MLB Anti-Trade Value

Dave · April 16, 2007 at 10:45 am · Filed Under Mariners 

As requested by multiple people in the comments of the MLB Trade Value post, here’s the Bizarro version. Instead of going forty deep, I’m only going to list what I consider to be the ten players with the least trade value in major league baseball. Obviously, on this kind of list, the contract is going to play a huge role – there are some good players who are just greatly overpaid, and their price/performance ratio is so far out of whack that they’re nearly impossible to even give away. These guys have significant negative trade value. For the sake of making this an interesting list, I excluded any player in the last year of their contract – otherwise it would just be a list of injured pitchers who are making some amount of money to not pitch this year. So guys like Kerry Wood, Kris Benson, and Matt Clement aren’t eligible.

Anyways, without further ado, here’s the top ten:

1. Mike Hampton, LHP, Atlanta

The Braves are paying Mike Hampton $14.5 million to not throw a pitch this season. They’ll pay him $15 million next year, and then owe him a $6 million buyout on his 2009 option. That’s $35.5 million for the hope that he strings together some mediocre innings in 2008 before he comes off the books. Ouch.

2. Garret Anderson, OF, Anaheim

Garret Anderson has been a below average major league regular since 2004, as his various injuries have zapped his power and his secondary skills have never been up to par. Now that he’s losing his bat speed at age 35 and he can barely play defense anymore, he’s a guy who belongs on the bench. Unfortunately for the Angels, they owe him $11.6 million this year, $12 million next year, and then a $3 million buyout of his 2009 contract. $26 million for two years of a bad player? Yikes.

3. Barry Zito, LHP, San Francisco

He’s not off to a strong start with the Giants, only reinforcing the general belief that he’s a middle of the rotation pitcher and a shell of his former Cy Young self. The ridiculous 7 year, $126 million contract he signed this offseason looked bad when it was signed, and there’s no reason to think any better of it now. There’s not a team in baseball that would claim Zito right now were he to land on waivers.

4. Michael Young, SS, Texas

In general, I think Rangers GM Jon Daniels is a smart guy. However, the extension he just gave Michael Young was the kind of move that can sink a franchise. I know Young is beloved in Arlington as the heart and soul of the franchise, and keeping him around is a move the fans wanted to see. But the problem is that Young just isn’t that good, and they’ll be paying him $16 million per season from 2009 to 2013, his age 32 through 36 seasons. His defense has already degraded to the point that he shouldn’t be playing shortstop, and his offense is consistently overrated. By the time the extension kicks in, he’s going to be a below average starter, and the Rangers will be throwing large amounts of money at a utility player by the time it ends.

5. Magglio Ordonez, OF, Detroit

Like Zito, Ordonez is a better than average player who isn’t as good as his reputation, and is inexplicably being paid like an MVP candidate. He’s basically been the same player the last three years, putting up slightly better than league average offensive numbers while playing mediocre to poor defense and having a hard time staying on the field. In terms of performance, he’s about as average as it gets. For the right to show off his averageness, the Tigers will pay him $12 million this year, $15 million next year, $18 million (!) in 2009, and then have a $15 million option in 2010 with a $3 million buyout that becomes guaranteed with certain playing time incentives. They’re out a minimum of $48 million for the next three years, and it could turn into $63 million over four years if he stays healthy. For that kind of money, you need to get an awful lot more than Magglio Ordonez offers in return.

6. Randy Winn, OF, San Francisco

Randy Winn’s been a generally underrated player for most of his career, and he only makes $4 million this season. So why is he on this list? Because after a disappointing 2006 season, he’s off to a miserable start to his 2007 campaign and is on a short leash before Todd Linden starts eating into his playing time. With a decent chance to be a fourth outfielder by the end of the year, the Giants can’t be looking forward to paying him $8 million next year and $8.25 million in 2009. He also has a full no trade clause this year, but it doesn’t matter much, because the Giants couldn’t give him away if they tried.

7. Jason Varitek, C, Boston

Yea, he’s the captain, the emotional leader of the Red Sox, and a beloved player in Fenway. He’s also done as a major league hitter. His batspeed is gone, his catch-and-throw skills have diminished, and he’s about as effective as the average major league backup catcher. He’s also due $8 million this year and next year before his contract expires. $16 million might be a drop in the hat for the Red Sox, but for most teams, it’s a pretty large chunk of change to have to eat for a guy who is getting paid for what he did two years ago.

