 01 – 34 – Lyon




Print This Post



48 Responses to “Poll Results: Best-to-Worst 3+ Year Free Agent Contracts for 2010”

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
  1. OremLK says:

    Bay’s deal is so, so much worse than Lyon’s, it’s not even funny. Bay is the kind of contract which hamstrings an organization for years to come, and it looks even stupider considering the kind of money guys like Damon and Branyan wound up making. It’s not just paying double market value per win, it’s doing it at an $80 million/5 year volume.

    Lyon is a similar overpay per win, but look at it this way: The Mets are throwing away around $40 million. The Astros are throwing away around $8 million.

    Of course, the Astros already have a similarly terrible contract on the books in Carlos Lee, but he wasn’t signed this off-season or by Ed Wade’s front office.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • ATepperm says:

      Yeah, ranking the “worst” contract was really tricky.
      I think Holliday’s an amazing player and a fabulous complement to Pujols, but (after some thought) I voted his the worst contract precisely because of its cost and length.

      Certainly Holliday will provide tons of value, but it’s so long – and we’ve seen so many long-term superstar contracts turn into albatrosses over the years (Zito, Wells, Soriano, etc) – I just think there’s a really good chance the Holliday contract could turn ugly.

      Then again, it might turn out splendidly. I guess that’s why they play the games…

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • alskor says:

      I voted Lyon in the original piece.

      For me, I can understand WHY a team might believe in Jason Bay – even though I strongly disagree with their assessment. Wrong side of 30, old player skills, components in decline, no glove, bad knees. Despite that, he does add plenty of patience and power. I feel like even a good GM could be somewhat seduced by Jason Bay.

      Brandon Lyon? Absolutely no reason ANYONE should have thought he was anything near that valuable. Old school and new school GMs looked at that and said “What the hell is Ed Wade doing??”

      While Bay will in all likelihood be drastically overpaid by the end of that deal he will provide some substantial production over the course of his contract. I could easily Lyon providing negative value.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • JoeyO says:

      “Lyon is a similar overpay per win, but look at it this way: The Mets are throwing away around $40 million. The Astros are throwing away around $8 million.”

      You have to put things in true context. Lyon is projected to be around a 3.80 ERA in about 65 IP. The average qualified reliever was a 3.49 ERA in 64 IP last season while the average reliever generally posts a 4.0 ERA. Lyon is average at best, and shouldnt be given but a one year contract and for anything much more league average. They basically threw away about 14 Million.

      And unlike the Mets, the Astros had zero reason to vastly overpay a player. The Mets had a glaring hole and are paying the advanced cost-per-win premium for every win over average one on of only two premium players for the position. The Astros had no reason to pay even WAR cost on such a mediocre reliever that was readily available, let alone pay him almost double his projected value on a ridiculous 3 year commitment. You can look at the Mets signing and at least figure out what their thinking was – the same cant be done on the Lyon signing at all.

      So because the Lyon contract just has zero logic behind it while almost the entire dollar cost is wasted money you have yourself arguably the worst contract of the off-season.

      Now I personally agree the Bay deal is worse, but for a different reason. I voted that way because it tied the Mets hands all season long eventually resulting in none of their other holes being filled. Beyond the Met’s entire offseason being tied to the Bay deal though, the Lyons contract was worse.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • JoeyO says:

        Should read “much more then league minimum” up there in the first paragraph

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • OremLK says:

        They didn’t throw away $14 million; Brandon Lyon has been worth an average of 0.9 WAR per season over the last four years. Assuming he matches that performance over the course of his contract, he would be worth almost $9 million at a market value of $3.3 million per win. Perhaps you want to say that’s optimistic and he will only be worth what he was last year, 0.7 WAR per season. That’s still about $7M of value.

        It’s undeniably a bad contract, but not nearly so much as FanGraphs readers apparently believe. The Astros are paying about twice as much per win as Lyon’s actual value, on what is, in the grand scheme of things, a fairly small contract. This is not unusual for a high leverage reliever–the league as a whole overvalues them, especially non-sabermetically minded general managers. Remember, reports had it that some other teams, like the Phillies, were offering Lyon two years at the same cost per year.

