worst contract out of these $100 million contracts

I looked at the two games, and at his start in the divisional series before that, and we disagree there.

the term was maybe a bit much, but not unheard of

you can make an argument for giving pujols or harper or trout or mookie or shohei decade-long deals as they head into their 30s -- those guys are all-timers and multiple mvp-winners. obviously the pujols deal was a disaster, and trout's is headed that way*. the others will need to win some titles.

*(tbf, people want to come to the park simply to see the latter four play, which is awesome and worthwhile. i'm not sure pujols was ever that kind of draw for the angels, but my god he was *so* good in st. louis)

anyway X is a really good player but he's not their calibre, and having to move him to 2B in the second year of an 11-year contract is alarming. but he's definitely a better bet than eric hosmer

Since we're on the subject, just came across this right now on my FB wall--weird!

https://i.postimg.cc/8kmy2PJK/lyman.jpg

This is amazing:

After the 1977 season ended, Bostock became one of baseball's earliest big-money free agents, and signed with the California Angels, owned by Gene Autry. Bostock had made $20,000 with the Twins in 1977 and signed a $2.3 million, six-year contract with the Angels. The Twins, Padres and Yankees had all tried to sign Bostock. Almost immediately, Bostock donated $10,000 to a church in his native Birmingham, Alabama to rebuild its Sunday school.

The 1978 season started off poorly for Bostock; he batted .150 for the month of April. Bostock met with the team's management and attempted to return his April salary, saying he had not earned it. The team refused, so Bostock announced he would donate his April salary to charity.

"He came into my office and told me he was reluctant to take his salary," Angels' general manager Buzzy Bavasi recalled. "He said, 'I'm not doing my job.' But I told him, 'I won't let you do that.' And he says, 'Why not?' So I told him, 'What if you hit .600 next month? You're sure as hell not getting any more money out of me.'"

Thousands of requests came in for the money, and Bostock reviewed each one of them, trying to determine who needed it the most. After his poor April, Bostock hit .404 in June and was hitting .296 when he was killed in September.

I looked at the two games, and at his start in the divisional series before that, and we disagree there.

We just disagree gyac. It's a game from 12 years ago...

Forget it, clemenza, it’s China Basin…

also lyman bostock is a fantastic Baseball Name

(rip)

It was a sad story already, and after reading all that, doubly so. (Agree about him name: euphonious.)

"him" = "his"

I disagree about Zito's contract. It was completely defensible at the time he signed it. He'd been healthy and durable his entire career and had never had a bad season. If he'd been a free agent this past off-season, alongside inconsistent and fragile question marks like Snell and Montgomery, he'd have been the number one FA pitcher on the market, easily.

Early on in this thread you said you had a soft spot for Zito, but later on:

Bonus points go to contracts that were indefensible at the time. Wells' was at least somewhat defensible -- he'd been a 4-5 win player on average up until then, still a good defender, and was entering his age-27 season. The market for outfielders was thin, and he was a popular homegrown player. I don't think the disaster signs were obvious compared to the Zito and Hampton signings (or A-Rod's 2007 re-up).

NoTimeBeforeTime, Wednesday, February 13, 2013

When I wrote "I think this has been raised in this thread before" yesterday, I might actually have had you in the back of my mind.

Haha, someone did their research!

At the time, I think Zito's contract was the largest ever for a pitcher? Clearly Zito wasn't the most valuable FA pitcher ever, so the consensus was that the Giants vastly overpaid, and the consensus was right. Even if you were optimistic about Zito, you had to admit that his contract was ridiculous. You can compare it, say, to deGrom's contract with the Rangers.

That said, looking at it eleven years later, I stand by my post from earlier today. In a market where Strasburg earned 250M for throwing about 500 pitches, and where Blake Snell can't string together two good seasons in a row? And along comes a FA pitcher with a CY under his belt and with no history of injury? That guy is making serious bank.

Wonder which of the recent massive deals will wind up the worst…my money’s on bogaerts.

― omar little, Thursday, December 15, 2022 5:30 PM (forty-five minutes ago)

de grom. bogaerts will at least be on the field

― J0rdan S., Thursday, December 15, 2022 6:16 PM (one year ago)bookmarkflaglink

Oof yeah you’re right forgot about him

― omar little, Thursday, December 15, 2022 6:26 PM (one year ago)

we both might be right

xp and who, crucially, can win you an elimination game in the playoffs. 😎

Zito quoted Sabean in his autobiography* saying he had zero regrets over the deal. I guess I understand their intention was for Zito to mentor the young pitchers/be the leader of the staff and he was more a terrible influence iirc. But he delivered when it really mattered!

* I reviewed it on here and it’s well worth a read solely for how casually he mentions doing meth in his misspent youth

We’ve all been there.

Wonder which of the recent massive deals will wind up the worst…my money’s on bogaerts.