8. Todd Helton, 1B, Colorado

Todd Helton’s still a very good baseball player. He hasn’t posted an OBP under .400 since 1999, and even with a drop in power, he’s still sustaining his production through a high average and a lot of walks, as well as being one of the better defensive first baseman around. The problem, however, is that Todd Helton is under contract through 2084. Okay, not quite, but the Rockies are paying him $16.7 million through 2010, then owe him $19.1 million in 2011, and have a $23 million club option with a $4.3 million buyout for 2012. He also has a full no-trade clause that he’s exercising, making it tough for the Rockies to move him even if they’re willing to eat a huge chunk of his remaining contract. He’s a near all-star player right now, and he could even be worth something close to his 2007 salary, but the back problems all but guarantee that the power isn’t coming back, and as a 33-year-old who is under contract for another 5 years at escalating paydays, the contract is an albatross.

9. Gil Meche, RHP, Kansas City

Whether you think the market has changed and the cost of pitching is only going to continue to explode or not, the fact remains that Gil Meche is still a very mediocre pitcher, and he’s due $55 million through 2011. That kind of money may not buy an ace anymore, but it should sure buy a lot more than Gil Meche.

10. B.J. Ryan, LHP, Toronto

B.J. Ryan has been one of the best closers in baseball the past two years, and the Blue Jays have used his arm to get a lot of high leverage outs late in games. The problem, however, is that relievers have notoriously short shelf-lives, and after blowing two saves where his mechanics looked terrible, Ryan has landed on the DL and is headed for an MRI on his shoulder. Uh oh. The fact that he’s due $39 million over the next four years, and is now looking like damaged goods, makes him a very risky proposition. If the MRI comes out clean and he can return to form, he’ll regain his value, but right now, you’d have a hard time finding a team who would want to bank that kind of money on him being healthy.


138 Responses to “MLB Anti-Trade Value”

  1. eponymous coward on April 17th, 2007 8:37 am

    Go look at Giambi’s comps at age 35, and Jeter’s at 32.

    There are a lot more HOF’ers on Jeter’s list. This is because a 123 OPS+ at SS is more historically unique than a 149 OPS+ at 1B.

    Also, Giambi’s 148 HR’s away from 500. That means he needs to average 30 HR’s a year through age 40. Jeter has a better shot at 3000 hits, because he could do THAT in 5-6 years and still be under 40.

  2. Mariner Fan in CO Exile on April 17th, 2007 9:05 am

    Regardless of what you think of Jeter (and I am no fan), he’s a lot closer to being a Hall of Famer than Giambi. You don’t acutally need to spend much time with the numbers, though they are pretty good. He’s a darling of many of the voters, viewed to have strong leadership skills, is a 7-time all star, was rookie of the year, does have 3 gold gloves, is viewed as Mr. Clutch, even in the playoffs, has 4 world series rings, a lifetime .317 batting average, plays a more demanding position, has a shot at 3000 hits, and has already played for 13 seasons. He also has no sterioid cloud hanging over his head to distract voters or make it a tougher choice. If you think the voters are making the decision on Jeter based solely on his OBP, you haven’t been paying attention.

    If Mac doesn’t make it, I don’t think Giambi stands a chance. Even if Giambi appraoches 500 home runs, there will still be a debate, cause we know he used.

    Maybe this should be a debate purely about the numbers, but getting in the Hall of Fame isn’t just about the numbers. I am not saying Jeter is a lock (I haven’t looked at what it takes to make it as a shortstop), but he’s in over Giambi easy.

  3. mln on April 17th, 2007 9:41 am

    Another positive in Derek Jeter’s favor is that Tim McCarver and Michael Kay have a huge man-crush on Capt’n Dreamboat.

  4. 88fingerslukee on April 17th, 2007 9:55 am

    Isn’t this thread about Trade Value?

    Jeter’s worth to his existing team is not in question. The idea is that Jeter would not be valued nearly as high in any other market. His expected returns in respect to his contract just makes him not worth it.

    I wouldn’t take him over Yuni, no way.

  5. eponymous coward on April 17th, 2007 10:06 am

    Right, but is a HOF SS making 20 million and still playing at HOF level the same kind of drag on your team as Michael Young, the SS Dave DID list?

