posted at 1/15/2013 12:17 AM EST
In response to notin's comment:
In response to georom4's comment:
can you imagine if they did actually agree to a contract for any length of time bsed on the 13mil?
as soon as he became injured (which he has done as much as hit homers) there would be a huge, why the fudge did we sign this guy for so much money?
13mil would make him a very well paid player..
arent you guys so grateful Ben kept the "slot money/pick" available by paying MN15 mil more than LaRouche signed for?
First of all, the Sox have not signed Napoli to anything as of yet, so your $15mill figure is in doubt. And there is no guarantee they ever will.
It is also not a fiasco to adjust contract parameters based on health, and if negotiations drag on, so be it. I bet the Mets wish they had done similar due diligence on Jason Bay and Johan Santana
And if the only drawback to a prolonged wait for Napoli / whoever is missing out on Adam LaRoche, your argument is pretty weak. LaRoche is FAR from an elite offensive 1B, and far below Napoli as a hitter. For all the 1B with at least 1000PA over the last 3 years, LaRoche was 22nd in wRC (Napoli was 8th). LaRoche was 21st in wOBA (Napoli was 8th again.) LaRoche was 16th in HRs. (Napoli was 9th.) LaRoche was 17th in OPS. (Napoli was 7th.) Oh, and LaRoche was 19th in WAR. (Napoli was 7th), in case you want to make an argument than LaRoche makes up for the offensive difference with defense. Also, over the last 3 years, LaRoche has all of 90 more plate appearances than Napoli, so letâs not pretend he makes up the difference with good health, either.
So really, you are advocating not only giving up slot money and a draft pick, which every team in the league values (ask Bourn, Soriano and LaRoche if you doubt me), for the sake of bringing in the older and less productive player with a similar injury history. And you think it was a mistake to do so for what? Having a roster in place by mid-January? And this benefits the team how, again?
The Sox should have passed on LaRoche no matter what. Is the only argument for LaRoche involves the fact that he is coming off a career year Would you be such a strong pro-LaRoche advocate were he coming off his stellar injury-plagued 2011 campaign which netted him a .546OPS? Or his lackluster 2010, in which he was not injured and still only managed a .788OPS? I think we all get that your Adam LaRoche fascination has nothing to do with LaRoche himself, and everything to do with the fact that he was the last of other options, and therefore a necessity to support. Had the Sox pursued LaRoche instead of Napoli, you would be pro-Napoli. No one on planet Earth is as interested in Adam LaRoche as you pretend to be, including his own wife. Gee, maybe that is why he had to settle for the contract he got from Washington, as they were the only team who could sign him without losing something.
And by the way, before you pretend that you have always been a huge fan of Adam LaRoche and have longed for his return to Boston, your arguments for him will continue to look capricious until you learn how to spell his nameâ¦
That's taking him to the wood shed strong!