54 Responses to “By request, a really depressing ranking”

1. bhsmarine on April 30th, 2007 6:12 pm

   Helton is top three in OBP, BA, OPS of all active players. His road stats are still far better then Sexson BA.294 OBP.393 SLG.506 OPS.900 The question your asking possible hall of famer or future strikeout king?

2. Josh on April 30th, 2007 6:29 pm

   Helton is better than Sexson now, even though his power is sapped. I don’t think anyone would reasonably argue against that. The problem is that he’s being paid more than Sexson now, and will continue to be so through at least 2011, when he’ll rake in $19.1m for, honestly, probably not much raking. Then whoever has him will have to pay $4.6m for him not to play for the team.

   Helton was one of my favorite players to watch for a number of years, but even I wouldn’t want to pay him $19.1m for his age 37 season.

3. beckya57 on April 30th, 2007 9:27 pm

   Sexson’s contract, in my opinion, is symbolic of everything that’s wrong about the Armstrong-Lincoln-Bavasi approach. Time and again, these guys pay second- to third-rank players like Sexson, or over-the-hill players, star-level money, with long contracts. They seem to think they’re being “smart” by eschewing the really expensive, really big name free agents, but they overpay people who are only a small cut above replacement level (if that). Raul Ibanez I believe is another example; though I’m sure he’s not making as much as Sexson, I’m equally sure he’s making more than he’s worth. Beltre is another example, but of a slightly different problem: don’t ever try to generalize NL performance to the AL. And then of course you have the sheer idiocy of Jeff Weaver’s contract. Billy Beane knows better than to waste money on people who are only slightly better than replacement level.

4. beckya57 on April 30th, 2007 9:29 pm

   I should have mentioned that Bloomquist is an example of a different kind of mistake: confusing effort and likeability with talent.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.