    It’s not much of a contest for me. Michael Young’s career OPS is 102. Jeter’s is 129. Jeter’s 3 years older, but considerably the better player. The price/performance ratio is not as far out of whack for Jeter as it is for Young.

  6. Jeremy on April 17th, 2007 10:07 am


    I would take Jeter over Yuni if it meant we didn’t have to “spend” the surplus on Weaver and Vidro.

    I realize the opportunity cost, but the likelyhood of finding someone to pick up Turbo and Jeff the Terrible’s contract if they perform to expectations is very low. More than likely, we are cutting them if they do play as we think they will.

    Jeter is more likely to have trade value because of his reputation. Another team would be likely to think “Maybe he just needs a change of scenery” if he were in a slump.

  7. 88fingerslukee on April 17th, 2007 10:13 am

    Isn’t Weaver on a one-year deal? His contract isn’t THAT bad considering that. Yeah yeah, I know he sucks and it’s still 8 million bucks but at least he’s not locked up for a 35mil and 2+ years like Turbo.

  8. 88fingerslukee on April 17th, 2007 10:14 am


    i wasn’t saying he was top 10 Anti-Trade Value worthy, but I still have major major reservations about taking on that contract.

  9. Jeremy on April 17th, 2007 10:25 am


    It is all relative to the GM and the team. If you are talking about Oakland or Minnesota, then he’s going to consume an inordinate amount of their payroll and someone like a Yuni may be a better bet so they can retain other players. If you are talking about Boston or New York, salary doesn’t matter nearly as much as having the most talented player.

    In our case, I would rather have Jeter, Snelling, minor league invitee du jour, and Woods than Turbo, Yuni, Weaver, and Batista.

    If the surplus is spent on a Pujols, Cabrera, etc. then sure. But if it is going to get you expensive mid tier free agents, then give me the overpriced star.

  10. Steve T on April 17th, 2007 10:33 am

    80: Wikipedia burn!

  11. 88fingerslukee on April 17th, 2007 10:54 am


    Agreed. But wasn’t this post based on some sort of League-wide Trade Value?

    You can’t do a league-wide Trade Value talk without considering both the small-market and large-market teams and coming to some sort of average. So shouldn’t we use the league-average payroll to determine who is overpaid or not? If there are only two teams that could or would afford Jeter it doesn’t make him a highly valuable trade commodity.

  12. Mat on April 17th, 2007 11:02 am

    If there are only two teams that could or would afford Jeter it doesn’t make him a highly valuable trade commodity.

    The Yankees could agree to pay a large portion of Jeter’s contract in return for better players in the deal. More than two teams would be in play.

  13. eponymous coward on April 17th, 2007 11:07 am

    If there are only two teams that could or would afford Jeter it doesn’t make him a highly valuable trade commodity.

    Right, but from Dave’s original post…

    …there are some good players who are just greatly overpaid, and their price/performance ratio is so far out of whack that they’re nearly impossible to even give away. These guys have significant negative trade value.

    There’s two ways of looking at this, I suppose. Manny Ramirez, who is also a HOF player, got put on waivers while making 20 million in the middle of a longterm deal a few years ago, the classic “you can have him for free, but you have to pay him” move… and no-one bit.

    The other is that Randy Johnson, Mike Hampton (one of Dave’s “negative value” cases, and he wasn’t a good value at that time, either) and A-Rod got moved with pretty heavy deals.

    My argument is that if Dave says “He might not be a bargain, but he’s not an albatross” about Giambi, you can make the same case for Jeter, a younger player of comparable or BETTER value. Jeter gets a lot of bad pr in the sabremetric world because of Yankee homerism/national broadcaster-writer fanboyism that inflates his perceived value, but we are discussing someone in the middle of a HOF-caliber career, so this isn’t Willie Bloomquist we’re discussing- or even Randy Winn or Mike Hampton.

  14. Jeremy on April 17th, 2007 11:17 am

    110- That’s why I tried to put it into context with the Mariners and the $100 mil payroll. There are situations where having Jeter on our team would make sense.

    My whole point is it is usually better to have a star with high perceived value, than a collection of overpaid mid tier guys that will wind up as a sunk cost ala Cirillo, Everett, Vidro, Aurilia, Spiezio, etc. And as far as star with high perceived value, there are few out there with more than Jeter.

    I’ve seen the “Greater Fool” theory play out many times in baseball. Heck, I saw the “Greater Fool” theory play out this whole winter in Seattle.