        As for Bay? At the market value of $3.3 million per win, he has been worth an average of $10 million per year. He will be paid an average of $18.5 million per year on a contract that runs into his declining seasons. Furthermore, he is moving from an exceptionally hitter (and outfielder) friendly ballpark to one that is the exact opposite. Couple that with his injury concerns and the fact that he cannot play DH in the NL, and you have one godawful, franchise-crippling contract.

        The Astros? Sure, they’re out $7-8 million over value on a stopgap reliever, and that was stupid of them. But Lyon’s contract does not cripple their franchise, and that alone makes it less bad.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • JoeyO says:

        OremLK,

        Relievers dont get WAR value off the free agent market. Relievers in the range of Lyon’s production are readily available and costing somewhere in the range of minimum to 1 million on a one year deal – 14 million less then they paid. 14 million is basically thrown away.

        “This is not unusual for a high leverage reliever”

        Lyon has never been a high leverage reliever and has generally been in the ballpark of average.

        “Remember, reports had it that some other teams, like the Phillies, were offering Lyon two years at the same cost per year.”

        The Phillies are in a situation like the Mets where they are pressured to pay above cost for minor upgrades. The Astros have zero reason to vastly overpay for any contribution, and especially giving a contract that is so long it can only become a sunk cost. BUT, the Phillies were also not “willing to pay the price for” Lyon when he was asking for 2 years and 9 Million.

        “As for Bay? At the market value of $3.3 million per win, he has been worth an average of $10 million per year.”

        You are heavily relying on WAR to Cost values without the context they must be given. There are premiums for position, for team situation, and for market depth among other aspects. A mediocre reliever is about as plentiful as you can get in this market, a middle of the order LF isnt. A club with no chance of winning shouldnt even be contemplating a premium price on a heavily available commodity while a competing team in dire need of a scarce commodity should be expected to pay a premium.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • OremLK says:

        JoeyO,

        Lyon has been an 8th inning “setup” reliever and occasionally a closer for years. Whether you like it or not, that’s high leverage, and the market pays more for that regardless of true ability.

        “The Astros have zero reason to vastly overpay for any contribution…”

        In your opinion. Some projections, like PECOTA, have Houston right in the middle of things in the NL Central. Clearly, the front office thinks they can at least remain competitive, which drives up ticket sales and increases revenue.

        “You are heavily relying on WAR to Cost values without the context they must be given. There are premiums for position, for team situation, and for market depth among other aspects. A mediocre reliever is about as plentiful as you can get in this market, a middle of the order LF isnt. A club with no chance of winning shouldnt even be contemplating a premium price on a heavily available commodity while a competing team in dire need of a scarce commodity should be expected to pay a premium.”

        Actually, I wasn’t relying just on WAR. As I pointed out, Johnny Damon and Russell Branyan both just signed far more reasonable contracts–both can play LF, and with only a small drop in production compared to Bay. No, this was a simple case of awful market timing and terrible decisionmaking on the part of the Mets. There is a good chance that they will overpay more in pure dollar value in 2010 alone on Bay than the Astros will on Lyon over the entire course of the reliever’s entire contract.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • JoeyO says:

        “Lyon has been an 8th inning “setup” reliever and occasionally a closer for years. Whether you like it or not, that’s high leverage, and the market pays more for that regardless of true ability.”

        No he hasn’t. He was tried in the setup and closer roles randomly throughout the last couple years, but more then half of his appearances have been low to medium leverage. This market was flooded with mediocre relievers with real fulltime setup and closer jobs the last few years – relievers who were only bringing about 3 million home themselves.

        “In your opinion. Some projections, like PECOTA, have Houston right in the middle of things in the NL Central.”

        Right in the middle of the NLC doesn’t mean competing. But even if it were true that the team just feels they might compete, then why waste the money on Lyon when they could have been filling other much bigger holes and use the 1.65 million closer they traded for in that spot instead? A mediocre reliever who they hope might somehow produce for them is the least likely way to help bridge a gap in a division. When they ha better alternatives at a fraction of the cost to said mediocre reliever, its 100% wasted money. Wasting money doesn’t help you win; in fact it’s the reason teams lose.

        “Actually, I wasn’t relying just on WAR. As I pointed out, Johnny Damon and Russell Branyan both just signed far more reasonable contracts–both can play LF, and with only a small drop in production compared to Bay.”

