<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Thursday, December 09, 2004

The Krazy Kontracts keep on coming... 

Jermaine Dye has agreed to a $10.15 million, two-year deal with White Sox.

This is getting beyond insane.

Dye was heralded as a rising star in 2000, when he posted a .308 EQA for the Royals, while playing solid defense and exhibiting a great arm in right field.

To give you a sense of perspective, that 2000 Royals team also featured up-and-comers Mark Quinn, Mac Suzuki, and Blake Stein. Carlos Beltran was a great field/no hit centerfielder for Kansas City. In 2000, Albert Belle was still playing, Rusty Greer was still healthy, and Gil Heredia was the ace of the Oakland A's staff.

2000 was a long time ago, in baseball terms. And 2000 was the last time Jermaine Dye was a significantly above-average player.

Since then, Dye has posted EQAs of .280, .278, .188, and .274. Yes, the .188 was the season where he was trying to come back from his broken leg, and much has been made about the fact that he's supposedly only now completely healthy. But that ignores the fact that, even before he broke his leg, Dye wasn't anything special.

Dye's going to be good for a .265-.275 EQA the next couple of years, with okay defense. You can get a Ty Meadows or a Pete Zoccolillo to do close to that for the league minimum.

There is absolutely no reason to pay Jermaine Dye five million per year for multiple years, other than the fact that he's a proven major leaguer who has been in the league for a while, and it is much safer from a p.r. standpoint to go with the proven major leaguer than someone none of the fans have heard of before.

For all the scoffing about Moneyball, and the suggestions that the rest of the league has caught on to what Beane is doing, these are the type of moves that fly in the face of the whole Moneyball credo. A smart G.M. should be looking for another Geronimo Berroa or another Matt Stairs, the way Beane did in the late 90s. Kenny Williams, on the other hand, is paying Dye more than twice what he's worth because he's got a familiar name.

0 comments
Comments: Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?