  15. 88fingerslukee on April 17th, 2007 11:33 am

    Aren’t The M’s the Greatest Fool though? They’re getting stuck with the sunk cost.

  16. Mariner Fan in CO Exile on April 17th, 2007 11:35 am

    #113 – makes sense, except we have an elite defensive shortstop already, and for almost nothing. To me that’s better than a star with high perceived value. Jeter on our team is square-peg, round-hole discussion. He doesn’t solve the Vidro, Weaever, et. al. problems this team has, and if you got rid of Yuni for him, you take on a whole lot more salary for a guy who is going to cause our pitchers to look even worse than they are. And let’s face it, at his best he’s not putting up A-Rod power numbers to compensate.

    The way to build a team is with a few producing superstars paid as such, low-salary future stars who give value but don’t eat up payroll (Lopez, Betancourt, etc.), vetaran players who don’t perform at superstar levels, but get paid reasonable amounts for what they provide, and then some good role players. The M’s pay superstar salaries for declining (or overrated) players, mis-use role players, and have an uncanny ability to lose the star players who produce as such. I sure don’t want to see us giving away the low-salary future stars on our roster who currently give us incredible return on contract, and make the non-Felix games fun to watch.

  17. Jeremy on April 17th, 2007 11:36 am

    114 – Cam Bonifay and Chuck LaMar say hello.

  18. 88fingerslukee on April 17th, 2007 11:42 am


    Isaiah Thomas says Hi back

  19. Jeremy on April 17th, 2007 11:43 am

    115 – As I stated earlier, I am all for breaking the bank for Pujols, Cabrera, etc, but my argument was would it be better to have Jeter, an overrated player who could be flipped to another team than a collection of overpaid mid tier guys likely to become sunk costs.

    As an analogy, if you were taking a test in school and you had an option of getting a B or an F, which option would you take.

    Jeter is the B. The guys we have are F’s. My argument is that our team would be more competitive with Jeter, Snelling, Daniel Cabrera and Jake Woods than Yuni and the stiffs we assembled in the offseason.

    If Jeter struggled, we would be able to flip him for something. Heck, we were rooting for the Mariners to flip Sexson this offseason and probably could have gotten out of his contract if we wanted to give him away. I’m sure the Giants would much rather have had Sexson at 1st than Aurilia. Jeter is regarded as the most marketable player in the game, a “Winner”, a sure fire Hall of Famer, a good team guy, a gritty leader. That all counts with the guys who actually sign paychecks.

  20. Mariner Fan in CO Exile on April 17th, 2007 12:01 pm

    But why does getting Jeter have anything to do with Snelling, Cabrera or Woods? Just doesn’t make any sense to me. Why create a defense problem to solve other problems that have nothing to do with our shortstop, and increase payroll significantly to do it? It seems more compelling to argue that the M’s should not have traded Snelling (and I would agree about that) and should have gone after Daniel Cabrera, rather than throwing Jeter into the mix at all.

    I have an analogy for what you are doing: You go to the mechanic to fix a shock and strut problem. He recommends you spend a lot on some top of the line new tires to replace the ones you bought last year. They do make the ride feel better, but obviously don’t fix the problem. Sure you might not think about the shocks and struts as much, admiring the new tires that you didn’t need, as you figure out how you are going to pay the credit card bill, but what have you gained, really? Oh yeah, by the way, you gave away your 1 year old tires that were performing just fine to the mechanic in the deal, so some lucky guy gets to drive another 50,000 miles on them for almost nothing.

  21. Mariner Fan in CO Exile on April 17th, 2007 12:04 pm

    Oh, and as far as Big Sexy goes, getting rid of him was based on the notion that he is an overpaid player on the decline. At age 32, do you really believe Jeter is going to maintain through whatever long-term contract he’d demand to come to Seattle? Odd are we’d have the same argument about Jeter in 2 or 3 years (if that long) that we had about Sexson this off-season.

  22. Jeremy on April 17th, 2007 12:23 pm


    That’s why I assigned a B letter grade to the deal. It’s not optimal, but do you really want the current regime with $20mil burning a hole in their pocket.

    We are operating in a hypothetical situation because there’s no way the Yanks would trade Jeter at this time.

    If Jeter struggled this year, Bavasi was fired and Antonetti was brought in, it would be a lot easier to move Jeter to clear up payroll and rebuild/reload than the crappy players that have brought in with the cash that was created by not signing Vlad, not signing Tejada, not trading for Ramirez (if he would even come here), not signing Dice-K, etc.