        I hope youre kidding. Branyan is a DH with major back issues who provides absolutely HR or nothing production, meaning completely streaky with almost no help provided to the club when not hitting a HR. Damon is a 36 year old off questionable production the last three season who had dramatic home road splits last year which point to him being no where near as productive at the plate. There was only one comparable player to Bay on the market – Holliday. The Mets overpaid, but you cant sign the best of the market without overpaying to at least some extent. Lyon isn’t even close to the best on the market but was paid like it by a club that didn’t need him one single bit.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

    • JoeR43 says:

      It’s semantics, really.

      What’s worse, a massive, top 20 (top 10?) contract for a good player, or a mid-level contract for a useless one?

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  2. DL80 says:

    Am I the only one that sees the Figgins deal as being potentially one of the worst for the team? I mean, he’s 32. His game is predicated entirely on speed. His walk rate has been increasing, but he’s going to get old fast and that’s going to be all he has left. They are paying him to be a 3.0 win player (average) for the next 4 years. If last year wasn’t a fluke, it’s going to work out really well for Seattle. But if last year was a fluke (he’d never had more than a 3.1 WAR), there is a lot of wasted money possible there. The Mariners basically said that they think Figgins’ 31-year-old monster season was somehow indicative of new skills (it could be), his defense is going to stay very good (it could), he’s not going to get old quickly (maybe), and he’s going to be fine as he gets slower (he could be). That’s a hell of a lot of could’s. The only saving grace is that it’s not an overwhelming amount of money, so the potential for a disaster seems low. Still, I don’t get why everyone praised this deal. I’ve liked most of Jack Z’s moves, and this may be something they had to do to contend this year with Lee probably leaving, but in a vacuum, I don’t like it.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • greymstreet says:

      They’re not paying him for last year. At $9m/season, they’re paying him for a bit over 2 wins/season

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • DL80 says:

        Depends on the value of a win. I can’t remember the exact number, but I’ve seen authors here say that it has been 3.4-3.5 million this offseason. That comes out to 2.6 wins for 9 million dollars. My quick and fuzzy math earlier overstated it, so you are right about that. I don’t think that’s all that excessive, but I think it’s silly to think that Figgins will be worth a lot more than 3 wins per year for much longer. I think that, best case, he’s likely to be worth let’s say 3.5, 3.0, 2.5, 2.0 over the next four years. That’s 11 wins for 36 million. That’s almost exactly the right value, but I see that as the best case. I think it’s more likely that injuries, age, and diminished defense (at a non-priority defensive position) make him worth more like 9 wins. So, looking back at it, I guess you are right. It took me actually looking at the money to see it, but I suppose it’s not that much of an overpayment, even with a non-ideal next 4 years out of Figgins. Ok, fair enough.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Hejuk says:

        Well, players with Figgins’s skill set tend to age better than average. But even if 11 wins is a fair projection, locking up a ~3 win player for four years at market value when the market is depressed has to be considered a good deal. Some of this depends on how you project payroll over the next several years, which in turn depends on the larger economy, but I think it reasonable to guess there will at least be moderate inflation in salaries and – if the economy recovers – we could quickly jump back to 2008 levels.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • dl80 says:

        Hejuk, good point. I think I am pretty pessimistic about the sports economy for now, especially after reading about the problems facing the NBA. I think even if the regular economy rebounds somewhat, people (including me) have 20 years of credit card debt to pay back before spending it on luxuries like going to games, especially when ticket prices continue to skyrocket.

        Overall, I should have thought a bit more before posting about Figgins’ contract. It is not really the contract itself that is so bad, IMO; it is the fact that I don’t want Figgins starting at 3b on my team in 4 years. I think he’s going to be a pretty poor option at 3b (offensively at least) in a couple years. If his defense remains very good, that mitigates it somewhat. But if his contract has Seattle playing him at 3b in 2013, I think that is a problem.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Ender says:

      I don’t think the Figgins deal is all that great but I don’t think it will be a disaster either. It is probably pretty close to fair.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • B N says:

      I donno, I don’t see him necessarily declining all that much. He’ll only be 35, which is not that old, and he doesn’t have a major injury history. I tend to feel his skill set is similar to a guy like Kenny Lofton in a lot of ways: speedy guy who knows how to take a walk and can hit for solid average. While I wouldn’t project him to last as long as Lofton, I don’t think any of Figgins’ skills seem overly likely to decline except for his SB.