― omar little, Thursday, December 15, 2022 5:30 PM (forty-five minutes ago)

de grom. bogaerts will at least be on the field

― J0rdan S., Thursday, December 15, 2022 6:16 PM (one year ago)bookmarkflaglink

Oof yeah you’re right forgot about him

― omar little, Thursday, December 15, 2022 6:26 PM (one year ago)

we both might be right

― slob wizard (J0rdan S.)

i think you were righter at the time and might be in the long run, my Bogaerts pick was more a vibes thing, plus my suspicion he was somewhat boosted by Fenway.

Stipulating that arguing over something that happened over a decade ago is pointless, my thinking (the same as then, when I said how terrible it was):

You can't really compare that deal then to what pitchers get now. Yes, the 2006 Zito would be a solid investment today: a guy who can give you 180 IP like he gave the Giants those first four seasons is highly coveted, almost regardless of how he pitches. But I assume the Giants were expecting a lot more than what they actually got those first four seasons (4.45 ERA, below league average, 5.5 WAR total), never mind after that.

The two post-season starts were very good, but to my mind, not anything extraordinary (Bumgarner was extraordinary). He pitched 12 innings between the two games, left each one with a comfortable lead. Somebody would have pitched those games--I don’t see that he did anything unique. Even going on to win, that’s just not worth $126M to me. And I do include his first start that postseason, where he pitched poorly in the divisional series in a game that might have eliminated his team.

I think you were right the first time, NoTime (and a lot closer then to the actual event).

Started looking around, and it still seems to be considered a historically poor use of $126 million:

Guy who sort of defends it (“Was it a terribly misguided contract? Yeah, it was. In the wake of two World's Championships, if you're a Giants fan would you like a do-over on that terrible contract? I think maybe you wouldn't.”):

https://www.sbnation.com/2013/9/3/4691644/barry-zito-free-agent-contract-evaluating-san-francisco-giants

Judged terrible before the 2012 World Series:

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/698108-mlb-power-rankings-barry-zito-and-the-50-worst-contracts-in-baseball

https://www.complex.com/sports/a/ralph-warner/the-25-worst-contracts-in-sports-history

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/heres-the-answer-to-whether-zitos-is-the-worst-free-agent-contract-ever/

Judged terrible after the 2012 World Series:

https://www.sportingnews.com/us/mlb/list/worst-mlb-free-agents-signings-josh-hamilton-carl-pavano-jason-bay-carl-crawford-albert-belle/zaaj9h66jdc41an4uaou11u0n

https://www.thescore.com/mlb/news/427337

https://www.yardbarker.com/mlb/articles/the_worst_contracts_in_mlb_history/s1__28002203#slide_28

https://www.sportingnews.com/us/mlb/list/worst-mlb-free-agents-signings-josh-hamilton-carl-pavano-jason-bay-carl-crawford-albert-belle/zaaj9h66jdc41an4uaou11u0n

I have some thoughts on this and not trying to argue really (I wasn’t there nor am I inclined to really want to change your very legitimate perspective on this), but I want to make some points. I’ll hang up and listen.

The two post-season starts were very good, but to my mind, not anything extraordinary (Bumgarner was extraordinary). He pitched 12 innings between the two games, left each one with a comfortable lead. Somebody would have pitched those games--I don’t see that he did anything unique. Even going on to win, that’s just not worth $126M to me. And I do include his first start that postseason, where he pitched poorly in the divisional series in a game that might have eliminated his team.

The Aaron Rowand signing was way more annoying than Zito

We're definitely at an impasse. I think it mostly comes down to those two postseason starts (he left the other one up 3-2 after 2.2 innings). In general, you see postseason success as much more determinative than I do. His game scores were 72 and 55--timely, well pitched games, nothing more or less. Marco Estrada gave the Jays some terrific postseason starts in 2015 and 2016. I'm glad he came a lot cheaper than $126 million.

Would be interested in hearing from others who posted in this thread at the time and thought it was a terrible signing.

Actually, no--let's do a poll of the worst contracts of the past decade, then we can argue about stuff we actually remember (I evidently had all these strong feelings about the Zito contract in 2010 that I have zero recollection of today).

the zito contract was . . . not good. he was coming off a really good run but even then his K and BB numbers and velocity weren't great

but also the giants won two titles during that deal (and another a year later) so you can't really say that his contract hampered the team at all

which may not officially count in a 'worst contract' thread? but it certainly colo(u)rs my thinking about its disaster level. if the giants *hadn't* signed him, would they have won more than those two championships? i'm skeptical

Which I somehow didn't mention, the reason I initially thought it was so bad: his three mediocre seasons (and large number of innings he'd already pitched in his career) leading up to the signing.

I think "you can't really say that his contract hampered the team at all" is about the best compromise I'm going to get here, so let's go with that (and move on!).

I think zito's contract was some other, secret third thing

'supporting country music'

The proper response was: ‘no secrets’