    The discussion was on trade value, and some of trade value is more than wins-per-dollar and regression analysis.

  23. 88fingerslukee on April 17th, 2007 1:03 pm

    Does Manny even know where Seattle is?

  24. Mariner Fan in CO Exile on April 17th, 2007 1:08 pm

    I realize the discussion was on trade value. Dave’s posts were on trade value in a vacuum – i.e., who are the highest/lowest trade value players, without consideration to relative trade value to a particular team.

    You made the discussion specific to the M’s, and I’d argue that Jeter is less than a B for us – probably less than a C – because of all the other things we’d have to do to make that work – free up payroll, lose Yuni, lost opportunity cost to fix actual holes on the team, etc. If you look at a team with a bad shortstop and money to burn, hell, it could be an B move for them. If you look that the M’s, the last thing we want to do right now is lose Yuni, a great defensive player, part of a great DP duo, who is fine offensively, and makes our ground ball pitchers look better than they really are -all for very little money relatively. Yuni is one of the bright spots on the team, and any deal that has us lose our shortstop of the future better get us a whole lot more than Jeter locked up for Jeter dollars and a bazillion years.

    I mean think about it, if you are Jeter, you have the rings, you have played for the highest profile team in baseball all of your career – $$$ – the only reason you go anywhere else is for the security of an overpriced long-term contract to give you security in your twilight. Dave included rules to keep the discussion rooted in reality, so the discussion is not completely hypothetical. Otherwise, shoot – give me Santana, Manny, Pujols, and Miguel Cabrera and call it a day, I’m sure there’s some scenario where we could swing it.

  25. Jeremy on April 17th, 2007 1:36 pm


    I think we are arguing right beyond each other. The argument came to Jeter over Yuni (post 105). Jeter has a career OPS+ of 123. Yuni has a career OPS+ of 83 and is about as good as he’s going to get offensively. Yuni’s amazing defense doesn’t make up that difference. His value is almost totally tied to his low salary for the next few years.

    In a vacuum, on a 1 for 1 deal, without salaries considered, would you take Jeter for Yuni? I would and then I would fill my team with guys that we had or guys on the Dave’s Offseason Plan. My whole argument is that Jeter is more marketable than Yuni, a better player than Yuni, and would be easier to offload than the crap we’ve been having to cut and sink the costs.

  26. Mariner Fan in CO Exile on April 17th, 2007 1:48 pm

    In a vacuum, on a 1 for 1 deal, without salaries considered, would you take Jeter for Yuni?

    Those aren’t the rules. There is no scenario ever where that’s going to be an option. Salaries are considered, and Yuni’s defense + his salary + his age make him a better option for us than Jeter right now (and probably tomorrow too).

    Crap, I can think of players I’d take over almost everybody on our roster save Felix if salary and what it would take to get them here didn’t matter. Why dress it up? You are really asking who is the better overall player (no team or salary considerations included, and looking only at this year), Yuni or Jeter? That seems like a waste of time, and not what Dave had in mind with these posts. Jeter clearly wins that one. He’s a better overall player right now. I still wouldn’t put him at short on the M’s right now.

  27. Mariner Fan in CO Exile on April 17th, 2007 1:50 pm

    And no, with the monster contract it’d take to get Jeter to come here, it would be harder to unload him on another team without eating a good chunk of that salary. But I guess if we don’t consider that . . .

  28. Jeremy on April 17th, 2007 2:09 pm

    If you go back to what I said in my original post, I would rather have Jeter than Yuni and cash to waste on Turbo etc.

    Here’s what I’m saying. In my first post, I changed the rules slightly. It’s the start of the offseason and you have 20 million dollars to spend. You have the option to have Jeter at his current salary or Yuni and the crap free agents that we’ve had the last few years. I’m taking Jeter.

    Jeter is unique in that he is BY FAR the most marketable player in the game. I think he’s a lot easier to move after 1 bad year than you do. You could move him to a large market team pretty easily without having to eat the contract.

    Look at Randy Moss in football and they have a hard salary cap to deal with. He hasn’t been productive in 3 years and the Packers are still supposedly interested.