      If Chone can still keep hitting for solid average, with reasonable walks though, I think it’s fine if he dips down into the 20 SB a year range rather than the 40 SB range. Combine that with being a plus fielder (a very plus fielder, if you believe UZR) and that seems like a guy who will earn his keep over the average of the contract. I mean, what kind of numbers are you expecting over 4 years? My thinking is something like: 0.285 AVG, 0.375 OBP, 100 SB, +18 UZR (total, not annual). That doesn’t seem too bad in my opinion. If my 3B has a 0.365 OBP, can steal 25+, and gains me over 4 runs a year with his glove- I don’t think I’d be unhappy to know he’s getting that money. And I think that’s a pretty conservative estimate, as it assumes he does lose about 20 bases worth of speed by his 3rd year and it halves his historic UZR rating. He could easily outperform this, especially if he can maintain a good walk rate. I mean, if Figgins could walk in 2% more of his PA, he would have a 0.385 OBP, even with a league average BA.

      And if you look at his trends, he has steadily been increasing his BB % (from 9% in 2005, to 10 % in 2007, to 12 % in 2008, to 14% last year). If even his 12% rate is supportable over the duration of his contract, a 0.280 BA would give him a 0.400 OBP. So there’s a lot of upside there. I am not sure if he supports it, and I’m assuming a 9% BB rate across the 4 years- but that is being conservative. If he maintains a walk rate like his last couple of years, he’d be valuable even if he didn’t steal a single base.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • B N says:

        Note: Plus fielder at 3B. UZR hates him everywhere else. ;)

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • DL80 says:

        I’m fine with seeing him as a plus-defender. I’m concerned that his ridiculously high BABIP rate will fall as he loses speed. Maybe that’s not true, but if his average falls, I don’t think he’s worth all that much. The steals are nice, but his career steal percentage is just below the break-even point (he’s at 74.4%), so that doesn’t help all that much. Last year he was at 71% and 72% the year before. So, if anything, he’s getting worse at stealing bases. If that drops off and you have a guy whose defense is good, but not great at 3b, and his BABIP falls even slightly, you’re looking at .270/.370 (maybe)/.360 with steals that aren’t worth the cost of getting them. That’s ok, but not what I want out of my starting third baseman. To be fair, though, that may be a worst-case scenario. I guess I am just skeptical how it will be in 2-3 years.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Brett says:

        DL80, I think you are expecting far faster decline than is likely. It’s fairly well established that players with his skill set age well. 30-34 isn’t his prime, but I wouldn’t expect his total value to drop as low as 2 any year of this contract unless something unpleasant happens. I’m fairly certain nobody expects him to put up numbers like 2009 going forward.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Reuben says:

      Not sure why I can’t reply to any of your subcomments. As has been mentioned elsewhere, it’s ok to overpay slightly when you are in serious contention as the Mariners are. Taking away Figgins from the Angels means something too. Even if he’s on the low-end of possibilities, averaging 2 wins over the next 4 years, some of the difference in cost is made up by their position of competitiveness and taking him away from the Angels.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  3. Samuel E. Giddins says:

    Don’t. Forget that the Mets have some outfield prospects that Bay will likely force out of the organization.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • alskor says:

      Id be much more worried about Bay having to move to 1B with shot knees and blocking Ike Davis than I would him blocking OF prospects.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • JoeyO says:

      If you are worried about young players being displaced by an outfielder, the outfielder you should be complaining about is the replacement level production the team will be receiving from Right Field and in the 4th OF spot.

      Jeff Francoeur and Gary Matthews should be the targets of that complaint; not Bay.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • BX says:

      Not really…

      If/when Fernando Martinez is MLB ready, he should remove Francoeur from his starting job.

      If someone like Kirk Nieuwenhuis (I think the second best OF prospect in Mets system) warrants a starting gig in the near future, that’s a good problem to have (And, injuries do happen!) .

      I agree that Bay’s contract is dumb, but he isn’t blocking anyone. Francoeur is the one doing the blocking.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  4. tangotiger says:

    What is interesting to me whenever I reveal the results of the polls is the way some people disagree with the results. What you are saying when you do disagree is that you are in the minority.

