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
|