  29. Mariner Fan in CO Exile on April 17th, 2007 2:38 pm

    Well, the fantasy-land rules you’ve adopted will never come to be, so if you want to hold that position in the land of make believe, fine. Why pretend you could get Jeter on a one-year, one-shot deal?

    Fact of the matter is that Jeter is locked up through 2010 on his contract. That means you have to do at least as good, if not better than this to get him here:

    2007: $20 million
    2008: $20 million
    2009: $20 million
    2010: $21 million

    Add on another year or two (and whatever else you have to add to sweeten the pot to get him here), and you’ve suddenly gone well over $100 mill for a player during his age 33-37 or 38 years. Now that’s an albatross that you won’t get rid of without eating some of the salary. Plus, I think Jeter’ll retire a Yankee. Fact of the matter is his marketability is swallowed up by the security he already has. You think he’s going to be less overpaid by 2010?

  30. Jeremy on April 17th, 2007 2:56 pm


    Again, 2009 and 2010 are someone else’s problem. I’m looking at him regardless of his future length. I don’t think he’s in for a serious regression, but if I’m wrong, I will flip him to the “Greater Fool” who believes he needs a “change of scenery” to turn it back around. You don’t believe that Derek Jeter, media darling would be given that chance? You really can’t picture Jim Rome, etc clamoring to get him the hell out of Seattle and blaming the park for his woes if he posted a league average OPS+? You may not make the trade, I’ll bet you I could send him to San Francisco where Brian Sabean has a bunch of Bonds money burning a hole in his pocket.

    As we’ve said it’s a moot point because I believe he will retire as a Yankee, but I would rather have a slightly overpaid star than a bunch of crap because it is easier to move the star than the crap.

  31. planB on April 17th, 2007 3:16 pm

    94: No, I don’t think he belongs on the list at all, I just like to speak out against Jeter.

    96: Someone can be both good and overrated.

  32. lokiforever on April 17th, 2007 4:12 pm

    After all Jeter gets a minus 64 versus Adam Everett’s plus 76 in terms of fielding. This from Baseball Info Solutions, and their book, “The fielding Bible”.

  33. lokiforever on April 17th, 2007 4:13 pm
  34. 88fingerslukee on April 17th, 2007 5:09 pm

    That’s a cool article. I kinda want that book now.

  35. Tuomas on April 17th, 2007 7:38 pm

    My argument on Jeter is thus: he’s not getting any better. 2006 was a fluke. The Yankees are paying him a huge amount of money.

    Does Jeter belong with Michael Young? No. Hampton or Anderson? No. Helton? Yes. Jeter’s more difficult defensive position is offset by his abysmal defense.

    I don’t think trading Jeter would be possible were he objectively analyzed. Bringing his name and supposed intangibles into the equation skews things in his favor, but the same factors might apply to Varitek as well.

  36. penn94 on April 18th, 2007 4:19 pm

    I am a Mets fan who does not like Jeter, because the media blows smoke up his ass and he can’t field worth a damn. Having said that, his contract is no albatross. He is coming off of an MVP caliber season, has the type of speed / line drive skills which do not quickly evaporate, and has been consistently a very good player (if not the superstar the media makes him out to be). I would rather be stuck with him for the next four years at his salary than have Beltre and his inconsistent performance at the big bucks he is making.

  37. DMZ on April 18th, 2007 4:30 pm

    Beltre: through 2009, ~12m
    Jeter: through 2009, ~20m, 2010 for $21m

  38. eponymous coward on April 18th, 2007 4:58 pm

    My argument on Jeter is thus: he’s not getting any better. 2006 was a fluke. The Yankees are paying him a huge amount of money.

    Jeter’s 2006: .343/.417/.483
    Jeter’s 2000: .339/.416/.481
    Jeter’s 1999: .349/.438/.552

    So, he’s had 3 fluke years during his career? How many times does he have to hit .330-.340 with OBP’s in the .400s for it not to be a fluke? For Pete’s sake, his LIFETIME batting line is .317/.388/.462- so, basically, the difference between his line in 2006 and his career line is about one single a month. How on earth is that a fluke?

    Here’s the other thing: Jeter hasn’t declined from 2004 to 2006 (OPS+ going from 116 to 121 to 138). Helton’s gone from 159 to 144 to 119.

    I wouldn’t pass up Jeter for Beltre, but Helton’s under contract for a longer priod of time, and has decline signals all over his performance the last few years. I’d take Jeter over the guys at 8/9/10/

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.