    That’s not to say you are wrong necessarily. But, in order to make your case, since you are in the minority position, you’re going to have to say something that the majority hasn’t heard yet.

    I mean, Figgins’ age is not something new to bring to the table. That Holliday will be old when the contract runs out is not new.

    etc, etc

    In 3 years, we’ll get a better feel as to whether the crowd knows what it was talking about. If Lyon becomes a stud closer, if Bay becomes MVP, etc, then we can say that the GMs may have known something the fans didn’t.

    That’s why we need to do alot more of these polls, to get the landscape settled, so we can evaluate things years down the road.

    Thanks to all who participated.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • JoeyO says:

      “If Lyon becomes a stud closer”

      It merely would mean the Astros lucked out, but still wouldn’t excuse the logic behind the contract.

      Now, had Wade given Lyon a 1 year 5 Million deal with a 5 million option and Lyon became a stud closer that the Astros were able to trade for top prospects, then it could be said it was a great move. But that isnt possible on the contract given out. Instead the unlikely outcome you provide for would merely mean he paid something in the realm of market value. It still wouldnt explain why a team with no need for a market value closer would commit so many years to such a commodity on such a high-risk deal that they wouldnt be able to easily trade and capitalize off of.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • B N says:

      And if Lyon turns into an actual lion midgame and mauls Shawn Chacon at the plate, do we say that Ed Wade knew something we didn’t? Not to discount that front offices certainly have a lot more information and analysis, but that despite all the information and all the analysts organizations still make mistakes that are obvious. Kazmir for V. Zambrano for instance. I think this is one of those cases.

      Moreover, even if Ed Wade DID know something special about Lyon, he shouldn’t have paid him for it. Because it was clear that no other organization thought the same. Firstly, that should be a warning. Secondly, that means that you should put your price to be in line with what everyone else thinks, plus a little buffer.

      I mean, if you play fantasy baseball and you think Wieters is going to be a top 10 player, because of special info that you have about him that no one else knows and you’re in an auction draft… do you bid 40 on him? Or do you recognize: “Hey, everyone else values him at X and I value him at 3*X. I’ll bid 1.2*X and take him.” That’s the issue with Lyon. I can see no other club that would go that high. 2/7 + incentives maybe? 1/5 plus option? Sure, if you believe he’s worth it. But 3/15 is a big commitment, especially on a club with so many more important holes.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • OremLK says:

        “Moreover, even if Ed Wade DID know something special about Lyon, he shouldn’t have paid him for it. Because it was clear that no other organization thought the same. Firstly, that should be a warning. Secondly, that means that you should put your price to be in line with what everyone else thinks, plus a little buffer.”

        The Phillies (and rumored, some other clubs) offered Lyon two years at about the same per-season value as Wade, so clearly, other organizations did think he had value. He went to three years/$15M in order to slightly outbid them.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • JoeyO says:

        “The Phillies (and rumored, some other clubs) offered Lyon two years at about the same per-season value as Wade,”

        No they didnt. They said they werent interested in him at his asking price of 2 years and 9 million. Instead they signed a similar pitcher with more leverage situation history only 5 million over 2 years. Per the Phillies eventual signing, Lyon should have made somewhere in the 2/5 range from them – a team in a situation to overpay players because of their competing situation.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  5. Tim says:

    It would not be wise to be so results-oriented based on these 8 contracts.

    There are a lot of variables in baseball, and if Lyon becomes a stud closer it would be too simplistic to assume that the GMs knew something the fans didn’t.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • tangotiger says:

      No one said only these 8. You build a database of ALL the contract signings in the offseason at the time they happened, adn then you evaluate them later.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  6. Joe C says:

    May I comment on the interpretation? The poll only asked respondents to pick the single best and worst contract. When you do that, you don’t get valid information about the second-best or third-best contract values, especially when there’s broad agreement on the single best one.

    For second place, you’re only getting information from people who do not believe Figgins’ deal is the best value – and the more people who agree on Figgins, the less likely those people are to be representative and rational voters.

