Worst baseball contract ever?

Jayson Stark asks the question this week, which contract is worse -
Hampton's or Zito's? With Zito headed to the bullpen, his is looking
pretty bad, and it never looked all that good to begin with. Hampton's
has been a sinkhole for sure, but (a) he at least gave us 400 useful
innings, even if he tanked for Colorado, and (b) insurance has covered
some of the costs when he's been hurt. Zito, on the other hand, has
given the Giants 225 innings of 11-19 of 4.9 ERA ball, and is apparently
only getting worse. Of course, Zito could yet rebound and make his deal
merely bad.

However, i think Stark is off the mark, and the real worst ever is
Darren Dreifort. Even though his contract was a mere $57m, as opposed to
the $120m monsters of Zito and Hampton, his was even more irrational.
Hampton and Zito had at least pitched well for a few years prior to
their big deals; their peripherals and park effects gave cause for
concerns, but I could at least understand why a naive GM could overpay
in a frenzy of irrational bidding.

Dreifort hadn't even done that. He posted a good ERA as a reliever in
1997, then never posted an ERA below four (in the pitcher friendly oasis
of Dodger Stadium) or reached 200 innings while going 33-34 over three
years as a starter. And for this they gave him 5 years and $57m. And in
return they got...a whopping 206 innings of 9-15, 4.63 ERA (did I
mention Dodger Stadium?) baseball, over three partial and two completely
missed seasons.

Colin

>Jayson Stark asks the question this week,
>which contract is worse - Hampton's or
>Zito's?

Pavano, anyone? American Idle?

--
"Ever since the 60's, it's been all downhill" - Keith Hernandez, on how
far we've sunk as a culture

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:47:29 -0400, Colin William
<colintwilliam@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Jayson Stark asks the question this week, which contract is worse -
>Hampton's or Zito's?

[snip]
>
>However, i think Stark is off the mark, and the real worst ever is
>Darren Dreifort. Even though his contract was a mere $57m, as opposed to
>the $120m monsters of Zito and Hampton, his was even more irrational.
>Hampton and Zito had at least pitched well for a few years prior to
>their big deals;
[snip]

I read in this morning's paper that Hampton is supposed to pitch in a rehab
assignment today for Richmond versus Durham...too bad it's not tomorrow
when Durham has one of its rare day games starting about 1100 AM. I could
probably attend that one.

Ray H.
Ray H.

Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented immigrant" is
like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist".

On Apr 29, 11:47 am, Colin William <colintwill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Jayson Stark asks the question this week, which contract is worse -
> Hampton's or Zito's? With Zito headed to the bullpen, his is looking
> pretty bad, and it never looked all that good to begin with. Hampton's
> has been a sinkhole for sure, but (a) he at least gave us 400 useful
> innings, even if he tanked for Colorado, and (b) insurance has covered
> some of the costs when he's been hurt. Zito, on the other hand, has
> given the Giants 225 innings of 11-19 of 4.9 ERA ball, and is apparently
> only getting worse. Of course, Zito could yet rebound and make his deal
> merely bad.
>
> However, i think Stark is off the mark, and the real worst ever is
> Darren Dreifort. Even though his contract was a mere $57m, as opposed to
> the $120m monsters of Zito and Hampton, his was even more irrational.
> Hampton and Zito had at least pitched well for a few years prior to
> their big deals; their peripherals and park effects gave cause for
> concerns, but I could at least understand why a naive GM could overpay
> in a frenzy of irrational bidding.
>
> Dreifort hadn't even done that. He posted a good ERA as a reliever in
> 1997, then never posted an ERA below four (in the pitcher friendly oasis
> of Dodger Stadium) or reached 200 innings while going 33-34 over three
> years as a starter. And for this they gave him 5 years and $57m. And in
> return they got...a whopping 206 innings of 9-15, 4.63 ERA (did I
> mention Dodger Stadium?) baseball, over three partial and two completely
> missed seasons.

I think it's not quite correct to judge a good or bad contract based
entirely on the results, because the contracts aren't given with the
advantage of hindsight.

Hampton's deal has become a disaster, but it's not necessarily one
that anyone saw coming. He was 27 and coming off what are still the
two best seasons of his career. The peripherals weren't amazing, but
450 innings of 3.00 ERA ball before the Rockies signed him was a
pretty solid track record. His being *that* bad in Colorado was a
surprise, and there wasn't any precedent for his current run of
injuries (in a way, Hampton reminds me of Ken Griffey Jr; he hit 30
and parts started falling off.) The dollars were stupid, but I don't
really fault Colorado for the choice of personnel. Hampton looked
like a pretty sure thing back in the winter of 2000.

The Giants, on the other hand... they signed a pitcher who was in
three years of relative regression after an early career peak. He was
durable and his ERA wobbled between average and good, but his stuff
had clearly started to fade. Most tellingly, Zito's K rate dropped
from better than 8 K/9 at his peak to just over 6 when the Giants
signed him, and it was apparent his velocity was slipping. A 28-year
old pitcher who is seemingly already in decline is not one you sign
for seven years, much less at record dollars. Zito's not as bad as
he's shown this season, but his continued dropoff is something that
everyone but Brian Sabean saw coming. Stupid money AND stupid choice
of personnel by the Giants.

The Dreifort deal is likely the actual worst signing, as there was
nothing at all in his career that warranted that kind of contract, but
it was small enough in years and money (relative to Hampton/Zito) that
I see why it's not necessarily in the running.

Colin William pisze:
> Jayson Stark asks the question this week, which contract is worse -
> Hampton's or Zito's? With Zito headed to the bullpen, his is looking
> pretty bad, and it never looked all that good to begin with. Hampton's
> has been a sinkhole for sure, but (a) he at least gave us 400 useful
> innings, even if he tanked for Colorado, and (b) insurance has covered
> some of the costs when he's been hurt. Zito, on the other hand, has
> given the Giants 225 innings of 11-19 of 4.9 ERA ball, and is apparently
> only getting worse. Of course, Zito could yet rebound and make his deal
> merely bad.

Last season Zito was very close to an average pitcher (ERA+ 98). This
season he has probably a negative VORP. I don't believe in his rebound -
there is a trend in his stats.

Hampton, while playing in Atlanta, had 112, 101, 121 ERA+. Those are
positive numbers. And when he's injured he doesn't hurt the team. And
the insurance cover at least part of his salary (while Giants are on the
hook for the full monty).

So it's not even close to me. Zito is hurting his team, Hampton isn't.
Zito costs a lot more. And I like better Hampton's chance to give
something positive to his team.

pzdr

TRad