    So the best you can say is that “Polanco finished in second place on the poll of best contract values,” not “the poll found that Polanco has the second-best contract value,” or “this is how Book Blog readers ranked the deals.” No big deal, and there’s nothing specific that I’d point to that would be different if each voter gave a full ranking, but it’s something to be careful about.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  7. B N says:

    Additionally, I dislike Polanco’s contract. It’s not a huge one, but he seems to have been on a steady decline. I’m glad he got his money, but I am a bit worried about “the cliff” in signing 35 year olds to 3 year deals. On the one hand, with a good year Polanco could be worth most of that contract in a single year- but he could also end up a mess.

    Though I may still just be expressing anguish over the stupidity of trading him away rather than benching Bell, who was awful.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  8. Sam says:

    There are a lot of Mariners’ fans on the internet.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  9. Johnny says:

    The Feliz contract is a head-scratcher, but I guess no where near as disabling as these.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  10. Matt says:

    BX is spot on. Bay isn’t blocking anyone. Neuwenhuis will replace Beltran and F-Mart will (or might) cause the Mets to bump Francoeur and eventually non-tender him. Wilmer Flores may eventually enter the outfield mix, but he’s so far away that he probably wont be ready until 2013, Bay’s last year of his contract.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  11. Linuxit says:

    I’d say things couldn’t have went any better for the Astros. The Astros were 1st to act, and they ended up with Lyon and the Tigers 2010 1st round draft pick. In arbitration Valverde might have received about $10 Million for ONE YEAR!

    It was all about timing too. Valverde declined arbitration on Dec. 7th. Lyon got his deal done on Dec. 9th. To get any player to sign on the FA market early, you have to give a very good offer or else that player will keep shopping and will likely sign with one of the other 29 teams. The Tigers offered Lyon around $10M/2 years and were hoping to get him back. The Astros did what they had to do to get him.

    Lyon actually pitched phenomenal for most of last year. After his rough April, he just looked like a different pitcher. He had 4 or 5 pitches working for him with lots of movement. He made it extremely difficult for hitters to get good wood on the ball. He’s a touchy feely type of pitcher, so it’s difficult to say how well he pitches for the next 3 years. He could be one the best closers if he keep throwing the way he did.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Linuxit says:

      I had Lyon as the best deal. $15 M over 3 years isn’t much at all. IMO, they could easily flip this contract at the trade deadline and get some decent prospect.

      I thought Wolf’s was the worst. He could be dead money. He had a 4 year stretch from 2004 to 2007 where he was constantly injured. Giving him any multi-year deal is just nuts.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  12. Jim says:

    The Figgins contract could even be a little bit better, if they’d swap him with Ichiro in the batting order. The thought of Ichiro at bat while a base-stealing threat is on first makes me smile.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  13. David says:

    I like the Bay deal. They certainly didn’t get him cheap, but for a club with their payroll it seemed ludicrous to not have signed one of Bay or Lackey, either of whom will be a significant upgrade for the Mets for at least the next 2-3 years if not more. The Mets desperately needed power, as their team leader had, I think, 12 HRs last year. Jason Bay, with the exception of his one outlier year a few years ago, hits 30 HRs like clockwork. I don’t think anyone else on the FA market this year will hit more homers over the life of Bay’s contract, including Holliday, who seems to be more of a 25 man at 30 years old. Furthermore, I couldn’t care less about defense in LF, as long as the guy a) is a good hitter, which Bay certainly is and B) he isn’t in a wheelchair.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Reuben says:

      Why couldn’t you care less about defense?

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • The Hit Dog says:

      You should care more about defense.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • David says:

        LF is one of the least important offensive positions and one of the most important offensive positions IMO. I’d take vinatge Manny Ramirez, or his first replacement in Boston, any day over an average hitter / average to above average defender in LF.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Reuben says:

      Why is an average bat/average defender or vintage Manny the only two left field options possible? What about an average bat and an incredible defense? Or hell, an incredible defense AND incredible bat? It doesn’t make any sense not to care about defense. It does make sense to think that Bay’s positives will outweigh his negatives. But it makes no sense to ignore useful skills.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • David says:

        Eh, being able to do more than the bare minimum defensively isn’t really useful in LF IMO. Being able to hit 30 HRs is though. I would definitely take an incredible bat and incredible defense over Bay, but not incredible defense and an average bat. At SS or CF *maybe*, but not in LF. But we can certainly agree to disagree. : )

        Vote -1 Vote +1

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Current day month ye@r *